Men Killing Women

http://vaw.sagepub.
com/
Violence Against Women
http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/17/1/111
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1077801210391219
2011 17: 111 originally published online 14 December 2010 Violence Against Women
R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash
What Were They Thinking? Men Who Murder an Intimate Partner
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Violence Against Women Additional services and information for
http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://vaw.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/17/1/111.refs.html Citations:
at AMS/Girona Library on January 25, 2011 vaw.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Violence Against Women
17(1) 111 134
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077801210391219
http://vaw.sagepub.com
VAW3912
19VAW
1
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Corresponding Author:
R. Emerson Dobash, Professor of Criminology, School of Law, University of Manchester,
Oxford Road, Manchester, UK M13 9PL
Email: Rebecca.dobash@manchester.ac.uk
What Were They Thinking?
Men Who Murder
an Intimate Partner
R. Emerson Dobash
1
and Russell P. Dobash
1
Abstract
The focus is on cognitions of men who murder an intimate partner and includes thinking
prior to and after the murder. Based on the Murder in Britain Study, the qualitative accounts
of various professionals included in the casefiles of 104 men convicted of murdering a
woman partner are used to examine beliefs about intimate relationships, orientations toward
violence and previous violence to the victim, as well as subsequent denials, rationalizations,
and justifications. We conclude that these and other cognitions are important elements
of intimate partner murder and must be challenged and changed in efforts to eliminate
nonlethal abuse and murder.
Keywords
intimate partner murder, orientations, cognitions
Violence against women is now recognized as a worldwide problem that affects millions
of women. The problem was initially discovered by feminist activists in Britain and the
United States in the 1970s and various remedies and interventions were proposed. Most
focused on the plight and needs of victims and a few were directed at the violent behavior
of abusers. Initially, the focus was almost exclusively on the most urgent and pragmatic
issues of providing emergency shelter and long-term housing for women attempting to
escape from violent men and improving the responses of the police and the justice system.
Accompanying both were concerns about what men might be thinking when they abuse
and the rationalizations and justifications they might use for such actions. In both Britain
and the United States, the primary concern from the outset was about the victims of vio-
lence, although there was also some early interest in male abusers (Parliamentary Select
Article
112 Violence Against Women 17(1)
Committee, 1975; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1978). Since then, the flood of com-
mentary and empirical evidence has appropriately focused on abused women, their plight,
their experiences of violence, and their insights about the abusers. In addition, abuser pro-
grams have amassed a body of practice-based knowledge about the actions and thinking
of men who abuse (Gondolf, 1987; Morran & Wilson, 1997; Pence & Paymar, 1993). This
knowledge is invaluable, but there is relatively little systematic qualitative research about
the motivations, intentions, rationalizations, and justifications of men who abuse and almost
none about men who murder an intimate partner. Here, we seek to extend this knowledge
by examining the cognitions of men who murder an intimate partner, focusing particularly
on their beliefs, orientations, rationalizations, and justifications. To do this, we use qualita-
tive data from the Murder in Britain study based on a subset of 104 men convicted of
murdering an intimate partner. The casefiles of these men contain a wealth of information
provided by a variety of professionals involved with them prior to and after the murder. To
date, little is known about what they might have been thinking at the time of the murder and
their subsequent orientations to the murder and the victim. To position this analysis, we
briefly examine literature about intimate partner violence and a related body of work about
more general responses of offenders to their untoward (problematic) behavior.
Mens Responses to Abusing an Intimate Partner:
Cognitions, Rationalizations, and Justifications
Systematic, qualitative research about the orientations and cognitions of abusers is sparse,
and there is even less research focusing on the cognitions of intimate partner murderers.
Much of the research about abusers focuses on socioeconomic characteristics and various
aspects of problematic behavior such as alcohol abuse and psychological profiles (for a
review see Dobash & Dobash, 2003; Dobash, Dobash, & Cavanagh, 2009). Knowledge
about their cognitions has mostly been derived from women who have been abused. Their
accounts are often fulsome discussions of the violence as well as the relationship and the
context and circumstances in which it occurs (see Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Martin, 1976
for early reports).
Obtaining direct qualitative evidence about the cognitions of abusers and men who
murder an intimate partner is fraught with obstacles ranging from a total refusal to discuss
the violence to a reluctance to discuss relevant motivations, intentions, and orientations.
Both abusers and murderers usually offer abbreviated accounts of the violence and begin
at a point that implicates the woman or others, and reduces or eliminates their own culpa-
bility (Adams, 2007; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 1998,
2000). Ptacek (1988) interviewed 18 men in a community program for abusers. He found
that they excused their behavior by citing such things as frustration and loss of control
because of alcohol, attempted to justify the violence and/or denied any wrong doing, and also
claimed that women exaggerated the violence and its consequences. Despite the claim of
loss of control, men cited clear objectives for their use of violence: Silencing her; punishing
her for wrongdoings; frightening her into behaving as he demands; and teaching her a
Dobash and Dobash 113
lesson. In her interviews with 15 abusers, Bograd (1988) found that more than one half justi-
fied their violence and blamed the victim because she failed to meet his expectations of a
good wife. Violence was purposeful and aimed at achieving a specific end. Anderson
and Umberson (2001) reported similar patterns in their interviews with 33 abusers who
excused and justified their violence and considered their actions to be rational and purpose-
ful, yet paradoxically also viewed themselves as out of control. Again, the men viewed
the women as responsible for the violence because they were seen as inadequate partners
and/or mothers who failed to live up to his expectations. Similarly, Borochowitzs (2008)
study of 18 batterers in Israel revealed justifications based on the mans idealized view of
what a woman partner should be, and violence was used to punish a disobedient wife.
Similarly, in our own in-depth interviews with 122 convicted abusers and 136 women
partners of abusers, the men offered a range of exculpatory and excusatory explanations for
their violence (Cavanagh, Dobash, Dobash, & Lewis, 2001; Dobash et al., 2000). Abusers
often engaged in selective forgetting and cited lack of memory when discussing their
violence, but they also engaged in selective remembering in their accounts of violent
events. Using Goffmans (1971) concept of remedial work, we found that abusers offered
accounts, apologies, and requests as they sought to deny, mitigate, and discount their
violence. Yet, in a somewhat contradictory fashion, they simultaneously sought forgive-
ness and absolution from their partner suggesting, I didnt do it, It was nothing, You
need to forgive and forget. Forgiveness and redemption are sought and often given as
women seek to placate their partner for the sake of the relationship and/or the children or
because of a fear that the violence will escalate if the apology is not accepted and/or the
relationship reconstituted. At once, the violence is purposeful yet the account is paradoxi-
cal in that it obfuscates culpability while also seeking absolution and forgiveness (Cavanagh
et. al., 2001). Through this process, men seek to convince the woman of her culpability
and to reconstitute the relationship on his terms. For their part, women engage in numerous
strategies of negotiation and resistance in attempting to survive the relationship and/or to
reconstitute it as nonviolent (see also Dutton, 1996; Hyden, 1994). Although Goffmans
schema is useful, the concept of requests has limited value in this context because requests
were often demands underpinned by violence and/or threats.
