Skip to main content
Log in

The impact of sentencing options on recidivism among domestic violence offenders: A case study

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Past domestic violence research has tended to focus on issues related to law enforcement responses. More recently, the focus has shifted to other components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecution and correctional responses, to determine the best way to reduce domestic violence. This project is a case study of 177 male convicted domestic violence offenders who were sentenced to one of five options: community corrections; jail; a suspended sentence; private counseling, a fine, or restitution; and advisement. The focus of this inquiry is on the likelihood of each sanction reducing future arrests and convictions for domestic violence. The results reveal that no one sanction is more effective than the other options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis.Criminology, 28, 369–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMaris, A., & Jackson, J. K. (1987). Batterers’ reports of recidivism after counseling.Social Casework, 68, 458–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. G. (1986). The outcome of court-mandated treatment for wife assault: A quasi-experimental evaluation.Violence and Victims, 1, 163–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edleson, J. L., & Grusznski, R. J. (1988). Treating men who batter: Four years of outcome data from the domestic abuse project.Journal of Social Service Research, 12, 2, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartin, P. R. (1995). Dealing with design failures in randomized field experiments: Analytic issues regarding the evaluation of treatment effects.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.),Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W. (1996).Multi-site evaluation of batterer intervention systems: A summary of preliminary findings. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1990). Recidivism following spouse abuse abatement counseling: Treatment program implications.Violence and Victims, 5, 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, M. (1984).Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, L. G. (1998). Mandatory arrest and prosecution policies for domestic violence: Critical literature review and case for more research to test victim empowerment.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C. M., Musser, P. H., & Maton, K. (1998). Coordinated community intervention for domestic abusers: Intervention system involvement and criminal recidivism.Journal of Family Violence, 13, 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, S. E., Brown, R. A., & Barrera, M. E. (1992). Group treatment program for abusive husbands: Long-term evaluation.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 276–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, M. (1992). Predicting batterer recidivism five years after community intervention.Journal of Family Violence, 7, 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Beck, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault.American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J., & Rogan, D. P. (1992).Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., Smith, D. A., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence.American Sociological Review, 57, 680–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinman, M. (1991). Arrest and recidivism among woman batterers.Criminal Justice Review, 16, 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syers, M., & Edleson, J. L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justice intervention in woman abuse.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 490–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thistlewaite, A., Wooldredge, J., & Gibbs, D. (1998). Severity of dispositions and domestic violence recidivism.Crime & Delinquency, 44, 388–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A., & Boruch, R. F. (1996). On the use of police officers in randomized field experiments: Some lessons from the Milwaukee domestic violence experiment.Police Studies, 19, 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill A. Gordon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gross, M., Cramer, E.P., Forte, J. et al. The impact of sentencing options on recidivism among domestic violence offenders: A case study. Am J Crim Just 24, 301–312 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887600

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887600

Keywords

Navigation