Systemic Obstacles to Battered Women's Participation in the Judicial

1150

Authors’ Note: We would like to dedicate this article to our coauthor, Ellis M. away before this article went to press. Ellis was a warm, caring, and intelligent missed tremendously by her family, friends, and coworkers. We would also like to awomen who shared their stories about domestic violence and the legal-judicial sys

Violence Against WomenVolume 12 Number 12

December 2006 1150-1168© 2006 Sage Publications

During the past three decades, the Canadian public has grownabout the criminal justice system’s response to woman ab

violence,” as it is known within the Canadian criminal code. This b

10.1177/1077801206293500
http://vaw.sagepub.com
hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Systemic Obstacles to BatteredWomen’s Participation in theJudicial System
When Will the Status Quo Change? Joseph Roy GillisShaindl Lin DiamondUniversity of Toronto, ONPaul JebelyDutton Brock LLP, Toronto, ONVictoria OrekhovskyEllis M. OstovichKristin MacIsaacSandra SagratiUniversity of Toronto, ONDeborah MandellUniversity of Toronto at Mississauga, ON
The Canadian government has introduced numerous policies, guidelines, and mandatesat the federal and provincial levels that recognize woman abuse as a serious social prob-lem and violation of the law. Nonetheless, recent feminist research continues to exposelaws and practices that fail woman abuse victims. The present study examined theexperiences of women victims in domestic violence cases and the barriers they facedin dealing with the police, the courts, and social service agencies. Despite governmentinitiatives, the study results corroborate previous findings indicating that many batteredwomen feel further traumatized by ambivalent or discriminatory attitudes and practicesprevalent within the system.

Keywords: domestic violence; immigrant women; legal-judicial system

Ostovich, who passedyoung woman who iscknowledge the bravetem.

more concerneduse or “domesticudding interest is

Gillis et al. / Battered Women and the Judicial System 1151

largely credited to the women’s movement and feminist organizations that haveworked hard to raise awareness about woman abuse as a public and political issuethat cuts across national, cultural, social, and economic borders. As a result, theCanadian government has introduced numerous policies, guidelines, and mandatesthat recognize woman abuse as a serious social problem and a violation of the law(Brown, 2000; Joint Committee on Domestic Violence, 1999). For example, in theearly 1980s, zero-tolerance and no-drop policies were introduced in Canada to pro-tect battered women by putting the onus for laying charges on the police and Crownrather than on the individual victim, thereby reducing the potential for violentrecriminations (Brown, 2000; Joint Committee on Domestic Violence, 1999).

Although these policies indicate that the criminal justice system is respondingmore seriously to woman abuse cases, a number of feminist authors have suggestedthat mandatory charging and no-drop policies may serve to ignore victims’ choices(Bennett, Goodman, & Dutton, 1999). This is consistent with research demonstrat-ing that a significant proportion of victims who initially wish to press charges laterrequest that the charges be dropped (Bennett et al., 1999). In addition, there is nostrong empirical evidence demonstrating that the mandatory charging policy hasreduced domestic violence against women (Landau, 2000). Although police inter-vention implies the serious criminal nature of woman abuse and provides victimswith some level of immediate protection, many women feel strong ambivalenceabout involving the police in their situations (Wachholz & Miedema, 2000).

To date, most research concerning the criminal justice system’s response to domes-tic violence has focused on how police, district attorneys, and judges perceive victims(Bennett et al., 1999). Focusing specifically on the experiences of women survivors ofdomestic abuse, the current study is an initial attempt to increase our understanding ofthe legal-judicial system from the victim or survivor perspective. In particular, the lit-erature review and discussion will focus on the experiences of immigrant women andwomen of color, who compose almost half the study sample, as often these experiencesare marginalized in domestic violence theory and policy. This examination intends toreveal systemic barriers women face in dealing with the police, the judicial system, andsocial service agencies and identify some ways in which these institutions shouldchange to better serve diverse groups of women in Canada.

Literature Review

Because woman abuse victims typically come into contact with the police, thecourts, and victim support services, literature on each of these components will bereviewed. Furthermore, the research in this section reflects a survey of studies thathave specifically examined female victims’ participation in the prosecution processwithin the greater context of systemic responses to woman abuse.

Research on the Police

The police are often the first point of contact with the criminal justice system forvictims of woman abuse. Consequently, the victim’s trust of the criminal justicesystem as a whole can be significantly influenced by an officer’s work dealing withthe crisis at hand (Gillis, Orekhovsky, Jebely, Reixach, & MacIssac, 2002; JointCommittee on Domestic Violence, 1999). If the police fail to make an arrest whencalled to the scene, it is unlikely that the victim will ever commence the prosecutionprocess, even as she faces further abuse at home (Hartman & Belknap, 2003; JointCommittee on Domestic Violence, 1999).

Women are reluctant to involve the police in domestic violence cases for numerousreasons. Several studies indicate that for immigrant women, police intervention canactually create or add to the dynamics that already exist in the abusive relationship,including social isolation, unequal power dynamics, and male control (Bui, 2003;Menjivar & Salcido, 2002; Wachholz & Miedema, 2000). In a study examining immi-grant women’s perceptions of police in New Brunswick, Wachholz and Miedema(2000) found that participants did not trust police to handle their cases seriously orappropriately and feared that contacting the police might lead to greater levels of lone-liness. Many recognized the police as part of a racist and authoritative criminal justicesystem, which will not always function in the victim’s best interests (Canadian Panelon Violence Against Women, 1993; Wachholz & Miedema, 2000). Some immigrantwomen believed that involving the police in domestic disputes could risk deportationof themselves or their partner (McGee, 2000; Miedema & Wachholz, 1998). In addi-tion, contacting the police might put women and/or their children at higher risk byangering the abuser, especially if the police do not take the case seriously or fail to pro-vide adequate protection (McGee, 2000).

