The Sexist

Why Do So Many Men Die As A Result of Domestic Violence?

Last year, 53 people in the state of Maryland died as a result of domestic violence. According to the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, which crunches the numbers for that sad statistic, the domestic violence-related deaths for the fiscal year 2009 (July 2008—June 2009) fell surprisingly evenly along gender lines:

  • 32 of the dead are female.
  • 21 of the dead are male.

Last year, in other words, 40 percent of people who died in Maryland as a result of domestic violence were male. Right about now, men's rights activists are surely waiting in the wings, ready to pounce on this statistic as irrefutable evidence that men are victimized by domestic violence at nearly the same rate as women. The truth is much more complicated.

Let's look at the numbers on the female side first (courtesy of the MNADV's extensive research).

Of the 32 females who died as a result of domestic violence last year:

  • 3 were children.
  • 29 were adult women.

Of the 29 adult women:

  • 28 were victims of domestic violence.
  • The one remaining woman was a domestic violence aggressor who committed suicide. She is the sole occupier of the category of "females who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder/attempting to commit murder."

Of the 28 adult female victims:

  • 10 were wives or ex-wives of the offender.
  • 17 were girlfriends or ex-girlfriends of the offender.
  • One was a domestic violence victim who committed suicide.

And on the male side of things:

Of the 21 males who died as a result of domestic violence last year:

  • 2 were children.
  • 19 were adult men.

Of the 19 adult men:

  • 9 were victims.
  • 10 were domestic violence aggressors who died as a result of their own domestic violence—"males who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder/attempting to commit murder."

Of the nine male victims:

  • 2 were husbands or ex-husbands of the offender.
  • 3 were boyfriends or ex-boyfriends of the offender.
  • 3 were killed by their current partner's ex.
  • 1 was killed by his ex's current partner.

Of the ten men who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder or attempting to commit murder:

  • 1 man was killed by the police.
  • 3 were killed by their partners in self-defense.
  • 6 committed suicide.

Of the 53 total dead:

  • 27 were killed by gun or rifle.
  • 12 were killed by knife.
  • 5 were killed by strangulation.
  • 4 were killed by vehicle.
  • 2 were killed by "physical force/hands."
  • 2 were killed by burning
  • 1 cause of death was unknown.

Domestic violence kills in many ways. When it comes to male deaths by domestic violence, men are more likely to be killed as a result of attempting to murder their own partners than as a result of their partner's aggression. Men who are victims of domestic violence are almost as likely to be killed by a partner's ex than by their partners themselves. "Domestic violence is not as simple and straightforward as people think," says Michele Cohen, MNADV's Executive Director. "The work that we do attempts to capture the full picture of all the individuals who die as a result of domestic violence—both victims and offenders."

Tonight, the MNADV will hold its 22nd Annual Memorial Service for all the "women, men, and children" who died over the past year from domestic violence. Find more information about the Annapolis, Md. service here [PDF].

  • Marc A.

    Yeah I'm a busy guy and I enjoy my life too. Sue me.

    So "power driving" and "force feeding" is what you call it when I document and back up what I say? Yeah maybe I should stick with personal insults like you. That's much better than objectivity and documentation, right?

    No, I definitely don't expect a feminist to belive objective research from major universities, the Canadian government and almost 300 peer-reveiwed journals when it's something they don't want to believe. I learned that over 10 years ago. That's why we focus on training of judges and mediators, and we're doing a good job at that. But I do put the data here to watch you turn to personal attacks when you can't response with any substance. And it works like a charm on you.

  • Dorothy

    "Dorothy, I agree that 7 months in jail is severe punishment in that case."

    "Oops – I misspoke: Dorothy, I thought that the 7 months were served by Ibbs, not Watson and Carter (I’m not up on my Australian news). However, I reviewed the infamous “30 second rapist” case and have a correction.

    IMO both Carter and Watson each should have served 4 years in prison, the sentence handed down to Ibbs. Plus, they should have been prosecuted and convicted of kidnapping (Ibbs spent time in jail directly due to their actions), slander and libel, and been sued in civil court by Ibbs and required to pay him monetary and punitive damages."

    I find it revealing that you think seven month a severe punishment for raping someone, while it's not nearly enough for accusing someone of rape.

    Don't insult our intelligence any further with claiming you want "equal" rights.