As indicated above, systematic, qualitative research on the cognitions of men who mur-
der an intimate partner is very limited. Adams (2007) interviewed 31 men convicted of
murdering their intimate partners. He found them to be rigid in their attitudes and self-
centered. They denigrated their partners and blamed them for the violence. He concluded
that controlling, abusive, and violent behavior usually escalated over time and was evident
in a vast majority of cases. Among most of the men, he found strong notions of ownership,
possessiveness, and jealousy, even though a sense of ownership was usually denied. For
a few, the relevant motivation appeared to be more related to the retention of financial or
material assets (Adams, 2007; see also Dobash et al., 2009). Using qualitative material from
121 homicide files from the Office of the Coroner of Victoria, Australia (1985-1986), Polk
(1994; Polk & Ranson, 1991) found that about one third of the cases involved an intimate,
sexual relationship. He concluded that for those in which a woman was killed, there was
usually a history of jealousy and violence toward the woman, and he characterized these
homicides as arising from masculine possession and sexual ownership.
Evidence about the actions and orientations of violent abusers and intimate partner mur-
derers parallels reports of men who use violence in other contexts, especially violence against
other men. Tochs (1969) early interview study of men convicted of a violent offense
revealed how they attempted to justify their violence and how it was integral to their iden-
tity. This and a wealth of other evidence provides strong support for the notion that mens
violence against other men often valorizes the perpetrator and sometimes even valorizes
the male victim (Bourgois, 1996; Chagnon, 1983; Descola, 1996; Dobash & Dobash, 1984,
1998; Polk, 1994; Spierenburg, 1998; Toch, 1969) But, is a man valorized when he uses vio-
lence against a woman? Is the act valorized? Is the actor valorized? Does violence against
a woman partner enhance a mans sense of self-worth and esteem? In many ways it does.
In other ways it does not. From their point of view, these offenders often see themselves as
norm enforcers upholding high values, such as the sanctity of marriage, the family, and
motherhood. In this sense, violence is viewed as acceptable when women are defined as
out of line with the mans notions of the appropriate behavior for a wife, mother, or
housekeeper. In these and other circumstances, men feel justified in using violence to
enforce their will, act as judge, jury, and enforcer of their rigid notions of normative stan-
dards for women, and treat their woman partner as a devalued object or a mere branch of
themselves (Borochowitz, 2008, p. 1170). Whether the interpretive lens is feminist, socio-
logical, psychological or psychoanalytic, the findings suggest that men who use lethal and
nonlethal violence against their women partners are highly controlling and use violence to
enforce their own moral order and to punish perceived transgressions from it. They lack
empathy with the victim of their violence, and their beliefs and orientations provide them
with a cognitive foundation for justifications and rationales for the violence, which means
that they may have little or no remorse for its use.
Responses to Other Untoward Acts:
Cognitions, Rationalizations, and Justifications
Social and behavioral scientists have long been interested in the narratives associated with
individual and collective responses to problematic behavior, including violence. In an early,
foundational attempt to describe responses to untoward behavior committed by juvenile
delinquents, Sykes and Matza (1957) identified various techniques of neutralization and
posited that rationalizations and justifications, along with expressions of shame or guilt,
suggest at least a marginal acceptance of the conventions being violated. The techniques
of neutralization that justify and rationalize deviant actions include the following: Denial
of responsibility, of injury, and of victim status, as well as condemnation of the condemners,
and an appeal to some higher authority. Such norms and values not only rationalize the
deviant behavior but also prepare the groundwork for other such acts (Sykes & Matza, 1957;
see also Lamnek, 2003).
Drawing on English moral philosophers and interactionist perspectives, the early work
of Scott and Lyman (1968) viewed the nature of accounts offered for unanticipated and
untoward behavior as basically exculpatory and of two types: Excuses and justifications.
Excuses vary and involve an admission that the act was bad, wrong or inappropriate, but
also include a denial of responsibility. Justifications are attempts to neutralize an act
and at the same time to include a claim that the act was permissible or inevitable under
certain circumstances. Of importance to this analysis is the discussion of sad tales with
the wrongdoer reconstructing their biography to create the impression of a dismal past
that explains and thus justifies their deviant behavior (Scott & Lyman, 1968, n. 29, 52).
Justifications and excuses are not always acknowledged or accepted because their accep-
tance by an audience depends on a shared sociocultural background including expectations
of what is appropriate within specific relationships and situations. In giving the account,
the offenders demeanor is important in terms of how it is received, for example, contrite
and apologetic or cold and unemotional. Throughout the interactive process of giving and
receiving an account, the offender is engaged in alter casting, attempting to construct a
specific situational identity that may be more or less successful with the audience that
receives and interprets it. For example, a murderer may present himself as a reasonable
man who was pushed beyond his limits by the actions of an unreasonable woman, a
scenario that until recently was embedded in Anglo-American legal systems in the
reasonable man defense for murder (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Yet, the audience may not
accept an account and may instead deem it unreasonable or illegitimate. According to
Scott and Lyman (1968), the gravity of the offense is extremely important in this process
of negotiating and/or accepting an account.
Working on moral development, psychologists have also focused on the interpretations
and perceptions of individuals engaged in problematic behavior, including violence. This
constitutes the foundations of much of the current cognitive-behavioral work with offend-
ers, where Banduras (1991) research has been extremely important. He argues that indi-
viduals must have the ability to engage in self approving and self-critical reflection
that depend on the evaluations of others and develop within a social context. The fully
functioning adult is capable of meaningful self-sanction and is concerned about the adverse
effects of their behavior on others. Mature adults are empathetic, self-sanctioning, and able
to consider the reactions of others. Reprehensible, antisocial, and harmful behavior involves
a different moral reasoning, one based on weak empathy, near absence of the mechanisms
of self-sanction, and a range of ideologies, beliefs, and cultural prescriptions that allow
reasonable people to act violently. Violence and other forms of oppressive behavior can
be made righteous through cognitive restructuring (Bandura, 1991, p. 73).
Bandura (1991) discusses a number of mechanisms associated with attempts to justify
and/or excuse collective and/or individual violent behavior. Advantageous comparisons
involve interpretations of ones own destructive conduct as trifling or even benevolent
compared to the acts of others, and violence is perpetrated for a high moral purpose such as
the prevention of the reckless behavior of a spouse. Displacement and/or diffusion of res-
ponsibility obscures the relationship between acts and their impact with consequences
defined as unintended or dictates of the situation and, as such, personal acts are disowned
and agency denied. Disregard or distortion of consequences involves selective inattention and
cognitive distortions wherein individuals attempt to distance themselves from the consequences
of their acts. Dehumanization and impersonalization involve divesting victims of human
qualities, thus blunting self-sanctions when individuals are no longer seen as worthy of
respect or fail to obey. Attribution of blame involves assigning responsibility for the
violence to the victim. This is especially apparent in justifications for physical and sexual
violence against women, particularly when it is culturally condoned or weakly condemned.
