Wilson, P., Lincoln, R., & Kocsis, R. (1997). Validity, utility and ethics of profiling for serial violent and sexual offenders. Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/24
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Woodhams, J., Bull, R., & Hollin, C. R. (2007). Case linkage: Identifying crimes committed by the same offender. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.), Criminal profiling: International perspectives in theory, practice and research (pp. 117–133). Totowa, NJ: The Humana Press Inc.
Woodhams, J., Hollin, C. R., & Bull, R. (2007). The psychology of linking crimes: A review of the evidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 233–249.
Woodhams, J., & Labuschagne, G. (2012). A test of case linkage principles with solved and unsolved serial rapes. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 85–98.
Woodhams, J., & Toye, K. (2007). An empirical test of the assumptions of case linkage and offender profiling with serial commercial robberies. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 13, 59–85.
Woskett, J., Coyle, I. R., & Lincoln, R. (2007). The probity of profiling: Opinions of Australian lawyers on the utility of criminal profiling in Court. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 14, 306–314.
Youngs, D. (2004). Personality correlates of offence style. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 99–119.
NOTES
1 The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Lee Rainbow in preparing this chapter for publication.
2 Other approaches that are referred to are crime action profiling (Kocsis, 2007) and behavioural evidence analysis (Turvey, 2008). These are not discussed further here but the interested reader can find out more from the cited sources.
11 Interpersonal Violence and Stalking
LOUISE DIXON AND ERICA BOWEN
CHAPTER OUTLINE
11.1 INTRODUCTION
11.2 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY 11.2.1 Intimate Partner Violence
11.2.2 Stalking
11.3 LIFETIME AND 12-MONTH PREVALENCE RATES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND STALKING 11.3.1 Rates of Intimate Partner Violence
11.3.2 Rates of Stalking Behaviours
11.3.3 Rates of Intimate Partner Stalking
11.4 RISK FACTORS AND THEORIES
11.5 SUBTYPES OF PERPETRATORS 11.5.1 Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration
11.5.2 Stalking Perpetration
11.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: RISK ASSESSMENT
11.7 SUMMARY
LEARNING OUTCOMES
BY THE END OF THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
Understand why a psychological analysis of inter-personal violence is important in the assessment and treatment of offenders
Appreciate the key research papers and methods used to understand interpersonal violence
Understand the implications of existing findings for the prevention of interpersonal violence.
11.1 INTRODUCTION
“Nurse ‘stabbed to death in the street by her married stalker ex-lover – who then rolled a cigarette as he waited for police to arrive’.” This was a headline in Mail Online news (Parry, 2014). The article describes how Naudel Turner, 42, was killed in “an extremely violent, remorseless and prolonged” knife attack by her ex-boyfriend on 19 March 2014 in north London. Dariusz Miakienko reportedly became “obsessed” with Naudel as the relationship broke down and he attacked her a short distance from her place of work after she had left for the day. He was seemingly jealous over a new relationship she had formed with a new partner.
This is just one example of many worldwide media headlines that depict stories of relationships that have culminated in the murder of one partner. While not all cases of partner homicide are characterised by stalking and harassment, most victims of stalking know their perpetrator, and in a large proportion of stalking cases the target is an ex-intimate partner (Spitzberg, 2002). Such murder cases provoke questions about why the fatality occurred and whether this arguably foreseeable event could have been prevented. These are questions that many academics and practitioners in the field have endeavoured to answer.
In order to understand why the most severe cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) happen, it is necessary to understand the nature and aetiology of the violence that can occur in intimate relationships. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to give a comprehensive account of these issues. The aim of this chapter is to provide readers with an overview of the IPV and stalking literatures, through which reference will be made to the most influential research in order to provide a firm foundation for further investigation. The chapter will examine definitions, rates, theories and typologies of IPV and stalking, before considering the implications that such knowledge has for risk assessment. See also Chapter 3 for a further discussion of this topic.
11.2 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
In order for professionals to respond to IPV and stalking in an accurate and consistent manner, agreement must be reached about what each term refers to. Definitions determine what an agency will class as IPV or stalking and therefore to whom they will provide services, or whom they will include in official statistics that guide policy and practice (Bowen, 2011a; Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011; Esquivel-Sãntovena & Dixon, 2012).
11.2.1 Intimate Partner Violence
IPV has been increasingly understood as a public matter and social problem since the 1970s (Dutton, 2006). It takes place between members of a couple from various social groups, ethnicities, gender and educational backgrounds and as such cannot be said to be associated with one particular subsection of the population. Definitions of IPV (of which numerous exist within the literature) share some reference to the different forms of aggression it can encompass. Typically, definitions provide some reference to physical, psychological and sexual aggression, emphasising that IPV should be understood as more than just physical violence. Some definitions also acknowledge that more subtle “controlling behaviours” should be included in any definition (examples of each form of IPV are provided in Table 11.1). The importance of recognising controlling behaviours has been shown by research, which has demonstrated that they may be a precursor to physical aggression and are likely to co-occur with it; that some women report them to be more damaging than physical aggression; and that they are unlikely to diminish over time (Graham-Kevan, 2007). Indeed, the recently amended Home Office definition of domestic violence and abuse reflects this along with a lower age limit of 16 years at which domestic violence is recognised (Home Office, 2013).
