Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 491–514 | Cite as

Increased homicide victimization of suspects arrested for domestic assault: A 23-year follow-up of the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment (MilDVE)

  • Lawrence W. ShermanEmail author
  • Heather M. Harris
Article

Abstract

Objective

To test for any long-term effects on the death rates of domestic assault suspects due to arresting them versus warning them at the scene.

Methods

The Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment (MilDVE) employed a randomized experimental design with over 98 % treatment as assigned. In 1987–88, 1,200 cases with 1,128 suspects were randomly assigned to arrest or a warning in a 2:1 ratio. Arrested suspects were generally handcuffed and taken to a police station for about 3 to 12 h. Warned suspects were left at liberty at the scene after police read aloud a scripted statement. Death records were obtained in 2012–13 from the Wisconsin Office of Vital Statistics and the Social Security Death Index, with the support of the Milwaukee Police Department.

Results

In the first presenting case in which the 1,128 were identified as suspects, they were randomly assigned to arrest in 756 cases and to a warning in 372. No clear difference in death rates from all causes combined (d = 0.04) was ever evident between the groups, or for five of the six specific categories of cause of death. However, a clear difference in homicide victimizations of the suspects emerged between those arrested and those warned. At 23 years after enrolment, suspects assigned to arrest were almost three times more likely to have died of homicide (at 2.25 % of suspects) than suspects assigned to a warning (at 0.81 %), a small to moderate effect size (d = 0.39) with marginal significance (two-tailed p = 0.096; relative risk ratio = 2.79:1; 90 % CI = 1.0007 to 7.7696). Cox regressions controlling for suspects’ stakes in conformity (employment and marriage) show that homicide victimization for arrested suspects is three times that of warned suspects (p = 0.07), although no interactions are yet significant. Logistic regression with more covariates increases arrest effects on homicide to 3.2 times more than warnings (p = 0.06).

Conclusions

Suspects randomly assigned to arrest died from homicide at a consistently higher rate than controls over a two-decade period, but the difference was not statistically discernible until the 22nd year after assignment. Long-term follow-up of randomized experiments is essential for detecting mortality differences that substantially affect cost–benefit analyses of criminal justice practices.

Keywords

Arrest Domestic violence Policing Randomized experiment Mortality-defiance theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Milwaukee Chief of Police Edward Flynn for his strong support of our data collection efforts; the late Police Chief Robert Ziarnik for his support of the original experiment; and David Mazeika and Brad Bartholomew for excellent research assistance. We also offer our appreciation for the excellent service provided to the followup data collection by Joyce Knapton at Wisconsin's Department of Health Services and Dan Polans and Carianne Yerkes of the Milwaukee Police Department.

References

  1. Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured Into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (1978). A Place on the Corner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 289–300.Google Scholar
  4. Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 698–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, T. J. (1990). Angry aggression among the “truly disadvantaged”. Criminology, 28(1), 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bushway, S. D. (1998). The impact of an arrest on the job stability of young white American men. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(4), 454–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, R. C. (2008). Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dugan, L., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law & Society Review, 37(1), 169–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos theory: Making a new science. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  10. Iyengar, R. (2009). Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence from mandatory and recommended arrest laws. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1–2), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobs, J. A. (2007). Further Reflections on ASR’s Greatest Hits. The American Sociologist, 38(1), 99–131.Google Scholar
  12. Kubzansky, L. D., Koenen, K. C., Spiro, A., III, Vokonas, P. S., & Sparrow, D. (2007). Prospective study of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and coronary heart disease in the Normative Aging Study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(1), 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29(2), 265–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lempert, R. (1989). Humility is a virtue: On the publicization of policy-relevant research. Law and Society Review, 23(1), 145–161.Google Scholar
  15. Massey, D. S. & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. American Psychologist, 33(3), 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCord, J. (1981). Consideration of some effects of a counseling program. In S. Miller (Ed.) New directions in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders (p. 394–405). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2002). The preventive effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: research, policy, and theory. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(1), 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nores, M., Belfield, C. R., Barnett, W. S., & Schweinhart, L. (2005). Updating the economic impacts of the High/Scope Perry Preschool program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(3), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oquendo, M., Friend, J. M., Halberstam, B., Brodsky, B. S., Burke, A. K., Grunebaum, M., Malone, K. M., & Man, J. J. (2003). Association of comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression with greater risk for suicidal behavior. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(3), 580–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pate, A. M., & Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade County Spouse Assault Experiment. American Sociological Review, 691–697.Google Scholar
  22. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 163–204Google Scholar
  23. Rubin, D. B. (1980). Comment on “Randomization analysis of experimental data in the Fisher randomization test” by Basu. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 591–93.Google Scholar
  24. Sampson, R. J., Winship, C., & Knight, C. (Forthcoming). Translating Causal Claims: Principles and Strategies for Policy-Relevant Criminology. Criminology and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  25. Sherman, L. W. (1984). Experiments in Police Discretion: Scientific Boon or Dangerous Knowledge? Law and Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sherman, L. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445–473.Google Scholar
  28. Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 261–272.Google Scholar
  29. Sherman, L. W., & Cohn, E. G. (1989). The impact of research on legal policy: the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. Law and Society Review, 23(1), 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sherman, L. W., Harris, H. M. (2013a). Effects of arrest over the life-course: A 24-year follow-up of the Milwaukee domestic violence experiment. Paper presented at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium, June 11th, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  31. Sherman, L. W., Harris, H. M. (2013b). Increased mortality of domestic assault victims after arrest of their partners: 23–year evidence from a randomised, controlled trial. Under Review.Google Scholar
  32. Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., Gartin, P. R., Cohn, E. G., Collins, D. J., & Bacich, A. R. (1991). From initial deterrence to long-term escalation: short–custody arrest for poverty domestic violence. Criminology, 29(4), 821–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., & Smith, D. A. (1992). Variable effects of arrest on criminal careers: The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83(1), 137.Google Scholar
  34. Sherman, L. W. & Smith, D. A. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 680–690.Google Scholar
  35. Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48(1), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ziliak, S. T., & Mccloskey, D. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: how the standard error costs us jobs, justice and lives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations