Conflicts of values in law-making: the political and legal nature and effectiveness of domestic violence protective orders

The paper asserts the existence of a long-term political and legal conflict over the adoption of the law on the prevention of family and domestic violence in Russia. It is argued that this conflict reflects a discrepancy in values related to the limits of state intervention in the lives of citizens in order to ensure security. The protective order is currently considered to be a key object of conflict in the field of domestic violence law-making and criminal law policy. Analysis of the attitudes of the parties of this conflict towards this measure reveals that the initiators of the law are in the position of prioritizing the right to security and state protection for victims, while their opponents give priority to the value of the right to privacy. Based on a review of the literature on the political and legal nature of protection orders, their legislative regulation, as well as their validity, it is concluded that this measure is aimed to be coercive while its application is not accompanied by due process guarantees. Protective orders belong to the category of coercive preventive measures, the widespread use of which as solutions for crime control is of concern to lawyers and criminologists. A significant number of studies on the effectiveness of protective orders do not allow us to conclude unequivocally that this tool reduces the level of recidivism and provides needed protection to the victim. A protective order has a potential to enhance conflict and, in some instances, can lead to an escalation of violence. It is suggested that one of the possible solutions for the resolution of the ongoing law-making conflict is the option of abandoning the protective orders as a staple for preventing family conflicts and domestic violence. The reported study was funded by RFBR (project № 19-111-50667 «Expansion» «Protective order as an instrument of domestic violence prevention: legal nature and effectiveness»).

1. Атагимова Э.И. Правовое регулирование противодействия семейно-бытовому насилию в России и за рубежом: сравнительный анализ // Мониторинг правоприменения. 2018. № 2 (27). С. 49-53. EDN: USCJRI

2. Глухова А.В., Тимофеева Л.Н. Российская политическая конфликтология: состояние и проблемы // Политическая наука. 2016. №. 2. С. 13-37. EDN: WCJRGX

3. Голованова Н.А. Домашнее насилие в свете Стамбульской конвенции 2011 г. // Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения. 2014. № 3. C. 555-562. EDN: SMETZL

4. Голованова Н.А. Противодействие домашнему насилию: новый опыт Великобритании // Всероссийский криминологический журнал. 2020. Т. 14, № 2. С. 338-350. EDN: FAOWRL

5. Григорьев А.В., Федорович А.Л. Защитное предписание как мера индивидуальной профилактики: вопросы теории и практики // Вестник Академии МВД Республики Беларусь. 2015. № 1 (29). С. 35-40. EDN: MKDLUD

6. Гуринская А.Л. Англо-американская модель предупреждения преступности: критический анализ: монография. СПб.: Изд-во РГПУ им. А.И. Герцена, 2018. 400 с. EDN: XTLIMH

7. Домашнее насилие по законодательству зарубежных стран: ответственность и превенция / Власов И.С., Голованова Н.А., Артемов В.Ю. [и др.]; отв. ред. Н.А. Голованова. М.: Юстицинформ, 2011. 383 с. EDN: SUIQCF

8. Евсикова Е.В., Жигулина В.В. Защитное предписание как основная мера предупреждения домашнего насилия // Евразийский юридический журнал. 2015. № 8 (87). С. 224-226. EDN: UMHBOZ

9. Заброда Д.Г., Заброда С.Н. Австрийский опыт предупреждения домашнего насилия: характеристика и предложения по использованию в России // Общество и право. 2016. № 3 (57). C. 107-112. EDN: WWKJAB

10. К вопросу о совершенствовании государственной семейной политики: краткий анализ опыта отдельных стран Содружества Независимых Государств / Пашаева Э.Х., Пашаев Х.П., Потапов Д.П. и др. // Здоровье человека, теория и методика физической культуры и спорта. 2019. № 4 (15). С. 143-151. EDN: ZNOWSK

11. Малинова О.Ю. Конструирование "либерализма" в постсоветской России (Наследие 1990-х в идеологических битвах 2000-х) // Полития: Анализ. Хроника. Прогноз. 2017. № 1. С. 6-28. EDN: XTXFLV

12. Понятовская Т.Г. Предупреждение преступлений: меры безопасности и административный надзор // Криминологический журнал Байкальского государственного университета экономики и права. 2013. № 3. C. 98-103. EDN: RAUFGL

13. Тунина Н.А. Охранный ордер как способ превенции семейного насилия // Криминологический журнал Байкальского государственного университета экономики и права. 2010. № 4 (14). С. 78-82.

14. Шестаков Д.А. Еще раз о праве безопасности в связи с правом противодействия преступности // Криминология: вчера, сегодня, завтра. 2014. № 1 (32). C. 13-22. EDN: RVMMGB

15. Щедрин Н.В. Введение в правовую теорию мер безопасности: монография. Красноярск: Краснояр. гос. ун-т, 1999. 180 с. EDN: VVOHGF

16. Agnew R. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency // Criminology. 1992. Vol. 30, N 1. P. 47-88. 10.1111/ j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x EDN: HGBKTL

17. Ashworth A., Zedner L. Defending the criminal law: reflections on the changing character of crime, procedure, and sanctions // Criminal Law and Philosophy. 2008. Vol. 2, N 1. P. 21-51. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-007-9033-2

18. Ashworth A., Zedner L. Preventive justice Oxford: Oxford university press, 2014. 306 p.

19. Benitez C.T., McNiel D.E., Binder R.L. Do protection orders protect? // The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2010. Vol. 38, N 3. P. 376-85.

20. Berk R.A., Sorenson S.B., Barnes G. Forecasting domestic violence: A machine learning approach to help inform arraignment decisions // Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2016. Vol. 13, N 1. P. 94-115. 10.1111/ jels.12098. DOI: 10.1111/jels.12098

21. Buchbinder E. The meaning of the protection order for abused women in Israel // Journal of Social Service Research. 2020. P. 1-9. DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2019.1711294

22. DeJong C., Burgess-Proctor A. A summary of personal protection order statutes in the United States // Violence against women. 2006. Vol. 12, N 1. P. 68-88. DOI: 10.1177/1077801205277720 EDN: JQMJKD

23. Douglas H., Fitzgerald R. Legal processes and gendered violence: cross-applications for domestic violence protection orders // University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2013. N 36. P. 56-87.

24. Dugan L., Nagin D., Rosenfeld R. Exposure reduction or backlash? The effect of domestic violence resources on intimate partner homicide, final report // National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Retrieved from the United States Department of Justice on December. 2001. Vol. 19. P. 1-56.

25. Goldfarb S. The civil rights remedy of the violence against women act: legislative history, policy implications & litigation strategy // Journal of Law & Policy. 1996. Vol. 4. P. 391-398.

26. Goodmark L. Decriminalizing domestic violence: A balanced policy approach to intimate partner violence. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2018. 216 p.

27. Gurinskaya A., Nalla M.K. The Expanding Boundaries of Crime Control: Governing Security through Regulation // The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2018. N 1 (679). P. 36-54. DOI: 10.1177/0002716218778750 EDN: YBORQT

28. Hallsworth S., Lea J. Reconstructing Leviathan: emerging contours of the security state // Theoretical criminology. 2011. Vol. 15, N 2. P. 141-157. DOI: 10.1177/1362480610383451

29. Hughes M.M., Brush L.D. The price of protection: A trajectory analysis of civil remedies for abuse and women's earnings // American Sociological Review. 2015. Vol. 80, N 1. Р. 140-165. DOI: 10.1177/0003122414561117

30. Janus E.S. Failure to protect: America's sexual predator laws and the rise of the preventive state. Ithaca; New York: Cornell University Press, 2006. 200 p.

