解除施虐者的武装:家庭暴力保护令(DVPO)枪支限制程序和处置

IF 3.5 1区社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

Criminology & Public Policy Pub Date : 2022-03-28 DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12581

Julie M. Kafka, Kathryn E. Moracco, Deanna S. Williams, Claire G. Hoffman

{"title":"解除施虐者的武装:家庭暴力保护令(DVPO)枪支限制程序和处置","authors":"Julie M. Kafka, Kathryn E. Moracco, Deanna S. Williams, Claire G. Hoffman","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research summary</h3>\n \n <p>We investigated the degree to which legislatively mandated firearm restrictions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) have been implemented in North Carolina. We used a representative sample of <i>n</i> = 406 DVPO hearings (2016–17) and found that defendant access to firearms was seldom discussed (23.81%). Among granted orders (<i>n</i> = 303), 69.5% prohibited defendant firearm possession (<i>n</i> = 238) but only 38.61% ordered firearm surrender (<i>n</i> = 143). There were higher odds of restrictions when the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff (OR for prohibited possession: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97; OR for firearm surrender: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40); no other lethality indicators were significant. Judges verbally announced firearm restrictions only in one out of three cases (30.87% of DVPOs granted with prohibited possession; 33.02% of firearm surrender cases).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>Protocol to assess firearm access, implement firearm restrictions, and communicate these provisions to litigants must be more clearly and consistently applied in the courtroom.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disarming abusers: Domestic violence protective order (DVPO) firearm restriction processes and dispositions\",\"authors\":\"Julie M. Kafka, Kathryn E. Moracco, Deanna S. Williams, Claire G. Hoffman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1745-9133.12581\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Research summary</h3>\\n \\n <p>We investigated the degree to which legislatively mandated firearm restrictions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) have been implemented in North Carolina. We used a representative sample of <i>n</i> = 406 DVPO hearings (2016–17) and found that defendant access to firearms was seldom discussed (23.81%). Among granted orders (<i>n</i> = 303), 69.5% prohibited defendant firearm possession (<i>n</i> = 238) but only 38.61% ordered firearm surrender (<i>n</i> = 143). There were higher odds of restrictions when the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff (OR for prohibited possession: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97; OR for firearm surrender: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40); no other lethality indicators were significant. Judges verbally announced firearm restrictions only in one out of three cases (30.87% of DVPOs granted with prohibited possession; 33.02% of firearm surrender cases).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\\n \\n <p>Protocol to assess firearm access, implement firearm restrictions, and communicate these provisions to litigants must be more clearly and consistently applied in the courtroom.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminology & Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminology & Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12581\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12581","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: 1

摘要

研究总结我们调查了北卡罗来纳州立法强制的家庭暴力保护令(DVPOs)枪支限制的实施程度。我们使用了n = 406个DVPO听证会(2016-17)的代表性样本，发现被告获得枪支的问题很少被讨论(23.81%)。在被批准的命令(n = 303)中，69.5%禁止被告拥有枪支(n = 238)，但只有38.61%要求被告交出枪支(n = 143)。当被告威胁要杀死原告时，限制的几率更高(OR: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97;缴械的OR: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40);其他致死指标无显著性差异。法官只在三分之一的案件中口头宣布枪支限制(30.87%的dvpo被批准禁止持有;缴械案件占33.02%)。政策影响评估枪支获取、实施枪支限制以及向诉讼当事人传达这些条款的议定书必须在法庭上更加明确和一致地适用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Disarming abusers: Domestic violence protective order (DVPO) firearm restriction processes and dispositions

Research summary

We investigated the degree to which legislatively mandated firearm restrictions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) have been implemented in North Carolina. We used a representative sample of n = 406 DVPO hearings (2016–17) and found that defendant access to firearms was seldom discussed (23.81%). Among granted orders (n = 303), 69.5% prohibited defendant firearm possession (n = 238) but only 38.61% ordered firearm surrender (n = 143). There were higher odds of restrictions when the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff (OR for prohibited possession: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97; OR for firearm surrender: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40); no other lethality indicators were significant. Judges verbally announced firearm restrictions only in one out of three cases (30.87% of DVPOs granted with prohibited possession; 33.02% of firearm surrender cases).

Policy implications

Protocol to assess firearm access, implement firearm restrictions, and communicate these provisions to litigants must be more clearly and consistently applied in the courtroom.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-

CiteScore

8.10

自引率

6.50%

发文量

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.