“I killed her, but I never laid a finger on her” — A phenomenological difference between wife-killing and wife-battering

Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

“I killed her, but I never laid a finger on her” — A phenomenological difference between wife-killing and wife-battering Ruhama Goussinsky ⁎, Dalit Yassour-Borochowitz Dept. of Human Services, Emek Yezreel College, Afula, 19300, Israel

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 13 July 2011 Received in revised form 3 July 2012 Accepted 6 July 2012 Available online 18 August 2012 Keywords: Violence against women Intimate partner femicide Qualitative research

a b s t r a c t Based on in-depth interviews conducted in Israel with 18 violent men and 18 men convicted of murdering their female partners, the study examines the validity of the concept which holds that, in terms of motive and emotional dynamics, female partner homicide (“femicide”) is not discrete from other manifestations of violence against a female partner. Findings show that whereas non-lethal violence usually takes place spontaneously, and under diverse circumstances for the purpose of achieving control over the woman, the circumstances surrounding murder are far more distinctive; and in the majority of cases lethal violence is not a spontaneous, but rather a planned and premeditated act motivated by deep despair, which leads to the desire to obliterate another person, even at the price of self-destruction. We suggest that homicide of an intimate female partner is a discrete phenomenon, which differs from non-lethal violence against women in terms of the emotions that trigger it, the circumstances that lead up to it, and the state of mind that characterizes it. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2. 3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical background . . . . . . . . . Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Samples and procedures . . . . . . 3.2. Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Background and motive . . . . . . 4.2. Physical violence in the relationship 4.3. Self-control, intent and planning . . 5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction Twenty-five years of research in the domain of intimate partner homicide has consistently shown that the dynamics surrounding the phenomenon of wife-killing often revolve around the woman's threatening to, or actually separating from, a marital or relationship ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 4 6380649. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Goussinsky), [email protected] (D. Yassour-Borochowitz). 1359-1789/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.07.009

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

553 554 555 555 556 557 557 558 559 560 562 562 563 562 563

partner (Allen, 1990; Browne, Williams, & Dutton, 1999; Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007; Crawford & Gartner, 1992; Mahoney, 1991; Polk & Ranson, 1991). Male sexual jealousy and male sexual proprietariness are a frequently cited cause of intimate femicide across cultures (Baker, Gregware, & Cassidy, 1999; Polk, 1994; Wilson & Daly, 1998; Wilson, Daly, & Daniele, 1995). Yet, these rationales, which place the entire onus on the need for control and on male sexual proprietariness, do not provide any explanation for the fact that in most of these cases the woman's intention of leaving constitutes an impetus for murder.

554

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

A further central premise shared by the majority of explanations is that lethal violence is not discrete from other manifestations of violence against women. The prevailing view is that murder is the culmination and climax of the history of violence that preceded it, but is not in itself a discrete phenomenon (e.g., Stark & Flitcraft, 1996; Wilson & Daly, 1993, 1998; Wilson, Daly, & Wright, 1993). Much has been done to map the phenomenon of intimate partner homicide, examine the trends and changes in murder rates over the years, and identify the demographic and social predictors of the phenomenon and its risk factors (Avakame, 1998; Browne et al., 1999; Campbell et al., 2007; Frye & Wilt, 2001; Madkour, Martin, Halpern, & Schoenbach, 2010). Yet, little has been done to understand the underlying motivation, circumstances, emotions, and dynamics related to the murder of female partners. Whereas questions of “how much”, “how”, “when” and “by whom” have been investigated and answered, the questions of “why”, and “under what circumstances” remain relatively unanswered. More specifically, the question of what makes the female partner's intention to leave especially provoking for some individuals, has not been sufficiently addressed (Browne et al., 1999). A view of murder as the most extreme – but not necessarily as a discrete – form of violence can explain the paucity of dedicated research aimed at understanding the unique dynamics of female partner homicide. Conceptualizing it as the ultimate manifestation of violence, and not as a separate phenomenon, obviates the need for further investigation of motives, emotions, and circumstances characterizing what is merely part of a broader phenomenon. The purpose of the present study is to examine the validity of the concept which holds that, in terms of motive and emotional dynamics, lethal violence is not discrete from other manifestations of violence against women. 2. Theoretical background The most common type of domestic homicide is that of the woman murdered by her male partner. Indeed, the woman is more often at risk than the man. In the majority of countries throughout the world, the number of women murdered by their male partners is two to five times greater than the number of men murdered by their female partner (e.g., Browne & Williams, 1993; Dobash & Dobash, 1998; Kaighobadi, Shackelford, & Goetz, 2009). Campbell et al. (2007) reported that in the United States, women are nine times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than by a stranger, and there are approximately four to five women killed by an intimate partner for every male killed by an intimate partner. In cases of murder–suicide, the murderer is almost invariably (97% of cases) the man (Stark & Flitcraft, 1996). The murder of female partners is not restricted to married life; over the years, the data indicate a sharp rise in the number of unmarried women murdered by their male partners (Browne et al., 1999; Fox & Zawitz, 2004). The differences between men and women are not only in the degree of risk of being murdered, but also in motive. Whereas in most cases, murder of men by their female partner is motivated by self-defense (Campbell, 1992; Campbell et al., 2007; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Koss et al., 1994), the most notable motives for the murder of women is the female's intention to withdraw from the relationship, followed by suspicion of sexual infidelity (e.g., Allen, 1990; Campbell et al., 2007; Crawford & Gartner, 1992; Garcia, Soria, & Hurwitz, 2007; Mahoney, 1991; Polk & Ranson, 1991; Websdale, 1999). In a study on women who survived an attempted homicide, Nicolaidis et al. (2003) reported that in 73% of the cases, the male partner attempted femicide when the woman threatened to leave the relationship. This finding, which constitutes the core of knowledge about the background to intimate partner homicide of women, was presented in one of the early studies in this field (Bernard, Vern, & Newman, 1982), and was supported also

