Criminal Histories of Intimate Partner Homicide Offenders

• Author: April M. Zeoli,Christine C. Kwiatkowski,Mikaela A. Wallin,Kylei Brown
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10887679211046866
• Published date: 01 May 2023
• Date: 01 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679211046866

Homicide Studies

2023, Vol. 27(2) 229 –247

© 2021 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10887679211046866

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

Criminal Histories of Intimate

Partner Homicide Offenders

April M. Zeoli1, Christine C. Kwiatkowski1,

Mikaela A. Wallin1, and Kylei Brown1

Abstract

This exploratory study investigates intimate partner homicide (IPH) offenders’

criminal histories to examine opportunities for criminal justice system intervention.

Data were collected from the Michigan Violent Death Reporting System and Michigan

State Police for the 117 IPHs committed in 2014 and 2015 in Michigan. Descriptive

statistics on types of criminal charges and convictions for the 103 IPHs committed

by aggressors (e.g., not in self-defense) are presented, with relatively few domestic

violence charges or convictions. Twenty-nine percent of offenders had no criminal

history. Findings highlight a need for more effective and greater implementation of

interventions for both criminal justice system-involved and not-involved offenders.

Keywords

criminal histories, intimate partner homicide, domestic violence, arrest, femicide,

gender

After decades of a steady decline in the frequency of intimate partner homicide (IPH)

in the United States, IPH has begun an alarming upward climb (Fridel & Fox, 2019).

There is also increasing concern regarding IPHs that include additional fatal victims.

One study estimated that 20% of all victims of intimate partner-related homicides

were non-intimates killed in addition to the intimate partner (Smith et al., 2014) while

another suggested that 32% of mass shooting events from 2014 through 2017 involved

the killing of the shooter’s intimate partner (Zeoli & Paruk, 2020). Together, these data

suggest that the scope of the IPH problem is broadening.

The main risk factor for IPH is prior intimate partner violence against the female

partner (Bailey et al., 1997; Campbell et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1998). In particular,

1Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

Corresponding Author:

April M. Zeoli, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Road, East Lansing

48103, USA.

Email: zeoli@msu.edu

1046866HSXXXX10.1177/10887679211046866Homicide StudiesZeoli et al.

research-article2021

230 Homicide Studies 27(2)

firearm access among male partners with a history of intimate partner violence is a

critical risk factor for IPH of the female partner (Campbell et al., 2003), underscoring

a logical target for IPH intervention. The criminal justice system, therefore, may be

able to intervene before the intimate partner violence becomes lethal and prevent

future homicide through targeted firearm prohibitions. However, the criminal justice

system can only put legal restrictions for access to firearms in place if the abusive

intimate partner is involved in the system and convicted of a disqualifying crime.

Therefore, it is important to examine whether and to what extent individuals who

committed IPH had contact with the criminal justice system prior to the homicide.

While there is a modest number of existing studies on IPH offenders’ justice system

involvement, estimates of the percentage of IPH offenders with prior criminal records

vary greatly, the types of offenses in IPH offenders’ criminal histories are often not

presented, and the research has mainly focused on male IPH offenders. More research

is therefore needed to better understand IPH offender risk profiles. To this end, the

current study examines the criminal histories of male and female IPH offenders in

Michigan, and will provide insight into whether their level of contact invoked legal

firearm restrictions and determine whether there were missed opportunities for IPH

intervention.

Literature Review

Research suggests that 22% to 92% of IPH victims or offenders are known, in some

capacity, to the United States justice system prior to the homicide (Campbell et al.,

2003; Koppa & Messing, 2019; McFarlane et al., 2001; Moracco et al., 1998; Thomas

et al., 2011). The majority of these studies examined only male IPH offenders and the

most studied form of criminal justice contact was arrest. These studies indicate that

19% to 92% of male IPH offenders were arrested prior to the homicide (Campbell

et al., 2003; Koppa & Messing, 2019; McFarlane et al., 2001; Thomas et al., 2011).1

Reasons presented for the arrests (and the types of arrests studied) vary. In Campbell

et al. (2003) 11-city case-control study of femicide risk, roughly 22% of male IPH

offenders had been previously arrested for a violent crime other than domestic vio-

lence and 26% had been arrested for domestic violence; the overlap between these

groups was not reported, however. In a study of male IPH offenders who committed

homicides in Indiana, Thomas et al. (2011) examined arrest more broadly and found

that male IPH offenders were arrested for a wide array of offenses, from property

crimes and disorderly conduct to fraud, drug offenses, and assault/battery. Many had

been arrested for crimes that might have directly indicated a risk of homicide: 55% of

male IPH offenders had been arrested for assault/battery, 24% had been arrested for

weapon offenses, 10% had been arrested for murder or manslaughter, and 9% had been

arrested for sex offenses (Thomas et al., 2011).

Limited research examines justice system contact for both male and female IPH

offenders. Notably, Block and Christakos (1995) examined arrest for, and therefore

collected comparable data on, both male and female IPH offenders. This study revealed

that 40% of male IPH offenders and 18% of female IPH offenders in Chicago from