  • http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com abyss2hope

    To Toysoldier and Marc A, if you don't understand how lies in claiming to be a victim are different from tests in hiring practices, education opportunities and customer treatment then nothing you say on this subject is credible. I don't believe your claims that you don't understand how false claims of victimhood hurt real victims since this is a theme repeated by MRAs whenever they talk about false claims made by girls and women.

    Marc A, Telling me that men who test are very good liars who can fool all advocates doesn't inspire confidence since that makes me wonder about every claim you and those around you make or support.

    Marc A wrote: "Funny you insist on saying “alleged” for DV discrimination but not for rape or discrimination against women."

    Not funny at all since you are referring to a specific allegation you are making. You are seeking more than safe housing for men who claim to be victims of DV, you are seeking to have men who you admit are lying about being victims allowed in with women whose lives may be in danger.

    Rape happens and even you don't dispute that -- or do you? Do you also dispute that discrimination against women happens even though it has been proven in court numerous times?

  • Mike

    There has been/is a double standard when it comes to domestic violence when it's a women on man. Last summer I was listening to NPR, and a Psychiatrists was on. He spoke about the research he did, which showed that about half of the victims of domestic violence were males. Domestic violence is widely accepted in our society when it's a woman abusing a male. All you have to do is turn on Cheaters and count how many women hit the male who cheated on them. He also reported that most domestic violence is retalotry, meaning that the woman attacks him physically, verbally, or emotionally, and the man retaliates. Now some people will say sticks and stones may never break my bones, and I'm not absolving the man for hitting the woman, but a lot of feminists seem to only focus on the man that does the hitting, and not on any cupability the woman may have.

  • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Toysoldier

    To Toysoldier and Marc A, if you don’t understand how lies in claiming to be a victim are different from tests in hiring practices, education opportunities and customer treatment then nothing you say on this subject is credible.

    There is no difference as both are used to determine whether any discrimination occurs. Over the years I have spoken with several men who survived physical and sexual abuse who sought services only to be hung up on, told no or accused of being pedophiles or batterers. There is no reason for male victim to be treated that way, so if using a tester could prevent that, I am all for it. At this point is fairly easy to demonstrate that service providers already do not help male victims. All using a tester does is show how prevalent that is.

    You are seeking more than safe housing for men who claim to be victims of DV, you are seeking to have men who you admit are lying about being victims allowed in with women whose lives may be in danger.

    That is an unfounded extrapolation. No testers actually use the services. They call to see whether service would be provided, which is what all initial calls to those places are. I think you, like many feminists, make extraordinary leaps in logic when anyone discusses male victims. As I stated before, on one hand feminists claim to want to prevent all violence, but on the other they make concerted efforts to deny male victimization at the hands of women. It does no one any harm to acknowledge men are victims of domestic violence and deserve the same treatment and respect extended to female victims, but judging by feminists responses one would gets a much different impression.

    All the comments by feminists on this thread and in the initial post show is that feminists do not appear to actually want to help male victims. They do not want male victimization rates studied, they do not want to hear about the treatment male victims receive from the domestic violence community and they do not want male victims to have equal access to existing support services. It leaves the impression that feminists are at best invested in sweeping male victimization under the rug.

    I fail to understand the logic behind this or how it in any way prevents future violence.

  • Mr. Bad

    Dorothy said: "I find it revealing that you think seven month a severe punishment for raping someone, while it’s not nearly enough for accusing someone of rape."

    You did get the part where I said I didn't remember the case correctly at first so I had to go back and review it, right?

    You make the mistake of thinking that I ever agreed that the "30 second rapist" raped someone: I never believed it, and apparently once the court figured out what was going on they didn't either. From the beginning I strongly suspect that case was not rape, it was a setup, plain and simple. Had the Ibbs actually raped someone, then sure, 7 months would have been a light sentence, but that fact is those women were the real criminals and they got a slap on the wrist.

    As for the role of coercion vis-a-vis false allegations vs. convictions of innocent men for rape, Marc makes a good point - both occur far too often. And I would go further and posit that IMO the number of coerced false confessions for rape far outnumber coerced recantations of rape allegations. As Marc says, it's hard to know, but my gut tells me the former occurs on the level of orders of magnitude more often than the latter, very likely due to pressure from feminist groups to increase the rates of convictions in rape cases.