in later research conducted in various states in the U.S., Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Israel (Ben-Ze'ev & Goussinsky, 2008; Browne et al., 1999; Dawson & Gartner, 1998; Goetting, 1995; Wilson & Daly, 1993). Further, it has been found that the period immediately following the separation is the most dangerous: between 50% and 70% of murders took place when the couple was living apart, a large proportion of them during the first three months following the separation, after all of the man's attempts to bring the woman back to him had failed. The risk of the woman being murdered soon after the separation is two to four times higher than the risk of being murdered when they are cohabiting (Wilson & Daly, 1993; Wilson, Johnson, & Daly, 1995). In Israel, as in other countries, the most prevalent type of domestic murder is of women by their male partners. According to Israeli Police data, 146 women were murdered by their male partners between 1994 and 2004 — an average of 14 women each year. Although the data indicate a decrease from 2005 to 2009 (during which an average of 11 women each year were murdered by their male partners), in 2010 the number increased. Thus, for example, according to Israel Police data published in March 2011 (Bashan, 2011), whereas 11 women were murdered by their male partners in 2008, and 8 in 2009, in 2010 the number rose to 18. In January 2011 alone, four women were murdered by their male partners. Data on recent years also indicate an increase in the number of murdered women in the Arab and Ethiopian sectors. The data also show that in the majority of these cases, the murdered woman was not previously known to the police and social services. As for intimate violence against women, police and welfare officials estimate that there are approximately 200,000 battered women in Israel, and this is the estimated number in the past decade, despite growth of the population. In most cases, battered women do not approach the public services (police, medical, and social services) and even a smaller number file a complaint in family courts (Nakkar, 2007). As noted above, common to the various theories propounded for understanding wife-killing is the notion that the roots of male violence against female partner, including lethal violence, are embedded in male sexual proprietariness, aimed at controlling the woman's behavior through tactics of intimidation, namely, physical assault and threats. According to one of the predominant approaches to understanding spousal homicide, The Evolutionary Psychology of Male Sexual Proprietariness (Wilson & Daly, 1998; Wilson et al., 1993), male sexual proprietariness is claimed to be an evolutionary product and therefore has a cross-cultural presence, which expresses an all-encompassing approach that exceeds the boundaries of sexual jealousy as it reflects the man's assumption of the right and authority to control what he perceives as his. Violence against female partner, in all its forms, including lethal violence, is seen as a result of the attempt to limit female independence, by those perceiving themselves as entitled to control her life (e.g., Baker et al., 1999; Goetting, 1995; Kaighobadi et al., 2009; Polk, 1994; Shackelford, Buss, & Peters, 2000). The aim of male possessiveness, however, is control and not obliteration. Killing, therefore, presents a challenge to the evolutionary psychological premise that motives and emotions are organized in such a way as to promote the perpetrator's interests. “Moreover, if the utility of the motivational processes underlying violence against wives resides in proprietary control, killing seems all the more paradoxical” (Wilson & Daly, 1998, pp. 206–207). The paradox lies in the fact that the adaptive function of coercion and control is not achieved by means of killing one's wife. Therefore, the death of the woman is posited to be an unintended outcome of violence, which is used to control and intimidate, but not to kill. Violence, in this view, is a dangerous game, prone to slippage. However, “if killing an intimate partner is a slip-up or accident as argued by Daly and Wilson, why are so many intimate femicides apparently

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

premeditated”? (Goetz, Shackelford, Romero, Kaighobadi, & Miner, 2008, p. 483). While it has been suggested (Buss, 2005; Buss & Duntley, 2003) that under certain circumstances, partner homicides by men might be the designed outcome, the two competing hypotheses have not yet been tested (Goetz et al., 2008). Intimate female partner homicide has been studied and conceptualized as a part of the phenomenon of violence against women. The murder is often presented as the climax of a history of violence, as the end of a path marked by manifestations of coercion, threats, and physical violence, initiated by the man against the woman (Koss et al., 1994; Stark & Flitcraft, 1996; Wilson & Daly, 1998). In many cases, physical violence indeed precedes murder. In fact, according to Campbell et al. (2007), male violence against the female partner constitutes the most salient risk factor of homicide, whereby intimate violence precedes approximately 65% to 70% of cases in which the female partner is killed. Many studies on female homicide have indeed documented a history of violence, coercion, harassment, stalking, psychological aggression, threats, and other manifestations of aggression by some of the men who murdered their female partners (e.g., Ben-Ze'ev & Goussinsky, 2008; Campbell, 1992; Crawford & Gartner, 1992; McFarlane et al., 1999; Nicolaidis et al., 2003; Stout, 1993). Furthermore, there are considerable parallels between homicidal and violent men: male identity interpreted in terms of power and control; emotional dependency on the woman; fear of rejection; fluctuations between love and anger; the perception of loss of power in the relationship; all of these have been well-established in the literature as characteristics of violent relationships (see review by Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997) and were also identified in individuals who murdered their female partners (Ben-Ze'ev & Goussinsky, 2008). Nevertheless, the existence of these common aspects does not attest to the similarities of underlying motivation, state of mind, emotional dynamics and objective. On the contrary, there are also important indications that it is a unique phenomenon that merits special attention: (a) Although murder by the male partner is rarely an isolated act of violence, there can be no doubt that the majority of cases of domestic violence will not end in murder. Furthermore, even the cases in which the woman either intends on leaving or actually does leave the violent man (one of the accepted “warning signals” of the risk of murder) only rarely end in the woman's murder, since many battered women do leave their abusive partners (Campbell & Soeken, 1999; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997), and the majority of these women are not murdered. (b) The assumption that the woman's death is an unintentional outcome of violence that “inadvertently” went out of control is not only inconsistent with the overkill phenomenon in terms of the weapons used and the manner in which the murder was committed (Ben-Ze'ev & Goussinsky, 2008; Browne et al., 1999; Crawford & Gartner, 1992), but it also begs the question of how the man managed to avoid crossing the line of his “normal” violence in incidents that preceded the woman's intention of leaving. It has long been established that violence against female partners seeks to obliterate every vestige of female independence and autonomy and serves in the fight against everything perceived as a threat to male control (Counts, Brown, & Campbell, 1992; Dobash & Dobash, 1998; Koss et al., 1994; Stark & Flitcraft, 1996; Yassour-Borochowitz, 2003). Any number of behaviors by the woman can be perceived as a declaration of independence and an undermining of the man's control and thus bring about violence in their wake. However, the singular aspect that in most cases characterizes the motivation for lethal violence is the threat of abandonment. If a murder of a female

555

partner is the act of “a hand that slipped,” how is that the same hand manages to avoid slipping in all other circumstances except in response to one specific threat? It should be borne in mind that the anticipated social punishment for taking another's life represents a tremendous price not only for the victim, but also for the murderer, the loss of almost everything except for life itself. Understanding murder as an act intended to cause the death of the female partner, an action performed despite its high price and presumably after having assessed the likely personal toll, poses the question of the person's psychological state. Furthermore, the fact that the murder is distinguished from other acts of domestic violence by its association with the woman's intention to leave is not marginal; rather, it is significant for the following reasons: (a) It places the act in a specific context of loss, and the significant role that this loss plays in the man's experience merits a separate line of investigation. (b) It suggests that femicide is not an instance of “inadvertently” uncontrolled violence, but a purposeful act intended to cause the woman's death. (c) It suggests that the state of mind leading up to the murderous act is likely to be different from that leading to non-lethal violence. On the continuum of possible manifestations of violence, spousal homicide is undoubtedly the most extreme. Nonetheless, there is sufficient reason to doubt the assumption that female partner homicide and non-lethal violence reflect the same motivation, and are characterized by the same risk factors and share the same state of mind and emotional dynamics. Based on a qualitative study conducted among men who murdered their female partners, and violent men, our objective in the present study is to examine (a) the motivation underlying lethal and non-lethal violence, (b) the place of physical violence in relationships, and (c) the question of intent and control. 3. Method This study relied on data gathered from two samples: a sample of men who were physically violent toward their female partners (hereafter as “Sample 1”) and a sample of men convicted of murdering their female partners or of attempted murder (hereafter as “Sample 2”). Both samples were gathered as part of more extensive studies examining the emotional world of men who abuse their partners and the meaning ascribed to spousal homicide from the point of view of men who murdered their female partner. To achieve the objectives of the study, a qualitative approach was used. This was deemed the most suitable method, as it allowed insight into people's perceptions, as well as the retrieval of detailed information about the way these two groups of men (i.e., men who were physically violent and men who murdered their female partner) interpret their motives, state of mind, emotions and behaviors. Data collection utilized in-depth interviews and the phenomenological method was used to analyze the interview data. The phenomenological approach is directed toward analyzing and understanding a phenomenon from the perspective of the people who experience it and facilitates an exploration of the meaning that participants attribute to their experiences and cognitions (Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). 3.1. Samples and procedures The main type of sampling employed in phenomenological research is purposive. Purposive sampling refers to the deliberate selection of informants based on the purposes of research and on

