Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the research about, and community-based programmatic responses to, battered women's use of force in their intimate heterosexual relationships. By highlighting emerging issues, we hope to stimulate discussion and a more fully informed response to the complexity introduced by criminalizing women's responses to violence and abuse in their intimate relationships. Three decades ago, efforts to efficaciously and compassionately address the needs of battered women were in their infancy. A grassroots coalition comprised of survivors, advocates, attorneys, and practitioners elevated the personal experiences of battered women to an issue of social prominence, and challenged the system's trivialization and tolerance of violence and abuse occurring between intimate partners and former partners. Changes in the ways that the criminal legal system (CLS) responded to intimate violence are directly attributed to these early efforts of battered women's advocates and members of the feminist movement; perhaps the most significant change is the manner in which police handle intimate partner violence (IPV) calls, by implementing mandatory (or presumptive) arrest policies requiring arrest if probable cause exists that demonstrates that an act of violence occurred. This Gemeinschaft—advocating arrest for “non-stranger” crime—facilitated research promoting the deterrence aspects of pro- or mandatory arrest policies (Sherman, 1992; Sherman & Berk, 1984). Following the widely publicized findings that arrest deters future IPV, many jurisdictions quickly enacted mandatory, preferred, or pro-arrest statutes.

IPV arrest policies are lauded for increasing abused women's protection and encouraging offender accountability. They do so by removing police discretion at the time of arrest. When enforced properly, the changes ensure an appropriate arrest is made, hopefully serve as a deterrent to future violence, and show the state is no longer tolerant of IPV. At the same time, however, mandatory arrest policies may in some instances do more harm than good. Adverse consequences result because the CLS rests on an incident-driven model, void of context, which removes women's decision-making power. Furthermore, police officers typically do not consider the full context of the incident, even if they are legally required to do so (Finn & Bettis, 2006). As a result, police officers continue to make inappropriate arrests of victims, despite extensive training.