Innovating Responses to Managing Risk: Exploring the Potential of a Victim-Focused Policing Strategy

Abstract

This article explores the potential benefits of developing partnerships with victims in managing threats to their personal
safety via smart police use of electronic monitoring technologies. The central premise for this position is that traditional
surveillance responses that seek to manage offending behaviour have limited effectiveness and do not create a sense of security
for victims. Using a pilot project currently underway in Buenos Aires, we extrapolate the potential implications of a victim-focused
strategy for the policing role and the effectiveness of responses to high-risk repeat offences. The pilot project seeks to
enhance victims’ sense of their own safety, reduce the risk of repeat violence and develop indirect benefits for police legitimacy.
Utilized in this way, there is significant potential for electronic monitoring to facilitate smarter policing and demand reduction.

Full text

Article
Innovating Responses to Managing Risk:
Exploring the Potential of a Victim-Focused
Policing Strategy
Craig Paterson

and Kerry Clamp

Abstract This article explores the potential benefits of developing partnerships with victims in managing threats to
their personal safety via smart police use of electronic monitoring technologies. The central premise for this position is
that traditional surveillance responses that seek to manage offending behaviour have limited effectiveness and do not
create a sense of security for victims. Using a pilot project currently underway in Buenos Aires, we extrapolate the
potential implications of a victim-focused strategy for the policing role and the effectiveness of responses to high-risk
repeat offences. The pilot project seeks to enhance victims’ sense of their own safety, reduce the risk of repeat violence
and develop indirect benefits for police legitimacy. Utilized in this way, there is significant potential for electronic
monitoring to facilitate smarter policing and demand reduction.
Introduction
A recent Policy Exchange (Geoghegan, 2012) paper,
‘Future of Corrections: Exploring the use of elec-
tronic monitoring’, encouraged smarter police use
of electronic offender monitoring technologies as
part of integrated criminal justice responses to
problems of crime and disorder. The report envi-
saged new police and crime commissioners as ve-
hicles for the localization of electronic monitoring
service delivery and the development of more in-
novative and flexible surveillance responses to
social risk management. The emphasis upon local-
ization is timely for both policing and electronic
monitoring with the language of demand reduction
dominating a cash-starved justice sector in the
throes of long-term decreases in funding.
Attempts to construct an electronic monitoring
market in England and Wales have led to the cre-
ation of a duopoly dominated by Serco and G4S,
which has failed to deliver cost savings or reduc-
tions in recidivism. The reasons for this are mani-
fold and include: unrealistic expectations, the
failure of the electronic monitoring market, the
top–down development of misguided policies,
and the myopic offender-focus of criminal justice
agencies (Paterson, 2007, 2012). Despite this, we
argue that there is indeed an important part that
electronic monitoring can play in the criminal

Craig Paterson, Department of Law and Criminology, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK. E-mail:
C.Paterson@shu.ac.uk

Kerry Clamp, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, New South Wales,
Australia.
51
Advance Access publication: 27 November 2013
Policing, Volume 8, Number 1, pp. 51–58
doi:10.1093/police/pat028
ß The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For permissions please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
by guest on December 23, 2014http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from

