Domestic Violence Specialty Court Analysis and Effectiveness
What is the leading cause of injury to women? It is domestic violence not rape, not car accidents, not muggings. Domestic Violence statistics are so bad that they do not even look real. A women is assaulted every 9 seconds, three women are murdered due to domestic violence and between 3- 10 million children witness domestic violence every year. Domestic violence is so apart of culture that 1 in 5 teenage girls are threatened by their boyfriend when she suggests breaking up with him. The worst part of domestic violence is that over half of all victims never contact the authorities or shelters for help. (“Domestic Violence Statistics”) Since money has and will always be a major part of domestic violence s courts, domestic violence costs more then 37 billion dollars a year when you add up law enforcement costs, medical and mental health treatment and lost productivity at companies. (“Domestic Violence the Stats”) Domestic violence specialty courts aim to solve the growing issue in this country. These courts want to lower recidivism rates, and make more women and children safe. The courts have supporters and people who are against them, but these courts are so new no one really has the authority to judge one side or the other. I have decided to look into how affective these courts are and if they are helping keep more people safe and helping offenders become valuable and good members of society.

Before I go into my finding I want to make it clear that I am for domestic violence courts and that the data I found did not make or change my opinion. I am interested in this topic because I have witnessed domestic violence first hand and will never forget what I had witnessed. What my family member went through was very similar to what women around the United States experiences everyday. She was assaulted, went to the hospital and lied to authorities saying she just “tripped”, and was too scared to do anything because she did not have the financial recourses to remove herself from the life she married into. Being a male who has witnessed these acts multiple times I am already more likely to abuse people I love in the future, something that is terrifying. With every problem solving court the question is “Do they work?” Domestic Violence courts are no difference, but you cannot just look at one statistic and make that judgment. All problem solving courts were formed to hold offenders accountable for their actions, increase case efficiency, reduce recidivism and save money by keeping people out of jail. Domestic Violence courts are still young so there is not a lot of quantitative data, but still enough to make some basic conclusions. While looking into “Do they work” it is also important to hear from people who have been through these courts, and the judges running them.

Domestic Violence courts want to increase the overall efficiency of the criminal justice system. Typically these courts are run by one or two judges, and these judges become specialists in Domestic Violence. By forming Domestic Violence courts cities hope that fewer cases are dismissed and the processing time is decreased so judges can hear more cases. Prosecutor Erica Lord from Kanawah West Virginia noted that “Before, defendants would come in and if the victim wouldn't show up at the hearing, they almost felt entitled, like they knew their case would be dismissed. And, with the amount of cases, it was standard practice, unless it was an extremely serious case, those cases would get dismissed if the victim didn't appear. That's not happening anymore." West Virginia like every state has a Domestic Violence problem; in 2010 14,880 cases were filed. An even more polarizing figure is that one third of all homicides were related to domestic violence. By holding hearing more cases the state is able to hold the offenders accountable, and for the first time ever offenders with multiple domestic violence charges are finally seeing some jail time and getting enrolled in anti-battery programs. (White)

Case processing’s times generally decreased after domestic violence courts were implemented throughout the United States. San Diego had a 74 percent reduction of days to disposition, dropping from 57 to 15 days. Similar results were shown in Minneapolis, Manhattan, and Milwaukee. More recent data from New York shows that their average case processing time decreased from 260 to 197 days. Improving case efficacy shows that domestic violence courts are fulfilling one of the overall goals of improving case efficiency. In New York 75 percent of courts said improving case processing time was a very or extremely important goal. (Cissner, Kambriola, and Rempel)

Recidivism rates for domestic violence courts are not like most other problem solving courts, they are not significantly declining or there is not enough data yet to show a trend. In the early 2000’s Quasi- experimental evaluations found that some courts had declines in recidivism and others did not. San Diego had a decrease from 21% to 14%, one year post conviction. Milwaukee showed a decrease from 23% to 14%, one year post disposition. New York experienced an increase of 4%, 18 moths post disposition. This research is older, and is hard to judge because the comparison groups are different, and some are measuring re arrests while others are measuring victim reports. Looking at the study of New York domestic violence courts in general the research found that there was no significant difference in re arrest rates. The study done in 2012 found that over three years domestic violence court offenders and normal offenders were both re arrested 48% of the time. A same three year study of convicted offenders shows that domestic violence court offenders were re-arrested 46 percent of the time compared to 49 percent of the time non domestic violence court offenders. Since domestic violence courts aim and are achieving more convictions, you could make the conclusion that there is a small positive impact. (Cissner, Kambriola, and Rempel)

Even though there is not a lot of data to support recidivism rates of domestic violence courts, support is still high. The in depth study of New York domestic violence courts is the only one out there, so judges around the country still see positives coming out of their own courts. Judge Elizabeth Hines from Ann Arbor, Michigan says “I think all of us absolutely believe that we’ve saved lives and have, in fact, made a huge positive difference. In terms of statistics, that’s our weak link, but I can certainly tell you stories.” She brings up how a un named judge from New York thinks that numbers really do not matter she shows support for the courts by saying “I personally think it’s very difficult to decide how you measure success. You can look at recidivism; I think very few people come back. You can look at domestic homicide, which I believe we’ve reduced. Definitely fewer cases are dismissed. And I think there’s much more satisfaction at the end of a case among both defendants and victims.” (Hines) In Salina Kansas prosecutor Jennifer Wyatt thinks in the future the batterers’ intervention program could help recidivism rates, and Judge Brenda Stoss supports the program because “nothing the court system has done in the past has been successful in addressing this problem.” (Mathews) These testaments to domestic violence courts and the programs that accompany them are just a few of the many out there. While the data may not be very positive right now there does not seem to be major concern that significant improvements are not being made.

