Suchergebnisse

This paper outlines why domestic violence (or more specifically, coercive control) should be crucial to child custody proceedings. What is known about parenting in the context of coercively controlling violence, and what the legislation directs courts to consider, is juxtaposed with the actuality of court decision making. Current knowledge about the recognition of domestic violence in judicial practice is overviewed, drawing particular attention to the role of the "expert" family assessment in determinations of a child's "best interests". A comprehensive synopsis of the existing research on these "expert" reports in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is provided. It is concluded that, in court proceedings the reality of living with coercively controlling violence and the potential on-going risks it poses to children and non-abusive parents, is typically negated. Instead, "best interests" considerations prioritise the maintenance of perpetrator/child relationships, and thus "abuser's rights" over victim safety. Judicial officers are not experts in domestic violence and they can only make decisions on the basis of the evidence before them, the assessments made by the "experts" likely play an important role in best interest considerations. Of concern is current research that calls into serious question the expertise of these "experts" when it comes to proceedings involving allegations of coercively controlling violence. ; Arts, Education & Law Group, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance ; Full Text

Using a matched sampling method, this research examined the process of sex‐based differentiation in sentencing outcomes for 194 men and 194 women, sentenced over a seven‐year period in Christchurch, New Zealand. Consistent with past research, our results showed that judicial processing treated women more leniently than men. Path analyses revealed that judges were less likely to sentence women than men to imprisonment terms because of gendered information and decisions made earlier in the judicial process, such as criminal history, length of custodial remands, and pre‐sentence recommendations by probation officers. In contrast, judges exercised considerable leniency towards women (compared with men) in setting the length of prison terms, even after statistically controlling for all sex‐differentiated factors such as criminal history. Explanations and implications are discussed.