As Bandura (1991) observed, anticipatory self-censure is eliminated when the traumatic
effects of sexual assault are twisted into pleasurable ones for the victim (p. 93). With
disengagement of self sanctions and self-deception, offenders distance themselves from
the act and the victim while attempting to enhance their own sense of self. They remain
intentionally and vigorously uninformed regarding their violent acts. When presented with
conflicting evidence or interpretations, they are incredulous, challenge the authenticity or
relevance of the account, and/or twist it to fit their own views.
Tavuchis (1991) philosophical sociology of apology is an exploration of appropriate
and meaningful responses to untoward behavior that is critical of a focus on accounts
because, as he argues, they merely describe excuses, justifications, and defenses that are
primarily placatory or evasive. In addition, they are attempts to distance the self from
untoward acts and to avoid responsibility by invoking categories of causality such as inca-
pacity, accident, ignorance or coercion that do not include authentic regret. He notes
that in the sociological literature on accounts, there is little or no discussion of regret,
sorrow, and remorse, yet these are essential aspects of a genuine apology in which the
offender has no excuse, justification, or exculpatory account in his efforts to reform or seek
forgiveness. He notes that in Goffmans discussion of apology, the individual splits the self
into one side that is guilty and the other that is separate from the act which, for Tavuchis,
does not constitute an apology. Instead, it is essential to accept responsibility for injurious
actions and accept that it was wrong, harmful, and inexcusable. As such, an apology is
marked by self-exposure to justifiable retribution.
The active engagement of third parties, such as professionals working within the prison
service, is essential throughout the process of retribution and reform, and they are never
impartial observers. Offenders attempt to avoid this painful process by employing a range
of strategies. For Tavuchis (1991), these include: Remaining silent, denying allegations,
challenging the validity of facts or interpretations, impugning the motives of third parties,
and attempting to completely avoid discussion of the offending behavior. Some offenders
find it impossible to apologize and remain fixed to a position of denial and/or deflection of
responsibility. Inauthentic apologies are often proffered and constitute a social type: The
congenital or compulsive apologizer [that] makes a mockery of sorrow and debases for-
giveness. Inauthentic self-blame constitutes another form of diversion and may be seen as
a form of self-praise as the conversation remains fixed on the subject of supreme interest
and importance (Tavuchis, 1991, p. 35).
In examining the cognitions, rationalizations, and justifications of men who murder an
intimate partner, we consider what they might have been thinking as they engaged in such
an extreme act of violence. The two literaturesabout intimate partner violence and about
other types of offendingprovide a brief summary of what is known or theorized about
orientations of offenders to the commission of untoward or deviant acts, the rationalizations
they employ, the normative rules they apply to justify their behavior, and the multiplicity
of tactics they use to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and/or engaging in relevant
changes in personal orientations or actions. Common to the literatures are the notions that
deviant acts occur within a context to which the perpetrator brings a set of rules, norms, or
ideas about what is correct or to be expected, demanded, or allowed. In the case of inter-
personal violence, these are used as indicators of the wrongdoing of the victim, justify the
corrective action of the perpetrator, and allow the sense of self to remain intact and
untainted in ways that might otherwise accrue to one who perpetrates violence. The con-
text, with its rigid set of rules and expectations, provides the stage for enforcement through
violence and justification by virtue of maintaining standards of behavior deemed to be
appropriate. There are numerous steps along the way from deviant act, to denial, to
accepting responsibility, to feeling regret, and possibly to personal change. Throughout,
these are interwoven with the specific issues relating to each individual but are lived out
within a wider cultural context of gender relationships that must be considered if this pro-
cess is to be understood more fully and if that understanding is to be brought to the process
of positive personal change of those who murder an intimate partner.
The Study
The Murder in Britain Study was a 3-year investigation of all types of murder that used
three sources of data: The extant Homicide Indexes for England/Wales and for Scotland; the
casefiles of 786 men and 80 women convicted of murder; and intensive interviews with
180 men and 20 women serving a life sentence for murder at the time of the study. Both
the casefile and interview data sets are unique and allow for an intensive examination of
different types of murder not previously possible. Each data set contains extensive infor-
mation about the childhood and adult backgrounds and life circumstances of offenders as
well as the situations and circumstances of the murder. All original data from interviews
and casefiles were gathered by a team of four senior researchers with many years of expe-
rience studying violent men and victims of violence.
1
The casefile data set is based on
systematic analysis of the files of those convicted of murder, not manslaughter, and includes
both quantitative and qualitative data (Cavanagh, Dobash, & Dobash 2007; Dobash,
Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis 2004; Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza, 2007;
Dobash, Dobash, Cavanaugh, Smith, & Medina-Ariza, 2007; see Lewis, Dobash, Dobash,
& Cavanagh, 2003 on interviews).
2
Here, we focus on the qualitative data drawn from a
subset of 104 casefiles of men convicted of murdering an intimate partner and examine
their beliefs, rationales, and justifications. The material is representative of the observations
of the professionals who were dealing with these men and is grouped into several themes
relevant to the commission of the violence and to interventions oriented to changing such
behavior and the supporting attitudes and beliefs.
Casefile Data Set
As indicated, these findings focus on men only and are based exclusively on those convicted
of murder. In Britain, a conviction for murder (but not manslaughter) leads to a mandatory
life sentence with a specified tariff, which is a recommended minimum number of years to
be served, usually about 12 (Ashworth & Mitchell, 2000). Because of this indeterminate
sentence, offenders must address their offending behavior before being released and, as a
consequence, extensive records are kept throughout their sentence (Parole Board, 2009).
As such, the casefile of every convicted murderer is extensive and sometimes extends to
over 100 pages in length. Casefiles contain information about the murder and the offender
provided by the police, forensic experts, solicitors, trial judges, psychiatrists/psychologists,
medical staff, social workers, probation officers, school teachers, family members, witnesses,
and the offender. Before the trial, the police gather extensive information about the murder
event and the offender including previous convictions, intimate relationships, employ-
ment, and the like. Details about intimate partner relations, present and past, were gathered
by the police from neighbors, relatives, and previous partners as well as from social workers,
probation officers, general practitioners (doctors) and others.
Once in prison, those convicted of murder are assessed and interviewed by a range of
prison staff (prison governors, psychologists, probation officers, and prison officers). Periodic
formal reviews are an essential aspect of these assessments, and these materials are col-
lected into the prisoners casefile. This provides information about progression through the
prison system and is used for parole decisions and the setting of a release date. Casefiles
include details about: the offense and orientations to it; previous convictions; presentence
reports from medical, psychiatric, and probation professionals; summaries of progress in
prison (e.g., taking responsibility for the offense, dealing with associated patterns of think-
ing, and problematic behavior such as substance abuse); progress on relevant programs
associated with risk reduction; discipline problems; and a range of reports from others
(Parole Board, 2009). Such extensive record keeping applies only to those found guilty of
murder, not manslaughter, and it is this level of information that provides the opportunity
to examine lethal violence in much greater detail than usually possible and to extend exist-
ing knowledge about this event and those who perpetrate it. All of this information was
used to construct the casefile data sets.
At the time of the study, the original casefile of every man and woman convicted of
murder was held in prison headquarters in London (for England/Wales) and Edinburgh (for
Scotland) and a second copy was located in the prison where each offender was residing.
