Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

The Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994 173
222,000, as well as two precincts from New York City. They identified 8,700
suspects from these 13,000 incidents, who were followed for a period of
eighteen months. The primary source of information was domestic incident
reports; however, the study also included a survey of police, prosecutors and
battered women.
Despite the phrase “mandatory arrest,” in fact, not all of the incidents
surveyed led to arrest. In instances where no visible bruising was apparent or
where the suspect had fled the scene suspects were often not arrested. Incidents
where only hitting and kicking took place had a relatively low rate of arrest,
raising questions about the New York State definition of physical injury in
misdemeanor assault cases. For the purposes of this study, these cases were
classified as “quasi-mandatory arrest,” 9 however erroneously that term may be
used. Where there were more visible injuries and aggressive behavior, researchers
termed these incidents as “aggressive mandatory arrest incidents.” 10 Not
surprisingly, the research concluded that police were more likely to arrest the
suspect in “aggressive mandatory arrest incidents.” However, despite the fact
that the suspects in “aggressive mandatory arrest incidents” were more likely to
be arrested, research revealed that the criminal penalties were relatively light.
However, the researchers were surprised to find that aggressive mandatory
arrest incidents that resulted in arrests had a lower rate of recidivism. This was
true even though arrest rates differed in the sites studied. Finding that the initial
arrest rate ranged from 24 to 57%, the rate of recidivism was considerably lower
at 12 to 27%. In the more aggressive initial incidents, the recidivism rate was as
low as 11 to 20%. The report concluded “. . .that mandatory arrest along with the
issuance of an order of protection dramatically affected the rate of recidivism.” 11
These findings were “. . .notable, especially given the relatively mild
punishment [meted out] to those arrested and the infrequent use of probation. The
impact of arrest on recidivism might be even greater if a conviction was routinely
followed by strict supervision and incarceration upon recidivism.” 12 The study
went on to recommend the extension of the mandatory arrest provisions. This was
subsequently enacted by the Legislature, extending mandatory arrest until 2005. 13
It is important to see mandatory arrest not as an isolated phenomenon but as a tool
that triggers the involvement of the criminal justice system. While mandatory
arrest is not without problems, it can also be an important safety measure when
combined with appropriate access to the criminal and family court systems.