An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence

doi:10.4236/blr.2012.34025

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Beijing Law Review, 2012, 3, 198-205

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/blr.2012.34025 Published Online December 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/blr)

An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of

Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence

Marika Guggisberg

The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.

Email: marika.guggi[email protected]

Received September 7th, 2012; revised October 5th, 2012; accepted October 15th, 2012

ABSTRACT

Interest in risk assessment in contemporary discussions of criminal justice issues including the treatment of intimate

partner violence is ongoing as scholarship has identified lack of empirical knowledge in this area. The purpose of this

paper is to add to curren t knowledge by reporting on Au stralian research fin dings on a number of risk factors associated

with fear of homicide in intimate partnerships. Quantitative research methods were used to analyse demographic data on

227 Western Australian women, residing in metropolitan Perth, who had been exposed to potentially lethal forms of

male-perpetrated intimate partner violence in the six months prior to participating in the study. Results suggested that

certain victim characteristics such as the experience of sexual violence, minority status, being separated, and having a

prior history of victimisation appear to be important risk indicators for intimate partner homicide.

Keywords: Aboriginal; Fear; Homicide; Intimate; Partner; Minority; Risk Factors; Sexual; Violence; Women

1. Introduction

Male-perpetrated intimate partner violence (MP-IPV) re-

mains a serious social problem despite decades of pre-

ventative measures and interventions globally [1]. At its

most severe, the outcomes of MP-IPV result not only in

significant injury but mortality, albeit homicide is gene-

rally a rare event. While women also commit murder,

they are much more likely to be victims of intimate ho-

micide. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics noted: “Fe-

male murder victims are substantially more likely than

male murder victims to have been killed by an intimate

partner [2]”. Up to 80 intimate partner homicides oc-

cu r r ed an n u al l y i n Au s tr a l ia b et w ee n th e la t e 1980s to the

mid-2000s [3]. It was reported that “between 1989 and

1998, 57 percent of female deat hs caused by viol ence were

perpetrated by an intimate partner [4]”, and evidence from

2006-2007, confirms that “rates of intimate-partner ho-

micide remained constant [5]”.

Studies examining intimate partner relationships that

end in homicide found differences between homicides in-

volving intimate partners and homicides involving stran-

gers [6].

In keeping with this finding, Decker explained, “… the

greater frequency of interaction and attachment to others

with whom one is intimately involved creates situations

that are likely to lead to disputes, and potentially to fatal

violence [7]”.

Campbell and colleagues argued that a history of MP-

IPV victimisation remains one of the strongest risk fac-

tors of homicide for women [8]. Similarly, Dobash and

Dobash, asserted that “repeat violence against a woman

partner has consistently been shown to be a reliable mar-

ker of further non-lethal and lethal violence [9]”. Conse-

quently, there appears to be a demand for greater knowl-

edge of specific risk “that might help predict where there

is risk of further and more serious violence, including the

possibility of homicide [3]”.

1.1. Predictors of Increased Risk of Homicide

1.1.1. Threats—Specific Behaviours

International research has identified risk factors for po-

tentially lethal outcomes (homicide) of MP-IPV as in-

cluding a history of violence against a woman partner

[10], threats with a weapon, threats to kill the woman

and/or the child(ren) [11], attempt to choke/strangle the

woman [12], and relationship status [13].

Another important predictor of increased risk of homi-

cides involving intimate partners is sexual violence vic-

timisation [14]. To clarify, the role of sexual violence in

intimate relationships requires specific attention as it is

not only almost exclusively perpetrated by men, but the

violence has been found to be purposefully used to exer-

cise power and dominate the victimised woman [15]. In

this regard it is important to note that physical and sexual

violence along with no-physical forms of MP-IPV (e.g.

controlling behaviours) frequently ov erlap [16] and occur

An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence 199

repeatedly rather than as isolated instances [17].