For the casefile data set, a systematic sample of every nth case of murder was selected from
each archive (London and Edinburgh) along with all cases of convicted murderers in each
of the prisons identified as a strategic site where interviews were to be conducted. The lat-
ter ensured that casefile data were collected for all the men and women who were eventu-
ally interviewed. Prisons were selected as strategic sites to include both men and women
offenders, institutions located in different parts of the two jurisdictions, and prisons hold-
ing those convicted of different types of murder.
Qualitative Documentary Analysis
The approach to the qualitative data in the casefiles is an example of documentary content
analysis, a methodology integral to disciplines such as history and media studies (Altheide,
1987; Atkinson & Coffey, 1997; Miller & Alvarado, 2005; Prior, 2003). It is reflexive,
analytical and, as in this study, often begins with prestructured categories and concepts that
may be altered during the course of the research or the analysis, which may be numeric
but is usually textual. Here, an initial pilot study involved collecting data at several loca-
tions within the two jurisdictions of England/Wales and Scotland. This was followed by the
main study, which included recording quantitative data directly into SPSS and qualitative
textual data directly into Word documents that were then coded and transferred to the
qualitative software package QSR/NVivo (www.qsrintertnational.com; Richards, 2006)
for subsequent analysis. For this analysis, materials were initially recorded into broad
categories reflecting theoretically informed and empirically grounded concepts. A subse-
quent reflexive stage sharpened the initial categories through a deductive and inductive
process involving lengthy discussions among the researchers to ensure that the categories
were representative of the materials. Each researcher was responsible for the data that they
had collected, and coded it into the relevant categories in the QSR file, which contains
26 main nodes and 124 subnodes (nodes = categories in QSR). Examples of main nodes
include the following: Type of murder; victimoffender relationship; significant substan-
tive issues about childhood, adulthood, substance abuse, and previous offending.
Docu mentary analysis, like all methods, has its limitations. As discussed above, the origi-
nal information within the casefiles came from numerous sources and original docu-
ments beginning with early childhood, schooling, and offending and following through
to reports from various professionals within prison. As might be expected, reports from
various sources reflect the differing concerns and foci of each source that, while adding
up to a very large and comprehensive dossier of information relevant to the research,
might also contain information that is contradictory in ways that challenge the reliability
and validity of the findings. To assess the overall level of agreement among various
contributions to the casefile, the researcher who read and coded the file judged each
casefile accordingly and ranked it for the level of agreement from high to low. Across
the casefile data set, the consistency of agreement among the various contributors was high
or very high in the majority of cases and low in only about 6% of the cases. Certain
methodological perspectives might characterize the observations of professionals as
simply reflections of some overarching administrative or organizational imperatives, or
as mere texts with no experiential anchor (Cicourel, 1968; Prior, 2003). We do not hold
this position, but instead consider the assessments of the various professionals as addi-
tional evidence about the offender and the offense to be used in extending both knowledge
and understanding.
Findings
As indicated, this analysis is based on 104 cases of men convicted of murdering a current
or former partner in the context of a marital, cohabiting (unmarried couples in coresidence),
or serious dating (but not cohabitating) relationship. We have drawn representative materi-
als from QSR nodes that focus on the victimoffender relationship, previous violence
within the relationship, orientations to the victim and the murder event. Although some of
the quotes are from offenders, most of the narratives are from the various professionals who
regularly interview and/or work with the offenders in prison and thus their observations
are particularly important.
We begin where the perpetrators often begin: With total denial of the murder. For a
variety of reasons relating to the workings of the justice system as well as orientations of
the perpetrator, the initial response to the act of murder is often one of complete denial.
Although this is not usually maintained throughout the process from trial through impris-
onment, it is often transformed into various forms of denial of responsibility for the murder
or refusals to discuss the murder and issues relating to it. However, professionals working
with such offenders deem it essential to deal with such issues in their efforts to affect per-
sonal change. Once in prison, the relevant professionals see the overcoming of denial and
acknowledgment of the commission of the act as an essential starting point and a continual
point of reference throughout the ongoing process of personal change.
3
As such, we begin
by briefly considering the issue of complete denial.
This is followed by a consideration of the history of nonlethal violence to the woman
who is eventually murdered and problems with women in intimate relationships, issues of
authority, control, possessiveness, and others that have been established within the litera-
ture as relevant to mens orientations to women partners and to their use of violence against
them (including murder). Abusers and other violent offenders are generally nonreflective,
reluctant to acknowledge and/or address their problematic behaviors, and rarely genuinely
self-critical. One of the tasks of those who attempt to assist such men to change their
behavior is that of assisting them in acknowledging their past and understanding how it
relates to their present violent behavior. As suggested in the literature, the cognitions of
violent offenders are often distorted and their accounts of the violence frequently constitute
attempts to deny, deflect, and/or otherwise mitigate responsibility. Professionals reports
of the orientations of offenders illustrate these points. Failure to empathize with the victim
and a lack of regret or remorse for the murder are integral aspects of the problem that the
professionals attempt to address and are viewed by them as significant aspects of the refor-
mative process. Yet, as shall be shown, many of the men strongly resist these efforts and
cling to their original cognitions and rationales.
Complete Denial of the Murder
There are many facets of denial: Of the murder itself, of previous abuse of the victim, of
responsibility for the outcome of the event, of problematic relationships with the victim
and/or women in general, and many others. For some, denial is absolute, whereas for others
it is conditional and based on various rationales and notions that absolve the perpetrator of
responsibility. When initially interviewed by the police, about one half of the men denied
that they committed the murder, many pleaded not guilty at their trial, and about 15%
maintained complete denial even after being found guilty and throughout their period of
imprisonment. It should be stressed that denial is a complex and evolving process relating
to varying contexts including the legal processes of arrest and trial where denial may be
used in an attempt to avoid prosecution, conviction, and long-term imprisonment. Even
after conviction and imprisonment, some continue to deny the act as a strategy for avoiding
various forms of interventions aimed at reformation and personal change within prison.
The following examples of denial of the murder come directly from the perpetrators and
from professionals.
I couldnt believe it. And it actually took me five or six years really to actually
accept the fact that she was actually dead. Because Ive never really seen anything
in the papers confirming she died, or anything like that. Id actually only ever seen
one document where its actually said deceased. It took me years to accept that
she was actually dead. (1042cf)
I never thought my wife had died. I thought she was in a deep sleep. (1026cf)
He is willing to do Anger Management [program]. He says that such a course would
be relevant in assisting him to deal with the anger he feels regarding what he claims
is his wrongful conviction. (1038cf)
He continues to vehemently deny committing the index offense [murder]. Until his
attitude changes little progress will be observed, no programs will be scheduled and
specific intervention work ignored. (1090cf)
History of Nonlethal Violence to
the Victim and a Previous Partner
In addition to attempting to engage about the murder, the various professionals working
with offenders in prison also seek to explore previous violent behavior either to the victim
of the murder or to others. The purpose of this is for the offender to begin to acknowledge
his own biography of violence in its various manifestations. Some men more readily
acknowledge both the murder and previous forms of violence, whereas others continue to
deny or minimize both. Although a small proportion of the men had no known history of
previous violence either to the victim or to others, most did have such a history (Dobash
et al., 2009). Of the 104 men who killed an intimate partner, their casefiles revealed that
59% had physically abused the woman they ultimately killed. In addition, of the men who
had been in a previous intimate relationship, 57% had abused a former partner, and in that
sense appeared to specialize in using violence against a woman partner (Dobash et al.,
2004, 2007). Still others were generally violent in differing contexts, often involving other
men. The information in the casefiles illustrated that a history of violence often existed,
began early, and became persistent and severe. Nonetheless, this history was often denied
in the exchanges with professionals.
