Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:46:39.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Risk Assessment for Intimate Partner Homicide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2009

Georges-Franck Pinard
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Linda Pagani
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Get access

Summary

Intimate partner homicide represents a serious health and social problem throughout the world. The majority of research on the topic has been conducted in the United States, Canada, and Australia, with only limited cross-national investigations disaggregating intimate partner homicide from other forms of homicide (Gartner, 1990; LaFree, 1998). Even with the limitations in worldwide databases, it is clear that men are universally most often the perpetrators in intimate partner homicide as with homicide in general. When women kill a husband, boyfriend, or estranged partner, they are far more likely to be acting in self-defense than are men (Wolfgang, 1958; Easteal, 1993; Browne, Williams, & Dutton, 1998). In intimate partner homicide overall, estrangement, jealousy, and prior beating of the female partner represent major risk factors (Browne et al., 1998; Smith, Moracco, & Butts, 1998). Daly and Wilson (1998) conclude that the underlying dynamics of intimate partner homicide are basically “male sexual proprietariness and female attempts to escape male control” with the actual homicide only representing the extreme of the coercive control that characterizes battering. Most data from individual countries′ sources such as Africa, Australia, England, United States, and Canada support that general contention (Crawford & Gartner, 1992; Edwards, 1985; Mushanga, 1978; Easteal, 1993; Campbell, 1992).

Determination of risk of intimate partner homicide needs to be based on this underlying theoretical premise of male coercive control of females.

Type
Chapter
Information
Clinical Assessment of Dangerousness
Empirical Contributions
, pp. 136 - 157
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×