Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40621-020-00270-1
复制
发表时间：
2020-07-22
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Levinson, Anne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frattaroli, Shannon;Omaki, Elise;Levinson, Anne
极端风险保护令（ERPO）法律是一种有前途的枪支暴力预防战略。ERPO法律允许特定类别的人（所有州的执法人员，大多数家庭）向法院请愿，要求暂时禁止个人购买和拥有枪支，因为该人行为危险，有可能对自己或他人施加暴力。2017年，华盛顿州的ERPO法生效。金郡制定了一项全面的方法来执行ERPO法。金郡的早期经验提供了重要的洞察力，这些法律的早期采用者如何将EPRO纳入他们的方法，以枪支暴力prevention.MethodsWe系统地审查，提取和编码的数据，从每一个ERPO请愿书在金郡在2017年和2018年，以及所有ERPO法庭记录与这些请愿书。我们进行了描述性分析的编码data. ResultsSeventy-ERPO请愿书提交在金郡在研究期间。法官在所有75个案件中批准了临时紧急救济令;其中65个案件（87%）的结果是一年的紧急救济令。执法部门提出了其中73份（97%），家庭成员提出了其余两份。在75份请愿书中，有30份（40%）将受访者的风险描述为“只对自己”，20份（27%）为“只对他人”，25份（33%）为“对自己和他人”。五起威胁是“仅针对他人”的案件符合大规模枪击威胁的定义。对于95%的临时ERPO，法院发布ERPO的理由包括当前的暴力或挥舞枪支。75个案件的法庭记录详细说明了61个案件（81%）中被收缴的枪支和/或包括收缴枪支的收据，（n = 13，17%）或结合ERPO服务（n = 48，64%）。结论这些发现表明，华盛顿的ERPO法正在适用时，有人威胁暴力，以自己或他人，或者挥舞着枪，并且存在至少一个其他危险因素。金郡的早期经验提供了深入了解这一法律是如何在一个司法管辖区实施，以及法院是如何评估这些案件。
BackgroundExtreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a promising gun violence prevention strategy. ERPO laws allow specific categories of people (law enforcement in all states, family in most) to petition a court to request that an individual be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms because that individual is behaving dangerously and at risk of violence, either to themselves or others. In 2017 Washington State's ERPO law took effect. King County developed a comprehensive approach to implementing the ERPO law. The early experience of King County offers important insight into how early adopters of these laws are incorporating EPROs into their approach to gun violence prevention.MethodsWe systematically reviewed, abstracted and coded data from every ERPO petition filed in King County in 2017 and 2018, and all ERPO court records associated with those petitions. We conducted descriptive analyses of the coded data.ResultsSeventy-five ERPO petitions were filed in King County during the study period. Judges granted a temporary ERPO in all 75 cases; 65 (87%) of these cases resulted in a one-year ERPO. Law enforcement initiated 73 (97%) of these petitions, and family members filed the remaining two. The 75 petitions filed described respondents' risk as to "themselves only" in 30 cases (40%), to "others only" in 20 cases (27%) and "to themselves and others" in 25 cases (33%). Five cases where the threat was to "others only" met a definition of mass shooting threat. For 95% of the temporary ERPOs issued, the courts' reasoning for issuing ERPOs included either current violence or brandishing a firearm. Court records for the 75 cases detail firearms removed and/or include receipts for removed firearms in 61 cases (81%) either as part of ERPO precipitating events (n = 13, 17%) or in conjunction with ERPO service (n = 48, 64%).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that Washington's ERPO law is being applied when someone is threatening violence to self or others, or brandishing a gun and at least one other risk factor is present. The early experience of King County provides insight into how this law is being implemented in one jurisdiction and how courts are evaluating such cases.