556

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

predetermined criteria relating to the extent to which the selected subjects could contribute to the study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The sample size cannot be predetermined, since the requirement is to gather information to the point termed theoretical saturation, i.e., the point at which no new information is revealed (Creswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Morse, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Sample 1 consisted of 18 men who were physically violent toward their female partners. Recruitment of participants was conducted in two ways. The first was via domestic violence centers. First, the therapists were approached by the researcher and then contact was established with the men who gave their consent. The second route was by use of the “snowball” method (i.e., men who participated in the study referred the researcher to other men whom they knew to be violent toward their female partners). All participants were given an explanation of the study, were assured of anonymity and confidentiality, and signed a consent form for participating in the study. The interviewees were Jewish men between the ages of 25 and 57. At the time the study was conducted, 11 were married (some for the second time) and seven were separated (including three who were divorced; see Appendix A). All participants were self evidently violent toward their female partners, although the extent and frequency of the violence were different among them according to CTS2-R definitions (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Since we received only the names and contact phones of the men who agreed to participate in the study, there is no way on following those who chose not to participate. Sample 2 comprised 18 men convicted of murdering their female partners (15) or of attempted murder (3), who at the time of the study were serving their sentence in Israeli prisons. According to Israeli Prison Service data, the number of inmates serving sentences for the murder (or attempted murder) of their female partners at the time was nearly 50. Recruitment of the participants was contingent on the explicit, signed consent of the inmates to participate in the study. By the end of the recruitment process, 18 inmates had given their consent to participate in the study and signed a declaration to that effect. The procedure for recruiting participants and obtaining informed consent was done by the Israeli Prison Services; thus we have no information about those who chose not to participate. Half of the men interviewed (9) had not been married to the woman they murdered, eight were married to the woman at the time of the murder, and one murdered his divorced wife. It should be noted here that only three of the men interviewed were cohabiting with their female partner at the time of the murder. In most cases, the couple was not cohabiting during the period preceding the murder. Twelve had been sentenced to life imprisonment and six to terms of between 9 and 14 years. The period of imprisonment already served at the time the interview was conducted ranged from two to fifteen years (see Appendix B). Data were gathered by means of in-depth semi-structured interviews based on the use of an interview guide. An interview guide in a phenomenological study is intended to ensure coverage of the main topics of the study derived from the research objectives. Additionally, the interview included a short socio-demographic questionnaire. The interview guide developed for each of the groups encompassed a number of key subjects and was constructed such that every key subject contains a number of key questions, intended to outline a topic and acquire as detailed and as rich a response as possible on that subject (Spradley, 1979). The types of questions most frequently used were: key questions, exploratory questions, and follow up questions (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Key questions are those which relate to the predetermined content fields as presented in the goals of the study (e.g., the development of the relationship with the female partner, the motivation behind the violent behavior or murder, the sequence of events on the day of the murder).

The exploratory questions are intended to garner a more comprehensive yet in-depth understanding of details. Specifically, they aim to fill in any gaps in the description (e.g., “Where exactly did this happen?”); clarify concepts (e.g., “What does it mean to ‘feel hopeless’? What kind of thoughts went through your mind?”); and obtain examples for general statements (e.g., in reaction to the interviewee's claim that he had outbursts of anger: “Tell me about them. Could you give me an example?”). Follow up questions aim to follow up on previously provided information in order to confront the interviewee with the interviewer's interpretation of his words (e.g., “So, what you are saying is that you experienced fear?”). These questions, which serve to confirm the meaning of the interviewee's words, also enable the interviewer and interviewee to work together to clarify the interviewee's viewpoint. One of the prominent characteristics of this type of interview is that it facilitates flexibility in the interview structure, in terms of the order of topics addressed and the precise wording of the questions — these variables can be modified as the interview progresses, taking into account the responses of the interviewee and the direction the interview takes (Kvale, 1996; Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). All participants were given an explanation about the project and were required to sign an informed consent form. The interviews lasted from 2 to 5 h. They took place in a private setting. For the most part, the interviews with the violent men took place in the interviewees' homes, while the interviews with those convicted of murder of their partner took place in rooms set aside for this purpose by the directors of social work in various prisons. All interviews were conducted by the authors. They were recorded, transcribed by a specialized transcription company and analyzed by the authors. 3.2. Data analysis Qualitative content analysis is a research method attempt to identify core consistencies and meanings through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Patton, 2002). In qualitative analysis, the process of constructing categories entails separating and reconnecting: the text is separated into units, which are then reassembled, using the constant comparative method, into significant units (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). The analysis of the data was carried out in stages. First, all interview transcriptions were read a number of times in order to form an impression of the personal story of each interviewee. In addition to gaining a comprehensive view of each person's story, the repeated reading of the interview transcripts provides a deeper acquaintance with the personal experience of each interviewee and initial access to the central issues that emerge through the interview. In the next stage, the significant units relevant to the aims of the study were identified and isolated. A significant unit is any expression (sentence or phrase) capable of standing on its own as an understandable and significant unit of analysis (Tesch, 1990). In this process, there is a shift from the descriptive to the conceptual, i.e., excerpts from the transcripts are labeled according to the significant unit to which they pertain (e.g., “the significance of the separation from the female partner”). The next stage is the creation of categories through the use of open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The process entails a comparison that reviews the similarities and distinctions between the various significant units, their conceptualization and classification into categories and subcategories. At this stage, the significant units with shared components and concepts are grouped together at a higher level of abstraction and conceptualization. The process is applied individually to every interviewee and, then categories are

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

assembled so as to form an individual narrative description for every interviewee. Then, the creation of cross-sectional categories organized according to themes (i.e., subjects that share a content, thematic or structural nucleus). The analysis and categorization of the data were first conducted for each study separately, for the broader, more extensive studies that examined the emotional world of men who abuse their partners and the meanings ascribed to spousal homicide from the point of view of men who murdered their female partner. For the sake of the present study, the data were re-analyzed by the authors. Only themes and quotes that were identified, separately, by each of the authors and were agreed upon, were included.

557

…After we separated, one day she told me that's it, she can't stand it any longer, she can't stand me any longer. It was a process that went on and on … All the time, fewer and fewer meetings, and all we did when we met was quarrel, until she told me she'd had enough. I was absolutely devastated. I felt like it was my air, the only thing holding me together. I expected that this was what would happen, but I wasn't prepared for it, I wasn't prepared to accept it under any circumstances. And certainly not in the state I was in. What state were you in? I felt like I wasn't a person, that without her, I don't exist, that there was nothing like myself. I'm nothing …

4. Results We will focus on three themes that emerged from the interviews: (1) the motive for the violence/murder; (2) the function of violence in the relationship; and (3) the question of control, intent and planning. Table 1 documents the descriptions of the three themes and provides brief illustrations. 4.1. Background and motive One of the main differences between the violent men and those who murdered their female partners revolves around the circumstances leading up to the act. Whereas the majority (75%) of murder cases examined in the study occurred against a backdrop of the woman's intention to leave the man and end their relationship, physical violence typically occurred in situations in which the man's feeling of control over the woman was undermined. The man's violence was driven by his desire to regain control, in the hope that by means of violence he would be able to educate the woman and make her “toe the line”. In this context, we shall now present accounts provided by the men who murdered their female partners followed by those of the violent men. One of the interviewees presented the background to the murder and the significance for him of the woman's intention of leaving as follows: The moment she wanted to end the relationship I felt like the air was being taken away from me. I was so dependent that I just couldn't live without her. That's how I felt. A mistaken and incorrect feeling, but…

