Content uploaded by John Hamel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Hamel on Mar 29, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Introduction: The Problem with the Gender Paradigm
John Hamel and Brenda Russell
From: B. Russell & J. Hamel (Eds.)
Gender and domestic violence: Contemporary legal practice and intervention reforms
Oxford University Press, 2022
Pre-publication draft
2
Introduction: The Problem with the Gender Paradigm
Physical, psychological, and sexual abuse among intimate partners, commonly known as
domestic violence, but more recently as intimate partner violence or IPV, is a significant social
and public health problem in the United States and worldwide. IPV had long been considered
private by law enforcement, rarely investigated by social science researchers, and poorly
understood by mental health professionals. In the 1980s, a series of well-publicized court cases,
such as Thurman v. City of Torrington (1985), brought to light the grossly inadequate law
enforcement response at the time, which allowed repeat offenders to avoid prosecution while
their partners continued to be victimized, often fatally. In response, a grassroots victim advocacy
movement established shelter and other services for victims while lobbying state legislatures
across the United States, and subsequently to Canada, the U.K., and other nations, to enact new
laws that would hold offenders accountable (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2002; Russell, 2010).
Gender Paradigm Origins, Definitions, and Pervasiveness
About the same time, researchers at the University of New Hampshire had begun to
report on the results of two national representative sample surveys showing IPV victimization
rates to be comparable across the sexes, with approximately 6 million men and 6 million women
incurring some form of physical assault by their partner each year (Straus & Gelles,1990). These
findings were met with skepticism or dismissed by victim advocates, who had dedicated their
efforts exclusively to helping battered women. In retrospect, this resistance was understandable
at the time, given that research on IPV was still in its infancy and news accounts focused on
severely abused women It was also known then, as it is known now, that men perpetrate the
majority of overall violent crimes (79.5%; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017). Around the
world, women remain exploited and abused by men in various ways, including dowry murders
3
(Rudd, 2001), sex trafficking (Kotrla, 2010), and rape. Males perpetrate 97.2% of all reported
rapes (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017), primarily (but not exclusively) upon females.
For these reasons, and because the IPV victim advocacy movement soon merged with the
broader feminist political movement – a far more influential force than the social science
researchers working in relative obscurity – IPV arrest and intervention policies came to reflect,
and continue to reflect, what University of British Columbia professor Donald Dutton and others
have called the gender paradigm. The gender paradigm frames domestic violence as a problem
of men assaulting women, with corollary assumptions regarding risk factors, dynamics, and
motives (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). Research scholars in the U.K. and elsewhere have referred
to it as the feminist perspective (Dixon et al., 2012). In Scotland it is known simply as the
common story (Dempsey, 2013), alluding to the pervasiveness of this paradigm within society
and the judicial system. Whatever the terminology, IPV is assumed to be a “gendered”
phenomenon – i.e., the use, or threat, of physical abuse and other forms of control by men
against intimate female partners to enforce male privilege in a patriarchal society (Dobash &
Dobash, 1979; 1988; Kang et al., 2017; Pence & Paymar, 1993; Wood, 2013). Consequently,
IPV policies have mainly focused on the arrest and rehabilitation of male suspects and protection
of female victims via a range of legal and support services (e.g., restraining orders, shelters).
For several decades now, this view has thoroughly dominated IPV arrest, prosecution, and
treatment policies in the United States and has informed child custody decisions in the family
court system, largely because it has been so widely and unquestioningly accepted. News rarely
reports, if ever, feature stories about men or sexual minorities as the abused party. Suppose one
wishes to search beyond the headlines. In that case, accurate IPV statistics can be found within
peer-reviewed journals, but these sources are available only to academic scholars. In contrast,
4
there is an endless stream of misinformation about IPV rates, dynamics, and outcomes on
internet sites, accessible to everyone. For example, Hines (2014) examined information pages of
prominent victim advocacy organizations, such as the National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence and its various local and state chapters and found that almost a third of agencies
presented false facts about IPV. The paradigm informs the way police are trained to conduct
IPV investigations (Hamel & Russell, 2013), dominates state statutes that regulate court-
mandated intervention programs for offenders (Babcock et al., 2016), and is evident among
shelter workers and mental health professionals (see Follingstad et al., 2004; Hamel et al., 2009;
Hamel et al., 2007; Russell & Torres, 2020; for a review.)
Despite the serious shortcomings of current arrest and prosecution polices, as amply
documented throughout this volume, publications from the American Bar Association (ABA)
focus exclusively on the rights of female victims, frame domestic violence within a long-
discredited ideological framework as a “gender” crime, and promulgate false and misleading
views regarding the causes, dynamics and consequences of domestic violence (American Bar
Association, 2001; American Bar Association Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence,
2021; Dutton et al., 2009). Not surprisingly, anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that
practicing attorneys are profoundly misinformed on this subject (Hamel, 2016; Hamel et al.,
2009)
Among a growing share of stakeholders involved in IPV intervention policies, there has been
some acknowledgment that IPV assault rates are more symmetrical across the sexes than was
previously thought. Further, scholars have found the problem to be associated with other risk
factors besides patriarchal structures – among them, childhood trauma, mental illness, and
substance abuse (Hamel, 2009). When considering motives, however, a core distinction
5
continues to be drawn, falsely, between male and female violence, wherein the former is
assumed to be driven by a need to exercise power and control over the victim, and the latter is
assumed to be perpetrated primarily in self-defense (Dragiewicz, 2008; Kimmel, 2002), or as a
way to express emotions rather than for instrumental purposes, (Hamberger et al., 1997; Swan et
al., 2008.)
