Resources
Risk and Domestic Violence
by Dr. Neil Websdale

The Notion of Risk
In pre-modern societies, gods forbade certain forms of hazardous behavior. In these settings, societal notions of danger and taboo tended to regulate behavior. As scientific approaches gained ground, the notion of risk assumed greater significance. Scientific notions of risk therefore supercede older concerns about danger. When experts talk of risk, we are inclined to listen, partly because the word risk has overtones of scientific legitimacy.

The notion of risk emerged in the field of criminal justice in the last two or three decades. This emergence accompanied the tendency of agencies to share information and work more closely together. The concept of risk provided a means of developing a shared language across agencies. Identifying risk or the possibility or probability of dangerous or threatening outcomes was also part of a triaging process. This process purported to identify the greatest threats to the greatest number of people. Triaging also reflected the increasing need to spend tax dollars in a frugal manner, ideally matching expenditures with the greatest hazards. We see this economy throughout government. But with the massive growth of the criminal justice apparatus in the United States, we find growing concerns about how money is spent and whether it is used efficiently.

The fast expanding field of domestic violence is no exception. We now have shelters, orders of protection, mandatory or presumptive arrest policies, intensive probation for domestic violence offenders and federal laws providing relief and punishment hitherto unavailable. Many of our intervention policies rely on our discerning which offenders pose the greatest threat to victims of domestic violence. Ideally, we reserve significant incapacitation, such as long term incarceration, for the most threatening offenders. Prison is expensive. Incarcerating a domestic violence offender drains public funds and sometimes deprives victims of important sources of income for their families. Likewise, shelter services are in short supply. A shelter stay involves enormous upheaval in the lives of battered women and their children. Ideally, those women at greatest risk find refuge in shelters, if this is the path they choose.

Toward Informed Professional Interaction: Court Clerks and Victims of Domestic Violence
The criminal justice system is clogged with domestic violence cases. This is unfortunate because in many ways domestic violence is more a social, political, and economic problem than a crime problem. Nevertheless, when victims seek support in the form of criminal justice interventions against their abusers, they embark on a meaningful and potentially dangerous course of action. This action has consequences not only for themselves and their families but also for those working with them. It is essential that court clerks engage in informed professional interaction with those claiming to be victims of domestic violence.

Court clerks provide vital services for victims of domestic violence. Indeed, they stand at a crucial juncture in the lives of the people caught in the ebb and flow of violence and abuse. Circuit court clerks and their staff provide obvious administrative services that enable victims to negotiate the labyrinth of options the courts offer. These services concern matters related to the issuance of orders of protection, divorce and child custody, to name just a few. Clerks, however, provide much more. When victims turn to the courts for protection and redress, they often re-orient their entire lives. This takes enormous courage and energy. Victims often make these life-changing decisions when they feel particularly threatened or when they perceive that their children are in acute danger. They present courthouses with various problems, demands and challenges. They do not necessarily present themselves in a way that court personnel might perceive as helpful, autonomous, or polite. Often, these victims do not know what the court system requires of them. Having come from tyrannical regimes in their own homes, some victims find the authoritative aura in courthouses intimidating. It is incumbent upon court clerks and their staff to work with these victims in an understanding and humane manner. Imagine the victim is your daughter, sister, mother, son, brother or father.

In many ways, the ethical and legal imperatives of the courthouse make it challenging for court clerks and their staff to interact in a sympathetic and supportive manner with those who present themselves as victims of domestic violence. Court clerks process information, ideally in an accurate, timely, legal, and efficient manner. It is not for court clerks to decide who is a “genuine” victim and who is not. Even the appearance of striking up some kind of affinity or alliance with a victim creates a potential sense of impropriety. After all, it is not up to court clerks to judge the content of affidavits written in request of an order of protection. Rather, the professional court clerk ought to assume a neutral stance with regard to these matters. Neither is it within the job description of court clerks to coach those who present themselves as victims. Again, even the appearance of coaching might smack of impropriety or unethical behavior. It might potentially invite the wrath of alleged perpetrators as well.

Above all else, court clerks must maintain the neutrality of the courthouse and the objectivity of the law. It is these twin towers of impartiality that keep watch over our entire system of government. Put simply, neutrality and objectivity supposedly guarantee fairness and equal treatment for all. They also honor the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty. The courthouse logic of neutrality and our belief in the discovery of the truth through freestanding adversarial debate and argument are high ideals indeed. We know most criminal cases are not disposed of through freestanding debate. They are plea-bargained out. These realities do not diminish the virtues of our high ideal to search for the truth.

