chapter 8

Prior to the mid-1970s, it was rare for those in the criminal justice system, and

society in general, to take violence between spouses very seriously. Before 1974,

for example, when a husband assaulted his wife, the assault was defined as a mis-

demeanor. To make this clear, if a man punched or beat up his neighbor or a

stranger on the street, he could be charged with a felony. If this same man beat the

woman he was married to in the same way, he would be charged with a misde-

meanor. Domestic violence between spouses was considered a private matter

(Browne, Williams, & Dutton, 1999). As a result, it is not surprising that criminol-

ogists failed to focus on intimate partner violence and homicide. In the 1980s,

however, feminists and others in the battered women’s movement began to bring

the issue of domestic violence from behind closed doors into the public realm.

Since that time, many studies have addressed domestic violence and intimate

partner homicide.

In this chapter, you will read about what criminologists and criminal justice

officials have learned from the many studies about intimate partner homicide. The

first section presents relevant definitions. Then the data on intimate partner homi-

cide in the United States and in other countries, including the differences with

regard to gender in this type of homicide, are presented. In looking at the data, the

trends and patterns of intimate partner homicide since the establishment of domes-

tic violence shelters and mandatory arrest policies are considered. A discussion

about the use of the battered women’s syndrome in court cases involving women

who have killed their intimate partners is included as well. Also importantly, not all

intimate partner homicide is the result of battering or domestic violence situations.

As such there is a discussion about the different motivations for intimate partner

homicide. As in other chapters, the many examples will help make the theories and

data more real to you.

121

Chapter 8

INTIMATE PARTNER

HOMICIDE

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 121

REVISED

122 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

DEFINITIONS

Intimate partner homicide is a term used to reflect the killing of a victim by an

offender who is either currently or was formerly in a sexual relationship with the vic-

tim. In the past, different terms were used to describe such killings, but they often

failed to include all the types of relationships encompassed in the more general term

intimate partner homicide. Uxoricide, or wife killing, for example, leaves out the

killing of former wives, homicides of those in de facto marital relationships, and the

killing of males by their wives or other sexual partners. Similarly, spousal homicide,

although sometimes the relevant focus depending on the question, again leaves out

de facto marital relationships such as common-law marriages, same-sex relation-

ships, and former spouses. Domestic homicide may be good for any sexually involved

couples who are living together, but then again, it may be confused with any type of

homicide that occurs within a family, such as the killing of one’s children, parents, or

sibling.

In this chapter, the more inclusive term intimate partner homicide is used to refer

to the killing of one’s current or former sexual partner. Married and unmarried as

well as heterosexual or same-sex couples are included in this definition because

research suggests these types of homicide have many commonalities. However, there

is also research that suggests differences between ever-married couples and never-

married couples. Thus, if the research or data presented in this chapter involves a dif-

ferent definition, I am careful to use the most exact term. So if you read about

spousal homicide in the United States in this chapter, you may assume it refers to the

homicide of a husband by a wife or a wife by a husband. If you read the term intimate

partner, you know it refers to a person currently or formerly involved in a sexual rela-

tion with another.

DATA ON INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE

Despite the fact that men are more often the victims of homicides than women, men

are less likely than women to be killed by their intimate partners. Nearly a third of

female homicide victims and only 5% of male homicide victims are killed by their

intimate partners (Paulozzi, Saltzman, Thompson, et al., 2001). According to FBI

data on homicides known to the police in 2004, 579 men murdered their wives,

common-law wives, or ex-wives; 149 wives murdered their husbands, common-law

husbands, or ex-husbands. Similarly, 445 men murdered their girlfriends, whereas

147 women murdered their boyfriends. Another way to think about this is to note

that men in the United States killed their female intimate partners approximately 3.5

times as often as women killed their male intimate partners.

Although there are certainly enough similarities in the dynamics involved in dif-

ferent types of intimate partner homicides to include them in one chapter, it is also

important to realize that homicides committed by intimate partners may vary by the

type of intimate relationship. As such, several studies have looked at difference

between married and nonmarried couples. These studies that compare ever-married

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 122

REVISED

Data on Intimate Partner Homicide 123

couples (married, separated, and divorced) to nonmarried couples who live together

(cohabitating) find that the risk of homicide is greater for nonmarried couples

(Shackelford, 2001). In the United States, for example, the risk of intimate partner

homicide for men in cohabitating relationships is 10 times greater than the risk for

married men.

As with other types of homicide, however, the data indicate that there are also

differences by race. Intimate partner homicide rates tend to be highest among

African Americans as compared to other racial groups (Block & Christakos, 1995;

Paulozzi et al., 2001). Rates among Native Americans, although lower than African

Americans, are higher than whites, and Asians/Pacific Islanders have the lowest rates

(Paulozzi et al., 2001). In Table 8.1, you can see these differences in rates between

racial groups as well as the fact that the victimization rates were higher for women

than for men. However, the data broken down by race and sex also show that African

American males had the highest risk of being victims of intimate partner homicide

in the years 1981 to 1998. The next most at risk in order were as follows: African

American females, American Indian females, American Indian males, white and

Asian females, and white and Asian males. Other data also suggest that the rates

among Latinos are relatively low in comparison with African Americans as well

(Block & Christakos, 1995).

Like other types of homicide, age is also relevant. Those in particular age groups

appear to be at greater risk for both offending and for becoming victims of intimate

partner homicide. Both victims and offenders of intimate partner homicide tend to

be, on average, older than those involved in other types of homicide. Furthermore,

likely reflecting the pattern of men marrying women who are younger than them-

selves, studies also tend to show that men involved in intimate partner homicide are

older on average than women who are killed by or kill their intimate partners (Block &

Christakos, 1995). U.S. data, for example, show that men are most at risk for intimate

partner homicide victimization beginning in their late 30s and lasting through their

50s, whereas women’s risk period was highest beginning in their 20s and lasting until

they turn 50 years of age. Similarly, the peak ages for offenders of intimate partner

violence was older for men. Chicago data show that the peak for male offenders was

35 to 39 years. For women in Chicago, the peak for offending by African American

women was 25 to 29 years. The rates of intimate partner homicide offending for

white and Latino women, however, was low at all ages without any discernible peaks

(Block & Christakos, 1995).

