Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 45–70 | Cite as

Reconsidering Domestic Violence Recidivism: Conditioned Effects of Legal Controls by Individual and Aggregate Levels of Stake in Conformity

Article

Abstract

Social scientists examining whether stake in conformity conditions the deterrent effect of arrest for domestic violence recidivism have applied criminological theory to an important criminal justice issue. We extend this research with a discussion and multi-level analysis of the possible interplay between court dispositions and (a) an offender's stake in conformity, and (b) the proportion of “higher stake” residents in an offender's census tract of residence. The prevalence of re-arrest for intimate assault (misdemeanor and felony) is examined for 3110 suspects of misdemeanor intimate assault in Cincinnati. Findings reveal a significant main effect involving higher re-arrest likelihoods for arrested suspects with no formal charges filed against them. Results for the conditioned effects of court dispositions reveal significantly lower re-arrest likelihoods for higher stake offenders undergoing a counseling program (a predicted relationship), and significantly lower re-arrest likelihoods for lower stake offenders serving probation and/or jail (opposite to the predicted relationship). At the neighborhood-level, sentences of probation and/or jail correspond with significantly lower re-arrest likelihoods for offenders living in neighborhoods with more residentially stable populations (as predicted). We discuss the implications of our study for future research.

stake in conformity domestic violence recidivism multi-level analysis court dispositions 

