TO COPS

  • ObjectivityIncarnate
    link
    2
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    To add to this, I’ll toss in a copypasta I’ve seen that has a few other/different links/info:


    Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24% while including violence as shouting. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.

    The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H…, Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:

    Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.

    There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:

    The study includes as ‘violent incidents’ a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn’t indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c

    An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:

    The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.

    More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, ‘Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.’ Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862

    Yet another study “indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent).” A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF

    Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to ‘getting physical’ (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs

    • @quixotic120
      link
      English
      219 hours ago

      In response to this I would say that the studies here overrely on self report, which is inherently flawed when asking someone to report on a character flaw

      I go back the philosophical question: if you beat your partner would you reveal this to an academic who is going to put it on the record?

      Some may, but a lot won’t. Inherently flawed.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate
        link
        217 hours ago

        The original source of the oft-spread “40%” figure also counted incidents where the one reporting was the victim. If cop/civilian couple had “a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger” within the relationship, with the cop being on the receiving end of the civilian spouse’s ‘abuse’, that relationship was tossed into the ‘domestic violence’ bucket, because it was actually counting relationships, not cops.

        My point is that yes, you can definitely argue one might be reluctant to admit to one’s own acts of DV, but I don’t think anonymously reporting your spouse’s acts against you would be ‘stifled’ the same way.

        • @quixotic120
          link
          English
          117 hours ago

          I agree with you in that it wouldn’t stifled the same way but I still think it would be an inherently flawed measure in determining the true number of cases, which is probably impossible. Going back to my original post even if you allowed anonymous reporting I’m betting a lot of partners would still not speak out due to intimidation and you would probably get some false positives (though admittedly this is probably significantly less of a concern)

          Doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing as it would probably get you something closer to an accurate number but the accurate number is likely impossible to measure

          • ObjectivityIncarnate
            link
            110 hours ago

            At the same time, any effect like this would likely be present to an equal or very similar degree in any measurement of DV among the general population, so while it could be harder to confidently report an absolute figure, you could much more confidently compare them relative to each other (such that you can easily refute “three times more likely” claims like in the OP).

      • ObjectivityIncarnate
        link
        317 hours ago

        And I’d be right to, if I was the kind of person who called someone else names for no reason beyond supplying evidence that contradicts an assumption/bias of mine.

        You’re the one who fits that description here, though.