While domestic abuse has been prevalent throughout history and its impacts severe, only in recent decades has prosecution been undertaken aggressively.
[1] Prosecutors managing these cases face a constant problem of victims who are unable or unwilling to cooperate with prosecution.
[4] As of 2010, the use of evidence-based prosecution is strongly encouraged, if not mandated, for agencies receiving federal funding through the STOP Violence Against Women Act.
Likewise, statements from the Defendant in the case, such as to police officers or detectives, might be introduced to show inconsistencies or admissions about the abuse.
[7] Proponents also look to the drop in domestic violence homicides over the past 20 years as a sign that evidence-based prosecution, in conjunction with other changes, is working to save lives.
Many victims of domestic violence constantly make rational choices concerning their own safety and may be in a better position than the prosecutor to judge whether prosecution helps or hurts.
[8] In 2004, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Crawford v. Washington, in which they reversed the conviction of a defendant who had been found guilty of stabbing a man based partially on statements made by his wife to police, which were introduced at trial under a hearsay exception, despite her not being available to testify.
In order to continue the practice, prosecutors have turned to improving law enforcement training at response and investigation in domestic violence cases so that police gather as much admissible evidence as possible.