Victimised women reported burning and attempted

drowning [11] or strangulation [12] as outcomes of MP-

IPV. In fact, strangulation was identified in 45% of at-

tempted homicides and in 43% of homicides [18 ].

1.1.2. Socio- Demographic Char acteri stics

Specific socio-demographic characteristics seem to be

associated with increased risk of intimate partner homi-

cide. Two key factors have been identified as 1) minority

status [8] and 2) relationship status [13].

Minority status has been found to be a risk factor for

intimate partner homicide. In an article o utlining the dis-

proportionate experience of victimisation of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) women in Australia,

Stubbs and Tolmie noted that “data consistently demon-

strate extreme levels of family violence experienced by

Indigenous women and children [19]”. These women are

up to 35 times more likely than non-ATSI women to su-

stain injuries requiring hospitalisation from IPV victi-

misation [20]. Furthermore, intimate partner homicide

rates of ATSI Australians are nearly double the propor-

tion of non-ATSI homicides despite them making up less

than three percent of the Australian population [19]. It is

not surprising then, that Campbell and associates’ meta-

analysis on intimate partner homicide found that minority

status was a statistically significant risk factor [8].

Being married has been found to be a protective factor

for MP-IPV victimisation [21].

However, women attempting to leave an abusive and/

or violent intimate partner, seem in greater risk of vic-

timisation and even homicide. Leaving the violent rela-

tionship seems often unfeasible for the victimised women.

Putt contended that “Leaving is not simple—Many wo-

men had left or tried to leave or asked the partner to leave,

but leaving can increase the risk of violence and risk of

death [3]”. Similarly, Block reported that 51% of women

victims in Chicago “were killed as they were trying to

leave” and that “leaving was an immediate precipitating

factor of the homicide [22]”. Dobash and Dobash stated

the elevated risk of women who attempt to separate or

are separated from an abusive partner stems from issues

including possessiveness, jealousy and sometimes cu-

stody conflicts [9].

2. Present Study

This analysis examined some of the risk factors for in-

timate partner homicide identified in th e literature: sexual

violence victimisation, threats with a weapon, threats to

kill the woman, prior attempts to choke/strangle the wo-

man, as well as socio-demographic characteristics by

women victims who experience increased risk of intimate

homicide. It was hypothesised that participants with more

extensive IPV victimisation (experiencing sexual vio-

lence in addition to other forms of MP-IPV) are more

likely than other participants to be subjected to physical

violence identified as predictive of high risk of potential

homicide (e.g. attempts of choking/strangulation, previ-

ous threats of homicide). Given the exploratory nature of

this study there were no hypotheses about other corre-

lates that might influence risk of homicide.

The sample of 227 adult women was drawn from a

self-selected non-representative community group after

ethics approval from the universities and participating

agencies were obtained. Study participants were provided

with a research pack containing a cover letter, an infor-

mation statement, which described the study and a survey

questionnaire, asking about their experiences of MP-IPV

and other related issues, which are not reported here. The

research tool was constructed utilising pre-existing sub-

scales, which all returned soun d reliability and validity.

Demographic questions were derived from the Austra-

lian Bureau of Statistics Census questionnaire, and mea-

sures for MP-IPV victimisation reported here utilized

items from the Violence Assessment Index [23]. Infor-

mation from the following items are reported here: “Th-

reatened to kill me”; “Tried to strangle, burn or drown

me”; “Used an object to hurt me”; “Threatened to hurt

children”; and “Threatened me with an object or wea-

pon”.

Answers were provided anonymously and no iden tify-

ing data were obtained. The questionnaires contained a

list of community resour ces for participants to d etach be-

fore placing the completed questionnaire into a locked

box at participating agencies. Participants were treated in

accordance with national guidelines on ethical conduct in

human res earch.

