Feminist Prosecutors and Patriarchal States
- First Online:
- 327 Downloads
In Prosecuting Domestic Violence: A Philosophical Analysis, Michelle Madden Dempsey focuses on the dilemma prosecutors face when domestic violence victims are unwilling to cooperate in the criminal prosecution of their abusive partners. Starting from the premise that the ultimate goal should be putting an end to domestic violence, Dempsey urges prosecutors to act as feminists in deciding how to proceed in such cases. Doing so, Dempsey argues, will tend to make the character of the prosecutor’s community and state less patriarchal and thus help stamp out domestic violence. This article analyzes two issues arising from Dempsey’s work: first, whether prosecutors can justifiably be viewed as representatives of their states and communities; and, second, how prosecutors committed to using their discretion to battle both domestic violence and patriarchy would go about determining in a particular case whether to pursue criminal charges against the wishes of a victim.
KeywordsDomestic violence Prosecutors Feminism
- American Bar Association. (2010). Model rules of professional conduct. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct.html. Accessed 11 November 2011.
- Bibas, S. (2009). Prosecutorial regulation versus prosecutorial accountability. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157, 959–1016.Google Scholar
- Burke, A., & Green, B. (2012). The community prosecutor: Questions of professional discretion. Wake Forest Law Review, 47, 285–317.Google Scholar
- Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence in the United States. United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1000. Accessed 11 November 2011.
- Crown Prosecution Service. (2009). CPS policy for prosecuting cases of domestic violence. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/domestic/domv.html. Accessed 11 November 2011.
- Crown Prosecution Service. (2010). The code for crown prosecutors. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/index.html. Accessed 11 November 2011.
- Davis, A. (2007). Arbitrary justice: The power of the American prosecutor. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Davis, K. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
- Dunahoe, A. (2005). Revisiting the cost-benefit calculus of the misbehaving prosecutor: Deterrence economics and transitory prosecutions. New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 61, 45–110.Google Scholar
- Ellison, L. (2003). Responding to victim withdrawal in domestic violence prosecutions. Criminal Law Review, 70, 760–772.Google Scholar
- Epstein, D. (2002). Procedural justice: Tempering the state’s response to domestic violence. William & Mary Law Review, 43, 1843–1905.Google Scholar
- Epstein, D., Bell, M., & Goodman, L. (2003). Transforming aggressive prosecution policies: Prioritizing victims’ long-term safety in the prosecution of domestic violence cases. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, 11, 465–498.Google Scholar
- Fischer, K., Vidmar, N., & Ellis, R. (1993). The culture of battering and the role of mediation in domestic violence cases. Southern Methodist University Law Review, 46, 2117–2174.Google Scholar
- Goodmark, L. (2009). Autonomy feminism: An anti-essentialist critique of mandatory interventions in domestic violence cases. Florida State University Law Review, 37, 1–48.Google Scholar
- Johnson, M. (2010). Balancing liberty, dignity, and safety: The impact of domestic violence lethality screening. Cardozo Law Review, 32, 519–580.Google Scholar
- Joy, P. (2006). The relationship between prosecutorial misconduct and wrongful convictions: Shaping remedies for a broken system. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 399–429.Google Scholar
- Kinports, K. (2004). So much activity, so little change: A reply to the critics of battered women’s self-defense. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 23, 155–191.Google Scholar
- LaFave, W., Israel, J., King, N., & Kerr, O. (2007). Criminal procedure. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
- Lorde, A. (1984). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In Sister outsider: Essays and speeches by Audre Lorde (pp. 110–113). Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press.Google Scholar
- Maguigan, H. (2003). Wading into Professor Schneider’s “murky middle ground” between acceptance and rejection of criminal justice responses to domestic violence. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, 11, 427–445.Google Scholar
- Miller, M., & Wright, R. (2008). The black box. Iowa Law Review, 94, 125–196.Google Scholar
- Raz, J. (1984). Legal principles and the limits of law. In M. Cohen (Ed.), Ronald Dworkin and contemporary jurisprudence (pp. 73–87). London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
- Sack, E. (2004). Battered women and the state: The struggle for the future of domestic violence policy. Wisconsin Law Review, 2004, 1657–1740.Google Scholar
- Schneider, E. (2000). Battered women and feminist lawmaking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (Eds.). (1999). Coordinating community responses to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Thompson, A. (2002). It takes a country to prosecute. Notre Dame Law Review, 77, 321–372.Google Scholar
- United States Department of Justice (1997). United States attorneys’ manual. http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/. Accessed 11 November 2011.
- Wills, D. (1997). Domestic violence: The case for aggressive prosecution. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 7, 173–182.Google Scholar
- Wright, R. (2009). How prosecutor elections fail us. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 581–610.Google Scholar