Protectionism, Paternalism, and Women’s Agency: Intimate Partner Violence, Mandatory Charging Policies, and the Victim-Offender Overlap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of mandatory charging policies for intimate partner violence (hereafter, IPV) in Canada in the 1980s significantly limited police officer’s discretion and required that they lay charges in cases where there were “reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an assault has taken place” (Landau, 2000, p. 142). These policies intended to offer victims of IPV some degree of protection from the justice system while signalling to the public the IPV was being taken seriously and addressed as a criminal offence (see, for example, Landau, 2000; Brown, 2002; Garner & Maxwell, 2009; Girard-Brown, 2012). However, scholars have argued that an unanticipated outcome of these policies has been the criminalization of women who have been victimized by their intimate partner, often for self-defence (Busch & Rosenberg, 2004; Hirschel & Buzawa, 2002; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Swan & Snow, 2002), which has a variety of harmful implications for victimized women. Since the implementation of mandatory charging policies, there has been an increase in the number of women who have been arrested for IPV, either solely or in tandem with their partner (Hirschel & Buzawa, 2002; Miller & Meloy, 2006). Correspondingly, scholars have argued that an incident-focussed justice system is ill-equipped to recognize sustained patterns of violence (Grace, 2019). As a result, this paper explores the ways in which mandatory charging policies and the criminalization of victimized women illustrates the justice system’s wide-scale inability to acknowledge patterns of violence or context, and thus how victimized women are being criminalized through these policies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".