Women's Experiences with Mandatory Charging for Wife Assault in Ontario, Canada: A Case Against the Prosecution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over a decade ago, the Canadian government and most provinces implemented a criminalization strategy for wife assault. The policy has as its main goals the reduction of case attrition through the prosecution process from charge to disposition, and the imposition of appropriate sentences upon conviction. These goals are achieved through removing police discretion in charging, and reducing the number of cases withdrawn or stayed by the Crown prosecutor. Evaluations of the policy suggest it has strong support from justice professionals who work within the system. This paper presents data from interviews with 94 women whose male partners had been charged with assaulting them. Views and experiences of women are presented, and indicate complex views of mandatory charging. The findings support the conclusions that women do not equate calling the police with the criminal prosecution of their spouses, and often experience additional anxiety, frustration and disempowerment as a direct result of the strategy. However, recommendations for reforming the strategy emphasize the resource and evidentiary needs of the police and Crown, while the needs and interests of women/victims are seen as barriers to the smooth prosecution of wife assault cases. It is suggested that the voices of women are not, and cannot be, integrated into the current strategy, as it prioritizes the bureaucratic, professional and structural imperatives of the administration of justice and/or its agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".