Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coercive Control and Intimate Partner Homicide

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Criminalising Coercive Control

Abstract

Over the past decade, there has been a paradigm shift away from understanding intimate partner violence (IPV) as comprising single discrete instances of physical abuse towards a more comprehensive and accurate paradigm based on coercive control: a model of abuse that encompasses a range of strategies or tactics used by men to dominate individual women in their personal life. Despite this shift, domestic violence laws continue to coalesce around an incident-specific focus and weigh the severity of abuse by the level of force used or injury inflicted. This chapter considers how coercive control as a criminological concept has become central to contemporary understandings of domestic abuse and intimate partner homicide. It discusses how the concept of coercive control challenges the focus on physical injury in the development of risk assessments for domestic abuse and intimate partner homicide. The chapter also considers how coercive control has the potential to inform the criminal defences of women who are victims of domestic violence and who kill their abusers. While there is controversy about the desirability of introducing a specific family violence offence modelled on coercive control, this approach to domestic abuse is not restricted to the introduction of new offences. Recent efforts to tender evidence of coercive control in the trials of women who have killed an abusive partner have confronted significant difficulties, but feminist commentators suggest it is a strategy that should be pursued. While the concept of coercive control has increasingly become part of the language and thinking of feminist research and legal and policy responses to domestic abuse and intimate partner homicide, the chapter concludes that more work needs to be done if we are to truly reorient our understandings of IPV as a liberty crime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network. (2018). Data Report. Domestic Violence Death Review Team: Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ADFVDM-Report_2018.pdf.

  • Arnold, G. (2009). A battered women’s movement perspective of coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1432–1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinson, V. (2016). Criminalising coercive control in domestic violence cases: Should Scotland follow the path of England and Wales? Criminal Law Review, 3, 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinson, V. (2018). Aligning partial defences to murder with the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour. Journal of Criminal Law, 83(1), 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinson, V., & Bishop, C. P. (2015). Is the creation of a discrete offence of coercive control necessary to combat domestic violence? Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 66(2), 179–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, C. P. (2016). Domestic violence: The limitations of a legal response. In S. Hilder & V. Bettinson (Eds.), Domestic violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives on protection, prevention and intervention. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronnitt, S., & McSherry, B. (2017). Principles of criminal law (4th ed.). Sydney, NSW: Thomas Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, C., & Tyson, D. (2018). Leaving violent men: A study of women’s experiences of separation in Victoria, Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(3), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, W., & Bricknell, S. (2017). Homicide in Australia 2012–13 to 2013–14: National Homicide Monitoring Program Report, Statistical Report 02. Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr002.

  • Burman, M., & Brooks-Hay, O. (2018). Aligning policy and law? The creation of a domestic abuse offence incorporating coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzawa, E. S., Buzawa, C. G., & Stark, E. D. (2017). Responding to domestic violence: The integration of criminal justice and human services (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J., Glass, N., Sharps, P., Laughon, J., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crofts, T., & Tyson, D. (2013). Homicide law reform in Australia: Improving access of women who kill their abusers to defences. Monash University Law Review, 39(3), 864–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crofts, T., Crofts, P., Gray, S., Naylor, B. G., Kirchengast, T., & Tudor, S. (2016). Waller & Williams criminal law: Text and cases (13th ed.). Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, M., Bunge, V. P., & Balde, T. (2009). National trends in intimate partner homicides: Explaining the decline, Canada 1976–2001. Violence Against Women, 15(3), 276–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2004). Not an ordinary killer—Just an ordinary guy: When men murder an intimate woman partner. Violence Against Women, 10(6), 577–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2007). Lethal and nonlethal violence against an intimate female partner. Violence Against Women, 13(4), 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2009). The murder in Britain study: Broadening the analysis of men who murder an intimate woman partner. In Domestic-related Homicide: Keynote Papers from the 2009 International Conference on Homicide, Research and Public Policy Series 104. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/file/5742/download?token=A7fUDWye.