TABLE 8.1 Intimate Partner Homicide Victimization Rates per 100,000 Population

Race Women Men Total

African American 3.55 4.11 3.77 Indian American/Alaskan Native 2.26 1.20 1.79

White 1.11 0.49 0.81

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.92 0.19 0.57

Total 1.43 0.89 1.15

Source: Paulozzi et al’s (2001) estimation of annual rates using SHR data from 1981 and 1998.

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 123

REVISED

124 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

Differences in age between partners in intimate partner relationships also

result in different rates of intimate partner homicide victimization. Intimate part-

ners who are in relationships with greater age differences, for the most part, are

more at risk for partner-committed homicide (Shackelford, 2001). In other words,

men who married or live with much older women or much younger women are

at greater risk for homicide than those who marry women close in age to them-

selves (Daly & Wilson, 1988; Shackelford, 2001). Data also suggest that married

women are more likely to be killed by their partners when they are married to

older men as opposed to younger men or men their same age (Shackelford, Buss, &

Peters, 2000).

Even though we see that rate of intimate partner homicide varies by sex, age,

and race, we also know that many nondemographic factors are associated with

intimate partner homicide as listed in Box 8.1. As will be clear throughout the

remainder of this chapter, previous violence or abuse within the intimate relation-

ship is a very common factor in intimate partner homicide. Also important, and

often linked to intimate partner violence, are the abuser’s use of illicit drugs and

(most often) his alcohol use. A study comparing the differences between battered

women in fatal and nonfatal battering relationships found a strong relationship

between the abuser’s drug use and intimate partner homicide. The abuser’s use

of alcohol, however, was not related to intimate partner homicide. The victim’s

alcohol abuse and drug use were not associated with the risk of intimate partner

homicide independent of other risks of being killed (Campbell, Webster, Koziol-

McLain, et al., 2003).

BOX 8.1

Sex Ratio of Intimate Killing

SROK is an acronym for “sex ratio of intimate killings.” Criminologists have been particularly interested in SROK since the late 1980s when Daly and Wilson (1988) first pointed out that the SROK was considerably closer than the overall ratio of female killing to male killing. For a number of years, women have accounted for approximately 14% of all homicides in the United States. However, many studies have indicated that in the United States (but not necessarily in other countries), the numbers of women who kill their intimate partners are more equal to the number of men who kill their partners. Gauthier and Bankston (2004), for example, reported that about 60 to 70 women kill intimate partners for every 100 men who kill their partners. Criminologists have also noted that the SROK differs by race and marital status and even between cities. The SROK in Chicago, for example, was a nearly even 1:1 (Block & Christakos, 1995), and incredibly, the ratio was 2:1 in Detroit where women were killing their partners far more often than men were killing their intimate partners. Based on everything you have read in this chapter (and in this book so far) and what you know about the United States, how might you explain this phenomenon?

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 124

REVISED

Comparisons Across the World 125

U.S. TRENDS

There is some good news about intimate partner homicide in the United States.

Between 1976 and 2000, the number of men murdered by their intimate partners

dropped 68% from 1,357 men killed in 1976 to 440 male victims in 2000. The data

regarding women also show improvements, but the news is not as good for women.

Between 1976 and 1993, the number of women killed by their partners remained

fairly stable, and then in 1993 the number began to drop. In 1993, 1,581 women were

murdered by their partners, and in 2000 there were 1,247. Thus the number of female

victims of intimate partner homicide decreased about 20%, reflecting a less dramatic

drop for female victims as compared to male victims. Moreover, the number of

women killed by partners remains higher than the numbers of males killed by their

partners (Rennison, 2003). A section later in this chapter addresses possible explana-

tions for the decline in intimate partner homicide.

COMPARISONS ACROSS THE WORLD

Data from other countries such as Australia show that intimate partner homicide is

not uncommon in other countries. In fact, as a percentage of all homicides it may be

higher in other countries than it is in the United States. However, this does not mean

that the rate of intimate partner violence is lower in the United States. Instead, the

higher percentage of intimate partner violence in other countries is the result of the

higher incidents of other types of homicide in the United States. In 2000–2001 in

BOX 8.2

Dowry Death in India

An article appearing on the newswire on May 29, 2006, reported two dowry deaths in the previous 24 hours in different parts of India. “Dowry death” refers to the killing of a woman by her husband (and/or his family) when her family refuses (or cannot) pay the dowry demanded by the husband and his family. Dowry is a customary payment of cash and goods paid to the hus- band’s family by the woman’s family. The dowry, however, is not a one time payment but rather a continuation of payments through the first several years of marriage. Some have viewed the dowry as a “compensation for the cost of maintaining an economically unproductive human being” and thus a reflection of the inferior status of women (Prasad, 1994: 73).

According to the 2006 wire report, Sanjit Naskar was arrested for allegedly beating his wife Barnali Naskar and then hanging her. Sabir Ali, who had yet to be arrested, killed his wife Sabina Bibi by setting her on fire. As indicated by the fact that the term dowry death exists, these types of killing are not uncommon. Despite a Dowry Prohibition Act making dowry

continued

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 125

REVISED

126 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE

As noted earlier, a much large percentage of female homicide victims as compared with

male homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners. Women in the United States,

in fact, are more likely to be killed by intimate partners than by any other type of mur-

derer (Campbell et al., 2003). Moreover, intimate partner homicides, including those

in which women kill their male partners, are often linked to intimate partner abuse

committed by males. As a result, much of the research about intimate partner homicide

has focused on domestic violence and often on cases where men are the offenders and

females are the victims. In the sections to follow, some of this research is discussed. We

also look at the growing body of literature dedicated to explaining the declining rates of

intimate partner homicide committed by both men and women. Most intimate partner

homicides involve a single perpetrator and a single victim; however, a small number of

individuals who kill their partners also kill one or more of their children and/or them-

selves in cases of familicide and/or homicide-suicide. These multiple killing cases are

discussed here and to some extent in Chapter 11 on mass and spree killing.