    Which raises an interesting reality: It is a statistical truth that when one works to reduce the number of Type II errors (e.g., in this context, finding a person "not guilty" when in fact they are guilty), they automatically and unequivocably increase the number of Type I errors (e.g., finding a person "guilty" when they are in fact innocent). The table below presents the statistical situation:

    Actual condition
    Guilty Not guilty
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Verdict of "guilty" True Positive False Positive
    (i.e. guilt
    reported unfairly)
    Type I error
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Verdict "not guilty" False Negative True Negative
    (guilt not detected)
    Type II error
    --------------------------------------------------------

    So, what we don't hear discussed in the context of feminists' relentless work to increase convictions in rape cases is the statistical inevitability that more innocent men will be convicted of rape than is already currently the case.

    I don't remember the exact words, or who said it, but the saying "it's better that 100 guilty men go free than even one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit" is IMO absolutely true. And unless and until feminists start to care about the innocent men that their efforts will inevitably send to jail, I really won't be able to care one wit about increasing rape convictions. Period.

  • jfc1

    That's because women only care about the consequences of their actions on men unless they are intimately involved with them.

    In their minds they see these men as criminals and thus deserving of what happens to them.

    Take a simple test.
    Just how much jail time do you think that rape deserves, and why?

    Ask any woman to explain her opinion.
    It will never make sense.

    Ask any guy to explain their opinion.
    They can only base it on historical punishment for rape.

    But if you look at the variation in sentencing time for any *other* crime (including murder) there can easily be a wide range of sentences from life or capital punishment down to...yes...7 months. Even a suspended sentence with release for time served. Because it all depends on context.

    The concept of rape dismisses all context. Therefore all men who commit rape should be held to the same punishment. And the bottom line is that that is simply a standard number based on jurisdiction. with some additional time added on based on the violence of the rape. But I'd guess that just about anyone reading this would start with a number around 20 years and head north, truth in sentencing would require the convict to serve at least 80% of that sentence, but again, time can be knocked off for a number of factors.

    That guy who kidnapped, raped and murdered that 11 year old girl on the Maryland eastern shore, and they found her body out there around Christmas? He had served time for TWO rapes in less than 10 years (once for child-rape) and was out again. Regularly these guys are out on parole or awaiting trial for one crime and commit another crime. You can always make the argument that no length of time is sufficient punishment for a rape in the context of the threat that they pose to society as "a known rapist". And indeed that argument is going before the Supreme Court as I write this.

    But I really don't see how anyone can equate a prison sentence to a violent sexual assault. Kidnapping and repeated rape is one thing, but how much jail time is one rape worth? How can you possibly equate the two things? They're two entirely different concepts.

  • jfc1

    ...especially when, honestly, no one in their right mind would want to spend even one day in jail.

    Not any jail that is more than just you, a bunk, a toilet and a set of bars.

    Who in their right mind would really want to be incarcerated for *any* stretch of time?

    So the whole premise that laws against rape are effective deterrents fails on the sheer fact that rapists are not men in their right minds. They might get caught, they might not, they might get convicted, they might not, sure, but none of these things are real deterrents for them. They rape anyway. They may get caught. Certainly they then face the possibility of either getting raped in prison...or of raping *men* in prison. In that sense it's a positive reward for them, especially if they are closeted homosexuals. Or bisexuals. Or whatever, just guys hungry for a power-trip.

    But still at its worst, how can one equate a single act of sexual assault to years of incarceration and only *possibly* the humiliation and pain of being a sexual-assualt victim themselves? Isn't it somewhat obvious that for a man to survive extended incarceration, he has to at some level at least be ok with it? Do you really think that they can make it through more than a few days in jail otherwise?

  • jfc1

    ...so anyway yes, at some level the CJS fails on its face, because it creates an entire subpopulation of men who really don't care if they get caught and convicted for crime, or if they do care, they will do almost anything to not get caught and convicted again.

    All while as someone said earlier, arresting and convicting people who aren't guilty of anything. Or certainly convicting them of something when they aren't guilty of what they were convicted of. Sure some guys plea down to avoid a length jail term, but what about all the ones that plea down just because they are afraid of getting railroaded in court even if they are innocent? How can you differentiate between those two groups? You can't. Once they plea they lose the right to appeal their case. They have to make an appeal just to reverse their plea. Men who assist women in the prosecution and conviction of sexual-assault cases invariably are helping them to wrongfully-prosecute and convict some men in the process. But in any case none of these men are really getting what they deserve. They're just having to accept what is done to them. But it's being done to them for YEARS, while their crimes, even if they are guilty, lasted what? A half-hour, maybe even a minute? Unless they restrained and tormented their victims? Even then what could it possibly mean for someone who was tied-up and raped at knifepoint, say, to want to see their tormentor incarcerated for 20 years to life?