justice landscape and one that can assist with the re-
invention of policing in a climate of demand reduc-
tion (Neyroud, 2012). What is required is, a shift in
gaze beyond offender monitoring to placing victims
at the heart of surveillance responses to risk. We
illustrate this by drawing on a victim panic
button pilot scheme in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
We argue that such an approach not only has the
potential to reduce demands on police time and
resources but also the added benefit of increasing
and enhancing police–community relations and
improving effectiveness.
Electronic surveillance and
victim-focused policing
Human surveillance has been a core policing func-
tion since the advent of professional policing, but it
is the use of a range of surveillance software and
technology to collect, classify, and analyse data for
operational police use that is the focus of this art-
icle. The operational use of surveillance technolo-
gies by the police service in England and Wales has
broadly been utilized in two ways: first, to investigate
offences and second, to pre-emptively deter offend-
ing behaviour. It is the latter area that provides the
potential to reduce the demand for police resources;
however, the extent to which technology can pre-
emptively deter offending behaviour remains at the
crux of debate about the use of surveillance technol-
ogies. The early years of growth in Closed Circuit
Television (CCTV) were driven by a ‘common-
sense’ belief that deterrence would naturally follow
from more expansive surveillance systems, but evi-
dence from CCTV studies does not support this pre-
sumption (Gill and Spriggs, 2005). Similarly,
experimentation with technologies such as elec-
tronic offender monitoring and biometrics has not
produced conclusive evidence that they deter indi-
viduals from offending either (Paterson, 2012).
Curfews, active surveillance via Global
Positioning Systems (GPS), drug and alcohol
monitoring, facial recognition, and other modes
of electronic monitoring all have regulatory and
punitive functions, but there is little evidence to
suggest they provide long-term solutions to
offending behaviour other than temporary restric-
tions in time and space. The reasons for this are
clear: offenders rarely want to comply with the
restrictions placed upon them by technology and
subsequently develop adaptive strategies that dis-
place, resist, and reformulate offending behaviour
in new forms and arenas (Paterson, 2007). Thus, it
seems peculiar that the role of technology in dir-
ectly enhancing victim safety has been neglected in
favour of a focus on offenders. A more imaginative
use of electronic monitoring technology is evident
in the use of bilateral electronic monitoring, which
can retain a controlling function over offenders but
crucially adds a protective ‘early alert’ system for
victims (Erez and Ibarra, 2007). Bilateral electronic
monitoring situates the active victim in an em-
powered position to contribute to their own
safety via a re-imagined use of surveillance technol-
ogy outside the traditional offender-focus of poli-
cing and criminal justice processes. Therefore, the
system places the police in a position where their
primary role is to protect the victim via pre-emp-
tive alerts to potential offences.
A victim-focused approach represents an
example of the smart policing referred to in the
‘Future of Corrections’ report where policing agen-
cies work alongside technology providers to
develop innovative local responses to prevent ‘pri-
mary or secondary victimisation and reduce the
effects of victimisation on the community’ (Clark,
2005, p. 650). For the police service, this pre-emp-
tive partnership approach has the potential to dis-
place the high costs associated with subsequent
investigations and to enhance public legitimacy
via proactive engagement with potential and
repeat victims. Negative perceptions of police con-
tact with the public and subsequent deficits in trust
and legitimacy emerge, at least in part, out of the
context in which contact takes place (Bradford
et al., 2009). By placing an emphasis on proactive
police responses to the threat of victimization, it is
possible to reformulate the context through which
52 Policing Article C. Paterson and K. Clamp
by guest on December 23, 2014http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from

police–community relations emerge and enhance
public confidence in police action. Viewed in this
light, the potential consequences for police legitim-
acy and effectiveness are substantial. The following
section introduces the Panic Button Programme in
Buenos Aires, Argentina and outlines its aims.
The Argentine Panic Button
Programme: a case study
Panic buttons were launched in March 2012 in the
metropolitan city of Buenos Aires and suburban
Tigre in Argentina. The programme was instigated
by a 43% rise in reported domestic violence cases in
Argentina across a 2 year period where 91% of vic-
tims were females and 42% of cases involved victims
who had previously been identified as high or very
high risk (Solano, 2012). These statistics reproduce
findings in England and Wales, which indicate that 6
out of 10 victims of partner abuse experienced repeat
victimization during the same year (Povey et al.,
2008) and, for high-risk cases, just over one in
three murders emerges out of a background of
repeat domestic violence (IPCC, 2007; Stanko,
2008). Cognizant of this complex context, the
panic button functions as a component of a holistic
multi-agency support programme for victims of do-
mestic violence that contains embedded social, legal,
and psychological support where these are required.
The buttons are issued by courts in domestic
violence cases as well as other incidences where
there is a high risk of violence towards an individ-
ual. The court issued 18 panic buttons during April
2012, which resulted in 20 panic calls but by June
three calls a day were being received by the specialist
communications centre in Buenos Aires. About 50
panic buttons were distributed in the first phase of
the project in Tigre during March 2012 with the
aim of increasing this figure to 100. A further
10,000 panic buttons have been ordered from
China with demand expected to be significant for
this high profile victim protection initiative.
When the panic button is pressed, the victim is
automatically connected to a repeat victimization
suite in the police communications centre. The GPS
device simultaneously notifies police personnel of
the location of the individual at risk as well as the
nearest potential police response. The police call
handler is able to speak to the victim via the
device to determine the nature of the incident
(if direct communication is not possible due to
the victim’s circumstances, then an ambient moni-
toring system enables police responders to listen to
the event without noticeable intrusion). The oper-
ator is able to use the case information that is on the
system and forward a picture of the potential victim
and offender to police officers to assist with the
response.
Although similar programmes have been de-
veloped in the USA and Spain, they have been com-
paratively small in their scope. The UK has also
experimented with panic buttons although mainly
in rural areas where it is difficult to ensure a swift
response to remote locations (Argyll, 2011;
Brunetti, 2013; TVP, 2012). As such, the Buenos
Aires model represents an innovative and imagina-
tive leap in applying widely available and compara-
tively low-cost surveillance technology to enhance
victim safety in an urban area with high density
crime problems. Furthermore, the system repre-
sents an acknowledgement of the limits of the
city’s capacity to protect vulnerable victims of
repeat violence and a desire to facilitate a smarter
use of scarce police resources. The acknowledged
limits of the sovereign state within a Latin
American context thus allows the police to experi-
ment with more innovative responses to risk man-
agement than would historically be politically
permissible in the UK and other neo-liberal econo-
mies. Due to this, these often unexplored arenas
present a potential site of new learning for police
agencies to develop innovative surveillance re-
sponses to risk management problems.
Potential implications of the Panic Button
Programme
It is essential to understand surveillance technolo-
gies as social and policy constructs where the
Potential of Electronic Monitoring for Victim Protection Article Policing 53
by guest on December 23, 2014http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from

