No Drop Prosecution Case Study

To determine the effectiveness of no drop prosecution policies in stopping domestic violence, it is crucial to understand how no drop policies work, the role of the victim in the proceedings of a no drop prosecution trial, the role of the accused in a no drop prosecution trial and the overall comparison of no drop prosecution trials compared to other police policies and legislation in reference to domestic violence. In order to understand whether or not no-drop policies are effective, it is necessary to examine the basic information regarding these types of policies, determine what is involved in the process of no-drop cases and the effects that these cases have on both the legal system and the participants in the case. Generally defined,

There are a couple of main routes or options that exist when handling domestic violence cases under this policy. An initial complaint or registration with the law must be made in order to confirm that a domestic violence incident has occurred in the first place, like any other crime. This being said, there must be some report of violence to a degree that threatens the safety and well being of the victim in order for a formal charge to be brought in front of the courts. Once an aggressor enters the legal system and prosecutors become involved, a no-drop policy ensures that a verdict will be reached regarding that aggressor’s behavior. The victim is not required to testify, except in some cases, or provide any further information in order for prosecution to continue. In situations where the victim does not want to participate, prosecutors may simply use factual evidence and witness testimony in order to get a conviction (Corsilles, 1994). However, in other cases where there is not enough evidence, victims may have to be subpoenaed in order to provide the courts with enough information for the prosecution to continue with the charges. The final treatment of cases under this policy regards the option of dropping a case. Although not common, there are some cases in which the victim and the aggressor choose to come to terms and the victim wants the charges to be dropped. In these cases, there is a

Attrition is defined as a “wearing down or weakening of resistance, especially as a result of continuous pressure or harassment” (Merriam-Webster). Attrition exists within the context of domestic violence, both with the violent situations that victims endure as well as within the realm of the law. In relation to no-drop prosecution policies, it is important to note attrition both when dealing with “legal noncooperation” and when dealing with subpoenaed victims (Rebovich, 1996). Attrition exists in the context of legal noncooperation, as it may attribute to the reasons that the victim refused to testify or provide information to the prosecution. In cases where women have been continuously abused, but have stayed in the relationship, attrition may play a role in the fear behind testifying against one’s partner. This is to say that victims may often feel threatened by the idea of testifying against their aggressor because they fear that they will be harmed again or face further consequences should the prosecution be unable to secure a conviction (Fisher & Rose, 1995). Often when charges are pressed, the protection of the victim is not considered in correlation with the charges and the victim is released and sent back to the environment in which the crime against them was