Preventing Domestic Homicides: Lessons Learned from Tragedies

Preface

We were motivated to work on this book because of the number of domestic homicides we have reviewed in our work as researchers and clinicians over many years. We have experienced an ongoing sense of frustration, traumatic disbelief, and sorrow that more could not have been done to save lives in the face of so many warning signs in the vast majority of domestic homicides. The warning signs seem obvious with hindsight and the information held by friends, family, workplaces, and frontline professionals. Sometimes different people held critical information but were unable to share the pieces of the emerging picture of danger. We wanted to turn the hindsight into foresight for similar circumstances in the future.

In reflecting on domestic homicides, we saw that many cases shared a lot of common risk factors. At the same time, there were some unique factors across different subpopulations. Some populations appeared more vulnerable and victims faced a greater number of systemic barriers to access services and safety. Some populations were not even seen to be at risk like children living with domestic violence. We chose chapter authors who could dive more deeply into these different populations as well as emerging opportunities to engage workplaces in being part of the solution.

We acknowledge the dedicated and talented efforts of all the chapter authors who undertook a thorough literature review on domestic homicide in different populations as well as detailed case studies that illustrate the challenges in providing timely risk assessment and risk management strategies across different service sectors. The authors chose cases that were high profile from media coverage of trials, inquests, or death reviews across the world. Many of the surviving family members in the reported cases wanted the story shared in the hopes of helping others and several have been involved in public education and professional training initiatives in regards to domestic violence.

We hope that this book will be widely read by professionals in the justice system, health, social service, child protection, mental health, and education. We hope the book might be of interest to researchers in criminology, psychology, social work, and health sciences to consider important questions developing in the field on risk assessment and intervention strategies across different systems. We hope that we have assisted in the process of giving additional voice to homicide victims and their plight. At the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario, there is a motto on the wall that states we speak for the dead to protect the living. We hope that this volume furthers that cause.

We would like to acknowledge the support of our universities and research centers. This book would not have been possible without the support of the Faculty of Education at Western University and the dedication of our colleagues at the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women and Children in London, ON, Canada (P.J. & A-L.S.) and University of Toronto and the Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (K.S.). We would like to thank our caring spouses and children for their patience and forgive our distraction on endless nights and weekends when we were writing or editing to make our publication deadlines.

1

An introduction to domestic homicide: understanding the diverse nature of the problem

Peter Jaffe¹, Katreena Scott² and Anna-Lee Straatman¹,    ¹Centre for Research & Education on Violence against Women & Children, Faculty of Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada,    ²Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, University of Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract

Domestic homicide is identified as an issue of worldwide public concern. Women and girls are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic homicide This chapter provides an introduction and definition for domestic homicides, progress made on identifying risk factors for domestic homicide, and tools for risk assessment. The development and significant contributions of domestic violence-related fatality review teams or committees are discussed. Domestic homicide victims represent diverse identities including Indigenous, immigrants, and refugees; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans; ages across the life span including children killed in the context of domestic violence, young and older women; and homicides of women in rural locations and workplaces. The chapter provides an introduction to subsequent chapters in the book.

Keywords

Domestic homicide; fatality review; domestic violence; risk assessment

Domestic violence is recognized as a major health problem across the globe (World Health Organization, 2013). At the extreme, domestic violence can end in deaths through homicide and homicide–suicides. In this book, we use the term domestic homicides to refer to homicides that happen in the context of an intimate relationship and perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner. These deaths can include the couple themselves or third parties such as children, new partners, other family members, or professionals such as police who intervened. Not included are homicides, primarily of women, perpetrated by other family members and often as a culmination of prior gender-related violence such as killings associated with a perception that a woman has violated gender norms and will bring dishonor to a family.

A distressingly high proportion of homicides around the world are perpetrated by intimate partners. Exact and comparable estimates of rates of domestic homicide can be difficult to compile for a number of reasons including disagreements about who is a victim of domestic homicide. Some definitions leave out children as victims, and there may be less consistency in the inclusion of very brief dating relationships as domestic homicides (Fairbairn, Jaffe, & Dawson, 2017). Some homicides may not be identified as domestic homicides because of uncertainty about the relationship between the victim and perpetrator, particularly if family and friends were unaware (Washington State Domestic Violence Fatality Review, 2012). Even without accounting for underestimates associated with these factors, domestic homicide accounts for about 1 in 8 homicides around the world (Stöckl et al., 2013; United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime, 2018).

Women and girls bear by far the greatest burden of domestic homicide. In an analysis of data across 66 countries, Stöckl and colleagues (2013) reported that the proportion of intimate homicides committed by intimate partners is six times higher for female homicide than male homicide (38.6% vs 6.3%). Expressed in rate, between 0.7 and 3.1 women per 100,000 globally are killed by intimate partners as compared to less than 0.1–0.3 per 100,000 men. In numbers, in 2017 approximately 30,000 women were killed by an intimate partner across the globe, which is a little over 82 women per day (United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime, 2018).

Rates of domestic homicide vary by country and region. Perhaps contrary to what might be expected, in higher income countries, domestic homicides make up a greater proportion of all homicides than in developing countries. In Canada, between the years 2010 and 2015, there were 418 domestic homicides with women representing 79% of all victims (Dawson et al., 2018). Between 2009 and 2019 in the United Kingdom, 740 women were killed by their intimate partners (Femicide Census: 2017, 2016, 2015). In Australia, there were 152 domestic homicides between 2010 and 2014, 79.6% of them were women killed by male partners (Australian Domestic & Family Violence Death Review Network, 2018). In all of these countries, these rates are considerably lower than they were 40 years ago. Since the 1970s, intimate partner homicides have dramatically declined; however, rates across countries have levelled out in the past decade, and there is some concern that domestic homicide may be on the rise. In a recent paper on patterns and trends in US homicide, Fridel and Fox (2019) report that domestic homicide has increased each year between 2014 and 2017 from a death toll of 1875 in 2015 to 2237 deaths in 2017.