It is well documented that women are most likely to contact the police when theyare in desperate situations, after they have already endured various forms of continuedand severe abuse, or when they fear for their life (Bui, 2003; Coulter, Kuehnle, Byers,& Alfonso, 1999; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Landau, 2000; Martin & Mosher, 1995;McGee, 2000; Pratt, 1995). In these emergencies, it is of utmost importance for policeofficers and other criminal justice officials to approach woman abuse cases with greatsensitivity and care. Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that police officers oftendo not handle domestic violence cases effectively. Hannah-Moffat (1995) found thatmany police officers wish to avoid domestic violence situations, do not view domesticviolence as a legal problem, and consider most abused women to be uncooperative,weak, and unreliable. In accordance with these types of attitudes, Stephens and Sinden(2000) observed that police officers often minimize domestic violence situations, dis-believe the victim, adopt a “we don’t care” attitude, and behave arrogantly toward theabused victim. In Erez and Belknap’s (1998) study, half of the women participantsstated that they encountered discouraging comments from police officers investigatingtheir case, and some felt that police were inclined to side with the male abuser. Other

1152 Violence Against Women

research found that police sometimes fail to collect any evidence with which to pros-ecute the abuser, especially when they perceive women victims as uncooperative (Erez& Belknap, 1998; Landau, 2000).

The attitudes and behaviors of police who hold power “to refer, arrest, investigate,and influence access to other parts of the criminal justice system and various socialservice agencies” (Miedema & Wachholz, 1998, p. 23) have a strong impact onwomen’s experiences of the legal system (Hartman & Belknap, 2003). The conse-quences of poor police conduct can be fatal, as women who have had negative pre-vious experience with the criminal justice system in Canada or elsewhere are lesslikely to contact the police when they are in crisis (Canadian Panel on ViolenceAgainst Women, 1993; Friedman, 1992; Pratt, 1995; Roboubi & Bowles, 1995;Stephens & Sinden, 2000).

Research on the Prosecution Process

Prosecutors play a significant role in determining how offenders in domestic violencecases will advance through the legal-judicial system (Hartman & Belknap, 2003).Unfortunately, prosecutors often hold the same kinds of problematic attitudes as policeofficers regarding domestic violence. For example, many court officials perceive domes-tic violence as a victimless crime because of the relationship between the abuser and thevictim (Hartman & Belknap, 2003). In addition, prosecutors tend to think of women sur-vivors of violence as uncooperative and consequently fail to provide them with adequatesupport and information (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Landau,2000; MacLeod, 1995). Hartman and Belknap (2003) assert that battered women areoften in a no-win situation with court officials, who view victims as pathetic, stupid, oreven deserving of the abuse they endured. In a study conducted by Erez and Belknap(1998), the majority of the victims interviewed reported that criminal justice officials dis-couraged them from proceeding with prosecution of their partner. Regrettably, the expe-riences of the women in this study are not uncommon, and appropriate responses andmeaningful assistance to victims of domestic violence by criminal justice personnel arerare and random (Erez & Belknap, 1998; Hartman & Belknap, 2003).

As Landau (2000) asserts, the victim-blaming attitudes and behaviors of court pro-fessionals create “an atmosphere of intolerance and paternalism . . . towards” (Landau,2000, p. 153) women and will not lead to victim cooperation in prosecution of theirpartner (Bennett et al., 1999; Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001; Erez & Belknap, 1998). Theprosecution process is a period of intense stress for women survivors of violence, asthey must face an intimidating legal process while they are still vulnerable to furtheracts of violence or harassment by their partner and/or their partner’s families andfriends (Goodman, Bennett, & Dutton, 1999; Landau, 2000; Pratt, 1995). Manywomen are not familiar with the process of laying charges and testifying in court, andofficials often fail to provide women with information about “what they should expectfrom the trial process and about their rights as survivors and witnesses” (Canadian


Panel on Violence Against Women, 1993, p. 219). Consequently, women survivors ofviolence are often confused and frustrated by the criminal justice process and findcourt procedures and evidentiary rules disturbing, inappropriate, and unhelpful(Bennett et al., 1999; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Landau, 2000; Roberts, 1996). Inattempting to rectify this situation, Landau suggests that women should be providedwith more support and information from court processing personnel and opportunitiesto meet with the prosecutor before their first court appearance.

Research on Social Service Agencies

Social services are important to women survivors of violence and are often the firstpoint of contact for women seeking information and support (Canadian Panel onViolence Against Women, 1993; Coulter et al., 1999). Many women who are pursuinglegal action in domestic violence cases need social service agencies, as they risk losingeconomic and emotional support of their partner and the support of their extendedfamilies and friends, as a direct result of prosecuting their partner (Martin & Mosher,1995; Pratt, 1995). Social support agencies can assist women in taking care of theireconomic and emotional needs during the prosecution process by offering resources suchas transportation, child care, job training, and counseling referrals (Goodman et al.,1999). Such support is particularly important for women who lack the resources to liveindependently and are, therefore, more likely to remain in violent domestic situations(Bennett et al., 1999). Research has demonstrated that victims who meet with victim ser-vice workers are twice as likely to follow through with prosecution of domestic violencecharges against their partner (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001; Goodman et al., 1999). Thereis a demonstrable need for a more holistic response providing social and economic sup-ports to women and women’s services. Unfortunately, the Ontario government has pri-marily directed funding and resources to a law-and-order strategy that does not meetvictims’ needs (Cross-sectoral Violence Against Women Strategy Group, 2004).

