Disparities in court orders to relinquish firearms in civil domestic violence protection orders

IF 4.1 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Criminology & Public Policy Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12693
Julie M. Kafka, Alice M. Ellyson, N. Jeanie Santaularia, Avanti Adhia, Alberto Ortega, Sandra Shanahan, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Deirdre Bowen
{"title":"Disparities in court orders to relinquish firearms in civil domestic violence protection orders","authors":"Julie M. Kafka,&nbsp;Alice M. Ellyson,&nbsp;N. Jeanie Santaularia,&nbsp;Avanti Adhia,&nbsp;Alberto Ortega,&nbsp;Sandra Shanahan,&nbsp;Ali Rowhani-Rahbar,&nbsp;Deirdre Bowen","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research summary</h3>\n \n <p>To address firearm-related harms in the context of domestic violence (DV), federal law prohibits firearm purchase or possession for respondents in qualifying civil domestic violence protection order (DVPO) cases. Washington state further authorizes courts to order a DVPO respondent (i.e., the person who perpetrated DV) to relinquish firearms in their possession while a DVPO is in effect. Despite statutory guidelines about when to order firearm relinquishment, judicial biases or other structural factors may influence which DVPO cases include firearm relinquishment. Historically, U.S. laws and institutions have privileged White men with firearm access over minoritized individuals, but little is known about whether racial disparities exist in DVPO firearm relinquishment orders. We investigated racialized disparities in DVPO firearm relinquishment orders using a sample of 6290 granted DVPO cases from King County, Washington (2014–2020). Using logistic regression analyses, we found that White respondents had 30–50% times lower odds of being ordered to relinquish firearms compared with respondents who were Black (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6, 0.9) or Latine (aOR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4, 0.7). Disparities were attenuated in situations when it was statutorily mandatory for the DVPO to include a firearm relinquishment order, compared with situations when the order was discretionary, although disparities remained.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>Courts may privilege and protect firearm rights for White DVPO respondents compared with respondents who were Black or Latine. Considering that people who perpetrate DV pose a substantial risk for enacting violence in the home and in the community, DVPO firearm relinquishment should be ordered equitably and thoroughly, regardless of respondent race or ethnicity. Removing judicial discretion may improve the rate at which firearm relinquishment is ordered and mitigate disparities in firearm relinquishment based on respondent race or ethnicity, however, statutory mandates alone are not sufficient to address these problems.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":"24 3","pages":"405-427"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12693","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research summary

To address firearm-related harms in the context of domestic violence (DV), federal law prohibits firearm purchase or possession for respondents in qualifying civil domestic violence protection order (DVPO) cases. Washington state further authorizes courts to order a DVPO respondent (i.e., the person who perpetrated DV) to relinquish firearms in their possession while a DVPO is in effect. Despite statutory guidelines about when to order firearm relinquishment, judicial biases or other structural factors may influence which DVPO cases include firearm relinquishment. Historically, U.S. laws and institutions have privileged White men with firearm access over minoritized individuals, but little is known about whether racial disparities exist in DVPO firearm relinquishment orders. We investigated racialized disparities in DVPO firearm relinquishment orders using a sample of 6290 granted DVPO cases from King County, Washington (2014–2020). Using logistic regression analyses, we found that White respondents had 30–50% times lower odds of being ordered to relinquish firearms compared with respondents who were Black (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6, 0.9) or Latine (aOR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4, 0.7). Disparities were attenuated in situations when it was statutorily mandatory for the DVPO to include a firearm relinquishment order, compared with situations when the order was discretionary, although disparities remained.

Policy implications

Courts may privilege and protect firearm rights for White DVPO respondents compared with respondents who were Black or Latine. Considering that people who perpetrate DV pose a substantial risk for enacting violence in the home and in the community, DVPO firearm relinquishment should be ordered equitably and thoroughly, regardless of respondent race or ethnicity. Removing judicial discretion may improve the rate at which firearm relinquishment is ordered and mitigate disparities in firearm relinquishment based on respondent race or ethnicity, however, statutory mandates alone are not sufficient to address these problems.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在民事家庭暴力保护令中法院命令放弃枪支的差异
为了解决家庭暴力(DV)背景下与枪支相关的危害,联邦法律禁止在符合条件的民事家庭暴力保护令(DVPO)案件中被告购买或拥有枪支。华盛顿州进一步授权法院命令DVPO被告(即实施DV的人)在DVPO生效期间放弃其持有的枪支。尽管关于何时下令放弃枪支的法定指导方针,司法偏见或其他结构性因素可能会影响哪些DVPO案件包括放弃枪支。从历史上看,美国的法律和制度赋予白人男性比少数民族男性更大的持枪权,但在DVPO的枪支放弃令中是否存在种族差异却鲜为人知。我们调查了DVPO枪支放弃令的种族差异,使用了华盛顿金县(2014-2020年)6290个获批的DVPO案件样本。使用逻辑回归分析,我们发现白人受访者被命令放弃枪支的几率比黑人受访者(aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6, 0.9)或拉丁裔受访者(aOR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4, 0.7)低30-50%。在法定强制要求DVPO包括放弃枪支命令的情况下,与自由裁量命令的情况相比,差异有所缩小,尽管差异仍然存在。与黑人或拉丁裔受访者相比,法院可能会为白人DVPO受访者提供特权和保护枪支权利。考虑到实施家庭暴力的人对在家庭和社区中实施暴力具有重大风险,应公平彻底地下令放弃家庭暴力枪支,无论被调查者的种族或民族如何。取消司法自由裁量权可能会提高命令放弃枪支的比率,并减轻基于被告种族或民族的枪支放弃差异,然而,仅靠法定授权不足以解决这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
期刊最新文献
A pretrial release policy based on risk assessment would reduce unnecessary incarceration, increase racial fairness, and save money Law enforcement policies for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A mixed‐methods analysis RETRACTION: A Cluster Randomized Experiment of a Life Coaching Intervention Designed to Improve Correctional Officer Mental Health Issue Information Focused deterrence can reduce crime: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi‐experiments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1