Intimate partner violence: gender issues and the adjudication of homicide and other cases

Hamel, John

doi:10.1108/jcrpp-01-2018-0008

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, police officers evaluated victim injury as much more severe in IPV scenarios depicting male-to-female violence than female-to-male violence (Russell & Sturgeon, 2019). Such a perception aligns with findings from actual cases that men inflict a greater number of injuries, and women comprise a majority of victims of IPV-related homicides (Hamel, 2018; Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2007). However, research highlights the reality of women as primary aggressors or “co-abusers” in some heterosexual IPV incidences, with women more likely to use a weapon (Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2007; Renauer & Henning, 2005).…”

Section: Perceptions Of Ipvsupporting

confidence: 78%

Gender Role Attitudes and Prosecutorial Decision-Making in a Case of Intimate Partner Violence

MacNeil,

Cox,

Daquin

et al. 2023

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a pervasive public health crisis that impacts individuals across the gender spectrum. Traditionally, IPV is conceptualized through a gendered lens, with men as the perpetrators and women as the victims. The current study explored the association between perpetrator/victim sex, prosecutor gender role attitudes, and prosecutorial decision-making in a case of alleged IPV. We hypothesized that prosecutors with more traditional gender role attitudes would be more lenient, and this effect to be exacerbated in cases involving a female perpetrator. Criminal prosecutors across the United States ( N = 94) completed the Male Role Norms Inventory—Revised and read case materials describing the alleged IPV between a heterosexual couple (e.g., arrest report, medical records). The victim/perpetrator sex was manipulated to involve either a female- (male victim) or male- (female victim) perpetrated IPV case. Results indicate that gender role attitudes were not associated with prosecutorial decision-making. However, prosecutors perceived the violence as more serious and the perpetrator as more likely to reoffend when the perpetrator was male; further, they attributed more blame to the female victim. An interaction between perpetrator sex and prosecutor gender role attitudes indicates those with more traditional beliefs were more likely to blame the female (rather than male) victim. These data suggest extralegal factors related to the perpetrator (i.e., perpetrator sex), rather than prosecutor individual differences (i.e., gender role attitudes), are associated with prosecutor discretionary decision-making. In tandem with real-world disparities in the prosecution of IPV based on perpetrator sex, the current research stresses the importance of exploring a diversity of factors that account for these observed differences.

show abstract

Section: Perceptions Of Ipvsupporting

confidence: 78%

Gender Role Attitudes and Prosecutorial Decision-Making in a Case of Intimate Partner Violence

MacNeil,

Cox,

Daquin

et al. 2023

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although IPV constitutes any behavior by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual, and/or psychological harm, IPV literature is predominantly focused on physical abuse. As women in heterosexual intimate relationships are more likely to be severely injured by physical IPV than their male counterparts (Hamel, 2018;Lawrence et al, 2012), IPV is overwhelmingly conceptualized as a maleperpetrated crime. It therefore follows that male defendants accused of perpetrating IPV are perceived to be more guilty and are sentenced more frequently and severely than female defendants accused of comparable offenses (Henning & Feder, 2005;Stanziani et al, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lady Injustice: The Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism in a Mock Case of Intimate Partner Homicide

Cutroni

Anderson

2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extra-legal biases have an undue effect on legal proceedings, warranting explorations of gender bias in the courtroom to promote and maintain just verdicts. We used an experimentally manipulated mock court transcript of an intimate partner homicide, in which the defendant has been victimized by intimate partner violence. We explore whether hostile and benevolent sexism moderate the decisions of mock jurors. Men and women mock jurors ( N = 220) responded to the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory before being randomly allocated to read a transcript of either a female or male defendant, and then responding to five sentence outcome variables. Hostile and benevolent sexism moderated several sentencing outcome variables, across a range of male and female juror and defendant gender combinations, suggesting these forms of sexism are consequential in driving forensic gender biases. This study also contributes to the literature suggesting that male victims of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence are systemically disadvantaged in courtroom processes.

show abstract

“…For example, police officers evaluated victim injury as much more severe in IPV scenarios depicting male-to-female violence than female-to-male violence (Russell & Sturgeon, 2019). Such a perception aligns with findings from actual cases that men inflict a greater number of injuries, and women comprise a majority of victims of IPV-related homicides (Hamel, 2018;Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2007). However, research highlights the reality of women as primary aggressors or "co-abusers" in some heterosexual IPV incidences, with women more likely to use a weapon (Kingsnorth & McIntosh, 2007;.…”

Section: Perceptions Of Ipvmentioning

confidence: 58%

Gender role attitudes and prosecutorial decision making in a case of intimate partner violence

MacNeil,

Cox,

Daquin

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a pervasive public health crisis that impacts individuals across the gender spectrum. Traditionally, IPV is conceptualized through a gendered lens, with men as the perpetrators and women as the victims. The current study explored the association between perpetrator/victim sex, prosecutor gender role attitudes, and prosecutorial decision-making in a case of alleged IPV. We hypothesized prosecutors with more traditional gender role attitudes would be more lenient, and this effect to be exacerbated in cases involving a female perpetrator. Criminal prosecutors across the U.S. (N = 94) completed the Male Role Norms Inventory- Revised and read case materials describing the alleged IPV between a heterosexual couple (e.g., arrest report, medical records). The victim/perpetrator sex was manipulated to involve either a female- (male victim) or male- (female victim) perpetrated IPV case. Results indicate gender role attitudes were not associated with prosecutorial decision-making. However, prosecutors perceived the violence as more serious and the perpetrator as more likely to reoffend when the perpetrator was male; further, they attributed more blame to the female victim. An interaction between perpetrator sex and prosecutor gender role attitudes indicates those with more traditional beliefs were more likely to blame the female (rather than male) victim. These data suggest extralegal factors related to the perpetrator (i.e., perpetrator sex), rather than prosecutor individual differences (i.e., gender role attitudes), are associated with prosecutor discretionary decision-making. In tandem with real-world disparities in the prosecution of IPV based on perpetrator sex, the current research stresses the importance of exploring a diversity of factors that account for these observed differences.

show abstract

Intimate partner violence: gender issues and the adjudication of homicide and other cases

Cited by 9 publications

References 70 publications

Gender Role Attitudes and Prosecutorial Decision-Making in a Case of Intimate Partner Violence

Gender Role Attitudes and Prosecutorial Decision-Making in a Case of Intimate Partner Violence

Lady Injustice: The Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism in a Mock Case of Intimate Partner Homicide

Gender role attitudes and prosecutorial decision making in a case of intimate partner violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About