In this article I explore how battered women both draw from and reject victim discourses in their processes of self-construction and self-representation. Data gathered from semistructured interviews with forty women who experienced violence from an intimate partner in a heterosexual relationship demonstrate that available "victim" discourses are both enabling and constraining. Four common representations of a victim emerged as most influential to women's identity work: as someone who suffers a harm she cannot control; as someone who deserves sympathy and/or requires some type of action be taken against the victimizer; as someone who is culpable for her experiences; and as someone who is powerless and weak. "Victim empowerment" and "survivor" discourses also played a role in how women understood and made sense of their experiences. In their attempts to construct identities for themselves, battered women become caught between notions of victimization, agency, and responsibility."I hate to be called a victim. I feel like then it's my fault. Then it's like I'm this weak person that couldn't do things right and get out [of an abusive relationship], you know?"This was the response given by Gina-a woman I met through a counseling group at a shelter for battered women-when I asked her whether she saw herself as a "victim." Because she has experienced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse from her husband, some people might perceive her as a victim. However, while Gina believed that she had been wronged by her husband, she herself rejected such an identity because she assigned it negative connotations. She did not want to be perceived by others as weak, helpless, or culpable for her husband's behavior. Current cultural discourses surrounding violence against women commonly depict them as blameworthy or as weak and powerless. As a result, many abused women have a difficult time using available victim discourses to articulate their experiences and construct and present selves that are meaningful to them.

Police officers have historically been criticized for ignoring the seriousness of intimate partner violence (IPV) and for dismissing victims' needs. Many jurisdictions in the United States have implemented policies encouraging or mandating the arrest of IPV offenders in an attempt to address these shortcomings. However, a more aggressive police response has not necessarily changed victims' perceptions of officers or improved victim-officer interactions. In this article, using both qualitative interview data and data from existing literature, I examine the victims' understandings of IPV, particularly in the context of mandatory and preferred arrest policies, and consider how these understandings likely shape victims' interactions with police officers. I also discuss implications for the future policing of IPV.

This research examines the legal processing of girls in the context of intake workers' perceptions of girls' delinquency in a large southwestern county in which Mexican-Americans are the numerical majority. Using official records and in-depth interviews, girls' delinquency and the complexities of intake workers' perceptions of gender, ethnicity and social class are examined. With the exception of a low number of referrals for drugs, girls were referred for those offenses most common among girls nationally: shoplifting, status offenses, and simple assaults. Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers (JPPOs) explained girls' referrals in the context of family and other relationships. Girls were described as sexualized and manipulative. JPPOs identified white girls as privileged and linked this privilege to conflict with parents. Latinas were described as experiencing the most pressure toward traditional gender roles and a sex-based double standard. The implications of these data for juvenile justice decision-making and policy in this jurisdiction are discussed.

Since the early 1970s, the efforts of the battered women's movement have led to many changes in the criminal justice response to intimate partner violence (often referred to more broadly as ‘domestic violence’) in the USA. One important reform has been the implementation of policies that encourage or mandate the arrest of offenders. However, mandatory arrest policies have been hotly debated by scholars, activists, and criminal justice system officials. In this article, I review the recent changes to the ways in which police officers respond to intimate partner violence and discuss the controversies surrounding these changes in light of recent research. I briefly consider why the literature on this topic has produced such contradictory findings and I discuss several actions that need to be taken in order to improve police response to intimate partner violence and better meet the needs of battered women.

Many jurisdictions in the U.S. have implemented mandatory arrest policies in an attempt to limit police officers' discretion in their arrest decisions when responding to intimate partner violence calls. Drawing from semi-structured interviews with female victims of intimate partner violence, I explore the ways in which mandatory arrest policies have influenced the identity work of women during their interactions with police officers. I focus specifically on women's "unsuccessful" identity claims: situations where women are unable to convince police officers that they are victims and situations where women are unable to convince officers that they are not victims. I examine the strategies that women use during their identity work and explore the consequences of women's failed self presentations under mandatory arrest policies, the most significant of which is a woman's arrest. I argue that under mandatory arrest policies, for many women, the risk of failed identity work is even more consequential than before these policies were established.