Offender accountability is a top priority for problem solving courts across the country, but especially domestic violence courts. Domestic violence courts across the country (79%) rank accountability as extremely important, with 100 percent ranking it as very or extremely important. (Pichard-Fritsche et al.) Judges make the offenders constantly re tell their story and use the victim’s name as a constant reminder of what they have done. This scene from the Waterville, Maine district court was re told by staff writer Amy Calder “The offender said he knew it was wrong to push her, but it's not like he jumped on top of her and started hitting her. His comment drew more criticism from his peers, who said he was minimizing his actions.” Offenders are held accountable by constant monitoring, having to attend court on a frequent basis and are frequently enrolled in intense battery intervention programs. (Calder)

One big difference between domestic violence courts and other courts is that the victim is important. The top priority of courts across the country is victim safety, 83 percent of courts listed this as extremely important. In order to fulfill this goal 79 percent of courts have victim safety advocates. These advocates can accompany the victim to court, help with safety planning, explain the criminal justice system to the victim, help with housing referrals and much more. (Pichard-Fritsche et al.)
The two studies I mainly focused on, the statewide evaluation of New York domestic violence courts and the national portrait of domestic violence courts both pointed out the differences between domestic violence courts. Courts across the country do not follow the same model, on a positive note though it can provide some knowledge on what is working and what is not. A big difference between courts was the focus on rehabilitation. According to the national portrait report only 27 percent of courts put that rehabilitation was an important goal, that number was 19 percent in New York and 53 percent elsewhere. Could this be a reason for not a big change for recidivism rates in New York? The New York study found that “those domestic violence courts that prioritize deterrence and that both prioritize and implement specific policies to sanction offender noncompliance, while also addressing the needs of victims, are most effective in reducing recidivism.”
The question “Are domestic violence courts working?” is still up in the air. Further research is going to need to be done; specifically trying to find what model produces the best results. It is positive to see that convicted offenders are seeing slightly lower recidivism rates, and hopefully that trend continues. These courts are being innovated and trying something that has not been done before, and there is proof that is has changed peoples life. The only way to stop the cycle of domestic violence is to stop people from committing it, and so far domestic violence courts are starting to achieve that goal. Like anything though the future will have its challenges. More financial support is needed to improve the programs and put more research into seeing what works. There is also the criticism that offenders due process right are in question, and that offenders are getting off the hook too easily. Problem solving courts are not going to go away and only time will tell if these courts are truly helping.

Works Cited
Calder, Amy. “Where abusers admit abuses.” Morning Sentinel. Maine Today Media Inc., 14 Aug. 2011. Web. 29 Nov 2013.
Cissner, Labriola, and Michael Rempel. “Testing the Effects of New York Domestic Violence Courts.” Center for Court Innovation (2012) Web. 27 Nov 2013.
“Domestic Violence Statistics.” Domestic Violence Statistics, n.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
“Domestic Violence the Stats.” Safe Horizon. Safe Horizon, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013
Mathews, Erin. “Domestic violence court helps with rehabilitation.” The Salina Journal. Morris Publishing., 30 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Nov 2013.
Pichard-Fritsche, Labriola, Moore, O'Sullivan and Michael Rempel. “A National Portrait of Domestic Violence Courts.” Center for Court Innovation. (2009) Web. 27 Nov 2013.
White, Kate. “Judge, attorneys: Domestic Violence court makes a difference.” Sunday Gazette-Mail. Charleston Newspapers., 14 June. 2013. Web. 28 Nov 2013. Wolf, Richard. Interview with Elizabeth Pollard Hines. Center for Court Innovation. (2009) Web. 27 Nov 2012.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/12/specialty-court-works-curb-repeat-offenses/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/03/10/79087-specialty-courts-lauded-for-cutting-repeat-crimes/ http://www.courtinnovation.org/project/brooklyn-domestic-violence-court

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/whereabusersadmitabuses_2011-08-13.html (accountability is big, don’t have stats, have people saying it worked for them. Good examples on what these people did.)

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/When-pain-begins-at-home-4603059.php#page-2 (quote about how these cases in past would go into the system and nothing would be done.)

http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/elizabeth-%E2%80%9Clibby%E2%80%9D-pollard-hines-judge-domestic-violence-docket-ann-arbor-michigan (Inteerview with judge, talks about how numbers really don’t matter)

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201307140034?page=2&build=cache (good quote about people showing up just assuming case will be dropped)

http://m.cjonline.com/news/2011-10-30/domestic-violence-court-helps-rehabilitation (no stats but judge thinks it is working. He says nothing in the past has worked, so why stop this.)