The Research Evidence
Nonetheless, the contemporary research evidence provides scant support for the gender
paradigm, in any of its manifestations, certainly not in the United States and other developed
countries. Among the most notable and relevant findings for criminal justice and mental health
responses, discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this book, are as follows:
1. Overall rates of intimate partner abuse, defined as any physical, sexual, and
psychological aggression, are comparable across the sexes, and they are also comparable
across sexual orientation. However, men perpetrate sexual assaults at significantly higher
rates than women.
2. While some men are motivated to assault their partners to maintain male privilege, most
do so for personality and relationship reasons – to get what they want, to punish, out of
jealousy, in retaliation, when they are under the influence of substances, in self-defense,
or to express anger or other emotions. Motives are the same for LGBTQ perpetrators as
they are for heterosexual perpetrators.
3. Women perpetrate IPV for the same reasons as men, with self-defense one of the least-
endorsed motives.
4. In most relationships where there has been physical aggression, both partners are violent,
and assaults are instigated on average as often by the female partner as the male partner.
6
When psychological aggression is considered, the percentage of bi-directional aggression
is much higher.
5. Women unquestioningly incur the most serious injuries and account for approximately
80% of intimate partner homicide victims. However, most IPV-related injuries are
relatively minor and incurred by men and women in comparable numbers. This is a
crucial consideration for arrest and prosecution policies, given that injuries are not a
requirement in most states for an arrest to be made.
6. Individuals arrested for an IPV-related crime are ubiquitously referred to as batterers,
commonly defined as a chronic pattern of physical assaults together with dominating and
controlling behavior that only becomes worse over time. A small percentage of offenders
are responsible for most incidents of repeat violence, and most defendants engage
primarily in infrequent, lower-level violence that results in no or minimal injuries. The
violence is not part of an overall pattern of dominance and control but instead arises from
escalated conflicts and poor impulse control and does not necessarily worsen over time.
These patterns also exist among LGBTQ populations.
7. The short-term impact of observing IPV by the father, as opposed to the mother, is
somewhat greater on children in terms of their emotional states (e.g., anxiety,
depression). This is perhaps due to the more frightening nature of father-perpetrated
violence. However, children are at risk for displaying conduct and academic problems
regardless of the parent’s sex. Additionally, because observational learning is not
dependent on the actor’s size and strength, children who observe IPV by either parent are
in the long run at risk for perpetrating IPV in adolescence and adulthood and exhibiting
7
various mental health and substance abuse disorders. These findings are particularly
relevant to child custody evaluators, judges, and attorneys.
8. Children who witness one parent physically assault the other are not necessarily more
impacted psychologically than children who witness verbal abuse or merely intense
arguments unless the physical assaults lead to serious injury.
9. The two most ubiquitous tools used in IPV training, the so-called Duluth “Power and
Control Wheel,” and Lenore Walker’s three-phase “Cycle of Violence,” can be helpful in
some contexts but are simplistic and can also be misleading. The former purports to be
an inclusive category of psychological abuse tactics used by perpetrators to dominate
their partners but is incomplete and was originally intended to apply only to heterosexual
male offenders; evidence-based measures of psychological abuse currently in use are
based on populations of both male and female perpetrators. Furthermore, so-called
“power and control” behaviors, or psychological abuse, are not always accurately
defined, and their impact on victims depends on many factors, including the extent to
which they constitute a pattern of abuse and whether they are accompanied by physical
violence, or the threat of such violence. In disputed child custody cases, “power and
control” charges may sometimes refer merely to intense and hostile but otherwise normal
relationship conflict.
10. The latter accurately describes only one type of IPV dynamic – specifically, a
heterosexual male perpetrator with features of borderline personality disorder, the sole or
dominant aggressor in a relationship, with a heterosexual female who is the sole or
primary victim. The Walker model fails to account for the far more common varieties of
8
mutually escalating couple dynamics, the behavior of anti-social or psychopathic
offenders, violence by borderline women, or same-sex IPV.
The body of research evidence makes it abundantly clear that the “common story” is just that
– a story. For true believers, this narrative either confirms their personal experiences or
resonates with their political sensibilities. For most, it seems plausible enough, given some
suspension of disbelief, and provides a simple explanation for matters they are not inclined to
investigate.1 But for the unfortunate victims and family members whom IPV policies have
adversely impacted on an individual level, the common story is nothing more than a pernicious
lie.
Paradigm Consequences
The extent to which current arrest, prosecution, and treatment policies have been
effective in reducing rates of IPV, holding perpetrators accountable, and keeping victims safe is
an ongoing topic of debate (Buzawa et al., 2017; Eckhardt et al., 2013). Problems with
measurement are considerable, including the varying nature of the epidemiological survey and
the specific questions used, differentiating the effectiveness of IPV-specific policies with an
overall decrease in violent crimes, and determining how to measure desistance (e.g., whether to
rely on criminal justice data, victim reports, mental health functioning, relationship satisfaction).
Nonetheless, it is universally agreed that more can be done (Buzawa et al., 2017; Hamel, 2009).
There are several possible reasons for the limited effectiveness of current IPV policies.
This can include a resistance by many in our society to consider IPV severe enough to report as a
crime, victim non-cooperation, organizational and bureaucratic limitations, budget restrictions,
1 Explanations for symmetry in IPV, compared to much more asymmetrical rates of general violence across the
sexes, derive from both cultural and evolutionary/sexual selection theories, and center around the importance of
the home and family in women’s lives, as well as prevailing norms allowing women more latitude to aggress within
this sphere (see Hamel, in press, for a more detailed account).
