The Carceral Politics of Credibility: Race, Queerness, and the Logic of Mandatory IPV Arrest

Background: Originally framed as a pathway to survivors’ “safety” through the removal of abusive partners, mandatory arrest (MA) policies for intimate partner violence (IPV) reflect a broader carceral legacy in the U.S. approach to harm. However, these policies often fail to account for the complexity of survivor experiences—particularly among queer couples (typically categorized as “same-sex” in research), who face disproportionately high rates of IPV arrest. While research on same-sex IPV arrest is scarce, even fewer studies disaggregate by same-sex female and male couples, or examine how race intersects with these dynamics. This study addresses that gap by analyzing racialized and gendered arrest patterns across couple types, with special attention to the role of MA.

Methods: Data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System—a federal dataset tracking arrests annually and by state—was used to sample individuals involved in domestic incidents where IPV arrest was possible (N = 344,687). Sex, used as a proxy for gender due to limitations of secondary data, was paired with sexuality to examine differences across opposite-sex, same-sex male, and same-sex female couples. Two multivariable logistic regression models were used. The first included additive controls for race, sex, and sexuality; the second incorporated interaction terms to examine how these factors jointly shaped arrest outcomes. Models also accounted for arrest policy (mandatory, preferred, or discretionary), both partners’ age, and the presence of a weapon.

Results: Compared to heterosexual couples, same-sex female couples had 12% higher odds of IPV arrest (OR=1.12, 95%CI 1.07–1.17, p < .001), while same-sex male couples had 10% higher odds (OR=1.10, 95%CI 1.04–1.17, p < .001). These disparities did not hold in intersectional models that accounted for the combined effects of race, sex, and sexuality; however, arrest odds remained higher for same-sex female couples where one partner was BIPOC (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.05–1.38, p=.024) or both partners were BIPOC (OR=1.19, 95% CI: 1.09–1.30, p=.001), with respective increases of 20% and 19% arrest odds. No significant interaction effects were observed for same-sex male couples. Findings for MA states, preferred arrest states, and weapon presence were significant in both models, each associated with increased odds of arrest.

Conclusion: Study findings (a) highlight the limitations of additive models that flatten race, sex, and sexuality into separate predictors, and (b) challenge assumptions that IPV policy protects survivors equally. While arrest disparities appear across same-sex couples overall, only specific racialized configurations among same-sex female partners remain significant when modeled intersectionally. These findings suggest that carceral responses to IPV operate through complex and uneven logics of race, gender, and credibility—logics that MA policies continue to reinforce. The absence of similar disparities for same-sex male couples in the intersectional model raises potential questions about gender, threat perception, and who is seen as a victim—each deeply intertwined with race and deserving of further exploration. These findings underscore the urgent need for intersectional, survivor-centered, non-carceral IPV responses that account for queer survivors of color.