Mandatory arrest in domestic violence call-outs causes early death in victims

March 3, 2014, University of Cambridge

New research from a major 'randomised' arrest experiment 23 years ago finds that domestic violence victims whose partners were arrested on misdemeanor charges – mostly without causing injury – were 64% more likely to have died early, compared to victims whose partners were warned but not removed by police.

Among African-American victims, arrest increased early mortality by a staggering 98% – as opposed to white victims, whose mortality was increased from arrest by just 9%. The research also found that employed victims suffered the worst effects of their partners' arrests. Employed black victims with arrested partners suffered a death rate over four times higher than those whose partner received a warning at the scene. No such link was found in white victims.

The study's authors say that causes are currently unknown but such health impacts are consistent with chronic stress that could have been amplified by partner arrest. They call for a "robust review" of US and UK mandatory arrest policies in domestic violence cases.

"It remains to be seen whether democracies can accept these facts as they are, rather than as we might wish them to be," said Professor Lawrence Sherman from Cambridge University's Institute of Criminology, who authored the study with his colleague Heather M. Harris from University of Maryland.

The findings will be announced in the US on Monday 3rd March in Milwaukee and College Park, Maryland, and presented on Wednesday in London at the winter meeting of the Society of Evidence-Based Policing. Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, who supported the follow-up study, will join in the presentation and discussion of the results. The study will be published in a forthcoming edition of the Journal of Experimental Criminology.

The vast majority of victim deaths following the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment were not murders, accidents or suicides. The victims died from common causes of death such as heart disease, cancer and other internal illnesses.

Previous studies have shown post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) to be prevalent in victims of domestic violence, and that low but chronic PTSS has been linked to premature death from coronary heart disease and other health problems. The authors observed that the impact of seeing a partner arrested could create a traumatic event for the victim, one that raises their risk of death. An arrest may cause more trauma in concentrated black poverty areas than in white working-class neighbourhoods, for reasons not yet understood.

The exact cause of these surprising results still remains a 'medical mystery,' the study's authors say. But, whatever the explanation, the harmful effects of mandatory arrest poses a challenge to policies that have "been on the books" in most US states and across the UK for decades, they say.

"The evidence shows that black women are dying at a much higher rate than white women from a policy that was intended to protect all victims of domestic violence, regardless of race," said Sherman. "It is now clear that a pro-arrest policy has failed to protect victims, and that a robust review of these policies is urgently needed."

"Because all the victims had an equal chance of having their partners arrested by random assignment, there is no other likely explanation for this difference except that it was caused by seeing their partners arrested."

The Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment took place between 1987 and 1988, with support from the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the US Department of Justice. Sherman, who led the study from the University of Maryland, described it as "arguably the most rigorous test ever conducted of the effects of arrest."

The experiment enrolled 1,125 victims of whose average age was 30 years. Each case was the subject of an equal probability 'lottery' of random assignment. Two-thirds of the suspects were arrested with immediate jailing. One-third received a warning at the scene with no arrest. In 2012-13, Sherman and Harris searched state and national records for the names of every one of the victims.

The record search showed that a total of 91 victims had died. Of these, 70 had been in the group whose partners were arrested, compared to 21 whose partners had been warned. This translated into 93 deaths per 1,000 victims in the arrest group, versus 57 deaths per 1000 in the warning group. For the 791 black (who were 70% of the sample), the rates were 98 per 1,000 for , versus 50 per 1,000 for the warned group.

"These differences are too large to be due to chance," Sherman said. "They are also too large to be ignored."

Explore further: Access to guns increases risk of suicide, homicide

Related Stories

Access to guns increases risk of suicide, homicide

January 20, 2014
Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide and nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide as someone who does not have access, according to a comprehensive review of the scientific ...

CVI puts research into practice on firearms and domestic violence

November 13, 2013
The Crime Victims' Institute (CVI) at Sam Houston State University initiated a new series of reports to help victim advocates translate the latest research in the field into practical services and resources for victims, beginning ...