REFERENCES

  1. Berk, R. A., and Freedman, D. A. (1995). Statistical assumptions as empirical commitments. In Blomberg and Cohen (eds.), Law, Order, Punishment and Social Control: Essays in Honor of Sheldon Messinger, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 245-258.Google Scholar
  2. Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., and Western, B. (1992). A Bayesian analysis of the Colorado Springs spouse abuse experiment. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 83: 170-200.Google Scholar
  3. Black, D. (1976). The Behaior of Law, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Blalock, H. (1979). Social Statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  5. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., and Nagin, D. (1978). Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., and Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? Amer. J. Sociol. 99: 353-395.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, Belknap/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., and Nickles, L. (1997). Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases with Reluctant Victims: Assessing Two Novel Approaches in Milwaukee. Final Report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., and Elliott, D. S. (1990). The role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police experiment. Criminology 28: 183-206.Google Scholar
  10. Elliott, D. S., Wilson, W. J., Huizinga, D., and Sampson, R. J. (1996). The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. J. Res. Crime and Delinquency 34: 389-426.Google Scholar
  11. Erez, E., and Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women's assessment of the criminal processing system's responses. Violence and Victims 13: 251-268.Google Scholar
  12. Fagan, J. (1996). The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits. Research Report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. Ferraro, K. J., and Boychuck, T. (1992). In Buzawa, E. S., and Buzawa, C. G. (eds.), Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 209-225.Google Scholar
  14. Ford, D. A., and Regoli, M. J. (1993). The Indianapolis Domestic Violence Prosecution Experiment. Final Report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Garner, J., Fagan, J., and Maxwell, C. (1995). Published findings from the spouse assault replication program: A critical review. J. Quantit. Crimin. 11: 3-29.Google Scholar
  16. Gottfredson, M., and Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Gottfredson, D. C., McNeil, R. J., and Gottfredson, G. D. (1991). Social area influences on delinquency: A multilevel analysis. J. Res. Crime and Delinquency 28: 197-226.Google Scholar
  18. Grasmick, H. G., and McLaughlin, S. D. (1978). Deterrence and social control (Comment on Silberman, ASR June, 1976). Amer. Sociol. Rev. 43: 272-278.Google Scholar
  19. Hagan, J. (1994). Crime and Disrepute, Sage, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Hagan, J., Simpson, J. H., and Gillis, A. R. (1987). Class in the household: A power-control theory of gender and delinquency. Amer. J. Sociol. 92: 788-816.Google Scholar
  21. Hagan, J., MacMillan, R., and Wheaton, B. (1996). New kid in town: Social capital and the life course effects of family migration on children. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 61: 368-385.Google Scholar
  22. Hanushek, E., and Jackson, J. (1977). Statistical Methods for Social Scientists, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Harrell, A. V. (1991). Evaluation of Court-Ordered Treatment for Domestic Violence Offenders. Final Report, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Hindelang, M. (1973). Causes of delinquency: A partial replication and extension. Soc. Prob. 20: 471-487.Google Scholar
  25. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press, Berkley, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  27. Kreft, I., and DeLeeuw, J. (1998). Introducing Multilevel Modeling, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  28. Krutschnitt, C. (1996). Contributions of quantitative methods to the study of gender and crime, or bootstrapping our way into the theoretical thicket. J. Quantit. Crimin. 12:135-161.Google Scholar
  29. Langbein, L. I., and Lichtman, A. J. (1978). Ecological Inference, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Maltz, M. D. (1984). Recidivism, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  31. Manski, C. F., and Nagin, D. S. (1998). Bounding disagreements about treatment effects: A case study of sentencing and recidivism. In Raferty, A. (ed.), Sociol. Methodol. pp. 99-137.Google Scholar
  32. Miles-Doan, R. (1998). Violence between spouses and intimates: Does neighborhood context matter? Social Forces 77: 623-645.Google Scholar
  33. Nye, F. I. (1958). Family Relationships and Delinquency Behavior, John Wiley, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  34. Packer, H. (1968). The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Pate, A., and Hamilton, E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade County spouse assault experiment. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 57:691-697.Google Scholar
  36. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., and Sherman, L. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Soc. Rev. 31: 163-204.Google Scholar
  37. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y., and Congdon, R. (2000). HLM5: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  38. Rebovich, D. J. (1996). Prosecution response to domestic violence: Results of a survey of large jurisdictions. In Buzawa, E. S., and Buzawa, C. G. (eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Reckless, W. C. (1961). The Crime Problem (3rd edn.), Meredith, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  40. Reiss, A. J. Jr. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 16: 196-207.Google Scholar
  41. Reiss, A. J. Jr. (1985). Some failures in designing data collection that distort results. In Burstein, L., Freeman, H. E., and Rossi, P. H. (eds.), Collecting Eûaluation Data: Problems and Solutions, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 161-177.Google Scholar
  42. Sampson, R. J. (1991). Linking the micro-and macrolevel dimensions of community social organization. Social Forces 70: 43-64.Google Scholar
  43. Sampson, R. J., and Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through the Life Course, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  44. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., and Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277: 918-924.Google Scholar
  45. Scheff, T. J., and Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Emotions and Violence: Shame and Rage in Destructive Conflicts, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.Google Scholar
  46. Shaw, C. R., and McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas, University of Chicago Press, IL.Google Scholar
  47. Sherman, L. W. (1992). The influence of criminology on criminal law: Evaluating arrests for misdemeanor domestic violence. J. Crim. Law and Criminol. 83: 1-45.Google Scholar
  48. Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. J. Res. Crime and Delinq. 30: 445-473.Google Scholar
  49. Sherman, L. W., and Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 49: 261-272.Google Scholar
  50. Sherman, L., and Smith, D. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 57: 680-690.Google Scholar
  51. Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., and Rogan, D. P. (1992a). Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas, The Free Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  52. Sherman, L., Schmidt, J., Rogan, D., Smith, D., Gartin, P., Cohn, E., Collins, D., and Bacich, A. (1992b). The variable effects of arrest on criminal careers: The Milwaukee domestic violence experiment. J. Crim. Law and Criminol. 83: 137-169.Google Scholar
  53. Silberman, M. (1976). Toward a theory of criminal deterrence. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 41: 442-461.Google Scholar
  54. Simcha-Fagan, O., and Schwartz, J. E. (1986). Neighborhood and delinquency: An assessment of contextual effects. Criminology 24: 667-703.Google Scholar
  55. Tittle, C., and Logan, C. (1973). Sanctions and deviance: Evidence and remaining questions. Law and Soc. Rev. 7: 371-392.Google Scholar
  56. Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. J. Crim. Law, Criminol. and Police Sci. 48: 12-17.Google Scholar
  57. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  58. Walker, S. (1998). Sense and Nonsense About Crime and Drugs: A Policy Guide (4th edn.), West Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont.Google Scholar
  59. Wells, L. E., and Rankin, J. H. (1988). Direct parental controls and delinquency. Criminol. 26: 263-285.Google Scholar
  60. Williams, K. R., and Hawkins, R. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical overview. Law and Soc. Rev. 20: 545-572.Google Scholar
  61. Zorza, J. (1992). The criminal law of misdemeanor domestic violence, 1970-90. J. Crim. Law and Criminol. 83: 46-72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Criminal JusticeUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnati
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceNorthern Kentucky UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations