Severe versus less severe intimate partner violence: Aggressors and victims

Abstract

In order to study the differences between severe intimate partner violence (S-IPV) and less severe intimate partner violence (LS-IPV), reports by 16,385 women who had suffered some type of abuse in 2016 and 2017 were analysed by means of the Police Risk Assessment Questionnaire. Chi-square tests indicate that S-IPV aggressors present criminological features to a significantly greater extent and are more likely to perpetrate various types of violence against their partners (for example, sexual aggression, death threats, degrading treatment, and controlling behaviour). Their behaviours seem to depend more on their beliefs and attitudes than on any possible psychopathological disturbance. Likewise, the victims of S-IPV are significantly more likely to report substance abuse, isolation from their environment, and vulnerability due to a mental disorder or disability; furthermore, they are less likely to report their abusers and continue with the judicial process. Therefore, efforts must be focused on fighting isolation, guaranteeing access to assistance and support services, and protecting victims during the processing of the criminal investigation. Professionals must also be alert to conflicts between partners linked to emotional breakdown and apply the relevant risk-management strategies, especially in cases with a history of mistreatment of women and an increase in violence severity.

Intimate Partner Abuse and Homicide During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Situational Action Theory Analysis

“…Stronger motivations may be associated with perceiving more severe forms of IPA as acceptable or controls being insufficient to counter them. This is consistent with the observation that acute triggering events are implicated in IPA escalating into IPH (Aguilar Ruiz et al, 2023; Campbell et al, 2007; Cunha & Goncalves, 2016; Dugan et al, 2003). Given such events may have been less likely during stay-at-home restrictions, and it was less likely the activity fields of partners who did separate would converge, exposing ex-partners to relevant opportunities and frictions, a decrease in IPH might be predicted, although across the entire pandemic period rates may have remained stable as restrictions and consequently activity fields fluctuated.…”

“…One factor that consistently distinguishes IPH is the perpetrator’s willingness to use lethal force (e.g., strangulation) or access to a deadly weapon (especially a firearm) (Campbell et al, 2007; Cunha & Goncalves, 2016; Matias et al, 2020; Spencer & Stith, 2020). Several studies also identify acute events triggering escalation of IPA to IPH, for example, the ending of the relationship or a partner’s infidelity (Aebi et al, 2021; Aguilar Ruiz et al, 2023; Cunha & Goncalves, 2016; Sheehan et al, 2015). These features of IPH will be considered in relation to the impact of stay-at-home restrictions on intimate partner dynamics.…”

“…IPH is not generally a practical means of achieving desired goals such as making one’s partner pay for transgressions or behave as one would like; therefore, only under extreme circumstances, such as the gravest transgressions, is it likely a person would see their partner as an attractive target for IPH. IPH would not be an effective means of controlling one’s partner, for example, except when it (re)asserts control over a critical threat to the relationship, such as a partner leaving or being unfaithful, events that have been linked to IPH and were less likely to occur during stay-at-home restrictions (Aguilar Ruiz et al, 2023; Campbell et al, 2007; Dugan et al, 2003; Sheehan et al, 2015).…”