1. Part II Abetting Batterers
Unfinished Business

2. 1. Disarming Dangerous Abusers
The failure to disarm dangerous abusers make American women 11 times more likely to be murdered with guns than women in any other high-income country around the world. Majority of women murdered by intimate partner are shot, as high as 70% in Kentucky and Montana.

3. Firearm Threat Not Theoretical
Threat posed by armed abusers is not theoretical, representing greatly heightened threat to female intimate partners. e.g. Nevada (high firearm state, few prohibitions): Half of women shot to death, were shot by intimate partners. 38% higher than national average. But gun murders of men in Nevada are 3% lower than national average. Between 1994 and 2012, 10% of firearm purchases prohibited by the feds were because would be purchaser had DV misdemeanor conviction or active final protective order against them. e.g. In four Wisconsin counties between 2010 and 2011, over an one month period, 199 protective orders granted for DV or child abuse (both resulting in firearm prohibition by Wisconsin State Law). 20% of the abusers were armed.

4. Firearms Threats
Arizona, by 2015, 62% of DV murders committed with firearms prior five years, 45% higher than national average. Why so many dangerous abusers armed? Arizona failed to enter 40% of its protective orders into FBI system used to enforce federal firearm prohibitions. 30,000 orders issued in 2013, only 18,000 entered. Worse, Arizona state law leaves firearm prohibitions up to individual judges. Among seven victims shot to death with active protective orders, only one included a judicial order prohibiting abuser from possessing firearms… and that, tragically unenforced (2015).

5. Firearms and Stalkers
Convicted stalkers allowed to retain or purchase firearms. A review of 20 states criminal files revealed at least 11,986 convicted stalkers permitted by federal and state law to retain or purchase firearms. Majority of DV murder victims stalked before their murders.

6. 2. Abusers Just Don’t Make Good Dads
Holding children hostage on behalf of abuser, entraps and endangers families.

7. Court Custody Evaluators See What They Believe
Up to the 1990’s, up to 91% of custody evaluators failed to identify DV when present, and 40% dismissed it as relevant if present. Decade later, improved. But those who dismiss DV as mutual, situational violence, maintain it irrelevant to custody considerations, also likely to disbelieve victim, hold preservation of father-child bond paramount, outweighing any concern for DV. Those that understand DV to be part of chronic, coercive control express concern, find false allegations to be rare, and put victim safety over father-child bond.

8. States Still Struggling to Get Judges to Recognize DV in Making Custody/Visitation Decisions
20 states enacted new DV laws addressing custody and divorce in 2015, despite Model DV Code Rebuttable Presumption Against Abuser Custody Recommendations in e.g. Texas -adoption evaluators must complete at least 8 hrs of DV education -requires courts to consider DV in determination of custody, must determine if party has history or pattern on DV or child abuse, whether protective order issued Minnesota - Court to determine best interest of child must consider DV; if DV found, friendly parent provision to be ignored, rebuttable presumption against joint custody of DV

9. Ambivalence Still Prevails
Nevada: Joint physical custody not in child’s best interest if DV found by clear and convincing evidence. But Presumption affecting the burden of proof that joint custody is in the child’s best interest if parties agreed to it or if a parent has demonstrated, or has attempted to demonstrate but been frustrated by the other parent, an intent to establish a meaningful relationship with the child. Further Class D Felony to conceal or remove child from joint custody unless to protect child from imminent danger of abuse or protect self from imminent physical harm and reported the matter to law enforcement or child protective services within 24 hours or as soon as circumstances allow.

10. 3. Criminal Justice Agencies Suffer Attention Deficit Disorder when it comes to DV
History of exemplary criminal justice responses to DV finds rise and fall as agencies move on to tackle next perceived crisis, agency administrators revolve, resources ebb and flow.

11. Rise and Fall of Police Response
e.g. Nashville, Tennessee ( ) From National Model with only 134 cases “exceptionally cleared” (victim refused to cooperate, prosecution declined) To ,866 exceptionally cleared in 2005, arresting only 1,352 out of more than 10,306 DV incidents, To ,600 exceptionally cleared, among lowest DV arrest rate in country (Shelby Sheriff: only 9.7% of DV offenses exceptionally cleared, )

12. Nashville Decline
WHY? →According to Tennessean, officers closing cases, not waiting for victims to get out of hospitals to contact them. → A police report of a closed case failed to mention that husband threatened to stab his wife. This only became public when the husband, in fact, proceeded to stabbed his wife, killing her two days later. But this answer how, not why…

13. Nashville: The Fall and Rise….
WHY? New Police Chief: “Mission One” (more lucrative traffic enforcement) Good News (2014): Turn around with review commission, more detectives, more prosecutors, dedicated DV Court 2015: 11,297 aggravated assaults, cleared 8,251 (73% for DV vs. 45.9% for non-DV) Statewide in 2015, 48% cleared by arrest, 12.1% exceptionally cleared

14. Newest Innovations (Long may they last) What they teach us about CJ Response the DV
Lethality Assessment Programs (LAP) Offender Accountability Programs