Victims' voices and victims' choices in three IPV courts

Critics of mandatory interventions for intimate partner violence (IPV) propose that the justice system disempowers victims by denying them voice and choice in legal proceedings. This exploratory study examines this claim through observations of three criminal courts. Findings show that victims are offered voice and a degree of choice in only one of the three courts. Court procedures that enhance victim voice and choice include a specialized IPV court, victim advocates trained in victims' rights issues, and a lead judge who models respectful treatment of victims. The author proposes that voice and choice are distinct aspects of victim empowerment and that the provision of voice may have benefits to IPV victims that are distinct from the benefits of choice.