Data were analysed using SPSS version 17. Descrip-

tive statistics, cross-tabulations an d odd s ratios were used

to explore the data. Women experiencing different forms

of overlapping violence were placed into groups repre-

senting different comparison groups. Group 1 consisted

of women who had experienced sexual violence in addi-

tion to physical violence and controlling behaviour wi-

thin the past six months (e.g. was choked, forced to have

sex and also restricted in her social life); Group 2 con-

sisted of women who had experienced no sexual violence

but were subjected to physical violence and controlling

behaviour, (e.g. was threatened to be killed and delibera-

tely kept short of money). p-values less than 0.05 were

considered statistically significant.

3. Results

Of the 235 completed and returned questionnaires, eight

(3%) had to be excluded due to ineligibility (one woman

was 17 years of age) or greater than 20% missing data. A

total of 227 questionn aires were included in the final ana-

lysis. Of all valid questionnaires, 65% were obtained from

An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence

200

a non-government wo men’s health service and 35% were

from a government support service.

Participants were aged between 19 and 65 years (M =

37.4, SD ± 11.5 years). Ten Aboriginal women (4.4%)

participated in the study, none of the women identified as

Torres Strait Islander. The majority of participants were

married (53.3%), followed by those in a dating relation-

ship (19.4%), separated (15.9%), or cohabiting (10.6%)

at the time of completing th e survey. Th e maj ority of wo-

men in this sample (92.9%) had received at least 10 years

of formal schooling and 74.0% currently participated in

the workforce.

As seen in Figure 1, 64 women (28.2%) experienced

sexual violence (defined here as either being forced to

have sex or sex on demand). Controlling behaviour was

the most prevalent form of IPV with 156 (68.7%) of wo-

men reporting this non-physical form of IPV in the past

six months. Of these 156 women 122 (78%) also reported

the occurrence of physical and/or sexual violence in the

same time frame.

3.1. Aboriginal Status and MP-IPV

To assess the influence of Aboriginal status, Chi-square

statistics (p = 0.05) and risk estimates were calculated

(95% CI ). Nine of the ten Aboriginal women in this study

experienced sexual violence. Differences in the type of

victimisation experienced by Aboriginal women com-

pared to non-Ab orig inal wo men (show n in Table 1) w ere

observed. Non-Aboriginal women tended to be less likely

to experience sexual violence when compared to Abori-

ginal participants.

Seven out of 10 (70%) Aboriginal women reported a

potentially lethal act of violence in the last six months

compared to 28 (13%) of non-Aboriginal women. Ex-

pressed as an odds ratio, Aboriginal women were 15.75

(95% CI = 3.8 - 64.5) times more likely to repor t any po-

tentially lethal act of violence compared to non-Abo-

riginal women. When specific potentially lethal ac ts o f v i o-

lence were examined, the odds of an Aboriginal woman

reporting “threats to kill me” (OR = 21.8; CI = 5.2 -

90.6); “tried to strangle, burn or drown me” (OR = 12.5;

CI = 3.1 - 50 .8); “u sed an object to hurt me” (OR = 18 .8;

CI = 4.8 - 73.7); “threatened to hurt children” (OR = 15.4;

CI = 3.7 - 64.4) or “threaten me with an object or wea-

pon” (OR = 22.9; CI = 5.5 - 95.9) were between 12 and

23 times higher than that for non-Aboriginal women.

These risk estimates suggest that the relative odds of Abo-

riginal women reporting potentially lethal violence by

their intimate partner are significantly higher than for

non-Aboriginal women.

It is noteworthy that in the six month period prior to

entry into the study approximately one in four non-Abo-

riginal women (25.8%) experienced sexual violence (i.e.

forced sex or sex on demand) by their intimate partner

whereas eight of the ten Aboriginal women in this study

(80%) reported sexual violence. Of these, less than 13%

of non-Aboriginal women experienced rape (forced in-

tercourse) whereas five of the 10 Aboriginal women re-

ported having been raped at least once, four of which

frequently (5 or more times). These results suggest that

Aboriginal women in this study were 11 times more likely

to experience sexual violence than non-Aboriginal women

(OR = 11.5; 95% CI = 2.4 - 55.8).