Method

Participants

Focus groups were chosen to collect information about women’s experiences ofdomestic violence cases within the Canadian legal-judicial system. Participants wererecruited from one victim services location in Ontario and comprised a diverse group of20 women. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 54 years, with an average age of 39.Most participants self-identified as either White or Caucasian (45%) or Indian (25%).Smaller percentages of women self-identified as West Indian, Chinese, Native Indian, ormixed race/ethnicity. The majority of women of color participants were first-generationimmigrants to Canada, and 25% of all participants were not fluent in English.


Six focus groups were conducted. The focus group sizes ranged from 1 to 6participants, with an average of 4 participants in each group. Three focus groups con-sisted of women who had followed through with the entire process of prosecuting theirpartner, and the other three groups included women who had at some point withdrawnfrom the prosecution process. The majority of participants (75%) had completed theprosecution process. All participants were at some point involved in long-term,monogamous relationships with men who assaulted them. Participants were eithermarried or in common-law relationships at the time of the reported assault, and mosthad experienced physical and/or emotional abuse for extended periods, ranging fromtwo years to two decades. Concerning participants’ partner who had abused them, 90%were charged with assault, 30% were charged for threatening their partner, and 20%were charged with harassment. In terms of legal outcomes, 55% of abusers were givenrestraining orders, 35% were put on probation, 25% were granted access to children,and 20% were incarcerated. Many abusers were charged for multiple reasons relatedto abuse and/or faced more than one of the legal outcomes listed above.

Procedure

The Victim Services Board approved the present study using an ethics protocol pre-pared by an experienced research consultant, following the guidelines of the CanadianTri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans(Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,2003). Participants were asked to read and sign the consent forms and were given theopportunity to ask research assistants for further information about the study. Before thefocus groups began, each participant completed a questionnaire to collect sociodemo-graphic, legal, and clinical information. Two trained female research assistants facili-tated all focus groups. According to a semistructured discussion guide, the facilitatorsopened the discussion with questions about participants’ knowledge and feelingsregarding mandatory charging policies in domestic violence cases, followed by ques-tions about their experiences with police, court officials, and victim service agencies.

Analysis

A grounded theory approach was used to interpret the results from focus groupdiscussions. This involved identifying recurring themes with the aid of a softwareprogram designed for qualitative data analysis (Nu*Dist). The summary of results inthis article begins with discussion about the complex factors that influenced partici-pants’ initial decisions to seek help, followed with discussion about women’s expe-riences with the police, courtroom proceedings, and social service agencies.Although recurring themes came up in all focus groups, this sample represents asmall and culturally diverse group of women from one region in Ontario, making it


difficult to generalize these findings to the general population of women in Canada.For this reason, this study represents an initial attempt at understanding some of thebarriers women survivors of violence face in the Canadian legal-judicial system.However, the experiences of women in this sample are generally consistent with pastresearch on domestic violence against women and the legal-judicial system, whichfurther validates the present findings. In the results section, direct quotations areused frequently to best capture the experiences of women survivors.

Results

A variety of themes emerged in the focus groups that typified problems faced bybattered women in the legal-judicial system, including negative interactions withpolice officers and court officials, inflexible court proceedings, insensitivity to lin-guistic and cultural differences, issues related to custody of children, and unsatisfac-tory legal outcomes. The legal system failed to inform many participants about theirrights and other important information at every stage of the legal process, which inturn caused them significant distress. In addition, women reported other sources ofstress caused by patriarchal notions of family and gender, which were often internal-ized and reinforced by their family members and/or community. Participants alsodescribed having mixed feelings toward their abusive partner, including love, sadness,anger, fear, guilt, and pity, which made the prosecution process very emotionally dif-ficult. Although social service agencies offered women some support throughout theprocess, a number of barriers to accessing services came up in discussion. The fol-lowing sections will report on participants’ experiences during the entire legal-judicial process, from the initial decision to contact the police to the period followingprosecution, as described by women in the focus groups. In general, problemsdescribed throughout the prosecution process occurred on many different levels,including individual, family, community, and systemic levels.

Decision to Contact the Police

The focus group results indicated that women’s initial decisions to contact thepolice were influenced and complicated by many factors. Many participants whofeared that leaving their relationship would leave them even more alone describedfeelings of isolation. One woman explained how she feared destroying her relation-ship, as she “couldn’t conceive of the future . . . [they] were supposed to havetogether [and she] . . . was so mixed up . . . with love.” It was apparent that immi-grant participants were particularly vulnerable to feelings of isolation, especiallywhen they had no familial support in Canada: “I was on my own . . . . If I had a sis-ter or anybody in this country, I would never have been in an abusive relationship.”As a result, abuse was often minimized or rationalized to protect the abusive partner


and maintain the relationship. For example, a participant who emotionally andfinancially supported her epileptic husband did not want to involve the policebecause she blamed the abuse on mental illness and felt a great sense of guilt, shame,and responsibility for the abuse in the relationship. She explained how she felt “reallybad for this person who’s not well . . . very sick with epilepsy” and absolutely refusedto blame her husband.

Participants were burdened with a strong sense of responsibility for maintainingfamily cohesiveness and often felt ashamed for involving the legal system in theirdomestic affairs. This sense of familial obligation was clear in statements that came uprepeatedly in the focus groups: “I don’t want to destroy my family position”; “Once awoman is with a man, she stays there”; “[The woman is] supposed to make the mar-riage work”; “Being a good wife, I should try to comfort him, try to calm him down.”A number of immigrant women linked their conceptualizations of family to their cul-tural upbringing:

The kind of way we have been brought up is they have a family. As a wife, [youhave] . . . a duty . . . to be supportive . . . . If something unfortunate happened being awife, you should do something to make it easier, to help make the situation easier.