The quotes from professionals illustrate limited admissions of previous nonlethal
violence to the victim of murder or a history of persistent violence in most of these
relationships:
He says he only ever hit his wife once before but denies a long-standing history of
domestic violence. (910cf)
He states that on one occasion it did come to blows with my wife. If I remember,
I only hit her twice. (938cf)
He began using violence on her from an early stage in their relationship. He would
strike her about the head, giving her black eyes, split lips, and bruising. She never
reported this to the police. (1074cf)
During the first year of the marriage, he used violence towards his wife. He assaulted
her whilst he was drunk which resulted in her sustaining bruising to her arms and
legs. This was reported to the police and he appeared in court where he agreed to be
bound over to keep the peace. (934cf)
[Previous attack] It was a frenzied, vicious attack by a man who was intent on caus-
ing serious injury. She was struck all over the body [with a pickaxe handle] causing
a wound requiring several stitches to her head and a large number of cuts and severe
bruises to various parts of her body. (1060cf)
There were a number of occasions when he was violent toward the deceased. Prior
to her death, she received a severe beating in which she had sustained something in
the order of 140 separate injuries. (1008cf)
This is not the first occasion that he has attacked a woman with whom he has had a
relationship. He was responsible for a prolonged attack on another girlfriend. Following
a domestic dispute between the accused and his ex-girlfriend, he assaulted her by
grabbing her round the neck with both hands and squeezing tightly. He then punched
her in the face with his clenched fist, knocking her backwards where she hit the back
of her head on the fireplace, cutting her head. She received fractures to wrists, a broken
nose and bruises and swelling to her face. (1136cf)
Acknowledging the murder, previous violence to the victim, and a personal history of
violence are essential aspects of beginning the process of personal change and constitute
significant challenges to those who engage with the men while in prison.
Problems With Women in Intimate Relationships
Men who are violent to an intimate partner often present a general pattern of difficulties
and failures in their relationships with women. According to the reports of the profession-
als and the official records, the men who killed an intimate partner frequently had numerous
problems in relationships with women including the following: Broken relationships;
conflict within relationships; and objections to her family and friends. According to infor-
mation in the casefiles, 75% of the men were viewed by professionals as Having problems
with women. About half of the men had had only one intimate relationship of a permanent
nature, whereas others had several such relationships. Most of the relationships were
fraught with conflict and were characterized by professionals as under the control of the
offender:
[Throughout his adult life], he has displayed evidence of a difficulty in maintaining
stable relationships with women. (864cf)
[He] needs to work on his attitude to and relationships with women. He has a history
of relationship problems with a propensity to use violence against females both
within the index offence [murder] and previous convictions. (1136cf)
He now recognizes that he needs to look at his attitude to women. There are many
issues in his treatment of his wife prior to her death that need addressing. She was a
tiny, frail young woman, who was oppressed. His almost total omission of thoughts
on his feelings for his wife and daughter may reflect the degree of regard he had or
has for them [near zero]. (1026cf)
Authority and Control. Issues of authority and control were often evident and were the
source of conflict and violence. The comments reflect notions that the men appeared to
hold about themselves in relation to a woman partner, for example, men are in control,
have authority, should be obeyed, and the like. They also reflect implicit notions about how
a woman partner should behave and her subordinate position to him as well as the notion
that departures from his expectations deserve or even require correction and punishment,
including the use of violence. Such views would seem to reflect distorted notions about
what constitutes a normal relationship between a man and a woman partner.
[Mans account] She come with a mouthful [arguing with him] so I broke her
record player. Then I went upstairs and poured paint on her clothes to stop her from
going out. (1060cf)
There would appear to be a common thread running through all of the defendants
descriptions of his relationships. He has tended to become involved with younger
women, in some cases significantly younger. In his two marriages, he describes the
need to teach his wives how to behave, how to cook, clean, and housekeeping.
Failure to conform to his high standards on the part of his wives resulted in friction,
arguments, and taking his temper out on doors and walls. The overall picture to
emerge is that of a man who feels a great need to control his partners, and very pos-
sibly his children. He denies the chronic abuse of alcohol and of the habitual use of
domestic violence to impose his will upon his family. He presented in interview as
a charming man, polite, anxious to cooperate. However, he appears to be a rigid
man, with little capacity for flexibility in his relationships with women and to be a
man whose need is to control their actions and behavior, both inside and outside the
home environment. (1090cf)
Earlier reports suggest his actions may relate to an attempt to exert emotional pres-
sure on the women involved. He denies using violence within his relationships but
acknowledges that he has sought to gain control by instilling fear. He self reports
identifying women as sluts and princesses and has stated that he prefers rela-
tionships with women who are less intellectually able than himself. (1036cf)
Possessiveness, Jealousy, Estrangement, and Separation
Although any and all areas of conflict may occur in intimate relationships, whether non-
violent or violent, some appear to be more salient in cases involving murder. Here, issues
of possessiveness, jealousy, estrangement, and separation seem to be of particular impor-
tance. Heightened possessiveness and jealousy are commonplace in most abusive relation-
ships and frequent, temporary separations are relatively common (Dobash & Dobash, 1979;
Dobash et. al., 2000), but evidence from the Murder in Britain Study and other research
suggests that this combination of factors may be particularly salient when men kill an
intimate partner (Adams, 2007; Block & Christokas, 1995; Campbell et al., 2003; Dobash
et al., 2009; Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza, 2007; Dawson & Gartner,
1998; Polk & Ranson, 1991; Serran & Firestone, 2004; Wilson & Daly, 1993, 1998). Mens
possessiveness and jealousy, as well as fears and anger about separation and abandonment,
are often difficult to unravel and sometimes bear little relationship to the reality of their
marital state or the behavior of their woman partner, but the casefile accounts reflect a
heightened intensity that is palpable.
The defendant was a jealous and obsessive man. In the early years, he quite unjus-
tifiably accused his wife of having affairs. Even in recent years he caused two of his
adult children to undergo DNA testing to prove that he is not their father. In fact the
tests proved that he is. He continues to look for evidence of his wifes infidelity.