PHOTO 11.1 IPV has been increasingly understood as a public matter and social problem since the 1970s.
Source: © diplomedia/Shutterstock
Table 11.1 Examples of the different forms of intimate partner violence
Form of intimate partner violence Explanation Examples of behavioural acts
Physical aggression/coercion To make physical contact with the intent to cause pain or injury to another, or to coerce that person into doing something against their will Push, slap, grab, bite, punch, pull hair, kick, hit with an object, choke, use a weapon against person
Sexual aggression/coercion To use physical force or verbal coercion to make sexual contact with a person against their will Indecent assault, using physical force to force other into sexual intercourse, use verbal threats or intimidation to coerce other in sexual intercourse
Psychological aggression To expose an individual to behaviour that may cause psychological harm (i.e. harm to intellectual or mental capacity that results in impairment of a person’s ability to function (Browne & Herbert, 1997)) Insult, name calling, humiliation tactics, threats to harm other or other’s loved ones, destroy property
Controlling behaviours Behaviour enacted with the aim of controlling or monitoring another person’s actions. While all of the above categories may be described as controlling behaviours, often more subtle behaviours are overlooked – examples here are concerned with such subtle behaviours Control a
nother’s money, tell the other they are confused or have “got it wrong” when they have not, follow another person without their consent, check another person’s email or telephone calls without their consent, make the other jealous on purpose, limit other’s access to friends and family, monitor other’s movements and contact with others in some way
In any definition, particular attention should be paid to the terminology that describes the relationship status and gender of the couple involved in the violence. Much empirical research has determined that violence can occur in dating relationships in young couples (e.g. Bowen & Walker, 2015; Ko Ling, Straus, Brownridge, Tiwari, & Leung, 2008), in estranged couples (e.g. Dutton & Kerry, 1999), and in same sex relationships (e.g. Nowinski & Bowen, 2012; Renzetti & Miley, 1996). A broad definition should therefore include current and former marital, dating and cohabiting relationships, and heterosexual and same sex couples. Hence terminology should be inclusive of all relationship types and be gender neutral in description.
The adjectives used to describe the violence must also be given consideration in any definition. Words that allude to severe and chronic violence (such as battering) apply to only a minority of all cases and therefore exclude less severe and frequent assaults. The spectrum of acts recognised as IPV will be limited where such restrictive terms are used in a definition. Academics working in the field of aggression research have suggested that distinct terms should be used to coin the different severity of acts, with aggression used to refer to acts that are less likely to result in injury (e.g. slapping) and violence used to highlight acts more likely to result in injury (e.g. choking and stabbing) (Archer, 1994, 2000).
For the purpose of consistency, this chapter will use the term IPV to refer to acts of aggression or violence that take place between intimate partners. The definition of this term is understood to be “any form of aggression and/or controlling behaviours used against a current or past intimate partner of any gender or relationship status” (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011, p. 1) to reflect that this problem can occur between people of any gender or sexuality in any intimate relationship status and be of varying forms and severity.
11.2.2 Stalking
The term “stalking” is a colloquial term adopted as a consequence of a number of high profile cases in which individuals experienced repeated criminal behaviour and/or harassment (Budd & Mattinson, 2000). Implied by the term “stalking” are predatory pursuit behaviours (Westrup & Fremouw, 1998), and while following may constitute a proportion of the behaviours identified as stalking, the actual range of behaviours that fall within this term is much broader. Sheridan and Davies (2004) suggest that an infinite array of behaviours may be defined as stalking because definition of the phenomenon is in fact driven by victim perceptions. Indeed, this is one reason why there are alternative terms used within the literature. For example, “obsessional harassment” (Zona, Sharma, & Lane, 1993), “harassment” and “obsessional following” (Meloy & Gothard, 1995), and “unwanted pursuit behaviours” (De Smet, Uzieblo, Loeys, Buysse, & Onraedt, 2015) are frequently used to refer to a range of behaviours, which might include, but is not limited to, pursuit or following behaviours.
Contention surrounds the use of the word “obsessional”, which suggests that it is the presence of repeated intrusive thoughts about the target that ultimately directly causes stalking behaviour. This assumption is yet to be scientifically scrutinised. It has also been argued that the terms stalking and following do little to differentiate between a range of behaviours and one specific action (Westrup & Fremouw, 1998). The term harassment is also used within the literature to reflect persistent unwanted behaviours that may or may not elicit feelings of fear, which is identified by some as the defining feature of stalking behaviour.
