Government of Law

For this analysis, the Petitioner (or person who is asking for the order) is classified as Male or Female (first character of the Type below) as is the Respondent (or person who is alleged to be a threat) in the second character of Type. The first name is used for this determination unless it is ambiguous (normally with names from other cultures). In this case the Petition is reviewed for pronouns such as he/she or his/her to determine the sex of the Respondent as well as sexual descriptive nouns such as 'my husband' or 'my wife' (which implies the sex of both parties). If a determination can not be made in this fashion, the sex is listed with a '?' and the case is excluded from further analysis. In some cases two parties were listed as the Respondent or Petitioner. In those cases, the Petition is counted twice in accordance with the sex of each individual if the sex could be determined..

The first forty cases in 2007 were used with the requirement that the petition must have been filed by January 31, 2007 (when I began inquiring about how to conduct this study) and completely resolved by February 7, 2007 when I started my review. I had intended that all one hundred cases be in 2007, but there were not enough cases meeting that criteria, so I began reviewing cases in 2006 going backward according to case number.

The results were broken down into three primary categories. G was used if an Order for Protection for one or more years was granted (even if it was withdrawn at Petitioner's request at a later time). D was used if the Petition was denied for lack of sufficient evidence. In some cases it was denied based on the Petition alone and no hearing was held (so hearing date is blank). W was used if the request was withdrawn. There are numerous types of withdrawn with the most common as neither party shows up at the hearing. There are also the cases of no one picking up the Temporary Order, the Petitioner not coming to the hearing, and having the Petitioner withdraw the request at the hearing. The results are shown below.

06-2-08364-8 was transferred to the Superior Court with the listed case dismissed for that reason and was excluded from further consideration. 06-2-08397-4 was counted twice as the original Petition was denied but an Order was granted with the parties reversed.

From my experiments you should be able to cut and paste the table above into a spread sheet. You can then export the spread sheet into a database for further analysis. My preliminary analysis was:

select "Type", "Result", count( * ) as CNT 
  from CCPETTN 
 group by rollup ( "Type", "Result" ); 

Type Result CNT
FM    D     8
FM    G     39
FM    W     37
FM          84
MF    D     4
MF    G     3
MF    W     12
MF          19 
Other Other 8
Not   Cmplt 7
Total       118

To demonstrate the statistical significance of the observed strong sexual bias, the observed rates are compared with the number of eligible candidates. For that I use U.S. census figures. I have insured that my estimates are slightly higher than the census figures for eligble parties would suggest (e.g. using estimates for April when the results are from earlier than February) as this makes the results appear less certain than they really are and the confidence in the results is actually greater than that stated.

For the rates of domestic violence, I use the rates found in 'Change In Spouse Assault Rates From 1975 to 1992: A Comparison of Three National Surverys in the United States, Murray A. Strauss and Glenda Kaufman Kantor' for 1992 (the most recent rates in that study). If the trends observed previously have continued then men would be even less likely than women to commit domestic violence than in 1992. Further, while this study dealt exclusively with couples who were co-habitating, the results were extended all men and women as all men and women are eligible for domestic violence protective orders (even if only dating and not co-habitating) in Clark County. Also, it has been observed that men and women who are dating are less likely to commit acts of domestic violence so this makes the counts of eligible candiates slightly higher and results even more certain than the computed level of confidence.

1. For reporting rates, 103 out of 2855 gives 84 out of 1420 for women and 19 out of 1435 for men
2. For completed rates, 54 out of 2855 gives 47 out of 1420 for women and 7 out of 1435 for men
3. For granted orders rates, 42 out of 2855 gives 39 out of 1420 for women and 3 out of 1435 for men
4. For withdrawal rates, 49 out of 104 gives 37 out of 84 for women and 12 out of 19 for men
5. For denial rates, 12 out of 54 gives 8 out of 47 for women and 4 out of 7 for men

This is a very strong case for pervasive sexual discrimination in these proceedings but we will see what the actual level of confidence results from the analysis.

My e-mail is brian@brian.carr .name (take out the space).

__________________________________