Arguments Against Mandatory Arrest Laws

Many relationships suffer from domestic abuse. Within these relationships there is an imbalance of power, evident when one of the partners believes to have authority over the other. This superiority can be expressed either physically, psychologically, or a combination of both. According to the NACDV on average 20 people per minute, in the U.S., are victims to intimate partner violence. Statistics such as these emphasize the need to resolve this issue as a whole. Once viewed as a private affair has transformed into a public matter demanding the joint efforts of the community, law enforcement, and justice system. The approach many state governments have taken in their fight against domestic violence are mandatory arrest laws. Introduced during

Consequently, with the implementation of these policies there was a prominent spike in female arrestees, a large portion of these arrestees were verified in committing violent acts, however they acted as a form of self defense (Catalano et. al). States that practice mandatory arrest laws experienced a decline in victim reports, yet an increase, of 60%, in intimate partner homicides (Iyengar). Many domestic abuse victims call in order to put an end to the immediate situation, but a large portion of these victims do not desire for their partner to be arrested. However, the essence of mandatory arrest laws requires police officers to make an arrest, whether the arrestee is the abuser, victim or both. These laws, enforce police officers to analyze and judge the situation at hand then decide whether the incident meets the qualifications for arrest. They are not expected to witness the event, yet their opinion is superior. In certain circumstances the victim’s preferences are disregarded dismissing their opinions as brainwashing courtesy of their abuser. Consequently, victims are portrayed as fragile and incapable of making rational decisions, thus indicating, “the state knows better than the victim what response is needed to stop the abuse” (Pavlidakis). However, with preferred arrest statutes, as implemented in several states such as California, the victim’s circumstances and preferences are

Preferred arrest laws were proposed in opposition against mandatory arrest laws, however, both laws are greatly similar to one another, assuming arrest is the answer, with the exceptions of certain crucial differences. Where these two laws diverge are their views towards mandatory arrest and the inclusion of victim’s preferences. With these policies, as the report is made the police enter the home with the presumption that an arrest is being made. Failure to arrest a party results in a mandated written report by the officer(s) on the scene explaining why arrest was avoided (Beck). While officers must prioritize the victim’s safety and wellbeing they must also take into consideration the victim’s preferences (Zelcer). Because officers are exposed to a small glimpse of their relationship the most informed is the victim and abuser. Therefore, by taking into account the victim’s preferences and circumstances the police will be better enabled to judge the situation. As stated by April Zeoli, “a victim’s preference for arrest predicts future violence,” victims that sincerely desired for their partners to be arrested were in greater danger of revictimization. A survey conducted by DomesticShelters.org, in 2016, revealed that 69% of victims suffered from further abuse despite having protection orders ensued. This survey