(938cf)
Although the defendant and the deceased were divorced and living apart, the
defendant was consumed by an obsessional jealousy of the deceaseds relation-
ships with other men. It was this jealousy which motivated the killing. He is fully
capable and has no reservations about assaulting females. When accused is shunned
or abandoned by women he is obviously prepared to go to extreme lengths to seek
retribution. (946cf)
He became increasingly jealous and constantly pestered her to have him back. He
became such a nuisance that she felt it necessary to leave her home and move back
to her parents home. He refused to let go and was clearly upset that his ex-wife
was seeing another man. The most distressing thought to him was imagining his
ex-partner having a sexual relationship with another man. (934cf)
The relationship between the accused and the victim had deteriorated and indications
are that she wished to terminate the affair. No doubt in an effort to dissuade her from
this course, he carried out a prolonged and vicious attack against the deceased. (1136cf)
[Prior to the murder, he had beaten her so severely that she was in hospital] In the
days prior to the murder, it became increasingly evident to him that his wife, who
was now refusing his hospital visits and stated that she was frightened of him, did
not intend to return to the family home. (1102cf)
As the relationship developed she confided in friends that he was becoming more
possessive and she was thinking of terminating the relationship. The relationship
became tense and the victim made various attempts to break it off. She told friends
of strange and silent phone calls she was receiving and was convinced it was the
accused. He had made up his mind what he was going to do with the woman who
no longer wanted his attentionshe was going to die. (1132cf)
If I cant have her nobody can. If she pinches the kids Ill go round the boyfriends
house and burn it down. If they werent in, Id hunt the town for them and put a knife
through her. (914cf)
Orientations to the Murder: Denying
Responsibility and Blaming the Victim
The above is a compressed examination of the context of intimate partner murder. It is
presented here to provide a characterization of the behavior, orientations, and thinking of
many of the men who kill an intimate partner. This characterization provides insight into
cognitions/beliefs/orientations that the various professionals must deal with as they attempt
to engage these men in the task of addressing their behavior and their responsibility for it.
The act of murder is the starting point of this work but the task is one of uncovering the
numerous aspects of thinking about what they did and why they did it in a process aimed
at trying to get them to think and act differently. These include what occurred in the mur-
der event and their responsibility for the murder, orientations toward and relationships
with their intimate partner, empathy with the victim, and remorse for the event. This is an
unfolding and developing process with an aim of engaging the man in moving from a point
of denial of the event and responsibility to one of accepting culpability and responsibility
not only for the murder but also for attending behaviors and supporting beliefs. Integral to
this process is a reformulation of the various beliefs and cognitions that minimized and
justified the acts of violence to those that appreciate its enormity, the damage done, and the
necessity for personal change.
The literature about men who use violence against women stresses the frequency with
which they deny the violence, minimize its severity, and use various justifications and excuses,
including blaming the victim for their use of violence and deflecting responsibility onto
such things as alcohol. Although minimization of the violence, denial of responsibility, and
blaming the victim are common among those who commit all types of violence, for these
men they appear to be normative and deeply enmeshed in their personal views about women
in general and about intimate partners in particular. These orientations justify the use of
violence and negate responsibility for its use.
Denial of Responsibility for the Murder
He acknowledges that they [his wife and daughters] were afraid of him and is pre-
pared to describe himself as no angel and remembers writing threatening letters,
but he has yet to come to terms with his actions as being responsible for that fear
and his violence. (1120cf)
Its convenient for him to see himself as mentally ill. He tends to present his behavior
as a mystery which he cant solve, and isnt responsible for. He presents as a mixture
of frankness and denial of responsibility. (611cf)
He sees it as a domestic offence and [as such] the tariff is too high. [He stated that] The
police said this was premeditated which I deny. It was an accident which happened
while I was drunk and thats why I contacted the police after it happened. (612cf)
He maintains that his wife actually placed the knife against her own stomach and
because it was a filleting knife and very sharp it sliced into her and he found her in
the kitchen with the knife stuck in her stomach. He accepts responsibility for his
wifes death in that he caused irreparable damage and severe internal bleeding when
he pulled the knife out as she fell forward. He does express guilt and remorse and
accepts responsibility for the death of this wife, he says if he had not pulled the knife
out then she probably would have lived. (918cf)
[He] continues to claim death was an accidentshe fell on his knife. (646cf)
Blaming the Victim for the Murder
The last thing he said in the interview was that he thought all this had happened
because I felt they [the victims] deserved to be taught a lesson. (1062cf)
[A man who killed two women partners] Whilst accepting full responsibility for this
offense and expressing shame and remorse, he has no real insight into the circum-
stances leading up to the offense. [He claims that] the women he killed made me feel
inadequate. He described the first wife he killed as a very bossy woman. (838cf)
I blamed [victim] for not getting an erection. Id had bouts of impotence in the past,
not particularly with her. But I certainly blamed her for my failure to get an erection
when I got into bed with her after I had killed her. This was one of the reasons why
I hit herI totally lost it. (613cf)
Insists his behavior stemmed out of severe provocation from his wifes actions. He
is keen to describe himself as a henpecked husband. [He] says she had gone on
and on at him, he snapped and reached for a hammer. [He viewed her as a] nagging
ungrateful wife [and himself] as a bullied husband. (940cf)
They argued about her affair and her being reluctant to return to him and he flew
into a temper. He punched her in the face. In his account to me he maintained that
he did not know whether he killed her or she killed herself [she was strangled]. He
said that her behavior was too much for a sick man to put up with. (252cf)
Although still in denial, he acknowledged that he was previously violent towards his
partner but that his violence [including the murder] was justified because she was a
drug-user, she was having an affair and she was never in the house. (1050cf)
Orientations to the Victim and the Murder: Empathy and Remorse
As discussed in the literature, the process of reformation is based on acceptance of res-
ponsibility for the act as well as a genuine sense of guilt and remorse about the murder
and empathy with the victim. In this study, 36% of men expressed no remorse and 49%
expressed no empathy with the victim even after they had spent a considerable period
of time in prison. Accordingly, professionals working with those who commit murder
are concerned that the perpetrator take responsibility for the act, empathize with the
victim, and express genuine remorse for the murder. In doing this, they are alert to
diversions from this process that include a refusal to participate in discussion about
the murder, deflection of responsibility, and the use of self-pity to reinforce resistance
to the process. Lack of empathy and remorse are associated with the sense of justification
for using violence and, as such, are emphasized as the professionals work with these
offenders. Although some men express genuine sorrow and remorse, others are deemed
to lack sincerity, and some remain adamant in justifying the murder and associated
behaviors.
Lack of Empathy and Remorse
He showed very little emotion while recounting the details of his offence and there
was little to indicate any remorse. (1062cf)
He describes his offence with little insight into the thoughts, feelings and motivations
of his wife and his daughters. (1120cf)
He displayed very little emotion and seemed rather cold and distant. There was no
remorse and no spontaneous expression of guilt. I was particularly struck by his
failure to display any distress in giving his account and his pre-occupation with the
intellectual aspects of making sense of the evidence. (864cf)
He is extremely dangerous, a complete absence of remorse, compassion or pity for
his victim. (1132cf)
I could find no evidence of spontaneous empathy or appropriate remorse apart from
the effect on himself. He demonstrated limited victim empathy when considering the
consequences of his actions upon others [and] illustrated a lack of consequential
thinking. (944cf)
It is as if it [the murder] occurred in a vacuum that had nothing to do with him.