3.2. Relationship Status and MP-IPV

Separated women in this study were nearly eight times

more likely to report experiences of sexual violence in

addition to physical violence and controlling behaviour

in the previous six months when compared to married

women (OR = 7.6; CI = 3.1 - 19.1) (shown in Table 2).

Figure 1. Proportion of different forms of (overlapping) intimate partner violence .

An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence 201

Table 1. Relative odds of the type of abuse and potentially lethal acts of violence reported in the previous six months by

Aboriginal status (N = 227).

Aboriginal

N = 10 Non-Aboriginal

N = 217

IPV Victimisation n % n % OR 95% CI p-value

Group 1 (sexual, physical violence & controlling behaviour)7 70.0 48 22.1 8.2 2.1 - 33.0 0.001

Group 2 (physical violence & controlli n g b e h a viour but no

sexual violence) 1 10.0 60 27.6 0.3 0.4 - 2.3 0.198

Any Potentially L ethal Acts of Violence 7 70.0 28 12.9 5.4 3 .2 - 9.3 <0.001

Specific potentially lethal acts of violence

Threatened to kill me 7 70.0 21 9.7 21.8 5.2 - 90.6 <0.001

Tried to strangle, bur n o r drown me 4 40.0 11 5.1 12.5 3.1 - 50.8 <0.001

Used an object to hurt me 6 60.0 16 7.4 18.8 4.8 - 73.7 <0.001

Threatened to hurt children 4 40.0 9 4.1 15.4 3.7 - 64.4 <0.001

Threatened me with an object or weapon 7 70.0 20 9.2 23.0 5.5 - 95.9 <0.001

OR = odds ratio; CI = Confidence Interval.

Table 2. Relative odds of the type of abuse re ported in the previous six months by relationship status (N = 225^).

Relationship status versus IPV Vi ctimisation n % OR 95%CI p-value

Group 1 (sexual, physical violence & controlling behaviour)

Married (n = 121) 17 14.0 Ref* - -

Dating (n = 44) 11 25.0 2.0 0.8 - 5.1 0.105

Cohabitating (n = 24) 6 25.0 2.0 0.6 - 6.4 0.219

Separated (n = 36) 20 55.6 7.6 3.1 - 19.1 <0.001

Group 2 (physical violence & controlling behaviour but no sexual violence)

Married (n = 121) 31 25.6 Ref* - -

Dating (n = 44) 11 25.0 1.0 0.4 - 2.3 1.000

Cohabitating (n = 24) 13 54.2 3.4 1.3 - 9.4 0.008

Separated (n = 36) 6 16.7 0.6 0.2 - 1. 6 0.371

^Two participants who did not provide information on their relationship status were excluded from analysis; OR = odds ratio; CI = Confidence Interval;

*Married w omen were the reference gr oup against whom the other gr o ups were compared.

There was no difference between women in dating or

cohabitating relationships and married women in terms

of reporting. However, no significant differences were

found in the likelihood of reporting MP-IPV between

married, dating and separated women when no sexual

violence was involved.

Half of all separated women (18/36) reported at least

one potentially lethal act of violence in the previous six

months (OR = 7.4; CI = 2.9 - 19.1) (shown in Table 3).

Risk estimates suggested that relative to the married wo-

men in the study, separated women were found to be

more than seven times more likely to report a po tentially

lethal act of violence in the previous six months. There

was no statistically significant difference observed be-

tween the number of reported potentially lethal acts of

violence between married, dating and cohabitating women.

When specific acts of potentially lethal violence were

considered, it was observed that separated women had

high increased odds of repor ting “threatened” acts of vio-

lence compared to married women: “threatened to kill

me (OR = 16.6; CI = 4.9 - 63.0)” and “threatened to hurt

children (OR = 11.2; CI = 2.4 - 68.5)”. No statistically

significant differences were observed in the specific re-

ported acts of potentially lethal violence for dating and

cohabitating women compared to married women in this

study.

