Introduction

Tertiary prevention strategies are intended to minimize problems once they have been identified as causing harm; in the context of intimate partner violence (IPV), tertiary prevention strategies “emphasize the identification of [IPV] and its perpetrators and victims, control of the behavior and its harms, punishment and/or treatment for the perpetrators, and support for the victims” (Wolfe & Jaffe, 1999, p. 136). In the US, using the law as tertiary prevention has largely meant deploying the criminal legal system (CLS) in cases of IPV—an approach that has prioritized the control and punishment aspects of tertiary prevention. Implementing strong laws against IPV also serves an expressive function, clearly identifying IPV as a harm society intends to remedy, though the impact of that expression is hard to measure. What the research suggests, however, is that the CLS's ability to deter future violence is limited. Mandatory arrest policies, which require police to make arrests whenever they have probable cause to do so, have had a minimal impact on recidivism (Stover et al., 2010). Moreover, despite 40 years of investment in the criminal legal response to IPV and the implementation of policies designed to ensure that more perpetrators come into the CLS, prosecution rates continue to vary significantly across jurisdictions, most crimes of IPV are prosecuted as misdemeanors, and sentences have not appreciably increased (Klein, 2009). Although rates of IPV declined steadily from 1994–2000, that decline was consistent with an overall decrease in the crime rate. From 2000–2010, rates of IPV fell more slowly than the continuing decrease in the crime rate (Catalano, 2012). The evidence suggests that the criminal legal response is having little impact on controlling IPV. It has also been suggested that it is impossible to know what the real impact of the CLS could be on rates of IPV, because a robust criminal legal response has yet to be fully implemented.

Nonetheless, for some people subjected to IPV, law—via the CLS—serves its function as a tertiary prevention strategy by punishing their perpetrators. Even for those people who decide not to prosecute, the existence of the legal system can provide support for people subjected to IPV if they are able to control how the legal system is deployed (using the threat of prosecution to secure needed resources or compel behavior from a partner, for example) (Ford, 1991).