Macro-Level Influences on Police Decision-Making and Engagement with Victims of Serious Violent Crime: A Narrative Case Study of Two States

Abstract

The victims’ rights movement developed in the 1960s in response to victims’ treatment by and experiences with law enforcement officers and other justice stakeholders. Over the past six decades much state and federal policy has been enacted to address the secondary harms experienced by crime victims as soon as or shortly after reporting a crime. Numerous programs, services, training, and other supports have been developed and implemented nationwide to address these concerns. Still, victims continue to report experiencing secondary harms following their engagement with multiple aspects of the criminal-legal system.

This dissertation presents original empirical research exploring the structural level influences on police decision-making and how these factors may shape engagement with victims of serious violent crime in four jurisdictions across two states. In-depth interviews were completed with 23 certified law enforcement officers in Arizona (n = 13) and Nebraska (n = 10) across multiple ranks, units, and years’ experience. Utilizing a narrative case study design, this study explores the occupational, organizational, and legal statutory elements that shape officer behavior in serious violent criminal investigations. Following interviews, a directed content analysis was conducted on a sample of legal and organizational documents selected for inclusion in this study. The findings from both data sets were then integrated and woven together on a theme by theme basis.

Study findings reveal three main or critical themes: officer identity and role conceptualizations, managing expectations – of self, agency, publics, victims, the law - and costs of doing the job. These themes emerged as officers narrated their experiences and opened up about what it means to be a police officer investigating serious violent crime in their communities. Officers describe holding multiple tensions between dual roles of care and control; limited training and institutional supports are provided to help manage these tensions or the role conflict and confusion that appears to arise from them. Further, officers describe two defaults when making decisions about their cases: 1) will this violate due process, and 2) can I build a good case for prosecution. Through these stories, we learn of the heavy emotion work involved in doing police work; it is an unrecognized key function that is largely invisible across job descriptions and other materials outlining the role, purpose, and function of the police in jurisdictions selected for this study. As we listen to their stories, we find evidence of compartmentalization and emotional blunting. We also learn how officers are or can be motivated towards detachment. These findings shine a light on some of the structural pathways that may play a role in revictimizing those who report a violent victimization to the police.

Further research is needed to assess the degree to which study findings enable or constrain officers as well as the degree to which these structures influence behavior and engagement. Additional research is needed with the police and victims to identify the points at which harms are experienced or perceived during the initial response and, later, in the investigation. Research is also needed to explore whether some victims’ experiences of secondary harms are a result of what the police do versus what they cannot do because it is not legally possible. From a social work perspective, the current study expands our understanding and utilization of the person in environment perspective by applying it to the police, one of many occupational groups working on the frontline. Dual roles of care and control are not unique to the police, however. It is a duality likely encountered across the breadth of the human services sector.