4. Discussion

This analysis confirmed that specific experiences of MP-

An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence

202

Table 3. Relative odds of potentially lethal acts of violence reported in the previous six months by relationship status (n =

225^).

Relationship status versus acts of potentially lethal violence n % OR 95% CI p-value

At least one potentially lethal act of violence

Married (n = 121) 17 14.1 Ref* - -

Dating (n = 44) 5 11.4 1.0 0.3 - 3.1 1.000

Cohabitating (n = 24) 6 25.0 2.5 0.7 - 8.2 0.104

Separated (n = 36) 18 50.0 7.4 2.9 - 19.1 <0.001

Specific Potentially Lethal Acts of Violence

Threatened to kill me

Married (n = 121) 5 4.1 Ref* - -

Dating (n = 44) 3 6.8 1.7 0.3 - 9.1 0.441

Cohabitating (n = 24) 3 12.5 3.3 0.5 - 18.3 0.127

Separated (n = 36) 15 41.7 16.6 4.9 - 63.0 <0.001

Tried to strangle, burn or drown me

Married (n = 121) 4 3.3 Ref* - -

Dating (n = 44) 2 4.5 1.4 0.1 - 10.1 0.659

Cohabitating (n = 24) 2 8.3 2.7 0.2 - 19.7 0.259

Separated (n = 36) 6 16.7 5.9 1.3 - 29.6 0.010

Used an object to hurt me

Married (n = 121) 5 4.1 Ref* - -

Dating (n = 44) 3 6.8 1.7 0.3 - 9.1 0.441

Cohabitating (n = 24) 2 8.3 2.1 0.2 - 13.8 0.327

Separated (n=36) 3 8.3 2.1 0.3 - 11.4 0.385

Threatened to hurt children

Married (n = 121) 3 2.5 Ref* - -

Dating (n = 44) 1 2.3 0.9 0.1 - 11.7 1.000

Cohabitating (n = 24) 1 4.2 1.7 0.1 - 22.3 0.519

Separated (n = 36) 8 22.2 11.2 2.4 - 68.5 <0.001

Threatened me with an object or weapon

Married (n = 121) 6 5.0 Ref* - -

Dating (n = 44) 3 6.8 1.4 0.2 - 6.9 0.701

Cohabitating (n = 24) 3 12.5 2.7 0.4 - 13.9 0.169

Separated (n = 36) 13 36.1 10.8 3.4 - 37.8 <0.001

^Two participants who did not provide information on their relationship status were excluded from analysis; OR = odds ratio; CI = Confidence Interval;

*Married w omen are the ref erence group against whom the other group s were compared.

IPV indicated an increased risk of intimate homicide for

victimised women (however, at the time of the study none

of the female participants was murdered). These factors

may include experiences of threats to be killed, attem-

pted strangulation, burning, or drowning, victimisation

by an object, threats by the partner to use an object to

An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence 203

hurt the woman, and threats to hurt children, which are

known to be associated with an increased risk of intimate

partner homicide. In this Australian context, the expe-

riences of MP-IPV were found to differ by Aboriginal

status and relationship status.

These findings corroborate existing international re-

search suggesting that Aboriginal women are at a sig-

nificantly higher risk of intimate partner homicide than

non-Aboriginal women [8]. Despite the very small num-

ber of Aboriginal participants, it is noteworthy that they

were found to be nearly 16 times more likely to experi-

ence potentially lethal forms of IPV than non-Aborig inal

women in the six months prior to the study. Although

awareness is growing that the prevalence of physical and

sexual violence in intimate relationships is significantly

higher among Aboriginal women than non-Aboriginal wo-

men [20], Aboriginal women continue to suffer increased

disadvantage due to racist and stereotypical views to-

wards their ethnic and cultural background [20]. Harry

Blagg noted that “Aboriginal women are probably the

most repeatedly and multiply victimised section of Aus-

tralian society, and the main perpetrators of violence

against Aboriginal women tend to be their own male kin

[24]”.

