Do Government-Sponsored Programs for the Perpetrators of Domestic Violence help in Curbing this Practice? (Research Paper Sample)

Do Government-Sponsored Programs for the Perpetrators of Domestic Violence help in curbing this Practice?
Introduction
The domestic violence perpetrators that are apprehended by the criminal justice system are usually predominantly male. Research studies have revealed that approximately 86 percent of domestic abusers that are charged in Britain are male. In a recent research into domestic violence, it was established less than 8% of female participants in the research admitted that they were the perpetrators of violence in their homes. The jurisdictions with greater numbers of female violators and male victims of domestic violence generally include greater numbers of non-intimate domestic violence situations. The latter characteristically involve more mature victims with their mature children being the perpetrators of violence.
Most researches into domestic violence have established that the majority of perpetrators are between 19 and 35 years old, with an average age of roughly 33 years. A large Cardiff study of domestic violence perpetrators which was partially based on protective orders and police incident reports discovered that 33 percent of the offenders were 20 to 29 years old, with slightly more (35 percent) were between 31 and 40 years old. As is the case with the incidence of all crimes, there is a connection between domestic violence and the abuse of alcohol and drugs (Anderson 2010). This does not mean that alcoholism and drugs are responsible for domestic violence. A London night arrest discovered that 92 percent of violent men used alcohol or drugs on the day of the physical attack, and almost half of them were reported by family members to have been abusing alcohol or drugs for more than 30 days previously.
Other studies have discovered a lower but still considerable prevalence of substance use in cases of domestic violence. For instance, a Wales arrest study discovered that drugs or alcohol, or both, were involved in 40 percent of the arrests based on domestic violence. A domestic violence casualty review research conducted in London established that drugs as well as alcohol were present in 60 percent of 45 domestic violence homicides between 1994 and 1997. Two reviews, one of state correctional institutions in 1991 and the other of prisons in 1995, established that more than 50% of the men that were incarcerated for domestic violence confessed to using drugs or drinking at the time of their violent episode. Self-reports from wife batterers in Cardiff revealed that 16 to 19 percent confessed to having a drug addiction.
Interviews conducted with more than 100 British female victims who phoned the police to report domestic assaults established that abuser drunkenness was the constant predictor of the distress call. According to the domestic violence victims, more than a quarter of the domestic abusers were said by their long suffering spouses to get drunk "very frequently" or were "nearly always drunk”. The spouses also volunteered that 50% of the domestic violence perpetrators were binge drinkers, 29.3% abused cocaine on a monthly basis, and more than a third (39%) were users of marijuana. In addition, almost two-thirds of wife batterers were found to be drinking when arrested, with most having drunk an average of approximately seven drinks, resulting in drunkenness.
The existence of alcohol and drug abuse makes continued felonious behavior more likely. Even though sobriety may not eradicate the possibility of re-abuse, past studies indicate that it may be an essential ingredient (Williams 2005). Moreover, it has been established that batterers are no more likely to have mental disorders than the rest of the population (Wendt 2009). Different researchers have tried to categorize abusers as either quiet "cobras”, aggressive "pit bulls" or "dysphoric/borderline" persons. However, any efforts to use these categorizations to forecast the risk of re-abuse have been unsupportive. Nevertheless, researchers concur that batterers may vary distinctly from each other. Even though some wife batterers may seem to be emotionally distraught when to reacting to the queries of police officers, other batterers present a calm temperament and even offer the police refreshments. Other researches state that domestic batterers can be categorized as moderate, low-, and high-level abusers. They also state that contrary to general belief, batterers stay in these groups.
The reality is that abuser deportment at the scene, particularly when compared to traumatized and distraught victims, can be deceptive. Multiple researches have not been able to authenticate any categorization of battering inclinations based on behavioral types or mental disorders (Wilson and Klein 2006). Battering does not seem to be a mental abnormality and is not receptive to mental health psychotherapy (Cullerton-Sen, Murray-Close, Cassidy, Cichetti, Crick and Rogosch 2008). Although domestic batterers may frequently experience low self-esteem or depression after being detained, these conditions do not usually cause the occurrence of abuse or stop it.
