Pragmatic Punitiveness: The Institutionalization of Criminal Domestic Violence Protection Orders

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Social & Legal Studies Pub Date : 2021-11-29 DOI:10.1177/09646639211061848
Veronica L. Horowitz, Ryan Larson, Allison Nobles, Victoria Piehowski, Joshua Page
{"title":"Pragmatic Punitiveness: The Institutionalization of Criminal Domestic Violence Protection Orders","authors":"Veronica L. Horowitz, Ryan Larson, Allison Nobles, Victoria Piehowski, Joshua Page","doi":"10.1177/09646639211061848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes the implementation of a domestic violence law in Minnesota that, in 2006, made the violation of a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order a felony-level offense. Since this legal change, the rate of conviction for Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order felonies skyrocketed with stark racial disparities among Black and Native American residents, relative to Whites. Analysis of case files reveals that Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order convictions result from a range of behaviors, from seemingly mutual contact between the defendant and protected party to serious physical violence. We argue that the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law facilitates pragmatic punitiveness for legal actors. It is easier for prosecutors to demonstrate contact occurred than to prove domestic assault. Yet, the penalty for a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order is as severe as the penalties for other domestic abuse-related crimes in Minnesota. Thus, the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law enables prosecutors to respond forcefully to domestic violence while avoiding additional burdens on their time and resources.","PeriodicalId":47163,"journal":{"name":"Social & Legal Studies","volume":"104 1","pages":"679 - 703"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social & Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639211061848","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper analyzes the implementation of a domestic violence law in Minnesota that, in 2006, made the violation of a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order a felony-level offense. Since this legal change, the rate of conviction for Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order felonies skyrocketed with stark racial disparities among Black and Native American residents, relative to Whites. Analysis of case files reveals that Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order convictions result from a range of behaviors, from seemingly mutual contact between the defendant and protected party to serious physical violence. We argue that the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law facilitates pragmatic punitiveness for legal actors. It is easier for prosecutors to demonstrate contact occurred than to prove domestic assault. Yet, the penalty for a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order is as severe as the penalties for other domestic abuse-related crimes in Minnesota. Thus, the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law enables prosecutors to respond forcefully to domestic violence while avoiding additional burdens on their time and resources.
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
实用主义惩罚:家庭暴力刑事保护令的制度化
本文分析了2006年明尼苏达州家庭暴力法的实施情况,该法将违反家庭暴力禁止接触令的行为定为重罪。自从这一法律变化以来,家庭暴力禁止接触令重罪的定罪率急剧上升,与白人相比,黑人和美洲原住民居民之间存在明显的种族差异。对案件档案的分析表明,家庭暴力禁止接触令的定罪是由一系列行为造成的,从被告和被保护方之间表面上的相互接触到严重的身体暴力。我们认为,《家庭暴力禁止接触令》有利于对法律行为者实施务实的惩罚。对于检察官来说,证明发生过接触比证明家庭暴力更容易。然而,在明尼苏达州,对家庭暴力禁止接触令的处罚与对其他家庭暴力相关犯罪的处罚一样严厉。因此,《家庭虐待禁止接触令》使检察官能够对家庭暴力作出强有力的反应,同时避免增加他们的时间和资源负担。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES was founded in 1992 to develop progressive, interdisciplinary and critical approaches towards socio-legal study. At the heart of the journal has been a commitment towards feminist, post-colonialist, and socialist economic perspectives on law. These remain core animating principles. We aim to create an intellectual space where diverse traditions and critical approaches within legal study meet. We particularly welcome work in new fields of socio-legal study, as well as non-Western scholarship.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Insecure Guardians: Enforcement, Encounters and Everyday Policing in Postcolonial Karachi by ZOHA WASEEM Book Review: Decolonisation and Legal Knowledge: Reflections on Power and Possibility by FOLUKE ADEBISI Everyday Healthcare Regulation: British Newspapers and Complementary and Alternative Medicine The Revolving Door of Im/Migration: Canadian Refugee Protection and the Production of Migrant Workers Legal Change and Legal Mobilisation: What Does Strategic Litigation Mean for Workers and Trade Unions?
×
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:481959085
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