It has been argued that police officers at a scene may

sometimes downplay the seriousness of MP-IPV [25],

which is even more so when the victims are Aboriginal

women because of the erroneous perceptions that vio-

lence is an Aboriginal cultural phenomenon. In order to

prevent fatal outco mes of MP-IPV for Aboriginal women,

policing issues require priority attention. For example, it

may be argued that physical injuries and a higher inci-

dence of intimate partner homicide are associated with

Aboriginal women’s resistance to victimisation because

some Aboriginal women do not feel as if they can count

on being protected by police. Hence, it is possible that a

lack of support makes it necessary for these women to

use physical resistance to violence as their only avenue

of protection [24].

In this study, clear differences were found with regard

to status of relationship and rates of MP-IPV. Women

who were currently separated were at a much higher risk

of potentially being murdered by their former intimate

partner than women who were married, in cohabiting or

dating relationships at the time of data collection. Par-

ticularly striking was the finding that nearly 42% of se-

parated women reported threats to be killed in the past

six months. While it can be assumed that not all murder

threats will end in attempted or completed homicide, it is

fair to argue, that they should be taken seriously.

Findings of this study seem to corroborate previous

research in the US suggesting that separation is a “key

risk factor of femicide [13]”. Along the same lines, Nico-

laidis and colleagues found that homicide attempts took

place in 73% of the cases “just around the time of a sig-

nificant relationship change”… “the woman was trying

to leave the relationship”. The same study reported that

separated women were also six times more likely than

married women to have experienced attempts of strangu-

lation, burning or drowning [11]. More research is re-

quired to examine the impact of relationship status on

threats of, and completed homicide.

5. Limitations

This study was subject to a number of limitations. The

non-random sample of participants in this study means it

is not possible to generalise the results, and it is unknown

how representative the sample was of all women sub-

jected to MP-IPV. There is no information on the number

of women who were invited to participate in the study,

but declined, and the reasons why women would refuse

to take part in the study is open to speculation.

Further, the extent of reporting bias could not be de-

termined. Although anonymity was guaranteed through

the use of non-written consent, some participants may

have chosen socially desirable responses [26], or suffered

from memory loss. Hence, distorted answers may have

been obtained because “women tend to present themselves

and their attitudes in ways that are pro-social and un-

threatening to others [27]”.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this paper was to add to current know-

ledge by reporting on risk factors associated with lethal

violence by an intimate partner. Background variables were

correlated with threats to kill and/or attempted homicide

(potentially lethal acts of violence involving strangula-

tion, burning, and/or drowning). Findings confirmed that

women who demonstrated risk factors for intimate homi-

cide were more likely to be separated and/or Aboriginal,

and exposed to sexual violence. These key risk factors

may alert legal professionals and victim support workers

that lethal forms of violence may be impending.

Women are likely to be saved by observing predictable

behaviours and recognising that they may escalate to ho-

micide, particularly if the victims are of minority status

and separated from their intimate partners. Frontline in-

tervention policy developers and practitioners may im-

plement protective measures for identified vulnerable

women and their children based on findings of this study.

Furth er r e se ar ch is n eed e d to in v es tig at e s p ecif ic ri sk f ac-

tors, gather international data, and develop preventative

measures based on empirical evidence.

7. Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Associate Professor Frank

Morgan (The University of Western Australia, Crime

An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence

204

Research Centre) and Dr Katrina Spilbury (Curtin Uni-

versity, Curtin Health Research Institute) for their assis-

tance in analysing the data, and Associate Professor Col-

leen Fisher (The University of Western Australia, School

of Population Health), Dr Ann-Claire Larsen (Edith Co-

wan University, School of Law & Justice), Dr Renate

Zilkens (Curtin University, Curtin Health Research In-

stitute) for their helpful comments in preparing this re-

port. Furthermore, the financial support from the Western

Australian Government, Edith Cowan University and the

University of Western Australia is acknowledged.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Guggisberg, “Women, Violence and Comorbidity: The

Struggle with Victimisation, Mental Health and Sub-

stance Use,” Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken,

2010.

