Intimate partner violence is undeniably a sensitive and challenging topic to navigate. These situations are not clear-cut and legislators must acknowledge the spectrum of emotions that survivors face when deciding to report abuse by a loved one. In many states, the policies surrounding domestic violence do not adequately protect victims; instead, they burden them with the decision of whether to take action against their abuser even if they risk their life in doing so. The plausible threat of retaliation from abusers whose cases were dismissed by our justice system deters victims from contacting law enforcement. Consequently, congressional representatives must implement empowering policies in order to end these abusive patterns.

Domestic violence is defined as behaviors aimed at controlling a spouse or partner through any means and is not limited to physical and psychological abuse [1]. Domestic violence represents 15 percent of violent crimes committed in the United States [2]. Additionally, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence documents that almost twenty people per minute experience intimate partner violence. Breaking these statistics down further, one out of every four women are subjected to domestic violence compared to one out of every nine men. Law enforcement frequently dismisses domestic violence reports, often leading to other issues such as repeated offenses. 

These violent situations are often nuanced and involve children, marriage, and relationships that have progressively turned abusive. Vaneejsha Reese, a mother to three children, survived a brutal attack from her partner that left her and her sister in need of critical medical care. Her young children, who witnessed the incident, were left traumatized. The remnants of a previously dismissed case against her partner make her story all the more harrowing. In an interview, she explained how a past altercation with her abuser resulted in the police being contacted and his arrest. But, he was promptly released from the system leaving Reese and her children vulnerable to another violent act, which this time would leave their mother on the verge of death [3]. Stories like these signal the need for a re-evaluation of our domestic violence procedures; when victims cannot turn to our justice system to protect them, generational cycles of unending fear and manipulation will persist. 

Currently, many states have implemented mandatory arrest policies in an effort to address domestic violence situations. Mandatory arrest procedures stipulate that when abuse is reported to law enforcement, the authorities are required to make an arrest. Guaranteed arrests can cause victims to fear retaliation and consequently make them less likely to report abuse. One reason for this could be that arresting an abuser does not mean they will be convicted and, as mentioned previously, dismissals are exceptionally common. Additionally, many victims are concerned about dual arrests or the possibility that they will also be arrested [4]. Since this legislation passed, there has been an increase in female arrests for domestic assault indicating a new pattern that leaves survivors criminalized [5]. This causes victims of abuse to be less trusting of our legal system and more cautious when reporting an altercation [6]. 

Another policy that has been implemented in states are no-drop policies. No-drop policies require that once a formal complaint of domestic violence is reported the prosecution is unable to “drop” or dismiss the case solely because the victim may not want to participate actively in the proceedings. In some cases, a panel consisting of members from a county’s domestic violence unit must approve any dismissal that the prosecution recommends. It is also important to note that no-drop policies vary in their implementation across states. For example, in Marion County, Indiana, prosecutors will not dismiss a case before conducting an initial hearing. Additionally, when victims request to drop the case against their abuser, they are often directed to support services such as groups or educational materials while they make their decision. In areas with no-drop policies, dismissal rates range from 10 to 35 percent compared to 50 to 80 percent in regions without no-drop policies [7]. Many defendants also plead guilty when faced with no-drop policies as they understand that their case will not get dismissed easily [8]. This suggests that no-drop prosecution policies could be highly effective in ensuring that domestic violence victims get the attention they deserve in our justice system.

No-drop policies are not perfect, but multiple studies conducted by the Office of Justice Programs have demonstrated that they have been shown to increase conviction rates and reduce dismissal rates [9]. Ultimately, mandatorily arresting an abuser does not increase a victim’s trust in the justice system because, unlike no-drop policies, an arrest is not a promise that their case will be fully investigated rather than quickly dismissed. These policies should be aimed at making victims feel secure enough to contact law enforcement by knowing that their case will not be neglected or abandoned solely based on their active participation in the legal process. 

Ethically, no-drop policies can be controversial. After all, these policies remove decisive powers from the victims by preventing or hindering them from withdrawing their complaint. There are also instances where prosecutors are able to call upon victims to testify even though they may be unwilling, which is undeniably disempowering [10]. Therefore, “soft” no-drop policies may be stronger than “hard” no-drop policies because they provide the victim more agency while preventing the prosecution from easily dismissing their case [11]. In domestic violence situations where victims are deprived of freedom and choice, ensuring that the justice system does not continue this pattern is imperative. Consequently, implementing “soft” no-drop policies that address these nuances opposed to mandatory arrests or hard stance methods could be a stronger avenue for both building trust in victims for the legal system and increasing the overall effectiveness of responses to intimate partner violence.