Disparities in court orders to relinquish firearms in civil domestic violence protection orders

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Julie M. Kafka, Alice M. Ellyson, N. Jeanie Santaularia, Avanti Adhia, Alberto Ortega, Sandra Shanahan, Ali Rowhani‐Rahbar, Deirdre Bowen
{"title":"Disparities in court orders to relinquish firearms in civil domestic violence protection orders","authors":"Julie M. Kafka, Alice M. Ellyson, N. Jeanie Santaularia, Avanti Adhia, Alberto Ortega, Sandra Shanahan, Ali Rowhani‐Rahbar, Deirdre Bowen","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research summaryTo address firearm‐related harms in the context of domestic violence (DV), federal law prohibits firearm purchase or possession for respondents in qualifying civil domestic violence protection order (DVPO) cases. Washington state further authorizes courts to order a DVPO respondent (i.e., the person who perpetrated DV) to relinquish firearms in their possession while a DVPO is in effect. Despite statutory guidelines about when to order firearm relinquishment, judicial biases or other structural factors may influence which DVPO cases include firearm relinquishment. Historically, U.S. laws and institutions have privileged White men with firearm access over minoritized individuals, but little is known about whether racial disparities exist in DVPO firearm relinquishment orders. We investigated racialized disparities in DVPO firearm relinquishment orders using a sample of 6290 granted DVPO cases from King County, Washington (2014–2020). Using logistic regression analyses, we found that White respondents had 30–50% times lower odds of being ordered to relinquish firearms compared with respondents who were Black (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6, 0.9) or Latine (aOR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4, 0.7). Disparities were attenuated in situations when it was statutorily mandatory for the DVPO to include a firearm relinquishment order, compared with situations when the order was discretionary, although disparities remained.Policy implicationsCourts may privilege and protect firearm rights for White DVPO respondents compared with respondents who were Black or Latine. Considering that people who perpetrate DV pose a substantial risk for enacting violence in the home and in the community, DVPO firearm relinquishment should be ordered equitably and thoroughly, regardless of respondent race or ethnicity. Removing judicial discretion may improve the rate at which firearm relinquishment is ordered and mitigate disparities in firearm relinquishment based on respondent race or ethnicity, however, statutory mandates alone are not sufficient to address these problems.","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12693","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research summaryTo address firearm‐related harms in the context of domestic violence (DV), federal law prohibits firearm purchase or possession for respondents in qualifying civil domestic violence protection order (DVPO) cases. Washington state further authorizes courts to order a DVPO respondent (i.e., the person who perpetrated DV) to relinquish firearms in their possession while a DVPO is in effect. Despite statutory guidelines about when to order firearm relinquishment, judicial biases or other structural factors may influence which DVPO cases include firearm relinquishment. Historically, U.S. laws and institutions have privileged White men with firearm access over minoritized individuals, but little is known about whether racial disparities exist in DVPO firearm relinquishment orders. We investigated racialized disparities in DVPO firearm relinquishment orders using a sample of 6290 granted DVPO cases from King County, Washington (2014–2020). Using logistic regression analyses, we found that White respondents had 30–50% times lower odds of being ordered to relinquish firearms compared with respondents who were Black (aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6, 0.9) or Latine (aOR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4, 0.7). Disparities were attenuated in situations when it was statutorily mandatory for the DVPO to include a firearm relinquishment order, compared with situations when the order was discretionary, although disparities remained.Policy implicationsCourts may privilege and protect firearm rights for White DVPO respondents compared with respondents who were Black or Latine. Considering that people who perpetrate DV pose a substantial risk for enacting violence in the home and in the community, DVPO firearm relinquishment should be ordered equitably and thoroughly, regardless of respondent race or ethnicity. Removing judicial discretion may improve the rate at which firearm relinquishment is ordered and mitigate disparities in firearm relinquishment based on respondent race or ethnicity, however, statutory mandates alone are not sufficient to address these problems.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信