That's an interesting link, however it doesn't really support the argument that they arrest someone just to arrest someone and it also says nothing about convictions just arrests. It's also a tiny study that's 30 years old and may have no bearing on current police procedure, particularly at a nationwide level, it might still be relevant in Minneapolis where the study took place.
Quote:
|
Officers used a lottery method to determine which of the three responses they would use on each offender. Interviewers then recontacted victims over a six-month period to measure whether the offenders continued to commit domestic assaults, how often they did so, and how serious the assaults were. Official records were also reviewed.
|
Indicates that there was actual evidence of domestic violence, not just people being arrested to be arrested.
Quote:
|
As a result of the experiment, the Minneapolis Police Department changed its policy on domestic assaults. Officers are now required to file written reports explaining why they failed to make arrests when it was legally possible to do so. The new policy’s initial impact was to double the number of domestic assault arrests.
|
Just because the police are called does not mean there is a legal reason to make an arrest. Also it only speaks to the initial impact of a policy 30 years ago.
Quote:
|
It may be premature to conclude definitely that arrest is always the best police response to domestic violence, or that all suspects should be arrested.
|
Seems like the interpretation of the results also goes against just arresting someone to arrest someone.
So yes, I doubt the premise you have put forth.
Edit: to address the second link added
The second link does not indicate they're just arrest someone to arrest someone. Just that if there is evidence of DV that they have to make an arrest.
Either link applied to the OP, what evidence of DV would there be? None. Two parties on opposite sides of a locked door and no sign violence.