    It means that it will take 20 years in prison or more for that victim to think that their rapist is actually getting what they deserve? And THAT is healthy for the victim?!? Or ok they should be executed?

    None of this really sounds to me to be "healthy" for a "victim". It sounds like extended revenge, if anything it's just legal abuse, torture. Doled out in return with the aid of the state. It certainly isn't going to stop a serious rapist and it's not going to stop people from becoming rape victims.

    Clearly it won't even stop gropers and date-rapists.

  • jfc1

    ...the big thing is that the moment that a criminal is sentenced he has to make some sort of mental adjustment to his next 20 years in prison. That adjustment may happen sooner, it may happen later, but it has to happen or they won't survive the experience. In which case subjecting them to incarceration is a death-sentence. In which case certainly they won't get the 20+ years that the victim thinks that they should get.

    The main thing is that the rapists now gets to play *another* game of "torment the victim". They can wait out the sentence and strike again. They might even get released early. They might even escape. The victim will never know. Not to mention that the victim could get raped again by someone else while her first rapist is in prison.

    It seems to me that all of this is actually more of a torture than a salve for the victim not to mention for women at large. Placing false hope in a system that simply does not perform the intended function is usually like that.

  • http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist Amanda Hess

    jfc1:

    You have just posted four comments, in a row, in response to the same post. This is trolling behavior. In the future, please confine your thoughts to a single comment. You could stand to do some editing for length, as well. From here on out, if you exhibit any more behavior that I deem to be trolling again, you will be immediately banned. To preempt any requests for clarification: I decide what constitutes trolling, so best to err on the side of caution.

    Thanks!

    Amanda

  • jfc1

    ...the bottom line is that the concept of incarceration seems to be an effective deterrent only for those who are effectively deterred by it. Clearly that does not include the criminal. I think that it is somewhat obvious that the criminal mind is actually attracted to the concept of long-term incarceration, not inherently opposed to it. And that by pinning such hope on incarceration, the society at large actually sets itself up to be victimized on a regular basis by those who either don't give a shit about whether they are in jail or not, or those who would do anything to stay out of jail and who would never actually submit to capture and incarceration. This leaves two additional groups, the men who are wrongfully imprisoned and those who are guilty but who are overwhelmed upon capture, or those who submit to arrest and imprisonment but who cannot handle (cannot successfully adapt to) imprisonment. Taking any sort of pleasure in the first case is simply inhumane, and devalues the society at large in and of itself. The 2nd case could either break under the stress of incarceration, overcome the incarceration or fail to survive it, and they will find out along the way. The third case is the case of the walking dead. These are likely to either die in prison or escape (or die trying to escape). In any case we're talking about people who are eventually going to get out of jail if they survive. It just seems like in the long run we are breeding more problems than we solve, by attempting to ferret out and incarcerate sexual offenders. For one thing we have to allow the police to arrest and imprison (and the courts to convict) on mere suspicion or wait until after a sexual assault has actually occurred. And then there's always the chance of a false claim or a wrongful conviction. And if 90% of the claims are true and the subsequent arrests and convictions are true, that still leaves 10% of them that are wrong and a whole lot of men sitting in jail trying to survive, for years and years, who have no business being there. While a lot of men rape and assault and still go free. Indeed are never even suspected.

    ...and since rape is primarily a female concern, that means that there is no gender balance here to balance out these claims. Men and women both get robbed, kidnapped and murdered. I'd guess that 99% of rape victims are women. That's not even true for child sexual assault or even for "statutory rape". So if there is one "golden opportunity" for women to victimize men without balance, it's in a rape charge.

    Aside of course from alimony and child-support :)

    Not something to be taken lightly. At all.

  • jfc1

    "You have just posted four comments, in a row, in response to the same post. This is trolling behavior."

    Arbitrary definition noted :)

    I'm sorry that you feel that way but I have to disagree. You want people to post their honest opinions here? You have to take their postings with a grain of salt.