A final term within the literature that has been inaccurately used to refer to these behaviours is “erotomania”. Erotomania is a psychiatric disorder that is classified within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), as a subtype of delusional disorder in which the patient has “delusions that another person, usually of higher status, is in love with the individual” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 328). However, as many individuals who are diagnosed as erotomanic also have other psychiatric conditions, it is unclear the extent to which erotomania actually leads an individual to engage in stalking behaviour. Indeed, few stalkers are ever diagnosed as erotomanics, and fewer erotomanics engage in stalking, which directly challenges the relevance of this disorder to the phenomena of stalking (Westrup & Fremouw, 1998).
In the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) to the year ending March 2016, stalking was defined as “two or more incidents (causing distress, fear or alarm) of receiving obscene or threatening unwanted letters, emails, text messages or phone calls, having had obscene or threatening information about them placed on the internet, waiting or loitering around home or workplace, or following or watching by a current or former partner or family member” (Office for National Statistics, 2017). This definition is very broad, and shows that the majority of stalking behaviours would not be unwanted within different contexts, for example in some contexts having someone wait for you outside your home would not be viewed as fear provoking. The threshold for frequency of behaviours to constitute stalking has also been changed back to at least two incidents, as was originally reported in the 2006 British Crime Survey (Finney, 2006 p.v.). In previous surveys the threshold had been reduced to at least one incident (e.g. CSEW 2012/13; ONS 2014). In addition, the definition emphasises that for stalking behaviour to occur, the victim must feel fearful as a result.
Consequently, this definition highlights the extremely subjective nature of stalking, which makes it unlike any other form of crime (Fox, Nobles, & Fisher, 2011). Individual perceptions of what constitutes threatening and fear-inducing behaviour will differ; consequently, if a target does not formally recognise they are being stalked, then stalking is not actually happening. However, research indicates that there is considerable consistency in people’s perceptions of what does and does not constitute stalking behaviour (e.g. Sheridan, Davies, & Boon, 2001; Sheridan, Gillet, & Davies, 2000, 2002). These difficulties aside, across the terms and definitions of stalking offered in the literature, it is generally agreed that stalking constitutes a range of unwanted and repeated actions directed towards a specific individual that induce fear or concern for safety or that induce harassment (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000; Sheridan & Davies, 2001; Westrup & Fremouw, 1998). Consequently this is how stalking will be defined for the purpose of this chapter.
11.3 LIFETIME AND 12-MONTH PREVALENCE RATES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND STALKING
Typically, surveys around the world have attempted to determine lifetime and 12-month rates of IPV and stalking by asking a representative sample of a community to self-report their experiences of victimisation. Accurate prevalence rates for a country can only be determined by surveying nationally representative community samples (Gelles, 1990), as this approach is more stringent than using official police arrest or conviction records which notoriously underreport actual figures (Bowen, 2011a). However, this methodology is not without its problems.
11.3.1 Rates of Intimate Partner Violence
Results from surveys with nationally representative samples show IPV to be an international social problem of significant magnitude (e.g. the World Health Organization [WHO], 2005). However, while many surveys utilise nationally representative samples, their design is informed by a gendered, or sometimes termed feminist, perspective, which assumes that IPV constitutes men’s violence to women (not women’s violence to men; see Section 11.4 on theories for a more in-depth description of the gendered perspective). Consequently, surveys designed from this perspective necessarily only ask females about their victimisation (e.g. WHO, 2005; Moracco, Runyan, Bowling, & Earp, 2007). This one-sided approach limits knowledge to female victimisation, and prevents learning abo
ut male victimisation, female perpetration and reciprocal aggression (where both partners aggress against one another).
Crime surveys typically identify rates of victimisation in nationally representative samples via self-report methods. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), formerly known as the British Crime Survey (BCS), identifies victimisation rates of different types of crime for large samples of men and women aged between 16–59 resident in households in England and Wales. Since 2009 a sample of children has also been included aged 10–15 years to gain a more complete picture of crime in England and wales. The confidential survey gathers information about incidents that are not reported to the police, which is particularly important for intimate violence as is it notoriously underreported to the authorities (Bowen, 2011a). Since 2004 the BCS/CSEW has consistently included a module on “intimate violence”, which respondents (aged 16–59 only) complete alone. The module addresses emotional, financial and physical abuse by partners or family members, as well as sexual assaults and stalking by any person.
PHOTO 11.2 Stalking constitutes a range of unwanted and repeated actions directed towards a specific individual that induce fear or concern for safety or that induce harassment.
Source: © Don Bayley/iStockphoto
Findings from the CSEW for the year ending March 2016 showed that for any partner abuse in the last 12 months (non-physical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking), 2.8% of men, and 6.5% of women reported they had been a victim once or more. Since the age of 16 this figure rose to 10.3% for men and 23.7% for women. For any non-sexual force from a partner, 1% of men and 1.9% of women reported this in the last 12 months and 8.6% of men and 20.7% of women ever since the age of 16. Severe force from a partner was reported by 1% of men and 1.9% of women in the last 12 months, whilst 5.8% of men and 15.3% of women reported ever having experienced this since age 16 (ONS, 2017).
Forensic Psychology Page 50
