NCJ Number
98305
Journal
Criminal Law Journal Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Dated: (1984) Pages: 33-40
Date Published
1984
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Using a hypothetical case as a starting point, this paper discusses the limited powers of the Australian police in dealing with domestic disputes, chronicles defects in legal remedies, and describes police approaches in America and South Australia.
Abstract
A survey of 601 calls reporting domestic violence in Victoria during March and April 1982 reveals that although police detected no offense in 547 (91 percent) of the calls, they advised civil action in 17 percent of those 547 cases. Police have very limited powers in handling domestic disputes; they should have the right of entry upon private premises. Weaknesses also exist in the legal remedies available to victims of domestic violence, including the complete lack of immediate attention available to threatened victims. American police have also been reluctant to arrest domestic offenders. However, a study conducted by the Police Foundation and the Minneapolis Police Department revealed that arrested suspects manifested significantly less violence than suspects ordered to leave. These findings suggest that arrest is an effective deterrent only when it 'empowers' the victim. In Victoria, an intervention order should be issued from the Magistrate's Court on the complaint of any involved person or member of the police force. The order could restrain the defendant from engaging in specified conduct, order him to undergo treatment, refer parties to counseling, or restrain the defendant from entering premises. Such orders would bridge the gap between civil and criminal law. In South Australia, the Supreme Court found that a restraint order was a matter between two parties -- the police and the assailant; only 3 percent of such orders are privately initiated. Thirteen notes are included.