Criminal Justice Outcomes in Intimate and Non-intimate Partner Homicide Cases
4. Results (cont'd)
4.1 Bivariate patterns: A preliminary look at intimacy and justice (continued)
| Total Sample | Intimate Partners | Non-Intimate Partners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | (N=866) | (N=185) | (N=681) |
| Length of sentence | |||
| 2 years or less | 17% (151) | 20% (36) | 17% (115) |
| Between 2 years and 10 years | 37% (316) | 32% (59) | 38% (257) |
| 10 years | 17% (148) | 18% (33) | 17% (115) |
| Between 10 years and 24 years | 20% (171) | 21% (39) | 19% (132) |
| 25 years | 9% (80) | 10% (18) | 9% (62) |
Note: There were no significant differences in length of sentence by type of homicide.
Table 4.3 shows the distribution of homicides over the three time periods and by gender. Looking at gender, consistent with national figures (CCJS, 2003a), males comprised the majority of accused persons in both types of homicide (89 percent), but they were significantly more likely to be the accused in non-intimate partner homicides compared to intimate partner homicides. More specifically, 92 percent of the non-intimate partner homicides involved a male accused compared to 78 percent in cases of intimate partner homicides. Similarly, males represented the majority of victims across both types of homicide, but victims were significantly more likely to be male in cases of non-intimate partner homicide (82 percent) compared to intimate partner homicides (27 percent). Recent research has also shown that the gender combination of the accused and the victim is also important (Whaley & Messner, 2002) in distinguishing the type of homicide - intimate partner or non-intimate partner - as is also shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Bivariate Associations For Type of Homicide, Year Case Entered
| Total Sample | Intimate Partners | Non-Intimate Partners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (N=1,137) | (N=230) | (N=907) |
| Time period: 1974-1983 | 38% (430) | 43% (99) | 37% (330) |
| Time period: 1984-1996 | 51% (578) | 48% (111) | 51% (467) |
| Time period: 1997-2002 | 11% (130) | 9% (20) | 12% (110) |
| Total Sample | Intimate Partners | Non-Intimate Partners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (N=1,137) | (N=230) | (N=907) |
| Accused is male | 89% (1,011) | 78% (179)*** | 92% (832) |
| Victim is male | 71% (806) | 27% ( 62)*** | 82% (744) |
| Total Sample | Intimate Partners | Non-Intimate Partners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (N=1,137) | (N=230) | (N=907) |
| Male-on-male homicide | 62% (701) | 5% (11)*** | 76% (690) |
| Male-on-female homicide | 27% (310) | 73% (168)*** | 16% (142) |
| Female-on-male homicide | 9% (105) | 22% (51)*** | 6% (54) |
| Female-on-female homicide | 2% (21) | -- | 2% (21) |
Note:* p< .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Other significant associations between the control variables and the type of homicide support previous research that has shown intimate partner homicides are distinct from other types of lethal violence (Silverman & Kennedy, 1993). For example, with respect to legal factors, Table 4.4 shows that accused persons in intimate partner homicide cases were less likely to have a prior record for non-violent crimes than accused persons in non-intimate partner homicides (35 percent compared to 45 percent). There were no differences, however, in the violent criminal histories of the two types of accused. In addition, accused persons in intimate partner homicides were more likely to be the primary offender (98 percent) than was the case with those accused of non-intimate partner homicide (82 percent). This was due to the fact that only three percent of the intimate partner homicides involved multiple perpetrators compared to 19 percent of the non-intimate partner homicides.
| Total Sample | Intimate Partners | Non-Intimate Partners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (N=1,137) | (N=230) | (N=907) |
| Legal Factors | |||
| Accused had non-violent record | 43%(488) | 35% (81)** | 45%(407) |
| Accused had violent record | 13% (149) | 11% (21) | 14%(124) |
| Primary accused | 85% (969) | 98%(225)*** | 82%(744) |
| Multiple accused persons | 16%(182) | 3% (6)*** | 19%(176) |
| Multiple victims | 4% (48) | 5%(11) | 4%(37) |
Note: * p< .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Turning to extra-legal factors, a number of the characteristics of the accused distinguished between intimate partner and non-intimate partner homicides as shown in Table 4.5. With respect to age, accused persons were younger in cases of non-intimate partner homicide compared to those in intimate partner homicides (42 and 10 percent, respectively, were aged 18 to 24). In contrast, the proportion of older accused in the intimate partner group was significantly greater than the proportion of older accused in the non-intimate partner category. Overall, the average age of an individual accused of killing an intimate partner was 38 years whereas the average age of an individual accused of killing a non-intimate partner was 29 years. Finally, three other characteristics of the accused distinguished the two types of homicide – employment status, marital status and history of psychiatric treatment. Briefly, those who killed intimate partners were more likely to be employed, to be married, and to have a history of psychiatric treatment than those who killed non-intimate partners.[28]
| Total Sample | Intimate Partners | Non-Intimate Partners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (N=1,137) | (N=230) | (N=907) |
| Characteristics of the accuseda | |||
| Accused is white | 56% (573) | 54% (119) | 57% (454) |
| Accused is 18-24 years old | 35% (403) | 10% (24)*** | 42% (379) |
| Accused is 25-34 years old | 36% (411) | 34% (79) | 37% (332) |
| Accused is 35-44 years old | 17% (196) | 30% (70)*** | 14% (126) |
| Accused is 45-54 years old | 8% (89) | 17% (38)*** | 6% (51) |
| Accused is 55 years plus | 3% (38) | 8% (19)*** | 2% (19) |
| Mean age of accused | 31 years | 38 years*** | 29 years |
| Accused is employed | 30% (289) | 50% (107)*** | 24% (182) |
| Accused is married | 41% (421) | 76% (172)*** | 31% (249) |
| Accused has psychiatric history | 10% (101) | 17% (36)*** | 8% (65) |
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
a Information was missing in some cases for the following variables: Race/ethnicity, employment status, marital status and psychiatric history. Therefore, percentages shown above for those variables are based on total number of cases for which information was available. See Appendix C, for information on missing information.
