DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE
Family violence is against the law in
In recent years, several changes have been made to the Criminal Code to improve the ability of the criminal justice laws to address family violence, such as the adoption of the criminal harassment offense, the protection of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process -measures were put in place to prevent victims from being re-victimized by the system, e.g., bail decisions must take the safety of victims into account, and publication bans are now permitted to protect the identity of any victim or witness-, the requirement for courts to take into account the abuse of a spouse or a child as an aggravating factor in sentencing an offender for an offence.
Again, these reforms are insufficient and most of them do not specifically address the problems of domestic abuse.
NO DROP POLICIES
Charging and prosecution (“no-drop”) policies were
introduced in Canada in the early 1980s, beginning with federal guidelines
issued to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and federal and territorial Crown
prosecution offices in 1983. By 1985, some form of spousal assault policy was
in place in most of the provinces of
decision to proceed was not hers,
and thereby reduce the potential for violent recriminations. The ultimate goal
of the policies was to achieve a reduction in the incidence of spousal violence
in
The prevalence of such policies as a governmental response
to the problem of spousal abuse warrants a close analysis of their
effectiveness in achieving their stated goal reducing the incidence of spousal
abuse in
An analysis of the research literature reveals that the effectiveness of charging and prosecution policies in reducing domestic violence is the subject of considerable debate among social science researchers and academics. Much has been written about perceived deficiencies in the policies and the ways in which they are implemented, including the oft- made criticism that the policies serve to “re-victimize” the survivor of a spousal abuse incident. The policies remove the onus from the victim to lay charges against her abuser, thereby reducing the risk that the victim will be blamed by the abuser for the abuser’s prosecution. As a consequence, however, many victims feel disempowered by a legal process that deprives them of any say in the ultimate disposition of charges and which often operates against their wishes to withdraw from the system. It is somewhat ironic that charging and prosecution policies were in part implemented as a response to the perceived need for criminal justice professionals to treat domestic violence “like any other crime”. The deficiencies identified in these policies are frequently rooted in their failure to recognize that spousal assault is not a crime like others. Unlike violence between strangers, domestic violence victims may live with their assailants, often have strong emotional and financial bonds, often share children, and often do not wish the relationship to end. All of these factors create complications for victims, police officers and prosecutors that are seldom present in cases of violence between strangers (Martin & Mosher, 1999; Johnson, 1996; Ursel & Brickey, 1996). Research that evaluates how these participants in the criminal justice process view the effectiveness of “zero tolerance” policies is synthesized herein.
Studies directed at assessing the success of such policies in reducing the incidence of spousal abuse have produced mixed results, as have those studies attempting to gauge the
reactions of women, police, and Crown prosecutors to the implementation of the policies.
Moreover, some prominent feminist academics have called
for the abolition of the charging and “no drop” prosecution policies currently
in place throughout