Journal of Experimental Criminology ( IF 1.8 ) Pub Date : 2022-04-04 , DOI: 10.1007/s11292-022-09505-1 William Hodgkinson 1 , Barak Ariel 2, 3 , Vincent Harinam 2
|
Background
The use of panic alarm systems for victims of domestic abuse is becoming increasingly popular. However, tests of these devices are rare. Consequently, it is presently unknown whether domestic abuse offenders are deterred by warning stickers informing them that a panic alarm system is installed on the premises, or whether alarm systems reduce domestic abuse recidivism. There is also a lack of data regarding whether adding an audio-recording feature to the panic alarm results in more prosecutions of domestic abuse offenders compared to standard panic alarm systems. Measuring the efficacy of warning stickers and audio recordings will enhance understanding of the overall effectiveness of panic alarm systems for domestic abuse.
Methods
This study used a pre-test-post-test, control group design, in which 300 eligible high-risk domestic abuse victims in London, UK, were randomly allocated to either a standard panic alarm system or a panic alarm system with audio-recording capabilities and a red warning sticker on a durable, A6-size sign displayed at eye level at the entrance to the premises. Each sticker was well lit to ensure maximum visibility. The gain scores of multiple measures at 6 months prior and 6 months post-randomisation were used to assess the treatment effects (including the number of calls for service, recorded crimes, and harm score), and a negative binomial generalised linear model was utilised to estimate the likelihood of criminal charges for domestic abuse offenders in the two systems.
Outcomes
Pre-post comparisons of recidivism suggested an overall reduction in both treatment arms, but there were no statistically significant differences between the two types of alarm systems across these crime measures. Nevertheless, the estimation model indicated a significant 57% increase in charges using the audio-recording alarm relative to the standard panic alarm system.
Conclusions
Using deterrent stickers to warn domestic abuse offenders of panic alarm systems does not lead to a reduction in subsequent harm to victims. Compared to ordinary panic alarms for high-risk domestic abuse victims, audio-recording systems provide valuable evidence that increases subsequent charges, and thus, these systems should be explored further.
中文翻译：
比较针对高风险家庭暴力受害者的恐慌警报系统：关于预防和刑事司法系统结果的随机对照试验
背景
为家庭暴力受害者使用恐慌警报系统变得越来越普遍。然而，对这些设备的测试很少。因此，目前尚不清楚家庭暴力犯罪者是否会因警告贴纸被告知房屋内安装了恐慌警报系统而受到威慑，或者警报系统是否会减少家庭暴力的累犯。与标准恐慌警报系统相比，也缺乏关于在恐慌警报中添加录音功能是否会导致更多家庭暴力犯罪者受到起诉的数据。测量警告贴纸和录音的功效将增强对家庭虐待恐慌警报系统整体有效性的了解。
方法
这项研究采用了测试前-测试后的对照组设计，其中 300 名英国伦敦符合条件的高风险家庭暴力受害者被随机分配到标准恐慌警报系统或带录音的恐慌警报系统功能和红色警告贴纸，贴在耐用的 A6 大小标志上，显示在场所入口处的视线高度处。每个贴纸都光线充足，以确保最大的可见度。使用随机化前 6 个月和随机化后 6 个月的多项指标的增益分数来评估治疗效果（包括请求服务的次数、犯罪记录和伤害评分），并利用负二项式广义线性模型来评估治疗效果。估计两个系统中家庭暴力犯罪者受到刑事指控的可能性。
结果
累犯的事前事后比较表明，两个治疗组的总体减少，但在这些犯罪措施中，两种类型的警报系统之间没有统计学上的显着差异。尽管如此，估计模型表明，相对于标准恐慌警报系统，使用录音警报的费用显着增加了 57%。
结论
使用威慑贴纸警告家庭暴力犯罪者注意恐慌警报系统并不会减少对受害者的后续伤害。与针对高风险家庭暴力受害者的普通恐慌警报相比，录音系统提供了有价值的证据，增加了后续指控，因此，这些系统应该进一步探索。
京公网安备 11010802027423号