Societal definitions of intimate partner violence (IPV) are highly gendered and heteronormative, resulting in dissonance regarding cases of same-sex IPV. This study explored perceptions of IPV when the context of the case is inconsistent with societal norms regarding sex and sexuality. Mock jurors read a vignette describing a case of alleged IPV in which the sex and sexual orientation of the defendant were manipulated. Participants (N = 415) rendered a verdict and provided ratings of the defendant, victim, and case. Results suggest participants were more confident in a guilty verdict when the defendant was male, compared to female. Further, male defendants were perceived as more morally responsible, but only when the victim was female. Perceptions regarding the crime suggest violence perpetrated by a man against a woman is viewed more adversely than any other condition. Data are discussed in terms of implications for legal decision-makers and public policy.

No abstract

In the United States, prosecutors are typically allotted a large amount of discretion when litigating a criminal case. Although some level of discretion is necessary for various reasons (e.g., lack of resources), concerns have arisen in both scholarly and popular discourse that prosecutorial discretion remains generally unchecked. Furthermore, research suggests prosecutors may be influenced by extralegal factors when making decisions about how to proceed with criminal charges. In this study, prosecutors responded to a case of alleged intimate partner violence, in which the sex and sexual orientation of the defendant and victim were manipulated. Neither sex nor sexual orientation impacted prosecutor choice to proceed with charges, the severity of the charge selected, or the harshness of the plea bargain offered. However, prosecutors were more willing to proceed without the victim’s cooperation when the victim was female and perceived heterosexual males as more aggressive than heterosexual females. These data suggest prosecutorial decision making in cases of intimate partner violence may not be unduly influenced by defendant/victim sex and sexual orientation.

Failure to protect laws have been an area of interest among legal scholars, child and domestic violence advocates, and the social work and psychology fields with varying focuses on the societal underpinnings of the laws and their application. Despite the pervasive legal literature on "mother blaming" and the revictimization of battered women that these laws engender, few studies have empirically examined if "mother blaming" occurs in these cases, or if battered women are treated more harshly. The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of defendant sex and presence of domestic violence on mock juror decision making in a failure to protect case. The influences of juror sex on decision making were also examined. Jury eligible community members read a summary of a case in which the defendant was charged with failing to protect their child from a third-party abuser. The sex of the defendant and the presence of domestic violence were manipulated. Participants then rendered a verdict, provided sentencing recommendations, and responded to attitudinal questions about the defendant and perpetrator. Mock jurors were more likely to find the defendant guilty and view the defendant more negatively when the defendant had been the victim of domestic violence. Defendant sex did not affect outcome measures; however, female jurors were more punitive than male jurors. Results are discussed in terms of "victim blaming" and labeling theory of intimate partner violence.

No abstract