Crimes Against Women: From Violence to Homicide

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a highly prevalent phenomenon worldwide and is considered a severe violation of human rights. Intimate partner homicide (IPH) and attempted intimate partner homicide (AIPH) although less frequent have a severe direct or indirect impact on victims. Despite the vast literature on IPV and IPH, there is still scarce research on AIPH. Thus, this study aimed to analyze whether perpetrators of IPV, IPH, and AIPH differ from each other, as well as to identify the factors that predict violence in intimacy. For those purposes, we performed a comparative analysis between 50 male individuals convicted of IPH, 27 convicted of AIPH, and 168 convicted of IPV from Portugal. The data were collected using an interview and a set of psychological measures. Results revealed that, although IPV, IPH, and AIPH perpetrators’ share some characteristics, significant differences were found between them. IPV perpetrators were more prone to perpetrate violent behaviors against an intimate partner or ex-partner than IPH or AIPH offenders. The use of weapons and separation from the victim increases the probability of committing IPH or AIPH. Being divorced, having no children, and committing other crimes than domestic violence are predictors of AIPH. These results have some practical implications, in terms of both risk prediction and risk management. Accurate and comprehensive tools should be included as a routine in the primary care services, as well as in the child care services and in victim support services. Prevention and intervention efforts must be comprehensive, involving work with perpetrators and victims.

Intimate Partner Violence and Intimate Partner Homicide: Development of a Typology Based on Psychosocial Characteristics

“…In 2015, 32.8% of offenses committed in the context of a relationship that was reported to the Quebec's police were committed by an ex-partner (Ministère de la Sécurité publique, 2017). In fact, the breakup of a relationship represents a major risk factor associated with IPH (Abrunhosa et al, 2020). The period immediately preceding or following the breakup is when the risk of homicide is at its highest (Campbell et al, 2007;Léveillée & Lefebvre, 2011).…”

Perfil do feminicídio: Uma abordagem epidemiológica no Estado de Sergipe

“…Apesar das similaridades dos crimes de feminicídio, as taxas variam de acordo com o contexto sociocultural e político no qual as mulheres vivem Abrunhosa, et al, 2020). Toprak & Ersoy (2017) destacaram que cada região, país e estado têm suas respectivas singularidades relacionadas ao delito praticado.…”

Risk Assessment Instruments for Intimate Partner Femicide: A Systematic Review

“…It reveals that they are essential to continue to be part of the instrument to predict the phenomenon. These are escalation of frequency and severity of violence (Nicolaidis et al, 2003 ; Kivivuori and Lehti, 2012 ; Vatnar and Bjørkly, 2013 ; Cunha and Goncalves, 2016 ; Johnson et al, 2020 ; Monckton Smith, 2020 ), sexual abuse (Bagwell-Gray, 2016 ; Dobash and Dobash, 2016 ), victim's perception that aggressor is capable of killing her (Nicolaidis et al, 2003 ; Vatnar and Bjørkly, 2013 ; Johnson et al, 2020 ), drug and alcohol problems (Belfrage and Rying, 2004 ; Kivivuori and Lehti, 2012 ; Cunha and Goalves, 2016 ; Dobash and Dobash, 2016 ; Johnson et al, 2020 ), battering during pregnancy (Decker et al, 2004 ), suicide threats or attempts (Belfrage and Rying, 2004 ), separation (Belfrage and Rying, 2004 ; Dobash and Dobash, 2011 ; Cunha and Goncalves, 2016 ; Abrunhosa et al, 2021 ), kill threats (Nicolaidis et al, 2003 ; Belfrage and Rying, 2004 ; Cunha and Goncalves, 2016 ), stalking (Nicolaidis et al, 2003 ; Johnson et al, 2020 ), aggressor control daily victim's activities (Decker et al, 2004 ; Dobash and Dobash, 2011 ; Bagwell-Gray, 2016 ; Monckton Smith, 2020 ), aggressor is violently and constantly jealous of victim (Nicolaidis et al, 2003 ; Dobash and Dobash, 2011 ; Bagwell-Gray, 2016 ; Johnson et al, 2020 ), and access, possession and use of weapons (Cunha and Goncalves, 2016 ; Reckdenwald et al, 2019 ; Johnson et al, 2020 ; Monckton Smith, 2020 ; Abrunhosa et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Scientific evidence reveals that there are notable differences in victim, offender and situational characteristics that contribute to the probability of PPW escalating to IPF (Jung and Stewart, 2019 ; Overstreet et al, 2021 ). The increase in frequency and severity of violence, separation/divorce and kill threats are some of the main factors on which research in the field agree (Nicolaidis et al, 2003 ; Belfrage and Rying, 2004 ; Campbell et al, 2009 ; Dobash and Dobash, 2011 ; Kivivuori and Lehti, 2012 ; Vatnar and Bjørkly, 2013 ; Cunha and Goncalves, 2016 ; Johnson et al, 2020 ; Monckton Smith, 2020 ; Abrunhosa et al, 2021 ). It is the occurrence of certain elements that lead to IPF, not a simple progression of violence (Dobash et al, 2007 ).…”