function of the technology is determined by the
environment in which it is utilized and experienced
by the public. Technology manifests itself in differ-
ent forms in different socio-political and cultural
contexts. Therefore, new surveillance programmes
must be understood as products of their environ-
ment; they are creations of the criminal justice
agencies which have developed them and the
offenders/victims who interact with the technology.
The development of surveillance technologies
within UK criminal justice has been characterized
by initial expansion followed by clearer targeting
of specific offender groups. With limited excep-
tions, these developments have excluded victims.
Integrated surveillance systems supported by
human contact have the potential to enhance
trust and confidence in the police, particularly
with young people for whom virtual visualization
and active real-time monitoring are normal social
functions. Thus, the technology can be embedded
in pre-existing everyday technology that renders it
invisible and negates potential stigmatization. This
has potentially positive policy consequences for a
police service that is increasingly concerned with
the contested imperatives of service provision,
economies of scale, and issues of legitimacy
(particularly concerning the consequences of
police contact with its service users). The develop-
ment of victim-focused surveillance programmes
embedded in existing multi-agency policing struc-
tures fits neatly into the contemporary language of
technological development, demand reduction,
and the smart use of scarce resources. The following
sections outline three areas of potential value for
policing agencies from the Panic Button
Programme, namely: victim-focused policing,
compliance and effectiveness, and demand
reduction.
Victim-focused policing. The value of victim-
focused policing for enhancing police legitimacy is
widely recognized (Clark, 2005). Policy trajectories
within criminal justice have increasingly
emphasized victims’ interests and led to the
development of victim-focused policies that
emphasize the management of risk and the psycho-
logical benefits of victim-focused policing strategies
(Ibarra and Erez, 2005). Yet, there remain concerns
about how police resources should be deployed to
minimize the threat of repeat violence. Lessons
from domestic homicide cases highlight the im-
portance of understanding the profile and needs
of repeat users of police services and their relation-
ship with policing services (Stanko, 2008). A 2007
IPCC ‘Learning the Lessons’ report noted the lim-
ited capacity of the police service to proactively
promote the safety of victims and to understand,
audit, and monitor the escalation of dangerous
behaviour that can lead to murder. Furthermore,
there remains evidence that, despite their high-risk
status, some police officers do not regard victim-
focused domestic violence cases as a core police
function (Loftus, 2010).
These knowledge gaps and cultural dynamics
have led to a policy emphasis upon increasingly
intrusive and extensive offender monitoring in
the UK that has almost wholly excluded the poten-
tial of monitoring technologies to enhance victim
safety. Exclusion orders and small victim-oriented
pilot programmes remain rare exceptions to these
developments. The panic button system overcomes
the problem of needing, but not having, constant
supervision to make an individual feel safe at times
of high personal risk. The advantage of the panic
button system over the multitude of personal safety
applications available for smart phones is that the
system provides an individual’s GPS location in
conjunction with immediate support over the
phone and an emergency service response. While
private security providers emphasize the speed of
response to their services, independent evidence
suggests that the co-ordination of an immediate
police response can be problematic (McCahill,
2002). The system is also protectively designed
to send out an alarm if the panic button is switched
off or if the battery runs out to which operators
respond by calling after 15 min to perform a
54 Policing Article C. Paterson and K. Clamp
by guest on December 23, 2014http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from