The air metaphor he uses emphasizes the nature of separation as the end of life, the end of existence and the end of a familiar identity. A cognitional reality such as the one described above embodies the woman not only as the most important thing in the man's world, but the only thing in his world. Under these circumstances the expected separation is inconceivable. It is a notion that, as far as he is concerned, cannot be allowed to occur, for it amounts to death. His lack of “preparedness” for separation has a dual meaning: the first meaning refers to lack of mental preparation, which seems to contradict his description of her becoming increasingly distant and his understanding that a separation was imminent, as the relationship had been waning. The other meaning of “wasn't prepared” is non-acceptance. He is not prepared to accept the possibility of separation. He cannot allow her to leave. Another interviewee described the meaning of loss as follows: …the only good thing in my life – with two ways of interpreting it: the only thing I felt I had control over or the only thing I felt was stable in my life – was this relationship… It made me feel good; it gave me a feeling of self-confidence, a sense of worth. Unfortunately I couldn't find it in any other place and I needed to find it in myself, in my work, in my aims. And for me, that's the point — everything was channeled into her, I put everything onto her, and when something didn't work, I got angry with her. I wasn't angry with myself. “…I never felt such a deep lack of confidence that I really needed… I was addicted to the woman's attention.”

Table 1 General themes and brief illustrations. Themes Background and motive

Description

Illustration Physical violence in the relationship

Description

Illustration

Self-control, intent and planning

Description Illustration

Men convicted of murdering their female partners

Men who were physically violent toward their female partners

The majority (75%) of murder cases examined in the study occurred against a backdrop of the woman's intention to leave the man and end their relationship. “And when she decided that she didn't want to be part of me anymore, I had nothing left.” Violence against women is perceived as an act of weakness, shameful behavior that besmirches the honor of the man inflicting it. Some of the murderers, those who previously had never used physical violence against their female partners, do not consider themselves in the category of “violent men”. “There was no violence before, no… the women I was involved with would never have accepted or stood for that kind of behavior.” Female partner homicide, in most cases, was preplanned and matured gradually, long in advance. “I knew it was going to happen. I told her there would be a disaster here, I'll either take myself or I'll take you.”

Non-lethal violence usually takes place under diverse circumstances and typically occurred in situations in which the man's feeling of control over the woman was undermined. “It completely freaked me out every time she undermined me and I'd hit her.” The abusive men also portray the use of physical violence against women as an unmanly act, but in addition they present themselves as victims of the relationship, and describe violence and physical force as a man's last resort.

“I'd hit her and feel weaker than her. Like a dishrag…”

Non-lethal violence usually takes place spontaneously. “So when she'd drive me crazy… I'd lose it, I'd batter her, punches, kicks.”

558

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

Explain what you mean by that. That I couldn't live, I couldn't function without her… I had nothing to lose. All I had to lose was her, and I lost it and that's it, and I didn't want anything else… And when she decided that she didn't want to be part of me anymore, I had nothing left… I used her as a source that nourished my existence, because I didn't have anything else. This account highlights the situational detachment that places the woman in a functional role; her importance to the man derives from her functionality in a reality of loss. Perceiving the woman as the sole source of self-worth, on the one hand, and perceiving the consequent intolerability of life without her, on the other hand, creates a reality wherein separation is perceived as impossible, as a loss of the wellspring of existence, which cannot be replaced by any other source. The same interviewee said that when she died, “I felt as if I'd killed myself.” The meaning of separation from the woman cannot be understood outside the context that created it. Reducing the world to one person occurs in a reality of loss. It takes place against a backdrop of the depletion of other sources of meaning, other foundations of strength and identity components: objectives in life, sense of worth, significant others. Under these circumstances, extreme dependency develops. Whatever was and is lost opens a void. The woman, in the role of “the man's whole world” fills that void. Furthermore, in relations of dependency, the depletion is simultaneously interwoven as both the cause and the outcome. There is a mutual influence and a circular correlation between loss and dependency: in a reality of loss, dependency on the woman increases and the more it does so, the greater the willingness to make sacrifices to preserve the relationship. The more a person sacrifices, the more he feels divested of positive features that promote self-worth; thus, his grip on the other facets of life is loosened, and the dependency increases. Many of the interviewees reported that the period preceding the murder was replete with prolonged feelings of despair, anxiety, and depression. These feelings were frequently combined with others such as jealousy, humiliation, anger, helplessness, hope, and fear. The despair, anxiety, and depression continued for months and were accompanied by such physiological symptoms as weight loss, thoughts of suicide, inability to function, efforts to flee, separation from the world, withdrawal and seclusion, and sometimes by the use of addictive substances such as drugs and alcohol. Here is one example: I was a man on the brink of madness. I couldn't function and I didn't function… Then what I wanted, and all the time there were masses of pills next to me, was to take them and finish myself off…. To get up and take a shower, you need to drag yourself. Your feet won't walk. You feel dread, fear. You start to sweat. You have chest pains. Headaches. You're mixed up. I was helpless. That brought me to the situation. I'm talking about inside me, inside me I was a piece of rag. I couldn't even brush my teeth. Do you understand? I was helpless in a frightful way. Do you know what that is? It's impossible to describe it. It's impossible to convey it in words. At a certain point, you just want to die. You're ripe for death. However, desperation is also a form of power. A person with nothing more to lose holds an advantage over and therefore is stronger than someone who does have something at stake. From this perspective, the ultimate violent act, murder, is an expression of the ultimate position of weakness, one that accords a person the greatest power, the power of someone who has nothing more to lose. In contrast, physical violence is driven by a different psychological state; it is not desperation that drives the man, but a need

to preserve the image of the woman as he would like her to be. Accordingly, violence, which serves as a control strategy intended for disciplining the woman, is not an act of desperation but one of hope. Thus, for example, one of the men describes his status in the home and his motive for using violence: Look, I was a big ruler at home. A ruler? I'd decide everything at home, if I'd decide to buy – I'd buy… I'd decide we were going out – we went out. I would rule and she'd comply. There were no confrontations at all, life was great. Then suddenly she started interfering, saying this yes and that no, and why… why did you buy a fridge like that, and all kinds of things… It completely freaked me out every time she undermined me and I'd hit her. And that was my way of showing her who made the decisions at home, even though I knew all the time, in my heart, that it wasn't right… So long as his control over what went on at home was total, “life was great,” but the moment the woman “started interfering” he became violent. The aim of the physical violence is patent here — to make clear to the woman who makes the decisions in the home. Another example of the desire for control over the woman as a motive for physical violence is presented by another interviewee: You know, violence isn't only physical, it's not only hitting. It's also giving an ultimatum. It's saying, “If you don't marry me, if you don't give me another child, if you don't… whatever.” In short, if you don't do what I want, at my pace, then no, there's nothing. As if life together is only my life. Only my story. But that's how I felt. So if she didn't agree, or even just wanted to wait awhile with the child, or something that wasn't in my scripted scenario — right off I'd lose it and hit her. Obviously after she'd been hit she'd do anything I wanted, or at least wouldn't dare oppose me to my face… This man has his own life plan (“my story”) and any act by the woman that does not fit into his plan or his desires is met with physical violence. Through physical violence, and also psychological violence (“giving an ultimatum”) reinforced by the threat of physical violence, he manages to attain complete control, at least ostensibly, over his wife. 4.2. Physical violence in the relationship Conceptualizing physical violence against women as an act of weakness characterizes the abusive men and murderers alike. Typically, there is an ambiguous attitude toward violence: on the one hand it is often presented as a legitimate means – according to the dictates of male identity – of resolving conflicts, of recovering lost respect, while on the other hand, violence against women is perceived as an act of weakness, shameful behavior that besmirches the honor of the man inflicting it. In this context, the main difference between the abusive men and those that murdered their female partners is not in the way they view violence against women, but in the way they view themselves. The following are the statements of two murderers regarding violence against women: Me, if I thought that I actually want to hit a woman, I'd go and hang myself right now. Because it's [a matter of] honor. Heaven forbid, raising a hand to a woman? What have we come to? Whoever does it isn't a man. I had a neighbor who hit; I went and picked a fight with him. Why? Whoever raises a hand to a woman isn't a man, no matter what she's done. Raise a hand to her? She's a woman! You want to be a man? Be a man against a man.