Domestic homicides appear to be most predictable and preventable of all homicides in hindsight (Adams, 2007). Friends, family, coworkers, and professionals who had contact with the victim and/or perpetrator often report warning signs that had concerned them. Often friends and family did not know what to do or say. They may have been hesitant to share their observations and worries. Frontline professionals may have lacked awareness or training about domestic violence warning signs. Many people wish they had taken action such as speaking to the victim or the perpetrator and encouraging them to get help. Some wished they had called the police.

Thirty years ago, domestic violence was considered a private matter. It is now considered a potential public matter and criminal conduct once it is reported. With this societal shift, there is a greater onus on professionals to respond appropriately, especially when the violence appears lethal. Knowledge in the field has developed from multiple sources. In terms of preventing domestic homicide, a major advancement was the development of standardized risk assessment tools to capture potential for lethality. The work of Jackie Campbell and her colleagues compared domestic homicide to domestic violence cases across 11 US cities and found a number of risk factors that were significantly associated with homicides. These risk factors included a prior history of domestic violence, separation, the presence of a weapon, controlling behavior, and strangulation, among other factors (Campbell et al., 2003). This research became the foundation of one of the most popular risk assessment tools—the danger assessment, which is now used in many jurisdictions and has been adapted for a variety of populations and professions (Messing, Amanor-Boadu, Cavanaugh, Glass, & Campbell, 2013; Messing & Campbell, 2016; Messing, Campbell, Sullivan Wilson, Brown, & Patchell, 2017).

Another major development in the domestic homicide field has been the advent of multidisciplinary review teams that examine these homicides in detail. These death review committees are now found in the majority of US states with technical support available through a national initiative (https://ndvfri.org/). Seven Canadian provinces now have death review committees (www.cdhpi.ca), and there are eight jurisdictional review committees in Australia. The United Kingdom and New Zealand operate death reviews at a national level (Bugeja, Dawson, McIntyre, & Walsh, 2015). Although each jurisdiction varies in legislation, funding, and process model for their reviews, the goals are mostly common ones. The central goal from the reviews is to identify how to prevent a homicide in similar circumstances in the future. Most reviews report patterns in risk factors across the cases that were known by the community prior to the homicide. The reviews most often make recommendations for improved training, resources, and collaboration across service sectors Johnson, Lutz, & Websdale, 1999; Websdale, no date).

Standardized death reviews allow for a deeper exploration of family histories and missed opportunities for intervention. Existing studies in the field were traditionally limited by only looking at one source of information which provided a less than complete picture of these homicides. For example, looking at court decisions from criminal proceedings overlooks homicide–suicides which may never be part of a public hearing. Studies of homicide perpetrators in mental health facilities or correctional facilities depend on mental health diagnoses or specific court sentences. Leaving out child homicides in the context of domestic violence also limits understanding of the true nature of these cases and multiple victims. Using a broader definition and reviewing every case provides a more comprehensive picture of domestic homicide (Fairbairn et al., 2017).

The evolving research and publication of death review reports highlight the fact that domestic homicides do not happen out of the blue. Most often there is a trail of missed opportunities for interventions to find safety for victims and risk management for perpetrators. At the same time, it is obvious that domestic homicides are a heterogeneous problem to understand. Although there may be overlapping warning signs, each domestic homicide may have unique characteristics. Unique characteristics arise from the social circumstances and life context for the victim and perpetrator. Whether it is a teen dating relationship, or an aging couple married for over 50 years, urban or rural family, Indigenous or nonIndigenous victim, immigrant or refugee perpetrator, each circumstance poses a need for a different lens to understand the risks and the context for the homicide. This book explores these contexts clarifying both the similarities and difference in instances of domestic homicide.

One of the key similarities in domestic homicide concerns gender. As reviewed previously, domestic homicide is a gendered crime, with close to 80% of cases across datasets involving women victims and an even higher percentage of accused men. Accordingly this book focuses on domestic homicides of women with two exceptions: homicides of people in gay, lesbian, bisexual relationships and a chapter that focuses on women who kill. As explored in Chapter 13, Future directions on promoting domestic homicide prevention in diverse populations, self-defense and a history of domestic violence are often identified as reasons for homicide when women kill their intimate partners. One quarter of women who killed a current intimate partner were protected under Domestic Violence Protection orders against the male homicide victim (Australian Domestic & Family Violence Death Review Network, 2018).

The domestic violence field has evolved to consider the importance of understanding context through an intersectionality framework. Intersectionality recognizes that individuals have multiple social identities that could include gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, age, and ability. These identities may reflect various dimensions of privilege or alternatively marginalization and oppression that combine to determine access to services and supports for domestic violence victims. Perspectives and definitions of domestic violence vary according to how patriarchy is conceived within these various cultures and contexts (Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005). Individuals have multiple identities that determine life outcomes such as health and education. For example, an Indigenous woman who is experiencing violence and lives in a remote community living with the long-term impact of colonization and residential schools is dealing with different circumstances than a nonindigenous woman in an urban center who is employed and has ready access to health care and social services (Brownridge, 2008; Tutty et al., 2017). In the early days of the domestic violence movement, analysis tended to focus on gender alone and the recognition that women were more likely than men to be injured or killed (Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005). Gender is now understood to be only part of the context to understand this victimization. Intersectionality provides a means of identifying conditions that are particularly advantageous or disadvantageous and critical to understanding domestic homicide (Tutty et al.,