The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (MDVE) was a study done in 1981-1982, led by Lawrence W. Sherman, to evaluate the effectiveness of various police responses to domestic violence calls in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The study was performed with cooperation from the Police Foundation and the Minneapolis Police Department, and funding by the National Institute of Justice.[1] The results of the study had a "virtually unprecedented impact in changing then-current police practices."[2] Subsequently, numerous states and law enforcement agencies enacted policies for mandatory arrest, without warrant, for domestic violence cases in which the responding police officer had probable cause that a crime had occurred.
Contents |
Domestic violence historically has been viewed as a private family matter that need not involve government or criminal justice intervention.[3] Before the early 1970s, police in the United States favored a "hands-off" approach to domestic violence calls, with arrest only used as a last resort.[4][5] At the time, domestic violence cases were classified as misdemeanor assault cases.[6] A 1978 court order in New York City mandated that arrests only be made in cases of serious violence, thus officers instead made effort to mediate family disputes.[7]
In the early 1970s, clinical psychologists argued that police should make an effort to mediate disputes.[1]
Statistics on incidence of domestic violence, published in the late 1970s, helped raise public awareness of the problem and increase activism.[3][8] A study published in 1976 by the Police Foundation found that the police had intervened at least once in the previous two years in 85 percent of spouse homicides.[9] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, feminists and battered women's advocacy groups were calling on police to take domestic violence more seriously and change intervention strategies.[10] In some instances, these groups took legal action against police departments, including in Oakland, California and New York City, to get them to make arrests in domestic violence cases.[1] They claimed that police assigned low priority to domestic disturbance calls.[11]
In 1978, Alfred Blumstein and the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, which argued for an approach to domestic violence and other crime, based on social control theories and use of deterrence for crime control.[2]
The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment looked at effectiveness of methods used by police to reduce domestic violence, using 25 randomized field experiments.[12] Cases used in the study were misdemeanor assault calls, which make up the bulk of domestic violence calls for service. Both the victim and offender needed to still be present when the police arrived, in order to be included in the study.[10]
51 patrol officers in the Minneapolis Police Department participated in the study. Each was asked to use one of three approaches for handling domestic violence calls, in cases where officers had probable cause to believe an assault had occurred:[2]
Interviews were conducted during a 6-month follow-up period, with both victims and offenders, as well as official records consulted to determine whether or not re-offending had occurred.[10]
The study lasted approximately 17 months, and included 330 cases.[2]
Arrest was found to be the most effective police response. The study found that arrest reduced the rate by half of re-offending against the same victim within the following six months.[13] Other methods, such as counseling or temporarily sending assailants away, were deemed less effective.[1]
The results of the study received a great deal of attention from the news media, including The New York Times and prime-time news coverage on television.[2] Many U.S. police departments responded to the study, adopting a mandatory arrest policy for spousal violence cases with probable cause.[14] New York City Police Department Commissioner Benjamin Ward quickly issued a new mandate for officers to make arrests, after reading the results of the study in a Police Foundation report.[7] Ward stated his belief that "arresting violent members of a household would be more effective in protecting other family members and help safeguard police officers called in to stop the highly charged quarrels. I thought it was about time to put policemen out of the counseling business and into what they really are best at, which is making arrests, then let the judge decide."[7] With this mandate, Ward also included cohabitants and same-sex couples in the police definition of family.[7] The Houston and Dallas Police Departments were also quick to change their approach to domestic disturbance calls, and make more arrests.[15] Within a year, the number of police departments using arrest as a strategy in domestic violence cases jumped from 10 to 31%, and to 46% by 1986.[2] Numerous other police departments had partially changed their approach to domestic violence cases.[2]
In 1984, the U.S. Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence report drew heavily upon the Minneapolis study, in recommending that domestic violence be handled with a criminal justice approach.[10] Within eight years, 15 states and the District of Columbia enacted new domestic violence laws that proscribed mandatory or presumptive arrest of violent domestic offenders.[16] By 2005, 23 states and the District of Columbia had enacted mandatory arrest for domestic assault, without warrant, given that the officer has probable cause and regardless of whether or not the officer witnessed the crime.[17] The Minneapolis study also influenced policy in other countries, including New Zealand, which adopted a pro-arrest policy for domestic violence cases.[18]
Mandatory arrest laws were implemented in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s due to the impact of the Minneapolis Experiment. Also, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 added to the fight for legislation in the 1990s in the states without mandatory arrest laws.[19] The laws “require the police to make arrests in domestic violence cases when there was probable cause to do so, regardless of the wishes of the victim.” [20] Before the laws were put into effect, police officers were required to witness the abuse occurring first hand prior to making an arrest. Currently, 23 States use Mandatory Arrest policies. [21] Other States leave the decision to arrest to the discretion of the responding officers.
