The characteristics and violence risk management of women arrested by the police for intimate partner violence
| Published date | 01 November 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370812453403 |
| Author | Susanne Strand,Jennifer E. Storey |
| Date | 01 November 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
9(6) 636 –651
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370812453403
euc.sagepub.com
The characteristics and
violence risk management of
women arrested by the police
for intimate partner violence
Jennifer E. Storey
Simon Fraser University, Canada
Susanne Strand
Mid Sweden University, Sweden
Abstract
Research and management efforts in the area of intimate partner violence (IPV) have primarily
focused on male perpetrators and female victims, resulting in more limited knowledge of female
IPV perpetrators and their male victims. In the current study the violence risk assessments of
police officers were examined in order to outline the characteristics of female perpetrators of
IPV and their male victims. In addition, the officers’ assessments of violence risk and proposed
risk management strategies are presented. Results reveal some similarities between the female
perpetrators and male victims and their more studied counterparts. However, differences appear
to be present in the perceived violence risk posed by the perpetrators and the violence risk
management strategies proposed to reduce that risk and protect the victim. The results suggest
a need for further research in the area, particularly with respect to the violence risk assessment
and management of female IPV perpetrators.
Keywords
Female perpetrators, gender, intimate partner violence, violence risk management
Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) can be defined as ‘the actual, attempted, or threatened
physical harm of a current or former intimate partner’ (Kropp et al., 2005: 1). Even
Corresponding author:
Jennifer E. Storey, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC
V5A 1S6, Canada.
Email: jstorey@sfu.ca
453403EUC9610.1177/1477370812453403European Journal of CriminologyStorey and Strand
2012
Article
Storey and Strand 637
though this definition, like others, does not specify the gender of the perpetrator and
victim, the IPV literature and intervention efforts to date have predominantly focused on
male perpetrators and female victims (Henning and Renauer, 2005). Although IPV per-
petrated by males toward females may result, on average, in more severe injuries to the
victim (Henning and Feder, 2004; Melton and Belknap, 2003; Tjaden and Thoennes,
2000), as well as more arrests and criminal justice system involvement (Babcock et al.,
2003; Simmons et al., 2005), many studies have shown that female-perpetrated IPV is
equally and sometimes even more prevalent. A number of empirical studies and literature
reviews have found that, regardless of the population examined, reciprocal abuse is common
and that females and males perpetrate IPV at similar rates (Dutton et al., 2005; Graham-
Kevan, 2009; Hines and Douglas, 2009; Kwong et al., 1999; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al.,
1995; Simmons et al., 2005). Some studies have even found higher rates of IPV perpetration
among females (Archer, 2000; Stets and Straus, 1990; Whitaker et al., 2007; for a review,
see Graham-Kevan, 2009).
Despite evidence of the existence of female-perpetrated IPV, much less is known
about these women and the violence they perpetrate compared to their male counterparts.
Some researchers suggest that the reason for this dearth of information is that the percep-
tion of IPV has not allowed for female perpetrators (Hines and Douglas, 2009). Owing
to the controversial nature of the topic, much time has been spent debating the existence
of and motivation for female-perpetrated IPV (for a discussion, see Straus, 2009). This
controversy is longstanding and well known to those in the field. Some authors have
offered hypotheses attempting to reconcile this controversy and account for the violence
that studies supporting each side of the debate have found to be present (Johnson, 2008).
The aim of the present paper is not to speak on this debate. Instead, our aim is to describe
the characteristics of women arrested for IPV and the nature of the IPV that they commit-
ted so as to move forward the field, for, as other authors have suggested and our sample
demonstrates, women are being arrested for IPV. This fact creates some urgency with
respect to learning more about these women in order to provide effective violence risk
management and treatment. In other words, the legal system must have knowledge of the
population it is seeing in order to effectively provide services and prevent future violence
(Goldenson et al., 2009; Hines and Douglas, 2009). We will first, however, outline some
of the research that has been conducted to date on the nature of IPV committed by
females and the characteristics of those perpetrators.
Proponents of feminist theories typically characterize violence by females towards
their male intimate partners as self-defence (see Henning et al., 2003, for an example).
However, studies have found gender symmetry in both violence perpetration and self-
defence (Graham-Kevan, 2009). For instance, Robertson and Murachver (2007) found
gender symmetry in IPV frequency, severity and injury, although variation was found in
the type of physical violence, where females were more likely to throw objects, push and
kick, and men were more likely to use strangulation.
Attitudes and beliefs supportive of IPV (including patriarchy, sexual jealousy, posses-
siveness, misogyny and minimization and denial of past violent behaviour) are commonly
found among male perpetrators (Kropp et al., 2005). Similarly, some female attitudes
related to IPV perpetration have been uncovered, although not surprisingly most differ
from those related to violence among men. Such attitudes include victim-blaming, socially
To continue reading
Request your trial