Hello,
Could you please read my essay and give me some feedback?
The prompt is:
Discuss your thoughts about "mandatory arrest laws" keeping in mind that over 40 states have them in the year 2007. Do you agree with them or not? Why?
Thank you in advance
Happy new year 2008
Frederic
-------------
Mandatory arrest laws play a prominent part in the US government's attempts to tackle the issue of domestic violence (Frye, Haviland, & Rajah, 2007). They have been created and adopted in order to compel police officers to arrest perpetrators of domestic violence even if victims do not intend to officially accuse their partner of abuse at the very moment of the offender's apprehension (Sengupta, 2001). These laws aim at clearly stressing the dedication of the American institutions as regards the management of offenders and the eradication of violence between intimate partners (Kennedy, 2005), in addition to homogenize the criminal justice agencies response to domestically violent acts (Frye, Haviland, & Rajah, 2007), in the short as well as the long-run. The practical effects of such a policy are briefly examined to evaluate its efficiency.
The practical effects of the implementation and subsequent enforcement of mandatory arrest laws have profoundly affected the statistics of domestic violence in the states having passed these laws. Surprisingly, according to Iyengar, the rate of homicides between intimate partners in states with mandatory arrest laws is twice as high as in states without them (2007). Moreover, contrary to what one may have surmised, the number and proportion of females who are arrested is higher than the number of males (Henning, Renauer, & Holdford, 2006). Consequently, it seems at first sight that laws that have been passed to protect battered females are completely beyond the point of their original purpose. What is at stake in those states is the relevance of such laws to safeguard abused partners.
On the one hand, the efficiency of mandatory arrest laws has seemingly been demonstrated. As a matter of fact, the sudden increase in the figures above-mentioned may be the result of a better apprehension of the reality of domestic violence in the USA. Indeed, Henning, Renauer, and Holdford claim that "rates more accurately reflect the true prevalence of physical aggression perpetrated by women" (2006). This contention presumes that the sole physical aggressiveness of males had been recorded, but now figures have encompassed the aggregate violent acts perpetrated by both males and females. However, other researchers have reservations about this alleged equal prevalence of violence in both sexes. For instance, Henning, Renauer, and Holdford highlight the possibility that arrested people have just employed violence as means of retaliation against their abusive partners (2006). Although the police have sometimes apparently lacked good judgement (mainly due to the fact they have not been fully aware of the desperate situation of the abused partner), women, in their great majority, have approved of the implementation of mandatory arrest laws (Smith, 2000). Accordingly, the overall impact of mandatory arrest laws on the management of domestic violence in the USA is rather positive despite awkward enforcement errors.
On the other hand, the relevance of mandatory arrest laws is also questioned. Thus, Henning, Renauer, and Holdford suggest that physically violent acts perpetrated by women are the direct consequence of the violence of their male partners, for the most part (2006). This assumption results from a study they have conducted and that aimed at establishing the initiators of violence among arrested women. Consequently, mandatory arrest laws may tend to induce a behaviour of "interpellation at all costs" among police officers even though this interpellation is only based on shallow evidence and allegations, for example, independently of the legitimacy of men who have immediately reported the violence of their spouse whereas their female partners customarily refuse to appeal to the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, although having been passed to protect abused partners, mandatory arrest laws give the impression of complete failure since researchers such as Smith argue that women may be tempted to condone the violent behaviour of their spouse to avoid undergoing retaliations from a partner who would experience incarceration because of their female partner's denouncement (2000). Therefore, the efficiency and subsequently the utility of mandatory arrest laws is far from being widely accepted and should be carefully assessed to check if they fulfil their initial requirements.
Furthermore, mandatory arrest laws have raised questions because they have quite unexpected consequences on domestic violence in the USA. A prime example of unintentional and noxious consequence of mandatory arrest laws is the increase in dual arrests. In their laudable endeavours to curb domestic violence in their areas, law enforcement agencies prefer to apprehend both partners rather than to arrest the wrong person (Sudderth & Dubois, 2005; Rajah, Frye, & Haviland, 2006). However, police officers take this risk and unfortunately arrest the partner who is usually abused because the abusers calls for the police to search revenge (Rajah, Frye, & Haviland, 2006). Therefore, mandatory arrest laws sometimes prove to be worse than the original evil for abused partners. That observation highlights, on the one hand, the difficulty for the police to enforce these laws and, on the other hand, the necessity to clarify the instructions for the police concerning the enforcement of these mandatory arrest laws.
Finally, mandatory arrest laws are somewhat ambivalent. Indeed, albeit the American authorities' intent was to improve the protection of people suffering from domestic violence, the enforcement of the legislation may turn out to enlarge the panel of weapons in the arsenal of perpetrators against their partners and, thus, intensify the misery and desperation of their victims. Admittedly, one may chastise the authorities, from the community level to the federal administration, and argue that nothing is really done to alter for the better the situation of victims of domestic violence. But, before castigating these imperfect efforts, I prefer to underline the conspicuous, actual endeavours of the American authorities to tackle this issue in spite of the flaws. This clearly denotes their willingness to change the situation and to continue in this way. Moreover, when fully beneficial policies are achieved it will reveal that the main underlying reasons at the origin of domestic violence will be found out, which will be useful for other uses. For instance, agencies operating covert operations would be able to generate or stop domestic violence at will in the couples of heads of state to destabilize foreign governments. Indeed, intelligence officers could develop tactics to initiate domestic violence between a head of state and his wife, and generate leaks in the national and international press. Accordingly, they could create a climate of suspicion about the reputation of this head of state on the international stage or at home and, thus, instigate political unrest against this politician during an election period. For example, what would Americans think if they knew that a presidential contender might be domestically violent?