Unemployed women face a greater risk of domestic violence

February 27, 2014
Women with a higher risk of job loss are more likely to become victims of domestic abuse, according to research at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Asians reluctant to seek help for domestic violence

July 16, 2012
Asian-American victims of domestic violence rarely seek help from police or health care providers – "an alarming trend" among the fastest-growing racial group in the United States, says a Michigan State University researcher.

Recommended for you

Who uses phone apps to track sleep habits? Mostly the healthy and wealthy in US

January 16, 2018
The profile of most Americans who use popular mobile phone apps that track sleep habits is that they are relatively affluent, claim to eat well, and say they are in good health, even if some of them tend to smoke.

Improvements in mortality rates are slowed by rise in obesity in the United States

January 15, 2018
With countless medical advances and efforts to curb smoking, one might expect that life expectancy in the United States would improve. Yet according to recent studies, there's been a reduction in the rate of improvement in ...

Teens likely to crave junk food after watching TV ads

January 15, 2018
Teenagers who watch more than three hours of commercial TV a day are more likely to eat hundreds of extra junk food snacks, according to a report by Cancer Research UK.

Can muesli help against arthritis?

January 15, 2018
It is well known that healthy eating increases a general sense of wellbeing. Researchers at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) have now discovered that a fibre-rich diet can have a positive influence ...

Your dishwasher is not as sterile as you think

January 13, 2018
(HealthDay)—Your dishwasher may get those plates spotless, but it is also probably teeming with bacteria and fungus, a new study suggests.

Study reveals what sleep talkers have to say

January 12, 2018
A team of researchers with members from several institutions in France has conducted a study regarding sleep talking and has found that most sleep talking is not only negative in nature, but involves a large amount of swearing. ...

3 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mellex
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
I'm actually a little troubled by the fact that the study's author is so confident in claiming that there is an actual causal link. Maybe it's a "medical mystery" because there is no causal mechanism.

For one, random assignment is not the same thing as random sampling. (They teach this stuff in undergraduate courses.) Random assignment can help average out individual differences between the two groups (arrested vs. warned), but it does not help eliminate the effects of confounding variables.

The study in question did not have random sampling; it was a convenience sample. You did not randomly assign these people into a "you get a physically violent partner" or "you do not get a physically violent partner" group.

And it seems absurd even bringing this up but you cannot randomly assign someone to be "black" or "white". Related to this, this was also not a representative sample. Your sample was 70% "black" whereas the population is somewhere around 40.0%.

(Part 1/3)
Mellex
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
The huge difference between "black" and "white" victims is a strong indicator that something other than the arrest itself is causing the earlier deaths of these people. I say "earlier" because there was only a 6.2% chance ([70/1125]*100) of dying if your partner was arrested compared to 1.9% chance ([21/1125]*100). Are you really confident that some other mixture of confounding variables (individual or historical) can't account for 4.3%?

Had the coin flip gone the other way and you had 2/3 of the participants in the "warned group" instead of the "arrested group", there probably wouldn't have been a story here. Again, this was not an experimental study. There was no random sampling and there was no control.

A proper control would be comparing these victims to randomly selected, demographically-similar people who did not have their partners arrested. That is, what is the death rates per 1000 people in the general public over the same period of time? What if it's more than 4%?

(P 2/2)
Mellex
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
Were other confounding variables even controlled for: age and overall health; socioeconomic status; access to health care; number of children; etc.? Were such variables even recorded? Was there even a multivariate analysis done on the data? Or did it all come down to comparing a single group of people (domestic violence victims) on two independent variable (arrested or warned) for a single outcome (death or not). If so, that's some weak sauce.

The central claim being made is that it is the simple act of having your partner arrested makes it more likely that you'll die. The study's methodology does not allow for such erroneous conclusions.

If you want to make casual claims, you'll have to get an actual random sample (of ALL POSSIBLE PEOPLE IN A POPULATION) and start randomly arresting peoples' partners for minor infractions (preferably different kinds of crimes) and see if the simple act of arresting one's partner makes it more likely you'll die. I imagine it doesn't.

(P 3/3)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.