  • Domestic Violence Death Review Committee. (2017). Domestic Violence Death Review Committee 2016 Annual Report. Office of the Chief Coroner: Ontario. Retrieved from https://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/Deathinvestigations/OfficeChiefCoroner/Publicationsandreports/2016DomesticViolenceDeathReviewCommitteeAnnualReport.html.

  • Douglas, H. (2015). Do we need a specific domestic violence offence? Melbourne University Law Review, 39(2), 434–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Family Violence Death Review Committee. (2016). Fifth Report: January 2014 to December 2015. Wellington: Health Quality and Safety Commission of New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/FVDRC/Publications/FVDRC-5th-report-Feb-2016.pdf.

  • Hanna, C. (2009). The paradox of progress: Translating Evan Stark’s coercive control into legal doctrine for abused women. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1458–1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, B. E. (2013). Women’s resistance strategies in abusive relationships: An alternative framework (pp. 1–10). July–September: Sage Open.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, P., Campbell, M., Olszowy, L., & Hamilton, L. (2014). Paternal filicide in the context of domestic violence: Challenges in risk assessment and risk management for community and justice professionals. Child Abuse Review, 23(2), 142–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H., & Hotton, T. (2003). Losing control: Homicide risk in estranged and intact intimate relationships. Homicide Studies, 7(1), 58–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H., Eriksson, L., Mazerolle, P., & Wortley, R. (2019). Intimate femicide: The role of coercive control. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juodis, M., Starzomski, A., Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2014). A comparison of domestic and non-domestic homicides: Further evidence for distinct dynamics and heterogeneity of domestic homicide perpetrators. Journal of Family Violence, 29(3), 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justice for Women. (n.d.). Sally Challen. Retrieved from https://www.justiceforwomen.org.uk/sally-challen-appeal/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2016). Naming and defining ‘domestic violence’: Lessons from research with violent men. Feminist Review, 112(1), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, D., McKenzie, M., & Tyson, D. (2013). Justice or judgement: The impact of victorian homicide law reforms on responses to women who kill intimate partners, discussion paper 9. Melbourne, VIC: Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria & Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveless, J. (2014). R v GAC: Battered woman ‘syndromization’. Criminal Law Review, 9, 655–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, M., Kirkwood, K., Tyson, D., & Naylor, B. (2016). Out of Character? Legal Responses in Intimate Partner Homicides by Men in Victoria 2005‐2014, Discussion Paper 10. Melbourne, VIC: Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.dvrcv.org.au/sites/default/files/out_of_character_dvrcv.pdf.

  • McMahon, M., & McGorrery, P. (2016). Criminalising controlling and coercive behaviour: The next step in the prosecution of family violence? Alternative Law Journal, 41(2), 98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, M., McGorrery, P., & Burton, K. (2018). Prosecuting non-physical abuse between current intimate partners: Are stalking laws an under-utilised resource? Melbourne University Law Review, 42(2), (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, S. (2012). Why women stay: A theoretical examination of rational choice and moral reasoning in the context of intimate partner violence. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 45(2), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, S. (2016). Examining women’s agency in managing intimate partner violence and the related risk of homelessness: The role of harm minimisation. Global Public Health, 11(1–2), 198–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midson, B. (2016). Coercive control and criminal responsibility: Victims who kill their abusers. Criminal Law Forum, 27, 417–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myhill, A., & Hohl, K. (2016). The ‘golden thread’: Coercive control and risk assessment for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626-516675464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, B. G., & Tyson, D. (2017). Reforming defences to homicide in Victoria: Another attempt to address the gender question. International Journal of Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 6(3), 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New South Wales Domestic Violence Death Review Team. (2017). Domestic Violence Death Review Team Report 2015–2017. Domestic Violence Death Review Team: Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lc/papers/DBAssets/tabledpaper/WebAttachments/72106/2015-2017_DVDRT%20REPORT%20PDF.pdf.

  • New Zealand Law Commission. (2016). Strangulation: The Case for a New Offence, NZLC report 138. New Zealand law Commission: Wellington. Retrieved from https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC-R138.pdf.