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

559

Another man said:

Another man said:

My wife, women, I don't even curse them. Because why should I? I can't speak about other people, but for me, a man who hits a woman isn't a man. A good woman, not a good one, it doesn't matter who the woman is, if she's a whore, it doesn't matter, whoever curses or hits a woman or children isn't a human being.

There was no violence before, no… I have no problem telling you that before, if it had happened, that I'd hit women or something, it would have been very logical in my case, very logical, a person has a history, this person has a history of violence with women. But the women I was involved with would never have accepted or stood for that kind of behavior, not even a shove, and I never did that to any woman I was with. No woman I was with would have accepted that kind of behavior. At least I hope so.

Violence against women is not rejected out of a worldview that condemns violence, but out of one that condemns it as unmasculine behavior. In fact, as a matter between men, violence is legitimate. Their perceived standards of masculinity do not reject force; on the contrary, a man who fights a man is acting like a man (“You want to be a man? Be a man against a man”). The very same dictates strongly condemn violence against women. Such behavior is perceived as diminishing the identity of the man qua man, and therefore it besmirches his honor and debases him (“I'd go and hang myself right now. Because it's [a matter of] honor”). Moreover, since it is unmanly behavior, there are no circumstances wherein violence against women can be interpreted as justifiable (“no matter what she's done”, “if she's a whore, it doesn't matter”). Violence is rejected outright, since the male imperative unequivocally and unconditionally condemns it. Similarly, the abusive men also portray the use of physical violence against women as an unmanly act, but in addition, they present themselves as victims of the relationship, and describe violence and physical force as a man's last resort. For example, one of the extremely violent men who trained as a boxer said: Look, it's clear that a man shouldn't hit a woman. Just imagine at our gym, at training, if anyone had known that I hit a woman… it's like, a kind of men's code that you don't hit a woman. Any woman. No way… But what could I do? Physical strength is the only strength the man has in his home. In talking, actions, in everything, the woman has more strength. The man's only got strength in his fists… An example from another man: I'd always ask myself, after every outburst against Adi, how is it that I'm hitting a woman? And my own wife, the mother of my children? And I was ashamed of myself, how I injured her, losing control of myself, I'd feel like a dishrag. I'd hit her and feel weaker than her. Like a dishrag… Like other abusive men in the study, the two cited above present themselves as weak, as victims, as men whose violence against their female partners is their last resort in the relationship. Not unlike the murderers, they too, despite their own history as perpetrators of domestic violence, view violence against women as unacceptable and unmanly. As noted above, the main difference between the abusive men and those that murdered their female partners is not in the way they view violence against women, but in the way they view themselves. Given that violence against women is perceived as a debasing act, an act of weakness, a shameful behavior that damages the man's honor, the murderers who previously had never used physical violence against their female partners, do not consider themselves in the category of “violent men.” One of the man who described himself as an individual who had always stayed away from quarrels even as a child, said: I've never raised a hand, and I was in situations with other women too, and we divorced and we're friends to this day and they visit me, those women.

4.3. Self-control, intent and planning Almost all of the interviewees described the murder in terms of temporary insanity and loss of control. The meaning of loss of control is almost invariably presented as a scenario comprising some kind of provocation and an emotional reaction so powerful that it is perceived as an external force, a force that “compelled” him to behave as he did. However, the accounts of the murder itself, e.g., equipping himself in advance with a weapon such as a knife, a pistol, a rifle or a pipe wrench, taken together with the evidence concerning the period preceding the day of the murder, suggest that the violence that caused women's death cannot be understood as a temporary loss of control, but rather as the culmination of a process, wherein the idea of the murder coalesced and the psychological readiness for it matured. One of the interviewees said in this context: There are several components/aspects to shooting. A man who shoots his wife, it's the abandonment, the emotions, it's money, everything, and there are some [for whom] what brings them to it is that she cheated on him, but that's grounds. Why is it grounds? It's something that matured… No, I don't believe in a one-off act, I don't believe in that, it seems to me like excuses. They had a course here on domestic violence, they want to help, but people aren't genuine: bullshit, bullshit. Nobody says I'm in prison for such and such, they all talk in the third person, they show a movie, it's not us, it's the movie. People go on kidding themselves; they haven't got enough courage to admit things… I told them in the group, “I wanted to kill my wife, yes,” what's the story? Why should I make excuses? Although only a few of the men admitted to premeditated murder, many of the interviewees described a progressive dynamic linked to some knowledge of what would happen. The prolonged intense and destructive despair and depression were experienced as a corridor on a path that led toward something unknown, and sometimes toward something known and terrible. The two accounts presented below are different in the degree of certainty of the impending tragedy and the character of the act and its perpetrator. The first interviewee takes responsibility and marks himself as having played an intentionally active role in everything that took place: I knew it was going to happen. I told her there would be a disaster here, I'll either take myself or I'll take you, leave me, go away, leave me, go. The second seeks to depict himself as a passive victim of an inevitable outcome: I felt inside, all the time I've got bad feelings. I've got feelings that something's going to happen, believe me, all the time.

560

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

That something was going to happen? Yes. I swear it. That something would happen. Either I'll die in an accident, or I'll die at the hands of that woman, or that this love will do something to me. All the time I've got a bad feeling, but I can't be apart from her. It's hard for me to be apart from her.

Or another example of a man who describes his violent attack against his wife as a moment of insanity and madness:

The psychological experience in the two weeks preceding the murder is described by this interviewee as sitting on a gunpowder keg. He depicts a false tranquility, the quiet before the storm:

My love for her was madness, you know what madness is? It's like that even today. I didn't see anything! For me she's… my life's only worth living for her. So when she'd drive me crazy… what can I tell you, she's my life, without her there's nothing… But I'd lose it, I'd batter her, punches, kicks… I'd put music on at full volume so her screams wouldn't be heard, and I'd… like a madman. Believe me, it wasn't under my control at all… it was like somebody else. Not me.

For two weeks I felt at ease, then I felt a bit comfortable mentally, but I was scared all the time, because one little row, with the parents, the woman, if I hear she's cheated on me – I'll blow up. The parents don't want me – I'll blow up. I got to a situation, no more… but if a little snafu happened, I would blow up.

It seems that the excuse of loss of control, a blackout, momentary insanity, serve the murderers and abusive men alike. However, whereas in many cases the violent physical attacks are “spontaneous” and unplanned, the murder, in most cases was planned and matured gradually, long in advance.

