Domestic Violence and Police

If at any point you feel unsafe viewing this website’s materials, you can leave the site quickly using our exit button in the lower right. Please note that this website will be saved in your computer's search history.

Brief History of the Police Response to Domestic Violence

In the early to mid 1900s, domestic violence was rarely addressed by the criminal-legal system. Police commonly treated domestic violence as a “private matter” and only between 3% and 14% of calls resulted in an arrest. In the 1960s and 70s, mainstream women’s liberation and battered women’s movement activists began to put pressure on law enforcement to adopt a more aggressive criminal-legal response to domestic violence. This, and general attitudes towards increased criminalization, resulted in states and jurisdictions enacting reforms such mandatory or pro-arrest and no-drop policies (allowing prosecution to move forward with charges even if the complainant drops charges or doesn’t cooperate), which took the discretionary power away from survivors and individual police officers.

The idea behind these policies was to hold police and the legal system accountable for treating domestic violence as a serious offense, and reinforce the societal interest in addressing violence against women. Additionally, these policies were intended to provide immediate protection for the victim and potentially protect them from future retaliation by taking the arrest and prosecution decisions out of their hands.

Criticisms and harmful consequences of the increased criminalization of domestic violence

Mandatory arrest policies were supported by a study done in 1984, the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, which concluded that arrest acted as a deterrent against future violence by the perpetrator. However, this study has since been widely criticized as having a small and non-representative sample size, short follow-up time, and not considering future violence against other victims. In fact, replicated studies have found that arrest does not act as a universal deterrent of recidivist behavior. Specifically, factors such as employment, marital status, race, and educational level have an effect on repeat violence. For some groups, recidivism rates even increase after arrest.

Pro-arrest policies and the increased criminalization of domestic violence had other detrimental consequences. There was an increase in dual arrests, or the arrest of both the survivor and the perpetrator, further traumatizing those who suffered from domestic abuse or who have defended themselves against abuse. BIPOC and LGBTQ+ survivors have been particularly victimized by these policing mechanisms. An aggressive, pro-arrest police response to domestic violence also may work to discourage survivors from contacting the police when they are in a violent or abusive situation. This is especially a concern in communities of color, and specifically Black communities, where a history of over-policing and police brutality makes survivors even more hesitant to report domestic violence to the police.

Importantly, mandatory arrest and no-drop policies take the decision-making power away from the survivor. Many survivors report that their desire is simply for the violence or abuse to stop, not necessarily for their abuser to be arrested or convicted. As a result, many survivors have expressed dissatisfaction with their experiences with law enforcement. In a survey by the National Domestic Violence Hotline, over half of the women reported believing that the police would make the situation worse, and only 1 in 5 women felt safer after contacting the police. Experiences with police also differ significantly by race. In one study, although 33% of the women rated the police as being helpful, none of the Black women rated the police helpful. Another study found that White women were more likely to report being satisfied with police response compared to Black women. 

Some potential alternatives to the current police response to domestic violence

Alternatives to a criminal-legal approach:

  • Restorative justice practices: bringing together the survivor, the perpetrator, members of the community, and a facilitator to determine the survivor’s needs and take steps towards remedying and repairing the harm caused to the survivor, rather than punishing the perpetrator.

  • Community-based approaches: investing in preventative programs that address the societal conditions that perpetuate violence and alleviate survivor dependency on an abuser.

    • Create supportive community networks, provide housing and financial assistance, invest in infrastructure and environmental improvements, enact workplace reforms, reduce perpetrator access to firearms.

Police response reforms: 

  • Mandatory action rather than mandatory arrest: police can choose from a variety of actions including:

    • Offering transport to a shelter or safe location.

    • Referring and connecting the survivor with resources such as legal aid, emergency financial support, domestic violence support or advocacy services, or other social services.

    • Mobilizing the survivor’s social networks for short-term protection.

    • Making an arrest or assisting the survivor in obtaining an emergency protection order, but only at the survivor’s request.

  • Second response teams: teams of victim advocates and social service providers that respond to the scene immediately following police officers’ primary response to provide crisis intervention, emergency treatment, and referrals.