Evaluating the Efficacy of Protection Orders for Victims of Domestic Violence

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to gauge the efficacy of protection orders for victims of domestic violence. The theoretical basis for this analysis is Johnson's (1995) theory that there exist two distinct forms of domestic violence: "common couple violence," which consists of low-grade, mild abuse that is equally perpetrated by both men and women, and "patriarchal terrorism," which involves severe mental and physical abuse that is used primarily by men to control their female partners. Based on Johnson's theory, it is hypothesized that protection orders will be less effective for women who experience patriarchal terrorism than for women who experience common couple violence. The results of this analysis indicate that the primary independent variable, that is, whether a woman experiences common couple violence or patriarchal terrorism, is not a good predictor of protection order violation. However, several secondary independent variables were found to be significant, including victim's race and employment status, as well as the couple's living arrangements at the time of the protection order.

Backfire: lessons learned when the criminal justice system fails help-seeking battered women

“…For example, women who have limited access to resources may report less success with their orders because they have differing expectations, as research suggests that some poor women obtain protection orders to act as a makeshift divorce when they cannot afford a legal one (Websdale 1998(Websdale , 2001. As with other stages of the criminal justice process, women who are economically dependent on their partners tend to have less success with their protection orders than more financially independent women (Burgess-Proctor 2003). Likewise, while increased severity of violence prompts some women to pursue protection orders (Fischer and Rose 1995), at least one study indicates that escalation of abuse impedes completion of the protection order process (Fernandez et al 1997), exposing the complexity of women's protection order decision-making.…”

“…Finally, evidence that protection orders are effective in preventing re-abuse remains unconvincing (Grau et al 1985, Chaudhuri andDaly 1992). Indeed, research is inconclusive as to whether women are satisfied with the protection they receive from their orders, whether their orders are adequately enforced by police, or whether their orders succeed in actually preventing re-abuse (Burgess-Proctor 2003).…”

More Than a Piece of Paper? Protection Orders as a Resource for Battered Women

“…Additionally, studies with longer follow up times will likely have more violations. Burgess‐Proctor (2003) reports that 30 percent of women had orders that were violated, but the follow‐up time for this study was only 1 month.…”

“…While protection orders can be effective, particularly when there is effective enforcement (Logan and Walker 2009), unfortunately, protection orders do not guarantee safety. Between one quarter and two‐thirds of issued protection orders are violated (Burgess‐Proctor 2003; Carlson et al. 1999; Chaudhuri and Daly 1992; Harrell and Smith 1996; Hotaling and Buzawa 2003; Logan and Walker 2009).…”

Protection Orders Protect Against Assault and Injury

“…Without randomized control studies it is difficult to disentangle how much of POs’ impact is due to changes in victim behavior, changes in criminal justice response during POs, or the PO itself. One of the primary methodological difficulties for both survey follow-up and records review has been identifying valid non-PO comparison groups (Burgess-Proctor, 2003; Carlson et al, 1999; Harrell & Smith, 1996; T. Logan & Walker, 2009; McFarlane et al, 2004).…”