Nonfatal Violence

Truman, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1002/9781118303092.ch8

Cited by 32 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (2003 to 2012) suggest that firearms are used in 3.4% of IPV events (Truman and Morgan 2014). This is similar to earlier estimates of 3.5% of American women who reported being threatened with a firearm and 0.7% who reported having a firearm used against them by their intimate partners (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000).…”

Section: Literature Reviewsupporting

confidence: 76%

Armed, Prohibited and Violent at Home: Implementation and Enforcement of Restrictions on Gun Possession by Domestic Violence Offenders in Four U.S. Localities

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Firearms increase the risk of lethality in violent intimate relationships. Policies that restrict access to firearms by respondents to civil domestic violence protective orders (DVROs) are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, yet there is scant literature about how such prohibitions are implemented. We document how four localities are implementing gun possession prohibitions that result from civil and criminal restraining orders and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions; and assess the findings in the context of Kingdon’s agenda setting framework. We identified four jurisdictions where gun dispossession of prohibited domestic violence offenders was underway and collected data through in-depth interviews, site visits, and documents. We coded the data, identified explanatory themes, and compared the findings to Kingdon’s framework. The four jurisdictions have policies ranging from no state laws restricting domestic violence offenders’ access to guns to comprehensive state laws. We describe implementation initiatives to dispossess prohibited people of their guns in the four jurisdictions, two distinct implementation models through which gun dispossession occurs, and an expanded application of Kingdon’s model. In each jurisdiction, we identified one or more individuals who championed implementation. Policies that prohibit domestic violence offenders from possessing guns are promising, and possible in diverse settings and jurisdictions. Here we provide insight into implementation efforts in four jurisdictions, emphasize the role of individuals in prioritizing implementation, and highlight the potential to realize these restrictions across states with different laws. Focusing on implementation is a much-needed paradigm shift that complements the traditional focus on passing domestic violence prevention laws.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewsupporting

confidence: 76%

Armed, Prohibited and Violent at Home: Implementation and Enforcement of Restrictions on Gun Possession by Domestic Violence Offenders in Four U.S. Localities

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In total, between 1994 and 2012, rates of domestic violence dropped 63%, as compared with a 67% drop for the overall crime rate (Truman & Morgan, 2014). Since 2016, the number of incidents of intimate partner violence in the United States has risen substantially, from 597,200 in 2016 to 847,230 in 2018 (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019).…”

Section: Is Criminalization Working?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A substantial percentage of those individuals is likely incarcerated or under community supervision as a result of intimate partner violence. Approximately 21% of violent crime involves intimate partner violence (Truman & Morgan, 2014). While there are no national data on the issue, an informal survey of Vermont’s prison population found that approximately 20% of those in Vermont’s prisons were incarcerated as a result of intimate partner violence (Kenyon, 2016).…”

Section: Is the Cost Of Criminalization Too High?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reimagining VAWA: Why Criminalization Is a Failed Policy and What a Non-Carceral VAWA Could Look Like

Goodmark

2020

Violence Against Women

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is the signature federal legislative accomplishment of the anti-violence movement and has ensured that criminalization is the primary response to intimate partner violence in the United States. But at the time of its passage, some anti-violence activists, particularly women of color, warned that criminalization would be problematic for a number of reasons, a caution that has borne fruit in the 25 years since VAWA’s passage. This article critiques the effectiveness of criminalization as anti-domestic violence policy and imagines what a non-carceral VAWA could look like.

show abstract

“…The term intimate partner violence is used to describe physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression by a current or former intimate partner, to include current or former spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, dating partners, or sexual partners (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, & Mahendra, 2015). Although IPV can occur against men, 74% of all IPV is directed toward women and is perpetrated by current or former partners (Truman & Morgan, 2014). Approximately 1 in 3 women in the United States experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by intimate partners during their lifetimes (Smith et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%