“I felt sorry for [my husband] . . . because of . . . my upbringing . . . [as a] girl.” Also,the notion that a woman must “make . . . [the relationship] work for the sakeof . . . children” prevented participants from contacting the police or leaving the abu-sive relationship.

Participants also feared potential consequences of contacting the police, particularlywhen they lacked detailed knowledge of the legal system. “Even though you know it’sthe right thing to do, you have to make a decision on whether you can actually live withthe consequences that are going to be thrown at you.” The well-founded fear that policeinvolvement might put women and their children at higher risk by angering the abuserwas voiced repeatedly in the focus groups: “If you step out of line he’s going to makeyou pay for that in whatever way he can. So . . . it’s more peaceful if I just sort of coop-erate.” “I seen his strength and because I took his threats serious . . . . [I] didn’t know howto deal . . . thinking if I dealt with it he’d be more angry and he’d definitely kill me.”

Some women avoided contact with the legal system to protect their children fromfurther trauma:

I could see him taking the children and saying, well if I can’t have them no one can andoff the bridge he goes. That was my biggest fear . . . that he would just take it upon him-self because he [thinks he] is God.

The potential financial impact of separation on the victim and her children was anothermajor concern that came up in focus group discussions. One participant stated, “I hadnowhere to go, and here I had three little children.” Another participant said, “I had to


stay . . . . I don’t have that much education to be able to go out and get the goodpaying job.” And a third participant remarked, “The financial . . . stuff . . . kept methere for 7 years.” Women were very doubtful that the system would provide adequatefinancial support if they did choose to leave the relationship.

A number of immigrant women faced additional linguistic and cultural barriers thatprevented them from contacting the police. They often did not have access to sufficientlegal information and were unable to communicate their situations to English-speakingpolice officers, “I was new in the country. I didn’t know anything about the laws, whatthe law said, what are the rights and everything.” One woman’s husband even went sofar as to disconnect the telephone to prevent her from telling others about the abuse:“He pulled all the wires because I didn’t know the language very well.” Two otherwomen received some support and information from friends or family members whoencouraged them to seek help, “[My family] encouraged . . . [me] to charge him withcriminal harassment”; “[My friend] gave . . . [me] support and . . . told . . . [me] thatin this country ladies [have] rights too.”

Initial decisions to contact the police were usually made after years of enduring phys-ical abuse, when participants “couldn’t take it anymore,” after “5 to 7 years . . . smash-ing the head . . . smashing my face.” They were most likely to contact the police whenthe violence escalated to a point resulting in serious physical trauma, such as brokenbones, disfigured faces, hospitalization, and long-term disabilities. In many cases,women came to realize that they could not protect themselves from the abuse and fearedfor their lives: “She [contacted the police] . . . for her safety, because when he wasphysically assaulting her, he strangled her . . . she got really scared.” Some womendecided to contact the police when they came to understand the impact of abuse on theirchildren and/or grandchildren. Participants placed value on keeping their families intact,but not at the expense of keeping their children safe and healthy, “When I seen him goingafter my granddaughter, I thought of my kids, and I thought, oh, I can’t see this anymore.”Another woman reported that she “[contacted the police] mostly for . . . [her] kids.” Shehad a 6-year-old son and worried about him learning violence as an acceptable tool togain dominance and control over others.

Experience With the Police

Participants named different motivations for involving the legal-judicial system intheir domestic violence cases. A couple of women stated the notion of justice as astrong incentive for involving the police so that “he could learn a lesson.” Onewoman contacted the police specifically because she wanted her husband sentencedto jail to send the message that men “can’t go around doing this to women and . . . getaway with it.” More typically, however, participants did not contact the police withthe intention of laying charges but rather did so to escape immediate danger or inhopes that the police would remove the abuser from the immediate situation. In mostcases, participants were unaware of the mandatory charging and no-drop policies



before police contact. Rather, they were informed that police “were going to presscharges” after they arrived at the scene. In cases where women did not want to laycharges, the police informed them that “they have no choice in the matter”; “theywere going to press charges” regardless of the victim’s wishes. Women had diverseand complex reactions to these policies; some expressed guilt and regret for involv-ing the police, whereas others were relieved that “it [was] not in . . . [their] handsanymore.” A few women felt that charges laid by the police were fair or were thank-ful in cases where the police forced the abusive partner to leave.

Although experiences with police varied widely, most women reported some neg-ative occurrence. Delayed police response was one factor that discouraged some par-ticipants from pursuing further legal intervention: “I felt like dropping [the case]right then [because of] the length of time [that had] gone by.” Other complaints cameup frequently in focus groups that indicated police were not taking woman abusecases seriously. Often, police behavior was described as insensitive, impersonal, anddismissive, as if “the incident that happened wasn’t big enough” to merit policeattention. For example, some women felt that the police blamed them for being “stu-pid enough to stay in” an abusive relationship. In fact, one woman actually sawpolice reports stating that she only contacted the police “to get back at her husband.”Even worse, in three cases, police officers were responsible for some major errorsand omissions at the crime scene that caused women to lose their case in court. Forexample, an immigrant woman told a police officer that she needed an interpreter tocommunicate her story. He told her that he was unable to get an interpreter andinstead asked her husband’s aunt to translate her story. The aunt failed to translatethe story accurately, probably because she had a vested interest in protecting hernephew, and as a result there was no evidence to charge for abuse. Another womanreported that the police lost her husband’s papers, and, as a consequence, the casenever made it to trial. In another case, the police failed to attain a search warrantbefore collecting major evidence, so it could not be used in court.

