Victim or Offender? Heterogeneity Among Women Arrested for Intimate Partner Violence

Problem

The problem the study aimed to address: 

This study examined the rising number of female arrests for intimate partner violence (IPV) under mandatory arrest laws, exploring whether these women are primarily victims acting in self-defense or primary aggressors.

General impact on the system and/or public: 

The increasing arrests of women for IPV challenge traditional views of domestic violence and highlight potential gender biases and enforcement inconsistencies within the criminal justice system. Misclassification of offenders impacts service allocation, victim support, and legal outcomes.

Research Questions:

1. Are most women arrested for IPV victims of male-perpetrated violence?
2. How do subtypes of female IPV offenders differ in terms of relationship aggression, psychological functioning, family history, and criminality?
    

Method and Analysis

Program Evaluated: 

The study evaluated the typology and classification of women arrested for IPV, addressing gaps in understanding their motivations, relationship dynamics, and aggression patterns.
 

Data and Sample Size: 

• Sample size: 485 women convicted of IPV in Shelby County, TN (1999–2003).
• Data sources included self-reports, criminal justice records, and psychological assessments.
   

Analysis Used:

• Quantitative analysis of relationship aggression using scales for coercive control, physical aggression, and injury.
• Classification into IPV typologies using Johnson's (1995) framework (e.g., intimate terrorism, common couple violence).
• Comparative statistical analyses to identify subgroups and their characteristics.
   

Outcome

Key Findings:

1. Most women arrested for IPV were not primary aggressors. Male partners were significantly more likely to engage in coercive control and severe physical violence.
2. A small proportion (8–9%) of women were primary aggressors, often with histories of childhood abuse and early conduct problems.
3. Women subjected to coercive violence by male partners experienced greater psychological distress and more severe aggression than those in relationships with non-coercive violence.
4. Police and court records supported self-reported data on aggression patterns.
    

Implications or Recommendations: 

• The findings call for nuanced approaches to IPV enforcement and interventions that consider the heterogeneity among female offenders.
• Better training for law enforcement on identifying primary aggressors and considering the context of violence is recommended.
• IPV programs and policies should be adapted to address the needs of female victims misclassified as offenders.
   

This study provides valuable insights into the dynamics of female-perpetrated IPV, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and balanced criminal justice practices.