The spark could have come from anywhere; he did not need a concrete fact. A rumor would have been sufficient. The speaker presents a feeling of standing on the brink. Life has ostensibly returned to normal. The buildup of extreme tension roiled only within him. The knowledge that he is akin to a time bomb increases the fear. It is clear that something is about to happen, that the detonation will come. The only question is when and in reaction to what. On the day he decided to kill his girlfriend and her new male partner, he steals his brother's rifle and makes his farewells to his family: I told them, that's it, there's nothing left to do. It's over. If something happens to me, don't be angry with me. Don't be angry with me, don't say why did you do it, [gives his name]. Believe me, I tried. I gave my heart and blood and soul to the people I love. Don't be angry with me because the world made me like this, I didn't make the world. Analysis of the events and the emotional dynamics during the period that preceded the day of the murder shows that the murder of a female partner is neither “inadvertent” violence nor an unintended or uncontrollable consequence of intense rage. The transformation from a normative person to a murderer is indeed instantaneous, but in the main, it is not sudden. In most cases the maturation of the murder – and the murderer – takes time. The event on that particular day was the spark that ignited the powder keg. A marginal event swelled to proportions of murderous rage, because the infrastructure was already there. Thus, the supposed “lack of control” was, in fact, an exercise in control. In other words, the circumstances on the day of the murder cannot, in and of themselves, offer any insight into the reason for the murder or shed any light on the underlying motivation for it. Any indications of the lethal outcome can be found only in the past. The abusive men also describe the violent episodes as loss of control, whereas it actually seems that the use of violence is, in fact, controlled. For example, the words of one of the interviewees: It freaked me out completely every time she opposed me and I'd hit her. Not in the face or anything… She'd also tell me when I told her I was sorry, after I'd hit her, that I'd lost control… she'd say ‘You only smash what's important to me, crockery I got from my mother, you'd never smash the TV, especially if there's football on…’ What can I tell you, it's true. On the one hand, I'd lose control; I had what they call “a blackout,” really… On the other hand, she's right — I'd never break anything that's important to me, and I also took care not to hit her in the face…

5. Discussion The present study examined the differences and the commonalities between men who murdered their female partners and violent men, while focusing on three aspects: the background to the act, the degree of control and planning characterizing the violent act, and the function of physical violence in the relationship. By addressing these three themes, we sought to show that whereas violence against female partners, as a general rule, is used spontaneously and in a variety of circumstances, the conditions that lead to the murder of a female partner are far more specific: some of the murders were not preceded by physical violence, and in the majority of cases, the lethal violence was not spontaneous but premeditated. The present study supports the well-established observation that many cases of female partner homicide take place after or during the course of a breakup and against the background of the woman's intention to end the relationship (e.g., Adams, 2007; Browne et al., 1999; Campbell et al., 2007; Nicolaidis et al., 2003). However, the findings also suggest to reconsider the assumption that: (a) the murder is the unintentional outcome of violence that went too far, and (b) the motivation, state of mind and emotional dynamics surrounding the murder are identical to those surrounding non-lethal violence against women (Wilson & Daly, 1998; Wilson et al., 1993). Although the male sexual proprietariness theory is still quite accepted in the literature (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza, 2007; Serran & Firestone, 2004), there are several studies that correspond with the present findings, indicating that no physical violence preceded some of the murderous act, and that most cases of intimate partner femicide were not spontaneous but intentional and preplanned (Buss, 2005; Dobash, Dobash, & Cavanagh, 2009; Dobash et al., 2007; Elisha, Idisis, Timor, & Addad, 2010). The present findings combined with previous ones call for a re-examination of the popular assumption that intimate partner femicide is a pick-point in a history of violence that preceded it, but not a distinct phenomenon. The killing motivated by fear of losing a female partner seems to be an act tainted by a fundamental paradox: with his own hands a person causes the loss of the very being he wishes not to lose. The man who murders his female partner, state Wilson and Daly (1993), is not driven by a desire to be rid of her; however, if the aim is to hold on to her then murdering her is even more counterproductive. The paradox, embodied in an act that seems to undermine the aims of its perpetrator (Goetting, 1995; Stark & Flitcraft, 1996; Wilson & Daly, 1998), has given rise to a perception that views the murder in terms of an “accident,” and thus “death is the

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

unintended outcome of asserting control through violence that slipped over the edge” (Wilson, Daly et al., 1995, pp. 287). Yet, based on the analysis of the accounts provided by men who murdered their female partners, it emerges that in most cases the murder is not an impulsive act or the outcome of violence that “inadvertently” went too far. On the contrary, it appears that in fact the idea of the murder developed over a period of time marked by emotions of desperation, depression, and anxiety and frequently accompanied by thoughts and/or attempts of suicide, inability to function, disengagement from the world, being drawn inward, and the abuse of addictive substances such as drugs and alcohol. At a certain point, psychological preparedness ripens, and awaits an opportunity to present itself. The period that precedes the murder is marked by varying degrees of a realization of what is going to happen, with fear regarding the predictable end. Whereas the event of the murder itself is almost always portrayed in terms of temporary insanity and loss of control, this madness or this “explosion” was not created ex nihilo. The traces of the murder lead backward in time. In most cases, it occurs when conditions are “ripe.” The majority of the men arrived at the crime scene on the day of the murder equipped with a firearm, a knife or a blunt instrument. Clearly, the act of violence was intended to end in the woman's death; therefore, it is not “loss of control” that best characterizes the murder's circumstances; rather, it is the outcome of the choice to lose control. Comprehending the intent, the choice and the decision behind the act helps us understand why female partner homicide is a rare phenomenon, whereas non-lethal violence against female partners is far more prevalent. Murder is a rare phenomenon since the decision to take a life is a rare one perhaps because of the personal cost involved. The possibility of relinquishing one's personal freedom presents a sufficiently efficacious deterrent (Posner, 2001). However, and given the personal price one can expect to pay for such a major transgression, the intent to cause the death of the female partner is also an indication of the assailant's state of mind. Thus, the question of control and planning is of cardinal importance for understanding intimate femicide. Murder should be considered the outcome of a decision that takes into account the repercussions for its perpetrator; however, this choice was made in an emotional context in which it seemed justified and appropriate, or at least unavoidable, despite its heavy toll on the perpetrator. The findings of the present study indicate that the emotions to be considered paramount in the attempt to understand wifekilling are not uncontrollable anger or sexual jealousy, but profound despair, the loss of all hope. Access to alternative sources that can generate a sense of purpose and meaningfulness may have a significant effect on a person's willingness to accept rejection, move on, and leave a relationship behind. Regarding the woman as the sole provider of a sense of being, in a reality depleted of life's pleasures or any sense of meaningfulness, causes the idea of separation to be experienced as a threat to one's selfidentity. Social detachment and loss of hope give rise to dangerous despair. In this context, one of the interviewees attested as follows:

Perhaps I'd like to think that I've got some kind of moral objection to murder. That's how it should be. I'm sure I had it, but at that particular point in time, the morality of “thou shalt not kill,” don't break the law, don't do forbidden things, is always linked to society. And if you're not part of society, if you don't feel part of society, if you throw your entire world into the garbage — then you say that's it! It's all over! You understand? Your whole life is over…

