See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341654319

Prevention of femicide

Preprint · May 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 443

2 authors, including:

Maria José Magalhães

University of Porto
146 PUBLICATIONS 210 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria José Magalhães on 26 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FIVE

Prevention of femicide
Anna Costanza Baldry and Maria José Magalhães

Introduction

When referring to ‘prevention of femicide’, we refer to actions

at the individual, family, and social and community levels that
can reduce the likelihood of women being killed because of their
gender. Strategies for prevention of femicide differ depending on
the definition of femicide and the cases to which we refer. For
example, prevention of femicide in intimate partner relationships
is different from prevention of the killing of trafficked women,
or girls being subjugated and killed. These distinct femicides
are set in different contexts, involve different risk factors and
therefore require different prevention strategies. However, what
all femicides share is a single motivation: femicide, according to
the feminist approach, and the one that enables us to explain its
prevalence worldwide, is the killing of women because they are
women, regardless of whether it is perpetrated by the victim’s
partner, ex-partner or a non-partner. The killing of women
constitutes an extreme exercise of power against them; it is
perpetrated to establish control (Radford and Russell, 1992).

71
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

This masculine, misogynist perspective on gender also increases

the perception that violence is an acceptable way of managing
disputes, conflicts and problems. Within femicides, it is possible
to identify recurrent patterns: namely, homicide occurring as
an ultimate means to degrade, silence and subjugate women.
Femicide prevention efforts require both research and
intervention. They include combating a culture based on
relationships in which men have dominance over women, and
not only those actions immediately preceding the killing. In
fact, prevention can be set at different levels, depending on
the level of risk factor it focuses on. Causes of femicide are
multilevel: employing an ecological approach, risk factors can be
identified at the individual, interpersonal and community levels.
Back in 1998, Heise described how the ecological framework
is the most exhaustive to explain violence against women, as
it looks not only at which risk factors are relevant but at how
they interact in a dynamic way. As Heise explains, ‘besides
serving as a framework for research, an ecological approach
provides a way to better understand differences among abusers’
(Heise, 1988: 284). Risk factors at the individual level may be
related to the perpetrator’s personality, abuse of alcohol and/
or drugs, childhood abuse, a history of violence, or masculine
honour-based beliefs (Baldry and Pagliaro, 2014). At the
interpersonal level, factors include, among others, the type and
status of the relationship between victim and perpetrator, and
family influences. At the community level, risk factors include the
surrounding culture and its predominant beliefs about violence,
previous prevention campaigns and legal definitions.
Prevention of femicide is therefore a complex issue, as ideally
all these levels should be addressed. In this chapter, we will focus
on some aspects of prevention of femicide in order to highlight a
number of avenues for possible action, including femicide fatality
reviews, and risk assessment to identify relevant and critical risk
and vulnerability factors. In addition, we will address primary
prevention as an essential step for challenging patriarchal culture,

72
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

and developing research, activism and intervention (Fitz-Gibbon

and Walklate, 2016).

Femicide fatality reviews

Fatality reviews in cases of femicide are a process whereby a

homicide is analysed with the aim of identifying all potential
factors that might explain its occurrence and locating any
possible failure in the system. The intention is not to hold
anyone other than the perpetrator responsible but, rather, to offer
recommendations for improving procedures, communication,
decision-making processes and so on, based on what was done or
omitted that might have led to failure to prevent the perpetrator
killing his victim (Richards, 2003; Fitz-Gibbon and Walklate,
2016; Sharp-Jeffs and Kelly, 2016; Dawson, 2017).
Practitioners, with the help of researchers, first developed
domestic fatality review teams approximately twenty years
ago, as a new way to enhance understanding of the complex
processes leading to homicide in intimate partner relationship.
Fatality reviews in the US and Canada were created to address
homicides with a special focus on intimate partner femicide
(IPF) also in order to understand what could have been done
to prevent the killing and to develop intervention or prevention
strategies (see, for example, Watt, 2008). The outcomes of
these reviews are directed towards policy recommendations,
promotion of training, increasing awareness and modification
of existing procedures. In 2011 and 2014, the UK also set up
domestic homicide reviews (DHR), which addressed homicides
within the family context (see Durfee et al, 2002; Rimsza et al,
2002; Webster et al, 2003; Dawson, 2017).
In order for fatality review teams to fulfil their remit, they need
to be authorized by the legislature or established under executive
orders to ensure they have the power to act with confidentiality,
accountability and immunity (see also Dale et al, 2017). Specific
legislations are needed to allow the fatality teams to gain access

73
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

to confidential information related to possible witnesses or

family members, and to interview them in order to review the
homicide and gather as much information as possible looking
at the circumstances and characteristics around the death.
Legislations and related executive orders are also formulated
to allow leeway for local discretion regarding the convening
agency and the membership of the team (Websdale et al, 2001).
Not all teams and all reviews follow the same procedure (cf.
Dawson, 2017). Members of the fatality review team meet on a
regular basis to review cases of IPF and develop recommendations
for changes to policies and practices on the basis of their findings
(Websdale, 1999; Websdale et al, 2001; Watt, 2008; Sharp-Jeffs
and Kelly, 2016). The team can consist of as many representatives
as possible from different sectors and institutions that might have
played a role in the lives of both victim and perpetrator. It is up
to the team members to decide whom to hear from and what
type of research to undertake. The fatality review team may
also share information they come across with relevant agencies,
in addition to providing recommendations to them (Websdale,
1999; Websdale et al, 2001; Dawson, 2017).
The main aim of most fatality review teams is to prevent future
fatalities through instigating changes at the system level, thereby
involving different actors (Websdale, 1999). As Watt explains:

These review teams model values, honesty and

accountability and seek to identify breakdowns or gaps in
service delivery, focusing less on individual accountability
and more on system-wide coordination (Websdale et al,
1999). As opposed to placing blame on agencies for IPF
(Intimate Partner Homicide), any errors committed in
the risk assessment, in the procedure adopted before the
killing… are viewed as inevitable aspects of coordinated
delivery of complex services and perpetrators are
ultimately held responsible for the deaths of their victims.
(Watt, 2008: 57–9)

74
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

Addressing each single femicide case, looking at what happened;

identifying the possible characteristics of the case at the
individual, interpersonal, and social and community levels; and
adopting an ecological approach can be of use to prevent other
instances of femicide.
Each team reviews its case by adopting different methods,
depending on the availability of resources, the commitment of
different agencies, the experience of members and the number of
femicides to analyse. Some teams, such as those examining cases
of IPF, review any killings perpetrated by a current or former
(female or male) intimate partner. Other teams review all deaths
that occurred in the context of domestic violence (including
suicides of perpetrators, as well as homicides of children,
new intimate partners, intervening parties or responding law
enforcement officers) (Dawson, 2017). Teams are organized in
such a manner that they either review closed cases  in which
the perpetrator has already been convicted  or open cases 
where the case is still pending (Websdale, 1999; Websdale et
al, 2001). The former method is much more common because
law enforcement and the judicial system do not always favour
sharing information that might compromise a conviction
(Watt, 2008), although this varies from country to country.
The information amassed by domestic violence fatality review
teams is collected via several sources of information, including
police records, coroners’ files, autopsy reports, court documents,
medical records, mental health records, social service reports,
newspaper accounts and victim services records. In some cases,
family members, friends or professionals are also interviewed
(Watt, 2008; Dawson, 2017).
An advantage of fatality reviews in cases of femicide is that
at the end of the review the team prepares a report indicating
the method adopted, the sources of information used and the
outcome of the review. It also provides recommendations for
the improvement of service delivery, and these are also published
online (see, for example, Dawson, 2017). The femicide review

75
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

might also be tasked with implementing and evaluating

changes to service delivery and assessing their efficacy in their
respective agencies, based on the recommendations they put
forward, though the review will not always follow up on the
implementation of these changes (Websdale, 2003; Watt, 2008;
Sharp-Jeffs and Kelly, 2016; ).
It is important to note that the conclusions of fatality reviews
are often grounded in examinations of several cases, rather than
a single case. This enables the team to address best management
strategies, based on different levels of risk. Such reviews also
have the advantage of linking together all possible risk factors
preceding the femicide, exploring the risk factors related to
the perpetrator, the vulnerability factors of the victims, and
any contextual and interpersonal variables and circumstances.
Results from reviews on intimate partner femicide cases, one
of the most frequent forms of femicide in Western countries,
have demonstrated some emergent recurrent patterns that may
be classified according to different risk factors and positioned
at different levels, related to the perpetrator, the victim and the
community. For this reason, when referring to prevention of
femicide, another important aspect to take into consideration
is risk assessment.