How many abusers are likely to do it again?
Researches have established that in spite of incarceration, a hard core of about one-third of domestic abusers are likely to re-abuse their spouses once they are released. In a London research conducted among the spouses of imprisoned abusers who were released, it was found that 38.4 % of abusers were detained for new domestic violence transgressions within a year of being put on probation control for a domestic violence felony. Domestic violence batterer programs based in London also proved re-abuse was very common in the 19 to 35 age group of domestic batterers of all ethnicities.
Where researches have discovered significantly less re-arrest rates among abusers, it seems the lower rate is the consequence of inadequate police check ups and not abuser behavior. In these areas, victims testify of frequent re-abuse, in spite of low re-arrest rates (Haaken 2010). For instance, studies of more than 100 abused spouses in Cardiff discovered that, while only 4 to 6 percent of their abusive husbands were detained for re-abuse in one year, 31 percent of the wives reported being battered during the next year; with half of that number being strangled, burned, or seriously injured, and 16 percent being threatened or stalked. Similarly, in a London study about domestic cases in courts, only 15 to 16 percent of the defendants found guilty of domestic violence violations were detained after a year (Wilkinson and Hamerschlag 2005).
The re-abuse of wives is substantially higher when long-term research is conducted. A Massachusetts research tracked 350 male batterers who were imprisoned for mistreating their female intimate partners over ten years between 1995 and 2005. The study established that 60 percent of the offenders were rearrested for a domestic attacks or had restraining orders taken out against them, though some batterers went two to three years between arrests (Ghasemi 2009). It is safe to presume that, the classic abuser who comes to the law enforcement’s attention has a high probability of continuing to mistreat the same or another victim, in the short term and over the coming years (Grossman and Lundy 2007). Although observational researches differ on records of re-abuse, there is a common consensus that accounts of re-abuse are substantially lower in number than actual re-abuse cases.
The characteristic abuser who reaches the prosecutor's office has considerable a probability of maintaining his abuse. While prosecuting particular or discrete domestic abuse incidents, prosecutors should counsel for sentences that take into account the long-term cycles of criminal behavior and that are based on the risks of re-abuse (Banks, Landsverk and Wang 2008).
When are abusers likely to re-abuse?
Studies concur that for those abusers who abuse their spouses again, the bulk of them do so soon after being released from their imprisonment. In cities where no-contact orders are routinely imposed after an apprehension for domestic crimes, re-arrests for the violations of such orders start to take place immediately after the defendant's discharge from the court or police station (Bhuyam 2008). For instance, in a London misdemeanor arrest research, the greater part of defendants re-arrested for new crimes were detained while their first abuse cases were awaiting the court’s ruling (Dobash and Dobash 2011). Similarly, more than one-third of the probationers in a London study who were re-arrested for domestic aggression were re-arrested in two months after being put under probation custody. Approximately 60 percent of the probationers were detained in six months.
Domestic Violence Perpetrator programs
A study of domestic abusers referred to batterer programs discovered that half of the condemned men re-assaulted their partners within four months of batterer program intake. Arrests and inclusions in perpetrator programs is only the initial step into the process of stopping domestic abuse. Other countermeasures have to be started immediately, even when the suspect is discharged pending trial. Focusing on the men that are already under arrest for domestic violence gives law enforcement the means to aim at a high-risk group of abusers who are inexplicably likely to abuse their spouses again (Feder and Dugan 2004).
If abusers are routinely discharged while awaiting trial, the most susceptible victims are likely to be re-abused by the nastiest abusers (Baker, Billhardt, Warren, Rollins and Glass 2010). This re-abuse may also restrain consequent victim collaboration with the prosecutors, leading to successive dismissals due to the lack of prosecution (Kelley, Klostermann, Doane, Mignone, Lam, Fals-Stewart and Padilla 2010). This will further push the abusers to maint...