173

10 PASK Im pli cat ios

Furthermore, the manual failed to suggest how an of ﬁ cer should handle an inves-

tigation in one of those situations, and neither did the manuals in any other state,

with serious implications for the validity and reliability of these states’ training

programs.

The manuals provided 17 examples of how of ﬁ cers should identify the dominant

aggressor. Among the examples involving unilateral violence, one depicted a female

dominant aggressor and two depicted a male dominant aggressor. Of the 12 exam-

ples of bilateral violence, the man was deemed the dominant aggressor and targeted

for arrest in 75% of the situations, and only one example involved same-sex part-

ners. Overall, women were the dominant aggressors in only 12.5% of scenarios

involving heterosexual couples. Among the other examples, 67.5% depicted a male

aggressing against a female victim, 7.5% depicted a woman aggressing against a

man, and 11% depicted same-sex violence. There is barely any attention given to

same-sex couples, a signi ﬁ cant shortcoming given the similar rates of gay and

lesbian domestic violence when compared to heterosexual couples (Renzetti &

Miley,

1996 ) . The lack of information on same-sex domestic violence not only

make it dif ﬁ cult for of ﬁ cers to understand this phenomenon, but also discourages

victims from reporting or coming forward. The result is an underreporting of same-

sex partner violence, with misleadingly low numbers that can only serve to keep

attention away from this problem.

The preponderance of references and training examples identifying women as

victims and men as perpetrators in no way correspond to actual rates of PV in the

population. Most arrests are of the misdemeanor type, and as advocates for battered

women have conceded, “not every act of domestic violence…is battering” (Pence &

Dasgupta, 2006 , p. 4). Y et even when more serious cases are considered—those that

would meet the de ﬁ nition of battering and of relevance to the most widely used

dominant aggressor criteria—the manuals seriously overstate PV as a gender crime.

As T able 10.1 indicates, the most common criterion is “History of violence of

domestic violence,” and while men perpetrate most violence outside the home, rates

of PV are the same across gender and previous PV history ought to be the primary

consideration. “Degree or severity of injury,” the second most popular criterion is

only relevant when one or both parties are injured, and a study of 4,388 cases in

both mandatory and discretionary arrest states indicates that 57% of arrests do not

involve physical injuries (Hirschel & Buzawa, 2009 .) Furthermore, rates of minor

injuries, the most prevalent kind, are similar for men and women. With respect to

the third most common criterion, “Whether one party acted in self-defense,” rates

may differ across gender but not by very much, if at all. The empirical evidence

would suggest that “Who is in fear,” the fourth most common criterion, applies

more to female than male victims. If this were the only criterion used, the high

number of male arrests would be justi ﬁ ed. However, it is only one among many , and

as discussed previously, dif ﬁ cult to assess. In some states, including California, one

key criterion is “Behaviors of power and control within the relationship.” By most

de ﬁ nitions of the term, “power and control” behaviors are perpetrated at comparable

rates across gender; and again, dif ﬁ cult, if not impossible, for police of ﬁ cers to

assess at the scene of a crime.