Test Review Lecture 2 PDF

Here is a detailed summary of the article "Male Perpetrators’ Accounts of Intimate Femicide: A Global Systematic Review" by Dabney P. Evans, Martín Hernán Di Marco, Subasri Narasimhan, and Melanie E. Maino Vieytes. Key Concepts and Terms 1. Femicide: The gender-based killing of women. It is oft...

Here is a detailed summary of the article "Male Perpetrators’ Accounts of Intimate Femicide: A Global Systematic Review" by Dabney P. Evans, Martín Hernán Di Marco, Subasri Narasimhan, and Melanie E. Maino Vieytes. Key Concepts and Terms 1. Femicide: The gender-based killing of women. It is often perpetrated by current or former intimate partners (referred to as intimate femicide). 2. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): Violence committed by a spouse, partner, or someone in a close intimate relationship. 3. Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH): Homicide of a partner regardless of gender. 4. Patriarchy: A social system in which men hold power, often linked to gender inequalities. 5. Sense-Making: How perpetrators justify, rationalize, and explain their actions to themselves and others. 6. Self-Narratives: Stories constructed by perpetrators about their lives, identities, and the crimes they committed. Background and Purpose Intimate femicide is a leading cause of homicide against women globally. Existing research on femicide perpetrators is limited, particularly focusing on their perspectives. This systematic review synthesizes male perpetrators’ accounts of intimate femicide to understand their motivations, rationalizations, and psychological explanations. Methodology Scope: Global, including 14 studies from 11 countries (no studies from Asia). Time Frame: 1980–2021. Data Sources: Peer-reviewed journals; excluded grey literature and non-English articles. Framework: PRISMA methodology for systematic reviews. Data Types: Interviews (mostly qualitative) with incarcerated male perpetrators. Theoretical Focus: ○ Gender and Power Theories: Highlight patriarchy, hegemonic masculinity, and male dominance. ○ Psychological/Social Development Theories: Focus on childhood trauma and social learning of violence. Findings The study identified recurring themes across the 14 articles: 1. Biographical and Predisposing Factors Many perpetrators experienced adverse childhood events (ACEs) such as: ○ Physical abuse and neglect. ○ Parental violence or absence. ○ Misogynistic upbringing reinforcing violent masculinity. These experiences often contributed to: ○ Poor emotional regulation. ○ Hypermasculinity and dominance over women. Example: Half of perpetrators reported witnessing violence between parents. 2. Self-Narratives Perpetrators constructed stories to neutralize guilt and manage their identities: Identity Management: ○ Many denied being "violent men" and distanced themselves from their actions. ○ Described the femicide as an "exceptional state" or "loss of control." Masculinity: ○ Perpetrators emphasized societal expectations of masculinity: "Being the man" meant controlling their partners. Submissive female behavior early in relationships reinforced their perceived masculinity. Victim Blaming: ○ Female partners were often vilified or blamed for provoking the violence. ○ Example: “[If] she had behaved as a wife should, everything would have been alright.” 3. Sense-Making The perpetrators’ explanations fell into three primary categories: 1. Rationalization: Perpetrators justified the femicide as: ○ An act of self-defense. ○ A punishment for the victim’s actions. ○ A spontaneous, uncontrollable outburst of rage. 2. Victimization: Perpetrators cast themselves as the victims of: ○ Emotional harm caused by their partners. ○ Socioeconomic stressors like unemployment or alcohol dependency. 3. Adherence to Gender Norms:  ○ Strict beliefs about female submission and male dominance justified the violence. ○ Example: Some linked their actions to societal norms, witchcraft, or cultural pressures. Theoretical Insights Patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity underpin intimate femicide, making it a global phenomenon across cultural and socioeconomic boundaries. While cultural nuances exist, the commonalities highlight the universality of gender-based violence. Conclusions 1. Terminology: A unified definition of "femicide" and its subtypes (e.g., intimate femicide) is needed for accurate global comparisons. 2. Research Bias: The dominance of English-language research overlooks contributions from non-English contexts, particularly Latin America. 3. Future Directions: ○ Include criminological and masculinity studies perspectives. ○ Explore non-incarcerated and attempted femicide perpetrators. ○ Address other dyads (e.g., same-sex or non-binary relationships) and types of femicide (e.g., honor killings). 