  • Ortiz, A. M. (2018). Invisible bars: Adapting the crime of false imprisonment to better address coercive control and domestic violence in Tennessee. Vanderbilt Law Review, 71(2), 681–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The duluth model/. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Polk, K. (1994). When men kill: Scenarios of masculine violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board. (2017). 2016–2017 Annual Report. Queensland Government: Brisbane. Retrieved from https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/541947/domestic-and-family-violence-death-review-and-advisory-board-annual-report-2016-17.pdf.

  • Sheehan, B. E., Murphy, S. B., Moynihan, M. M., Dudley-Fennessey, E., & Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Intimate partner homicide: New insights for understanding lethality and risks. Violence Against Women, 21(2), 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, E. (2014). Defending battered women on trial: Lessons from the transcripts. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, E., Stubbs, J., & Tolmie, J. (2012). Defences to homicide for battered women: A comparative analysis of laws in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Sydney Law Review, 34(3), 467–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, E., Stubbs, J., & Tolmie, J. (2014). Securing fair outcomes for battered women charged with homicide: Analysing defence lawyering in R v Falls. Melbourne University Law Review, 38(2), 666–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, E., Stubbs, J., & Tolmie, J. (2015). When self-defence fails. In K. Fitz-Gibbon & A. Freiberg (Eds.), Homicide law reform in victoria: Retrospect and prospects. Leichardt: Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, E. (2018). Expert evidence on coercive control in support of self-defence: The trial of Teresa Craig. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2009). Rethinking coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1509–1525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2010). Do violence acts equal abuse? Resolving the gender parity/asymmetry dilemma. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2012a). Looking beyond domestic violence: Policing coercive control. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 12(2), 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2012b). Representing battered women: Coercive control and the defence of liberty. Paper presented at the Violence Against Women: Complex Realities and New Issues in a Changing World Conference, Québec, 29 May 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straka, S. M., & Montminy, L. (2008). Family violence: Through the lens of power and control. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(3), 255–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrant, S. (2018). Self defence against intimate partner violence: Let’s do the work to see it. University of Western Australia Law Review, 43(1), 196–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, J. R. (2018). Coercive control: To criminalize or not to criminalize? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, J., Smith, R., Short, J., Wilson, D., & Sach, J. (2018). Social entrapment: A realistic understanding of the criminal offending of primary victims of intimate partner violence. New Zealand Law Review, 2, 181–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, D., Kirkwood, D., McKenzie, M., & Naylor, B. (2015). The effects of the 2005 reforms on legal responses to women who kill intimate partners. In K. Fitz-Gibbon & A. Freiberg (Eds.), Homicide law reform in victoria: Retrospect and prospects. Leichardt: Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2004). Defences to Homicide: Final Report. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Law Reform Commission. Retrieved from www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/FinalReport.pdf.

  • Walby, S., & Myhill, A. (2001). New survey methodologies in researching violence against women. British Journal of Criminology, 41(3), 502–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, C., McIntyre, S. J., Brodie, L., Bugeja, L., & Hauge, S. (2012). Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths—First Report. Melbourne, VIC: Coroners Court of Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-11/vsrfvd%2Bfirst%2Breport%2B-%2Bfinal%2Bversion.pdf.

  • Walklate, S., Fitz-Gibbon, K., & McCulloch, J. (2018). Is more law the answer? Seeking justice for victims of intimate partner violence through the reform of legal categories. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wake, N. (2015). ‘His home is his castle. And mine is a cage’: A new partial defence for primary victims who kill. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 66(2), 149–175.

    Google Scholar 

Cases

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, VIC, Australia

    Danielle Tyson

Authors
  1. Danielle Tyson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle Tyson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia

    Marilyn McMahon

  2. School of Law, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia

    Paul McGorrery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tyson, D. (2020). Coercive Control and Intimate Partner Homicide. In: McMahon, M., McGorrery, P. (eds) Criminalising Coercive Control . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0653-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0653-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0652-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0653-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation