ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 9 No. 11 (November 1999) pp. 527-529.


BATTERED WOMEN IN THE COURTROOM: THE POWER OF JUDICIAL RESPONSES by James Ptacek. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999. 240 pp. Cloth $50.00). ISBN 1-55553-391-4 (Cloth). Paper $20.00. ISBN 1-55553-390-6 (Paper).

Reviewed by Donald A. Downs, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison

In March 1986, Pamela Nigro Dunn sought a restraining order against her extremely abusive husband a mere six weeks after their marriage. She obtained the order, but because she had managed to get a police officer to accompany her to their apartment to gather her belongings, Judge Paul P. Heffernan chastised her in court as her husband looked on. "This is pretty trivial," the judge declared. "This court has a lot more serious matters to contend with.you want to gnaw on her and she on you, fine, but let's not do it at taxpayers' expense" (p. 4). Less than five months later Pamela was found stabbed, shot, and strangled at her husbands hands. The murder sparked a public outcry in Massachusetts against the treatment of battered women in court, leading to feminist and media-inspired changes and programs to
teach advocates of battered women how to deal with courtroom situations more effectively (see Chapter 3).

The case also raised the central question that James Ptacek addresses in BATTERED WOMEN IN THE COURTROOM. Would Pamela Dunn (and other women who have met such plights under similar circumstances) have fared better had she received less hostile treatment at the hands of the judge in her restraining order case? This is an important question because seeking a restraining order is a difficult step for many battered women to take. It risks inciting violence by the batterer, and it is often emotionally and financially difficult to tackle the independence from one's partner that a restraining order entails. So the MANNER in which a judge reacts (especially because he or she embodies the woman's perception of the authority of the state) and the subtle and not so subtle messages a judge sends by his or her attitude can be as important as the actual restraining order decision to a battered woman's decision to remain apart from her abuser and to seek further help from
a system she should have reason to trust. Lack of respect or concern on the part of the judge can reinforce the senses of shame, isolation, and futility that many battered women feel before they take the fateful step of obtaining a restraining order. Among other things, Ptacek paints a compelling picture of the difficulties that accrue to being battered and being held virtually hostage by one's abuser. (see esp. Chapter 4) Though this part of the analysis teaches us little that we do not already know, it does remind us of the special dangers and difficulties battered women confront. Also, it provides a useful background to Ptacek's points about the delicate emotional balance that can surround the restraining order hearing.

The literature on battered women is, of course, vast, but little attention has been paid to the actual role judges play in the

Page 528 begins here

process of issuing restraining orders, even though this area is one of the most significant encounters battered women have with the legal system. Most studies focus on the police, so "what is needed is further research on the role that judges play in women's efforts to escape violence" (p. 7).

The empirical part of the study consists of three sources of data: Ptacek's observations of eighteen judges in two Massachusetts districts-one middle class and largely white, the other lower class and largely African-American and Latino; his study of over one hundred restraining order reports in these jurisdictions; interviews with forty women who sought restraining orders in these courts. Ptacek uses the contrasting racial and class composition of the two districts and the judicial responses to support a second hypothesis (above and beyond his main hypothesis concerning the importance of judicial style or demeanor in the restraining order process),
which deals with the roles of class and race in the response to battering. "Class is important because class position has a significant bearing on women's vulnerability to battering and femicide. Race is important because racism creates poverty and poses unique barriers to women's self-seeking" (p. 39; Chapter 2, generally). Ptacek alleges that researchers have ignored race and class. However, this claim is somewhat overstated, and Ptacek's analysis of class and race is too limited to take us beyond rather simplistic causal assumptions and academic clich‚s about the effects of these factors. The evidence concerning race and class is very suggestive, but Ptacek does not spend enough time working it out.

Ptacek's central concern is the nature of the restraining order experience. He construes the restraining order as an "interactive process, a negotiation between women and the state over protection from violent and abusive men," and seeks to answer two basic questions. How do judges treat battered women who enter their courtrooms -- with impatience, irritation, even hostility? Or do they use their authority to show "concern for women's safety and mobilize resources on their behalf?" (p. 6)

Turning to the courtroom, Ptacek focuses on judicial "demeanor" toward women and their abusers. Judicial authority is exercised as "emotional labor," in which judges send, in Irving Goffman's term, "task-embedded messages" (p. 99). Of the eighteen judges Ptacek observed, ten exhibited "good-natured demeanor," while eight did not (they engaged in "bureaucratic," "harsh," or overly "formal" demeanor or behavior) (pp. 100-1). Interviews with women showed, not surprisingly, that the good-natured judges had a more positive effect, making women feel better about going to court and more assured that the law cared about their safety. This judicial response lowered the psychological or emotional barrier between vulnerable women and the legal system.

Perhaps the most powerful chapter in the book deals with "Women's Experiences Seeking Restraining Orders," in which forty women who had sought restraining orders in the two districts were asked how they perceived their court experiences. (Ch. 7) Most of the women (65%) were afraid to take out a restraining order due to threats by their batterers and trepidation concerning the judicial system. "Yes-afraid of what he would do, think, react, repercussions. It was an unbelievable big deal. Was scared to death.I was crying," one typical interviewee remarked (pp. 145-6). Unfortunately, 62% of the men involved violated the orders. Nonetheless, 86% of the

Page 529 begins here

interviewees concluded that the restraining order eventually either stopped or reduced the violence, and that it made them feel safer. One woman said, "It shows him that the law's on my side." Ptacek concludes, "For a number of women, the restraining order process seems to have strengthened their sense that the violence was unjust and that the state was obligated to intervene.most women felt supported by the process and left the court with new resources that placed them in a better negotiating position with their partners" (pp. 165-6).

Despite its limited database, Ptacek's book shows how imperative it is for courts to be respectful and supportive of battered women who seek restraining orders. The book is a worthwhile contribution to the literature on the educational potential of the law by its application of the logic of this literature to the behavior and demeanor of judges in everyday decisionmaking and interaction with parties before the court. The moral authority of the law is at stake every time a judge faces a battered woman and her needs in the courtroom, to say nothing of the woman's personal fate. It is a matter of simple justice.

*****************************************************************
Copyright 1999 by the author