9
and traditional religious beliefs. There is also the tension between an overreaching law and order
response to such a complex problem, presuming all IPV cases to be serious criminal matters akin
to the failing war on drugs, and the difficulties of getting convictions in a system where one is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. Another reason is the persistence of the gender paradigm
that encourages the stereotyping of perpetrators (Boushey, 2016; Hine et al., 2020; Lysova et al.,
2020; Douglas & Hines, 2011; Tsu et al., 2010). Ostensibly a liberal, “feminist” ethos, the
paradigm depends on, and champions, a law enforcement response that is at best clumsy but
well-intended, and at worse, entirely unconcerned with progressive civil rights values (Corvo &
Johnson, 2012).
Let us be clear: A great deal of good and long-lasting value has been achieved due to the
battered women’s movement. Violence between married, cohabitating, and dating partners is
now taken seriously, both among the public and the institutions responsible for protecting us.
Laws are now in effect that makes IPV a punishable crime, including statutes for offenses (e.g.,
marital rape) that had not existed before, and no longer do police regard partner violence as
merely a family squabble. Nonetheless, these laws have been limited. Clearly, many women
remain in danger from severe, potentially lethal violence from male partners who manage to
avoid prosecution for their crimes. This is a serious problem.
On the other hand, male victims and sexual minorities are even less likely to get justice,
as arrest and intervention policies too often continue to frame intimate partner violence primarily
in terms of male perpetrators and female victims. Research over the past 30 years indicates that
IPV stretches far beyond this historical paradigm and is in dire need of criminal justice reform.
Aside from stymying our collective efforts to reduce rates of IPV in our communities effectively,
the gender paradigm, vigorously defended by individuals who see themselves as champions for
10
women’s rights, continues to rely upon anachronistic principles and dismissing empirically based
research which can lead to benevolent sexist ideologies2 that only serve to reinforce tired
stereotypes about women as helpless, child-like creatures who lack agency (Hamel, 2020).
Instead, this book provides evidence-based data that can hopefully lead to necessary reform
toward greater inclusion to accommodate all victims.
Purpose of the Book
To address these misconceptions this volume will describe the strengths and
shortcomings of current IPV arrest and prosecution policies as they are carried out across the
United States, considering methodologically sound contemporary research. It will demonstrate
that the battered women’s movement was long overdue and responsible for several necessary
reforms in our criminal justice system that remain as relevant today as ever before, given the lack
of protection for many of the most vulnerable victims, usually women. While ending violence
against women is an admirable aim, this vision continues to neglect other victims of IPV.
Therefore, this text focuses on how a more empirically based criminal justice response and
practice would be more effective in providing for the safety of all victims. This includes holding
offenders accountable and stopping the intergenerational cycle of violence in families while
ensuring the civil rights of criminal defendants.
This book is written by scholars, practitioners, and attorneys to provide research and
expertise that should be of interest to legal professionals responding to and adjudicating criminal,
family court, and tort cases involving accusations of IPV, as well as mental health professionals,
policymakers, and others interested in IPV as a societal and criminal issue. We hope that it will
2 In contrast to hostile sexism, the term benevolent sexism refers to attitudes and behaviors that regard women as
virtuous and to be admired, but also fragile, lacking in agency or competitive drive, often helpless, and in need of
protection – what some call the “women are wonderful” effect.
11
be helpful to district attorneys in making more informed decisions about who and how to
prosecute so that IPV offenders are forced to take responsibility for their violence. We seek to
assist defense attorneys in preventing defendants from being wrongfully convicted or mandated
to a course of treatment that fails to address their needs and potentially leaves victims in danger.
We also hope that the information presented will help victim advocates and treatment providers
by providing a common empirical ground on which to engage and cooperate for the benefit of all
involved constructively.
Our concerns regarding the deleterious consequences of current IPV arrest, prosecution,
and treatment policies are summarized below, then elaborated upon elsewhere in the book, and a
variety of promising reform recommendations will be advanced. If you are a defense attorney or
civil libertarian, you may already share these concerns. If not, we hope you will learn to take
them seriously and to give voice to them, whatever your role may be in, the collective effort to
combat relationship violence.
Undermining Defendant Rights
In most states, including California, police officers are encouraged to conduct
investigations into IPV allegations according to guidelines set forth by mandatory arrest and pro-
arrest statutes. These statutes make sense insofar as they allow police to intervene in situations
where a victim may be at significant risk, but evidence of harm (e.g., injuries) is often lacking.
Some of the most dangerous perpetrators know how to hurt their victims without leaving marks
and can project a calm demeanor, giving the appearance that “there’s nothing to see here”
(DeLeon-Granados et al., 2006; Miller, 2000). It is also true that when police are encouraged to
arrest with minimal evidence that a crime has been committed many innocent people are likely to
find themselves behind bars. This also comes neatly wrapped with the attendant legal, financial,
12
and emotional costs to defendants and their families. Defendants criminally convicted of an IPV
offense, even in misdemeanor cases, or arrested but never charged, can be denied employment
opportunities and, following relationship dissolution, find their parental rights denied or severely
curtailed. Among them, people of color, low-income individuals, cannot meet bail requirements
or afford skilled legal counsel to exonerate them. For these reasons, and lack of confidence an
attorney may have about going to trial, defendants often take a plea deal to go back to work and
provide for their families. Even when the incident is minor, the toll on families is not
inconsiderable, as when children are needlessly removed from their mother by Child Protective
Services for “failure to protect” (Stark, 2002).
