Criminal justice systems operate on a deceptively simple premise: identify the perpetrator, prosecute vigorously, and justice prevails. This framework collapses entirely when applied to intimate partner violence. The victim isn't a stranger who witnessed a crime and moves on—she shares a home, finances, children, and complex emotional bonds with the person who harmed her. Treating domestic violence like a bar fight or burglary ignores these entanglements and often makes everything worse.

Decades of well-intentioned policy have created what trauma researchers call the prosecution paradox: aggressive criminal intervention designed to protect victims frequently endangers them further. Mandatory arrest policies aimed at removing police discretion have produced documented increases in retaliatory violence. Subpoenaed testimony forces survivors to participate in proceedings that may cost them housing, income, and child custody. The system demands victim cooperation while systematically dismantling the resources victims need to safely leave.

This analysis examines why conventional prosecution models fail intimate partner violence survivors and what evidence-based alternatives look like. The goal isn't to excuse abusers or abandon accountability—quite the opposite. Meaningful accountability requires understanding that victim safety and offender consequences aren't competing values. They're inseparable components of any justice response worthy of the name. What emerges is a framework for coordinated community response that centers survivor autonomy while pursuing genuine transformation rather than performative punishment.

Judith Herman's foundational trauma research established that recovery requires restoration of control to the person who was violated. Intimate partner violence systematically strips victims of autonomy—over their bodies, finances, social connections, and daily decisions. The cruel irony of aggressive prosecution is that it often continues this pattern of disempowerment under the banner of protection. Survivors report feeling revictimized by systems that compel their participation while ignoring their stated needs and wishes.

The danger isn't theoretical. Research consistently demonstrates that separation and prosecution represent peak risk periods for intimate partner homicide. Abusers escalate violence when they perceive loss of control over their partners. A victim who knows her partner's explosive patterns may accurately assess that pressing charges will trigger lethal retaliation—yet prosecutors dismiss this knowledge as evidence of manipulation or trauma bonding rather than legitimate safety calculation.

Economic consequences compound physical danger. Criminal proceedings may cost the abuser employment, leaving the family without income. Victims who depend on their partner's wages face impossible choices between financial survival and participation in prosecution. Housing instability follows when lease agreements include both parties. Immigration status becomes weaponized when deportation threatens. The criminal justice system treats these practical considerations as obstacles to overcome rather than fundamental barriers to victim safety.

Child custody complications add another layer of coercion. Family courts operate separately from criminal courts, applying different standards and priorities. A victim who testifies against her partner may find that same testimony used to argue she exposed children to conflict. Fathers accused of domestic violence sometimes receive unsupervised visitation or custody, forcing ongoing contact that enables continued abuse. The fragmented legal system creates gaps that sophisticated abusers learn to exploit.

The psychological toll of coerced participation deserves equal weight. Trauma-informed practice recognizes that forcing testimony replicates abuse dynamics—someone in authority demanding compliance regardless of the survivor's stated wishes. Victims subpoenaed to testify describe experiences indistinguishable from the coercion they experienced at home. The system that claims to serve them instead demonstrates that their autonomy remains irrelevant to powerful institutions.

Takeaway

Aggressive prosecution without comprehensive victim support doesn't just fail survivors—it actively endangers them by triggering escalation during separation while stripping away the economic, housing, and legal resources needed for safe escape.

Mandatory arrest policies emerged from legitimate frustration with police failures. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, officers routinely dismissed domestic violence calls, advised couples to work things out, and arrested no one despite visible injuries. The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment suggested arrest deterred future violence, and policymakers nationwide implemented mandatory arrest requirements. The intention was sound: remove officer discretion that had enabled decades of neglect.

The evidence since has been devastating. Replication studies found arrest deterred employed, married men but increased violence among unemployed, unmarried men—precisely the population most likely to be arrested. Mandatory policies produce more arrests but not more safety. Some jurisdictions saw domestic violence calls to police drop precipitously as victims learned that seeking help meant automatic arrest of their partner regardless of their wishes or safety assessment.

Dual arrest presents a particularly troubling phenomenon. When police arrive at scenes involving mutual physical contact—common when victims defend themselves—mandatory policies push officers toward arresting both parties. Victims find themselves criminally charged, gaining records that affect employment, housing, and custody proceedings. The message transmitted is unmistakable: calling for help may result in your own arrest. Studies document that dual arrest rates disproportionately affect women of color and same-sex couples, layering additional disparities onto an already inequitable system.

