Research Summary: Mandatory and pro‐arrest policies in domestic violence incidents have increased strains on prosecutorial and court resources. They have also brought to prosecutors many cases in which victims never wanted batterers charged and prosecuted. Prosecutors are faced with the dilemma of (a) screening out difficult cases up front and expending resources on fewer but more winnable case or (b) prosecuting a larger number of cases as adequately as resources will allow. We studied a natural experiment that resulted when the Milwaukee prosecutor liberalized his screening policy to double the number of domestic violence case filings. After the new screening policy was implemented, time to disposition doubled, convictions decreased, the prevalence of pretrial crime increased, and victim satisfaction declined.Policy Implications: The results do not support the idea that domestic violence cases can be readily prosecuted without regard for victim desires. To commit to such a policy would require a substantial commitment of additional staff, resources to collect additional types of evidence, and a willingness to try a substantially larger number of cases.

During the late 1980s and 1990s, legal impediments to police officers making warrantless arrests in misdemeanor domestic violence cases were replaced by presumptive arrest statutes or statutes making arrest mandatory when probable cause existed. The changes in police practices related to domestic violence were paralleled by changes in the prosecution of these cases. So-called “no-drop” or “evidence-based” prosecution policies allow domestic violence cases to go forward even without (or in spite of ) the testimony of the victim. To date, however, there is little evaluation data that can be brought to bear on the wisdom of no-drop policies. The study reported here seeks to determine whether nodrop policies increase the rate of successful prosecution and conviction.

The points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association or its Center on Children and the Law.

Across the country, drug house abatement statutes have be- come a popular tool for reducing drug activities in targeted neighborhoods. These statutes vary in content; in the types of civil or criminal penalties that apply; and in the type of administrative/court proceedings and ap- peals available. Despite differences among the statutes, they share a common goal of ameliorating drug activity and holding landlords responsi- ble for ridding their properties of drug dealers and customers. Rather than target drug sellers directly, drug house abatement programs target prop- erty owners in order to curb the activities of residents. In this chapter, we focus on the reactions of property owners to abatement actions, drawing data from interviews conducted in two major studies of drug house abate- ment efforts. Property owners favor the goals of abatement programs, but resent being targeted by authorities. We conclude that efforts are needed by local officials to enlist property owners to work cooperatively with them in order to solve common problems.

The deterrent effect of arrest on domestic violence has been well researched. Still, many experts acknowledge that the effect of arrest needs to be examined within the context of whether and how cases are prosecuted and the sanctions that are imposed. To date, however, far less effort has been placed on understanding the deterrent effects of prosecution as opposed to the deterrent effects of arrest. The authors' work analyzes rearrest as a function of court disposition in a large sample (n = 1,133) of domestic violence misdemeanor cases. The authors' results show no effect of type of disposition on rearrest within a six-month period.

Laminin (Ln) isoforms may play important roles in neuronal development, particularly axon guidance, but neural receptors mediating interactions with Ln are not entirely understood. In this paper, we have compared the adhesive and process outgrowth activities of a human neuroblastoma cell line SY5Y on various laminin isoforms. Cell adhesion and process outgrowth were examined on murine Ln-1 (Englebreth-Holm-Swarm sarcoma laminin), human placental Ln-1 (human Ln-1[p]), human Ln-2 (merosin), human Ln-5 (kalinin/epiligrin/nicein), and human foreskin keratinocyte extracellular matrix extract (human HFK-ECM). Ln-5 was shown to evoke process outgrowth in amounts comparable to other Ln isoforms. Antibody perturbation experiments showed that adhesion and process outgrowth on murine Ln-1 was primarily mediated by the integrin alpha 1 beta 1, whereas adhesion and outgrowth on human Ln-5 and human HFK-ECM were mediated by alpha 3 beta 1. Adhesion to human Ln-1(p) and Ln-2 was not blocked by addition of anti-alpha 1 or anti-alpha 3 antibodies alone, but adhesion was partially perturbed when these antibodies were added in combination. Process outgrowth on human Ln-1(p) was blocked when either anti-alpha 3 or anti-beta 1 antibodies were added, indicating that alpha 3 beta 1 is the primary integrin heterodimer responsible for process extension on this substrate. These results demonstrate that Ln-5 and other Ln isoforms support comparable levels of adhesion and process outgrowth, but different integrin heterodimers, alone and in combination, are used by SY5Y cells to mediate responses.

Courts have adopted various methods to alleviate the strain. For example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has promoted better case management through its differentiated and expedited case management programs in selected courts across the country. BJA has also supported the efforts of State court leaders to maximize the operational effectiveness of trial courts through its Court Performance Measures and Standards Program. It has sponsored an analysis of recidivism patterns and long-term costs associated with this processing of cases through special drug courts. In addition, BJA’s structured fines program offers court leaders a viable alternative sanction to incarceration.

Victim impact statements have been widely heralded as a means of promoting victim involvement in criminal court decisionmaking and of increasing victim satisfaction with the justice process. This article reports on the results of a field test that examined the effects of impact statements on victim perceptions of involvement and satisfaction with the justice system. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) victims were interviewed and victim impact statements were written and distributed to court officials, (2) victims were interviewed but no statements were written, and (3) victims were not interviewed. No effects of victim impact statements were found on any of a multitude of measures of victim perceptions. The article concludes that, while impact statements are a relatively low-cost and noncontroversial way to involve victims, they might do little to promote satisfaction with the justice system.

This paper details the results of two studies that document the reactions of prosecutors and judges to victim impact statements. Criminal justice officials were asked for their views on the principle of introducing victim impact statements into the criminal justice system and were questioned about their experiences with a program to prepare and distribute victim impact statements. Both studies found that most prosecutors and judges support victim impact statements in theory. Yet, when presented with victim impact statements and asked to integrate them into their established routines, a significant proportion of officials resisted in various ways. Explanations for the observed resistance are explored.