Trading Places: Microlevel Predictors of Women Who Commit Intimate Partner Homicide
| Author | Lin Huff-Corzine,Amy Reckdenwald,Alec Szalewski |
| DOI | 10.1177/1088767919829514 |
| Date | 01 November 2019 |
| Published date | 01 November 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
Homicide Studies
2019, Vol. 23(4) 344 –361
Trading Places: Microlevel
© 2019 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Predictors of Women Who
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767919829514
DOI: 10.1177/1088767919829514
journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx
Commit Intimate Partner
Homicide
Alec Szalewski1, Lin Huff-Corzine1,
and Amy Reckdenwald1
Abstract
Intimate partner homicide (IPH) research has established the importance of the
offender’s gender regarding motivations, situations, and structures present in
the offense. However, little is known about female IPH perpetrators’ microlevel
characteristics, despite research indicating female IPH offense numbers are closer to
males’ than in other homicide types. To fill this gap, the current exploratory study
assesses the likelihood of female-perpetrated IPH by the couples demographics,
weapon type, relationship status, and regional location of the homicide. Using data
from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), results show microlevel gender-
specific differences. Female, compared to male, IPH perpetrators more often kill in
intraracial, compared to interracial relationships, and are more likely to kill in dating
rather than marital relationships.
Keywords
intimate partner, gender-specific, offense characteristics, relationship status, female
Introduction
Intimate partner homicide (IPH) occurs when one person kills their current or ex-inti-
mate partner (Kivisto, 2015; Swatt & He, 2006; Weizmann-Henelius et al., 2012). Of all
known homicides in the US,1 10% to 16% involve intimate partners (Catalano, Smith,
Snyder, & Rand, 2009; Cooper & Smith, 2011; Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI],
2011; Gruenewald & Pridemore, 2009). Current research on microlevel gender-specific
1University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA
Corresponding Author:
Alec Szalewski, Department of Sociology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd.,
Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
Email: alecszalewski@Knights.ucf.edu
Szalewski et al.
345
IPH perpetration most often focuses on motivational (e.g., self-defense, control, jeal-
ousy) or situational (e.g., employment status, past criminal history) differences for com-
mitting IPH (DeJong, Pizarro, & McGarrell, 2011; Swatt & He, 2006). In addition,
structural approaches tend to focus on macro-level variables (e.g., poverty, education,
income) to see how these may impact counts or trends in gender-specific perpetrated
IPH (DeJong et al., 2011; Madkour, Martin, Halpern, & Schoenbach, 2010).
Yet, research on gender differences of IPH offenders has not been fully assessed
(Belknap, Larson, Abrams, Garcia, & Anderson-Block, 2012; Caman, Katarina,
Kristiansson, & Sturup, 2016; Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2013), specifically at a micro-
level. In addition, current IPH research tends to focus solely on male offenders and
female victims, specifically when the research looks at offender demographics, victim
demographics, weapon usage, and relationship status when the offense occurred. This
leaves a specific gap in understanding the microlevel demographic and case character-
istics associated with female-perpetrated IPH. These microlevel offending character-
istics are important to investigate because when females commit homicide, they most
often kill their male intimate partner (Block & Christakos, 1995; DeJong et al., 2011;
Goetting, 1998). Some research has even shown that the gap between female and male
homicide numbers is smaller in IPH incidents (Swatt & He, 2006; Wilson & Daly,
1992). Understanding the gender differences in prior research, there is a case to be
made that female-perpetrated IPH characteristics may be significantly different from
male-perpetrated IPH at the microlevel.
The present study is an exploratory study that examines individual-level character-
istics of IPH at the offender, victim, and case level based on the gender of the perpetra-
tor. Specifically, previous literature is missing what these microlevel characteristics
look like for female-perpetrated IPH compared to their male counterparts. To accom-
plish this, data from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for the years 2010-
2014 are used to determine if the offender’s age, victim’s age, whether the killing was
intraracial, the weapon choice, the relationship status, or the geographic location of the
homicide can predict the odds of a female-perpetrated IPH. The total sample size for
the current study is 5,457 cases. Coupling these potential individual-level differences
with what is currently known about gender-specific IPH offending may further help to
differentiate and explain a significant portion of women’s homicide offending.
Literature Review
Research has found gender differences in homicide offending (Jordan, Clark, Pritchard,
& Charnigo, 2012; Jurik & Winn, 1990). Yet, historically IPH literature has not focused
on the gender differences among offenders (Belknap et al., 2012; Caman et al., 2016;
Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2013) when looking at individual-level offender, victim, and
case characteristics. One study even noted that relatively no such characteristic-based
research focused on female-perpetrated IPH could be found (M. S. Smith & Wehrle,
2010). This specific gap is an issue because research has shown that IPH is signifi-
cantly different than other types of homicide (M. S. Smith & Wehrle, 2010; Swatt &
He, 2006; Weizmann-Henelius et al., 2012), especially when considering gender
346
Homicide Studies 23(4)
(Hough & McCorkle, 2017). For example, motivationally women typically commit
IPH out of self-defense and fear due to current and persistent victimization at the
hands of their partner, who also tends to initiate the violence (Block & Christakos,
1995; Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007; Campbell et al., 2003;
Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 2004; Jurik & Winn, 1990; Swatt & He, 2006).
Kernsmith (2005) notes that when prior victimization is the reason for an intimate
partner violence (IPV) situation, women resort to violence more often than men. In
addition, women tend to commit IPH in an intact relationship compared with a former
relationship (Johnson & Hotton, 2003; Jordan et al., 2012; Jurik & Winn, 1990).
In comparison, men are motivated to commit IPH out of jealousy and separation
due to a loss of power and control (Belknap et al., 2012; Block & Christakos, 1995;
Campbell et al., 2003; Dobash et al., 2004; Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2013; Johnson &
Hotton, 2003; M. S. Smith & Wehrle, 2010) and typically have not previously experi-
enced past victimization from their partner (Jurik & Winn, 1990). In addition, male
IPH perpetrators tend to be aggressive and controlling (Block & Christakos, 1995) and
have previous histories of violence (Block & Christakos, 1995; Campbell et al., 2007;
Swatt & He, 2006).
Homicide Characteristics
Prior research shows a general trend in crime severity where the most severe offenses
are typically committed by men (Swatt & He, 2006) and women represent a small
population of homicide offenders (FBI, 2013; Goetting, 1998; Peterson, 1999; Pollock,
Mullings, & Crouch, 2006). The demographic consensus in homicide literature is that
both victims and offenders tend to be young adults aged 18 to 24 years (Cooper &
Smith, 2011), male (Fox & Allen, 2014; Murdoch, Vess, & Ward, 2012; Swatt & He,
2006), and Black (Cooper & Smith, 2011; Oliver, 1989). In addition, homicides are
most often an intraracial phenomenon (Cooper & Smith, 2011). Firearms are the most
common weapon choice, regardless of gender (Cooper & Smith, 2011; Gruenewald &
Pridemore, 2009; Sorenson, 2006), with firearm homicides accounting for 8,124 of the
11,961 homicides in 2014 for which supplementary information was provided in the
SHR (FBI, 2014). In addition, southern women may own a firearm more than women
from other regions due to their internalization of southern values (Doucet, D’Antonio-
Del Rio, & Chauvin, 2014). S. G. Smith, Fowler, and Niolon (2014) noted that other
methods of killing used in homicide offenses include sharp objects, such as knives
(25%); loss of oxygen, such as strangulation (8.4%); blunt objects (5.3%); personal
contact (3.2%); and other types (4%).
Examining relationship status, research shows that most homicide victims knew
their offender (Cooper & Smith, 2011; FBI, 2011; Fox & Allen, 2014). Of those for
which supplementary information was provided in 2014, there were roughly 2,276
family and intimate homicide victims, 2,416 acquaintance homicide victims, and
1,381 stranger homicide victims (FBI, 2014). Yet, the offender’s gender is a major fac-
tor in the victim–offender relationship (Fox & Allen, 2014). Men tend to most often
kill victims of the same gender (Stout, 1991; Zimring, Mukherjee, & Van Winkle,
Szalewski et al.
347
1983), around 70% of the time, and offend against strangers and acquaintances close
in age (Fox, Levin, & Quinet, 2012). In contrast, women tend to kill men 75% of the
time (Fox et al., 2012), and stranger killings by women are rare (Jurik & Winn, 1990).
IPH Characteristics
Most studies on IPH do not focus on microlevel victim, offender, or case characteris-
tics for gender-specific offending (Belknap et al., 2012; Caman et al., 2016; Eriksson
& Mazerolle, 2013). Unlike homicides, in general, for which the offender’s age is
young (18-24 years), research finds that both male and female IPH...
To continue reading
Request your trial