Risk assessment

Femicide risk assessment is a procedure targeted at prevention

(Hart, 2008). It is based on the principle that some femicide cases
can be prevented because some of these murders are preceded
by an escalation of violence, threats and other lethal risk factors.
Risk assessment allows us to identify the presence of risk and
vulnerability factors, and to establish their nature and relevance
to the violence. An assessment of the dynamic interaction of
these risk factors renders it possible to improve understanding
of the level of potential risk; this then opens up the choice
of options for the most effective management strategies. By

76
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

adopting an ecological approach (Heise, 1998), the different

level of risk are addressed: individual, interpersonal, and social
and community.
Risk assessment can be carried out using actuarial methods,
whereby a list of risk factors is added together and the total is
compared with a specific threshold number, above which the risk
is considered to be high. These approaches are useful because
the methodology allows for an ‘objective’ reference level, upon
which decisions will be based (Campbell et al, 2003).
Other approaches, such as the professional structures
procedures – for example, SARA (the Spousal Assault Risk
Assessment) (Kropp and Hart, 2000; Baldry and Winkel
2008) – are based on the analysis of presence or absence of risk
factors. These risk factors have been identified by reviewing
cases and empirical practice as highly correlated to recidivism
of violence, escalation of violence and even killing. Risk factors
for recidivism of intimate partner violence are very similar to the
risk factors for femicide. What Campbell and colleagues (2003)
found in their study is that only a very few indicators can be
considered as specific indicators of lethal violence. These are
named as follows: attempted strangulation, threats with firearms,
extreme severe violence and, most importantly, what the woman
herself perceives as risk. Women, however, might underestimate
the risk involved; in such cases, they may not be able to self-assess
their own risk. Nonetheless, when a victim states that she ‘fears
he will kill her’ (or her children or any other relative or friend),
it is important to take these statements seriously.

77
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

Table 5.1: Risk factors for intimate partner femicide and recidivism of
intimate partner violence (IPV)
Category Risk factor
Perpetrator
Substance use problemsa
Criminal historya
Previous IPVa
Possession of firearmsa
Victim of child abuse/exposure to IPVa
Mental health problemsa
Socially disadvantageda
Victim
Socially disadvantaged and/or isolateda
Previous IPV (same or other partner)a
Mental health problemsa
Substance usea
Victim–perpetrator relationship
Relationship status (separated or still cohabiting)b
IPV (same or previous relationship)b
Stalkingb
Children from another relationshipb
Community
Insufficient social support networkc
Insufficient community resourcesc
Lack of coordination between community resourcesc
Attitudes accepting of violence against womenc
Lenient legislationsc
Lethality violence-related risk factors
Attempted strangulation
Threat to kill with a firearm
Extreme fear of being killed on the part of the victim
Source: Adapted from Dawson (2017) and Watt (2008).
Note: In italics, some ‘specific’ lethality risk factors.
Based on an ecological framework, risk factors in the table above are
categorised as follows: a individual, b interpersonal, c community and social
levels.

78
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

Primary prevention to challenge patriarchal culture

Following the overview on fatality reviews and risk assessment,

this section focuses on other forms of prevention aimed at
bringing about cultural and structural changes. As stated above,
the prevention of femicide is a complex issue which may be
approached in several ways. Literature on prevention, especially
in the area of health studies, points to a holistic approach to
prevention as an effective means of eradicating a problem. Some
perspectives equate prevention with early intervention, that is to
say, getting to the root of a problem before the problem emerges,
and eliminating the conditions that facilitate its occurrence.
Until recently, authors identified three levels of prevention:
primary – to prevent the problem before it occurs; secondary –
targeting the problem at the early signs; and tertiary – targeting
populations where the problem is located (Wolfe and Jaffe,
1999). Learning from other areas, such as health and crime
prevention, authors have since extended the paradigm of
prevention to two additional levels. Initially, there is a level of
primordial prevention – creating a culture and life habits where
the probability of occurrence of the problem would be residual;
at the other end of the continuum is quaternary prevention – that
is, the follow-up to tertiary prevention, which aims to assert the
sustainability of the possible quality of life (Starfield et al, 2008).
Although there are diverse perspectives on femicide, several
approaches focus on the pervasive patriarchal culture as the
material and cultural basis for this crime. This view understands
femicide as an extreme form of violence against women on the
continuum of violence (Kelly, 1987, 1988), and violence against
women as the utmost form of women’s oppression in society
(Hagemann-White, 1998). Taking femicide as a lethal form of
patriarchal control over women’s lives, the task of preventing
femicide ‘has certain parallels with the task undertaken by
feminists working around violence against women in the 1970s’
(Radford, 1992: 7). From this perspective, male violence is