Ideally, a balance should be found between the rights of citizens not to be falsely arrested
on the one hand and keeping people safe. Sadly, among some victim advocates, there appears to
be very little concern for defendant constitutional rights - particularly the rights of male suspects
or members of sexual minority groups. This lack of concern has been amply demonstrated over
the past two decades, following the enactment of mandatory arrest laws and the resulting spike in
arrests, including those involving female defendants. Only after this increase of female arrests
did victim advocates question mandatory arrest laws, arguing that these laws sometimes led to
police officers unknowingly arresting the wrong person. As a legal remedy, advocates helped to
enact so-called predominant aggressor guidelines. The exact definition varies from state to
state. However, they align well with the definition proposed by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP), which defines the term as “the individual who poses the most serious,
ongoing threat, which may not necessarily be the initial aggressor in a specific incident”
(International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2017).
13
In theory, these guidelines might indeed serve to protect actual victims who, in some
circumstances, may have initiated an act of pre-emptive aggression against someone who had
previously engaged in a pattern of chronic violence and who now threatens further harm (Hamel,
2011; Hamel & Russell, 2013). However, when citing such cases, advocates inevitably refer
only to female victimization, despite the gender-neutral language used in predominant aggressor
statutes (Chesney-Lind, 2002; McMahon & Pence, 2003). Ideology and political bias aside,
these statutes are difficult to properly administer, given the lack of empirically derived criteria
upon which to determine precisely how to identify the predominant aggressor. Suppose IPV
scholars cannot agree on this term. What can be reasonably expected from poorly informed
police officers presented with two plausible but conflicting stories and a lack of reliable
eyewitnesses? History of previous IPV, a common criterion, can only be reliably ascertained
from criminal justice records, which may or may not say anything meaningful about the
aggressor in a particular incident (Hamel, 2011).
Moreover, most IPV is bi-directional in the general population, yet most states discourage
mutual arrests, forcing arbitrary distinctions to be made between perpetrator and victim. In
arrests involving heterosexual relationships, men’s relatively greater size and strength make them
convenient targets for arrest. However, female victims may also be arrested for the same reason,
or when they are intoxicated or otherwise frustrate the police who arrive at the scene. The
opposite problem exists with same-sex couples, where police are even less informed about IPV
dynamics (Letellier, 1994; Russell & Torres, 2020). Officers may assume mutuality in violence
due to the lesser difference in size and strength between the parties, when in fact, one partner is
the predominant aggressor.
14
Police officers cannot be blamed for ideologically tinted policies. However, they are
nonetheless responsible for enforcing existing laws, and how they do so reflect in part the
inherent difficulties in any type of police work. A solid body of forensic psychology research
has revealed the extent to which police officers cannot accurately detect deception when
interviewing general criminal suspects. Instead, they rely on the same misleading cues as lay
people (e.g., Bond & De Paulo, 2006; Hartwig & Granhag, 2015). Figuring out who is lying and
who is telling the truth in IPV cases presents additional difficulties. Given the personal nature of
intimate relationships and the possibility of ulterior motives, the person who initially reports an
IPV incident may or may not be the actual victim. Other reasons for calling the police include
getting someone to mediate a non-violent but escalating conflict, retribution for actual or
imagined infidelity, or as a means to forcibly kick out a partner for purposes of gaining an
advantage in a child custody case (e.g., Cook, 2009). False allegations of IPV, a form of coercive
control known as Legal and Administrative Abuse, are made by both sexes, including by
manipulative men, as previously mentioned, and confirmed by abused women and their allies
(DeLeon-Granados et al., 2006; Miller, 2000). Nonetheless, false allegations can also greatly
benefit female batterers, who are more likely to be taken seriously because they are female and
presumed to be the victimized party (Douglas, 2018; Hines et al., 2015).
Once an arrest is made and charges are filed by the local prosecutor, current “no-drop
prosecution” policies in some jurisdictions make it difficult for the complainant to see the
charges dismissed, a practice discouraged by the National District Attorneys Association (2017).
Battered women advocates correctly argue that victim retraction is often done under duress,
either due to threats made by the perpetrator, for economic reasons, or because the perpetrator
wore the victim down with a variety of self-serving, manipulative, and guilt-inducing tactics
15
(Bonomi et al., 2011; Hamel, 2020). This is a serious problem long recognized by district
attorneys and advocates alike (Leisenring, 2008). Rarely, if ever acknowledged is the possibility
that the presumed “victim” had initiated the violence but lied about it, for whatever reasons, or
perhaps called the police during a bilaterally escalated incident in which the parties were equally
culpable but later felt genuinely guilty for lying or exaggerating their partner’s degree of
involvement. Due to the legal consequences of perjury and concern that charges might be
brought against them should they want the investigation to continue, complainants are reluctant
to fully disclose their culpability in any incident (they make perfunctory statements or provide no
information in their retraction statements (Sleath & Smith, 2016). Still, it does not take much
imagination to understand that when law enforcement officers arrive at the scene of a domestic
disturbance, especially in mandatory arrest states, and primed to make an arrest, it makes sense
for all parties to shade the truth. Nobody wants to be arrested.
For all of these reasons, we should all be mindful of limitations and biases inherent in the
current criminal justice response to IPV, and the very real threat to defendant rights and
procedural justice, as evidenced by the scholarly research literature. In their review, Shernock
and Russell (2012) conclude:
Simulation studies of police officer and mock juror decision making have
found that males are viewed as more culpable in IPV situations but have found no
significant racial differences. The results of these simulated studies are for the
most part borne out in reality regarding the criminal justice response to IPV. In
general, it appears that the less favorable treatment of males regarding the
issuance of POs, arrest, and prosecution is most salient…The less favorable
16
treatment of males becomes somewhat more pronounced at each of the
subsequent stages of the criminal justice process (p. 523).
