New York State law mandates
specific IPV documentation under all circumstances meeting the enumerated
relationship and crime criteria at the scene of a domestic dispute. Law
enforcement compliance with this mandate is unknown. We reviewed law
enforcement completion rates of Domestic Violence Incident Reports (DVIRs) and
assessed correlations with individual or legal factors. Law enforcement
officers filed DVIRs in 54% of the cases (n=191), more often when injury
occurred (p<.01) and the defendant had prior court contact (p<.05). The
discussion explores policy implications and potential means to rectify the gap
between mandated processes and implementation.
… According to the
statutory mandate, 100% of the cases reviewed should have had a DVIR filed.
Unfortunately, findings demonstrate that only 54% of the cases had these forms
on file with the District Attorney. There is a gap between mandated policy and
implementation. We find support for the hypothesis that police more often file
DVIRs when an injury occurs. Additionally, police more often file DVIRs when
the defendant had prior contact with the court, which may become known at the
scene of the arrest via the victim, police familiarity with the perpetrator, or
the presence of an earlier issued protection order, which is electronically
kept on a statewide level.
Although there is a state mandate for police to file
DVIRs, findings reveal that whether the police file these forms is not
associated with the level of conviction. There was no support for the second
hypothesis that DVIRs were related to conviction level. Rather, we learned that
the defendant’s prior contact with the system and age are associated with the
level of charge at conviction. Findings also revealed that use of a weapon and
charge at arrest are not associated with the final conviction. As is common
practice, many district attorneys consider prior record when determining
whether to offer a reduced charge in a plea negotiation. Because there is often
a reduction in the charge, weapon use no longer appears linked to a particular
outcome.
This study occurred in a district where police are
trained to observe and document injuries at the scene. However, they are not
necessarily trained to follow a case through medical treatment to further
document injuries and treatment post-arrest. If police file DVIRs only when a
victim’s injuries are apparent at the scene, they risk failing to document a
victim’s potential hidden injuries, such as internal injuries or the evolution
of bruising evidence. Victims may seek treatment later, and/or discuss IPV
medical and safety concerns with their physician. Better coordination between
police and medical providers to document medical treatment given following the
violent incident, either by a hospital or primary care provider, may be beneficial.
In the absence of a police-conducted investigation to compile all potential
evidence, prosecutors should inquire whether an injury was identified after the
police call for service.
Rather than view victims in separate silos (police
call for service, medical care provider’s office, court) we must begin to view
a domestic violence call for service and subsequent response as a continuum.
These interrelated encounters for the victim with helping professionals must be
continually documented to facilitate perpetrator accountability. Medical
professionals are encouraged and often mandated to educate their patients about
their legal rights in the setting of IPV. Similarly, a coordinated community
response to address IPV should attempt to connect IPV survivors with health
care resources when law enforcement officers respond to calls for domestic
violence incidents even if there are no immediately observable injuries,
knowing the victim could suffer injuries at a later time, or long-term
emotional and psychological harm.
Efforts to identify barriers or misperceptions
limiting DVIR completion and filing might improve future compliance. It is
possible that despite statutory language to the contrary, police do not file
such forms when the victim requests that no arrest is made. It is also possible
that the victims may state a wish to pursue the matter in Family Court,
obviating, from the police perspective, the need for the DVIR. However, even in
Family Court, DVIRs can provide important details to assist the court officials
in decision-making around safety plans, custody and visitation issues, and
recommending concurrent criminal prosecution now permissible in many
jurisdictions.
Despite evidence that the DVIR completion did not
impact the level of conviction in this study, the instrument remains a valuable
tool for prosecutors in criminal court and civil attorneys in Family Court. The
DVIR contains important information that may inform the strategy of the case,
how to reach a victim at a safe or alternate contact, and captures the event in
the victim’s voice through the narrative portion of the document. Prosecutors
rely heavily on the information contained in them to know what evidence to
secure, including medical records and possibly medical providers’ testimony at
trial. While it may not impact the level of case – it may impact what is
charged due to the injuries noted and/or the presence of a weapon.
Additionally, DVIRs may be used to track prevalence and severity of IPV at a
community or state level. The accuracy of the reports is important beyond the
immediate use in a criminal trial.
Full article at: http://goo.gl/sbwbkb
By:
Catherine Cerulli, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of
Psychiatry, Laboratory of Interpersonal Violence and Victimization, 300
Crittenden Blvd., Rochester, NY 14642, T: 585-275-5269, F: 585-276-0307;
Catherine Cerulli: ude.retsehcor.cmru@illureC_enirehtaC; Elizabeth
A. Edwardsen: ude.retsehcor.cmru@nesdrawdE_htebazilE; Dale
Hall:ten.tsacmoc@llah.elad; Ko
Ling Chan: kh.ukh.ccukh@nahclke; Kenneth
R. Conner: ude.retsehcor.cmru@rennoC_htenneK
More at: https://twitter.com/hiv_insight
No comments:
Post a Comment