79
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

explained as a form of male dominance based on an imbalance

of power in relationships featured in patriarchal society (Radford,
1992).
Naming the problem may be considered as the first step towards
primary and primordial prevention. As part of ‘women’s right to
name our experience’ (Radford, 1992: 3), the understanding of
the problem in its social, political and cultural context (Meneghel
et al, 2013)  that is, extending the atomic/incidental perspective
that only stresses the individual behaviour and the incident  is
crucial to social and cultural change in relation to femicide.
Data on the incidence of femicide accounts for a prevailing
culture where women are still considered, to some extent, to
be ‘expendable’. Feminist analyses of violence against women
centre on the structure of relationships in terms of a male-
dominated culture, power and gender. Feminist explanations of
violence against women consider gendered social arrangements
and power as central (Taylor and Jasinski, 2011: 342).
Although femicide in intimate partner relationships is the
more prevalent form, there are other forms of femicidal violence
constituting part of that societal culture where the lives of
women appear to be of minor importance.
Femicide takes many different forms, for example:

• racist femicide (black women killed by white men);

• homophobic femicide, or lesbicide, (lesbians killed by
heterosexual men);
• marital femicide (women killed by their husbands or ex-
husbands);
• serial femicide;
• mass femicide (including the deliberate transmission of the
HIV virus by rapists);
• situations where women are permitted to die as the result
of misogynous attitudes or social practices (female genital
mutilation, illegal botched abortion);

80
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

• female infanticide;
• unnecessar y lethal surger y (hysterectomies and
clitoridectomies).

A comprehensive understanding will permit the creation of

social and cultural conditions with the capacity to shift the
patriarchal paradigm. Some acts of killing of women, such as
those against lesbian women, black women and prostitutes,
are still deemed to be of lesser gravity under the provisions of
various legal reforms on violence against women.
The ultimate goal of femicide prevention is the eradication
of this crime. In addition to fatality reviews and risk assessment
as secondary and tertiary prevention, it is necessary to
address the pertaining social and cultural factors within a
comprehensive approach to prevention. As Nation et al (2003)
attest, comprehensive prevention includes providing an array
of interventions to address the salient precursors of the target
problem, and extending these to primordial and primary
prevention. For comprehensive strategies, there are two
dimensions to consider – multiple interventions in multiple
settings addressing the problem behaviour (Nation et al, 2003).
It is imperative that any comprehensive approach to primary
prevention highlights femicide as a heinous crime, regardless of
the social, cultural, ethnic or sexual status of the victim. Feminist
literature has pointed out that femicide is a cruel reality, beyond
the killing of women in the context of intimate partners or
ex- partners, including the murder of women in contexts of
sexual violence by known or unknown perpetrators, as in the
case of the Ciudad Juarez murders in Mexico (Toledo Vásquez,
2008). Homophobia and racism demand to be addressed in
order to develop the concept of women as persons of value
in their own right. Recognition of heteronormativity as an
oppressive dimension of patriarchal society can also facilitate
the understanding of specific forms of femicide, namely,
homophobic femicide and lesbicide. At the same time, ‘an

81
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

awareness of the complexities of racism, of the historical legacies

of colonialism and imperialism, of the trap of appropriating
black women’s experiences to advance the political agendas
of white feminism’ (Radford, 1992: 8) forms part of a holistic
programme to eradicate femicide (and violence against women).
Racism is sometimes evident: visible either as exaggeration of
the problem  perpetuating the stereotype of black men as
more prone to violence than white men  or minimization of
its importance  suggesting that violence is more acceptable in
these communities. Authors such as Marcela Lagarde y de Los
Ríos (2008, 2011) have stressed the avoidable nature of this
hate crime, as an outcome of state neglect towards the human
rights of women. Stressing the neglect of the state, Lagarde calls
this crime feminicidio, a term that has been adopted within the
penal codes of Mexico, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic
and Brazil.
This is an important point, in the sense that preventing
femicide begins with effective action by the statutory agencies
charged with the protection of women’s lives.
Naming the problem and building a legal framework can
contribute to increasing public awareness, and to diminishing
tolerance of violence against women and femicide. Public
awareness is best enhanced when people are able to identify the
discernible dimensions and root causes of the problem.
Many femicides or attempted femicides are chronicles of
deaths foretold (García Marquez, 1981); hence, it is possible
to identify a number of dimensions at the foundation of these
fatalities. As Caputi and Russell (1979: 426) assert, ‘ironically, the
patriarchy’s ideal domestic arrangement (heterosexual coupling)
is the most potentially femicidal situation’. Misogyny and sexism
not only motivate gender violence (lethal and nonlethal), but
distort the interpretation of the crime, as is visible in media
coverage and other cultural expressions – for instance, in films

