Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

determinant of case outcomes. A recent study of a

DVC in Toronto found that prosecutors were seven

times more likely to prosecute a case when victims

were perceived to be cooperative. In a study of five

British DVCs, it was found that even with the support

provided to victims by advocates, half the victims still

chose to retract. Thus, case progression in DVCs still

depends in large part on the perceived wishes or cred-

ibility of the victim as a prosecution witness.

Sentencing in

Domestic Violence Courts

In the United States, the most common sanction for

convicted domestic violence offenders is probation

with all or part of a jail sentence suspended. In the

United Kingdom, a recent report on several demon-

stration projects aimed at reducing domestic violence

found that sentencing practices varied considerably.

For example, the use of custodial sentences for con-

victed defendants ranged from 11% to 50%.

Sentencing practices are expected to differ when

courts are specialized. An evaluation of six U.S. sites

found the benefit to be more consistent sentencing,

with the added value of incorporating advocacy for

victims into the court process. The specialization of

drug and domestic violence courts in West Yorkshire

(where the first domestic violence court was estab-

lished in Leeds) was noted to offer the possibility of

providing justice with a greater focus on rehabilitation

and integration of the offender into the community.

Although the aim of sentencing in DVCs is to “pro-

mote accountability from domestic violence offenders,”

it is unclear what specific penalties might best achieve

this. A short prison sentence might be the best deterrent

for one offender, but a long period of probation may be

the most effective for another. Furthermore, research

suggests that victims often desire the rehabilitation

rather than punishment of offenders, yet perpetrator

programs are not uniformly available as sentencing

options. It is also unclear what effects specific penalties

might have on victims’ levels of satisfaction and safety.

In conclusion, more evidence is needed about sentenc-

ing in DVCs and the long-term impacts on offenders,

victims, and the wider community.

Amanda L. Robinson

See alsoBail-Setting Decisions; Battered Woman Syndrome;

Children’s Testimony; Expert Psychological Testimony;

Intimate Partner Violence; Police Decision Making and

Domestic Violence; Sentencing Decisions; Spousal

Assault Risk Assessment (SARA); Substance Abuse and

Intimate Partner Violence; Victim Impact Statements;

Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System

Further Readings

Cook, D., Burton, M., Robinson, A., & Vallely, C. (2004).

Evaluation of specialist domestic violence courts/fast track

systems.London: Crown Prosecution Service and

Department of Constitutional Affairs. Retrieved from http://

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/specialistdvcourts.pdf

Hague, G., Kelly, L., & Mullender, A. (2001). Challenging

violence against women: The Canadian experience.

Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Kelitz, S. (2001). Specialization of domestic violence case

management in the courts: A national survey.

Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/

nij/grants/186192.pdf

Sacks, E. (2002). Creating a domestic violence court:

Guidelines and best practices. San Francisco: Family

Violence Prevention Fund. Retrieved from http://fvpfstore

.stores.yahoo.net/creatdomviol.html

DOMESTICVIOLENCE

SCREENINGINSTRUMENT(DVSI)

The Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI

and DVSI–R versions) was designed to assess the risk

of repeated domestic violence in the future on the

basis of information available at the time of use. The

DVSI was originally created by the Division of

Probation Services in Colorado. It was crafted as a

short, easy criminal records review and made avail-

able to prosecutors, judges, and probation officers

soon after a suspect’s arrest. The original instrument

included 12 items related to past criminal and social

history, completed by a review of official records,

with the 12 items summed to calculate risk scores

ranging from 0 to 30. It was substantially revised in

Connecticut between 2002 and 2003, involving modi-

fication and consolidation of the items (now 11),

along with corresponding coding instructions. Besides

the 11 structured items, two additional mechanisms

were added for assessing the imminent risk of vio-

lence to the victim or other persons based on an asses-

sor’s subjective professional judgment.

240 ———Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI)

D-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 240