verification and safety check (the phone can still
receive calls).
It is the potential of imagined observation as
much as observation itself that can act as a source
of reassurance for the victim. Erez and Ibarra’s
(2007) evaluation of bilateral electronic monitoring
systems in the USA identified an impact on the way
that victims interpret their own safety once a pro-
gramme has been instigated that validates their
safety concerns. This includes the positive influence
of criminal justice personnel engaging directly with
victims, recognition of their right to protection,
and improved police understanding of victims’
needs (Bittner, 1967). This positive engagement
avoids the damaging impact of victims perceiving
that their problem has been trivialized and the po-
tential exclusion of the problem from criminal just-
ice processes. Over time, this victim-focused
approach may help to re-configure how individuals
function in social spaces as their confidence is re-
built in the absence of physical threat. This has
positive implications for policing agencies as vic-
tims engage with a form of personalized justice that
validates, rather than marginalizes, their experience
of victimization.
Compliance and effectiveness. Surveillance
technologies often do not work as expected within
the arena of criminal justice due to resistance from
non-compliant offenders. This resistance can lead
to the displacement of offending and a variety of
other adaptive strategies utilized by offenders to
circumnavigate the restrictions placed upon them
(Paterson, 2007). Thus, a gap emerges between
policy intentions and practical consequences. This
is not necessarily the case with victims who are
much more likely to embrace a self-selected tech-
nology that makes them visible to the authorities
when they are in need of assistance. The active and
responsibilized victim has previously consented to
the use of technology which enhances compliance
and the potential for pre-emptive action. Thus, sur-
veillance potential is harnessed to enhance victim
safety, to decrease the risk of more serious violent
offences, and to reduce demand for police resources
that would be used in subsequent investigations.
This approach also protects other members of the
household, such as children, from the psychological
impact of violence.
Furthermore, an understanding of the risk of vio-
lence can be generated via the digital traces left across
a myriad of partnership policing agencies to develop
an intelligent, proactive and potentially pre-emptive,
response to the threat of violent victimization. The
Panic Button Programme provides the potential to
task police officers with specific expertise in domes-
tic (or other) violence to manage these incidents and
to negate any impact from the enduring legacy of
reactive, action-oriented canteen culture. The inci-
dent-led focus of reactive policing is not structured
to respond to the ongoing social process of pro-
longed repeat victimization that occurs with domes-
tic violence and hate crimes (Chakraborti, 2009).
Although police officers may believe that an incident
has been managed effectively, the low-level impact of
the experience of victimization continues unre-
solved, resulting in dissatisfaction with the police
service. Therefore, a victim-focused bilateral elec-
tronic monitoring strategy provides the potential
to both control a potential threat and to protect an
individual. Within this context, police officers per-
form a key role in recognizing the continued threat
to an individual and reinforcing a victims’ sense of
their right to occupy space (Erez and Ibarra, 2007,
p. 103).
Despite this potential, it is important not to over-
emphasize the value of bilateral electronic monitor-
ing programmes. It is important to recognize the
limitations of the technology so as not to generate
high expectations of the programme and technology
that result in a negative reaction whenever the pro-
gramme fails to produce its pre-determined out-
comes. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that
new technologies experience problems and do not
provide the physical protection required in the high-
est risk cases. The technology also needs to be
embedded in a holistic programme that recognizes
Potential of Electronic Monitoring for Victim Protection Article Policing 55
by guest on December 23, 2014http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from

