NCJ Number
206720
Journal
Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention Volume: 5 Issue: 1 Dated: 2004 Pages: 85-107
Date Published
2004
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This study examined unintended outcomes of contact prohibition orders.
Abstract
Contact prohibition orders (CPO's) are usually grounded in documents produced by the police, but not necessarily in the context of an investigation of a suspected crime against the person who is intended to be protected by the order. The applicant and the person requested to be subjected to a CPO are interrogated by the police, while the decision is taken by the prosecutor, mostly without any personal contacts with the parties, and communicated to them by post within 1 week. A CPO is not formally a punishment and in general not settled through a trial but the result of a prosecutor’s risk assessment on the basis of the documents. This study was primarily based on an analysis of 14 in-depth interviews with individuals having experience as applicants and/or targets in CPO's. The aim was to gather varied accounts of experiences and insights regarding the application, investigation, decision, enforcement, and violations of a CPO. However the study took an additional focus on the interaction between the criminal justice system and private relationships, and how the former encourages those protected by the CPO's to reconstruct themselves, their counterparts, and their previous and current interactions to make them fit in with the crime discourse in four ways. First, individuals seeking public protection from others learn how to represent events and situations in order to obtain and retain a CPO. Secondly, is that the party protected by the CPO may adjust his or her behavior accordingly, since being a victim, vulnerable to threats, and subjected to public protection, requires considerations and obligations, as well as regulation of one’s own daily life. The third way is provided by the prosecutors’ decisions and court proceedings regarding violations of CPO's and concerns the need to take the victim’s role. Fourthly, the protected party learns how to reconstruct his or her previously close relationship with the prohibited party in order to make it consistent with the new understanding of the other as a criminal and of oneself as a victim of crime. In a typical Swedish CPO process, applicants must learn to be aware of their own understanding of the other and of their previous relationship. References