By Kali Bruns, Research Fellow

The question of who the “primary aggressor” is in cases of intimate partner violence has long been at the center of justice system responses. While nearly every state has adopted primary aggressor laws intended to prevent the wrongful arrest of victims, the reality is that misidentification continues to occur at alarming rates. Too often, women who act in self-defense—or who use violence reactively after years of abuse—are labeled as perpetrators. These errors are not only harmful to the victims themselves, but also undermine the credibility of the justice system and allow true abusers to escape accountability.

Primary aggressor misidentification can stem from multiple sources: outdated departmental policies, ingrained stereotypes about gender and violence, and a lack of training in the complexities of intimate partner dynamics. Female victims are especially vulnerable to being misunderstood when their defensive actions are taken out of context. In some cases, victims have even been charged and prosecuted, forced to bear the consequences of a system that fails to see the larger pattern of coercion and abuse that defines their relationships.

This white paper takes a deep dive into the landscape of primary aggressor laws as they exist today, highlighting where they succeed and where they fall short. It explores the common criteria mandated by these laws—such as history of violence, severity of injuries, and likelihood of future harm—and examines how these factors can be misapplied when professionals lack a nuanced understanding of intimate partner violence. Kali Bruns emphasizes the importance of considering the broader relational context, as well as the coercive control tactics often employed by abusers that may not leave visible marks but are central to understanding true aggressor behavior.

By bringing these issues to light, the paper underscores the urgent need for more consistent training, clearer statutory guidance, and better resources for law enforcement and prosecutors. Misidentification is not just a legal problem; it has devastating human consequences. Victims misidentified as aggressors can lose custody of their children, face employment barriers, and be further isolated from supportive networks. Meanwhile, true abusers remain free to continue their pattern of violence.

The Archway’s ongoing research and advocacy aim to close these gaps by offering evidence-based recommendations that strengthen primary aggressor determinations and protect victims from further harm. This work represents a crucial step forward in ensuring that justice systems not only punish crime, but also protect the vulnerable and uphold the integrity of domestic violence response.