the needs of repeat victims of violence and the psy-
chological impact of surveillance. In contrast to
(Erez and Ibarra, 2007) found in Dutch and US stu-
dies that victims often did not use the panic button
as they associated it with a potential criminal justice
outcome for the perpetrator. In Romkens’s example
the continued presence of offender-focused manda-
tory arrest policies ran counter to the aims of the
victim-focused approach. Thus, programmes pre-
mised on a deterrence perspective may neither
enable demand reduction nor integrate a victim
focus into domestic violence policing.
Demand reduction. The tightening of public
expenditure and the sustained presence of
demand reduction language within UK policing
and criminal justice since 2010 has encouraged in-
novative ways of thinking about strategic, problem-
oriented responses to crime problems. The police
service face an estimated total workforce reduction
of 34,000 staff from 2010–15 which will return its
overall size to 2003–04 levels (HMIC, 2011).
Although the relationship between police numbers
and crime levels remains unclear, the effective de-
ployment of police officers can have a direct impact
on crime levels (Bradford, 2011). In response to
this, many forces have undertaken demand analysis
to look at creative and innovative ways to reduce
the need for resources and some have used GPS
devices to support this (Murray and Campfield,
2011; Geoghegan, 2012, p. 66).
An audit of police call demand in 2000 indicated
that the police in the UK receive a request for help
related to domestic violence every minute (Stanko,
2001). Furthermore, evidence suggests that 30–50%
of all calls to the police relate to repeat incidences of
domestic violence (Farrell, 1999). Both of these fig-
ures represent only a small proportion of actual
incidents of domestic violence with the British
Crime Survey estimating that only 13% of partner
abuse is reported to the police (Stanko, 2008). Panic
buttons have the ability to assist in the management
of resource intensive cases involving repeat
victimization and to help minimize the possibility
of the escalation of violence. Although estimating
the scale of domestic violence, both visible and
hidden, remains an enduring challenge, it is clear
that serious violent behaviour is predictable. This
makes the combination of intelligence-led policing
and a surveillance-enabled response a smarter use
of scarce resources within a challenging economic
climate. Response speed can be accelerated through
an interconnected system that enables action
at-a-distance to identify high-risk instances and an-
ticipates potential threats against vulnerable repeat
victims. The system also allows the police to simul-
taneously collect evidence for investigations (van
Brakel and de Hert, 2011).
The implementation of surveillance technologies
in criminal justice and policing has often been met
with prolonged evidence gaps as policy-makers rely
upon an intuitive sense that technology is able to
solve social problems. This has resulted in a scat-
tergun targeting of surveillance technologies at
often poorly understood problems. Evidence-
based policing remains of vital importance to the
practical use of surveillance technologies as it helps
challenge uncontested sales pitches from the private
sector and ensures the more effective use of scarce
resources. In Buenos Aires, the cost of the Panic
Button Programme is one person monitoring the
system in comparison to the four officers required
to resource 24 h of police officer monitoring for one
person (Solano, 2012). Yet, initial programme de-
velopment will require significant investment in
personnel. Previous studies on the use of surveil-
lance technologies have indicated that investment
in technology must be supported by a similar in-
vestment in human resources to ensure the speed of
response to the people monitored is maintained
(McCahill, 2002).
Conclusion
Each electronic monitoring review has demon-
strated frustration at the inability to integrate
56 Policing Article C. Paterson and K. Clamp
by guest on December 23, 2014http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from