4. Policy Implications: ○ Understanding perpetrators’ perspectives can inform interventions to prevent femicide by addressing the social systems that perpetuate patriarchal violence. Key Case Examples and Quotes On Crisis and Rage: "I’ve seen her as a threat, as someone who’s hurting me and can kill me. I strangled her." (Elisha et al., 2010) On Societal Pressure: “My friends used to tell me that beating her is the only way to show her respect.” (Duff et al., 2020) Summary Statement The systematic review reveals that male-perpetrated intimate femicide is deeply embedded in patriarchal norms and personal trauma. Perpetrators rationalize their actions by presenting themselves as victims or situationally provoked, while societal expectations of masculinity and control further drive these deadly behaviors. A clearer theoretical and terminological framework is needed to guide interventions and prevent femicide worldwide. Detailed Summary of the Article: “Fear, Helplessness, Pain, Anger: The Narrated Emotions of Intimate Femicide Perpetrators in Latin America” Overview This study by Martín Hernán Di Marco and Sveinung Sandberg explores the narrated emotions of intimate femicide perpetrators across Latin America. Using narrative criminology and the framework of affective economies, the authors analyze 33 interviews with convicted male perpetrators from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Mexico, and Venezuela. The study identifies and examines four primary emotions described by perpetrators—fear, helplessness, pain, and anger—to understand the societal and cultural forces that contribute to femicide. Key Terms 1. Femicide: The intentional killing of a woman based on her gender, often by an intimate partner【13:9†source】. 2. Affective Economy: A concept describing how emotions circulate within societies, shaping gender roles, relationships, and power structures【13:2†source】. 3. Narrative Criminology: A methodological approach that emphasizes storytelling to explore individuals' subjective experiences and rationalizations【13:6†source】. Four Main Emotions Identified 1. Fear: ○Women as a Threat: Perpetrators described women as a source of emotional turmoil and humiliation. Women were seen as threats to their self-worth, family stability, or social standing. ○ Example: Antonio (40 years) described his partner as an “enemy,” saying she “brought out the worst in me”【13:7†source】. 2. Helplessness: ○ Feeling Trapped and Judged: Perpetrators narrated feeling powerless in their relationships, unable to control the outcomes or their emotions. ○ Example: Juan (48 years) stated, “She could just leave me... I had no chance to act in any way, like a dummy doll”【13:10†source】. ○ This emotion reveals how perpetrators often position themselves as victims, deflecting responsibility for their actions. 3. Pain:  ○ Jealousy and Belittlement: Perpetrators expressed emotional pain stemming from infidelity, rejection, or feelings of humiliation. ○ Example: René (35 years) described being “in agony,” his “soul shredded” by his partner's perceived betrayal【13:19†source】. 4. Anger: ○ Loss of Control: Anger was the emotional state most closely tied to femicide. Perpetrators described physical sensations like “blood rushing” and “muscles tensing,” culminating in violence. ○ Example: Pedro (42 years) explained feeling “possessed,” losing control of his actions【13:18†source】. Affective Economy of Femicide The study connects the perpetrators' emotions to hegemonic narratives about gender roles, relationships, and societal expectations. These narratives are part of an affective economy where: Emotions like fear, anger, and pain are learned behaviors. Violations of traditional gender norms (e.g., infidelity, independence) are perceived as threats to male pride and social order【13:2†source】. The authors argue that these emotions are not individual but are embedded in broader cultural contexts. Concepts like “restorative action” and “pedagogy of cruelty” highlight how violence is seen as a way to reestablish order and regain control【13:12†source】. Key Case Studies 1. Celso (48 years): ○Described killing his wife as “justice” for her infidelity, feeling entitled to reclaim his dignity and social standing. ○ His narrative reflects the punitive nature of intimate partner violence, influenced by societal norms【13:14†source】. 2. Miguel Ángel (42 years): ○ Expressed a disconnection between his “self” and his actions, claiming he was “not himself” during the femicide. This rationalization illustrates the use of loss of control as a justification for violence【13:14†source】. Conclusions  1. Emotions as Social Practices: Fear, helplessness, pain, and anger are not purely personal emotions but are shaped by cultural narratives about gender, power, and relationships【13:17†source】. 2. Violence as a Mechanism for Control: Lethal violence is often used by perpetrators to restore their perceived self-worth and address feelings of humiliation【13:3†source 】. 3. Structural and Cultural Drivers: The study highlights a shared emotional economy across Latin America, where patriarchy and machismo cultures perpetuate gendered violence【13:1†source】. Implications The authors argue that preventing femicide requires: Recognizing the cultural stories and emotions that fuel violence. Addressing the gendered social structures that sustain these emotional economies. Moving beyond individual blame to tackle the societal conditions that normalize and justify femicide【13:3†source】. By understanding the perpetrators' emotions, this research underscores the need to challenge hegemonic masculinity and dismantle patriarchal norms that underpin gender-based violence. Detailed Summary of the Article: “Explanatory Theories of Intimate Partner Homicide Perpetration: A Systematic Review” Overview This article, authored by Laurie M. Graham, Rebecca J. Macy, Cynthia F. Rizo, and Sandra L. Martin (2022), presents a systematic review of the existing theories that explain Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) perpetration. The study synthesizes key theories, categorizes them into broad perspectives, and highlights their strengths and limitations, providing a preliminary conceptual framework to advance IPH prevention research. Key Terms 1. Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH): ○ The killing of a current or former intimate partner. 2. Theories: ○ Conceptual frameworks used to explain why IPH occurs. 3. Social Ecological Model (SEM):  ○ A framework used to analyze the individual, relationship, community, and societal factors influencing violence. Purpose of the Study The review seeks to: 1. Identify explanatory theories used to understand IPH perpetration. 2. Organize these theories into broader theoretical perspectives. 3. Highlight the strengths and limitations of each perspective. 4. Propose a conceptual framework to guide future research and prevention. Methodology Systematic Review: Searched 15 databases for peer-reviewed articles, dissertations, and gray literature published between 2003 and 2018. Inclusion Criteria: Documents had to: ○ Focus on theory. ○ Address IPH perpetration. ○ Comment on strengths/limitations of theories. Outcome: 18 documents met the inclusion criteria, describing 22 theories. Findings: Four Theoretical Perspectives The authors categorized the 22 theories into four main perspectives: 1. Feminist Perspective: ○ Focus: Gender inequality, power, patriarchy, and control in understanding male violence against female partners. ○ Theories: Self-Help/Self-Defense Theory: Women kill male partners as an act of self-defense against IPV. Backlash Hypothesis: Increasing gender equality may provoke male violence as a reaction to perceived loss of dominance. Theory of Patriarchal/Sexual Terrorism: Male entitlement and control over female sexuality lead to IPH. ○ Strengths: Highlights societal and gender-based power dynamics. ○ Limitations: Focuses heavily on male-to-female IPH, excluding broader contexts. 2. Evolutionary Perspective:  ○Focus: Reproductive success, natural selection, and male control of female sexuality. ○ Theories: Sexual Proprietariness: Males seek control over female partners to ensure paternity. By-Product/Slip-Up Hypothesis: IPH occurs as a byproduct of male attempts to control perceived infidelity. ○ Strengths: Biological and evolutionary explanations for gendered violence. ○ Limitations: Lacks attention to social, cultural, and systemic factors. 3. Sociological/Criminological Perspective: ○ Focus: Individual characteristics, community dynamics, and societal conditions influencing IPH. ○ Theories: General Strain Theory: Negative life events and emotions (e.g., poverty, anger) can lead to IPH. Conflict Resolution Theory: Partner separation and unresolved conflicts escalate to violence. ○ Strengths: Accounts for societal and structural influences. ○ Limitations: Limited gender-specific focus. 4. Combined Theories: ○ Focus: Integrates multiple perspectives (e.g., feminist and sociological) to provide a comprehensive understanding of IPH. ○ Example: Integrative Model—Explains IPH among Ethiopian immigrants in Israel, combining cultural and structural factors. ○ Strengths: Holistic approach. ○ Limitations: Limited development and empirical testing. Proposed Conceptual Framework The authors emphasize the Social Ecological Model as a foundation to combine insights from various perspectives: 1. Individual: Personal history, mental health, and substance abuse. 2. Relationship: IPV history, partner separation, and conflict escalation. 3. Community: Economic deprivation, neighborhood violence, and societal norms. 4. Societal: Patriarchy, gender inequality, and systemic oppression. Conclusions 1. Diverse Theories: No single theory fully explains IPH. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary.  2. Gender Matters: Addressing gender inequality and power dynamics is critical for prevention. 3. Need for Integration: Future research should develop integrated theories to leverage strengths across perspectives. 4. Policy Implications: Prevention strategies must target risk and protective factors at all SEM levels, from individual to societal. Implications for Future Research Develop theories that are inclusive of diverse cultural contexts. Test integrated frameworks empirically to evaluate their effectiveness. Focus on underexplored factors, such as protective factors against IPH. This systematic review underscores the complexity of IPH perpetration, emphasizing the need for nuanced, interdisciplinary approaches to prevention and intervention【18†source】. Detailed Summary of the Article: “Police Officers’ Definitions and Understandings of Intimate Partner Violence in New Brunswick, Canada” Overview This study, authored by Carmen Gill, Mary Ann Campbell, and Dale Ballucci, explores how police officers in New Brunswick, Canada define and understand Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The study focuses on: 1. How police officers conceptualize IPV. 2. The attitudes they hold toward victims, perpetrators, and their own roles in IPV cases. 3. The implications of these perceptions for police training and intervention. Key Terms 1. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): Any physical, psychological, emotional, sexual, or financial abuse by one partner toward another in an intimate relationship. 