Significant differences were also found in the characteristics of the victims by type of relationship as shown in Table 4.6. For example, intimate partner homicides were less likely to involve younger victims, aged 18-24, than non-intimate partners homicides (13 percent compared to 20 percent). Moreover, the number of victims aged 25 to 44 years was significantly greater among intimate partner homicides than among non-intimate partner homicides (65 percent compared to 42 percent; combining those aged 25-34 and 35-44). Overall, the average age of victims killed by intimate partners was 37 years whereas the average age of victims killed by non-intimate partners was 34 years. Similar to the distribution of the accused, victims of intimate partner homicide were also more likely to be employed and to be married than other victims. With respect to the prior criminal history of the victim, those killed by intimate partners were significantly less likely to have a criminal record than those killed by non-intimate partners (22 percent compared to 33 percent). Finally, as shown in Table 4.7 with respect to incident characteristics, intimate partner homicides were less likely to occur in public (10 percent compared to 42 percent for non-intimate partner homicides) and less likely to involve a gun (13 percent) than non-intimate partner homicides (27 percent).
| Total Sample | Intimate Partners | Non-Intimate Partners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (N=1,137) | (N=230) | (N=907) |
| Characteristics of the victim | |||
| Victim is white | 58% (589) | 58% (127) | 58% (462) |
| Victim is newborn to 17 years old | 9% (106) | -- | 12% (105) |
| Victim is 18-24 years old | 19% (211) | 13% (30)* | 20% (182) |
| Victim is 25-34 years old | 26% (290) | 34% (79)*** | 23% (211) |
| Victim is 35-44 years old | 22% (245) | 31% (72)*** | 19% (173) |
| Victim is 45-54 years old | 13% (142) | 12% (28) | 13% (114) |
| Victim is 55 years plus | 13% (143) | 9% (21) | 14% (122) |
| Mean age of the victim | 35 years | 37 years* | 34 years |
| Victim is employed | 40% (379) | 48% (94)** | 38% (285) |
| Victim is married | 45% (432) | 76% (171)*** | 35% (261) |
| Victim had psychiatric history | 6% (27) | 5% (6) | 6% (21) |
| Victim has prior criminal record | 31% (238) | 22% (35)** | 33% (203) |
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
a Information was missing in some cases for the following variables: Race/ethnicity, employment status, marital status, psychiatric history and criminal record. Therefore, percentages shown above for those variables are based on total number of cases for which information was available. See Appendix C, for information on missing information.
| Total Sample | Intimate Partners | Non-Intimate Partners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (N=1,137) | (N=230) | (N=907) |
| Characteristics of the incident | |||
| Homicide occurred in public | 36% (406) | 10% (24)*** | 42% (382) |
| Gun was used as weapon | 24% (270) | 13% (30)*** | 27% (240) |
| Accused drinking/using drugs | 55% (333) | 51% (78) | 56% (255) |
| Victim drinking/using drugs | 45% (363) | 45% (89) | 46% (274) |
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
a Information was missing in some cases for the following variables: Accused drinking/using drugs and victim drinking/using drugs. Therefore, percentages shown above for those variables are based on total number of cases for which information was available. See Appendix C, for information on missing information.
Based on the above results, there are a number of differences between the characteristics of intimate partner and non-intimate partner homicides and those involved. The more important question for this analysis, then, is whether those accused of killing intimate partners are treated differently from other types of accused persons once controls are introduced for factors that distinguish among these crimes and that may also affect criminal justice decision-making. In other words, if the courts do treat intimate partner homicides differently than other types of homicide, it is important to determine whether differences in treatment stem from the nature of the relationship itself or the distinct characteristics of that type of homicide. For example, if those accused of killing intimate partners are less likely to have prior criminal records than other types of accused as shown above, different sentences might be expected given that criminal history is a legal factor that can affect the severity of the sentence imposed. In addition, recall that prior research has suggested that public homicides are perceived to warrant more severe sanctions because they are believed to pose a greater threat to the maintenance of social order (Lundsgaarde, 1977). If non-intimate partner homicides are more likely to occur in public as was also shown, it would be logical to expect that those accused in these cases will receive more severe sanctions for their crimes.[29] Controlling for these and other factors, then, the findings of the multivariate analysis below isolate the independent effects of intimacy on criminal justice outcomes.
- Date modified: