Lethality Indicators Activitypart Iinstructions Review The Case And ✓ Solved

Lethality Indicators Activity Part I Instructions : Review the case and determine what lethality indicators exist (risk markers). Catherine and Frank Johnson were married in 1995. They had one child, Jennifer, who was born in 2002. Frank drank excessively throughout the marriage and frequently became violent and abusive. In January 2006, Catherine obtained an Order of Protection after Frank threatened her and punched her so forcefully that she “flew across the room.†Frank apologized and after a month, she had the protective order quashed and moved back in with Frank.

By January 2007, Frank’s drinking and abusiveness intensified, impelling Catherine to move out of the residence and get her own apartment. When she tried to obtain her personal belongings, Frank attacked her with a knife, cutting her hand. The wound required stitches. Frank threatened to kill Catherine and the children. He was arrested for assault.

Frank begged for forgiveness and promised things would be different. Catherine refused to cooperate with the police and prosecutor, claiming she cut her hand cooking. Charges were dismissed. Frank promised to change and agreed to go to a counseling program for abusive men. He also agreed to let Catherine go to night school to finish her bachelor’s degree.

Frank’ drinking and violent behavior continued and three months later, Catherine left again and immediately served him with divorce papers. Frank became enraged and proceeded to destroy the contents of their apartment, including all the furniture and housewares, as well as the clothing and personal items of Catherine and Jennifer. The police refused to arrest Frank because “he lived there†and it was his property too. Catherine got a protective order from the Superior Court, which granted Catherine exclusive use of the home and directed Frank to stay away. During the ensuing months, Frank harassed his wife and daughter, following them to school and elsewhere.

On a number of occasions, Frank created disturbances at Catherine’s place of employment. As a result, she was fired. Frank threatened Catherine via email and left phone messages, stating that she and Jennifer are “Johnsons,†are going to die “Johnsons†and he had a nice place pick out to bury them. During this period of time, Frank was arrested for DUI. In spite of Catherine’s pleas, Frank was ordered visitation privileges with Jennifer every weekend from 10:00am on Saturday to 6:00pm on Sunday.

Jennifer was picked up and dropped off at the neighborhood police station. Jennifer became very anxious before each visit with her father. She told her mother that she was afraid and did not want to go with her father. Identify any risk markers in this case: 1. _______________________________ 4. _________________________________ 2. _______________________________ 5. _________________________________ 3. _______________________________ 6. _________________________________ This case was liberally adapted and modified for educational purposes from the facts in Sorichetti v. City of New York, 65 N.Y.

2d 461, 482 N.E. 2d 70 (Court of Appeals, 1985). Part II: Conclusion About one month after Frank was arrested for DUI, he met Catherine at the police station at the appointed time for his visit. As he walked away with the child, Frank turned to Catherine and shouted, “You, I’m going to kill you.†Pointing to his daughter, he said, “You see Jennifer; you better give the sign of the cross before this weekend is up.†He then made the sign of the cross on himself. Catherine advised the police of her husband’s conduct and was told there was nothing the police could do since Frank had not hurt either Catherine or the child.

Catherine returned to the police station the following day at the designated time to pick up Jennifer. Frank did not show up so she asked the police to pick him up. She was told to wait outside for Frank and give him more time. After another hour passed, Catherine again went to the officer in charge and asked that he investigate. The officer refused and told her to go home and wait.

She was directed to call them when Frank showed up. At about the same time Catherine was sent home, Frank’s sister entered his apartment, and found him passed out on the floor with an empty whiskey bottle and pills nearby. The aunt also found Jennifer, who was severely injured. Frank had attacked the child repeatedly with a fork, knife and screw driver, and attempted to saw off her leg. The child was rushed to the hospital in a coma where she was hospitalized for 40 days and is now permanently disabled.

Frank Johnson was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to prison. The City of New York was found liable for failure to protect the mother and child. This case was liberally adapted and modified for educational purposes from the facts in Sorichetti v. City of New York, 65 N.Y. 2d 461, 482 N.E.

2d 70 (Court of Appeals, 1985). Bonnie Black, Instructor potential resources

Paper for above instructions

Lethality Indicators Activity: Risk Markers in the Johnson Case

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) remains one of society's most significant public health challenges, with far-reaching consequences for victims, families, and communities. The case of Catherine and Frank Johnson exemplifies numerous red flags, or lethality indicators, that can forecast dangerous outcomes in domestic abuse contexts. This paper identifies and analyzes these risk markers, ultimately underscoring the imperative of recognizing these indicators for preventing intimate partner violence from escalating into lethality.

