Exploratory comparison between fatal and non-fatal cases of intimate partner violence
| Date | 27 June 2019 |
| Published date | 27 June 2019 |
| Pages | 158-168 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-11-2018-0394 |
| Author | Sandy Jung,Jayme Stewart |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Exploratory comparison between fatal
and non-fatal cases of intimate
partner violence
Sandy Jung and Jayme Stewart
Abstract
Purpose –Much has been written about intimate partner homicide (IPH), but empirical examinations have
been less rigorous and mostly descriptive in nature. The purpose of this paper is to provide an exploration of
the characteristics of fatal intimate partner violence (IPV) cases.
Design/methodology/approach –A direct comparison of fatal IPHs with both a matched sample of
non-fatal IPV cases and a random selection of non-fatal IPV cases is made on a number of offence, offender,
victim characteristics and risk-relevant variables.
Findings –Despite assertions that domestic homicide is different than domestic violence, in general, few
notable differences emerged among the groups. Prior domestic incidents differed between the matched fatal
and non-fatal cases, where a greater proportion of the homicide perpetrators had a prior domestic incident.
Other differences that were found revealed that more non-fatal perpetrators had substance abuse problems,
younger victims and been unemployed at the time of the offence. However, differences were minimal when
fatal and non-fatal IPV perpetrators were matched on demographic features and criminal history.
Originality/value –This study highlights that there may be few features that distinguish IPH and non-fatal
violence. Rather than be distracted with searching for risk factors predictive of fatality, we should evaluate IPV
risk using broad-based approaches to determine risk for reoffending and overall severity of reoffending.
Keywords Risk factors, Domestic violence, Intimate partner violence, Characteristics comparison,
Intimate partner homicide, Risk-relevant
Paper type Research paper
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a preventable crime that is pervasive and unfortunately, all too
common. The most severe form of violence is that leading to fatal consequences, namely,
intimate partner homicide (IPH). A global prevalence study by Stockl et al. (2013) found that 13.5
per cent of homicides were perpetrated by intimate partners. A UK profile study of 207
heterosexual IPH showed that a majority were committed by males against females (84 per cent),
perpetrators had an average age of 40 years with the range larger for males (16 to 94 years; vs
females, 18 to 53 years), and 45 per cent of perpetrators had a previous adult criminal conviction
(Sebire, 2017). Many profile studies have been published on IPH (e.g. Caman et al., 2017; Eke
et al., 2011), and several books have profiled IPH offenders (e.g. Dobash and Dobash, 2015).
However, much of the literature is solely descriptive and consequently, it is challenging to make
inferences regarding the factors that cause IPH or the risk factors that increase the chances of
fatality, without inferential analyses comparing the findings with non-fatal cases of IPV. In fact,
there are few studies that have compared IPH cases with other offender groups, particularly
non-fatal IPV and therefore this study will explore the characteristics of fatal and non-fatal IPV.
The few studies that have profiled IPH have mostly focussed on individual factors. For example,
although some have proposed that there are many factors that are relevant to IPH, much
attention has been drawn to perpetrators’access to firearms and their problems with substance
use (Roberts, 2009). One study cites that adults who live in homes with a firearm are 1.4 times
more likely to be a victim of homicide and 3.4 times more likely to commit suicide compared to
those in a home without a firearm (Wiebe, 2003). When compared, many of these studies match
Received 27 November 2018
Revised 7 February 2019
8 February 2019
Accepted 9 February 2019
The authors express deep
appreciation to the Edmonton
Police Services for providing the
opportunity to conduct this
research. The authors thank
Katherine Pascoe and Melissa
Russo for their research
assistance. This research would
not be possible without the
support from Brian Roberts,
Danielle Campbell, Chad Tawfik
and Sean Armstrong. The points of
view expressed in this article do
not necessarily represent the views
of the Edmonton Police Service.
Sandy Jung and Jayme
Stewart are both based at the
Department of Psychology,
MacEwan University,
Edmonton, Canada.
PAGE158
j
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICTAND PEACE RESEARCH
j
VOL. 11 NO. 3 2019, pp.158-168, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599 DOI 10.1108/JACPR-11-2018-0394
To continue reading
Request your trial