Equal Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence

In his article titled “Coercing Victim Participation in Domestic Violence Prosecutions,” David A. Ford calls for an examination of what he terms nodrop prosecution policies for domestic violence offenses. As the title suggests, Ford argues that these policies are inherently coercive toward victims and ineffective in protecting victims from their abusers. Ford argues that these policies actually serve prosecutors, instead of victims, by advancing what he terms “traditional prosecution interests.” Ford’s arguments are unpersuasive and reflect a lack of understanding of both the role of prosecutors in the criminal justice system and the intent of nodrop policies. Ford’s commentary contains numerous sweeping generalizations about prosecutors and their practice that are supported with little more than his personal opinions and a handful of anecdotal accounts. Moreover, Ford fails to offer a viable alternative to no-drop policies, and he ignores the reality that domestic violence offenders would have far greater control over criminal prosecutions if these policies were abandoned. In response, this commentary first provides a brief overview of the role of the prosecutor and the victim in a criminal proceeding and the historical context and intent of the no-drop policies. Second, it argues that no-drop policies are not coercive but rather represent an effort to treat domestic violence victims fairly and equitably. Third, it argues that these no-drop policies, although imperfect, are the best option for protecting victim safety and holding offenders accountable. Finally, it refutes the claim that somehow these policies serve the interests of prosecutors rather than victims of domestic violence.