Analyses of domestic violence incidents in one jurisdiction indicate significant differences in police handling of single perpetrator events and incidents with more than one party as either perpetrator or victim. In this study a “multiple record” variable was constructed to indicate that an incident contained more than one perpetrator or victim. The difference in arrest rates was then analyzed controlling for both legal and extralegal factors. Results indicate that in situations of domestic violence with more than one perpetrator or victim an arrest is more likely to occur when there is serious injury, although these multiple individual situations report less serious injury than single perpetrator incidents. Additional results show that when the relationship is spousal and the type of crime is assault or greater there is a greater likelihood of arrest than when the relationship is nonspousal. In general, the results indicate that the impact of extralegal factors is significantly different for multiple party incidents than single perpetrator incidents, and that these factors impact arrest differently.
Results of domestic violence and police response studies have indicated that police fail to arrest perpetrators of domestic violence at the same rate as perpetrators of stranger assault (Berk & Loseke, 1980–81; Bourg & Stock 1994, Browne 1995, Buzawa & Buzawa 1990, Buzawa & Buzawa 1992, Buzawa & Buzawa 1993 and Zalman 1992). Arrest is less likely when the victim and offender are married according to research conducted by Fyfe, Flavin, and Klinger (1997) who dubbed this finding the “leniency thesis” (i.e., police officers exhibited more tolerant attitudes towards violence in a marriage than elsewhere). In general, these research findings indicated that several extralegal factors were correlated with arrest: the presence of a witness as well as the presence of a child (Buzawa & Austin, 1993), drug or alcohol use of both the offender and victim Feder 1997 and Mignon and Holmes 1995, the victim's preference for arrest (Berk & Loseke, 1980–81; Buzawa & Austin 1993, Eigenberg et al. 1996, Feder 1997, Friday et al. 1991, Rigakos 1997, Smith 1987, Smith & Klein 1984, Thornton 1993, Waaland & Keeley 1985 and Worden & Pollitz 1984), the demeanor of the offender as well as the gender of both the victim and offender Fyfe et al. 1997 and Klinger 1996, the use of a weapon, and the relationship between offender and victim (Fyfe et al., 1997).