    Unless you want to write them to suit you.

    And if you can't handle that? Feel free to harass me any further and I'll be happy to spend my time more productively than giving you an honest male opinion with explanation. You can sit there and think whatever you like with your fingers jammed in your ears. Just don't complain when you don't understand why men think the way that we do, about women and what women do and what happens to women. We try to tell you, you refuse to listen.

  • jfc1

    "From here on out, if you exhibit any more behavior that I deem to be trolling again, you will be immediately banned. To preempt any requests for clarification: I decide what constitutes trolling, so best to err on the side of caution."

    Um, Amanda, that totally depends on whether I give a fuck about your opinion.

    You can ban me. Feel free. Won't change a thing about what I think...you just won't know what it is. Kapiche?

  • Dorothy

    Okay, two answers in one:

    "You make the mistake of thinking that I ever agreed that the “30 second rapist” raped someone: I never believed it, and apparently once the court figured out what was going on they didn’t either."

    When you don't find someone guilty, you don't convict him. It's as simple as that.

    As for jfc1's claim:
    "But if you look at the variation in sentencing time for any *other* crime (including murder) there can easily be a wide range of sentences from life or capital punishment down to…yes…7 months."

    That is wrong.

  • jfc1

    ...not like your whole fucking blog isn't "trolling", though. Is it. Just pro-woman, anti-male trolling...obviously that's ok with you LOL

    Knock yourself out, female. Won't faze me a bit.

  • jfc1

    As for jfc1’s claim:
    “But if you look at the variation in sentencing time for any *other* crime (including murder) there can easily be a wide range of sentences from life or capital punishment down to…yes…7 months.”

    That is wrong.
    ......................

    just a quick example:

    http://australiancrime.blogspot.com/2010/01/long-road-to-justice.html

    Since it can take so long for a murder trial to reach the sentencing stage, given various motions and appeals, it's easy for the prosecution to win a conviction and then lose any extended prison-sentence AFTER the sentencing hearing. In fact the longer the defendant is held in jail before sentencing the more likely this is to happen. He could be held for 3 years in jail awaiting a conviction, the sentencing could be held soon after and then the sentence reduced to slightly more than time served. It's quite possible.

  • Dorothy

    "Won’t faze me a bit."

    As demonstrated so starkly by your complete disregard of this blog.

  • Dorothy

    "Since it can take so long for a murder trial to reach the sentencing stage, given various motions and appeals, it’s easy for the prosecution to win a conviction and then lose any extended prison-sentence AFTER the sentencing hearing."

    A man being in jail 4 years prior to being sentenced to 5 years in jail has to stay another year in prison making a full total of 5 years in prison which, lo and behold, the sentence was.

    I'm not teaching law 101 here, so let's stop with this.

  • jfc1

    ...not to mention that it's not up to a judge to decide the sentence in all cases.

    Take someone who is technically guilty of murder (indeed of any crime, including rape). A jury could decide that this may be true but the crime wasn't worth an extended sentence. They take a number of factors into account, not just whether a crime was technically committed. So you can have a conviction but then a low sentenced is handed down, couple that with a lengthy pre-sentencing incarceration and time-off for good behavior and possibly cooperation in other cases, and the convicted person could be out of jail in short order. Certainly assigned to a halfway-house for the latter part of their sentence if they are deemed to be a low-risk nonviolent offender.

    You simply can't rely on someone going to the Big House and staying there for 20 years.

  • Dorothy

    You're wrong.

  • jfc1

    "A man being in jail 4 years prior to being sentenced to 5 years in jail has to stay another year in prison making a full total of 5 years in prison which, lo and behold, the sentence was."

    Yes, indeed, their sentence was technically 5 years LOL

    But in practice they did not serve 5 years after being sentenced. The 4 years was only part of their "arrest" before and during trial. It is converted into post-sentencing time and counted against their sentence.

    It seems that we agree on the effect, just not what to call it LOL personally I call it a good way for someone who is sure that they are guilty of a crime to stretch the case out as long as possible, knowing that all the time they are in jail before sentencing will count against their final sentence and make that sentencing that less effective. And this is all yet another reason for men to plea down to lesser charges, even if they are innocent.

  • jfc1

    " Dorothy February 4th, 2010
    3:41 pm
    #169

    You’re wrong."

    Well, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.

