Mandatory Arrest Is Not The Answer

Domestic violence is a serious social problem for American families, especially for women. It is estimated that there are roughly four million occurrences of domestic violence each year in the United State and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has revealed that a man beats a women every fifteen seconds (Moridini 2004: 295). In addition, studies have found that women have a two hundred percent greater risk of being assaulted by a member of her family than by someone on the outside (Moridini 2004: 297)

   

In order to combat domestic violence, the United States government has tried a great number of different approaches. In fact, since 1980 there have been over 1,500 new laws enacted across the country dealing with domestic problems (Miller 2005) These policies have been quite controversial, especially the laws that deal with mandatory arrest. Some people believe that mandatory arrest policies should be viewed as an improvement of past law enforcement practices while other feel that it has harmful implications for battered women. My personal stance is that mandatory arrest policies create more harm than good and should not be utilized because it fails to take in account that all victims are not the same, it takes away victim's ability to determine what the best choice is for their situation at the time, and it creates unintended consequences.

Mandatory arrest refers to the legal duty of a police officer to make an arrest if he finds probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed by any party in a domestic dispute( Miller 2005). Essentially, it instructs the officer that arrest is the preferred/correct decision to make in a domestic case. However, this creates an obvious dilemma. Is it correct to make arrest the mandatory policy in domestic disputes even though it is known that all victims/situations are not the same?

Mandatory arrest laws fail to take into account that all domestic violence cases and their victims are not the same. This policy assumes that all victims want their batters arrested, when this is actually not always the case. For example, a wife might not want her husband arrested because she is dependent on his income (Miller 2005). Mandatory arrest requires that her husband be taken to jail which means that she might not be able to provide for herself or child since he is the sole provider for the family. That is why it is very important that the woman has a choice in the matter so she does not encounter this possible economic problem.
     

The implementation of mandatory arrest policies take away the victim's ability to determine what the best choice is for them after the domestic violence has occurred. This argument is centered around the idea that mandatory arrest doesn't empower the victims, but rather it strips them of their choice by putting the authorities in the best position to determine the outcome of a situation (Miller 2005). The problem with taking away the choice from the victims is that they might be reluctant to seek police help because they know that doing so will inevitably result in an arrest. Essentially, mandatory arrest policies fail to acknowledge that victims may want protection or intervention but may not necessarily want their partner put behind bars ( Miller 2005) It is important that victims have a choice after the domestic violence occurs because authorities cannot assume that they know what is best for each individual. Is it possible that they could know a person's situation better than that specific individual? My answer is absolutely not. Therefore, they are in no position to affect the outcome of that person's life without giving them a choice in the matter.

The various unintended consequences associated with mandatory arrest also pose a problem. For example, the use of mandatory policies can lead to more violence. Arresting batters could possibly provoke them to become increasingly more violent and take it out on their partner (Lyenger 2007). A recent study has shown that when comparing states with mandatory arrest laws they have about a 50% higher homicide rate than states without such laws (Lyenger 2007:9). I assume that this increase is due to mandatory arrest policies deterring victims from calling the police. I base this on the idea that police intervention may keep the level of violence from escalating, but if victims are reluctant to call because they do not want their batters arrested then this intervention will never take place.

It is terribly sad that a man beats a women every fifteen seconds in the United States but mandatory arrest policies are definitely not part of the solution; they are part of the problem. 

Sources:

1. Lyengar, Radha. “The Protection Battered Spouses Don’t Need.” New York Times 7 Aug. 2007, late ed.:19.
2. Miller, Neal. http://www.ilj.org/publications/dv/domesticviolenceevaluation.pdf
3. Mordini, Nichole Miras.“Mandatory State Interventions for Domestic Abuse Cases: An Examination of the Effects on Victim Safety and Autonomy.” 52 Drake Law Review 295 Winter (2004)