Women are killed by their partners more often than men are killed by their partners,

and research suggests that men and women kill their partners for different reasons

(Websdale, 1999). Although not unheard of, it is extremely rare for a woman to kill her

partner as an end to a long cycle of violence that she has perpetrated against her partner.

Men, in contrast, quite often batter their partners for years before killing them (Websdale,

1999). Most male perpetrators of intimate partner homicide kill their partners in situa-

tions where the men are trying to control their intimate partner. As a consequence of this

deaths illegal in India, nearly 7,000 women were murdered in 2001 in what were recorded as dowry-related incidents. As in the murder of Sabina Ali, the method of death is often burning. “Bride burning,” as it is called, is so com- mon in parts of India that the burn unit in one Indian hospital reports admit- ting between 2 and 5 new bride burning cases each day, with as many as 70 of these women dying each month (Global News Wire, 2006; Tucker, 2006).

Australia, 22% of homicides could be classified as intimate partner murders

(Mouzos, 2002). Likewise in Canada, one out of five homicides is committed by an

intimate partner (Dawson, 2004). In the United States, about 10% of all homicides

are intimate partner homicides (Rennison & Welchens, 2001).

Data from countries, including Canada, Australia, Scotland, England/Wales, and

India, among others, also reveal another difference between these countries and the

United States. In the United States, the numbers of women who kill their partners is

closer to the number of men who kill their partners than in other countries (Block &

Christakos, 1995; Lindgren, 2006; Mouzos & Shackelford, 2004). In other countries,

men outnumber women in much greater numbers as offenders in intimate partner

homicide. In a four-year period in Ontario, Canada, for example, men committed

94% of intimate partner homicides, and women were victims in 93% of the cases. In

the United States, men commit closer to 80% of all intimate partner homicide.

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 126

REVISED

Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Homicide 127

controlling behavior, which we do not see in the same way among women, men are also

far more likely than women to kill an estranged partner. Men are also more likely to

commit familicide or suicide than are women (see Chapter 11). In addition to killing

their partners, when men find out their partners are cheating on them, they are also

more likely to commit a double homicide by killing not only their partner but her para-

mour than are women to kill their partner and his mistress. Finally, women who kill their

partners, often, but clearly not always, kill as a method of self-defense (Websdale, 1999).

It is rare that an intimate partner homicide is committed by more than one

offender. In fact, it may seem impossible for an intimate partner homicide to be com-

mitted by multiple offenders because most of us have only one intimate partner, and

it is difficult to imagine that even if a person had two partners, they would get

together and murder the person they both considered to be their intimate partner. In

reality, when there are two offenders of an intimate partner homicide, the second

offender is usually an accomplice who has been brought in to help with or commit

the murder. Women, in fact, are more likely than men to employ an accomplice in the

murder of their intimate partner (Block & Christakos, 1995).

Such was the case in Ohio in 2001 when Donna Marie Roberts and Nathaniel

Jackson plotted to kill Roberts’s partner Robert Fingerhut. Jackson and Roberts were

having an affair, and eventually they decided they wanted to be rid of Fingerhut.

They surmised that if they killed him, they would stand to collect on a $550,000

insurance policy. Jackson was incarcerated for a short time, and while incarcerated he

and Roberts wrote over 100 letters in which they discussed their plans to get rid of

BOX 8.3

Shania Twain, a Sexy Dance, and a Gun Lead to a Husband’s Death

A story that captured the interest of the media in Great Britain was the killing of Gregory West by Linda West. The couple had only been married two months when Linda phoned 999 (Britain’s equivalent of 911) and cried as she told the dispatcher that she shot her husband. At trial 49-year-old Linda West told the jury she was doing a sexy dance to Shania Twain’s “Man! I Feel Like a Woman” song while holding a shotgun. At the end of the dance, she claims that she dropped the gun on the floor to take a bow. The gun, which had a defective safety, went off by itself when it hit the floor. The bullet struck West in the heart and killed him instantly.

Neighbors of the couple reported they had heard the couple arguing the same evening West was killed. Mrs. West, however, reported that they were having a “lovely evening” before West was shot. It appears that the jury believed neighbor’s accounts more than they believed Mrs. West. After 8.5 hours of deliberation, the jury found Linda West guilty of murder. She was sentenced to life in prison by a judge, who noted that he did not believe the killing was planned. However, he believed that in a “short period of drunken madness” a crime did take place, and for that she would serve at least 16 years of a life sentence (Millar, 2006; Vasagar, 2006).

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 127

REVISED

128 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

EXPLANATIONS AND MOTIVATIONS

One way to categorize and explain homicides is to divide incidents into expressive

and instrumental killings. Because the killing of a spouse is more often a spur-of-the-

moment action in which one partner strikes out to try to hurt the other, intimate

partner homicides are often classified as expressive killings. An instrumental homicide

is a killing in which the offender is attempting to gain something with the killing.

There are intimate partner homicides in which an instrumental goal is clear. Kelly

Gissendaner, the only woman on death row in Georgia at the time of this writing,

convinced her boyfriend to kill her husband for the insurance money they would

gain. Other women and men involved in custody battles over their children have

killed their partners to gain sole custody or to avoid paying child support or alimony.

Although it may make sense to say that intimate partner homicides are more

likely to be expressive than instrumental, this may not be the best way to categorize

such killing. When we really examine cases of intimate partner homicide, we will find

that often it is difficult to determine whether a homicide is instrumental or expres-

sive. If a man is upset because his wife is leaving him, he may react with anger and, in

fact, kill her. This certainly fits the definition of an expressive killing. He has not plot-

ted and planned to kill his wife. The man being left is angry, and he could be hurting

his partner simply because she is hurting him. However, such a killing could also be

viewed as an instrumental killing. The motivation may be to control his wife and

keep her from leaving. Similarly, the killing of his wife could have been instrumental

in that the goal was to keep her from being with anybody else.