Considering the greater physical danger posed by male perpetrated IPV, it is essential to
understand that among the research papers referenced by the authors were many local and
nationwide studies on arrest and issuance of restraining orders that controlled for the extent of
injuries. These studies confirm a significant pattern of gender bias within the judicial system.
Limited Effectiveness of Arrest, Prosecution, and Intervention Policies
Within pro-arrest and mandatory arrest states, IPV arrest rates are higher than where
police have greater discretion. This is a positive outcome if it helps bring more batterers to
justice. Unfortunately, additional arrests lead to fewer successful prosecutions because district
attorneys lack the resources to process weak cases (Davis, 2008; Hirschel & Buzawa, 2002).
Undoubtedly many of these weaker cases involve situations of high conflict that need not be
addressed through the criminal justice system. However, in other cases, victims might be in
danger. There are few alternatives to arrest in most jurisdictions other than allowing a
potentially violent individual to go free. Save for the issuance of a restraining order, which
provides no legal mechanism by which the perpetrator, or perpetrators, might be helped to
resolve their issues (e.g., such as deferred prosecution or a mandated assessment protocol with
which to determine alternate intervention options) (Young et al., 2007). Particularly
troublesome, a lack of alternatives may put victims in danger when they are denied the choice of
having the prosecution dropped. This has been demonstrated in studies showing that in pro-arrest
states, they are less likely to call hotlines or report re-offenses to law enforcement, making them
feel revictimized by the criminal justice system (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003; Mills, 2003).
17
Once a defendant pleads guilty to an IPV charge, he or she may have to serve a jail
sentence, but in misdemeanor cases they are typically required instead to complete a course of
treatment. Except for Colorado and Washington State, state standards governing such treatment
are not based on the particulars of a case, such as a defendant’s personality, ability to change,
abuse pattern, or risk of re-offending. Treatment recommendations from battered women
advocates tend to lean toward one-size-fits-all remedies. These treatments include intervention
programs rooted in a same-sex psychoeducational group format, otherwise known as batterer
intervention programs (BIPs). Such programs typically emphasize gender role factors and
offender use of “power and control” behaviors and discourage or prohibit evidence-based
approaches such as couples counseling or anger management. However, such approaches may
not be adequate or flexible enough to fully meet the needs of a highly heterogeneous population
(Babcock et al., 2016; Maiuro & Eberle, 2008). Therefore, it is not surprising that they affect a
mere 5% reduction in recidivistic violence above arrest and court monitoring (Babcock et al.,
2004).
The point needs to be stated, however apparent, that when batterers are not arrested or
held accountable for their violence, whether they be male or female, gay or straight, they remain
a threat to their victims and contribute further to the intergenerational cycle of violence. They
are also denied an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. Of course, IPV does not happen in a
vacuum. In most partner-violent relationships, the abuse is bi-directional, and both partners need
to be held accountable. However, even when one party dominates or is solely responsible for the
violence, treatment is more likely to be effective when it is understood from a systemic
perspective (Hamel & Nicholls, 2007). Unfortunately, current policies presume rigid
18
perpetrator/victim distinctions that limit alternative treatment options. This is a problem in dire
need of redress.
Throughout this book, an argument is made that arrest, prosecution, and treatment should
be based on the research evidence and the facts of each case. There is no reason (other than
politics) why this cherished maxim should not apply to violence between intimate partners. To
the extent that women are more impacted than men from physical assaults, the system should
respond accordingly. Prison cells will no doubt continue to accommodate primarily male
homicide perpetrators. On average bigger and stronger, men can more readily protect
themselves and are at lesser risk of life-threatening violence. Therefore, they are unlikely to
require the same level of shelter services as female victims. Nevertheless, the current reflexive
law enforcement response, based on traditional gender stereotypes, makes a mockery of the
judicial system, fosters confusion and cynicism, and erodes support from potential allies needed
in the fight against IPV. Sadly, it also re-affirms the very stereotypes that feminists have sought
to overcome by denying women and sexual minorities – whether victim or perpetrator – a sense
of agency.
Organization of Chapters
The information provided in this volume provides a contemporary view associated with
all aspects of the adjudicative process and evidence-based interventions surrounding IPV. The
book is organized into four sections, including history and research, litigation, issues of family
law, and evidence-based interventions. Part one includes an overview of the current research on
IPV. Bates and Papamichail (see Chapter 2) examine the evolution of IPV awareness, gender
similarities and differences of IPV, prevalence, causes, and dynamics of IPV. The authors also
address various typologies of abuse, risk factors, antecedents, and consequences of IPV for
19
victims and families. Part one also explores the history and advances of law enforcement and
criminal justice response to IPV. For instance, Russell and Seisler (see Chapter 3) summarize
arrest rates for cis-gender and sexual minority victims and perpetrators of IPV. They examine
critical legal cases leading to current arrest policies, including mandatory arrest, pro-arrest, and
discretionary arrest, and explore the effectiveness of these policies. The authors also explore how
social stereotypes can influence IPV response and the extent to which training and experience
can shape how they interpret and handle IPV incidents. Police officers are not immune to IPV
within their own ranks; therefore, officer-involved domestic violence (OIDV) is addressed along
with considerations of discretion and provides recommendations for greater inclusiveness in
policy and practice.