The downstream effects ripple through immigrant communities with particular severity. Undocumented victims who call police risk detention and deportation—of themselves, their partners, or both. Mixed-status families face impossible calculations about separation, criminal records, and immigration consequences. Law enforcement partnerships with immigration authorities transform every emergency call into a potential deportation trigger. Entire communities learn that official help is unavailable to them.

Perhaps most concerning: mandatory policies have not achieved their fundamental goal. Domestic violence homicide rates have not declined proportionally to increased arrests. The system processes more cases while victims continue dying at alarming rates. Arrest serves as a measurable output that allows agencies to demonstrate activity, but activity doesn't equal effectiveness. Counting arrests substitutes for counting what actually matters: survivor safety and long-term violence reduction.

Takeaway

Mandatory arrest policies removed one form of discretion while creating new harms—including dual arrests of victims, suppressed help-seeking in marginalized communities, and the dangerous substitution of arrest statistics for actual safety outcomes.

Evidence-based alternatives exist. The coordinated community response (CCR) model, pioneered in Duluth, Minnesota, represents a fundamental paradigm shift. Rather than isolated agencies pursuing separate objectives, CCR integrates law enforcement, prosecution, courts, probation, and victim services into a unified system that prioritizes survivor safety as the organizing principle. Every agency decision considers implications for victim welfare rather than just offender processing.

Victim advocacy embedded throughout the system—not just at the end—transforms the experience of survivors seeking help. Advocates present at 911 call centers provide immediate safety planning. Advocates accompanying police on scene assess needs that officers aren't trained to identify. Advocates in prosecutor offices ensure charging decisions incorporate safety considerations beyond evidentiary sufficiency. This saturation of advocacy means victims encounter someone whose sole job is serving their interests at every system touchpoint.

Risk assessment instruments allow evidence-based danger evaluation rather than relying on responder intuition or victim minimization. The Danger Assessment, developed by Jacquelyn Campbell, identifies factors associated with intimate partner homicide—prior strangulation, gun access, escalating frequency, threats to kill. High-risk identification triggers enhanced response: increased supervision, priority shelter access, safety planning for children. Resources flow to cases where intervention prevents homicide rather than distributing evenly regardless of lethality risk.

Offender accountability in coordinated models looks different from conventional prosecution. Batterer intervention programs grounded in the Duluth curriculum address the belief systems underlying abuse rather than just managing anger. Specialized domestic violence courts maintain ongoing judicial oversight, immediately sanctioning noncompliance while connecting offenders to services. The goal shifts from punishment as an end to monitored behavior change as a process—recognizing that most victims want the violence to stop, not necessarily the relationship or the person.

Survivor autonomy remains the non-negotiable foundation. Effective coordinated response distinguishes between what the system can offer and what it can compel. Victims receive comprehensive information about options, resources, and likely outcomes. They make decisions about participation with full knowledge rather than coerced ignorance. The system succeeds when survivors feel genuinely served by their encounter with justice institutions—even when they choose paths that responders wouldn't recommend.

Takeaway

Coordinated community response replaces fragmented prosecution with integrated systems where every agency decision centers survivor safety, specialized risk assessment directs resources toward highest-danger cases, and victim autonomy guides participation rather than coercion.

The failure of traditional prosecution models isn't a failure of effort or intention. Dedicated professionals throughout the criminal justice system genuinely want to protect domestic violence victims. The failure is structural—a system designed for stranger crime applied to intimate violation, accountability frameworks that ignore victim safety, and success metrics that count process rather than outcomes.

Transformation requires acknowledging uncomfortable truths. Arrest doesn't equal protection. Prosecution doesn't equal justice. Conviction doesn't equal safety. These interventions matter, but only within comprehensive frameworks that address the full ecology of intimate partner violence—economic dependence, housing instability, immigration vulnerability, child custody complexity, and the psychological terrain of trauma and recovery.

The coordinated community response model demonstrates that victim safety and meaningful accountability aren't competing values. Systems designed around survivor needs produce better outcomes for everyone, including reduced recidivism among offenders who complete appropriate intervention. Justice worthy of the name serves those harmed by crime. For intimate partner violence survivors, that service begins with the recognition that their expertise about their own situations deserves respect rather than override.