Having had so much time to reflect, I am amazed at this lack of insight. There is no
searching for questions on his part and he does not appear to be questioning any
aspect of his own behavior. Her death causes him great concern and he struggles
with this but this concern is not extended to his violence. The regret seems to be that
he went too far, the beating being somehow deserved. He shows little victim empa-
thy. In fact, at present he takes very little responsibility for very little. He sees his
wifes death almost as an accident. It is not kicking and thumping her that he sees
as wrong; it is going too far and producing a fatal result. Further work needs to be
done on relationship and thinking skills, as well as victim empathy. During the course
of my interview with him he referred to his victim as his ex-wife. He perceived
his violence and his role in his relationship with his wife as arising from his wifes
behavior and not a problem located within himself. (910cf)
Remorse
He is deeply sorry for what he has done. (1044cf)
I committed murder. I killed my wife. Though I said I was drunk a bit, there was
no excuse, I killed my wife. I am guilty no matter how it happened. I am guilty, and
I deserve to do [time in prison]. (1001cf)
He has expressed deep regret and absolute remorse for his actions, at times to the
point of tears. He still declares his feelings for her and has also sought to apologize
to her family. (1040cf)
He talks openly about his offence, shows remorse and still maintains his love for
[her]. (835cf)
I believe this mans extreme remorse to be sincere and genuine. (925cf)
I am sure that the remorse he expresses for his offence is both genuine and profound.
(1093cf)
Resistance to Engaging in the Process of Change
Although some men express genuine remorse for the murder and empathy with the victim,
others remain adamant in their views about the murder and their rationales for it. Such men
pose a particular challenge to those professionals who attempt to engage them in the pro-
cess of changing their orientations and, ultimately, their behavior to prepare them for
release from prison and future engagement in daily life, particularly any future relationship
with an intimate partner. The difficulty of that task is illustrated in the following quotes.
[Woman psychologist] He used direct, fixed eye contact throughout the interview
and when challenged about aspects of the offence his tone of voice and evident irrita-
tion led me to believe that if I was to carry on with the line of questioning he may
have become angry or even aggressive towards me. This deterred me from asking
certain questions of him. His behavior towards me during the interview gives cause
for concern given that his offence consisted of violence towards a female. (914cf)
He declined to answer any further questions as he felt [he had already told me] that he
had previously struck his wife during the course of arguments over her alleged affairs
and therefore there was no reason to discuss the matter [murder] further. (938cf)
At the beginning of the program, he presented as highly motivated, stating that
he wanted to become a better person and not cause any further harm to others. But
he tended to lapse into self pity and begin to use minimizations and distortions.
(1024cf)
Whilst I have invariably found that he demonstrates some emotion when trying to
[discuss the offense], I am not wholly persuaded that there is any depth to it. [For
him, becoming emotional] is a useful tool to avoid looking at the offense other than
superficially, particularly when his emotional state renders him speechless! I believe
that he manipulates and controls the amount of discussion concerning the offense
and related issues by this mechanism, particularly as his composure returns as soon
as the topic changes. He is without remorse. He is plausible and highly manipula-
tive. Before his release is considered any evidence which may suggest that he no
longer represents a danger to the public (and in particular to women with whom he
might make contact) will need to be examined with care. (1114cf)
He is an extraordinarily self-assured, obstinate and cynical man. He is entirely satis-
fied in his own mind that he presents no risk whatsoever and is unable to accept that
his previous convictions for violence and his well-known boozing in prison should
be any cause for concern. He is obsessed with the notion that he is being victimized
by staff. This is a self-absorbed, arrogant man who refuses to cooperate with the prison
and then blames them for his failure to progress. (1120cf)
Despite the positive assessments on a violent offenders program, he had a tendency
to present as someone who was not willing to acknowledge that he had a problem
with his violence and therefore saw little need to apply himself to the program with
much enthusiasm. (1044cf)
Summary and Conclusions
This examination focuses on the cognitions of intimate partner murderers and is based on
the reports of various professionals included in the casefiles of 104 men convicted of mur-
dering an intimate partner. The results parallel and extend the findings of existing research
about intimate partner violence and explanations about how violent offenders view their
behavior. These results indicate that the majority of the men who murdered an intimate
partner had problems in intimate relationships and a history of serious, repeat violent
abuse of the woman they kill. The relationships were characterized by conflict, abuse, and
controlling behavior as well as jealousy and possessiveness in which men used violence to
enforce rigid standards based on their beliefs about relationships between intimate part-
ners. Although a few completely deny the murder and continue to do so even after being
found guilty and imprisoned, others justify and rationalize their behavior to avoid respon-
sibility for it. They deny agency and responsibility, often by placing blame elsewhere. For
some, this includes sad tales about adversity in childhood and/or adulthood, including
victimization by the system, such as police, courts, and prison. For others, the focus of
blame, and thus responsibility, is placed upon the woman victim. He sees her as at fault
because of her flaws as an intimate partner, mother and/or housekeeper. Accounts about
the flaws of the woman that justify the violent response of the man are, at base, reflections of
his beliefs about the appropriate behaviors for women and men in intimate relationships.
We would argue that these orientations are fundamental in the inability to accept res-
ponsibility for and feel remorse about the murder, and to empathize with the victim. As
such, this would appear to be an essential starting point for those professionals who work
with these offenders as they attempt to engage them in a process of personal change.
According to Duff (2002), a moral philosopher who has offered a critical account of restor-
ative justice, those who deal with offenders need to get the offender to attend to, to think
about the wrong that he committed (p. 99). Like Tavuchis (1991), he argues that interven-
tions with offenders must have a retributive element. The offender must look back to his
offense, accept responsibility for his actions, and enter the painful process that inevitability
follows if this is done in an authentic and meaningful fashion. Blame, criticism and cen-
sure must be burdensome and the offender must accept the process of being confronted
with his wrongdoing (Duff, 2002, p. 90).
These findings have implications for research relating to nonlethal abusers and intimate
partner murderers as well as for policies and practices relating to them. The evidence pre-
sented here points to the vital importance of including the study of violent men in the overall
examination of intimate partner violence. It also illustrates the utility of using qualitative
materials from formal documents, such as the casefiles used in this analysis. The specific
findings suggest that the beliefs, orientations, and cognitions of men who use violence
against a woman partner are of extreme importance in any effort to understand and alter
this behavior. The task is necessary, but difficult. It must be both retributive and reforma-
tive: Retributive in that the man must recognize and own his behavior and reformative in that
he must begin the process of personal change by renouncing the excusatory and exculpatory
accounts that he has used to justify his violence.
Acknowledgments
For facilitating this research, the authors wish to thank HM Prison Service (England), the Scottish
Prison Service, the staff in each of the unnamed prisons in which the research was conducted, and
the men and women who agreed to be interviewed. The authors also wish to acknowledge one of
the journal reviewers who offered helpful comments of an earlier draft of this article. This article
was completed during their stay at the School of Justice and Social Inquiry, Arizona State
University, United States where they are distinguished visiting professors.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the
publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or author-
ship of this article: The Murder in Britain Study was funded by a grant from the ESRC,
Economic and Social Research Council, UK.