561

From the perspective proposed in the text, morality is a social structure that sustains itself through the continued existence of a social fabric. It is not an inner motivation but a sense of belonging that guides a person to behave morally. A situation of detachment results in disengagement from the moderating social forces that keep us in check. A situation deprived of hope and the sense of belonging to society renders a perspective, from which seeing “your entire world into the garbage” also means discarding social constructs such as moral values. In contrast, the state of mind of a man perpetrating domestic violence is different, for it is driven by the hope that he will be able to control the woman by means of force. The abusive man uses violence in order to restore his control over his female partner and their life together. In other words, he is driven by hope for change and improvement. The outbursts of violence are motivated by “restoration of good order” (as perceived by the man), and although abusive men, like murderers, view violence against women as a sign of weakness and unmanly behavior, physical violence is perceived as the only means of control available to them. Furthermore, whereas murderers pay a very heavy social price, violence, even extreme violence, against a female partner does not have a high price tag, and sometimes is even semi-normative in our society. Hence, the man's hope that with the aid of violence he may achieve his objective is reinforced also by the fact that he is not required to pay a price, certainly not too high a price, for his violent behavior. While the present findings seem to suggest that the dynamic underlying wife murder is different from that which characterizes other manifestations of violence against female partner, any interpretations of the findings must be tempered with a recognition of the limitations of the study. Given the sampling approach and the size of both samples (18 men in each study) a question may be raised about the generalizability of the results. For example, it is possible that those who choose to participate in both studies are perhaps more likely to be reflective and insightful than those who choose not to participate. In addition, there may be cultural differences in disclosure concerning aspects of personal life (Sundaram, Curtis, Helweg-Larsen, & Bjerregaard, 2004). It should be noted, however, that a study that compared male murderers to nonlethal abusers in England (Dobash et al., 2007) also demonstrated that there are differences in the risk factor profile between the two groups. The authors argued that their findings do not support the notion of a simple progression from nonlethal to lethal violence and “this suggests the importance of continued concern about risk factors usually associated with nonlethal abuse but also underlines the importance of examining those that might be specific to lethal violence” (p. 345). Thus, despite the study's limitations, we believe that the inner constructs that these men revealed through their narratives have relevance to the understanding of the differences between these two groups. The information it provides is valuable in order to raise awareness about the need to examine the validity of the concept which holds that, in terms of motive and emotional dynamics, female partner homicide is not discrete from other manifestations of violence against female partners. More studies that focus on understanding the meanings wife-killers attach to their experience are clearly needed. From a theoretical point of view, the present study contributes to the existing literature on femicide and intimate violence by suggesting that intimate partner homicide of women and non-lethal violence against women should be viewed as separate phenomena, since in each, the underlying motivation and the assailant's state of mind are different. Whereas non-lethal violence is a control strategy, a behavior intended to secure the female partner's obedience, murder is intended to achieve a different objective: obliteration of the woman.

562

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

This understanding has implications both on theoretical and practical levels. The difference in objective and state of mind is also the difference in the nature of explanations that can be proposed for intimate partner homicide — explanations that have less to do with understanding the motivation for controlling another, and more to do with the motivation to destroy the other. According to Dobash et al. (2007), the perception of the separation as final, often with the signing of divorce documents, is responsible for the man changing his objective — from attempts to bring the woman back by means of violence, stalking and harassment, to a desire to destroy her. However, the question still remains of why certain men react so extremely to the woman leaving. The present findings suggest that understanding the motivation behind the act in terms of “sexual jealousy” or “male possessiveness” is perhaps too simplistic and partial and point for the need to further explore the underlying emotions that motivate the decision to kill. Additional studies are required to help identify the circumstances and other personality traits responsible for the woman being perceived as the man's entire world to the extent that her leaving is experienced as a threat to his identity perception, as well as a theory to help understand the interaction between the various risk factors (Watt, 2008). Additional studies are also required to distinguish between different types of motives for murder and violence. Although the woman's intention of leaving clearly constitutes a central risk factor, it is not the only motive for murder. Moreover, the meaning attributed to the woman's intention of leaving can also distinguish between men who murder. For example, Elisha et al. (2010), who draw a distinction between three categories of men who murder their female partners, argued that the meaning of the loss for the man is different in each of the categories (loss of female partner, loss of family framework, loss of power and control). Consequently, the risk factors can also change in different categories of men with a potential to commit murder, and this question is worthy of study in future research. Furthermore, the present study did not distinguish between different motives for violence. Although intimate partner violence is usually defined as behaviors intended to establish control and power over a female partner (Kelly & Johnson, 2008), existing knowledge indicates that not all cases of violence fit this description. Thus, for example, Kelly and Johnson (2008) showed that alongside behavioral patterns of coercive controlling violence, additional categories of violence can be identified, such as violence motivated by conflict and violence motivated by separation. Distinguishing between categories of violence against women and intimate partner homicide is essential for the development of more accurate risk assessment tools, as well as prevention and intervention programs. Approaching murder and violence as phenomena requiring separate understanding is not only significant on the research level, but also on the practical one. The way a phenomenon is defined has implications for the way in which it will be addressed, the resources allocated to it, and the nature of the policy determined and implemented to contend with it. The existing means for risk assessment are liable to overlook the group comprising men who murdered their female partner but were not previously involved in violence against her, and were not previously known to law enforcement authorities or social services (Dobash et al., 2007). Since according to current Israel Police data (Bashan, 2011), in the majority of cases in Israel the murderers were not known to the justice and welfare authorities, there can be no doubt that the process of determining risk needs to be reviewed; and the risk factors for intimate partner homicide need to be reassessed.

Finally, the continuum approach promotes the assumption that intimate partner homicide of females is preventable, since it possesses a predictable etiology, composed of prior violence by the man against the woman, and the couple's earlier encounters with aid agencies, such as social welfare services, health care agencies and police (Stark & Flitcraft, 1996; Websdale, 1999). Ostensibly, these events are the main constituents of “the writing on the wall”. The contention that the murder was foreseeable, which is so often voiced in retrospect, furnishes the protective illusion that murder is expected to occur only in the case of couples that have a prior history of domestic violence and/or have lodged complaints with the police. From this perspective, spousal homicide is preceded by a history replete with clear indications. The findings of the present study do not support this deep-rooted assumption that social control could be attained if only we knew how to interpret the warning signs and read “the writing on the wall.” Unfortunately, understanding murder in terms of the emotional and circumstantial complexities that characterize the setting in which it matured makes prediction problematic.

6. Conclusion Results of the current study support the consistent finding that many cases of female partner homicide revolve around the woman's threatening to, or actually separating from, a marital or relationship partner. However, they also challenge the assumption that female partner homicide and non-lethal violence reflect the same motivation, are characterized by the same risk factors and share the same state of mind and emotional dynamics. Understanding female partner homicide (a) as an act that takes place against a background of a specific context of loss and (b) as a premeditated act motivated by a deep despair, which leads to the desire to destroy another person, even at the cost of self-destruction, indicates the possibility that the dynamic underlying the murder of a female partner is likely to be different from that characterizing other manifestations of violence.

Appendix A

Table A1 Demographic characteristics of sample 1 (wife-batterers).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Relationship status

Age at time of interview (years)

Country of birth

Years of education

Married + 2 (2nd time) Married + 3 Separated + 4 Married + 4 Divorced (twice) + 4 Married + 3 (2nd time) Separated + 3 Married + 5 Married Divorced + 2 Married + 2 Married Married + 2 (2nd time) Separated + 5 Divorced + 2 Married + 3 Separated + 3 Married + 4

47

Israel

12

47 46 52 45

Morocco Israel Libya Israel

12 12 13 12

32

Argentina

11

31 53 33 32 33 30 50

Israel Morocco Israel Israel India Israel Finland

12 8 10 11 12 11 13

43 35 42 51 45

Israel Israel Morocco Israel Israel

14 10 12 20 21

Nationality — all are Jewish.

