Femicide Guest Editors' Introduction

JACQUELYN CAMPBELL Johns Hopkins University CAROL W. RUNYAN University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

This issue is devoted to the topic of femicide, which can be defined as the killing of women. It is a term included in Webster's unabridged dictionary, although, interestingly, it is common in neither general nor scholarly usage. One of the first instances of using the term femicide in scholarly discourse was Jill Radford's and Diana Russell's 1992 book, Femicide: The Politics of Woman Kill­ ing, although Russell, in that book, recounts first using the term in public testimony in 1976. The groundbreaking text defined femi­ cide as "the misogynist killing of women by men" (p. xi). Using femicide in this sense goes beyond the dictionary definition we use in this issue. Rather, Radford and Russell argue that women are most often killed by men, often after a long period of ongoing violence (intimate partner battering or stalking), with that vio­ lence often directed at women at least in part because they are female (such as the killing of prostitutes or femicide as part of a sexual assault). Russell (1992) suggests that "naming an injustice, and thereby providing a means of thinking about it, usually pre­ cedes the creation of a movement against it" (p. xiv). She urges the use of the term to sensitize the public and policy makers to the gender issues associated with these kinds of killings. It is impor­ tant to track and understand femicides that are indeed instances of hate crimes (such as the 1989 University of Montreal murders), because there may be very different strategies and policies that can be used for prevention. Despite the merits of this perspective for advocacy, we have developed this issue from a more empirical perspective, cautiously avoiding inferences to motive without

HOMICIDE STUDIES, Vol. 2 No. 4, November 1998 347-352 © 1998 Sage Publications, Inc. 347

from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved. 348 HOMICIDE STUDIES I November 1998 clear support from available data. Consequently, in this volume, femicide refers to all killings of women, regardless of motive or perpetrator status. We initiated the issue because of a concern that scholars must examine more carefully the distinctive characteristics associated with the killing of women versus men. With increasing attention to domestic violence research in the past decade, there has been more consideration of intimate partner femicide and its relation­ ship to prior assault and control of the female partner (Arbuckle et al., 1996; Bailey et al., 1997; Campbell, 1992; Wilson & Daly, 1992a) and increasing recognition of different dynamics, risk factors, and patterns of femicide and homicide (e.g., Block & Christakos, 1995; Jurik & Winn, 1990; Kellerman & Mercy, 1992; Mercy & Saltzman, 1989; Wilson & Daly, 1992b). However, there is surprisingly little discussion of these differences in theories and policy recommen­ dations, in spite of Wolfgang's (1957) early recognition of distinct patterns such as significantly less victim precipitation by female intimate partner victims than male intimate partner victims of homicides. In fact, there are fairly recent publications (e.g., Chim­ bos, 1978; Easteal, 1993), where spousal or family homicides have been treated as a separate category from other homicides but not separated by gender for analysis. There also continues to be inap­ propriate comparisons between genders in homicide perpetra­ tion (e.g., Felson, 1997) without a complete review or clear context of the vastly different dynamics of male-perpetrated homicides versus male-perpetrated femicides. In addition, overall femicide has seldom been analyzed separately from homicide with only a few exceptions (e.g., Goetting, 1991). The call for articles for this special issue was broad, yet resulted in a modest number of sub­ missions, perhaps further reflecting the paucity of research in femicide and reinforcing the value in creating the special issue. Important contributions to our knowledge of femicide from this issue include an article signifying the importance of cultural contexts. The one international study by Dawson and Gartner suggests the importance of culture, but much more work is needed in this area. This article, as well as others in this issue, also reinforces the importance of addressing domestic violence as a precursor to partner femicide and the need to further understand the concept of victim precipitation. Campbell, Runyan I FEMICIDE 349