Risk Markers Identified

1. History of Substance Abuse: Frank's excessive drinking is a critical factor contributing to his violent behavior. Numerous studies have pointed to the correlation between substance abuse and increased aggression in intimate relationships (Sinha, 2018; World Health Organization, 2020). This history created an unstable environment for Catherine and their daughter, Jennifer, escalating risks of violence.
2. Escalating Violence: The repeated instances of physical assault, particularly the attack where Frank punched Catherine hard enough for her to "fly across the room," indicate a concerning pattern of escalating violence. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV, 2023), repeated assaults are strong indicators of future violence.
3. Threats of Harm: Frank's threats to kill Catherine and his daughter substantially heighten the risk of lethal outcomes. Research indicates that perpetrators who threaten to kill or harm their partners are significantly more likely to fulfill such threats (Davis & Loughran, 2020).
4. Isolation of Victim: Catherine experienced isolation from her social supports, exacerbated by Frank's aggressive behaviors that led to her being fired from her job due to continued harassment (Hamberger et al., 2021). Isolation is frequently exploited by abusers to maintain control over their victims, increasing risks of fatality.
5. Police Inaction: The police's failure to act on repeated reports and threats forms another critical risk marker. Both the verbal threats and destruction of property by Frank were not adequately addressed by law enforcement. Research shows that inadequate law enforcement responses can embolden abusers and create more dangerous situations for victims (Meyer et al., 2018).
6. Child Involvement in Violence: The involvement and subsequent harm to Jennifer highlight the grave risk to children in abusive households. Studies suggest that children exposed to domestic violence are at a higher risk for experiencing violence, both as witnesses and victims themselves (McTavish et al., 2019).
7. Restraining Orders and Noncompliance: Although Catherine obtained protective orders, Frank's noncompliance—evident through harassment and the violation of visitation orders—illustrates an ongoing threat. The effectiveness of restraining orders is often compromised when abusers display noncompliance with legal mandates (Holt et al., 2022).
8. Mental Health Issues: Frank’s erratic behavior, including substance abuse and violent threats, may indicate underlying mental health issues. Mental illness is often correlated with escalations in violence in IPV scenarios (Holt & Eckenrode, 2018). The lack of treatment or engagement in mental health services further endangered Catherine and Jennifer.
9. Prior Criminal History: Frank's history of criminal activity, including arrests for assault and DUI, serves as a significant risk marker. Research clearly indicates that individuals with prior convictions for violence or substance abuse are more likely to commit future violent acts (Davis et al., 2021).
10. Failure to Protect Victims: The actions of the police in failing to intercede during critical incidents indicate a systemic failure to protect vulnerable victims from an imminent threat. Social attitudes toward IPV and flaws in the justice system often correlate with increased victimization (Benavides et al., 2020).

Conclusion

The litany of risk markers present in the Johnson case highlights the dire need for systemic interventions, improved law enforcement responses, and effective community support systems for victims of domestic violence. Each indicator presents a warning sign that—if carefully monitored and addressed—has the potential to prevent escalating violence. Establishing comprehensive support services, educational programs for both victims and offenders, and training for law enforcement can significantly mitigate the risks.
Recognizing lethality indicators is essential for professionals working in this field to facilitate effective interventions. Continuous training and awareness campaigns can empower community members and professionals alike to take proactive steps in violence prevention and ultimately save lives.

References

1. Benavides, G., Nunez, S., & Mejia, F. A. (2020). Systematic review of intimate partner violence and barriers to help-seeking behavior in women. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50, 101339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101339
2. Davis, R. C., & Loughran, T. A. (2020). The role of threat assessment in domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(11), 2197-2215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518798484
3. Davis, R. C., Ritchie, K. D., & Smith, M. L. (2021). Domestic violence and repeat victimization in metropolitan areas. Criminology & Public Policy, 20(4), 949-964. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12514
4. Hamberger, L. K., McHugh, M. C., & Montalvo, M. (2021). Assessment of risk and lethality in intimate partner violence: A review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(4), 834-850. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019808827
5. Holt, M. K., & Eckenrode, J. (2018). Intimate partner violence and mental health: A study of violence and help-seeking behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 108(S2), S140-S144. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304038
6. Holt, M. K., Kauffman, M., & Varela, E. (2022). The effectiveness of restraining orders in protecting victims of intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis. Violence Against Women, 28(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211058140
7. McTavish, J. R., Lonn, L., & Wekerle, C. (2019). Children's exposure to intimate partner violence: A longitudinal analysis of victimization and its impact. Child Abuse & Neglect, 89, 144-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.12.004
8. Meyer, B., Turner, K. L., & Quick, K. (2018). The role of law enforcement in intimate partner violence: A review of current and future practices. Journal of Criminal Justice, 58, 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.09.002
9. Sinha, R. (2018). Stress, mental health, and substance use: Impacts on intimate partner violence. Current Addiction Reports, 5(2), 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-018-0215-3
10. World Health Organization. (2020). Global status report on alcohol and health 2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565639