Part two includes four chapters on the litigation process from prosecution, strategies for
mounting a legal defense in IPV criminal cases, intimate partner homicide and the battered
person syndrome, and jury decision making. Cox and colleagues (see Chapter 4) explore how
gender and sex influence the prosecution of IPV and address gender-inverted (female to male
IPV) in addition to IPV in same-sex relationships. They examine legal and extra-legal factors
associated with prosecutorial decision-making and offer implications for practice and directions
for future research. In Chapter 5, Dresow, a San Francisco Bay Area attorney, reflects on the
challenges and strategies to mount a legal defense in IPV criminal cases. He provides general
guidelines from receiving the first phone call from someone in need of a defense, initial steps
upon accepting a case, information gathering, collateral consequences, and the necessity of
understanding the universe of the case to build an effective defense. The author stresses the
importance of guiding clients through the process while acknowledging the idiosyncrasies of IPV
compared to other crime classifications. In this context, he refers to sex and gender, mandatory
20
arrest and dominant aggressor laws, and the consequences of arrest and prosecution on
defendants, trial considerations, the use of expert testimony, and sentencing alternatives.
Chapter 6 focuses on intimate partner homicide (IPH). Hamel, Dutton, and Lysova
provide an in-depth view of IPH, including prevalence, context, risk factors, and motivation for
IPV perpetration. The authors note differences in types of IPV and how situational couple
violence differs from intimate terrorism and address male-perpetrated and female-perpetrated
IPH in the context of intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and self-defense. The authors also
explore risk factors and personality as predictors of IPH, along with a review of the battered
woman’s syndrome within an IPH context. Similarities and differences across the sexes are
provided in conjunction with implications for prosecutors and defense attorneys charged with
adjudicating these cases. The last chapter in this section pertains to jury decision-making in IPV
and overcoming bias in the courtroom (see Russell & McKimmie, Chapter 7). This chapter
covers critical issues for the jury in cases of IPV. Issues address self-defense in confrontational
and non-confrontational issues, why victims do not leave their abuser, motivations for IPH, the
gendered nature of IPV, and the role of stereotypes and scripts in jury decision making. A
summary of the literature on jury decision-making in IPV cases is reviewed emphasizing non-
typical victims and perpetrators. The authors review the various ways in which jurors make
decisions individually and within groups. They explain how juror gender and expert testimony
of the battered person syndrome influence decisions in IPV cases and offer suggestions for jury
selection, reform, and future research.
Section three, Issues of Family Law, covers challenges and strategies in litigating IPV in
family law cases, custody and intervention recommendations, and child abuse and parental
alienation. Chapter 8 was written by an experienced practicing family law attorney in Southern
21
California. Pissara provides a unique look into the family court system by offering guidelines for
domestic violence. The author helps attorneys navigate the family court system and provides an
in-depth perspective on how domestic violence affects individuals and families. The author
provides recommendations of how custody determinations can be improved so that children’s
best interests are served. Chapter 9, written by Hamel and Baker, provides a gender-inclusive
framework surrounding custody and intervention recommendations in family law. The authors
approach IPV from perspectives of the child’s best interest and elaborate on the complexities of
family abuse. Child custody evaluation procedures, custody protocol, and child custody
recommendations are addressed for legal actors, child custody mediators, and evaluators, as the
authors provide an in-depth review of the complete process of the evaluation, interviews,
observation, to synthesizing data to ensure objectivity reduce potential bias. Lastly, in this
section Chapter 10 authors Harmon & Kruk examine parental alienation, gender bias, and child
abuse. They summarize the empirical research on these topics, draw parallels on how IPV and
parental alienation behaviors affect the victims of these behaviors, and examine similarities in
patterns and motives of abuse and their effect on children.
The fourth and final section—Evidence-Based Interventions, focuses on cutting-edge
gender-inclusive intervention strategies for legal actors, mediators, counselors, and restorative
justice practitioners. Hamel & Ennis (Chapter 11) provide ideas for evidence-based interviewing
protocols and risk assessment instruments to hold perpetrators accountable. Within this chapter,
Hamel and Ennis explore ways to gauge better the actual risk posed by IPV perpetrators through
evidence-based interview protocols and assessment techniques utilizing validated, reliable
instruments such as the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA and SARA v3), Brief Spousal
Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER), Ontario Domestic Assault Risk
22
Assessment (ODARA), Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG), Domestic Violence
Screening Instrument (DVSI) and Danger Assessment (DA). Similarly, Roberts (Chapter 12)
reviews RNR-Informed approaches to batterer intervention programs. Roberts addresses the
inconsistencies in most batterer intervention strategies and draws from her work in Washington
State that provides an alternative evidence-based approach to IPV treatment. She addresses the
risk, needs, responsivity assessment and treatment framework, behavioral assessment standards,
differentiated treatment model, core competencies, and a cognitive-behavioral treatment model
approach to standardize a core curriculum. Authors in Chapter 13 (see Chu, Bennett, Pollard, and
Babcock) examine the efficacy of couples and family interventions for IPV as safe and effective
interventions for couples experiencing situational couple violence. Their chapter addresses
perpetrator typologies, intervention programs such as restorative justice, family interventions for
witnessing IPV, and IPV prevention programs. The last chapter in this volume (Chapter 15), by
Barocas and Shimizu, provides an overview of restorative justice (RJ) theory and practice and
addresses the research on restorative justice in IPV cases. The authors review the history,
definitions in practice, the use of restorative justice to address IPV crimes, including crime
severity, various methods used, the timing of restorative justice, and the evidence-base for
restorative justice interventions.
This volume has two distinct purposes. First, it provides a novel approach by addressing
the gendered aspects of IPV and its effects within the legal system, practice, and intervention.
