Police Discretion, Mandatory Arrest, and Domestic Violence
This paper explores the relationship between police discretion and mandatory arrest policies in domestic violence cases. It defines domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior used by one partner to control another, encompassing physical, emotional, sexual, psychological, and economic harm. The paper reviews the adoption of mandatory arrest laws across U.S. states, critiques their "one-size-fits-all" character, and examines external factors such as community education and prevention campaigns. It also considers research suggesting that mandatory arrest policies may paradoxically discourage some victims from reporting abuse, raising questions about the effectiveness and equity of these legal frameworks.
- Introduction: Overview of police discretion and domestic violence
- What Constitutes Domestic Violence: Definition, scope, and prevalence of domestic violence
- Implementation of Mandatory Arrest Laws and Policy: Adoption and critique of mandatory arrest across U.S. states
- External Factors Shaping These Policies: Prevention campaigns, education, and community reporting
- The Need for—and Limitations of—These Laws: Research on how mandatory arrest affects victim reporting
- Conclusion: Summary of policy tensions and author's position
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Provides a clear, multi-part definition of domestic violence that grounds the policy discussion in concrete terms before moving to legal analysis.
- Balances support for mandatory arrest with a candid acknowledgment of its unintended consequences, particularly for victims who are deterred from reporting.
- Draws on empirical sources—including a National Crime Victimization Survey figure and a university research study—to support its claims rather than relying solely on opinion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates policy critique through evidence synthesis: it introduces a dominant criminal justice policy (mandatory arrest), surveys its adoption across states, and then layers in research findings that complicate the policy's assumed benefits. This two-sided treatment—acknowledging both the rationale for mandatory arrest and its documented drawbacks—models how to engage critically with public policy rather than simply describing it.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four substantive sections following a brief introduction. It moves logically from definition (what domestic violence is) to policy adoption (how mandatory arrest laws spread), to external community factors (prevention campaigns and education), and finally to empirical research questioning the policy's effectiveness. Each section builds on the previous one, culminating in the author's own stated position on mandatory arrest's mixed impact on victim behavior.
Introduction
This paper examines police discretion in connection with mandatory arrest policies and domestic violence, exploring how these policies are defined, implemented, and experienced by victims.
What Constitutes Domestic Violence
The term domestic violence refers to an abusive behavioral pattern in a domestic relationship, utilized by one partner to gain or maintain control and power over the other intimate partner. It may involve emotional, sexual, physical, psychological, or economic threats or actions that one individual uses to influence the other. Domestic violence covers all behaviors that serve to intimidate, frighten, coerce, manipulate, isolate, humiliate, blame, threaten, terrorize, wound, hurt, or injure an intimate partner.
Domestic violence incidents may be experienced by any individual regardless of age, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. It affects individuals across all educational categories and socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, it can occur in same-sex as well as opposite-sex relationships and may involve married, dating, or cohabiting couples. Acts of domestic abuse or violence significantly impact not only the abused individual but also other family members, witnesses, colleagues, friends, and the broader community.
Of all groups affected by domestic abuse or violence, children raised in households where they witness it are among the most seriously harmed. Regular exposure to domestic violence predisposes such children to a range of physical and social problems and, alarmingly, teaches them that acting violently or enduring violence is a normal part of life. This increases the likelihood that they will become the next generation of abusers or victims. In 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reported that estimated domestic violence incidents totaled approximately 509,230 (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 243). The survey also estimated that around thirteen percent of women in marital relationships have suffered some form of domestic violence. Police typically exercise considerable discretion in these cases. Alternative police responses include arrest, separation, mediation, social service referral, or inaction.
Implementation of Mandatory Arrest Laws and Policy
Despite an absence of strong empirical evidence demonstrating mandatory policies' effectiveness, 24 states have implemented them (Davis, 2008). Additionally, all 50 states have some form of mandatory, pro-arrest, or preferred-arrest policy on domestic violence. The problems generated by implementing mandatory policies before establishing a coordinated community response are continually overlooked by public policy designers and advocates.
A growing body of research by feminist scholars documents that mandatory "one-size-fits-all" policies—those treating abusers and victims as a single undifferentiated group—create a false impression of optimism that the criminal justice system can protect families in ways beyond simply incarcerating abusers. By their very nature, such mandatory policies overlook the diverse needs of individual families (Davis, 2008). These policies have generated a troubling dichotomy within the criminal justice system: a disproportionately large number of minor offenders, and sometimes even victims themselves, face arrest, while a disproportionately large number of chronically violent offenders escape incarceration. Mandatory policies thus undermine the varied resources and diverse support that many families actually need.
Conclusion
Mandatory arrest policies occupy a central and contested place in the criminal justice response to domestic violence. While they signal a serious societal commitment to protecting victims, research indicates they can also deter reporting among those who oppose such mandates. Effective policy must account for the diverse circumstances and preferences of victims rather than applying a uniform standard that may, in some cases, cause more harm than good. Police discretion, guided by well-designed community responses and ongoing education, remains an essential component of a just and effective approach to domestic violence intervention.
References
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. (n.d.). Responses to the problem of domestic violence. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://www.popcenter.org/problems/domestic_violence/4
Davis, R. (2008). Mandatory arrest: A flawed policy based on a false premise. PoliceOne. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from
University of Akron. (2015). Mandatory arrest laws may hurt domestic violence victims. UA News. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://www.uakron.edu/im/news/mandatory-arrest-laws-may-hurt-domestic-violence-victims
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Domestic violence. Office on Violence Against Women. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence
Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (2013). The police in America (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.