The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault

TLDR

Theoretical debate contrasts specific deterrence and labeling theory, yet empirical evidence on punishment effects in domestic violence is limited and inconsistent. The study tested these hypotheses through a field experiment on domestic violence. Suspects were randomly assigned to arrest, advice, or an eight‑hour leave order, and their subsequent behavior was tracked for six months using official records and victim reports. Arrested suspects exhibited significantly lower subsequent violence than those given leave orders or advice, supporting specific deterrence and refuting labeling theory’s deviance amplification model.

Abstract

The specific deterrence doctrine and labeling theory predict opposite effects of punishment on individual rates of deviance. The limited cross-sectional evidence available on the question is inconsistent, and experimental evidence has been lacking. The Police Foundation and the Minneapolis Police Department tested these hypotheses in a field experiment on domestic violence. Three police responses to simple assault were randomly assigned to legally eligible suspects: an arrest; advice (including, in some cases, informal mediation); and an order to the suspect to leave for eight hours. The behavior of the suspect was trackedfor six months after the police intervention, with both official data and victim reports. The official recidivism measures show that the arrested suspects manifested significantly less subsequent violence than those who were ordered to leave. The victim report data show that the arrested subjects manifested significantly less subsequent violence than those who were advised. The findings falsify a deviance amplification model of labeling theory beyond initial labeling, and fail to falsify the specific deterrence prediction for a group of offenders with a high percentage of prior histories of both domestic violence and other kinds of crime.