شواهد تصویری دیجیتالی و قضاوت در مورد خشونت خانگی

This study reported the impact of digital photographic evidence on domestic violence case outcomes in two Indiana counties. It analyzed whether outcomes differed between cases with digital photographic evidence (treatment group) and cases with no photographic evidence (comparison group). Examined impacts included guilty pleas, convictions, and sentence severity. Data included in the analysis came from case files and police and prosecutor interviews. Findings suggest that digital photographic evidence can be a useful prosecutorial tool – treatment group members were more likely to plead guilty, be convicted, and receive more severe sentences.

In a 1982 report, the United States Commission on Civil Rights (1982) found that there was a literal “lack of prosecution” in domestic violence cases. Since then, numerous constituents called for increased enforcement of domestic violence laws and an improvement in the methods used to investigate and prosecute these cases. As a result, major changes have taken place. Across the country, mandatory arrest policies, civil protection orders, and no-drop prosecution policies have been instituted with the intention of protecting victims from future abuse and halting the cycle of violence; however, evaluations of these programs and policies offered mixed results Cahn, 1992, Ford & Regoli, 1993, Maxwell et al., 2001, Mills, 1998, Sherman & Berk, 1984 and Sherman et al., 1992. Some practitioners claim that one way to curb the rate and lethality of domestic violence is to halt the pattern of escalation by intervening early in the battering cycle.1 If this supposition is correct, then jurisdictions that are able to successfully prosecute lesser batteries and assaults may be able to reduce the number of future violent episodes–saving justice system resources and quite possibly, human lives. Unfortunately, attempting to prosecute misdemeanor domestic batteries can be difficult for three major reasons: (1) injuries can be portrayed as minimal (Blitzer, Garcia, & Leitch, 2001); (2) minor altercations (where little evidence is available) can disintegrate into “he said/she said” battles; and (3) victims may either refuse to assist the prosecutor and/or reconciliation between batterer and victim can occur before a case reaches the adjudication phase – forcing prosecutors to mount victimless prosecutions (Schmidt & Steury, 1989).

The evaluation of digital photographic evidence on domestic violence case processing was designed to discern the impact, if any, that digital photographs had on case outcomes. Findings from the analysis of the quantitative data were promising. Defendants in the treatment group were six times more likely to plead guilty, four and one-half times more likely to be convicted, and five times more likely to be sentenced to time in custody. What this means in practice is that if an investigating officer responds to a domestic battery call where a crime has occurred and he/she has a digital camera, is properly trained, and is employed by a department that has an appropriate program in place to support the technology, prosecutors will have a greater chance of successful prosecution.