{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01752021563342318, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026954177897574125, 'mean_word_length': 5.405172413793103, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
IPV in Rural Pennsylvania and Magisterial Courts: Case Study

Research on the criminal justice system’s response to the problem of intimate partner violence (IPV) largely focuses on police and prosecutorial decision making. Fewer studies are dedicated to exploring how IPV cases are processed by the courts. This study examines the perspectives of judges in the Magisterial Courts in rural counties of Pennsylvania. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 27 magisterial court judges. The findings shed light on magisterial court judges’ experiences with IPV cases, the challenges that they face and the factors that influence their determination whether the cases will be prosecuted, dismissed, or proceed to the Court of Common Pleas.