Prior to the implementation of mandatory arrest policies in the United States, police often were not able to arrest individuals suspected of domestic violence. In an article from the California Law Review titled “Domestic Violence as a Crime Against the State,” Michaela Hoctor explained that “when officers did respond to a domestic violence call, they usually attempted to mediate the dispute. This "mediation" consisted of a variety of approaches, including attempts by officers to convince the parties to reconcile immediately at the scene or to use formal alternative dispute resolution programs.” [22] The debate over Mandatory Arrest is still underway, as many people believe it has negative effects on the assailant, victim, and their family members including but not limited to the breakdown of the family, the economic deprivation of the victim, the trauma associated with separation of families, and the lack of childcare in situations of dual arrest. Sometimes when police respond, they arrest both parties involved in a domestic violence situation. As described by Margaret Martin in the Journal of Family Violence, “The practice of dual arrest, the arrest of two parties, usually a man and a woman engaged in a ‘domestic dispute,’ has arisen in localities which employ presumptive and mandatory arrest”.[23] Police are more likely to arrest both parties if the primary aggressor is female [24] However, not every domestic violence situation results in dual arrest. Police Officers are trained to deduct who the primary aggressor is in a domestic violence dispute, leading to the arrest of the assailant and not the victim.
Some states will arrest simply based on probable cause to believe an act of domestic violence has been committed, while others do not allow for an arrest after a specific amount of time following the incident. For example, in Alaska the police cannot make an arrest if the abuse occurred more than 12 hours prior to notification [21] Police are specifically trained to assess the situation and decide whether they have the required probable cause to make an arrest. For instance, Wisconsin has a list of requirements that must be met before an officer can arrest a suspect. These include the age of the suspect(s), their relationship to the victim(s), and whether the act could be considered an intentional assault. The officer must also be able to identify the “predominant aggressor” [25]
According to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), in 2008, “when victims and offenders were intimate partners, police made no arrests in 50.1 percent of incidents, one or more arrests in 48.0 percent of incidents, and dual arrests in 1.9 percent of incidents” [26] In regards to same-sex relationships, the arrest rates for domestic violence were the same as those for heterosexual couples. For all intimate partner relationships, offenders were more likely to be arrested if the incident of violence was a serious aggravated assault. The NIJ also reported that “arrest occurred more frequently in cases involving intimate partners if the offender was white” and “cases involving intimate partners and acquaintances were more likely to result in arrest if the offender was 21 or older” [24]
The study was subject of much criticism, with concerns about its methodology, as well as its conclusions.[2] The follow-up period of six months was short, and not able to capture the episodic and cyclical patterns that may occur with domestic violence.[27] Also, Minneapolis may have been unusual, in that they kept arrestees overnight in jail, whereas in other jurisdictions arrestees might be sent home much quicker.[1]
Randomized experiments look at causal effects for the group as a whole. Conclusions may be made that may apply to most individuals in the group, but not all individuals, with some possibly experiencing negative effects of the intervention.[28] In some cases, arrest may provoke the abuser and increase the possibility of more retributive violence.[29]
Mandatory arrest is based on deterrence theory, which includes the assumption that the offender is making rational decisions. In the case of domestic violence, the offender often shows little rational behavior.[30]
Through the Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP), the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment was replicated in several other cities, beginning in 1986.[16] The cities included Omaha, Nebraska, Charlotte, North Carolina, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Colorado Springs, Colorado.[31] In Metro-Dade, 907 cases were used, compared to 1,200 cases in Milwaukee and over 1,600 cases in Colorado Springs.[16]
Some of these studies have produced different results than the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. The Colorado Springs study found several police responses that were slightly more effective, including restoring order, providing crisis intervention, issuing emergency protection orders, or arresting offenders, and that there is no singular approach for police dealing with domestic violence cases.[32] Altogether, the five replication studies produced mixed results, with three studies finding that offenders who were arrested experienced higher levels of recidivism.[13] The other studies showed a modest but statistically significant reduction in re-offending for those arrested.[13]
In the replication studies, arrest seemed to help in the short run in some cases, but those arrested experienced double the rate of violence over the course of one year.[16] Criminologists do not fully understand the reasons why deterrent effects do not last over time. But they suggest that abusers may initially fear punishment, though many cases do not make it all the way through the criminal justice process. If the victim is uncooperative during investigation, the prosecutor may choose not to pursue the case.[33] If the case is pursued through the criminal justice system, sometimes the resulting sentence is minor. Subsequently, fear that the abuser has of punishment may have diminished.[34]
In 1993, Janell Schmidt and Lawrence W. Sherman recommended that police be given more structured discretion, with a menu of options the officer could choose from in each situation.[16]