Abuse of Power

THE clearinghouse on police-perpetrated domestic violence

...As advocates, we're forced to re-evaluate our standard interventions

Batterer Intervention

EXCERPT from When the Batterer Is a Law Enforcement Officer: A Guide for Advocates (The complete Guide (96 pgs) is available in PDF format at no charge through the Battered Women's Justice Project.)

Officers often resist seeking help for fear of losing their jobs, being demoted, or having their personal problems exposed for public ridicule. They don't trust that Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) are confidential. They know that information about counseling or treatment in personnel records could ruin their chances for promotion or special assignments. Seeking help raises fears of being placed on administrative or medical leave or being found unfit for duty, and losing their careers. The union may advise the officer against voluntary participation that could later be used as an admission of domestic violence.

Abusive officers typically excuse their behavior by blaming the stress and danger of the job, the impact of rotating shifts, and the desensitization and callousness caused by the demands of police work. Other work-related excuses include frustration with the administration, frustration with the legal system, and the tendency to bring home a sense of entitlement to authority.

When an officer is mandated to counseling, it is likely to be framed as a problem of stress, temper, anger management, or poor impulse control, rather than battering. If he goes to a general counselor or therapist without expertise in domestic violence, the violent behavior and patterns of coercion, control, and entitlement may not even be acknowledged.

Batterer Intervention Groups

An abusive officer may be ordered to enter a batterer intervention program as a condition of continued employment or as a condition of sentencing or pre-trial diversion. It is widely accepted that a well-facilitated education group with other batterers is the most appropriate type of intervention with abusers. There is debate, however, whether he should attend a group exclusively with other police officers, or a general group.

Proponents of "police-only" groups emphasize that police officers will resist attending a group with the public. Educational material used in general groups can be tailored to address the police culture and dynamics. It may be more possible to challenge job-related excuses for their violence at home. Critics of restricted groups emphasize that it only reinforces a sense of entitlement and suggests that police officers are different than "ordinary" abusers. There is also the risk of collusion among group members, rather than accountability. Voluntary all-officer groups can also diminish an emphasis on domestic violence as a criminal offense.

Focusing on whether or not an officer is in a mixed or police-only group, however, can be misleading. In most cities, there would not be enough officers at any given time to run a group exclusively for police officers. In addition, most batterers do not voluntarily attend counseling, and union contracts may prevent a department from mandating an officer to attend a group. Finally, if counseling is ordered by the court after a conviction, the officer will have already lost his ability to carry a weapon, and will most likely no longer be employed as an officer.

Advocates should stress that even though a victim's partner is in counseling, genuine change — if it occurs at all — takes time and effort. She must not let her guard down too early in the process. It's not safe to base her decision to continue living with the abuser on whether he attends a batterer intervention group. An abusive officer whose job is at risk may become more violent, or simply change his methods of abuse and use more subtle tactics. He may use the group or other intervention as evidence to the department that he is addressing his problem.