[2] US Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Homicide Trends in the

US: Intimate Homicide”, 2011.

http://www.bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/cfm

[3] J. Putt, “Domestic-Related Homicide: Key note Papers from

the 2008 International Conference on Homicide Austra-

lian Institute of Criminology Report Research and Public

Policy Series 104,” 2009.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/rpp104.aspx

[4] J. Mouzos, “Femicide: An Overview of Major Findings”,

Trends and Issues, Australian Institute of Criminology,

Canberra, 1999.

http://aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/1

21-140/tandi124.aspx

[5] J. Dearden and W. Jones, “Homicide in Australia:

2006-2007 National Homicide Monitoring Program: An-

nual Report,” AIC Reports Monitoring Reports, Canberra,

2008.

[6] http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7BFFB9E49F-

160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7Dmr01.pdf?bcsi_

scan_2F83426B613409AB=0&bcsi_scan_filename=%7B

FFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7Dmr

01.pdf

[7] A. Gallup- Black, “Twenty Years of R ural and Ur ban Trends

in Family and Intimate Partner Homicide: Does Place

Matter,” Homicide Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2005, pp. 149-

173. doi:10.1177/1088767904274158

[8] S. Decker “Exploring Victim-Offender Relationships in

Homicide: The Role of Individual and Event Characteris-

tics,” Justice Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1993, pp. 585-

612. doi:10.1080/07418829300092031

[9] J. Campbell, N. Glass, P. W. Sharps, K. Laughon and T.

Bloom, “Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implica-

tions of Research and Policy,” Trauma Violence Abuse,

Vol. 8, No. 3, 2007, pp. 246-269.

doi:10.1177/1524838007303505

[10] R. E. Dobash and R. P. Dobash, “The Murder in Britain

Study: Broadening the Analysis of Men who Murder an

Intimate Woman Partner,” In: J. Putt, Ed., Domestic-Re-

lated Homicide: Keynote Papers from the 2008 Interna-

tional Conference on Homicide, AIC Reports Research

and Public Policy Series 104, Australian Institute of Cri-

minology, Canberra, 2009.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/rpp104.aspx

[11] L. Laing, J. Stubbs and B. Green, “Report of the Domes-

tic Violence Homicide Advisory Panel,” 2009.

http://lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Corporate/ll_corporate.

nsf/vwFiles/251109_domestic_violence.pdf/$file/251109

_domestic_violence.pdf

[12] C. Nicolaidis, M. A. Curry, Y. Ulrich, P. Sharps, J.

McFarlane, D. Campbell, F. Gary, K. Laughon, N. Glass

and J. Campbell, “Could We Have Known? A Qualitative

Analysis of Data from Women Who Survived an At-

tempted Homicide by an Intimate Partner,” Journal of

General Internal Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 10, 2003, pp. 788-

794. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21202.x

[13] G. McClane, G. Strack and D. Hawley “A Review of 300

Attempted Strangulation Cases Part II: Clinical Evalua-

tion of the Surviving Victim,” Journal of Emergency

Medicine, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2001, pp. 311-315.

doi:10.1016/S0736-4679(01)00400-0

[14] W. de Keseredy, M. Rogness and M. Schwartz, “Separa-

tion/Divorce Sexual Assault: The Current State of Social

Scientific Knowledge,” Aggression and Violent Behavior,

Vol. 9, No. 6, 2004, pp. 675-691.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.08.004

[15] E. Echeburua, J. Fernandez-Montalvo, P. de Corral and J.

