Intimate partner violence: gender issues and the adjudication of homicide and other cases
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-01-2018-0008 |
| Published date | 03 December 2018 |
| Pages | 226-237 |
| Date | 03 December 2018 |
| Author | John Hamel |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Invited paper
Intimate partner violence: gender issues
and the adjudication of homicide and
other cases
John Hamel
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of gender in intimate partner violence (IPV) and,
based upon the author’s experience as an expert witness, 25 years of clinical experience working with IPV
perpetrators and victims, and a review of the relevant scholarly literature, provide judges, attorneys, mental
health professionals and expert court witness suggestions for the adjudication of cases involving IPV in
homicide and other cases.
Design/methodology/approach –The author reviewed the extant general domestic violence research
literature, depending largely on results from findings from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a
series of 17 literature review published in five issues of the peer-reviewed journal,
Partner Ause
. Other relevant
research articles were found via a search of the PschInfo database, using the keywords “intimate partner
homicides,”“domestic violence homicides,”“intimate partner homicides and gender”and “domestic violence
homicides and gender.”
Findings –The judicial response to IPV perpetration has been limited by commonmisconceptions, among them
the confusion between most forms of IPV, which are primarily bi-directionaland less consequential and battering,
which involves more serious assaults and is typically motivated out of a desire to dominate and control one’s
partner. Another misconception is that women are much more likely than men to perpetrate IPV in self-defense or
to express emotion. On the other hand, there isno question that female victims are much more likely to experience
severe physical injuries, and that women account for approximately three-quarters of homicide victims.
Practical implications –These include the following: this concise review of IPV research provides a clearer
understanding of IPV, useful for anyone working in the field. Mental health professionals working with IPV
perpetrators, as well as victims, can draw from this research best practice suggestions in working with more
problematic cases. The paper should be especially useful to anyone involved in theadjudication of IPV cases,
including lethal cases. In particular, prosecutors and attorneys working for the defense are givensuggestions
on how to obtain more reliable research data, choose more fruitful questions for their clients, and better
conceptualize a case overall.
Originality/value –This paper presents a more nuanced and evidence-based conceptualization of serious
and lethal IPV, drawing on a broad research base not generally available to members of the legal profession.
Keywords Offenders, Sentencing, Victims, Assessment, Evidence based practice, Courts
Paper type Literature review
For several decades now, intimate partner violence (IPV ) has been recognized as a major social
problem, as well as a criminal act requiring prosecution for protection of victims (Hines,
Malley-Morrison and Dutton, 2013). Unfortunately, the criminal justice system treats (IPV )
perpetrated by males far more seriously than IPV perpetrated by females. The higher level of
life-threatening injuries suffered by women, and the reluctance of male victims to call the police
provide two explanations. Still, even controlling for extent of physical injuries, men are incorrectly
designated the dominant aggressor (Hamel, 2011) and disproportionately arrested compared to
Received 15 January 2018
Revised 22 June 2018
Accepted 22 June 2018
John Hamel is a Private
Practitioner based in San
Francisco, California, USA.
PAGE226
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2018, pp.226-237, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841 DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-01-2018-0008
To continue reading
Request your trial