A 10-Year Study of the Impact of Intimate Partner Violence Primary Aggressor Laws on Single and Dual Arrest

Abstract

The adoption of arrest as the preferred response in incidents of intimate partner violence has generally been welcomed, but it has not come without unintended consequences. Foremost among these has been an increase in dual arrest, the situation where both parties to an incident are arrested. To address this concern, many states have enacted primary aggressor laws which mandate that officers determine who is the primary aggressor in the incident. To date, no longitudinal national study has been conducted on the impact of these laws. Using a dataset comprising 10 years of National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data (2000-2009) from 5,481 jurisdictions in 36 states and the District of Columbia, the authors examine the impact of primary aggressor laws in reducing the prevalence of dual arrests. Taking into account such factors as seriousness of offense, the authors found that the existence of primary aggressor laws does appear to result in officer reluctance to make any arrest. In addition, though these laws do result in a reduction in dual arrests, this reduction was not statistically significant. This is undoubtedly a result of inter-state variation in implementation as well as variations in statutory framework. In addition, these laws were observed to have a disparate effect both on White and non-White and heterosexual and same-sex couples. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Same-Sex Couples and the Police: A 10-Year Study of Arrest and Dual Arrest Rates in Responding to Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence

“…These results expand in a number of ways on previous research which has indicated that incidents with same-sex couples are less likely than those with opposite-sex couples to result in arrest and are substantially more likely to result in both parties being arrested (Hirschel et al, 2021). First, there is some comfort in noting that there was no significant difference among the couples in the likelihood of arrest for aggravated assault and overall a reduced likelihood of dual arrests as the severity of the offense increased.…”

“…Due to the confounding nature of characteristics found in cases in which there are multiple victims and offenders, cases with more than two victims and more than two offenders were omitted. This approach is consistent with NIBRS research examining the likelihood of crime clearance (see, for example, Hirschel et al, 2021;McCormack & Hirschel, 2018;Roberts & Lyons, 2011;Walfield, 2016). As a result, the sample was reduced in size by 49,445 (1.8%) cases and 13 (0.2%) jurisdictions.…”

“…Concern that the passage of mandatory arrest laws has resulted in an increase in dual arrest rates (see, for example, Martin, 1997; Miller, 2001; Zorza & Woods, 1994) led to the passage of primary aggressor laws enacted to discourage dual arrests by mandating that the responding officers endeavor to determine the primary aggressor. Research has generally indicated that these laws have effected lower dual arrest rates (see, for example, Dichter et al, 2011; Fraehlich & Ursel, 2014; Hirschel & Deveau, 2017), though not necessarily at a statistically significant level (Hirschel et al, 2020).…”

“… 10. Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. For statutory references, see Hirschel et al, 2021. …”

Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges? Exploring Trauma Experienced by Victims of Interpersonal Violence and Abuse and by Court-Involved Women Who Have Used Force in Relationships

“…Arrests of women for IPV/A-related charges have increased dramatically (Hovmaud, Ford, Flom, & Kyriakakis, 2009; Meloy & Miller, 2001). Yet research demonstrates that men are disproportionately the offenders in IPV/A cases, and women are overwhelmingly the victims of men’s violence (Chesney-Lind, 2002; Hirschel, McCormack, & Buzawa, 2017; Rennison, 2003). Ostensibly, gender-neutral arrest policies often fail to identify the primary aggressor and instead punish victims who may use force in defense of self or children or for other reasons—but women’s actions rarely terrify and control their male partners in the same way recognized in male-to-female intimate violence scenarios (Goodmark, 2012; Miller, 2005).…”