82
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

(femicidal violence being the main theme of slasher films1),

music, video games and so on.
Cultural factors of femicide are deeply embedded in society,
cutting across class, ethnicity, religion or region of the globe.
Male sexual proprietariness (Wilson and Daly, 1998) and a
male sense that they are entitled to get what they want from
women (Caputi and Russell, 1979) are among issues that should
be targeted in prevention – challenging the cultural basis of
femicide.
However, naming the problem, legal frameworks and public
awareness raising are not sufficient to create the desired change.
A comprehensive strategy to eradicate femicide also needs to
focus on addressing gender inequality and improving the status
of women.
Research has provided contradictory evidence concerning the
comparison between the status of women and men and rates
of femicide. Some authors have found higher female homicide
rates where the status of women is more equal to that of men,
while others have found that gender income inequality does not
correlate with overall femicide rates (Taylor and Jasinski, 2011).
Others still have shown that the educational status of women is
not directly linked with prediction of femicide: some evidence
shows that femicide increases when the woman’s educational
status is higher, whereas other research studies present data that
indicates that the risk of femicide increases where the woman’s
educational status is lower (Taylor and Jasinski, 2011). Some
authors have also brought evidence to the effect that the erosion
of white male privilege can have lethal outcomes. Hence, in
some countries, the advance of the status of women has actually
been concomitant with an increase in lethal violence.

1
‘Slasher’: a subgenre of horror film, typically involving a psychopathic killer
stalking and murdering victims in a graphically violent manner, often with
a bladed tool, such as a knife, machete, axe, scythe or chainsaw.

83
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

Taking these data into consideration, some perspectives

might argue against a prevention strategy based on challenging
patriarchal society and culture. Without disregarding these
research studies, however, there must be an acknowledgement,
when considering a society’s culture within a wider, historical
context, that the changes in women’s social status are only of
recent origin. Furthermore, the increase in the status of some
women is not synonymous with the eradication of the prevailing
social representations of women and women’s bodies: it does not
mean that the social construction of the sexual objectification of
women has undergone change. These individual changes do not
challenge male sexual proprietariness (Wilson and Daly, 1998),
the sense of male property ownership of women and children,
and the hegemonic sense of entitlement to use force and violence
to maintain control of women’s lives (Campbell, 1992; Campbell
et al, 2007). Nor are some individual social positions sufficient
in themselves to balance the sexual contract (Pateman, 1988) of
patriarchal, capitalist, heterosexist and racist society.
Hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity are
still reproduced today by various agencies, social actors and
institutional settings. Some young men learn to objectify women
sexually through socialization with their peers, as well as other
ways of learning masculinity, such as watching pornography,
engaging in gang activity or other violent practices. Male
fraternity and some male cultures include practices and/or
discourses that support the abuse of women. Recent research
also shows the emergence of rape culture and pro-abuse male
peer support groups in cyberspace (DeKeseredy, 2011).
Challenging the social reproduction of women’s oppression
and/or subalternization calls for primary prevention, entering
deeply into the cultural basis as well as challenging the symbolic
violence against women (Bourdieu, 1989; Magalhães and
Lima-Cruz, 2014). Educational studies have shown that the
processes of cultural change are slow, requiring long, holistic
and systematic interventions.

84
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

Romantic love (Gius and Lalli, 2014), jealousy, passion

(Correa, 1981) and male sexual proprietariness (Wilson and
Daly, 1998) represent a number of the social constructions of
the heritage of modernity as elements at the foundation of the
sexual contract in patriarchal society (Pateman, 1988). These
dimensions of the ‘private’ and ‘intimate’ sphere, as opposed
to the ‘power’ and ‘public’ domain, are inbuilt to the social
dichotomies developed through modernity. The ultimate goal of
primary and primordial prevention of femicide is to denaturalize
and deconstruct the ‘normalization’ of violence against women
in all its forms, including femicide.