In contrast to the many complaints regarding police intervention, a couple of womenwere very pleased with police support they received. In one case, a woman found thepolice officers to be “very helpful and patient” as they “explained exactly by detail whatwould happen” throughout the entire legal proceedings and provided her with contactinformation for various social service agencies. Some other police officers came by forfollow-up visits shortly after initial contact to ensure that the victims were safe.

Experience in Court

The time between first contact with the police and the actual court date representeda long waiting period during which court officials provided very little guidance orinformation to women. Women described their dissatisfaction and lack of supportfrom attorneys: “The attorney was not available, so she could not talk to me,” and “thelawyers and Crown attorneys and the other lawyers . . . are supporting each other andthey are not helping us at all.” Court officials failed to provide women with support


and information throughout the entire court process. For example, a woman was toldby her attorney to “come . . . an hour early before . . . court” proceedings, but the attor-ney did not arrive until “5 minutes just before the bell.” Some participants were notinformed that the court proceedings “could be . . . 8 hours of the day,” and most lackedknowledge of legal terminology. Because of this “general lack of knowledge,” womenfelt unprepared the day of their court proceedings, as demonstrated by the followingstatements: “You feel lost and there’s something missing”; “I didn’t know what to do.I didn’t know what my rights were. I didn’t know nothing.”

The actual court proceedings were described by participants as intimidating, imper-sonal, and demeaning. Court officials demonstrated little empathy and often treatedwomen as “case files.” One participant believed that “[the court officials] weren’t inter-ested. It was how many files are we going to get through today . . . nobody . . . tookthe time to look at what was going on” with the people involved. This sentiment wasreiterated by another participant who stated: “[The officials] don’t care [aboutthe] . . . impact of the order [or] . . . what happens to me after that order, during theorder, [or] where I stand.” On one court date, “the judge was almost asleep, and all hesaid [was] . . . get on with it,” which was very discouraging to the victim. Many womenstated that the court officials acted as if they did not have time to listen to the case sto-ries: “I wanted to tell a lot of things . . . but [the Crown] always used to say do it verysmall . . . . He said the time will be wasted, don’t give a long story.” During the diffi-cult experience of giving their court statements, women felt silenced or unheard, likethey “didn’t have a say” or that “nobody [listened].” Several participants specificallyreferred to the court system as a “game” played by police officers, lawyers, and judges:“It’s a battle of two lawyers. It had nothing to do with exactly what happened . . . withcourts or penalties or . . . laws. It had to do with who’s got the best lawyer.”

Legal Outcomes

All women in the present study reported that they would never use the legalsystem again in domestic violence situations. Although one woman was glad that shewent through the legal system and was pleased overall with the court process andoutcomes (“My life is much better than whatever it was with him.”), she did not wantto go through the system again because “it was mentally and emotionally exhaust-ing.” All other women were disappointed with both the court process and outcomes:“Never in my wildest dreams I would think I would go through that [again] . . . [or]the end results.” In fact, a number of women felt that they were further victimizedby the court sanctions (“Instead of being the victim, you might as well have done thecrime.”) and that “the justice system [is] . . . not making these guys pay [butrather] . . . telling them it’s okay . . . to beat the shit out of women.”

Women with children repeatedly mentioned custody issues as a major problemthat came up after the legal proceedings. Although they were all granted primarycustody of their children, the abusive men “still [had] . . . . visiting rights [and]access to them.” Many were very concerned about their children keeping contact

with an abusive father. For example, one woman described how her husband continuedto hurt his children emotionally:

He played a lot of mind games with me and our kids . . . he plays games with them. “Idon’t want to see you anymore.” But he has a court order saying to see them wheneverhe decides I’m going to come back again. He disappears for like a year at a time andcomes back.

Another woman explained that “you’re definitely on the lower end when you’relooking after the children . . . . They say you’re in control, you have custody. We’renot. We’re vulnerable because the first thing usually is you think of your child.” Inaddition, participants felt that their own safety was at stake “having somebody visityour home 1, 2, 3, or 4 times a week to pick those children up, giving him access”to both the victim and her children.

Lack of aftercare or support services was another recurring problem that came up inthe focus group discussions. Participants hoped that the court would sanction manda-tory counseling for abusers or some other form of help. Instead, “conditions of proba-tion . . . were swept under the rug” and “nobody . . . made sure that [the perpetratorsreceived] . . . the counseling” ordered by the courts. In addition, victims who separatedfrom their abusers “[ended up with] nothing” and often did not “know where to turn andfrom where to get support.” For example, one participant reported that she “walked outwith . . . [her] daughter going to . . . [her] parents,” and she ended up at a women’s shel-ter. Another woman was left with very little money and the responsibility of supportinga diabetic child. She stated that “[family services would] not help . . . [her] keep thischild alive, but at the same time . . . [they would] turn around . . . to take that child awayfrom . . . [her].” The contradictions within legal and social institutions were very appar-ent to women who experienced first hand the financial and social punishments of leav-ing an abusive partner, which they were told was “the right thing to do.”

Even after completing prosecution, participants did not feel safe and continued to“live in fear” (“Even if he’s not with you, he’s abusing you.”). Some reported thatwearing a safety beeper had been somewhat useful in helping them feel safer, but ingeneral, they feared the consequences of having further aggravated their abusers. Onewoman explained that she would “never ever walk . . . out of the house without some-body . . . regardless with the beeper alarm” as she was petrified that her abuser “wasstill walking the streets.” Another woman continued to live in hiding, moving regu-larly, because she believed that her partner was “dangerous enough to kill . . . [andthat] if he had to wait 2 years or 5 years, he’d come out looking” for her.

