A separate Criminal Domestic Violence Court
(CDVC) was established in Lexington County, South Carolina, in
November 1999, to hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable
through increasing fines and jail time and to place a strong emphasis
on mandatory batterer treatment programs. The CDVC was a specialized
court that combined the efforts of law enforcement, judges,
prosecutors, mental health professionals, and victim advocates to
improve the safety of domestic violence victims and hold offenders
accountable. The researchers undertook to evaluate and measure the
extent to which the CDVC was successful in implementing its goals of
(1) establishing an effective court that enhanced victim safety and
(2) providing a model of therapeutic jurisprudence that would assist
criminal justice agencies in rural areas in designing appropriate
judicial intervention to combat domestic violence.
In order to measure the extent to which the CDVC
was successful in implementing its goals, the researchers conducted
both a process evaluation and outcome evaluation. For the process
evaluation, interviews were conducted in 2002 with 50 victims and 50
defendants to examine their overall level of satisfaction with the
court process, their perceptions of procedural justice, and to obtain
their recommendations for improving the CDVC process. Interviews were
conducted in person using structured questions immediately after a
case was heard to improve the accuracy of responses. Prior to
conducting the interviews, the purpose of the research was explained
and full informed consent was obtained. The interviews were conducted
anonymously so that victims and defendant identities could not be
identified. The outcome evaluation consisted of two methods of data
collection. A time series intervention analysis examined the monthly
frequency of criminal domestic violence for the years 1997 through
2001. Criminal domestic violence cases were compared for the 34 months
before the establishment of the CDVC (January 1997 to October 1999)
and the first 26 months following its implementation (November 1999 to
December 2001). The data were analyzed as a set of interrupted
time-series experiments. A quasi-experimental design was involved to
rule out a number of rival hypotheses, and a control series was also
included in the analysis in order to reduce the chance of historical
threats. Additionally, in an effort to examine the impact of the
Lexington County Criminal Domestic Violence Court on individual case
outcomes, a recidivism analysis was conducted on a random sample of
400 criminal domestic violence cases. Of these cases, 200 were control
and 200 treatment cases. A simple random sample of 200 cases was drawn
from the Lexington County Sheriff's Department's arrest database that
occurred between January 1997 and June 1999. This sample represented
the historical comparison group of cases that were processed through
the magistrates courts in Lexington County prior to the establishment
of the CDVC. This sample period was chosen to provide the closest time
comparison and insure that cases were disposed of before the inception
of the CDVC. The experimental group comprised of a simple random
sample of 200 domestic violence arrest cases that occurred between
December 1999 and December 2000 and were processed through the CDVC.
For the interview data, a convenience sample of victims
and defendants (a total of 50 victims and 50 defendants) was
chosen. Only four of the victims and defendants who were asked to
participate refused. Victims and defendants were not matched by cases
and therefore, these data represent two independent samples of
cases. For the recidivism data, a simple random sample of 200 cases
that were processed in magistrates courts in Lexington County were
(between January 1997 and June 1999) from the Lexington County
Sheriff's Department's arrest database. This sample represented the
historical comparison group (pre-CDVC) of cases prior to the
establishment of the CDVC. This sample was compared to an experimental
group of 200 randomly selected cases that were processed in the
CDVC. The two samples resembled each other. No differences were found
between the pre-CDVC and the CDVC sample on age, race, gender,
employment status, the number of charges, prior domestic violence
history, the number of days in jail pretrial, and pretrial
intervention. The only statistically significant difference between
the two samples was the rate at which the samples recidivated.
(1) Victims and defendants whose cases were heard in the
Lexington County Criminal Domestic Violence Court (CDVC) in 2002, (2)
criminal domestic violence cases in Lexington County from January 1997
to December 2001, and (3) criminal domestic violence arrest cases in
Lexington County between January 1997 and June 1999 and domestic
violence arrest cases in Lexington County processed through the CDVC
between December 1999 and December 2000.
Parts 1, 2, and 4: Individuals. Part 3: Criminal
domestic violence cases
Data in Parts 1 and 2 came from personal interviews
with victims and defendants. Data available in Parts 3 and 4 were
obtained from the Lexington County Sheriff's Department's arrest
database.
administrative records data,
survey data,
experimental data
Variables in Part 1 (Victim Interview Data) and
Part 2 (Defendant Interview Data) include responses to the following
structured interview questions about the victims' and offenders'
perceptions of the court process: What is your overall impression of
the way your case was handled by the CDVC? How would you rate the
overall quality and professionalism of the court? How was the waiting
time to hear your case? Were you given prior written notice of your
court date? Did you contact the prosecutor or investigator prior to
court? Did you understand the video and verbal instructions that were
given by court officials? Do you feel that the court gave you adequate
time to explain your side of the story? Do you feel that the judge was
concerned with your side of the story? Do you think that the outcome
of the case was fair and just? Do you feel that you were treated with
respect and dignity by the court? Do you think that the Lexington
County Domestic Violence Court's response to domestic violence cases
is too easy, too harsh, just right? Did you ever attend magistrates
court before because of a prior domestic abuse incident? If yes, was
your experience with the Lexington County Domestic Violence Court
worse, better, the same? Was there a "no contact" provision as part of
the bond restriction in your case? If yes, who requested it? Do you
think that the Domestic Violence Court's enforcement policy on bond
restrictions (no contact provisions) are too easy, too harsh, just
right? Victims were also asked: Did they provide you with instructions
on how your case would be handled? Were you contacted by a Victim's
Advocate prior to court? How would you rate the overall quality of
care you received by the Victim's Advocate? Did you tell the judge
your side of the story? Do you feel that the prosecutor was concerned
with your side of the story? How would you rate the overall quality of
care you received? Based on your experience in court would you
recommend that other victims seek prosecution? Variables in Part 3
(Monthly Arrest Data) include frequency of monthly domestic violence
arrests, frequency of monthly simple assault arrests, frequency of
monthly aggravated assault arrests, court period, and month. Variables
in Part 4 (Recidivism Data) include race, age, and gender of offender,
employment status, booking date, days in jail prior to trial, number
of charges pending, number of prior domestic violence offenses, date
of first rearrest, recidivism within first year and a half, days free
of arrest, if defendant was diverted to pretrial intervention, and the
amount of the fine.
Parts 1 and 2: the overall response rate to the
victim and defendant interviews was 96 percent. Parts 3 and 4: not
applicable.
None