Notes
1. The research team included Rebecca Emerson Dobash, Russell P. Dobash, Kate Cavanagh,
and Ruth Lewis.
2. The 3-year study was completed in 2000 and the majority of offenders were sentenced in the
1990s. At the time of data collection, the approximate numbers of men and women in prison
for murder in the separate jurisdictions was England/Wales: 3,000 men and 115 women, and
Scotland: 500 men and 10 women.
3. This is not to discount the possibility of an unsafe conviction, but we would argue that this
is very unlikely in cases of intimate partner murder.
References
Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill: Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10, 65-77.
Anderson, K. L., & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in mens
accounts of domestic violence. Gender & Society, 15, 358-380.
Ashworth, A., & Mitchell, B. (2000). Introduction. In A. Ashworth & B. Mitchell (Eds.),
Rethinking English homicide law (pp. 1-20). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (1997). Analyzing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.),
Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 45-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines &
J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 45-103). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Block, C. R., & Christakos, A. (1995). Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over 29 years.
Crime and Delinquency, 41, 496-526.
Bograd, M. (1988). How battered women and abusive men account for domestic violence:
Excuses, justifications, or explanations. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick,
& M. A. Straus (Eds.), Coping with family violence (pp. 60-77). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Borochowitz, D. Y., (2008). The taming of the shrew: Batterers constructions of their wives
narratives. Violence Against Women, 14, 1166-1180.
Bourgois, P. (1996). In search of respect: Selling crack in El Barrio. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C. R., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., &
Frye. V. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multi-site
case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 139-152.
Cavanagh, K., Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2007). The murder of children by fathers in the
context of child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 731-746.
Cavanagh, K., Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Lewis, R. (2001). Remedial work: Mens
strategic responses to their violence against intimate partners. Sociology, 35, 695-714.
Chagnon, N. A. (1983). Yanomamo: The fierce people (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Cicourel, A. (1968). The social organization of juvenile justice. New York: Wiley.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Dawson, R., & Gartner, R. (1998). Differences in the characteristics of intimate femicides: The
role of relationship state and relationship status. Homicide Studies, 2, 378-399.
Descola, P. (1996). The spears of twilight: Life and death in the Amazon jungle (J. Lloyd,
Trans.). Glasgow, UK: HarperCollins.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1984). The nature and antecedents of violent events. British
Journal of Criminology, 24, 269-288.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R.P. (1998). Violent men and violent contexts. In R. E. Dobash &
R. P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking violence against women (pp. 141-168). Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2003). Violence in intimate relationships. In W. Heitmeyer &
J. Hagan (Eds.), International handbook of violence research (pp. 737-752). London, UK:
Kluwer.
Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Cavanagh, K. (2009). Out of the blue: Men who murder an
intimate partner. Feminist Criminology, 4,.194-225.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R., (1998). Separate and intersecting
realities: A comparison of mens and womens accounts of violence against women. Violence
Against Women, 4, 383-414.
Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2000). Changing violent men. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dobash, R. E, Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2004). Not an ordinary killerjust
an ordinary guy: When men murder an intimate woman partner. Violence Against Women,
10, 577-605.
Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Lethal and non-lethal
violence against an intimate female partner: Comparing male murderers with non-lethal
abusers. Violence Against Women, 13, 329-353.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., Smith, D., & Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Onset of
offending and lifecourse of men convicted of murder. Homicide Studies, 11, 243-271.
Duff, A. (2002). Restorative punishment and punitive restoration. In I. Walgrave (Ed.), Restor-
ative justice and the law (pp. 82-100). London, UK: Willan.
Dutton, M. (1996). Battered womens strategic responses to violence: The role of context.
In J. Edleson & Z. Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interventions with battered women and their
families (pp. 105-124), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic
Books.
Gondolf, E. W. (1987). Changing men who batter: A developmental model of integrated inter-
ventions. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 345-369.
Hyden, M. (1994). Woman battering as a marital act: The construction of a violent marriage.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lamnek, S. (2003). Individual violence justification strategies. In W. Heitmeyer & J. Hagan
(Eds.), International handbook of violence research (pp. 1113-1127). London, UK: Kluwer.
Lewis, R., Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Cavanagh, K. (2003). Researching homicide: Method-
ological issues in the exploration of lethal violence. In R. Lee & E. Stanko (Eds.), Research-
ing violence: Essays on methodology and measurement (pp. 49-65). London, UK: Routledge.
Martin, D. (1976). Battered wives. San Francisco, CA: Glide.
Miller, F. A., & Alvarado, K. (2005). Incorporating documents into qualitative nursing research.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37, 348-353.
Morran, D., & Wilson, M. (1997). Men who are violent to women: A groupwork practice man-
ual. Lyme Regis, UK: Russell House.
Parliamentary Select Committee on Violence in Marriage. (1975). Report from the Select Com-
mittee on Violence in Marriage together with the proceedings of the Committee (Vol. 2.
Session 1974-1975). London, UK: HMSO.
Parole Board. (2009). Follow link: Applying for parole, How do I apply for parole, My dossier.
Retrieved from http://www.paroleboard .gov.uk/prisoners
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Power and control: Tactics of men who batter. New York:
Springer.
Polk, K. (1994). When men kill: Scenarios of masculine violence. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Polk, K., & Ranson, D. (1991). The role of gender in intimate homicide. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Criminology, 24, 15-24.
Prior, L. (2003). Using documents in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ptacek, J. (1988). Why do men batter their wives? In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist
perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 29-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Richards, L. (2006). Handling qualitative data: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Scott, M., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
Serran, G., & Firestone, P. (2004). Intimate partner homicide: A review of male proprietariness
and the self-defense theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 1-15.
Spierenburg, P. (Ed.). (1998). Men and violence: Gender, honor and rituals in modern Europe
and America. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Sykes, D., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American
Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Toch, H. (1969). Violent men. Chicago: Aldine.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1978). Battered women: Issues of public policy. Washington,
DC: Author.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims,
8, 3-16.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1998). Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives and the evolution-
ary psychology of male sexual proprietariness. In R. E. Dobash & R. P. Dobash (Eds.),
Rethinking violence against women (pp. 199-230). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bios
R. Emerson Dobash is emeritus professor of social research, School of Law, University of
Manchester, UK, and distinguished visiting professor, School of Justice and Social Inquiry,
Arizona State University, USA. She has published numerous books and articles on violence
against women and male abusers and was coprincipal investigator of the Murder in Britain Study
(funded by ESRC). She is currently working on further delineations of intimate partner murder.
Russell P. Dobash is emeritus professor of criminology, School of Law, University of
Manchester, UK, and distinguished visiting professor, School of Justice and Social Inquiry,
Arizona State University, USA. He has published widely in the area of violence against women
and violent men, and was coprincipal investigator of the ESRC-funded Murder in Britain Study.
He is currently working on male-on-male murder and the sexual murder of women.

Men Killing Women

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Men Killing Women

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://vaw.sagepub.

http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

at AMS/Girona Library on January 25, 2011 vaw.sagepub.com Downloaded from

S-ar putea să vă placă și