Domestic violence cases, however, are different. They cause us to think again about our ideals. In the really dangerous cases, and in many others, victims and perpetrators do not come before the court as freestanding adversaries. Rather, the victim often negotiates the courthouse under intense duress, a condition that the law recognizes as a form of defense. It is important for court clerks to realize this fact as they work with victims. If maintaining an impartial approach to victims means engaging in indifferent, cold, curt conduct, or displaying a seeming suspiciousness about claims of victimization then such an approach seems unnecessary and potentially cruel. More than this, they might tip the power imbalance in the troubled relationship even more in favor of the alleged perpetrator.

Specific Risk Markers
For the safety and security of everyone in courthouses, including possible victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, it is important that court administrative staff be aware of the risk markers. When a number of these markers are present, particularly the more significant ones, then severe or lethal violence is statistically more likely (see Websdale, 1999).

The first and most important red flag is a prior history of intimate partner violence. Numerous researchers assure us that this flag is the strongest predictor of serious injury or death. Under this broad umbrella of “prior history,” some researchers note the predictive significance of “choking” and “forced sex.” Using data from the Danger Assessment Instrument, Dr. Jacqueline Campbell and her colleagues found that compared with a control group of abused women, murdered women were forced to have sex 7.6 more times and were 9.9 times more likely to be choked (2003b: 17). Survey data from shelters and hospitals in Los Angeles and Dallas suggest that strangulation occurs late in the abusive relationship; thus, women presenting with complaints consistent with strangulation probably represent women at higher risk for major morbidity or mortality.

It is very important to determine whether victims experienced any actual or threatened violence with a weapon. Campbell’s research revealed a twenty-fold difference between murdered women and her control group regarding this red flag. Threats to kill a victim also correlate highly with lethal outcomes. Campbell found a fifteen-fold difference with respect to this variable.

Although prior intimate partner violence in many of its guises powerfully informs the debate on risk, it is also the case that significant numbers of women who die report no prior history of violence that researchers are able to later identify. For example, the Chicago Women’s Health Risk Study reports that in one in five cases of men killing female intimates, researchers uncovered no evidence of prior intimate partner violence (Block, 2003: 5). Block's observation does not undermine or diminish the importance of Campbell's research findings on prior intimate partner violence. Rather, Block's observations warn us to pay attention to cases with fewer obvious markers such as a prior history of intimate partner violence. Just because researchers fail to locate "prior history" does not denote the absence of this variable. It is also important to remember that women may strongly perceive their lives being under threat, even if they have experienced no violence. This is why it is crucially important to maintain open communication as far as possible to learn whether women feel their lives are under threat.

The research also reveals that women’s risk of lethal violence increases when they leave violent relationships. Carolyn Block observes that, “Three-fourths of homicide victims and 85 percent of women who had experienced severe but nonfatal violence had left or tried to leave in the past year” (2003: 6). Her attempt to leave was apparently the “precipitating factor in 45 percent of the murders of a woman by a man” (2003: 6). Given that many women approaching the courts are considering or actually exiting violent relationships, Block’s observation ought not precipitate panic. Nearly all victims of intimate partner violence exit these destructive relationships without suffering lethal violence. Nevertheless, it is prudent to exercise particular concern and vigilance when women leave acutely controlling men.

The research literature consistently identifies obsessive possessiveness or morbid jealousy as central to intimate partner homicides. Although most established couples are monogamous and somewhat possessive of each other, especially with regard to sexual relations, perpetrators of domestic violence are often extremely jealous and controlling. It is important to know whether extreme anger, life-threatening violence, and statements like “if I can’t have you no one else will” accompany this jealousy.

A perpetrator’s threat to commit suicide is also a noteworthy risk marker. In Campbell et al’s 11-city, case controlled study of femicide, she found an increased risk of homicide when the man is suicidal and there has not been any physical abuse” (Campbell et al, 2003b: 16). Barbara Hart, J.D., a leading advocate for battered women, sees batterers’ suicidal threats, ideations and plans as very significant risk markers (Hart, 1988: 242). These and other risk markers become all the more onerous if the battered woman plays a “central role … in the batterer’s universe…. Especially if the loss of the battered woman represents or precipitates a total loss of hope for a positive future.” Hart bases her insights on what she calls “experiential data,” rather than statistical research.

