why is it that the british have a more nuanced view on just about everything? i have read almost a thousand pages of research at this point and the only policy recommendation that makes any sense is put forward by some random brit that was published twelve years ago. apparently not enough people are reading the british journal of criminology.
oh susan l. miller, you get the award for snarkiest domestic violence researcher of all time! your descriptions of batterer intervention programs are truly epic.
there is seriously a rhino in the air ducts above me and it’s making it hard to concentrate on which states have mandatory intervention policies. sigh, going back to read this article a second time.
i love when academics get snarky in their writing. case in point: “this anti-feminist stance is strongly supported by men in men’s rights groups, the members of which are typically joined by their second wives.”
it is the summer of the thesis. i spend my days, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., doing research and writing sections of my master’s thesis. my subject is whether or not mandatory intervention policies for domestic violence (i.e. mandatory arrest, mandatory reporting, mandatory prosecution) are empowering to victims and constitute effective policy. fascinating stuff.
anyway, i’ve been posting “thesis thoughts” on my facebook page for awhile so i thought i might as well post them here as well. of course i’ll add accompanying pictures because that’s the whole point of blogs. i know, you’re excited.
so here we go (i’ll start from the beginning)…
thesis thought #1: reading through trial transcripts of the character assassinations defense attorneys pull on victims of domestic violence and sexual assault is torture. seriously, i would tell you anything if it would stop me having to read this garbage.
first fig 