Social Service Agencies

All women in the present study were recruited from Victim Services and, there-fore, had at least minimal contact with the social service sector. It was apparent from


the focus groups that Victim Services provided women with some information andsupport. One woman stated that Victim Services “kind of gave . . . [her] a brief ideaof what was going to be going on” and instructed her to call back if she had anyquestions. Another woman was very impressed with Victim Services, as they“gave . . . [her] all the information [she] needed” in terms of options and financialconsiderations. Overall, women reported mixed experiences with Victim Servicesand other agencies with which they came into contact. Some women were fortunateto find social service workers who worked hard to support them: “My social workerdid many things—spoke to . . . my housing, spoke to . . . my social worker, tried toget . . . money for . . . my child.” Others had more difficulty accessing agencies forvarious reasons: The agencies neglected to call the victim back, victims were over-whelmed with information, or women lacked transportation and/or child careresources. Nonetheless, Victim Services and other agencies offered some womeninvaluable resources in the midst of a confusing and intimidating system.

Participant Recommendations

There were two major recommendations that came up repeatedly in the focusgroups. First, women felt that court officials and police officers should provide themwith more information about rights, terminology, and the legal process. One womannoted regretfully that if she had access to “information, things would have definitelybeen different.” Second, women felt a strong need for a more supportive court processin general. In particular, many women reported difficulties in “giving a statement”when “she gets nervous” or “very scared that the judge will say something” in “thecourt . . . [where] there are so many people.” Women also felt burdened to prove theabuse. As one woman stated, “It’s your word against theirs . . . if you’re not a con-vincing person, you could have created all of this nonsense and you could be lying.”Some reported that they are “intimidated by males” because of their survivor historiesand felt further “intimidated and assaulted by the courthouse,” in part because of theoverrepresentation of men. One suggestion was made that “maybe they should put awoman up there . . . [because] a woman judge . . . [would] hear these horror sto-ries . . . and wouldn’t like it very much.” Another woman recommended that policeofficers and court officials be screened on entering the profession to ensure that theygenuinely want to help people. All of these problems and recommendations reflect aneed for more effective training for police officers and court officials and a need fora more flexible system to better meet the needs of traumatized people.

Discussion

The present study corroborates previous findings that women survivors of violencecontinue to face difficulties in the legal-judicial system that impair its usefulness as a


resource for their protection. This is perplexing in consideration of the many programs,policies, and guidelines established by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General(2004) to support victims of woman abuse at various levels of the prosecution process.For example, the Domestic Violence Court Program requires the police, Crown attor-neys, victim support staff, and community agencies to work collectively to facilitatethe “prosecution of domestic assault cases and early intervention in abusive domesticsituations” (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2004) in ways that address theneeds and safety of victims. The Victim/Witness Assistance Program is mandated “toprovide information, assistance and support to victims and witnesses of crime through-out the criminal justice process” (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2004) byway of services covering crisis intervention, needs assessment, referrals to communityagencies, emotional support, case-specific information, and court preparation and ori-entation for victims. Victim Awareness Education Workshops are administered tofront-line police officers to improve their abilities “to respond to victims in a profes-sional and compassionate manner” (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2004),in collaboration with more basic training at police college and enhanced training aboutspecific departmental procedures (Joint Committee on Domestic Violence, 1999;Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General, 2000). These are only a few of the programsput in place to address the needs and safety of woman abuse survivors in the criminaljustice system, and they seem to address many of the issues described by women in thepresent study.

Despite these many government initiatives, only a minority of participants in thepresent study reported positive experiences with police officers and other criminaljustice officials. The majority of women were further traumatized by ambivalent ordiscriminatory attitudes and practices prevalent within the system. The contrast inwomen’s experiences can be at least partially attributed to the ethnic diversity amongparticipants. The few women who reported positive experiences within the legalsystem self-identified as Caucasian and spoke English fluently. Most women whoreported negative experiences during the prosecution process did not explicitly stateracism as a barrier within the system, but not one woman of color reported positiveexperiences within the legal-judicial system, indicating that racist stereotypes andcultural barriers were in play. Consistent with these findings, past research indicatesthat the system is more biased against women who contradict the White, middle-classnotion of women (Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, 1993; Miller, 2001).

Many participants from non-Western cultures described internal barriers caused bycultural upbringing that prevented them from seeking legal help. This is consistent withsome other research indicating that immigrant women’s cultures, contexts, and legal sta-tuses increase vulnerability to abuse (Raj & Silverman, 2002). However, when inter-preting such findings, it is critical to recognize the racist discourse underscoring notionsof violence against women as natural, traditional, or inherent to non-Western commu-nities. Bannerji (2002) asserts that imagined notions of traditional communities restexplicitly on patriarchy but are legitimated as an essence of identity in non-Western


immigrant communities. This traditional patriarchal identity is equally the result ofothering imposed by powerful outside forces embedded in oppressive Western institu-tions (Bannerji, 2002). This discourse may socialize women from non-Western culturesto blame internalized barriers on their cultures’ traditions rather than on difficultiesexacerbated by their specific locations as immigrants, including limited host-languageskills, lack of access to dignified jobs, uncertain legal statuses, and experiences in theirhome countries (Menjivar & Salcido, 2002).

Most women in the present study had little knowledge about the legal-judicialsystem and did not know how to access necessary information. They did not knowwhat to expect during the prosecution process, were unfamiliar with their rights asvictims, did not understand legal terminology, and felt intimidated by courtroomproceedings. This is worrisome considering that the Ontario Ministry of the AttorneyGeneral (2004) has created programs designed specifically to provide victims withsuch information and that police officers are mandated to refer women to availableservices and offer to make initial contact with victim services (Ontario Ministry ofthe Solicitor General, 2000).