Developing research, activism and intervention

Besides fatality reviews, risk assessment, and primary and

primordial prevention, it is crucial to develop research and
activism as well as appropriate intervention strategies and
measures to address the issue of femicide across all the pertinent
contexts.
The essential goal of research in general is to provide an
understanding of and tools to decrease incidence of a social
problem. Despite decades of relative ‘invisibility’ (Radford and
Russell, 1992), research on femicide has expanded in recent years
(Carcedo and Sagot, 2000; Glass, 2004; Carcedo, 2010; Fregoso
and Bejarano, 2010; Lagarde, 2010; Romeva, 2013; Meneghel
and Portella, 2017). However, in order to generate in-depth
understanding, further research is required. This needs not only
to be of a quantitative nature, but to incorporate a more holistic
perspective. Some authors also stress the crucial relevance of
disaggregating data accordingly, that is, in relation to ethnicity,
‘race’, marital status and age. Significantly, qualitative, in-depth
research would have the potential to illuminate the complex,
interwoven processes between human lives, as well as structural
power relations and patterns of social change; this would allow
opinion makers and policy makers to extend the vision of the

85
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

problem to its sociostructural factors (Grana, 2001). Logically,

this should also pave the way for improved legislation, social
policies and educational programmes. While the victims of
femicide cannot be heard, we are still able to listen to the victims
of attempted femicides and study the impact of this crime on
family, children, relatives and wider society. Research can also
trace the changes in media portraits of femicide (Magalhães-
Dias and Lobo, 2016), allowing policy recommendations on
news production.
To date, we still lack a clear understanding of the connections
between gender inequality and lethal violence against women.
Hence, further research into the relationship between this form
of violence and the changes in gender relations over time is
essential in order to plan more effective femicide prevention.
Research also informs feminist activism (Rosa and Magalhães,
2016) and intervention.2 One outstanding example is the naming
of the Brazilian Law 11.340/2006 to prevent and combat
violence against women as the ‘Maria da Penha Law’, in tribute
to the surviving victim of an attempted murder  a woman who
is fortunately still alive and fighting for the recognition of this
crime as a violation of human rights.

Conclusions

This chapter has suggested six main areas for the prevention of
femicide:

1. The establishment of a state obligation to ensure the human

rights of women (Toledo Vásquez, 2008), including the

2
For example, the authors of this chapter collaborated with the following
groups and programmes, to whom they are indebted: the Combahee River
Collective in Boston (a black feminist lesbian organization, 1974–80),
the Repeal Attacks’ and ‘Murders of Women’ groups in Britain, as well as
symbolic initiatives.

86
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

enactment of appropriate legal measures to combat the

murder of women in all situations, regardless of the women’s
social, economic, ethnic, marital or sexual status;
2. The acknowledgement of the gendered nature of this hate
crime;
3. The treatment of femicide as a severe violation of human
rights;
4. The development of more efficient and effective fatality
reviews and risk assessments;
5. The creation of holistic, comprehensive and systematic
educational programmes challenging patriarchal culture and
contributing to a woman-friendly culture;
6. The development of quantitative and qualitative research to
develop a better understanding of the problem.

These six preventive strategies do not cover all contingencies,

insofar as femicide is embedded in the social construction of
societal divisions between private and public life, and those
between women and men. Nevertheless, taken together, they
have the potential to make an impact and a valuable contribution
to a progressive decrease in this horrific crime.

References

Baldry, A. C. and Pagliaro, S. (2014) ‘Helping victims of intimate

partner violence: the influence of group norms among lay people
and the police’, Psychology of Violence, 4(3): 334–47.
Baldry, A. C. and Winkel, F. (eds) (2008) Intimate partner violence,
prevention and intervention, Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Bourdieu, P. (1989) O poder simbólico [Symbolic power], Rio de Janeiro:
Bertrand.
Campbell, J. C. (1992) ‘“If I can’t have you, no one can”: power
and control in homicide of female partners’, in J. Radford and
D. Russell (eds) (1992) Femicide: The politics of woman killing, New
York: Twaine Publishers, pp 99–113.