Any categorization of motivations for intimate partner homicide may lead us to

the same problems we have in attempting to categorize such homicides as expressive or

instrumental. Producing mutually exclusive categories appears impossible. Intimate

partner homicide may be motivated by sexual jealously, fear, greed, anger, and rage. The

death of an intimate partner may evolve from a love triangle, a plot to obtain insurance

money, or it could be a seemingly unavoidable end to a tragically violent relationship.

Upon discovering an intimate partner homicide, investigators and prosecutors may

piece together a story that involves several of these elements or only one.

In March 2006, Jeff Dennis, a police officer, was arrested for the shooting death

of his wife Carli. Officer Dennis, who originally reported his wife’s death as a suicide,

gave many conflicting reports about where he was when his wife died. Moreover,

none of Officer Dennis’s accounts coincided with blood splatter found on his shirt

that suggested he was facing his wife when she was shot. Investigators believed that

Dennis killed his wife when he found out she was having an affair with one of her

Fingerhut. Once released, the plan went forward, and Jackson shot Fingerhut to

death. In separate trials, both Roberts and Jackson were found guilty of aggravated

murder and sentenced to death for Fingerhut’s murder (State v. Roberts, 2006).

Following her 2003 trial, however, Roberts appealed, and in 2006 her conviction was

affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court. However, her sentence was overturned because

the judge allowed a prosecutor to help prepare the sentencing decision, which is in

violation of Ohio law. At the time of this writing, her new sentence has not been

determined. However, the death penalty is still an option (Associated Press, 2006a).

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 128

REVISED

Explanations and Motivations 129

coworkers (Sweeney, 2006). Thus this case appears to be the result of a lover’s trian-

gle. It would seem that the motivation could have been anger, rage, sexual jealously,

and fear that she was going to leave him. As is too often the case, he could have been

acting on the premise that if he could not “have her, nobody could.” At the time of

this writing, the case remains to be tried.

Whereas Carli Dennis’s homicide was somewhat of a surprise, the death of Norma

Pescador was perhaps more predictable. After a history of domestic violence incidents,

in December 2001, Manolito Pescador used a nail gun to kill his wife Norma Pescador.

In this case, there was no doubt that the police were investigating an intimate partner

homicide. Pescador clearly killed his wife. He called the police himself and admitted he

had shot her nearly a dozen times in the head with a nail gun. When the police arrived,

Pescador was covered with his wife’s blood. Why would a man so brutally kill a person

he had promised to love forever? In this case, Pescador told his adult son Jeffrey that he

shot his wife because she was unfaithful and she was abusing one of the couple’s

younger children. Jeffrey, however, testified his mom was not having an affair or abusive

and that his father was extremely jealous (People v. Pescador, 2004).

During the murder trial against Manolito Pescador, several witnesses testified that

Pescador had a history of violence against his wife. In one incident Norma jumped

from a speeding car because Pescador had threatened to kill both of them by crashing

their car. Neighbors who testified at trial reported that Norma told them that Pescador

had cut up her credit cards, constantly accused her of affairs, and that Norma believed

that Manolito would kill her (People v. Pescador, 2004). In this case, we see a history of

domestic violence, involving sexual jealously, anger, and what seems to be Pescador’s

obsessive need to control his wife leading to Mrs. Pescador’s death.

The death of Norma Pescador is all too similar to so many other violent rela-

tionships that end with the death of one of the partners. Yet everyday women and

men who are abused by their partners continue to live with these abusive partners. It

is not uncommon for someone who has not been involved in a battering relationship

to ask why a woman or man who is being abused by her or his partner does not leave

the relationship. As we have learned more about battering relationships and intimate

partner homicide, it has become clear that leaving or threatening to leave may actu-

ally increase the risk for homicide (Block & Christakos, 1995; Davies, Block, &

Campbell, 2007). In their study of intimate partner homicides in Chicago, Block and

Christakos (1995) found that a male offender was much more likely to murder his

partner because she or he attempted or threatened to leave than for other reasons. In

fact, it was the primary or secondary factor given for intimate partner homicide in

Chicago for 13% of husbands, 4% of wives, 5% of common-law husbands, 3% of

common-law wives; 9% of boyfriends, and 1% of girlfriends who killed their inti-

mate partners (Block & Christakos, 1995).

Emile Durkheim, who you may remember for his study of suicide, has also con-

tributed to our understanding of men who kill partners who are attempting to leave

them. Durkheim noted that connections to family were related to lower suicide rates.

Yet he also pointed out that family life sometimes increases the risk of homicide.

When a marriage ends, for example, Durkheim (1897/1979) argued that the husband

has more to lose than the wife, and thus men are more likely than women to kill their

spouses as a result of the dissolution of a marriage. Although research suggests that

divorced women fare much worse economically than divorced men, Durkheim may

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 129

REVISED

130 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

still have a valid point when we look at this in a social-psychological context.

Durkheim could be getting to issues of control and status for men in patriarchal soci-

eties. Although there have been changes in U.S. society since Durkheim first wrote

about suicide and homicide, we still live in a predominantly patriarchal society. Men

are expected to be leaders and to be in control. In everyday life when men find they are

not in control, some may strike out against their partners. When a woman is leaving

her partner, this situation is particularly challenging to many men’s sense of power

and control. In fact, as noted earlier, a woman’s leaving is often a trigger for intimate

partner homicide; especially in relationships in which the man is already a batterer.

It is important to realize that in an abusive relationship, not only is the abused part-

ner at greater risk for homicide but so is the abuser (Block & Christakos, 1995; Browne,

1986). On May 13, 2006, police responded to a 911 call in the Bronx where they found

Juan Hernandez with two stab wounds to his chest. A kitchen knife was lying near his

body. Juan’s wife of 26 years, Gloria Hernandez, was outside the couple’s apartment. She

was wearing a nightgown that was soaked with blood and her thumb was cut. Police took

both Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez to a medical center where Mr. Hernandez was pronounced

dead. Mrs. Hernandez was arrested for the murder of her husband (Lowe, 2006).

Gloria Hernandez, unlike many other battered women who escape an abusive

husband by killing him, was not prosecuted for her husband’s murder. After hearing

the evidence on May 19, 2006, a grand jury refused to indict Hernandez for murder

or manslaughter. Mrs. Hernandez, who was 55 at the time of the stabbing, and

her daughter from a previous marriage, 37-year-old Maria Diaz, testified that

Mr. Hernandez regularly beat Mrs. Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez, who it was reported

regularly used drugs, was angry at Gloria the night he died because she would not give

him money for drugs. He attacked her with a knife and tried to choke her. However, she

was able to take the knife from him and she stabbed him to save herself (Lowe, 2006).

One certainly would not want to argue that the Hernandez case ended well

because Juan Hernandez lost his life. However, often the outcome is worse. A woman

who has been abused for years is freed from her abuser but sent to prison or even

sentenced to death. Such was the outcome of Frances Harrop’s first trial in a

Canadian court of law where she was sentenced to hang for the shooting death of her

husband George. She had told police that she shot her husband twice as he slept. She

then lay beside his body and slept for several hours before calling family members.

She told the detective who investigated the case, “It was either his life or mine. My

husband has threatened my life on several occasions. It was either me taking his life

or him taking my life” (Holliday, 2006: C16). The couple’s five sons testified that they

hated their father, who often threatened to kill their mother. Other witnesses testified

that Mrs. Harrop often had bruises on her body and Mr. Harrop used his wife as a

punching bag. Mrs. Harrop thanked the prosecutor for the fair trial he conducted.

Nevertheless, she was sentenced to hang for the killing of her husband.

However, she was eventually granted a new trial because it was determined that

the justice (judge) failed to explain insanity fully to the jury. In the second trial,

Frances Harrop was found not guilty due to insanity. Eventually, she was released after

it was determined she was sane. Harrop was far luckier than other women who have

spent years in prison after killing an abusive husband. However, scholars have noted

that for a woman who kills her abuser to be found not guilty, she often must be proven

insane. This is despite the fact that killing one’s partner may be a sane response to an

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 130

REVISED

Instrumental Gain 131

abusive situation. In 1940 when Harrop killed her husband, the “battered women’s

syndrome” was not known. Today, although battered women are still often found

guilty for killing abusive husbands, there is the possibility that the defense can have an

expert testify about battered women’s syndrome, as discussed later in this chapter.

INSTRUMENTAL GAIN

As in the case of Manolito Pescador, the primary motive of most intimate partner

homicides is to hurt or control the other person. These killings often occur in the con-

text of a domestic violence situation. There are intimate partner homicides, however,

BOX 8.4

Warning Signs for Intimate Partner Homicide

Several studies have been conducted to determine how violent intimate partner relationships that end in homicide differ from those that have not ended in homicide (Campbell et al., 2003). The point of these studies was to determine what might be done to prevent intimate partner homicide. The researchers interviewed battered women who had been in violent relationships within the last year and relatives of women who were killed by their partners. Several factors were found to differentiate the relation- ships in which women were abused but not killed and those in which women were killed. These warning signs that a relationship may end with a murder in the United States and in other countries are as follows:

1. Prior history of domestic violence 2. Separation 3. Depression (his or hers) 4. His unemployment 5. Perpetrator threatens to hurt his or her partner 6. Victim believes that partner is capable of killing her or him 7. History of substance abuse and alcohol abuse 8. Stalking behavior 9. Escalating violence

10. Incidents of violence involving choking 11. Perpetrator who makes threats to hurt himself 12. Male partner who has been arrested for violent crimes 13. Male partner who is suicidal 14. Presence of a firearm in the home 15. Presence of the victim’s children from a previous relationship

What would you do if your mother, sister, or friend came to you and indi- cated that some of these warning signs were happening in their life?

Source: Block and Christakos, 1995; Campbell et al., 2003; Davies, Block, and Campbell,

2007; Lindgren, 2006.

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 131

REVISED

132 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

WEAPON USE: HOW DO INTIMATE PARTNERS

KILL ONE ANOTHER?

In comparison to other types of homicide, knives are more common in intimate part-

ner homicide. Data for four years in Ontario, Canada, for example, reveal that knives

or other sharp instruments stand out as the most common weapon used in intimate

partner murder (33% of cases), but firearms were a close second with 28% of the

deaths involving guns, and 15% of the victims were beaten to death and 13% were

choked to death (Lindgren, 2006). Similarly, in Chicago, between 1965 and 1990,

knives were the most common cause of death (37%) followed closely by guns (35%)

(Block & Christakos, 1995). However, in the United States overall, data show that

firearms are the most common weapon used by both men and women when commit-

ting intimate partner homicide. From 1981 to 1998, 59.1% of male victims and 64.1%

of female victims of intimate partner homicide were killed with firearms. Knives were

next most common, with 35.3% of male victims and 16.1% of female victims killed

with a knife. It is believed that men were more likely to be killed by knives than women

because their female partners use weapons of opportunity, which are more likely to be

knives for women than for men. Moreover, when killing male partners, wives were

more likely than girlfriends to use firearms (Paulozzi et al., 2001).

in which the goal is to gain money or property or perhaps even the custody of one’s

children.

Often it is clear to police investigators that they are dealing with an intimate

partner homicide, but sometimes it is not immediately apparent. Such is the case of

Piper Rountree, who killed her former husband Michael Jablin. Rountree and Jablin

were married for 18 years and had two children before their divorce. Jablin, who lived

in Richmond, Virginia, was awarded custody of the couple’s three children. Rountree

moved to Texas, where she had a license to practice law and where she was closer to

her sister and other family members.