Although some women found support through victim service agencies, many wereunaware of these services or could not gain access to them because of financialrestraints. This is consistent with past research that emphasizes a lack of accessible,multilingual, culturally appropriate public information and services for ethnic minor-ity women survivors of violence (Godin, 1994; Joint Committee on DomesticViolence, 1999; Pratt, 1995; Roboubi & Bowles, 1995). Many participants expressedthe need for more support throughout this stressful period, preferably from other sur-vivors of violence who would be more sensitive to their needs. The Cross-sectoralViolence Against Women Strategy Group (2004) has detailed immediate and long-term recommendations for change to the Ontario government that would allow themto create and maintain required services for woman abuse survivors. Unfortunately, thegovernment has yet to implement many of these changes, and women’s services con-tinue to suffer from tight budget restrictions (Cross-sectoral Violence Against WomenStrategy Group, 2004; Lakeman, 2003).

The present study also indicates that women who complete the prosecutionprocess are often disappointed with court outcomes, which do not correspond withthe severity and repercussions of their partner’s abusive behaviors. In the presentstudy, the courts ensured little or no follow-up with respect to probation or provi-sions for treatment after prosecution, and women survivors were offered little pro-tection from further violence after their partner completed his sentence. Most ofthese women continued to fear for the safety of themselves and their children andfound little support from the legal-judicial system or victim service agencies afterprosecuting their partner. All women reported that they would be reluctant to involvethe legal-judicial system in future domestic violence cases.

Although these findings offer some insight into the experiences of women duringprosecution in domestic violence cases, there were a number of limitations in the



present study. For example, the sample represented a small and culturally diversegroup of women from one region in Ontario, making it difficult to generalize thesefindings to the general population of women in Canada. Despite repeated attemptsto recruit participants through victim service agencies, the response rate remainedlow, probably because of the sensitive nature of the topic. Also, the retrospectivedesign of the study might have elicited different responses than a study examiningthe experiences of women at various stages of the prosecution process. Nonetheless,this study design was necessary to ensure that women had completed the judicialprocess and had come to some resolution of their emotional trauma so as not to fur-ther traumatize women during an already stressful period. Finally, the focus groupformat may have inhibited some women from telling their stories or expressing opin-ions that differed from the majority group opinion.

Further research is needed to evaluate different aspects of prosecution in domesticviolence cases to facilitate more radical restructuring of the system. For example, alongitudinal research design that follows women through the legal-judicial system,gathering information at various stages of the prosecution process, might be moreinformative than the retrospective design used in the present study. Furthermore,research examining a larger sample of women who complete prosecution versus thosewho withdraw from the process would be useful to assess the positive and negativeoutcomes of legal action, taking into account the safety and emotional and financialwell-being of women and children. Finally, research is also needed to evaluate currentinterventions established by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General and thepolice training colleges to address the gaps between policy and guideline mandates andthe lived experiences of woman abuse survivors in the criminal justice system.

References

Bannerji, H. (2002). A question of silence: Reflections on violence against women in communities ofcolour. In K. M. J. McKenna & J. Larkin (Eds.), Violence against women: New Canadian perspec-tives (pp. 353-370). Toronto, Canada: Inanna.

Bennett, L., Goodman, L., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Systemic obstacles to the criminal prosecution of abattering partner: A victim perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 761-772.

Brown, T. (2000). Charging and prosecution policies in cases of spousal assault: A synthesis of research,academic and judicial responses. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.

Bui, H. N. (2003). Help-seeking behavior among abused immigrant women: A case of VietnameseAmerican women. Violence Against Women, 9, 207-239.

Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women. (1993). Changing the landscape: Ending violence, achiev-ing equality. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.

Coulter, M. L., Kuehnle, K., Byers, R., & Alfonso, M. (1999). Police-reporting behavior and victim policeinteractions as described by women in a domestic violence shelter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,14, 1290-1298.

Cross-sectoral Violence Against Women Strategy Group. (2004). Emergency measures and beyond.Retrieved November 5, 2004, from http://www.owjn.org/vaw/content.htm


Dawson, M., & Dinovitzer, R. (2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in aspecialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18, 593-622.

Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessments of the criminal pro-cessing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13, 251-268.

Friedman, A. R. (1992). Rape and domestic violence: The experience of refugee women. In E. Cole, O.M. Espin, & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), Refugee women and their mental health: Shattered societies,shattered lives (pp. 141-154). New York: Harrington.

Gillis, J. R., Orekhovsky, V., Jebely, P., Reixach, D., & MacIssac, K. (2002). Abused women’s participa-tion in investigative, judicial and social services: Their experiences and candid points of view. Ottawa:Department of Justice Canada.

Godin, J. (1994). More than a crime: A report on the lack of public legal information materials for immi-grant women who are subject to wife assault. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, Research andStatistics Division.

Goodman, L., Bennett, L., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Obstacles to victims’ cooperation with the criminalprosecution of their abusers: The role of social support. Violence and Victims, 14, 427-444.

Hannah-Moffat, K. (1995). To charge or not to charge: Frontline officers’ perceptions of mandatorycharge policies. In M. Valverde, L. MacLeod, & K. Johnson (Eds.), Wife assault and the Canadiancriminal justice system (pp. 35-46). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology.

Hartman, J., & Belknap, J. (2003). Beyond the gatekeepers: Court professionals’ self-reported attitudesabout and experiences with domestic violence cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 349-373.

Joint Committee on Domestic Violence. (1999). Working towards a seamless community and justiceresponse to domestic violence: A five year plan for Ontario. Toronto, Canada: Ministry of the AttorneyGeneral of Ontario.

Lakeman, L. (2003). Canada’s promises to keep: The charter and violence against women. Vancouver:Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres.

