Regulating Intimacy

Abstract

This article describes the findings of research into judicial decision making in Ontario courts in cases of intimate violence against women. Judges are condemning the violence, issuing relatively harsh sentences, and arguing that the intimate context of the violence is an aggravating factor. The analysis also reveals that judges often rely on stereotypes and traditional notions of marriage, family, and femininity. As records of decisions, the documents suggest a high level of understanding that wife abuse is a crime. As judicial discourse, they reveal how the justice system regulates intimate relationships and how traditional ideologies persist despite the harsh sentences.

Criminal justice responses to partner violence: History, evaluation, and lessons learned.

“…The Ottawa City Police Service, prosecutors, and court-based victim services liaise with each other to obtain ODARA scores for male perpetrators and communicate with women's shelters and related agencies with a shared language for discussing risk (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2006). Although we know of no empirical evaluation of this particular model, the Attorney General of Ontario recognized PAST with an award of excellence in 2006; furthermore, a recent analysis of judicial decision making in Ontario courts concluded that, more often than not, judges strongly condemned partner violence against women, issued custodial sentences, and frequently considered the intimate context of the violence as an aggravating factor (Crocker, 2005).…”

“…This was partly because reformers depended on positions of influence they had through other, less radical movements (i.e., suffrage and temperance), and it was not until the 1960s that the new women's movement recognized partner violence against women as a problem with its own priority. The need to present battered women as "weak victims" in order to gain legitimacy continued in family courts in the late 20th century (Hilton, 1991; see also Bograd, 2005;Crocker, 2005). Critical analysis of criminal justice responses to partner violence also abandoned women who used violence, substance abusers, and other "less virtuous" victims and has only recently focused on responses to women of color and women in same-sex relationships (e.g., see Sokoloff & Pratt, 2005).…”

“…Public surveys reveal general agreement that partner violence against women is a crime (e.g., see Carlson &. Worden, 2005;Choi & Edleson, 1995;Hilton, 1993), whereas victim interviews reveal more ambivalence about the criminal justice system (e.g., see Crocker, 2005), especially among ethnic minority women, the poor, and lesbians (e.g., see Bograd, 2005;Ferraro & Pope, 1993). Overall, female victims of partner violence are less satisfied with every level of the criminal justice system than are female victims of other assaults (Byrne et al, 1999), and this might be especially true for women from marginalized and disadvantaged groups, for whom it has been argued that alternatives to the criminal justice system should be the mainstay of an effective response (e.g., see Sokoloff & Pratt, 2005; see also Bent-Goodley, 2005).…”

Disability, Rights, and the Construction of Sexuality in Tort Claims

“…We utilized a mixed-method model for content analysis of judicial decisions (Crocker 2005). We integrated quantitative and qualitative methods of content analysis to gain a thick understanding of the sociolegal construction of disability and sexuality in Israeli tort law.…”

Domestic violence and criminal justice training needs of social services workers

“…This research focused on various criminal justice officials including police officers (Eitle, 2005;Felson, Ackerman, & Gallagher, 2005;Van Hasselt & Malcolm, 2005), judges (Crocker, 2005), prosecutors (Hartman & Belknap, 2003), and probation officers (Hofford, 1991). Three themes arose in these studies.…”