One of the exciting developments in femicide research is its interdisciplinary nature. The richest theory and prevention devel­ opment will be from a synthesis of multiple perspectives, includ­ ing collaboration of scientists and advocates. The public health perspective of several of the articles is a significant contribution to this issue. This perspective results in an examination of data at the population level and a concern for understanding circumstances of femicide in a broad, social-ecological framework where multi­ ple strategies can be devised for prevention. In the public health tradition, there is also a concern for the processes by which data are obtained by routine monitoring systems (public health sur­ veillance) and how these surveillance data can be used effectively for intervention development. The studies herein rely on varied methods and data sources. Collectively, they demonstrate some of the advantages and disad­ vantages of different kinds of data. For example, the Langford et al. article is an important demonstration of how the categoriza­ tion of relationship in Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR) data is often incorrect. Because of the different characteristics of femi­ cide compared to homicide, this gap in perpetrator data could alter conclusions about how the events occur and identification of appropriate preventive strategies. Several studies triangulate data from several sources. The two studies from North Carolina (Moracco et al. and Smith et al.) used a combination of informa­ tion, including detailed reviews of medical examiner records, newspaper clippings, autopsy reports that are often a part of medical examiner records, and interviews with law enforcement investigators. The researchers demonstrated that the medical examiner files were useful in identifying cases and describing vic­ tims, whereas law enforcement interviews were a much better source of information about perpetrators, histories of domestic violence, and use of law enforcement services. Langford and her colleagues also combined data, but from newspaper reports, the district attorney's office, and domestic violence advocacy organizations. Not surprisingly, though, the articles in this issue raise more questions than they answer, both about femicide and about meth­ ods of conducting femicide research. Among them are issues associated with identifying threats to validity in different types of 350 HOMICIDE STUDIES I November 1998 data and potential gains in combining or comparing data from multiple sources. Further research is needed to determine the extent and sources of bias in these various types of data so as to permit appropriate adjustment in analysis and interpretation. Likewise, we need to identify methods of improving data quality through careful assessment of case ascertainment and classifica­ tion procedures as well as assuring the completeness, consis­ tency, and accuracy of recorded information. Related to improve­ ments in data quality is, of course, the issue of determining the most cost-effective methods of doing public health surveillance of femicides and partner violence. The need for good data to make both theoretical and programmatic advances is clear. We also need research using more sophisticated methods. In order to develop theory, thoughtful analyses comparing groups, time periods, and cultural contexts as well as use of multivariate techniques are required to better elucidate where and how femi­ cide differs from homicide and to examine differences in male­ and female-perpetrated femicides and differences between part­ ner and other femicides. Analyses should incorporate perspec­ tives from the broader literature on violence against women as well as the broader body of knowledge about homicide. Ideally, there will be the identification of modifiable risk factors and rec­ ognition of the critical importance of assuring that data are used to guide preventive interventions and monitor progress in achiev­ ing greater safety for women. In so doing, investigators need to be sensitive not only to the quality and uses of their data but also to the difficulty in conducting research on this topic. The victims of femicide and homicide are community members whose pain and suffering is usually distressing to those who must review records and hear the grisly details of the killings. Attention must be paid to protecting investigators and their staff from the very real potential for vicarious trauma associated with dealing with this subject matter while at the same time being sure that the human tragedies reflected in the data not be lost in the statistics. Advances in protecting victims require the combination of both sound science and reasoned passion. We hope this issue advances knowledge and sparks new inter­ ests in femicide research and intervention development. The crea­ tion of this issue took the work of many people. We would like to thank our special review panel,1 all experts in this field who provided Campbell, Runyan I FEMICIDE 351 very quick turnaround and objective, constructive reviews. In addition, Beth Moracco deserves special thanks for her part in stimulating the idea for this issue. Jo Ellen Stinchcomb, adminis­ trative assistant at Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, provided incredible support in the technical preparation of the manuscript, and Dwayne Smith helped all of us with scholarly, instrumental, and emotional support!

