This is
a really intersting article over at nudge about a behavioural economic analysis of domestic violence relationships. But to think it has totally answered the question isn't right. I'm not suggesting that what the authors have claimed to have done.
The article is about changing making domestic violence changes "no-drop". Once the charge is made by a person (usually a woman) then they cannot drop the charges. The human factors question with regards to this what impact it will have on reporting. Persons against no-drop policy would presumably mention that it is potentially a deterant to some women reporting. Advocates would presumably say that by making a policy no-drop women will not be able to drop their charges after they are lured back into an abusive relationship - making it more likey that the cycle is broken.
The authors report that states in America that introduced the no-drop policy have seen an increase in reporting rates (14-18 percent) and a decrease in the number of women murdering their husbands/partners. They also report that there was no decrease in women presenting at hospital. Basically they say it doesn't deter men from bashing their wives however, it doens't deter women from reporting and, due to the lower murders which would presumably be in many causes where a woman sees no other way out, is breaking the cycle of abuse.
However, I think there are whole in this line of arguement when you start treating the women an humans. There are a wide range of abusive relationships, and differnet types of women, and treating a simple increase in reporting is probably not the right indicator. In short the human factor is in play. As always.
My fiancee is a procecutor and, from what she's said to me about procecuting domestic violence, there might be some issues with the results of the report. In short the 15 percent increase in reporting is definately a good thing, on the surface. However, another, and better, variable is an increase in
successful procecutions for domestic abuse taking into account the reports claim that abuse is not decreasing.
Procecutors very regulaly have issues with victims of domestic abuse dropping charges. The point of the no-drop policy is to stop this. However, having a no-drop policy does not necessarily reverse this. Domestic abuse is very often one word against another and the no-drop policy does not ensure that the victim of domestic violence will, eventually, be co-operative when it comes to a trial. If they are not co-operative then a successful procecution is not likely. Therefore, even if the charges cannot be dropped the result of the policy it might simply be an increase the rate of unsuccessful procecutions.
Even worse, it 'could' potentially decrease the rate of sucessful procesutions. This is because there is the assumption in the statistics that the increase in the percentage of persons reporting domestic violence are all 'new' people. They reality is probably more likely to be a mix of a some women being detered from reporting, but a larger number of women reporting.
If this is the case it is certainly possible that the women deterred from reporting by the policy are the ones that need some external support and, once they get it, are more likely to follow through with a procecution. On the flip side the women increasing the reporting may be though in mutually abusive relationships. In short, one women being abused is not the same as the next. They are human.
You have to remember to measure the right things when 'peoples' decisions are involved and I think that the researchers, even in behavioural economics, still treat people a robots. Still the reduction of women killing their domestic partner and an increase in reporting is a good start. Therefore, this issue certinaly deserves further attention and debate. However, using this as total evidence that a no-drop policy will assist women is premature.
