Understanding Intimate Partner Femicide and Attempted Intimate Partner Femicide During and After COVID-19: A Comprehensive Strain-Based Approach

• Published date: 01 May 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10439862241245888
• Author: Olga Cunha,Sónia Caridade,Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves
• Date: 01 May 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862241245888

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2024, Vol. 40(2) 324 –343

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10439862241245888

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Understanding Intimate

Partner Femicide and

Attempted Intimate Partner

Femicide During and After

COVID-19: A Comprehensive

Strain-Based Approach

Olga Cunha1, Sónia Caridade2,

and Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves2

Abstract

Intimate partner femicide (IPF) and attempted intimate partner femicide (AIPF) are

severe forms of violence and global phenomena occurring in all societies worldwide.

However, explaining IPF and AIPF is a complex and challenging endeavor. This article

delves into the evolution of IPF and AIPF in Portugal during and after COVID-19,

seeking to comprehend the underlying explanatory factors through a comprehensive

strain-based approach. IPF rates during the COVID-19 pandemic have remained

relatively stable, comparable to those observed before the pandemic, following a

pattern akin to that documented in other countries. However, a significant increase

in AIPF occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a slight uptick in IPF indicators

was noted toward the end of the pandemic period (2022). Perpetrators faced various

strains, such as separation and financial difficulties, along with experiencing emotions

like anger, jealousy, anxiety, and depression, leading to instances of IPF and AIPF. The

COVID-19 crisis and associated restrictions introduced additional strains, including

social isolation, economic losses, anxiety, and widespread fear, which may contribute

to psychological distress, stress, and depression, thereby heightening the likelihood

of committing IPF and AIPF. The pandemic restrictions also resulted in limited access

to support and protection services, hindering victims from seeking help. Establishing

1Lusófona University, Hei-Lab: Digital Human-Environment Interaction Lab, Portugal

2University of Minho, Psychology Research Center (CIPsi), Braga, Portugal

Corresponding Author:

Olga Cunha, Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sport, Lusófona University, Rua Augusto Rosa, 24,

4000-098 Porto, Portugal.

Email: olga.cunha@ulusofona.pt

1245888CCJXXX10.1177/10439862241245888Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeCunha et al.

research-article2024

Cunha et al. 325

a contingency plan for use in future crises (including pandemics) is imperative to

promote support for victims and prevent situations of IPF and AIPF.

Keywords

intimate partner femicide, attempted intimate partner femicide, COVID-19, intimate

partner violence, comprehensive strain-based approach

Introduction

Femicide and attempted femicide represent severe forms of violence directed toward

women and are global phenomena that occur in all societies worldwide (Weil, 2020).

The term femicide was initially coined by Diana Russell, an Anglo-Saxon feminist, in

1976 during her testimony at the International Tribunal for Crimes Against Women in

Brussels. It specifically denotes the killing of women by men based on their gender

within a patriarchal society that devalues and oppresses women (Radford & Russell,

1992). In 2001, Russell expanded the definition of femicide to encompass the deliberate

killing of women and girls due to misogyny, conceptualizing it as a gender-based hate

crime (Russell, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Later, J. C. Campbell and Runyan (1998) pre-

sented a broader and more neutral definition, considering femicide as all deaths of

women, irrespective of motive or perpetrator type, thus excluding the initially proposed

misogynistic component by Russell (Almeida, 2018). The term “feminicide,” instead of

“femicide,” has been used by Menjívar and Walsh (2017) to emphasize the role of insti-

tutional or state violence and the complicity of the state (through institutional violence

or misogynistic practices) in women’s deaths. However, there exists a multitude of defi-

nitions of femicide in the current literature, leading to various interpretations (e.g.,

depending on the victim’s sex and the victim–offender relationship), which hinders

result comparisons and introduces variability in indicators (Aebi et al., 2021). In addi-

tion, diverse theoretical approaches in femicide research (e.g., feminist, sociological,

criminological, human rights, and decolonial) yield disparate results as they lack a com-

mon framework (e.g., Corradi et al., 2016; Graham et al., 2022).

Femicide encompasses diverse forms of violence, including intimate partner vio-

lence (IPV), honor-based killings, dowry-related murders, and killings resulting from

gender-based discrimination and oppression (European Institute for Gender Equality

[EIGE], 2021a; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2019). It

reflects a broader pattern of gender inequality and discrimination deeply entrenched in

societies (UNODC, 2019). Two crucial elements typically integrate the definition of

femicide: power, often imbalanced, and the degree of kinship, intended to regulate

aggressive impulses. Kinship implies the presence of affective bonds uniting couples

and members of the same family, which can occasionally turn into hatred, resulting in

a fatal outcome (Aebi et al., 2021). This work specifically focuses on femicide within

the context of intimate relationships, known as intimate partner femicide (IPF). IPF is

defined as the death of a woman perpetrated by her current or former intimate partner,