    But not likely, and even if so, not to any real effect. It seems that I've spent my whole adult life worrying about this very issue. How about you?

  • http://jennyknopinski.wordpress.com/ Jenny

    "You can ban me. Feel free. Won’t change a thing about what I think…you just won’t know what it is. Kapiche?"

    Hahahaha,oh no! How will we ever survive without knowing your thoughts? My world will be so empty and meaningless.

  • Mr. Bad

    "…not like your whole fucking blog isn’t “trolling”, though. Is it. Just pro-woman, anti-male trolling…obviously that’s ok with you LOL

    Knock yourself out, female. Won’t faze me a bit."

    Come on jfc1, knock it off. It's their blog, their rules.

    If you did this at my blog you'd have one more warning left and you'd be out of here. I think Amanda's showing considerable restraint, and for that I applaud her.

  • Banyan

    Is there any long term way to get rid of jfc1?

  • Melissa

    Lol, probably not as long as he keeps posting under different e-mail addresses.

  • http://jennyknopinski.wordpress.com/ Jenny

    Honestly, I think it's best to just ignore him, no matter how much he baits.

  • Mr. Bad

    Dorothy said: "A man being in jail 4 years prior to being sentenced to 5 years in jail has to stay another year in prison making a full total of 5 years in prison which, lo and behold, the sentence was."

    Hmm, I think I get what you mean here but I don't want to assume: are you really saying that it can take 4 years between conviction and sentencing? That seems an awfully long time. Do you really mean 4 years from arraignment until sentencing?

    In any event, what if he is found to be innocent: how does he get those 4 years back? What system is in place to address that injustice? Or let's say the court system really is completely screwed-up and he has to wait 4 years between conviction and sentencing, and then he draws 2 years. How does he get the extra 2 years back?

    This may all seem rhetorical and/or academic to you, but I'll bet dollars to dimes that it isn't for the man who's sitting in jail waiting for the system to get it together.

  • Dorothy

    That was a response to comment #165 where jf1 said: "He could be held for 3 years in jail awaiting a conviction, the sentencing could be held soon after and then the sentence reduced to slightly more than time served. It’s quite possible."

  • Jo

    Want to know what effect the MRAs and FR guys are having?

    Read this story -
    http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/order-17122-bid-rejected.html

    http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2010/02/03/news/doc4b69381ed5e05699313614.txt

    A BABY IS DEAD

    Limit restraining orders? Read this story to find out the repurcussions of the MRA policies.

    False allegations - ie women using domestic violence to manipulate court -Read this story to find out what their baseless misogynist propaganda is doing.

    NINE MONTH OLD BABY DEAD -- THANKS TO MRAs AND FRs

    It's no wonder they're called the Abusers Lobby. This is NOT an isolated case. Visit any Mothers Rights site to see the long list of custody catastrophes these abusers are causing.

    MRAs and FRs - angry, abusive men that target feminists with their anger and work on rolling back gains made by women. Educate yourselves on them - and counter them - so we can stop these senseless deaths.

  • Pingback: The silent victims: Battered husbands « Toy Soldiers

  • snobographer

    I'm curious how many DV victims are in same-sex relationships. It's a rather important distinction, IMO, how many male victims of DV are victimized by male partners. Because MRAs and DV deniers like to pretend all male DV victims are victimized by women. Um, they're not.
    Also, this bit confuses me:
    "Men who are victims of domestic violence are almost as likely to be killed by a partner’s ex than by their partners themselves."
    So are they DV victims at the hands of their partners or their partners' exes? If the ex-wife of a man who's never committed violence against any woman kills that man's new girlfriend, is the new girlfriend considered a victim of DV?
    This stuff is complicated.

  • rohara

    @ snobographer,

    It is important to note that Maryland may be one of the states in which if it can be established that the spouse was knowingly conspiring with an ex to kill their partner then the death will be classified as a domestic violence death; as it should be. Not all states do this, there are a lot of differences state by state in regards to domestic violence reporting and this is and important one. Furthermore, when talking about spousal murder which, interestingly, is reported separately from domestic violence in many cases. Whenever you hear about the difference in the amount of males murdered by their spouse opposed to the amount of females murdered by their spouse the number almost never included those murders that took place through proxy (Hit man, ex boyfriend, current lover etc.). Those are listed as multiple offender homicides. Yet another way that female killers escape the statistics.