31. Jordan C.E. Intimate partner violence and the justice system: an examination of the interface // Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2004. Vol. 19, N 12. Р. 1412-1434. DOI: 10.1177/0886260504269697 EDN: JNNYTV

32. Judging domestic violence from the bench: a narrative analysis of judicial anecdotes about domestic violence protective order cases / J.M. Kafka, K.E. Moracco, C. Barrington, A.L. Mortazavi // Qualitative Health Research. 2019. Vol. 29,N 8. Р. 1132-1144. DOI: 10.1177/1049732318821691

33. Logan T., Walker R. Civil protective order outcomes: violations and perceptions of effectiveness // Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2009. Vol. 24, N 4. P. 675-692. DOI: 10.1177/0886260508317186

34. Logan T.K., Walker R., Hoyt W. The economic costs of partner violence and the cost-benefit of civil protective orders // Journal of interpersonal violence. 2012. Vol. 27, N 6. Р. 1137-1154. DOI: 10.1177/0886260511424500

35. Merton R.K. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press, 1968. 702 p.

36. "No Contact, Except.". visitation decisions in protection orders for intimate partner abuse / R.E. Fleury-Steiner, S.L. Miller, S. Maloney, E. Bonistall Postel // Feminist Criminology. 2016. Vol. 11, N 1. P. 3-22. 10.1177/ 1557085114554259. DOI: 10.1177/1557085114554259

37. No-contact orders, victim safety, and offender recidivism in cases of misdemeanor criminal domestic violence: a randomized experiment / R. Brame, C. Kaukinen, A.R. Gover, P.K. Lattimore // American journal of criminal justice. 2015. Vol. 40, N 2. P. 225-249. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-014-9242-x

38. O'Malley P. Crime and risk. London: Sage Publications, 2010. 112 p.

39. Protection orders for domestic violence: A systematic review / Dowling C., Morgan A., Hulme S. et al. // Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. 2018. N 551. P. 1-19.

40. Removing firearms from those prohibited from possession by domestic violence restraining orders: a survey and analysis of state laws / A.M. Zeoli, S. Frattaroli, K. Roskam, A.K. Herrera // Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2019. Vol. 20, N 1. P. 114-125. DOI: 10.1177/1524838017692384

41. Richards T.N., Tudor A., Gover A.R. An updated assessment of personal protective order statutes in the united states: have statutes become more progressive in the past decade? // Violence Against Women. 2018. Vol. 24, N 7. P. 816-842. DOI: 10.1177/1077801217722237

42. Rivera J. The violence against women act and the construction of multiple consciousness in the civil rights and feminist movements // Journal of Law and Policy. 1996. Vol. 4, N 2. P. 463-511.

43. Russell B. Effectiveness, victim safety, characteristics, and enforcement of protective orders // Partner Abuse. 2012. Vol. 3, N 4. Р. 531-552. DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.e13

44. Spitzberg B.H. The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management // Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2002. Vol. 3, N 4. Р. 261-288. DOI: 10.1177/1524838002237330

45. Steiker C.S. Foreword: the limits of the preventive state // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 1998. Vol. 88, N 3. P. 771. 10.2307/ 3491352. DOI: 10.2307/3491352 EDN: GTZOOL

46. Strand S. Using a restraining order as a protective risk management strategy to prevent intimate partner violence // Police Practice and Research. 2012. Vol. 3, N 13. P. 254-266. DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2011.607649

47. The effectiveness of protection orders in reducing recidivism in domestic violence: a systematic review and meta-analysis / R. Cordier, D. Chung, S. Wilkes-Gillan, R. Speyer // Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1524838019882361

48. van Rooij F.B., Ten Haaf J., Verhoeff A.P. Temporary restraining orders in the Netherlands: a qualitative examination of perpetrator and victim views // Journal of Family Violence. 2013. Vol. 28, N 5. P. 503-514. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-013-9520-2

49. Variation in state laws on access to civil protection orders for adolescents experiencing intimate partner violence / A. Adhia, J. Goddard, M.A. Kernic, et al. // Journal of Adolescent Health. 2020. Vol. 66, N 5. P. 610-615. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.11.311

50. Wisser L. Pandora's algorithmic black box: the challenges of using algorithmic risk assessments in sentencing // American criminal law review. 2019. Vol. 56. P. 1811-1832.