Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 421–435 | Cite as

Sociostructural Considerations of Domestic Femicide

  • Sheryl J. GranaEmail author


Previous research on the domestic murder of women is relatively scant. Domestic femicide data collected from 32 state domestic violence coalitions was regressed on variables associated with three theoretical explanations: economic stress and inequality variables, criminal justice variables, and community variables. Findings suggest that state size has the largest impact on the number of domestic femicides, perhaps because of the relationship between state size and other variables such as poverty and public services. Not related to domestic femicide are variables such as the number of officers on the street, the number of violent crimes, or household income.

domestic femicide inequality criminal justice community homicide 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bailey, W. C. (1984). Poverty, inequality, and city homicide rates. Criminology 22(Nov.): 531–550.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, L., and Straus, M. A. (1988). Cultural and economic sources of homicide in the United States. Sociol. Q. 29(3): 371–390.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, D. (1995). Negative consequences to the rise of income inequality. Res. Pol. Soc. 5: 3–1.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, V. E., and Smith, M. D. (1995). Gender inequality and rates of female victimization across U.S. cities. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 32(2): 175–190.Google Scholar
  5. Caputi, J., and Russell, D. E. H. (1992). Femicide: Sexist terrorism against women. In Radford, J., and Russel, D. E. H. (eds.), Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing, Twayne, NewYork, pp. 13–24.Google Scholar
  6. DeFronzo, J. (1997). Welfare and homicide. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 34(3): 395–407.Google Scholar
  7. Devine, J. A., Sheley, J. F., and Smith, M. D. (1988). Macroeconomic and social-control policy influences on crime rate changes, 1948–1985. American Sociological Review 53(June): 407–420.Google Scholar
  8. Dutton, D. G. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault:The ecological fallacy. Viol.Vict. 9(2): 167–182.Google Scholar
  9. Hampton, R. L., and Gelles, R. J. (1994). Violence toward Black women in a nationally representative sample of Black families. J. Comp Fam. Stud. 25(1): 105–119.Google Scholar
  10. Healey, K., Smith, C., and O'Sullivan, C. (1998). Exhibit 5–2: Information matrix on interventions for batterers. In Batterer Intervention: Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, p. 92.Google Scholar
  11. Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., and Cohen, L. (1990). Structural covariates of homicide rates: Are there any variances across time and social space? Am. J. Sociol. 95: 922–963.Google Scholar
  12. Loftin, C., and Hill, H. (1974). Regional subculture and homicide: An examination of the Gastil-Hackney thesis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39(Oct.): 714–724.Google Scholar
  13. Parker, R. N., and Smith, M. D. (1979). Deterrence, poverty and type of homicide. Am. J. Sociol. 85(3): 614–624.Google Scholar
  14. Parker, R. N., and Toth, A. M. (1990). Family, intimacy, and homicide:Amacro-social approach. Viol. Vict. 5(3): 195–210.Google Scholar
  15. Prothrow-Stith, D., and Weissman, M. (1993). Deadly Consequences, Harper Collins, NewYork.Google Scholar
  16. Radford, J. (1992). Introduction. In Radford, J., and Russel, D. E. H. (eds.), Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing, Twayne, New York, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, K. B. (1997). Explaining variation in state-level homicide rates: Does crime policy pay? J. Pol. 59(2): 350–368.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, M. D., and Parker, R. N. (1980). Type of homicide and variation in regional rates. Soc. Forces 59(1): 136–147.Google Scholar
  19. Stout, K. D. (1992). "Intimate femicide": Effect of legislation and social services. In Radford, J., and Russel, D. E. H. (eds.), Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing, Twayne, New York, pp. 133–142.Google Scholar
  20. Straus, M. A. (1994). State-to-state difference in social inequality and social bonds in relation to assaults on wives in the United States. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 25(1): 7–24.Google Scholar
  21. Wilson, M., and Daly, M. (1992). Till death do us part. In Radford, J., and Russel, D. E. H. (eds.), Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing, Twayne, New York, pp. 83–98.Google Scholar
  22. Yllo, K. A., and Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative factors. In M. A. Straus., and Gelles, R. J. (eds), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  23. Zepp, J. (1996). Domestic and sexual violence data collection: A report to Congress under the Violence Against Women Act, National Institutes of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology/AnthropologyUniversity of MinnesotaDuluth

Personalised recommendations