Could you please read my essay and give me some feedback?
The prompt is:
Discuss your thoughts about "mandatory arrest laws" keeping in mind that over 40 states have them in the year 2007. Do you agree with them or not? Why?
Thank you in advance
Happy new year 2008
Frederic
-------------
Mandatory arrest laws play a prominent part in the US government's attempts to tackle the issue of domestic violence (Frye, Haviland, & Rajah, 2007). They have been created and adopted in order to compel police officers to arrest perpetrators of domestic violence even if victims do not intend to officially accuse their partner of abuse at the very moment of the offender's apprehension (Sengupta, 2001). These laws aim at clearly stressing the dedication of the American institutions as regards the management of offenders and the eradication of violence between intimate partners (Kennedy, 2005), in addition to homogenize the criminal justice agencies response to domestically violent acts (Frye, Haviland, & Rajah, 2007), in the short as well as the long-run. The practical effects of such a policy are briefly examined to evaluate its efficiency.
The practical effects of the implementation and subsequent enforcement of mandatory arrest laws have profoundly affected the statistics of domestic violence in the states having passed these laws. Surprisingly, according to Iyengar, the rate of homicides between intimate partners in states with mandatory arrest laws is twice as high as in states without them (2007). Moreover, contrary to what one may have surmised, the number and proportion of females who are arrested is higher than the number of males (Henning, Renauer, & Holdford, 2006). Consequently, it seems at first sight that laws that have been passed to protect battered females are completely beyond the point of their original purpose. What is at stake in those states is the relevance of such laws to safeguard abused partners.
On the one hand, the efficiency of mandatory arrest laws has seemingly been demonstrated. As a matter of fact, the sudden increase in the figures above-mentioned may be the result of a better apprehension of the reality of domestic violence in the USA. Indeed, Henning, Renauer, and Holdford claim that "rates more accurately reflect the true prevalence of physical aggression perpetrated by women" (2006). This contention presumes that the sole physical aggressiveness of males had been recorded, but now figures have encompassed the aggregate violent acts perpetrated by both males and females. However, other researchers have reservations about this alleged equal prevalence of violence in both sexes. For instance, Henning, Renauer, and Holdford highlight the possibility that arrested people have just employed violence as means of retaliation against their abusive partners (2006). Although the police have sometimes apparently lacked good judgement (mainly due to the fact they have not been fully aware of the desperate situation of the abused partner), women, in their great majority, have approved of the implementation of mandatory arrest laws (Smith, 2000). Accordingly, the overall impact of mandatory arrest laws on the management of domestic violence in the USA is rather positive despite awkward enforcement errors.
On the other hand, the relevance of mandatory arrest laws is also questioned. Thus, Henning, Renauer, and Holdford suggest that physically violent acts perpetrated by women are the direct consequence of the violence of their male partners, for the most part (2006). This assumption results from a study they have conducted and that aimed at establishing the initiators of violence among arrested women. Consequently, mandatory arrest laws may tend to induce a behaviour of "interpellation at all costs" among police officers even though this interpellation is only based on shallow evidence and allegations, for example, independently of the legitimacy of men who have immediately reported the violence of their spouse whereas their female partners customarily refuse to appeal to the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, although having been passed to protect abused partners, mandatory arrest laws give the impression of complete failure since researchers such as Smith argue that women may be tempted to condone the violent behaviour of their spouse to avoid undergoing retaliations from a partner who would experience incarceration because of their female partner's denouncement (2000). Therefore, the efficiency and subsequently the utility of mandatory arrest laws is far from being widely accepted and should be carefully assessed to check if they fulfil their initial requirements.
Furthermore, mandatory arrest laws have raised questions because they have quite unexpected consequences on domestic violence in the USA. A prime example of unintentional and noxious consequence of mandatory arrest laws is the increase in dual arrests. In their laudable endeavours to curb domestic violence in their areas, law enforcement agencies prefer to apprehend both partners rather than to arrest the wrong person (Sudderth & Dubois, 2005; Rajah, Frye, & Haviland, 2006). However, police officers take this risk and unfortunately arrest the partner who is usually abused because the abusers calls for the police to search revenge (Rajah, Frye, & Haviland, 2006). Therefore, mandatory arrest laws sometimes prove to be worse than the original evil for abused partners. That observation highlights, on the one hand, the difficulty for the police to enforce these laws and, on the other hand, the necessity to clarify the instructions for the police concerning the enforcement of these mandatory arrest laws.
Finally, mandatory arrest laws are somewhat ambivalent. Indeed, albeit the American authorities' intent was to improve the protection of people suffering from domestic violence, the enforcement of the legislation may turn out to enlarge the panel of weapons in the arsenal of perpetrators against their partners and, thus, intensify the misery and desperation of their victims. Admittedly, one may chastise the authorities, from the community level to the federal administration, and argue that nothing is really done to alter for the better the situation of victims of domestic violence. But, before castigating these imperfect efforts, I prefer to underline the conspicuous, actual endeavours of the American authorities to tackle this issue in spite of the flaws. This clearly denotes their willingness to change the situation and to continue in this way. Moreover, when fully beneficial policies are achieved it will reveal that the main underlying reasons at the origin of domestic violence will be found out, which will be useful for other uses. For instance, agencies operating covert operations would be able to generate or stop domestic violence at will in the couples of heads of state to destabilize foreign governments. Indeed, intelligence officers could develop tactics to initiate domestic violence between a head of state and his wife, and generate leaks in the national and international press. Accordingly, they could create a climate of suspicion about the reputation of this head of state on the international stage or at home and, thus, instigate political unrest against this politician during an election period. For example, what would Americans think if they knew that a presidential contender might be domestically violent?