J. Lopez-Goni, “Assessing Risk Markers in Intimate Part-

ner Femicide and Severe Violence: A New Assessment

Instrument,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 24,

No. 6, 2009, pp. 925-939.

doi:10.1177/0886260508319370

[16] K. Cook and H. Jones, “Surviving Victimhood: The Im-

pact of Feminist Campai gns”, In: S. Walklate , Ed., Hand-

book of Victims and Victimology, Willan Publishing, Port-

land, 2007, pp. 125-145.

[17] N. Harwin “Putting a Stop to Domestic Violence in the

United Kingdom: Challenges and Opportunities,” Vio-

lence against Women, Vol. 12, No. 6, 2006, pp. 556-567.

doi:10.1177/1077801206289134

[18] E. D. Krause, S. Kalt man, L. A. Goodman and M. A. Dut-

ton, “Avoidant Coping and PTSD Symptoms Related to

Domestic Violence Exposure: A Longitudinal Study,”

Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2008, pp.

83-90. doi:10.1002/jts.20288

[19] N. Glass, K. Laughon, J. Campbell, C. R. Block, G. Han-

son and E. Taliaferro, “Violence: Recognition, Manage-

ment and Prevention Non-Fatal Strangulation is an Im-

portant Risk Factor for Homicide of Wome n,” Journal of

Emergency Medicine, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2008, pp. 329-335.

doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.02.065

[20] J. Stubbs and J. R. Tolmie, “Battered Women Charged

With Homicide: Advancing the Interests of Indigenous

Women,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Crimi-

nology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2008, pp. 138-161.

doi:10.1375/acri.41.1.138

[21] A. Morgan and H. Chadwick “Key Issues in Domestic

Violence,” Research in Practice, Summary Paper No. 7,

Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 2009.

An Investigation into Potentially Lethal Acts of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence

205

[22] http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/5/6/E/%7B56E09295-

AF88-4998-A083-B7CCD925B540%7Drip07_001.pdf

[23] M. Guggisberg, “Relationship Problems: How Abuse in

Intimate Relationships Affects Men, Women and their

Children,” Cross Network Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2006,

pp. 128-141.

[24] C. Block, “Reducing Intimate Partner Homicide Rates:

What are the Risk Factors for Death When a Woman Is

Being Abused,” In: J. Putt, Ed., Domestic-Related Homi-

cide: Keynote Papers from the 2008 International Con-

ference on Homicide, AIC Reports Research and Public

Policy Series 104, Australian Institute of Criminology,

Canberra, 2009.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/rpp104.aspx

[25] R. E. Dobash, R. P. Dobash, K. Cavanagh and R. Lewis,

“Changing Violent Men,” Sage, London, 2000.

[26] H. Blagg, “Restorative Justice and Aboriginal Fa mily Vio-

lence: Opening a Space For Healing,” In: H. Strang and J.

Braithwaite, Eds., Restorative Justice and Family Vio-

lence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, pp.

191-205.

[27] A.-C. Larsen and M. Guggisberg, “Police Officers, Wo-

men and Interpersonal Violence: Giving Primacy to So-

cial Context,” Australian Journal of Gende r and Law, Vol.

1, 2009, pp. 1-18.

APPENDIX

VAI: VIOLENCE ASSESSMENT INDEX

Thinking of ALL the incidents that may have happened in

the last six months, please indicate how many times your

partner has done any of the following to you?

0 = Never; 1 = Once only; 2 = 2 to 4 times; 3 = 5 or more

times

A Restrained me from moving or leaving the room

B Choked me or held his hand over my mouth

C Punched me in the face

D Slapped me on the face, body, arms or legs

E Pushed, grabbe d or shoved me

F Punched me on the body, arms or legs

G Used an object to hurt me

H Threw things at me or about the room

I Punched or kicked the wall s o r fu rnit u re

J Tried to strangle, burn or drown me

K Kicked me on the body, arms or legs

L Threatened me with an object or weapon

M Kicked me in the face

N Threatened to kill me

O Twisted my arm

P Dragged me or pulled me by my hair

Other vi olent behaviours not mentioned above