Search results

An article in the NIJ Journal (Websdale, 2003) notes that domestic violence can provoke suicide. The 2003 Massachusetts Domestic Violence Homicide Report (Lauby et al, 2006) notes that suicide can be attributed to domestic violence incidents. Utah Domestic Violence Related Deaths 2006 (Utah Domestic Violence Council, 2006) notes that the majority of domestic violence‐related suicides are not covered in their report. The report Domestic Violence Fatalities (2005) (Utah Department of Health, 2006) notes that there were 44 suicides and 21 homicide domestic violence‐related deaths in Utah in 2005. Using data from the Surveillance for Violent Deaths ‐ National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2005 (Karch et al, 2008), it is possible to extrapolate that as many as 7,832 male and 1,958 domestic violence‐related suicides occur annually in the US. When domestic violence‐related suicides are combined with domestic violence homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence‐related deaths are higher for males than females. This paper recommends that to understand the broad scope and tragic impact of domestic violence, further research is needed concerning domestic violence‐related suicide.

Definitions of domestic homicide shape data collection and prevention efforts and, consequentially, our understanding of these crimes. This chapter explores issues related to defining domestic homicide in the context of our work with the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative with Vulnerable Populations (CDHPIVP). We discuss selected case studies to demonstrate what cases are included and excluded in this work and to highlight the importance of understanding our narrower, project-based definition in relation to the larger context of domestic violence-related homicides and deaths. By considering how victims and perpetrators are identified when defining domestic violence, we illustrate how undercounting of domestic homicide may occur, contributing to the “dark figure” of domestic homicide. Furthermore, we argue that cases from certain groups, such as Indigenous women in Canada, may be systematically excluded from definitions of domestic homicide. In reflecting on these issues and cases, our aim is to advance calls for consistency and transparency in definitions to allow for stronger research across jurisdictions (Fairbairn, Jaffe, & Dawson, 2017; Jaffe et al., 2017), as well as to support efforts of initiatives such as domestic violence death review committees (DVDRCs) in their work to prevent domestic homicides.

This paper is a commentary on COVID-19’s impact on Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs), the system in England and Wales that enables learning from domestic abuse-related deaths.

Drawing on a practitioner–researcher perspective, this paper reflects on how COVID-19 affected the delivery and experience of DHRs, the place of victims at the heart of this process and what the pandemic’s impact might mean moving forward.

This paper explicates some of the challenges of undertaking DHRs in a pandemic. Critically, however, it argues that these challenges illuminate broader questions about the practice of DHR.

This paper’s originality comes from the author’s practitioner–researcher perspective and its use of COVID-19 as a lens to consider DHRs.

The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of how collaboration agreements function and their benefits for the environments where they are implemented. The goal of these initiatives is to bring together in partnerships the actors concerned by domestic violence and coordinate their actions to ensure the safety of persons at risk of intrafamilial homicides through an effective collaboration structure.

The synthesis data originates from four research projects research work with the partners of four studied agreements: A-GIR (Arrimage-Groupe d’Intervention Rapide [Rapid Intervention Unit]) in Laval, Alerte-Lanaudière [Lanaudière Alert] in the Lanaudière region, P.H.A.R.E. (Prévention des homicides intrafamiliaux par des Actions Rapides et Engagées [Domestic Homicide Prevention through Rapid and Committed Action]) in South Western Montérégie and the Rabaska Protocol in Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Overall, the interveners agree on the positive impacts resulting from the relationships between the partners, the development of a common expertise and the collective responsibility acting to prevent intrafamilial homicides, while highlighting the challenges met and the essential conditions for the success of these collaboration initiatives.

Findings are drawn from participants in a particular locale – i.e. French–Canada, and may not entirely apply to other regions and cultures. Additional research should be conducted with similar methodology in other regions of Canada and elsewhere.

The findings should help in the further development of best practices for IPH prevention and therefore protect potential victims from lethal assaults of domestic violence.

Few studies have been conducted on how stakeholders involved in IPH prevention actually work together in collaborative efforts, and none, as far as we know, specifically on drawing up formal agreements.