    Yes this is complicated stuff indeed.

  • http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist Amanda Hess

    @snobographer:

    In my interviews with the researchers, I learned that one scenario that is considered a "domestic violence-related death" is when a man attempts to murder his ex-girlfriend, and ends up (whether premeditated or not) killing her current partner, as well. In this case, you have a classic domestic violence scenario (violence from a partner or ex-partner) that leads to another (related) person's death. I'm not sure that these three cases (above) of men murdered by a partner's ex fall into that category, but it's one possibility.

  • rohara

    This is another complicated thing that even I can't figure out:

    "Of the 28 adult female victims:

    * 10 were wives or ex-wives of the offender.
    * 17 were girlfriends or ex-girlfriends of the offender.
    * One was a domestic violence victim who committed suicide."

    Is someone takes a lethal dose of something or puts a gun to their head it is pretty much their doing right?
    I suppose that you could use the argument that the male partner was physically and psychologically abusive but do they take into account the number of male suicides that might be a result of an abusive partner? I doubt it seriously. Also keep in mind that 80% of all suicides are committed by males which makes you wonder just how many such male DV Murder Victims are out there that may fall into this classification yet are not considered as such.
    This seems like another way that numbers and facts are sometimes either inadvertently or deliberately misrepresented, come from bad or inconsistent data collection methods, or are skewed to tell a story that isn't at odds with what readers and viewers want to hear.
    Again, more female perpetrators escaping the statistics.

  • Peter

    So childish. Trying to minimize male deaths by claiming "he started it".

    Would that have been a valid excuse if it was the male perpetrator of DV who said "she started it"? No it wouldn't. So how come it's a valid excuse for female perpetrators of DV?

    Double standards. In Family Law it has always been about double standards hasn't it?

  • Dawn.

    Amanda, I love this blog and I appreciate your writing and moderation but you really need to moderate these comments. There is way too much MRA anti-feminist trolling and personal attacks.

  • rohara

    @ Dawn,

    Yes we all love censorship don't we.

  • John Dias

    Dawn wrote (#185):

    "Amanda, I love this blog and I appreciate your writing and moderation but you really need to moderate these comments. There is way too much MRA anti-feminist trolling..."

    Translation: Facts are a pest. Bring in the dogma!

  • http://oneinthree.com.au Greg Andreson

    Dear Mary Lou,

    On February 1st you wrote,

    "the One In Three Campaign in Australia is more lies from another MRA Greg Andreson. The latest reports out refute that completely and as usual the MRA’s cherry pick which statistics fit them. The Chisolm Report released last week commissioned by the government specifically notes that the majority of DV victims in Australia are women and the perpetrators being their intimate partners. Further Australian statistics just released prove that over 85% of child sex abuse is carried out by fathers. Not just men but fathers!!"

    As the senior researcher for the One in Three campaign, I would be very interested to hear which statistics on our website you think are "lies" - if they are found to be false, of course we will take them down straight away and issue an apology.

    Also, is there any chance that you could cite the new report you referred to about fathers being mainly responsible for child sex abuse?

    By the way, the Chisholm report noted that,

    "The literature reveals remarkably different findings about the extent to which family violence involves violence by men against women. Although the ABS figures, above, and the AIFS literature review suggests that most family violence is committed by men against women, some studies suggest that women engage as often as men in at least some forms of violence. Opinions differ greatly about these matters, and about whether violence by women against men tends to be qualitatively different to violence by men against women."

    "The family law system needs to respond appropriately to each particular case, and deal fairly with the allegations and evidence. It would be wrong for the system as a whole, or for individuals working in the system, to approach the problem with preconceptions about the matter. Even if family violence, and especially the more serious forms of family violence, involves men being violent to women more than women being violent to men, it would be a mistake to assume that women’s violence against men does not exist, or cannot be a serious matter. Any individual who makes allegations, and any individual who defends them, requires a fair hearing and fair treatment, regardless of gender. And it is important that all litigants understand that the system makes no pre-judgment about whether violence has or has not happened in a particular case, or how serious it might be."

    Sounds very reasonable to me.

  • Ruthie

    My friend Tommy was shot by his girlfriend's ex. He died trying to protect her and her kids. Doesn't really relate to all this arguing in the posts. But that's all I wanted to say - just that a lot of people in St. Mary's County miss him.

...