The negative linear relationship between on-premise alcohol outlets and decreased domestic violence calls suggest a potentially mitigating effect of being in a 'social' area, while a curvilinear relationship would similarly complicate matters regarding routine behaviors and how they disrupt or support domestic violence activities.
As well as attempting to determine causes that precipitate spikes in domestic violence, other studies have attempted to determine how to deter the practice. According to Sloan (et al. 2013) in the research study entitled "Deterring domestic violence: Do criminal sanctions reduce repeat offenses?" there have been widespread attempts to determine if there is a positive effect between reductions in domestic violence and more stringent laws punishing offenders. The article analyzed domestic violence case resolution in North Carolina for the years 2004 to 2010. "The key hypothesis is that penalties at the level set for domestic violence crimes reduce recidivism (re-arrest on domestic violence charges or conviction in 2 years following an index arrest)….Individuals have prior beliefs about penalties...
An individual's experience with an index arrest leads to belief updating" (Sloan 2013). However, a negative linear relationship was found between mandated penalties for repeat, proven offenders and continued offending. This suggested that harsher penalties were not treating the 'root cause' of the offense. Studying curvilinear relationships amongst the data, to determine if specific demographics were deterred in some instances but not in others would have complicated these findings and provided a more nuanced view of the study's conclusions.
References
Roman, C.G., & Reid, S.E. (2012). Assessing the relationship between alcohol
outlets and domestic violence: Routine activities and the neighborhood environment.
Violence and Victims, 27(5), 811-28.
Sloan, F.A., Platt, a.C., Chepke, L.M., & Blevins, C.E. (2013). Deterring domestic violence:
Do criminal sanctions reduce repeat offenses? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46(1),
51-80. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-012-9159-z