Second, this book provides a unique view of contemporary evidence-based research surrounding
the adjudication process of IPV. It offers ways to address the problems associated with
adjudicating IPV cases in practice and intervention to serve all IPV victims better and hold
batterers accountable. The book intends to demonstrate how the gender paradigm has affected
23
(and continues to affect) legal decision-making and practice, and the many ways in which
differential treatment exists within the context of IPV. We hope this text demonstrates that the
time to move beyond the gender paradigm is now. Armed with the current state of the research,
readers of this text have the knowledge and ability to do so. This book provides the expertise and
tools necessary to help us to become more cognizant of our own biases and ultimately more
inclusive in the adjudicative process and IPV intervention/prevention practice. The information
provided in this book provides a foundation from which we can learn and apply by developing
tools to improve research, policy, and practice allowing us to move forward toward eradicating
IPV and closer to equality. We recognize there are limitations and issues that may not have been
addressed. However, we hope this text demonstrates the need for a paradigm shift and revitalizes
the debate between traditional gendered perceptions of IPV and those who recognize that IPV is
no longer a gender-based crime, but rather a crime that exists beyond gender or sexual
orientation/identity. Ideally, this text can serve as a catalyst to spark discourse, empirical
research, and improve practice in the adjudicative processes of IPV that can lead to wide-ranging
political and ideological changes over time.
24
References
American Bar Association (2001). Know your basic rights: Domestic violence. Retrieved
12/24/21 from: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/public_
education/resources/domviol.pdf
American Bar Association Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence (2021). Recommended
legal reforms for inclusion in the U.S. national action plan on gender-based violence.
Retrieved 12/21/21 from: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/
domestic-violence/aba_nap-gbv_report.pdf
Babcock, J., Green, C., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work: A meta-
analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-
1053. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001
Babcock, J. et al. (2016), Domestic violence perpetrator programs: A proposal for evidence-
based standards in the United States. Partner Abuse, 7(4), 1-107. doi:
10.1891/1946-6560.7.4.355
Bond, C., & DePaulo, B. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 10(3), 214-234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
Boushey, G. (2016). Targeted for diffusion? How the use and acceptance of stereotypes shape
the diffusion of criminal justice policy innovations in the American states. American
Political Science Review, 110(1), 198-214. doi:10.1017/S0003055415000532
Buzawa, E., & Buzawa, C. (2002). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Buzawa, E.S., Buzawa, C., Stark, E. (2017). Responding
to Domestic Violence: The Integration of Criminal Justice Response & Human Services
(5th ed:). Sage Publications.
25
Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Criminalizing victimization: The unintended consequences of pro-
arrest policies for girls and women. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(1), 81–90.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00108.x
Cook, P. (2009). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence (2nd ed.) Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Corvo, K., & Johnson, P. (2012). An eye for an eye: Gender revanchisme and the negation of
attachment in domestic violence policy. Partner Abuse, 3(1), 89-106.
doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.1.89
DeLeon-Granados, W., Wells, W., & Binsbacher, R. (2006). Arresting developments: Trends in
female arrests for domestic violence and proposed explanations. Violence Against
Women, 12(4), 355-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206287315
Dempsey, B. (2013). Men’s experiences of domestic abuse in Scotland. Published by Abused
Men in Scotland. Retrieved 12/9/2019 from:
https://www.academia.edu/7317930/Mens_experience_of_domestic_abuse_in_Scotland_
Full_Report
Davis, R. L. (2008). Domestic violence: Intervention, prevention, policies, and solutions.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Dixon, L, Archer, J., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2012). Perpetrator programmes for partner violence:
Are they based on ideology or evidence? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 196-
215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02029.x
Dobash, R.& Dobash, E. (1979), Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy.
Dobash, E., & Dobash, R. (1988). Research as social action: The struggle for battered women.
In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist Perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 51-74).
26
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Douglas, H. (2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal
Justice, 18(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817728380
Douglas, E., & Hines, D. (2011). The help-seeking experiences of men who sustain intimate
partner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice. Journal of
Family Violence, 26, 473-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9382-4
Dragiewicz, M. (2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fathers’ rights and anti-VAWA activism. Feminist
Criminology, 3(2), 121–144.
Dutton, D. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and
Victims, 9(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085108316731
Dutton, D. & Nicholls, T. (2005; Spt.-Oct.), The Gender Paradigm in Domestic Violence
Research and Theory: The Conflict of Theory and Data. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 10, 680-714. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001
Dutton, D., Corvo, K., & Hamel, J. (2009). The gender paradigm in domestic violence
research and practice, part II: The information website of the American Bar Association.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 30-38. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.08.002
Eckhardt, C. I., Murphy, C. M., Whitaker, D. J., Sprunger, J., Dykstra, R., & Woodard, K.
(2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of
intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4(2), 196-231. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.4.2.175.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2017). Table 42: Arrests by sex, 2017. Crime in the United
States, 2017. Retrieved from: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-
2017/topic-pages/tables/table-42
Follingstad, D., DeHart, D., & Green, E. (2004). Psychologists’ judgements of psychologically
27
aggressive actions when perpetrated by a husband versus a wife. Violence and Victims,
19(4), 435-452. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.4.435.64165
Hamberger, K., Lohr, J., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. (1997). An empirical classification of
motivations for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 3, 401–423. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801297003004005
Hamel, J. (2009). Toward a Gender-Inclusive Conception of Intimate Partner Violence
Research and Theory: Part II – New Directions. International Journal of Men’s Health,
8(1), 41-59. doi: 10.3149/jmh.0801.41
Hamel, J. (2011). In dubious battle: The politics of mandatory arrest and dominant aggressor
laws. Partner Abuse, 2(2), 224-245. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.2.2.224
Hamel, J. (2016). In the best interests of children: What family law attorneys should know
about domestic violence. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,
Vol. 28, 201-228.
