This discussion-based paper examines several pieces of legislation and their effects on human services delivery across multiple areas of interest. Beginning with mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence, the paper explores how criminalization shifts have generated mixed outcomes for victims and overwhelmed treatment programs. Peer responses expand the scope to include the Justice for All Act of 2004, SAMHSA's FY2012 budget priorities, immigration rights legislation, child welfare reform, and criminal justice sentencing reform. Each legislative example is assessed for its direct impact on client services, agency capacity, and resource allocation, with critical commentary highlighting tensions between legislative intent and real-world implementation.
The implementation of mandatory arrest laws in relation to domestic violence has generated considerable debate. These laws require an officer to make an arrest if they have probable cause that domestic violence has taken place. During the mid to late 1980s, a number of states put these laws into practice as an attempt to combat domestic violence and to regulate police conduct. However, research on the effectiveness of these laws has yielded mixed results. There is no apparent agreement among researchers, activists, victim's rights advocates, policymakers, and law enforcement officials on the effects that mandatory arrest policies have for victims of domestic violence. The verdict therefore remains unclear on whether these laws provide the intended protection and relief to victims, or whether they are the cause of unintended consequences such as increased violence (Strout, n.d.).
As attitudes have changed and reform has expanded, there has been a significant shift in the legal approach that emphasizes the criminalization of domestic violence. One important development in domestic violence law has been the expansion of police power to make warrantless arrests in domestic violence cases. This represents a departure from the common law rule that traditionally required an officer to witness a crime in order to make an arrest. In the mid-1980s, most states moved away from this requirement and expanded police power, permitting officers to make an arrest without a warrant as long as they had probable cause to believe that domestic violence had taken place (Strout, n.d.). This eventually advanced into the mandatory arrest laws that are on the books today.
Domestic violence treatment programs have historically been designed for men who have been, or are at risk of becoming, violent with an intimate partner. With the introduction of mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence, treatment programs around the country have flourished in response to the growing need for services among court-mandated clients. In addition, women who have been arrested for domestic violence are also frequently referred for mandatory treatment. In most programs, family safety remains a primary and immediate concern; however, while this goal is frequently pursued, the approach and fundamental rationale may differ considerably from program to program based on available resources (Sonkin, n.d.).
The dynamics of domestic violence are varied and complex. Effective treatment should be based on a careful clinical evaluation and tailored to the psychological and social needs of both the abuser and the partner. Above all, treatment services should be grounded in sound scientific research and the best practices of the counseling profession (Why Have Domestic Violence Programs Failed to Stop Partner Abuse?, 2008). Unfortunately, this has not always been the case since the passage of mandatory arrest laws.
Along with mandatory arrest laws there has been an increase in court-mandated treatment for which many treatment programs were not prepared. Treatment programs have found themselves overwhelmed with clients and facing a shortage of funds to provide the services needed. This has led to ineffective outcomes in many programs because they lack personnel and other resources required to succeed. Research has shown that mandatory arrest laws and court-mandated treatment have not significantly reduced the amount of domestic violence occurring, and some studies have actually found an increase. Treatment programs can only deal effectively with the number of people for whom they have resources, and with no increase in resources on the horizon, the efficiency of these programs is unlikely to improve in the near future.
Although mandatory treatment is an admirable attempt at a long-term solution, it appears to be a costly, generic response to a highly individualized problem like domestic violence. Because each instance of domestic violence is so dependent on the personal history of the parties involved, greater care should be put into formulating solutions. This is distinct from a problem like drug abuse, which may be more responsive to general treatment approaches. It also appears that one of the most practical aspects of mandatory arrest is that the two parties receive a separation—a kind of cooling-off period. This raises the question of what the primary legislative intent behind mandatory arrest laws truly is. If the intent is family safety, it might in some cases be sufficient to hold the alleged perpetrator in custody until the immediate danger subsides.
References
Sonkin, D. J. (n.d.). Domestic violence treatment: Legal and ethical issues. Retrieved from
Strout, A. K. (n.d.). Impact of mandatory arrest laws on domestic violence. Retrieved from http://www.uvm.edu/~honcoll/S09Thesis/StroutAnnaThesis.pdf
Why Have Domestic Violence Programs Failed to Stop Partner Abuse? (2008). Retrieved from
President George W. Bush signed the Justice for All Act into law on October 30, 2004 (Sherrer, 2005). According to the Office of Justice Programs (2006), the Act serves several purposes: to protect crime victims' rights, to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, and to improve and expand the DNA testing capacity of federal, state, and local crime laboratories. The first section of the Act establishes the rights of crime victims in federal criminal proceedings and provides mechanisms for enforcing those rights. The Act also authorizes grant funding to states and local governments for DNA training and education of law enforcement, correctional, and court personnel, as well as training for sexual assault forensic examination programs, and to promote the use of DNA to identify missing persons (Noble, 2005).
Sherrer (2005) notes that the Act contains several provisions across its four sections that may help the innocent. The Act has made reforms to the criminal justice system, including changes to how the death penalty is applied, and has bolstered crime victim support services (Press Release, 2011). It has also had significant implications for exoneration through post-conviction DNA testing (Noble, 2005). Other acts included within the Justice for All Act are the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2004, the Debbie Smith Act of 2004, and the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act (Office of Justice Programs, 2006). In 2011, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stated, "The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them… Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our Constitution" (Press Release, 2011).
Regarding the implications for exoneration through post-conviction DNA testing, an important question concerns how legal access for convicted parties will be funded. Most wrongly convicted individuals will seek post-conviction DNA testing. The number of wrongly convicted persons, even if only 1% of the prison population, is likely substantial. Appeals are enormously expensive for the government, and it is reasonable to expect that wrongly convicted individuals will file appeals if DNA testing produces exculpatory results. While the Act is prudent in building technical capacity through grant funding for DNA training and forensic examination programs, the question of legal and administrative capacity remains open.
References
Noble, A. A. (2005). ASLME reports: A summary of the Justice for All Act — Grant No. 1 RO1-HG002836-01. American Society of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from
Office of Justice Programs. (2006, April). OVC fact sheet: The Justice for All Act. Retrieved September 19, 2011, from
Press Release. (2011, February 1). Leahy continues effort to reauthorize historic Justice for All Act. VT Digger. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from
Sherrer, H. (2005). Justice for All Act of 2004. Justice Denied: The Magazine for the Wrongly Convicted, 12–13.
"Budget cuts and child welfare service delivery"
"FY2012 federal behavioral health funding priorities"
"Alien plaintiffs' limited legal recourse in U.S. courts"
"Sentencing reform shifting burden to human services agencies"
You’re 38% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.