When Jablin was shot dead in the driveway of his Virginia home one Sunday

morning as he walked outside to get his newspaper, the police did not immediately

suspect his former wife. Because the killing had occurred outside the home and

because Rountree lived so far from her ex-husband, she was not an immediate sus-

pect. And even though men are more likely to kill their estranged partners than

women are to kill theirs, police did not rule out Piper Rountree as the possible mur-

derer. At first, no evidence indicated that Rountree had been in Virginia. However

after a careful investigation of credit card purchases and flight logs, police built a case

against Rountree that led a jury to convict her of first-degree murder. The prosecu-

tors argued that Rountree wore a wig and used her sister’s identification to fly from

Texas to Virginia. Once in Virginia, they argued, she shot her former husband with a

.38-caliber gun so she could gain sole custody of the couple’s three children and avoid

paying over $700,000 in back child support she owed. The jury found Rountree

guilty of what appears to be an instrumentally motivated homicide and recom-

mended that she serve a sentence of 20 years to life (CBS News, 2005).

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 132

REVISED

The Potential of Public Policy to Make a Difference 133

THE POTENTIAL OF PUBLIC POLICY TO

MAKE A DIFFERENCE

As noted earlier, over the past 25 years or so, intimate partner homicide has decreased

considerably. What explains this decline? Could it be the increased attention to

domestic violence in our society and the public policy responses to domestic violence,

including increases in domestic violence hotlines and legal advocacy programs?

Criminologists have asked these same questions, and their studies have provided

answers that show the promise of public policy in decreasing violence and ultimately

homicide. Nevertheless, the impact of these resources has not been exactly what

domestic violence movement advocates may have hoped they would be. Positively,

the studies have shown that resources for battered women are significantly associated

with lower rates of women killing their husbands. It seems that legal advocacy and

other resources for battered women have helped women see they have options

beyond killing their partners to escape the violence (Browne & Williams, 1989;

Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 1999, 2003).

The availability of services for the victims of domestic violence, however, has not

been as strongly linked to decreases in wife killing by husbands. Ironically, the public

policy innovations put in place to protect battered women appear to have been more

successful in saving the lives of abusive men than of battered women. Granted, the

reduction in the number of homicides committed by battered women is beneficial

because these men’s lives are saved and a number of battered women may avoid incar-

ceration. However, the smaller decrease in men killing their partners remains a curiosity.

Dugan and colleagues (2003) attempted to explain this curiosity by considering

nonmarital heterosexual intimate partner homicide in addition to marital intimate

partner homicide. As with the earlier studies, their study explored possible explana-

tions for the decreases in intimate partner homicide. They found that for a majority

(65%) of the 48 cities studied, more alternatives to living with or depending on an

abusive partner coincided with lower levels of intimate partner homicide. However,

there were some differences by relationship and by race. For example, as Aid to

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits declined, more unmarried men

were killed by their girlfriends, and African American men, in particular, were more

Although knives and guns may be most common, there are practically no limits

to how intimate partners murder their partners. In 2006, Esad Lemo killed his

estranged wife Jasminka with his car. Esad and Jasminka Lemo were living in separate

apartments in Pennsylvania as their divorce was being processed. At this same time,

according to newspaper reports, Lemo lost his job, became upset, and directed his

anger at his estranged wife. Witnesses told police that Lemo jumped a curb with his

car and drove across a grassy area before pinning his wife between his car and a

building. She died of her injuries. As is often the case with intimate partner homi-

cide, there was a record of domestic violence complaints involving Esad Lemos

(Associated Press, 2006b). Unfortunately, Mrs. Lemo could not avoid her ex-husband,

who was determined to hurt her.

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 133

REVISED

134 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE IN COURT

In the past, there were rules that permitted a husband to beat his wife as long as the

instrument he used had a circumference that was smaller than the circumference of

his thumb. (This practice is the origin for the phrase “rule of thumb.”) The killing of

a wife by her husband was not seen as a horrible crime. In some places, in fact, if a

man discovered his wife was having an affair and killed her as a result, the killing was

viewed as justified and not always prosecuted. Today, such crimes are more likely to

go to trial. But what happens in court? Are those who kill their intimate partner

treated the same as those who kill strangers?

A study comparing intimate partner homicide and nonintimate partner homi-

cide in Toronto, Canada, found that individuals accused of killing their partners were

significantly more likely to be convicted than those accused of killing nonpartners.

However, the author cautions that this finding is likely connected to other facts. First,

individuals who kill their partners are less likely to be charged with first-degree mur-

der than those who kill nonintimate partners. Secondly, and probably most impor-

tant, those who are accused of killing partners are more likely to plead guilty than

those who kill nonintimate partners. Nevertheless, for those who go to trial, individ-

uals who are accused of killing their intimate partners are more likely to be found

guilty than those charged with killing a nonintimate partner (Dawson, 2004).

BATTERED WOMEN’S SYNDROME IN COURT

In the United States, self-defense is an affirmative defense to murder. In other words, if

defendants present convincing evidence that they killed another human being to pro-

tect their own life; the defendant will not be held responsible for the death. In most

U.S. jurisdictions, the law of self-defense states that an individual may use reasonable

likely to be killed. There were increases in men killing their African American girl-

friends, but not white girlfriends, as AFDC benefits declined. Unmarried intimates

were also less likely to be killed when domestic violence arrest policies were more

aggressive, but aggressive arrest policies did not appear to affect intimate partner

homicide by spouses. Legal advocacy was connected with fewer killings of white

wives by their partners. Mandatory arrest policies were linked to fewer deaths of mar-

ried women of all races, and warrantless arrest policies were associated with

decreases in the killing of unmarried male intimates and unmarried white females.

Education appeared to provide some protection against intimate partner homicide

overall, but this did not hold true for African American intimates who were not mar-

ried when these relationships were examined separately (Dugan et al., 2003).