87
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

Campbell, J. C, Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., et al (2003) ‘Risk

factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite
case control study’, American Journal of Public Health, 93(7): 1089–97.
Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K. and Bloom,
T. (2007) ‘Intimate partner homicide: review and implications of
research and policy’, Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 8: 246–69.
Caputi, J. and Russell, D.E.H. (1979) ‘Femicide: speaking the
unspeakable’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Sep–Oct:
424–30.
Carcedo, A. (2010) No olvidamos ni aceptamos. Femicidio em Centro
América, 2000–2006, San Jose: CEFEMINA.
Carcedo, A. and Sagot, M. (2000) Femicidio en Costa Rica: 1990–1999,
Costa Rica: Instituto Nacional de Mujeres (Colección Teórica
no. 1).
Correa, M. (1981) Os crimes da paixão [Crimes of passion], São Paulo:
Brasiliense.
Dale, M., Celaya, A. and Mayer, S. J. (2017) ‘Ethical conundrums in
the establishment and operation of domestic/family violence fatality
reviews’, in M. Dawson (ed), Domestic homicides and death reviews:
An international perspective, Guelph: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 229–56.
Dawson, M. (2017) Domestic homicides and death reviews: An international
perspective, Guelph: Palgrave Macmillan.
DeKeseredy, W. S. (2011) Violence against women: Myths, facts,
controversies, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Durfee, M., Tilton Durfee, D. and West, M. P. (2002) ‘Child fatality
review: an international movement’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 26:
619–36.
Fitz-Gibbon, K. and Walklate, S. (2016) Homicide, gender and
responsibility: An international perspective, London: Routledge.
Fregoso, R.-L. and Bejarano, C. (eds) (2010) Terrorizing women:
Feminicide in the Americas, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
García Marquez, G. (1981) Crônica de una muerte anunciada [Chronicle
of a death foretold], Bogotá: Grupo Editorial Norma.

88
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

Gius, C. and Lalli, P. (2014) ‘“I loved her so much, but I killed her”:
romantic love as a representational frame for intimate partner
femicide in three Italian newspapers’, Journal for Communication
Studies, 7(14): 53–75.
Glass, N., Koziol-Mclain, J., Campbell, J. and Block, C. R. (2004)
Female-perpetrated femicide and attempted femicide, Violence
Against Women, 10(6): 606–25.
Grana, S. J. (2001) ‘Sociostrutural considerations of domestic femicide’,
Journal of Family Violence, 16: 421–35.
Hagemann-White, C. (1998) ‘Violence without end? Some reflections
on achievements, contradictions and perspectives of the feminist
movement in Germany’, in R. Klein (ed) Multidisciplinary perspectives
on family violence, London: Routledge, pp 176–91.
Hart, S. D. (2008) ‘Preventing violence: the role of risk assessment
and management’, in A. C. Baldry and F. W. Winkel (eds) Intimate
partner violence prevention and intervention: The risk assessment and
management approach, Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science, pp 7–18.
Heise, L. (1998) ‘Violence against women: an integrated, ecological
framework’, Violence Against Women, 4(3): 262–90, https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12296014
Kelly, L. (1987) ‘The continuum of sexual violence’, in J. Hanmer
and M. Maynard (eds) Women, violence and social control: Explorations
in sociology (British Sociological Association Conference Volume
series), London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 46–60.
Kelly, L. (1988) Surviving sexual violence, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kropp, P. R. and Hart, S. D. (2000) ‘The Spousal Assault Risk
Assessment (SARA) guide: reliability and validity in adult male
offenders’, Law and Human Behavior, 24(1): 101–18.
Lagarde, M. (2008) ‘Antropologia, feminismo y política: violencia
feminicide y derechos humanos de las mujeres’, in M. Bullen and D.
Mintegui (eds) (2008) Retos teóricos e novas prácticas, pp 209–39, https://
www.ankulegi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/0008Lagarde.
pdf

