ANN ARBOR—While many domestic violence offenders undergo counseling or serve time in jail for their crimes, other forms of punishment may also be effective deterrents, says a University of Michigan researcher. “I support the use of incarceration as a sanction,” says Richard M. Tolman, U-M associate professor of social work.

“However, while a great many batterers are arrested, in most jurisdictions few of them actually serve any jail time. “Many are mandated to some type of batterer intervention program as a condition of sentencing or sometimes are sent to some form of treatment in the context of deferred prosecution.” In a chapter he wrote for the Sage Publications book “The Future of Intervention with Battered Women and Their Families,” edited by J. Edleson and Z. Eisokovits, Tolman says that while incarceration may help deter batterers, it can be costly and may place a severe financial burden on a battered woman and her family.

“One of the main difficulties with traditional incarceration is the reluctance of judges to impose it as a sanction, however warranted,” Tolman says. “Rather than argue against traditional incarceration, my purpose is to explore what else we might do instead of or in addition to traditional incarceration that might be effective in stopping violence against women by their male partners.”

Such alternative sanctions, Tolman says, could include day reporting/incarceration centers, weekend incarceration, electronic monitoring, intensive probation, community service and restitution. Day reporting/incarceration centers, he says, typically require offenders to report at least three times per week and offer abuse-specific, as well as rehabilitative, programs such as literacy and job skills training, and alcohol and drug abuse prevention services, if needed.

Weekend incarceration or work-release programs have the advantage of not interrupting employment for those batterers with jobs on weekdays and also could provide rehabilitative programming, Tolman says. “This sanction would have the advantage of giving a strong deterrent message while allowing offenders to continue to work, and presumably, improve the probability of continued ongoing support to their families,” he says.

Although not yet widely used, electronic monitoring of offenders not living with their victims might be another effective alternative, Tolman adds. He says that an electronic monitoring bracelet worn by an offender would warn a victim and police that the batterer is within a prohibited distance of the victim. “This type of monitoring would be most appropriate for stalkers, offenders separated from victims, who have a high probability of harassment and re-contact with the victim,” Tolman says. “Offenders who have previously violated conditions of orders for protection and other court sanctions, and who display obsessive attachments and jealousy about their former partners would be prime candidates for electronic monitoring.” He cautions, however, that if such technology is used, measures must be taken to ensure a victim’s safety, including outreach to victims, access to victim services, and warning victims that such technology is not foolproof.

Another option to consider, Tolman says, is intensive probation, which can provide greater supervision and monitoring of offenders, compared with other forms of supervision. In addition, he says that community service can be an attractive sanction because it focuses on the provision of pro- social services as a consequence of anti-social behavior.

Finally, monetary restitution as punishment “holds a perpetrator accountable for actions which can repair the material and emotional damage caused by his criminal actions,” Tolman says. It provides needed resources to battered women and sends a strong message to an offender that his actions are wrong, he adds. Tolman also says that restitution could take other forms, such as having an offender agree to limit contact with his victim and her friends and family, avoid places the victim frequents, and provide her with plenty of space away from him.