electronic monitoring technologies into policing
and offender management structures due to the
limitations presented by restrictive centralized
contracts that stifle local innovation. The potential
of current electronic monitoring technologies to
enable smart policing via flexible monitoring
schemes for victims and offenders, crime scene cor-
relation, live monitoring satellite maps, and inclu-
sion/exclusion zones is clear. Police recording
systems have the potential to monitor repeat service
users and to use these data to assess risk. This allows
an integrated criminal justice response to identify
the most effective forms of support and/or inter-
vention to prevent repeat victimization and the
escalation of violence. It is possible to draw infer-
ences about the potential use of panic buttons in the
UK from existing evidence on the use of surveil-
lance technologies to improve the policing of do-
mestic violence. Most clearly, the programme
enables victim-focused policing that enhances
victims’ sense of their own safety, reduces the risk
of repeat violence, and has indirect benefits for
police legitimacy. The programme does this by
focusing the surveillance gaze on self-selected vic-
tims who are more likely to comply with the aims
of the programme than offenders who actively
resist attempts to monitor their behaviour. The
programme subsequently enhances police effective-
ness through the more efficient deployment of
resources and the pre-emptive prevention of
crime. The potential to reduce domestic violence
homicide and associated investigations is clear, as
is the opportunity to efficiently manage the
high volume of domestic violence calls that
dominate police business outside of major urban
areas.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Brian Stout and
the anonymous reviewers for their valuable com-
ments on this article.
References
Argyll. (2011). Argyll Technology Used to Help Domestic
Abuse Victims. Argyll, http://www.argyll-loneworker.co.
uk/pr-events/argyll-technology-used-help-domestic-
abuse-victims/ (accessed 20 June 2012).
Bittner, E. (1967). ‘The Police on Skid-Row: A Study of
Peace Keeping.’ American Sociological Review 32(5):
699–715.
Bradford, B. (2011). Police Numbers and Crime Rates – A
rapid evidence review. London: HMIC.
Bradford, B., Jackson, J. and Stanko, E. (2009). ‘Contact and
Confidence: Re-Visiting the Impact of Public
Encounters with the Police.’ Policing and Society 19(1):
20–46.
Brunetti, N. (2013). ‘GPS Strategy Improves Deployment of
Officers.’ Police Oracle. http://www.policeoracle.com/
news/GPS-Strategy-’Improves-Deployment-Of-
Officers’_59649.html (accessed 3 January 2013).
Chakraborti, N. (2009). ‘A Glass Half Full? Assessing
Progress in the Policing of Hate Crime.’ Policing: A
Journal of Policy and Practice 3(2): 121–128.
Clark, M. (2005). ‘The Importance of a New Philosophy to
the Post Modern Policing Environment.’ Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies and
Management 28(4): 642–653.
Erez, E. and Ibarra, P. (2007). ‘Making Your Home a Shelter:
Electronic Monitoring and Victim Re-Entry in Domestic
Violence Cases.’ British Journal of Criminology 47(1):
100–120.
Farrell, G. (1999). ‘Evaluation of a UK Police Domestic
Violence Unit Using Repeat Victimisation as A
Performance Indicator.’ The Howard Journal 38(1): 42–53.
Geoghegan, R. (2012). Future of Corrections. London: Policy
Exchange.
Gill, M. and Spriggs, A. (2005). Assessing the Impact of
CCTV. Home Office Research Study 292. London: Home
Office.
Ibarra, P. and Erez, E. (2005). ‘Victim-Focused Diversion:
The Electronic Monitoring of Domestic Violence Cases.’
Behavioural Sciences and the Law 23(2): 259–276.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).
(2011). Adapting to Austerity. London: HMIC.
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
(2007). Learning the Lessons: Domestic Violence. Bulletin
1. London: IPCC.
Loftus, B. (2010). ‘Police Occupational Culture: Classic
Themes, Altered Times.’ Policing and Society 20(1): 1–20.
McCahill, M. (2002). The Surveillance Web. Cullompton:
Willan.
Murray, S. and Campfield, S. (2011). GPS Tracking of
Persistent and Prolific offenders in Hertfordshire.
Workshop Presentation at 7th CEP Electronic Monitoring
Conferece, Evora Portugal, May 2011.
Potential of Electronic Monitoring for Victim Protection Article Policing 57
by guest on December 23, 2014http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from

Neyroud, P. (2012). ‘Re-Inventing Policing’ - a Call for
Debate.’ Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 6(4):
315–316.
Paterson, C. (2007). ‘Street-Level Surveillance: Human
Agency and the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders.’
Surveillance and Society 4(2-3): 314–328.
Paterson, C. (2012). ‘Commercial Crime Control and the
Development of Electronically Monitored Punishment:
A Global Perspective.’ In Nellis, M., Beyens, K. and
Kaminski, D. (eds), Electronically Monitored Punishment:
Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Povey, D., Coleman, K., Kaiza, P., Hoare, J. and Jansson, K.
(2008). Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence
2006/7. London: Home Office.
Ro
¨
mkens, R. (2006). ‘Protecting Prosecution: Exploring the
Powers of Law in an Intervention Program for Domestic
Violence.’ Violence against Women 12(2): 160–186.
Solano, V. (2012). ‘Boton Antipanico: ya se Reciben Three
Denuncias Diarias (Panic Button receives three reports a
day).’ Clarin. http://www.clarin.com/sociedad/violencia_
de_genero-boton_antipanico-policia_metropolitana-sos-
seguridad-alerta-victoria_solano_0_712728868.html (ac-
cessed 18 December 2012).
Stanko, E. (2001). ‘The Day to Count: Reflections on a
Methodology to Raise Awareness About the Impact of
Domestic Violence in the UK.’ Criminal Justice 1(2):
215–226.
Stanko, E. (2008). ‘Managing Performance in the Policing of
Domestic Violence.’ Policing: A Journal of Policy and
Practice 2(3): 294–302.
Thames Valley Partnership (TVP). (2012). ‘Chief Constables
Commendation – Gwent.’ Thames Valley Partnership
http://www.thamesvalleypartnership.org.uk/ccc/work/
victims/tecsos/cc-commendation (accessed 16 August
2013).
Van Brakel, R. and de Hert, P. (2011). ‘Policing, Surveillance
and Law in a Pre-Crime Society.’ Cahier Politiestudies
3(20): 163–192.
58 Policing Article C. Paterson and K. Clamp
by guest on December 23, 2014http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from