89
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

Lagarde, M. (2010) ‘Preface: Feminist keys for understanding

feminicide: theoretical, political and legal construction’, in R.-
L. Fregoso and C. Bejarano (Eds.) (2010) Terrorizing women:
Feminicide in the Americas, Durham, NC: Duke University Press,
pp ix–xxvii.
Lagarde, M. (2011) Conferencia de clausura, Revista casa de la mujer,
Edición Especial XX Aniversario, http://163.178.140.154/index.
php/mujer/article/view/6816/6978
Magalhães, M. J. and Lima-Cruz, A. (2014) ‘Violência simbólica
contra as mulheres na arte e na vida: o caso de Susana e os Velhos’
[‘Symbolic violence against women in art and life: the case of Susan
and the Elders’], Faces de Eva, 31: 73–96.
Magalhães-Dias, C. and Lobo, S. (2016) ‘Changing representations of
intimate partner femicides by a Portuguese newspaper (2006 and
2014): from episodic to thematic frames’, Ex Aequo, 34: 93–108.
Meneghel, S. N. and Portella, A. P. (2017) ‘Feminicídios: conceitos,
tipos e cenários’ [‘Feminicides: concepts, types and scenarios’],
Ciência e Saúde Coletiva, 22: 3077–86.
Meneghel, S., Ceccon, R. F., Hesler, L. Z. Margarites, A. F., Rosa,
S. and Vasconcelos, V. (2013) ‘Femicídios: narrativas de crimes de
gênero’ [‘Femicides: narratives of gender crimes’], Interface (Boucatu),
17(46): 523–33.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt,
D., Morrissey-Kane, E. and Davino, K. (2003) ‘What works in
prevention: principles of effective prevention programs’, American
Psychologist, 58: 449–56.
Pateman, C. (1988) The sexual contract, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Radford, J. (1992) ‘Introduction’, in J. Radford and D. Russell (eds)
(1992) Femicide: The politics of woman killing, New York: Twaine
Publishers, pp 3–12.
Radford, J. and Russell, D. (eds) (1992) Femicide: The politics of woman
killing, New York: Twaine Publishers.

90
 PREVENTION OF FEMICIDE

Romeva, R. R. (EU Rapporteur) (2013) Femicide in the European

Union and Latin America, Euro-Latin American Parliamentary
Assembly Committee on Social Affairs, Youth and Children,
Human Exchanges, Education and Culture Working Document.
Rosa, F. A. and Magalhães, M. J. (2016) ‘O ativismo como didática
para a prevenção da violência de género na organização escolar:
uma reflexão feminista e queer acerca de um projeto de intervenção
no contexto português [Activism as didactics to prevent gender
violence’], Atas do IX Congresso Português de Sociologia, Portugal,
Território e Territórios, Lisbon: APS.
Richards, L. (2003) Findings from the multi-agency domestic violence murder
reviews in London, London: Commander Baker Metropolitan police.
Rimsza, M. E., Schackner, R. A., Bowner, K. A. and Marshall, W.
(2002) ‘Can child deaths be prevented? The Arizona Child Fatality
Review Progam experience’, Pediatrics, 110: 1–7.
Sharp-Jeffs, N. and Kelly, L. (2016) Domestic homicide review (DHR):
Case analysis, Standing Together Against Domestic Violence and
London Metropolitan University, www.standingtogether.org.uk/
sites/default/files/docs/STADV_DHR_Report_Final.pdf
Starfield, B., Hyde, J., Gérvas, J. and Heath, I. (2008) ‘The concept
of prevention: a good idea gone astray?’ Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 62: v580–83.
Taylor, R. and Jasinski, J. (2011) ‘Femicide and the feminist
perspective’, Homicide Studies, 15(4): 341–62.
Toledo Vásquez, Patsilí (2008) ‘¿Tipificar el femicidio?’, Anuário de
direchos humanos, 4: 213–19.
Watt, K. A. (2008) ‘Understanding risk factors for intimate partner
femicide: the role of domestic violence fatality review teams’, in
A. Baldry and F. Winkel (eds) Intimate partner violence prevention and
intervention Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science, pp 44–60.
Websdale, N. (1999) Understanding domestic homicide, Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press.
Websdale, N. (2003) ‘Reviewing domestic violence deaths’, National
Institute of Justice, 250: 26–31.

91
 FEMICIDE ACROSS EUROPE

Websdale, N., Sheeran, M. and Johnson, B. (2001) Reviewing domestic

violence fatalities: Summarizing national developments, Minneapolis,
MN: Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.
Webster, R. A., Schnitzer, P. G. and Jenny, C. (2003) ‘Child death
review: the state of the nation’, American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 25(1): 58–64.
Wilson, M. and Daly, M. (1998) ‘Lethal and nonlethal violence
against wives and the evolutionary psychology of male sexual
proprietariness’, in, R. E. Dobash and R. P. Dobash (eds) Sage series
on violence against women, Vol. 9. Rethinking violence against women,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp 199–230.
Wolfe, D. and Jaffe, P. (1999) ‘Emerging strategies in the prevention
of domestic violence’, The Future of Children, 9: 133–44.

92

View publication stats