Pérdida de Carga en BIES

As noted in the literature review, studies comparing domestic violence courts to general criminal dockets have found that domestic violence courts are more likely to mandate completion of a batterer program as part of a sentence. In fact, only one of the 15 courts in our site visit sample did not order at least some domestic violence offenders to batterer programs.

In the survey, about a third (34%) of court respondents reported that 75% to 100% of offenders were ordered to a batterer program. At the other end of the spectrum, 44% of respondents indicated that less than a quarter of offenders were so ordered.

Mandatory sentencing laws appeared logically connected to the use of batterer programs, particularly in a number of states with statutory provisions requiring the ordering of batterer

programs for large categories of domestic violence offenders. As discussed previously (chapter 6), however, when we controlled for whether the court was in California (where conviction on certain domestic violence charges requires sentencing to a batterer program through probation), mandatory sentencing laws did not exert an independent, statistically significant effect on mandates to batterer programs. Instead, there was a constellation of significant effects: batterer program mandates were more frequently ordered by courts in California, and by those emphasizing the goals of rehabilitation, correctly and consistently applying statutory requirements, and case processing efficiency.

Use of Batterer Programs Pretrial

Few domestic violence courts reported ordering batterer programs before a guilty plea or conviction (i.e., as pretrial diversion or a condition of pretrial release); only 15% of court respondents reported doing so often or always, whereas 68% reported doing so rarely or never (see table 8.2). Consistent with this response by courts, 69% of the surveyed prosecutors reported that the court uses predisposition mandates rarely or never. How and why some courts mandate offenders to a program prior to conviction was elucidated on site visits (see below).

Always 5%

Often 10%

Sometimes 17%

Rarely 22%

Never 46%

Table 8.2. Percentage of Responding Courts that Reported use of Program Mandates Prior to Conviction (N=129)

One of the 15 courts we visited reported using batterer or parenting programs as a condition of pretrial diversion,15 as well as mental health or substance abuse treatment programs if an assessment demonstrated a need. As another example of pretrial diversion offered in limited circumstances, a court representative noted that if the victim agrees and it is a first offense, the court will offer the defendant the option of attending a batterer program before trial. If the defendant completes the program, the charges are dismissed. This jurisdiction also has a “special needs diversion” program for defendants charged with misdemeanors who have mental health issues. Finally, one responding felony domestic violence court offers defendants the option of a program as a condition of pretrial release.

15 _{Although the meaning or nature of “pretrial diversion” varies by jurisdiction, it typically involves a defendant in} avoiding or delaying the usual dispositional process by agreeing to participate in a program. Successful participation in such a program usually enables a defendant either to circumvent the court process entirely or to receive a more favorable case outcome than they would have otherwise.

Why Domestic Violence Courts Order Defendants to Batterer Programs

Accountability

Consistent with the goals identified for domestic violence courts in general (chapter 4), the primary reason reported for ordering offenders to attend a batterer program was to hold them accountable: 94% of court respondents rated this reason as either very or extremely important, with 74% selecting extremely important (see table 8.3). We were particularly interested during the site visits and phone interviews in probing what respondents mean by accountability. We are aware that this frequently used catch phrase can have different meanings. In site visits, accountability in the context of a batterer program order was sometimes defined as the offender verbally acknowledging responsibility. As one interviewee expressed it, “By the time they finish [the batterer program], they acknowledge abusive behavior, express a plan to change their behavior, and make a commitment to no abuse.”

Many of those we interviewed defined accountability as a result of participation in a batterer program, as described above, when the program leads offenders to take responsibility for abuse. Others, however, defined accountability more formally as compliance with the court order to attend the program: “The offender is given 48 hours to contact a batterer program and sign up. If the offender fails to report within 10 days, it is an automatic violation of probation.” This statement (and its context in the interview) emphasized the bottom line of compliance with the court order as demonstrating accountability—the offender either does or does not attend as ordered—rather than behavior or attitudes expressed within the program.

Importantly, the two preceding views of how batterer programs hold offenders accountable are not necessarily mutually exclusive; the court may hold offenders accountable for attending the program and view the value of the program as leading offenders to take responsibility for past behavior. In some cases, the two views may represent incompatible perspectives, however. Some courts may use batterer programs initially, or at times reorder a noncompliant offender to return to a program without facing other penalties, until the offender takes responsibility for the abuse. Other courts may define accountability exclusively or primarily as complying with the order to attend, without reference to what the offender has learned.

Not Important Somewhat Important Very Important Extremely

Accountability 1% 6% 20% 74%

Monitoring 7% 7% 27% 58%

Treatment or rehabilitation 16% 16% 21% 48%

Mandated by state statute 58% 11% 7% 24%

Proportionality 13% 32% 34% 21%

Alternative to incarceration 29% 35% 25% 11%

Monitoring and Other Functions

As shown in table 8.3, most courts also rated the “monitoring” function of batterer programs as very or extremely important (85%), followed by “treatment or rehabilitation” (68%). A lower percentage of court respondents primarily valued batterer programs as a sentence that is proportional to the offense, a statutory mandate, or an alternative to incarceration, although only 13% of respondents rated the legal principle of proportionality as not important.

Batterer Programs and Case Outcomes

As shown in table 8.4, program completion has no impact on the case disposition or sentence in most domestic violence courts. In some courts, however, program completion ends the case, with a reduction in the conviction charges or sentence (typically the probation term). Only 10% of court respondents reported dismissing cases when offenders completed mandated programs.

Legal Outcome

% Courts Reporting this

Outcome

No impact on the case disposition or sentence 64%

Case closed and conviction charges reduced 14%

Case closed and probation term or sentence severity

reduced 12%

Case dismissed 10%

Table 8.4. Typical legal outcomes for defendants who have completed all mandated programs as reported by courts (N=129)

.