Research shows complications in drawing conclusions about what works in prevent-

ing intimate partner homicide. Nevertheless, this research demonstrates the impact

that public policies may hold for reducing homicide.

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 134

REVISED

Summary 135

force against another when the individual reasonably believes the other person is

threatening her or him with imminent and unlawful harm. This definition may work

well if you manage to bash a burglar in the head with a lamp and kill him while he is

beating you with a golf club. It would seem that any reasonable person would believe

you were protecting your own life. Hitting him with a lamp would appear to be rea-

sonable force if he were hitting you with a golf club. Furthermore, it would be believ-

able that the harm to you was immediate, and clearly it would be unlawful to beat you

with a golf club.

When a woman like Francine Hughes, however, kills her husband by setting his

bed on fire while he sleeps, a jury is not likely to see it as self-defense. After all, if you

killed a person who was sleeping, it would be difficult to prove that you felt you were

being threatened with imminent harm. Similarly, if a woman uses a gun to kill a man

who is hitting her with his fist, some prosecutors and juries may not view her use of a

gun as reasonable force because he was not using a weapon. With cases such as

Francine Hughes’s killing of her sleeping husband, immortalized in the book (and

film) The Burning Bed, and Lenore Walker’s groundbreaking book Battered Woman,

criminologists and criminal justice professionals began to better understand the

complications involved in a woman leaving her abusive partner (McNulty, 1989;

Walker, 1980).

Battered women’s syndrome is a psychological state akin to post-traumatic stress

syndrome, which, in some cases, may explain why a woman kills her abusive husband.

It is important to know that battered women’s syndrome is not a defense to murder.

However, as of 2004, more than 30 states have allowed expert testimony on battered

women’s syndrome to be introduced in court cases. This testimony does not work as a

get-out-of-jail-free card. However, this testimony is sometimes introduced as mitigat-

ing circumstances that may explain why a woman would see no other option but to

kill her partner. As a result, a jury may consider a woman’s abuse in determining if she

is guilty and what she is guilty of when she kills an abusive partner.

SUMMARY

This chapter focused on homicide that occurs between individuals who are or who

have at one time been in a sexual relationship with one another. Throughout the

chapter, much attention was given to the ways in which intimate partner violence by

men and women differ. Although the data showed that men kill their partners more

often than women kill their partners, it was also noted that the ratio of female-to-

male intimate partner homicide was closer in the United States than in other parts of

the world. The differences by age and race for intimate partner homicide were

included. Good news about the decreases in intimate partner homicide was pre-

sented; although it was noted that the news may be better for men than for women.

Explanations and motives for intimate partner homicide and the circumstances of

intimate partner homicide were reviewed, including expressive and instrumental

explanations. Much attention was also focused on domestic violence leading to inti-

mate partner homicide by both men and women. A section about weapon use in

partner-committed killing emphasized that knives are used more often in intimate

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 135

REVISED

136 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

REFERENCES

Associated Press. 2006a.“Ohio Voids Woman’s Death Sentence.” Accessed online at Los Angeles

Times.com, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-death3aug03,1,2541320.

story

Associated Press. 2006b, August 15. “Police: Suburban Pittsburgh Man Pinned Wife Against

Wall with Car.” Associated Press State and Local Wire.

Block, Carolyn Rebecca, and Antigone Christakos. 1995. “Intimate Partner Homicide in

Chicago over 29 Years.” Crime & Delinquency, 41(4): 496–526.

Browne, Angela. 1986. “Assault and Homicide at Home: When Battered Women Kill.” In

Michael J. Saks and Leonard Saxe, eds., Advances in Applied Social Psychology (pp. 57–79).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

CHAPTER QUESTIONS

1. How is “intimate partner” defined in this chapter?

2. Are men or women more frequently the victims of intimate partner homicide?

3. What group (by race and sex) are most at risk for intimate partner homicide?

4. Name some other factors by which intimate partner offending and victimization

rates differ.

5. What is the SROK, and how does U.S. SROK compare to other countries?

6. Is intimate partner homicide decreasing or increasing? Does this vary by sex?

7. How does intimate partner homicide in the United States compare with intimate

partner homicide in other countries?

8. How might you explain some of the gender differences in intimate partner

homicide?

9. What explanations are discussed in this chapter to explain intimate partner

homicide?

10. How does Emile Durkheim contribute to the understanding of intimate partner

homicide?

11. What explains the decrease in intimate partner homicides that have been experi-

enced recently in the United States?

12. According to the study in Canada, are those accused of killing their partners

more or less likely to be convicted than those accused of killing nonpartners?

13. Do you think a study of U.S. courts would find the same results as the Canadian

study on intimate partner homicide court?

14. What is the law of self-defense?

15. Is there a battered women’s syndrome defense? Explain your answer.

partner–type homicide than in other types of homicide, although guns still predom-

inate as killing instruments in the United States overall. The impact and potential for

public policies to make a difference and intimate partner homicide in and outside

court rounded out this chapter on intimate partner homicide.

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 136

REVISED

References 137

Browne, Angela, and Kirk R. Williams. 1989. “Exploring the Effect of Resource Availability and

the Likelihood of Female-Perpetrated Homicides.” Law & Society Review, 23: 75–94.

Browne, Angela, Kirk Williams, and Donald G. Dutton. 1999. “Homicide Between Intimate

Partners: A 20-Year Review.” In M. Dwayne Smith and Margaret A. Zahn, eds., Homicide: A

Sourcebook of Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Campbell, Jacquelyn C., D. Webster, J. Koziol-McLain, et al. 2003. “Risk Factors for Femicide in

Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study.” American Journal of

Public Health, 93(7): 1089–1097.

CBS News. 2005, May 20. “Two Wigs, a Gun and Murder.” Accessed online at www.cbsnews.

com/stories/2005/05/19/48hours

Daly, Margo, and Martin Wilson. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldine.