Landau, T. C. (2000). Women’s experiences with mandatory charging for wife assault in Ontario, Canada:A case against the prosecution. International Review of Victimology, 7, 141-157.

MacLeod, L. (1995). Policy decisions and prosecutorial dilemmas: The unanticipated consequences ofgood intention. In M. Valverde, L. MacLeod, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Wife assault and the Canadiancriminal justice system (pp. 47-61). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology.

Martin, D. L., & Mosher, J. E. (1995). Unkept promises: Experiences of immigrant women with the neo-criminalization of wife abuse. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 8, 3-44.

McGee, C. (2000). Children’s and mothers’ experiences of support and protection following domestic vio-lence. In J. Hanmer, C. Itzin, S. Quaid, & D. Wigglesworth (Eds.), Home truths about domestic vio-lence: Feminist influences on policy and practice (pp. 77-95). London: Routledge.

Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2003). Tri-council policy state-ment: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved January 3, 2005, from http://www.owjn.org/vaw/content.htm

Menjivar, C., & Salcido, O. (2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence: Common experiences indifferent countries. Gender & Society, 16, 898-920.

Miedema, B., & Wachholz, S. (1998). A complex web: Access to justice for abused immigrant women inNew Brunswick. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada.

Miller, S. L. (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence: Criminal justice profession-als and service providers respond. Violence Against Women, 7, 1339-1376.

Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. (2004). What we do. Retrieved August 8, 2004, fromhttp://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/

Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General. (2000). Policing standards manual. Toronto, Canada: Ministryof the Solicitor General.


Pratt, A. (1995). New immigrant and refugee battered women: The intersection of immigration andcriminal justice policy. In M. Valverde, L. MacLeod, & K. Johnson (Eds.), Wife assault and the Canadiancriminal justice system (pp. 84-103). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology.

Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Intimate partner violence against immigrant women. Violence AgainstWomen, 8, 367-398.

Roberts, T. (1996). Spousal assault and mandatory charging in the Yukon: Experiences, perspectives, andalternatives. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division.

Roboubi, N., & Bowles, S. (1995). Barriers to justice: Ethnocultural minority women and domestic violence—A preliminary discussion paper. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division.

Stephens, J., & Sinden, P. G. (2000). Victims’ voices: Domestic assault victims’ perceptions of policedemeanor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 534-547.

Wachholz, S., & Miedema, B. (2000). Risk, fear, and harm: Immigrant women’s perceptions of the “polic-ing solution” to woman abuse. Crime, Law & Social Change, 34, 301-317.

Joseph Roy Gillis is assistant professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the Universityof Toronto in the Department of Adult Education and Counselling Psychology. His research and teachinginterests include the development of a counseling model for hate crime survivors, attitudes toward teach-ing about sexual diversity in the classroom, sexual dysfunction in gay men, HIV prevention and safer sexfatigue, forensic psychology, and psychological assessment. He has published broadly in those fields inacademic journals and has presented his research to both community agencies and academic audiences.

Shaindl Lin Diamond is a PhD student in the Counseling Psychology Program at the Ontario Institutefor Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT). She received her undergraduate degreefrom Trent University in women’s studies and psychology and her MA from OISE/UT in counseling psy-chology. Her academic and activist interests include antipsychiatry, queer studies, antioppressive educa-tion, multicultural psychology, critical psychology, feminist theory, equity studies, and anticapitalism.

Paul Jebely is a student-at-law with Dutton Brock LLP in Toronto. He completed his BA at TrinityCollege at the University of Toronto, his LLB at Osgoode Hall Law School York University, and a specialcourse of study at the Sorbonne in Paris, France.

Victoria Orekhovsky immigrated to Canada from Ukraine in 1990. She is completing her doctoral degreein counseling psychology at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. Shehas been actively involved in clinical and academic research since 1994. Some of the projects that sheworked on focused on HIV/AIDS, such as issues around safer sex among undergraduate students, rapidassessment of injection drug use in the Peel region, Ontario, and, most recently, a longitudinal study ofHIV/AIDS in Russia.

Ellis M. Ostovich received her BSc with high distinction from the University of Toronto posthumously in2004, with a double major in psychology and criminology. She worked as a research assistant in psychol-ogy both at Lancaster University, where she was an exchange student and at the University of Toronto. Shewas the winner of the Bloor Lands Entrance Scholarship and two Regents In-Course Scholarships at VictoriaUniversity, University of Toronto. She also wrote poetry and fiction, sketched, performed as a musician, andproduced a film short, Gaela Running, which was selected for showing at the Hart House Film Festival.

Kristin MacIsaac is currently completing a master’s of teaching degree at the Ontario Institute forStudies in Education of the University of Toronto. She was awarded her BSc Hon in psychology from theUniversity of Toronto in 2003.

Sandra Sagrati has extensive experience in research and clinical practice in the areas of depression,anxiety, and eating disorders. Employed as a research coordinator for the past 7 years at the Centre forAddiction and Mental Health, she worked in the Cognitive Behavior Therapy Unit and NeurochemicalImaging Program in Mood Disorders. In addition, she has worked in the Anxiety Treatment and ResearchCentre and Mood Disorders Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare and Eating Disorders Day Program at theUniversity Health Network. She obtained a master’s of education in developmental psychology at theUniversity of Toronto and is completing her doctorate degree.

Deborah Mandell is a personal counselor at the University of Toronto at Mississauga. An antiviolenceactivist, advocate, and educator, she has worked with teenagers and young adults, creating and coordi-nating programs to promote healthy and empowering relationships. She recently received her MEd incounseling psychology at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.


Documents

Systemic Obstacles to Battered Women's Participation in the Judicial