Hamel, J. (2020). Perpetrator or victim? A review of the complexities of domestic violence
cases. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 12(2), 55-62.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-12-2019-0464
Hamel, J. (2020). Explaining symmetry across sex in intimate partner violence: Evolution,
gender roles, and the will to harm. Partner Abuse, 11(3), 228-267. doi: 10.1891/PA-
2020-0014
Hamel, J., Desmarais, S. L., & Nicholls, T. L. (2007). Perceptions of motives in intimate partner
violence: Expressive versus coercive violence. Violence and Victims, 22(5), 563-576. doi:
10.1891/088667007782312113
Hamel, J., Desmarais, S.L., Nicholls, T.L., Malley-Morrison, K., & Aaronson, J. (2009, July).
28
Domestic violence and child custody: Are family court professionals’ decisions based on
erroneous beliefs? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1(2), 37-52.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17596599200900011
Hamel, J., & Russell, B. (2013). The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Implications
for law enforcement responses to domestic violence. In: B. Russell (Ed.), Perceptions of
Female Offenders: How Stereotypes and Social Norms Affect Criminal Justice Responses
(pp. 151-180). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5871-5
Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. (2015). Exploring the nature and origin of beliefs about deception:
Implicit and explicit knowledge among lay people and presumed experts. In: P.
Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and
cognitive approaches (pp. 125-154). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
Hine, B., Noku, L., Bates, E.A., & Jayes, K. (2020). But, who is the victim here? Exploring
judgements toward hypothetical bidirectional domestic violence scenarios. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520917508
Hines, D. (2014). Extent and implications of the presentation of false facts by domestic violence
agencies in the United States. Partner Abuse, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-
6560.5.1.69
Hines, D., Douglas, E., & Berger, J. (2015). A self-report measure of legal and administrative
aggression within intimate relationships. Aggressive Behavior, 41(4), 295-309.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21540
Hirschel, D., & Buzawa, E. (2002). Understanding the context of dual arrest with directions
for future research. Violence Against Women, 8, 1449–1473.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102237965
29
Hotaling, G., & Buzawa, E. (2003). Foregoing criminal justice assistance: The non-reporting
of new incidents of abuse in a court sample of domestic violence victims
(NIJ Publication No. 195667). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
International Association of Chiefs of Police (2017). Intimate partner violence response policy
and training content guidelines 6. Retrieved from:
https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/i-j/IACPIntimatePartnerViolenceResponse
PolicyandTrainingGuidelines2017.pdf
Kang, M., Lessard, D., Heston, L., & Nordmaken, S. (2017). Introduction to women, gender,
sexuality studies. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved from:
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=wost_ed_mat
erials.
Kimmel, M. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and
methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102237407
Kotrla, K. (2010). Domestic minor sex trafficking in the United Sates. Social Work, 55, 181-
187. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/55.2.181
Leisenring, A. (2008). Controversies surrounding mandatory arrest policies and the police
response to intimate partner violence. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 451-
466.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00095.x
Lysova, A., Hanson, K., Hines, D., Dixon, L., Douglas, E., & Celi, E. (2020). A qualitative
study of the male victims’ experiences with the criminal justice response to intimate
partner abuse in four English-speaking countries. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20
(10), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820927442
McMahon, M., & Pence, E., (2003). Making social change: Reflections on individual and
30
institutional advocacy with women arrested for domestic violence. Violence Against
Women, 9(1), 47-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801202238430
Miller, S., (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence. Violence Against
Women, 7, 1339-1376. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010122183900
Mills, L. G. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
National District Attorneys Association (2017). National Domestic Violence Prosecution Best
Practices Guidelines. Retrieved 1/14/21 from: NDAA_National-DV-Prosecution-Best-
Practices-Guide_3-16-2017.pdf (ncdsv.org)
Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (1993), Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New
York: Springer.
Rudd, J. (2001). Dowry-Murder: An example of violence against women. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 24(5), 513-522.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(01)00196-0
Russell, B. (2010), Battered Woman Syndrome as a Legal Defense: History, Effectiveness and
Implications, McFarland & Company, Inc, Jefferson, NC.
Russell, B., & Torres, C. (2020). Identifying and responding to LGBT+ intimate partner
violence from a criminal justice perspective. In B. Russell (Ed.), Intimate Partner
Violence and the LGBT+ Community (pp. 257-280). New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44762-5_14
Shernock, S., & Russell, B. (2012). Gender and racial/ethnic differences in criminal justice
decision making in intimate partner violence cases. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 501-530. doi:
10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.501
Sleath, E., & Smith, L. (2016, January). Understanding the factors that predict victim retraction
31
in police reported allegations of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 7(1),
140-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000035
Stark, E. (2002). The battered mother in the child protective service caseload: Developing
an appropriate response. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 23(2), 107–131.
Straus, M. & Gelles, R. (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers.
Swan, S., Gambone, L., Caldwell, J., Sullivan, T., & Snow, D. (2008). A review of research on
women’s use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 23(3), 302-
314. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.23.3.301
Tsui, V., Cheung, M., & Leung, P. (2010). Help-seeking among male victims of partner abuse:
Men’s hard times. Journal of Community Psychology, 38 (6), 769-780.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20394
Wood, J. (2013). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culure. Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.
Young, C., Cook, P., Smith, S., Turteltaub, J., & Hazelwood, L. R. (2007). Domestic violence:
New visions, new solutions. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions
in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment
(pp. 601–620). New York: Springer Publishing.