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

563

Appendix B

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of sample 2 (wife‐killers).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16* 17a 18a a

Relationship status

Age at time of killing (years)

Sentence (years)

Nationality

Years of education

Country of birth

Dating Dating Married Dating Married Dating Dating Married Married Dating Dating Married Divorced Dating Dating Married Married Married

55 20 22 26 41 27 22 43 35 22 72 33 43 24 21 46 32 36

Life sentence Life sentence Life sentence Life sentence Life sentence 13 years Life sentence Life sentence Life sentence Life sentence 10 years Life sentence 10 years Life sentence Life sentence + 10 years 14 years 10 years 9 years

Jewish Muslim Druze Christian Jewish Jewish Jewish Jewish Christian Jewish Jewish Jewish Jewish Muslim Druze Jewish Muslim Jewish

20 12 12 17 12 10 12 12 14 12 8 10 10 8 12 12 10 10

Russia Israel Israel USA Israel Uzbekistan Colombia Israel Russia Israel Morocco Georgia Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel

Convicted of attempted murder.

References Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill: Men who murder their intimate partners. Press Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Allen, J. A. (1990). Sex and secrets. Crimes involving Australian women since 1880. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Avakame, E. F. (1998). How different is violence in the home? An examination of some correlates of stranger and intimate homicide. Criminology, 36, 601–632. Baker, N., Gregware, P., & Cassidy, M. (1999). Family killing field: Honor rationales in the murder of women. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 164–184. Bashan, A. (2011). Addicted to women. Israel Police Bulletin, 238, 3–8 [In Hebrew]. Ben-Ze'ev, A., & Goussinsky, R. (2008). In the name of love: Romantic ideology and its victims. Oxford: Oxford University. Bernard, G., Vern, M., & Newman, G. (1982). “Till death do us part”? A study of spouse murder. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Laws, 10, 271–289. Browne, A., & Williams, K. R. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence: Trends from 1976 through 1987. Gender & Society, 7, 78–98. Browne, A., Williams, K., & Dutton, D. (1999). Homicide between intimate partners: A 20-year review. In M. D. Smith & M.A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 149–164). London: Sage. Buss, D. M. (2005). The murderer next door. New York: Penguin Press. Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2003). Homicide: An evolutionary perspective and implications for public policy. In N. Dress (Ed.), Violence and public policy (pp. 115–128). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Campbell, J. C. (1992). If I can't have you, no one can: Issues of power and control of homicide of female partners. In J. Radford & D.E.H. Russell (Eds.), Femicide: The politics of woman killing. New York: Twayne. Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide — Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246–269. Campbell, J. C., & Soeken, K. (1999). Women's responses to battering over time: An analysis of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1), 21–40. Counts, D. C., Brown, J., & Campbell, J. C. (1992). Sanctions and sanctuary: Cultural perspective on the beating of wives. Boulder CO: Westview. Crawford, M., & Gartner, R. (1992). Woman killing: Intimate femicide in Ontario 1974– 1990. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Social Services, Women's Directorate. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 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. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dobash, R., & Dobash, R. (1998). Rethinking violence against women. (Eds.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, London. Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Cavanagh, K. (2009). “Out of the blue”: Men who murder an intimate partner. Feminist Criminology, 4(3), 194–225. Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Lethal and nonlethal violence against an intimate female partner: Comparing male murderers to nonlethal abusers violence against women. Violence Against Women, 13, 329–353. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 401–421.

Elisha, E., Idisis, Y., Timor, U., & Addad, M. (2010). Typology of intimate partner homicide: Personal, interpersonal, and environmental characteristics of men who murdered their female intimate partner. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 495–516. Fox, J. A., & Zawitz, M. W. (2004). Homicide trends in the US. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at www.ojp.usdoj/bjs/ Frye, V., & Wilt, S. (2001). Femicide and social disorganization. Violence Against Women, 7, 335–351. Garcia, L., Soria, C., & Hurwitz, E. L. (2007). Homicides and intimate partner violence: A literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8, 370–383. Goetting, A. (1995). Homicide in families and other special populations. New York: Springer. Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Romero, G. A., Kaighobadi, F., & Miner, E. J. (2008). Punishment, proprietariness, and paternity: Men's violence against women from an evolutionary perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 481–489. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence. Parts 1–3. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 65–99 [179-213, 285-307]. Hsieh, H. -F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2009). From mate retention to murder: Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men's partner-directed violence. Review of General Psychology, 13(4), 327–334. Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–499. Koss, M. P., Goodman, L. A., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., Keita, G., & Russo, N. (1994). No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington: American Psychological Association. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Madkour, A. S., Martin, S. L., Halpern, C. T., & Schoenbach, V. J. (2010). Area disadvantage and intimate partner homicide: An ecological analysis of North Carolina counties, 2004–2006. Violence and Victims, 25(3), 363–377. Mahoney, M. R. (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of separation. Michigan Law Review, 90, 1–94. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., Wilt, S., Sachs, C., Ulrich, Y., & Xu, X. (1999). Stalking and intimate partner femicide. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 300–316. Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nakkar, Y. (2007). Violence against women — A special report to the Kenesset. Jerusalem: Hakenesset Archives (In Hebrew). Nicolaidis, C., Curry, M., Ulrich, Y., Sharps, P., McFarlane, J., Campbell, D., et al. (2003). Could we have known? A qualitative analysis of data from women who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 788–794. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Polk, K. (1994). When men kill: Scenarios of masculine violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polk, K., & Ranson, D. (1991). The role of gender in intimate violence. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 24, 15–24.

564

R. Goussinsky, D. Yassour-Borochowitz / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 553–564

Posner, E. (2001). Law and emotions. Georgetown Law Journal, 89(6), 1977–2012. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Serran, G., & Firestone, P. (2004). Intimate partner homicide: A review of the male proprietariness and the self‐defense theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(1), 1–16. Shackelford, T., Buss, D., & Peters, J. (2000). Wife killing: Risk to women as a function of age. Violence and Victims, 15, 273–282. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1996). Women at risk: Domestic violence and women's health. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Stout, K. (1993). Intimate femicide: A study of men who have killed their mates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 81–94. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sundaram, V., Curtis, T., Helweg-Larsen, K., & Bjerregaard, P. (2004). Can we compare violence data across countries? Circumpolar Health Supplement, 2, 389–397. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Palmer Press. Watt, K. A. (2008). Understanding risk factors for intimate partner femicide: The role of domestic violence fatality review teams. In A. C. Baldry & F.W. Winkel (Eds.), Intimate partner violence prevention and intervention: The risk assessment and management approach. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding domestic homicide. Boston: Northeastem University Press. 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 evolutionary psychology of male sexual proprietariness. In R. E. Dobash & R.P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking violence against women (pp. 199–230). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Daniele, A. (1995). Familicide: The killing of spouses and children. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 275–291. Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Wright, C. (1993). Uxoricide in Canada: Demographic risk patterns. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35, 263–291. Wilson, M., Johnson, H., & Daly, M. (1995). Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 331–362. Yassour-Borochowitz, D. (2003). Intimate violence — The emotional world of batterers. Tel Aviv, Israel: Resling (In Hebrew).