It is a widely held belief that excessive alcohol, and to a lesser extent, drug use, accompany intimate partner violence. In predicting dangerous and lethal outcomes, these variables figure prominently on nearly all risk assessment forms. Campbell et al found that women whose partners became "drunk every day or almost every day" were 4.1 times more likely to die than battered women whose partners did not engage in this behavior (Campbell et al, 2003b: 17).

Some research suggests that non-compliant perpetrators of domestic violence (e.g. those who snub authority, flout court orders) are more likely to use more serious forms of violence. The argument here is that these offenders have less to lose. Paying attention to the non-compliance is a virtuous practice in domestic violence cases.

Recent research reveals a clear association between unemployment and intimate partner homicide. One group of researchers comments that the abuser's lack of employment was associated with a four-fold risk of homicide (Campbell et al, 2003a: 1092). However, it is not enough to know unemployment status alone. It is much more useful to learn what the threat or experience of unemployment means to the offender.

According to Wilson and Daly the presence of children of other unions constitute, “a major risk marker for violence against wives” (Wilson and Daly, 1998: 226). These researchers draw attention to the fact that some batterers have a hard time raising children their partners have had with a previous man. Campbell et al (2003a: 1092) note “instances in which a child of the victim by a previous partner was living in the home increased the risk of intimate partner homicide.”

Risk assessors speak of "high risk" when a multitude of red flags appear simultaneously. Put simply, the more often the potent risk factors appear and the greater their intensity, the more likely pre-lethal violence or homicide becomes.

Conclusion
Being aware of the presence of risk markers in cases of domestic violence enables court clerks to make more informed decisions about the safety and security of all concerned. On the other hand, we should not think of risk markers as foolproof. They are not. It is vitally important to listen to battered women's statements about their own situation, especially if they report being in imminent danger. Clearly, court clerks are not in the business of conducting risk assessments or coaching those with whom they interact. Nevertheless, court clerks have a moral and ethical duty to provide a safe environment for those exercising their democratic rights to use the courts. Providing sensitive services and paying attention to the needs of all seeking services will make for a safer courthouse. An important goal is to work toward creating what I have called informed professional interaction with those seeking services.

References
Block, Carolyn Rebecca. 2003. “How can practitioners help an abused woman lower her risk of death?” NIJ Journal, Issue No. 250 pp 4-7.
 
Campbell, Jacquelyn C. et al, (2003a) “Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study.” American Journal of Public Health, July 2003, Vol 93, No. 7, pp. 1089-1097.

Campbell, Jacquelyn et al. 2003b. “Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide.” NIJ Journal, Issue 250: 14-19. 10.

Hart, Barbara. (1988). "Beyond the Duty to Warn: A Therapist's Duty to Protect Battered Women and Children." In Yllo, K. & Bograd, M. (Eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse. (pp.234-248). Newbury Park, California. Sage.

Websdale, N. 1999. Understanding Domestic Homicide. Northeastern University Press. Boston, MA.

Wilson, Margo and Martin Daly. 1998. “Lethal and Nonlethal Violence Against Wives and the Evolutionary Psychology of Male Sexual Proprietariness.” Chapter 8 in Dobash, R. Emerson and Russell P. Dobash (eds), Rethinking Violence Against Women. Sage. Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 199-230.

Dr. Neil Websdale is Professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University and Principal Project Advisor to and former Director of the National Domestic Violence Fatality Review Initiative. He has published work on domestic violence, the history of crime, policing, social change, and public policy. Dr. Websdale has published four books including: Rural Woman Battering and the Justice System: An Ethnography (Sage Publications), 1998, which won the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Outstanding Book Award in 1999; Understanding Domestic Homicide (Northeastern University Press), 1999; Making Trouble: Cultural Constructions of Crime, Deviance, and Control (Aldine Books, co-edited with Jeff Ferrell), 1999; and Policing the Poor: From Slave Plantation to Public Housing (Northeastern University Press), 2001, winner of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Outstanding Book Award in 2002 and the Gustavus-Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights Award in 2002. He is currently working on a book tentatively entitled Familicidal Hearts, due to be published by Oxford University Press in 2008. His social policy work consists of helping establish a national network of domestic violence fatality review teams. He has also worked on issues related to community policing, full faith and credit, and risk assessment and management in domestic violence cases. Dr. Websdale trained as a sociologist at the University of London, England and currently lives and works in Flagstaff, Arizona.