Before the killing: intimate partner homicides in a process perspective, Part I

Author(s):  
Viveka Enander ◽  
Gunilla Krantz ◽  
Henrik Lysell ◽  
Karin Örmon

This article puts intimate partner homicide (IPH) into a process perspective, and describes the situational precursors that constitute the build-up, that is, the first stage of the IPH process that precedes the deed. Fifty court files, from cases involving 40 male and ten female perpetrators, underwent thematic analysis. Our findings indicate that the build-up phase of an IPH is complex and encompasses several different features, of which some are clearly gendered. The results point to an escalation during the build-up: of possessiveness and violent behaviour in male-to-female cases, of alcohol/drug abuse, of mental health problems and/or of fears for the future, often connected to separation. Concurrent with previous research we found that women often kill in the context of their own victimisation. There were, however, other situations and motives that also stood out as being pertinent.<br />The practical implications of these findings are that practitioners should be particularly attentive to escalation of known risk factors, especially male possessiveness, and be aware that (the victim wanting) a separation may initiate escalation with lethal consequences.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>IPH is a process that builds up over time.</li><br /><li>Risk factors for IPH should be contextualised, in order to determine which are pertinent at the time of the crime.</li><br /><li>The build-up to an IPH is complex, with several overlapping features. Some of these are clearly gendered and thus differ between male and female perpetrators.</li></ul>

Author(s):  
Viveka Enander ◽  
Gunilla Krantz ◽  
Solveig Lövestad ◽  
Karin Örmon

This article puts intimate partner homicide (IPH) into a process perspective, and describes the latter two stages of the IPH process, that is, ‘changing the project’ and ‘the aftermath’. The focus of analysis is on the moment when the perpetrator chooses to kill the victim, and what s/he does and says in the wake of the killing. Fifty court files, from cases involving 40 male and 10 female perpetrators, underwent thematic analysis. Regarding the final trigger pertaining to changing the project, some situational factors that trigger male-perpetrated IPH seem to differ from the corresponding factors in female-perpetrated IPH. Feelings of rejection and jealousy seemed to be more common as triggers to kill for men than for women, while some cases of female-perpetrated IPH were linked to self-defence in response to IPV. Moreover, as noted previously, no female perpetrators displayed possessiveness.Regarding the aftermath, after the homicide the perpetrators generally contacted someone and admitted to having killed their partners. Only a few perpetrators denied culpability and even fewer, mainly male, perpetrators concealed their crimes and denied knowledge of them. However, even in cases where the perpetrator admitted to having killed their victims, their courtroom narratives were apparently constructed to minimise resposibility.<br />Key Messages<br /><ul><li>The IPH process can be described as threefold, consisting of the following stages: the build-up before the killing, changing the project into killing one’s partner and the aftermath to the killing. Similar triggers exist in the first two stages, and the boundaries between them are blurred, but a final trigger seems to precede the killing.</li><br /><li>IPH perpetrators may contact someone after the killing and admit to having committed it, but still attempt to minimise their responsibility.</li><br /><li>The IPH process is gendered, with different features in the respective cases of male and female perpetrators. It is often, but not always, preceded by male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV).</li></ul>


2021 ◽  
pp. 108876792110474
Author(s):  
Kenzie Hanson ◽  
Alexandra Lysova

Media research on intimate partner homicide (IPH) has primarily focused on male perpetrators and female victims. This study analyzed 203 English-language news articles of IPH involving male victims and female perpetrators for the year 2019. Using thematic analysis, we identified two main themes: doubting the victim (who is the victim?) and victim recognition (“he didn’t deserve this”). The findings suggest that male victims of female perpetrated IPH tend to be blamed for their victimization and represented as non-ideal and illegitimate victims in the news media.


2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052110014
Author(s):  
Doris F. Pu ◽  
Christina M. Rodriguez ◽  
Marina D. Dimperio

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is often conceptualized as occurring unilaterally, reciprocal or bidirectional violence is actually the most prevalent form of IPV. The current study assessed physical IPV experiences in couples and evaluated risk and protective factors that may be differentially associated with reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV concurrently and over time. As part of a multi-wave longitudinal study, women and men reported on the frequency of their IPV perpetration and victimization three times across the transition to parenthood. Participants also reported on risk factors related to personal adjustment, psychosocial resources, attitudes toward gender role egalitarianism, and sociodemographic characteristics at each wave. Participants were classified into one of four IPV groups (reciprocal violence, male perpetrators only, female perpetrators only, and no violence) based on their self-report and based on a combined report, which incorporated both partners’ reports of IPV for a maximum estimate of violence. Women and men were analyzed separately, as both can be perpetrators and/or victims of IPV. Cross-sectional analyses using self-reported IPV data indicated that IPV groups were most consistently distinguished by their levels of couple satisfaction, across gender; psychological distress also appeared to differentiate IPV groups, although somewhat less consistently. When combined reports of IPV were used, sociodemographic risk markers (i.e., age, income, and education) in addition to couple functioning were among the most robust factors differentiating IPV groups concurrently, across gender. In longitudinal analyses, sociodemographic vulnerabilities were again among the most consistent factors differentiating subsequent IPV groups over time. Several gender differences were also found, suggesting that different risk factors (e.g., women’s social support and men’s emotion regulation abilities) may need to be targeted in interventions to identify, prevent, and treat IPV among women and men.


