In the 1970s and 80s the feminist and battered women’s movement transformed public perception of domestic violence from a private family matter to a crime punishable by legal sanctions. Consequently, many states passed laws criminalizing domestic violence and criminal court dockets soon filled with domestic violence cases. Suddenly,the implementation and interpretation of these new laws fell on select individuals: judges. Judges may exercise considerable latitude when ruling on sentencing, restraining orders, and child custody issues. Despite their central role in domestic violence cases, the canon of domestic violence research has paid very little attention to understanding how judges actually interpret and ultimately decide cases.
Domestic violence cases present a multitude of personal factors that may complicate the facts or the application of the law. I am seeking to understand how, if at all, judges consider the personal dimensions of domestic violence when ruling on these cases. Because of these uniquely personal factors— such as child custody issues and mutual dependence on a sole income, do judges handle domestic violence cases differently than other criminal cases? Is there a standard for rulings on domestic violence cases? Are there discrepancies or inconsistencies in judicial decisions?
These questions may reveal the factors that influence judicial decisions in domestic violence cases and how sentencing stipulations may reflect or contradict systematically reproduced scripts.
To better understand the judicial decision making process in domestic violence cases, I will observe court proceedings and judicial conferences at the Alachua County District Court in Gainesville, FL. By conducting interviews with judges and lawyers, I will investigate the legal reasoning judges use when adjudicating domestic violence cases. There are obviously confidentiality issues concerning case details so these interviews will be limited to reflections of judges and lawyers on judicial decision making.