Exploring Fatal and Non-Fatal Violence Against Parents: Challenging the Orthodoxy of Abused Adolescent Perpetrators

• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16672444
• Published date: 01 March 2018
• Author: Amanda Holt,Phillip C. Shon
• Date: 01 March 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16672444

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(4) 915 –934

© The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16672444

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Exploring Fatal and Non-Fatal

Violence Against Parents:

Challenging the Orthodoxy

of Abused Adolescent

Perpetrators

Amanda Holt1 and Phillip C. Shon2

Abstract

An examination of scholarly literature concerning fatal violence (i.e., parricide) and non-

fatal violence toward parents reveals dominant themes of mental illness, child abuse,

and pathology based on a research paradigm that focuses on adolescent perpetrators

and, to a lesser extent, elderly victims. This article presents a critical analysis of this

literature and argues for a more contextualized approach to the study of violence

against parents. It is argued that criminologists should widen their methodological lens

to examine this issue from a life course perspective and draw on conceptual tools such

as developmental pathways, sources of conflict, and intersectionality to allow for an analysis

that can offer new ways of thinking about violence toward parents.

Keywords

parricide, parent abuse, violence against parents (VAP), intersectionality, youthcentric

violence

Parent abuse refers to a “pattern of behavior that uses verbal, financial, physical or

emotional means to practice power and exert control over a parent” (Holt, 2013, p. 1),

whereas parricide refers to the killing of a parent or a stepparent by an offspring

(Shon, 2014). Although the connection between parent abuse and parricide may seem

obvious, given that both operate along a spectrum of violence toward parents, such

logical and expected links have not been made in the divergent sets of literature.

1University of Roehampton, London, UK

2University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Amanda Holt, Department of Social Sciences, University of Roehampton, London SW15 5PU, UK.

Email: amanda.holt@roehampton.ac.uk

672444IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X16672444International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyHolt and Shon

research-article2016

916 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(4)

Discussions about parricide rarely draw on research concerning non-fatal violence

toward parents and, similarly, the literature around violence toward parents rarely

addresses parricide. These absences tend not to be acknowledged; when they are, they

are often justified by drawing on the work of Heide (1992) or Walsh and Krienert

(2009) who suggest that each phenomenon is unique and distinct in terms of its

offender/victim profiles and incident characteristics (e.g., see Cottrell, 2004).

Over the past 30 years, the centrality of the “adolescent offender” has been hugely

influential in the emergence of both “parricide” and “parent abuse” as fields of enquiry.

However, it may be worthwhile to look beyond such an adolescent-centered frame-

work in the violence against parents literature for one important reason: legal adults

(i.e., those defined as above the age of 18) constitute the bulk of the offenders in par-

ricides, with international data finding that adult offenders range from 75% (Heide &

Petee, 2007) to 91% (Holt, 2017) of all parricide offenders. In the literature on non-

fatal violence against parents, there is no existing robust data on the proportion of

adult offenders to adolescent offenders. However, victim surveys tell us that a signifi-

cant number of violent offences, including physical assault, are committed by adults

against family members (e.g., Walby, Towers, & Francis, 2014), and anecdotal data

suggest that parents are not excluded from being victimised. However, rather puz-

zlingly, research on such violence also focuses exclusively on adolescent perpetrators.

The exclusion of adults from research is surprising for the simple reason that parents

are at risk of fatal and non-fatal violence throughout their lives, from both their teen-

age children and their adult children. This article attempts to understand why adults

have been so frequently left out of the research and subsequent theorizing about vio-

lence against parents, and makes four suggestions as to how theory and research about

violence toward parents can move forward.

Opening a Dialogue Across Disciplines

The absence of dialogue between scholars who research parricide and parent abuse

may be because each field of enquiry has tended to be examined by scholars from dif-

ferent disciplines, each operating within its own set of assumptions. For example,

psychoanalysts, psychologists, and psychiatrists have dominated the study of parri-

cide, with “mental illness” a frequently suggested explanation (Vo & Myers, 2012).

When sociologists and criminologists have examined parricide, analysis has focused

on the age, gender, and other socio-demographic patterns in offending and victimisa-

tion (Heide, 2013, 2014) and on the common characteristics of offences such as

weapon use (see Heide & Petee, 2007). In contrast, social workers, domestic violence

specialists, family therapists, and youth justice academics have dominated the study of

parent abuse, resulting in a tendency to frame the issue as a problem of “dysfunctional

families,” rather than one of criminal violence (Holt, 2013).

Such distinct disciplinary perspectives coincide with methodological preferences.

Most of the parricide research conducted by criminologists has tended to use large,

aggregate data sets such as the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) or National

Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Consequently, although trends over time,