Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:03:11.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Please Check the Appropriate Box”: Documents and the Governance of Domestic Violence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Rashmee Singh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This analysis examines the effects of administrative templates on legal responses to domestic violence. The discussion focuses on a set of intake forms deployed by a team of grassroots workers who routinely attend Toronto's specialized domestic violence plea courts to enroll defendants into counseling programs. Although these documents are nothing more than mundane, administrative forms, they are crucial to generating the formations required to govern domestic violence through the criminal justice and community partnerships on which the plea courts rely. Along with redefining the responsibilities of the legal and grassroots actors involved in the court network, the documents also generate and formalize notions of wrongdoing that prove to be far more effective in resolving cases than traditional guilty pleas. This analysis illuminates how forms permit the retreat and reassertion of state sovereignty as required in legal regimes involving devolution. It also underscores the methodological importance of constitutive analyses of documents to illuminating machinations of penal power.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , Spring 2017 , pp. 509 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakht, Natasha. 2005. Problem Solving Courts as Agents of Change. Criminal Law Quarterly 50:224–54.Google Scholar
Bentley, Paul, and Bakht, Natasha. 2004. Problem Solving Courts as Agents of Change. Journal of the Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association 15 (3): 7–15.Google Scholar
Berman, Greg. 2000. What Is a Traditional Judge Anyway?: Problem Solving in State Courts. Judicature 84:78–85.Google Scholar
Berman, Greg. 2005. Good Courts: The Case for Problem Solving Justice. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Greg, and Feinblatt, John. 2001. Problem Solving Courts: A Brief Primer. Law and Policy 23 (2): 125–39.Google Scholar
Boldt, Richard. 2002 . The Adversary System and Attorney Role in the Drug Treatment Court Movement. In Drug Courts: In Theory and in Practice, ed. Nolan, James Jr., 115–44. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Cabot, Heath. 2012. The Governance of Things: Documenting Limbo in the Greek Asylum Procedure. Political and Legal Anthropology Review 35 (1): 11–29.Google Scholar
Calavita, Kitty. 2010. Invitation to Law and Society: An Introduction to the Study of Real Law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garland, David. 1996. The Limits of the Sovereign State. British Journal of Criminology 36 (4): 445–71.Google Scholar
Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hannah‐Moffat, Kelly. 2000. Prisons that Empower. British Journal of Criminology 20 (3): 510–31.Google Scholar
Hannah‐Moffat, Kelly, and Maurutto, Paula. 2012. Shifting and Targeted Forms of Penal Governance: Bail, Punishment and Specialized Courts. Theoretical Criminology 16 (2): 201–19.Google Scholar
Heimer, Carol A. 2006. Conceiving Children: How Documents Support Case Versus Biographical Analyses. In Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, ed. Riles, Annelise, 95–126. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Huizenga, Daniel. 2014. Documenting “Community” in the Khomani San Land Claim in South Africa. Political and Legal Anthropology Review 37 (1): 145–61.Google Scholar
Hull, Matthew. 2012a. Documents and Bureaucracy. Annual Review of Anthropology 41:251–67.Google Scholar
Hull, Matthew. 2012b. Government of Paper: The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, Marie‐Andree. 2007. Form‐Made Persons: Consent Forms as Consent's Blind Spots. Political Legal Anthropological Review 30 (2): 249–68.Google Scholar
Kohler‐Hausmann, Issa. 2013. Misdemeanor Justice: Control Without Conviction. American Journal of Sociology 119 (2): 351–93.Google Scholar
Langer, Susanne, Scourfield, Jonathan, and Fincham, Ben. 2008. Documenting the Quick and the Dead: A Study of Suicide Case Files in a Coroner's Office. Sociological Review 56 (2): 293–308.Google Scholar
Lazarus‐Black, Mindie. 2007. Everyday Harm: Domestic Violence, Court Rites and Cultures of Reconciliation. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Ron, and Valverde, Mariana. 2008. Studying Law by Association: Bruno Latour Goes to the Conseil d'Etat. Law & Social Inquiry 33 (3): 805–25.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally. 2006. Human Rights & Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Dawn. 2007a. Criminal Artefacts: Governing Drugs and Users. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Dawn. 2007b. Translating Justice and Therapy: The Drug Treatment Court Networks. British Journal of Criminology 47 (1): 42–60.Google Scholar
Mulla, Sameena. 2014. The Violence of Care: Rape Victims, Forensic Nurses, and Sexual Assault Intervention. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, James. 2009. Legal Accents, Legal Borrowing: The International Problem Solving Court Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pence, Ellen, and Paymar, Michael. 1993. Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Pratt, John, Brown, David, Brown, Mark, Hallsworth, Simon, and Morrison, Wayne. 2013. The New Punitiveness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reed, Adam. 2006. Documents Unfolding. In Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, ed. Riles, Annelise, 158–80. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Riles, Annelise. 2006a. [Deadlines]: Removing the Brackets on Politics in Bureaucratic and Anthropological Analysis. In Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, ed. Riles, Annelise, 71–94. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Riles, Annelise. 2006b. Introduction. In Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, ed. Riles, Annelise, 1–40. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Nikolas. 1996. The Death of the “Social”? Reconfiguring the Territory of Government. Economy and Society 26 (4): 327–46.Google Scholar
Sharma, Aradhana. 2008. Logics of Empowerment: Development, Gender and Governance in Neoliberal India. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, Aradhana, and Gupta, Akhil. 2006. The Anthropology of the State: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silbey, Susan. 2005. After Legal Consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 1:323–68.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy. 1984. Textually Mediated Social Organization. International Social Science Journal 36 (1): 59–75.Google Scholar
Trinch, Shonna. 2003. Latinas' Narratives of Domestic Violence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vismann, Cornelia. 2008. Files: Law and Media Technology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Weisser, Florian. 2014. Practices, Politics, Performativities: Documents in the International Negotiations on Climate Change. Political Geography 40:46–55.Google Scholar
Wexler, David. 2000. Therapeutic Jurisprudence: An Overview. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 17:125–34.Google Scholar
Wexler, David, and Winnick, Bruce. 1996. Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar