Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: A Comparison Between Incarcerated and Community Offenders

• Author: Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves,Olga Cunha
• Published date: 01 August 2018
• Date: 01 August 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17741070
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17741070

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(11) 3260 –3277

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17741070

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Male Perpetrators of

Intimate Partner Violence:

A Comparison Between

Incarcerated and

Community Offenders

Olga Cunha1,2 and Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves1

Abstract

The literature considers intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators to be a

heterogeneous group. In Portugal, IPV perpetrators may be sentenced to either of

two types of sentences: deprivation of freedom or alternatives to prison (in the

community). In the present study, we performed a comparative analysis between

76 male individuals sentenced to prison and 76 male individuals sentenced to

community measures for crimes against their current or former partners, using a

set of psychological measures. The results indicate that although incarcerated and

nonincarcerated IPV perpetrators demonstrate considerable differences, some

similarities may also be observed. Incarcerated IPV perpetrators present the lowest

socioeconomic status and education, perpetrate more severe IPV, and have more

criminal convictions. A hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the use of

weapons and objects increased the probability of IPV perpetrators belonging to the

prison group above and beyond sociodemographic variables. Based on these results,

implications for IPV perpetrators’ treatment are discussed.

Keywords

intimate partner violence, IPV perpetrators in prison, IPV perpetrators in the community,

IPV perpetrators’ treatment

1University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

2Lusíada University – North (Porto), Portugal

Corresponding Author:

Olga Cunha, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4700-057 Braga, Portugal.

Email: olgacunha27@hotmail.com

741070IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X17741070International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyCunha and Gonçalves

research-article2017

Cunha and Gonçalves 3261

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is considered one of the most serious problems in

public health and one of the major forms of human rights’ violations in contemporary

societies (e.g., Garcia-Moreno & Watts, 2011). A recent systematic review revealed

that 30% of all the women around the world and 25.3% of European women experi-

ence physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes

(World Health Organization, 2013).

In Portugal, in which a dictatorial political regime prevailed until 1974, civil law

required women to obey their husbands and husbands to protect their wives, assuming

the role of householder and holding the marital power (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2015).

The penal code at that time did not include any specification regarding violent behav-

ior within the relationship, giving the husband the social legitimacy to control his wife.

The legal reforms generated in Portugal against IPV began in 1982, when spousal

abuse began to be punished by law for the first time. From then on, legislators intro-

duced a number of significant legislative and social changes: In 1995, legislation was

extended to individuals in cohabitation; in 2000, IPV became a public crime; in 2007,

the crime was legally typified in the Portuguese Penal Code as “domestic violence”

(DV), was extended to same-sex relationships, and IPV perpetrator intervention pro-

grams (PIPs) were included as a possible additional penalty; and in 2013, the crime

was extended to dating relationships, and PIPs became mandatory (Cunha &

Gonçalves, 2015).

The type of sentence applied to IPV perpetrators in Portugal is either prison custody

or alternative measures to prison, such as community service or fines. Because the

sentence applied to this crime does not exceed 5 years, imprisonment is suspended in

the majority of cases. In cases of suspended sentences, offenders cannot commit any

criminal act during the probation period. One or more conduct rules, such as restrain-

ing orders, substance abuse prohibition, or attending PIPs might be added to this gen-

eral imposition. In addition, the public prosecutor (with judicial agreement) can

impose a provisional suspension of the penal process for a specific period of time,

during which the same injunctions and conduct rules are applied. According to

Portuguese prison statistics (Direção-Geral de Reinserção e Serviços Prisionais, 2015),

289 men were incarcerated for DV in 2015. According to the Justice Statistics, 1,390

convictions for DV were reported during 2013, of which 91% were suspended sen-

tences, 5% were prison sentences, and 4% were other sentences (e.g., fines and com-

munity service). Since 2007/2008 (n = 78), the number of men convicted for DV has

increased substantially.

From a legal perspective, a judge’s decision is frequently influenced by the severity

of the criminal act; however, in addition to judicial reasons, it is important to include

psychological criteria (e.g., IPV perpetrators’ thoughts and beliefs about women, IPV

perpetrators’ characteristics, among others) when evaluating the appropriateness of a

prison sentence or an alternative measure (Fernández-Montalvo, Echauri, Martínez, &

Azcárate, 2012). The current study focuses on identifying the characteristics of male

IPV perpetrators sentenced to prison and to alternative measures and acknowledging