This chapter defines and provides examples of activist criminology methods (ACM). Although many examples of ACM studies are provided, to date, no publications use this identification. The authors begin by questioning not only the feasibility but also the desirability of the ‘neutral scientist’. The authors then summarise the predecessors and contributors to ACM: ‘activist research’, participatory action research, and public criminology. The components of ACM are (1) including the public; (2) using reflexivity; and (3) ensuring the findings are relayed to the public and ideally, used to create change. Including the public has two subsections, the victims/survivors and the activists resisting the injustice studied. The authors discuss some of the challenges in conducting ACM, including academic marginalisation of this scholarship (and thus the difficulty of pursuing it, particularly if untenured), securing collaboration with activists and/or survivors, reflexivity on the power differences when collaborating with marginalised communities, and the near impossibility of achieving all the goals of ACM in one study. Although unnamed until now, ACM, as we describe them, has been conducted for hundreds of years around the world. The growing number of scholars historically kept out of academia due to race, gender, sexuality, class, and criminal history is no doubt related to the vastly increasing frequency of studies employing ACMs, as well as discussions and advancement of these methods.

Approximately 1,750–2,000 children die in the United States annually because of child abuse or neglect. Official statistics show that women are more often the perpetrators of abuse and neglect-related deaths, even though child welfare professionals largely attribute these deaths to men. Either acting alone or with another individual, mothers are responsible for roughly 60% of deaths and either together or alone, fathers are responsible for roughly 40% of deaths. Despite the consistency of this information, it is not widely accepted by child welfare workers – the professional group whose job it is to identify risk factors and to protect children from harm. Previous research shows that workers are more likely to believe that men are responsible for children’s deaths and that deaths are perpetrated by non-family members. In this chapter, we explore the potential explanations for workers’ misperceptions including the role of gender norms, ideology, confusion concerning how children die, and also which kinds of cases result in criminal charges and thus, shape the public’s understanding of fatal child maltreatment. Incomplete and inadequate information about the perpetration of maltreatment deaths potentially puts children at risk for future fatalities. Implications for child welfare and social service professionals, their training, and practice are discussed.

Introduction: Media representation of intimate partner violence (IPV) can influence public opinion and understanding of the phenomena and guide health policies. The current review has the aim to explore and discuss international, scientific literature focused on the portrayal of IPV in written forms of news media.

Method: Searching through EBSCO and PubMed, 2,435 studies were found and 41 were included in the current review.

Results: Bias in the portrayal of IPV was found within the studies included. While IPV-related news was mainly focused on male-perpetrated violence within heterosexual couples, little attention was paid to same-sex intimate partner violence (SSIPV). Newsworthy stories dominate IPV reporting within news media and a sensationalistic style was often employed. Furthermore, contextual information was often limited and the adoption of a thematic frame was rare, while news media were found to commonly employ an episodic frame. Official sources and family, friends and neighbours were the most quoted sources in news articles, while IPV experts were rarely drawn on for information. Regarding media representation of perpetrators, mainly regarding male abusers, news articles reported several reasons behind the violence with the consequence to justify and exonerate them from their responsibilities. Female perpetrators were found to be depicted, in some cases, as ‘mad’ or ‘bad’ people. Finally, victim-blaming content emerged within many of the articles included.

Conclusion: Bias in the media representation of IPV emerged in the current review, which needs to be addressed to positively influence public opinion and to promote an adequate understanding of the phenomena.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Theories of ethnic conflict often assume that the cause of political violence is the same across actors and constant over time. I propose that causes differ, depending upon the identity, grievances, and strategy of the perpetrator as influenced by the cultural, economic, and political contexts in which they operate. Together with Granger causality tests, multivariate time‐series analyses of political deaths in Northern Ireland support a multi‐causal perspective. Reflecting identity differences, Loyalist violence but not Republican violence was likely to increase during months when high levels of protest coincided with annual commemorations. By deepening grievances related to ethnic stratification, rising unemployment contributed to Republican violence, but not to Loyalist violence. Repression of Nationalists increased Republican violence but decreased Loyalist violence, supporting a see‐saw conceptualization of political opportunities in divided societies. The findings highlight the need for sensitivity in both conflict research and management to differences between actors and across social contexts.