2. Conventional View: IPV is understood primarily as physical violence, often framed in legal terms (e.g., assault or harassment under the Criminal Code of Canada). 3. Progressive View: A broader understanding of IPV, including coercive control, emotional and psychological abuse, and patterns of power and control.  4. Mandatory Charging Policies: Policies that require police officers to lay charges in IPV cases where sufficient evidence exists, regardless of the victim's wishes. Study Objectives The research aims to: 1. Examine Definitions: How police officers define IPV, including its behaviors and targets. 2. Explore Attitudes: How police officers perceive IPV dynamics, victims, perpetrators, and their roles in intervention. Methodology Participants: 169 police officers (75% male, 23% female) from New Brunswick, Canada. Survey: An online survey with over 160 questions covering: ○ Definitions of IPV. ○ Attitudes toward IPV victims, gender, diversity, and police responsibilities. ○ Open-ended responses were coded as “conventional” or “progressive.” Statistical Analysis: Logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between officer demographics (e.g., age, gender, experience) and their views on IPV. Key Findings 1. Definitions of IPV Conventional View (58.6%): ○ Police officers described IPV using legal terminology (e.g., assault, harassment) or specific forms of violence (physical, verbal, emotional). ○ Focused on isolated incidents rather than patterns of abuse. ○ Example: “IPV is assault, threats, intimidation, stalking.” Progressive View (39.1%): ○ Police officers expanded their definitions to include: Patterns of control and coercion. Victims’ challenges, such as fear, isolation, and economic dependence. ○ Example: “IPV involves controlling behaviors that create fear or oppression.” Demographics: ○ Female officers were twice as likely as male officers to adopt a progressive view of IPV. 2. Attitudes Toward IPV Survey statements revealed mixed perspectives among police officers: Victim Blaming: ○ 29.5% agreed that victims share responsibility if they remain in abusive relationships. ○ 33.3% believed that victims could “easily leave” their relationships but choose not to. ○ 52.3% felt that too many IPV calls were for “verbal family arguments.” Progressive Views: ○ 79.7% agreed that victims often minimize the violence they experience. ○ 64.6% disagreed that victims exaggerate the violence. Handling IPV Situations: ○ 92.3% agreed that IPV is not a private matter and requires police intervention. ○ 65.9% cited repeat calls to the same address as a major issue, reflecting frustration with recurring IPV cases. Gender and Diversity: ○ 60.8% believed that men and women are equally likely to engage in IPV. ○ Neutral Attitudes were prevalent regarding Indigenous and minority victims: 48.4% were neutral on whether Indigenous victims were less likely to call the police. 57.8% were neutral on whether Indigenous people experience higher rates of IPV. Mandatory Arrest Policies: ○ 48.5% disagreed that mandatory arrest policies were the best approach. ○ 62.9% believed that victims’ wishes should not influence the decision to arrest. Discussion and Conclusions Key Insights: 1. Conventional vs. Progressive Views: ○ Most police officers still define IPV conventionally, focusing on physical violence. ○ However, a significant minority (39.1%) adopt a progressive perspective, understanding IPV as a complex issue involving coercive control and patterns of abuse. 2. Victim Blaming:  ○ Some police officers hold victim-blaming attitudes, such as suggesting that victims are responsible for repeated violence or can “easily leave.” ○ These attitudes can undermine police responses and discourage victims from seeking help. 3. Training Needs: ○ Police officers require targeted training to better understand: The complex dynamics of IPV (e.g., coercive control, verbal abuse). Barriers that victims face when attempting to leave abusive relationships. ○ Training should also address neutral or limited views toward Indigenous and minority victims. 4. Risk Assessment: ○ Police officers need better tools to assess risk in IPV cases, as IPV often involves non-physical violence that can escalate over time. 5. Role of Gender: ○ Female officers were more likely to adopt progressive views, indicating a possible gender-based difference in understanding IPV dynamics. Policy and Practice Recommendations 1. Comprehensive Training: ○ Implement recurring IPV training programs to address misconceptions and promote progressive understandings of IPV. 2. Risk Assessment Tools: ○ Introduce tools that assess coercive control and non-physical forms of abuse to improve risk evaluation. 3. Support for Vulnerable Populations: ○ Provide cultural competency training to address IPV in Indigenous and minority communities. 4. Victim-Centered Responses: ○ Educate officers on the barriers victims face and avoid victim-blaming attitudes. 5. Evaluation of Mandatory Arrest Policies: ○ Review mandatory charging policies to balance victim autonomy and safety. Final Thoughts The study highlights that while most police officers recognize IPV as a serious issue requiring intervention, significant gaps remain in their understanding of the complex dynamics of IPV. Addressing these gaps through training and policy reform is essential to improving police responses to IPV cases in Canada.