Male Victims’ Experiences With and Perceptions of the Criminal Justice Response to Intimate Partner Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner abuse (IPA) carries severe physical and psychological consequences for victims, and the police and courts are some of the essential formal structures that help victims address their victimization. Studies suggest that male victims of IPA are reluctant to speak about or report their victimization to the police. This qualitative study examines the experiences male victims of IPA had with the criminal justice system (i.e., the courts and police). We conducted interviews with 16 men who had experienced IPA in their previous relationship in Canada. Two major themes about the police response were identified: the barriers to contacting the police for help and negative experiences with the police response. We found that men who chose not to contact the police did it due to the negative expectations of being ridiculed by the police, not being believed, and fear of being arrested. Those men who called the police for help reported unfriendly and antagonistic police treatment and the police's reluctance to charge abusive female partners. The themes that reflected the male victims' interactions with the court pointed to: (1) legal and administrative abuse by female partners, including false accusations and manipulations of child custody, and (2) a general bias against men in the courtroom. This study brings attention to the need for law enforcement officers to be aware of the experiences and perceptions male victims have of the criminal justice system and the need for the criminal justice system to create more inclusive strategies to help male victims of IPA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".