Davies, Kim, Carolyn Rebecca Block, and Jacquelyn Campbell. 2007. “Seeking Help from the

Police: Battered Women’s Decisions and Experiences.” Criminal Justice Studies, 20(1): 31–57.

Dawson, Myrna. 2004. “Criminal Justice Outcomes in Intimate and Non-intimate Partner

Homicide Cases.” Research Report, rr04-6e. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada,

Research and Statistics Division.

Dugan, Laura, Daniel S. Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld. 1999. “Explaining the Decline in

Intimate Partner Homicide: The Effects of Changing Domesticity, Women’s Status, and

Domestic Violence Resources.” Homicide Studies, 3(3): 187–214.

Dugan, Laura, Daniel S. Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld. 2003. “Exposure Reduction or

Retaliation? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate-Partner Homicide.”

Law & Society, 37(1): 169–198.

Durkheim, Emile. 1897/1979. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Translated by John A. Spaulding

and George Simpson. New York: Free Press.

Gauthier, DeAnn K., and William B. Bankston. 2004.“‘Who Kills Whom’ Revisited: A Sociological

Study of Variation in the Sex Ratio of Spouse Killing.” Homicide Studies, 8(2): 96–122.

Global News Wire. 2006. “Two More Killed over Dowry Dispute.” The Statesman LTD Source.

Accessed at http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=22&id=145506&usrsess=1.

Holliday, Bob. 2006, June 25. “Sentenced to Hang; Fearing for Her Life, Wife Killed Abusive

Husband.” Winnipeg Sun, p. C16.

Lindgren, April. 2006, June 21. “Domestic Violence Death Toll Remains High.” Kingston Whig-

Standard, p. 11.

Lowe, Herbert. 2006.“Jury Won’t Indict Abused Wife: Bronx Woman Says Husband of 26 Years

Tried to Stab Her First and She Killed Him in Self-Defense.” Newsday, p. A18.

McNulty, Faith. 1989. The Burning Bed: The True Story of an Abused Wife. New York: Avon Books.

Millar, Chris. 2006, March 29. “Wife Shoots Her Husband Dead as she Dances to Shania

Twain.” The Evening Standard, p. 9.

Mouzos, Jenny. 2000. Homicidal Encounters: A Study of Homicide in Australia, 1989–1999.

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Mouzos, Jenny. 2002. Homicide in Australia: 2000–2001 National Homicide Monitoring Program

(NHMP) Annual Report. Research and public policy series no. 40. Canberra: Australian

Institute of Criminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/40/.

Mouzos, Jenny, and Todd K. Shackelford. 2004. “A Comparative, Cross-National Analysis of

Partner-Killing by Women in Cohabiting and Marital Relationships in Australia and the

United States.” Aggressive Behavior, 30: 206–216.

Paulozzi, Leonard J., Linda E. Saltzman, Martie P. Thompson, and Patricia Holmgreen. 2001,

October 12.“Surveillance for Homicide Among Intimate Partners—United States, 1981–1998.”

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Surveillance Summaries, 50: 1–16.

People v. Pescador 2004. Cal. App. 4th. No. C042759. Third District, June 8, 2004.

Prasad, Devi. 1994. “Dowry-Related Violence: A Content Analysis of News in Selected

Newspapers.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(1): 71–89.

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 137

REVISED

138 The Murder Book: Examining Homicide

Rennison, Callie Marie. 2003. Intimate Partner Violence, 1993–2001. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice.

Rennison, Callie Marie, and Sarah Welchens. 2001. Intimate Partner Violence. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice.

Shackelford, Todd K. 2001. “Partner-Killing by Women in Cohabitating Relationships and

Marital Relationships.” Homicide Studies, 5: 253–266.

Shackelford, Todd K., David M. Buss, and Jay Peters. 2000. “Wife Killing: Risk to Women as a

Function of Age.” Violence and Victims, 15(3): 273–282.

State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St. 3d 71, 2006-Ohio-3665.

Sweeney, Rory. 2006. “Cop Killed Wife Over Affair.” The Times Leader, March 11, 2006.

Accessed online at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143106530.html.

Tucker, Julie. 2006, February. “Bride Burning.” The Woman’s Voice, 1. Accessed online at http://

www.womansvoice.ca/Issues/Feb2006/BrideBurning.php

Vasagar, Jeevan. 2006, June 24. “‘Shania Twain’ Shotgun Killer Is Jailed for Life.” Guardian.

Accessed online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,1804905,00.html

Walker, Lenore. 1980. Battered Woman. New York: Harper Paperbacks.

Websdale, Neil. 1999. Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston: Northeastern University

Press.

M08_DAVI4013_01_SE_CO8.QXD 8/30/07 5:44 AM Page 138

REVISED

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /CHS <FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe5b9a521b5efa7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065876863900275284e8e9ad88d2891cf76845370524d53705237300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c676562535f00521b5efa768400200050004400460020658768633002> /CHT <FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d7f6e5efa7acb7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065874ef69069752865bc9ad854c18cea76845370524d5370523786557406300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c4f86958b555f5df25efa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef63002> /DAN <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> /DEU <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> /ESP <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> /FRA <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> /ITA <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> /JPN <FEFF9ad854c18cea306a30d730ea30d730ec30b951fa529b7528002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020658766f8306e4f5c6210306b4f7f75283057307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103055308c305f0020005000440046002030d530a130a430eb306f3001004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d3067958b304f30533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a306b306f30d530a930f330c8306e57cb30818fbc307f304c5fc59808306730593002> /KOR <FEFFc7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020ace0d488c9c80020c2dcd5d80020c778c1c4c5d00020ac00c7a50020c801d569d55c002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020bb38c11cb97c0020c791c131d569b2c8b2e4002e0020c774b807ac8c0020c791c131b41c00200050004400460020bb38c11cb2940020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c8b2e4002e> /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR <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> /PTB <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> /SUO <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> /SVE <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> /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice