Understanding Decision-Making in Specialized Domestic Violence Courts

Abstract

This study fills a gap in the literature by exploring the utility of contemporary courtroom theoretical frameworks-uncertainty avoidance, causal attribution, and focal concerns-for explaining decision-making in specialized domestic violence courts. Using data from two specialized domestic violence courts, this study explores the predictors of prosecutorial and judicial decision-making and the extent to which these factors are congruent with theoretical frameworks often used in studies of court processing. Findings suggest that these theoretical frameworks only partially help explain decision-making in the courts under study. A discussion of the findings and implications for future research is provided.

Prosecutorial Decision Making in Domestic Violence Cases: Are Prosecutors Holding Offenders Accountable?

“…Recently, three studies applied a focal concerns framework to examine prosecutorial decision making in specific types of DV cases and court settings: intimate partner sexual assault (O’Neal & Spohn, 2017); intimate partner stalking (Brady & Reyns, 2020); and specialized DV courts (Pinchevsky, 2017). The goal of this study was to expand upon these recent scholarly efforts by examining which legal and extralegal factors impact prosecutorial decision making in DV cases.…”

“…The independent variable measures for this study included a number of variable indicators for each of the focal concerns theory factors: blameworthiness, community protection, practical constraints and consequences, and perceptual shorthand. The specific item indicators chosen for the four focal concern factors were based upon prior studies conducted on focal concerns in DV specialized courts (Pinchevsky, 2017), IPSA (O’Neal & Spohn, 2017) and intimate partner stalking (Brady & Reyns, 2020). The nature of the cases allowed for the construction of two binary dependent variables: the first was a dichotomous measure indicating whether the case was filed or not filed; and the second was a follow up dichotomous measure indicating whether the case had specifically been filed on a domestic charge or not filed at all.…”

“…Several recent studies have utilized focal concerns to examine prosecutorial decision making in domestic violence specialized court (Pinchevsky, 2017), intimate partner sexual assault cases (O’Neal & Spohn, 2017), and cases of intimate partner stalking (Brady & Reyns, 2020). Pinchevsky (2017) explored the role different legal and extralegal factors identified by three theoretical frameworks (i.e., uncertainty avoidance, focal concerns, and avoidance) play in decision making in specialized DV courts.…”

“…The independent variable measures for this study included a number of variable indicators for each of the focal concerns theory factors: blameworthiness, community protection, practical constraints and consequences, and perceptual shorthand. The specific item indicators chosen for the four focal concern factors were based upon prior studies conducted on focal concerns in DV specialized courts(Pinchevsky, 2017), IPSA (O'Neal &…”

Pathways to Offense Charging: Examining Defense Decision-Making During Case Processing

“…Prosecutors are central to early case-processing decisions (e.g., charging) and to a certain extent, case outcomes as a result of the heavy reliance on plea-bargaining. Given the centrality of their position, scholars have begun to examine their decision-making behaviors, particularly in relation to charging decisions (Alderden & Ullman, 2012; Brady & Reyns, 2020; Kutateladze et al, 2012; Lowrey-Kinberg et al, 2022; O’Neal & Spohn, 2017; Pinchevsky, 2017; Romain & Freiburg, 2013; Shermer & Johnson, 2010). Missing from the current discussion of charging decisions is an examination of the charging process itself and the role other court actors play in directing this process.…”