2021 ◽  
pp. 108876792110484
Author(s):  
Shani Buggs ◽  
April M. Zeoli

Guns are used in the majority of homicides in the United States, making the problem of homicide largely a problem of gun violence. This article presents three types of gun homicide (mass shootings, intimate partner homicide, and community gun violence), and briefly discusses the state of knowledge on their risk factors and promising interventions. Future directions for research are presented, focusing on examining differential implementation and impacts of interventions by racialized groups and communities, as well as interrogating conventional approaches and methodologies.


2020 ◽  
pp. 088626052094372
Author(s):  
Penelope K. Morrison ◽  
Chelsea Pallatino ◽  
Rachel A. Fusco ◽  
Tanya Kenkre ◽  
Judy Chang ◽  
...  

Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States. However, very little information exists as to the circumstantial factors associated with IPH during pregnancy. We conducted a descriptive study of the demographic characteristics, psychosocial service engagement, and crises experiences (i.e., life and relationship stressors) among pregnant and nonpregnant victims to understand what differences, if any, exist in their risk profile for IPH. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) were used for this study. The NVDRS is a national opt-in tracking system of all violent deaths in the United States. Pregnant victims ( N = 293) were significantly more likely to be 5 years younger than nonpregnant victims, African American, and never married. Pregnant victims were more likely to be seen in the emergency room following the fatal incident. Nonpregnant victims ( N = 2,089) were significantly more likely to have suspected alcohol use at the time of their death. In strictly proportional terms, we also observed higher rates of mental health problems, a history of mental health treatment, and a reported history of intimate partner violence (IPV), crisis, or family problems among nonpregnant victims. A wider range of IPH-related risk factors (e.g. substance abuse) need to be included IPV assessments. Future studies should seek to develop effective interventions to prevent IPH, particularly among reproductive aged women.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 869-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Harden ◽  
Jingshuai Du ◽  
Chelsea M. Spencer ◽  
Sandra M. Stith

Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) is one of the leading causes of death for women in the United States. Recent research has identified the strongest risk markers for IPH from quantitative studies, but there is still a need to synthesize what is known about IPH from qualitative studies. Additionally, few studies have examined perpetrator-reported motivations for IPH, along with victim's and co-victims' experiences of attempted or completed IPH. In order to synthesize the current qualitative literature surrounding motivations and risk factors for IPH, a thematic qualitative synthesis was conducted. This qualitative synthesis included 20 studies that examined IPH risk factors, motivations, and other pertinent themes related to IPH. Some of the most prevalent reported motivations for committing IPH were loss of control, jealousy, relationship termination, and a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization (i.e., self-defense). A few of the most common risk factors for IPH found in the qualitative literature included previous IPV, coercive control, and the victim underestimating danger/lethality. It is important for both clinicians and law enforcement to know more about IPH so that that they are able to assess situations effectively.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Theresa Messing ◽  
Millan A. AbiNader ◽  
Jesenia M. Pizarro ◽  
Jacquelyn C. Campbell ◽  
Megan Lindsay Brown ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 101358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreia Matias ◽  
Mariana Gonçalves ◽  
Cristina Soeiro ◽  
Marlene Matos

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Q. Brady ◽  
Brittany E. Hayes

Using data from the Chicago Women’s Health Risk Study (N = 464), this study examined the intersection of stalking and the severity of intimate partner abuse while controlling for previously identified risk factors of intimate partner homicide. Findings indicate that (a) victims of life-threatening abuse by an intimate partner were significantly more likely toexperience stalking than victims of nonlethal abuse; (b) after controlling for key risk factors, stalking increased the risk of life-threatening abuse; and (c) threats to kill the victim if she left was the only significant stalking-related behavior that increased the risk for life-threatening abuse. In addition, an offender’s prior record and a higher number of previous abusive incidents increased the risk of life-threatening abuse. Implications for prevention and future directions for research are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document