NOTE

1. Jane Caputi, Diana Russell, Martin Daly, Robert Flewelling, Rebecca and Russell Dobash, Rosemary Cartner, Nancy Isaac, James Humphrey, Jim Mercy, Beth Moracco, Linda Saltzman, Phyllis Sharps, Paige Hall Smith, Kirk Williams, Margo Wilson, Marie Wilson, and Susan Wilt.

REFERENCES

Arbuckle,J., Olson, L., Howard, M., Brillman,J.,Ancti, C., &Sklar, D. (1996). Safe athome? Domesticviolenceand otherhomicidesamong womenin New Mexico. Annals ofEmer­ gency Medicine, 27, 210-215. Bailey, J.E., Kellerman, A. L., Somes, G. W., Banton, M. S., Rivara, F. P., & Rushforth, N. P. (1997). Risk factors for violent deathofwomenin the home. Annals ofInternal Medicine, 157, 777-782. Block, C. R., & Christakos, A. (1995). Intimate partner homicide inChicago over 29 years. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 496-526. Campbell, J.C. (1992). "IfI can't have you, no one can": Power and control inhomicide of female partners.InJ. Radford & D.E.H. Russell (Eds.), Femicide: The politics ofwomen kill­ ing (pp. 99-113). New York: Twayne. Chimbos, P. D. (1978). Marital violence: A study of interspousal lwmicide. SanFrancisco: R & R Research Associates. Easteal, P. W. (1993). Killing the beloved: Homicide between adult sexual intimates. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology. Felson, R. B. (1997). Anger, aggression and violence in love triangles. Violence and Victims, 12, 345-362. Goetting, A. (1991). Female victims of homicide: A portrait of their killers and circum­ stances of their deaths. Violence and Victims, 6, 159-168. Jurik, N. C., & Winn, R. (1990). Gender and homicide: A comparison of men and women who kill. Violence & Victims, 5, 227-242. Kellerman, A. L., & Mercy, J. A. (1992). Men, women and murder: Gender-specific differ­ ences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. Journal ofTrauma, 33, 1-5. Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States: 1976-85. American Journal ofPublic Health, 79, 595-599. Radford, J., & Russell, D.E.H. (1992). Femicide: The politics of woman killing. New York: Twayne. Russell, D. (1992). Introduction. In J. Radford and D.E.H. Russell (Eds.), Femicide: The poli­ tics ofwoman killing. New York: Twayne. 352 HOMIODE STUDIES I November 1998

Wilson, M. I., & Daly, M. (1992a). Till death us do part. In J. Radford & D.E.H. Russell (Eds.), Femicide: The politics ofwomen killing (pp. 83-98). New York: Twayne. Wilson, M. I., & Daly, M. (1992b). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. Wolfgang, M. E. (1957). Victim precipitated criminal homicide. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48, 1-11.

Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Ph.D., RN, FAAN is currently the Anna D. Wolfe Endowed Professor and Associate Dean for Doctoral Education Programs and Research at fohns Hopkins University School of Nursing with a joint appoint­ ment in the School ofHygiene and Public Health. She is the Principal Investigator offive NIH, DOD, or DCD majorfunded research studies on battering, and the author or coauthor of more than 80 publications on the subject. These include: Nursing Care of Survivors of Family Violence, Sanctions, Sanctuary, and Assessing Dangerousness, Ending Domestic Violence, and Empowering Survivors ofAbuse: HealthCare, Battered Women and Their Children. Dr. Campbell has worked with wife abuse shelters and policy-related committees on domestic violence for more tluin 18 years. She is currently on the Board ofDirec­ tors ofthe House of Ruth, a shelter in Baltimore, the Family Violence Prevention Fund in San Francisco and the Institute of Medicine's Board on International health, and the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women chaired by Attorney General fanet Reno and Secretary ofHealth and Human serv­ ices, Donna Shalala. Carol W. Runyan, MPH, Ph.D., is the director ofthe University ofNorth Caro­ lina Injury Prevention Center and professor in the Department ofHealth Behav­ ior and Health Education at the School ofPublic Health at the University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill.