Women in Danger of Femicide: Predicting Population at Risk of Femicide from Intimate Partner Violence Survivors in Turkey
The highest threat for intimate partner femicide (IPF) is previous history of intimate partner violence (IPV). This study estimates magnitude of women with an increased IPF risk in Turkey based on prevalence data of different forms of violence among specific high-risk groups from the Research on Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey (2014) and 2014 population size. Correspondingly, around 2 million 15-59-aged-women are currently exposed to IPV. Some 1 million women face concurrent threats of physical, sexual, emotional violence. 170 thousand women are threatened/attacked with lethal objects. Among divorced/separated women, almost 123 thousand severe violence survivors confront high-risk of femicide.
Bahadır, B. (2017). Ölü kadınlar memleketi [Homeland of death women]. İstanbul: Ayizi Kitap.
Bugeja, L., Dawson, M., McIntyre, S. J., & Walsh, C. (2015). Domestic/family violence death reviews: an international comparison. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(2): 179-187.
BİANET [Independent Communication Network]. (2018, July 23). Erkek Şiddeti Çetelesi [Male Violence Tally]. Retrieved from http://bianet.org/bianet/toplumsal-cinsiyet/193661-erkekler-2017-de-290-kadin-ve-22-cocuk-oldurdu
Caman, S., Kristiansson, M., Granath, S. & Sturup, J. (2017). Trends in rates and characteristics of intimate partner homicides between 1990 and 2013. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 14-21.
Campbell, J. C. (2004). Helping women understand their risk in situations of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1464-1477.
Campbell, J. (2009). Risk factors for femicide and femicide-suicide: a multisite case control study, In Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), InterCambios, Medical Research Council of South Africa (MRC), & World Health Organization (WHO) (Eds.). Strengthening understanding of femicide: using research to galvanize action and accountability Washington DC (pp. 57-65).
Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P.W., Laughon, K. & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate Partner Homicide Review and Implications of Research and Policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8 (3), 246-269.
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009). The Danger Assessment Validation of a Lethality Risk Assessment Instrument for Intimate Partner Femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24 (4), 653-674.
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C. R., Campbell, D. W., Curry, M. A. Gary, F. A., 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.
Corradi, C. & Stöckl, H. (2014). Intimate partner homicide in 10 European countries: Statistical data and policy development in a cross-national perspective. European Journal of Criminology 11(5), 601–618.
Cullen, P., Vaughan, G., Li, Z., Denis, J. P., & Sullivan, E. (2018). Counting dead women in Australia: an in-depth case review of femicide. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9963-6
Dawson, M. (Ed.). (2017). Domestic homicides and death reviews: an international perspective. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dawson, R. & Gartner, R. (1998). Differences in the characteristics of intimate femicides: the role of relationship state and relationship status. Homicide Studies, 2, 378–399.
Desmond, E., (2017). Marital separation and lethal male partner violence, Violence Against Women, 23(4), 503–519.
Ergöçmen, B.A., Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu, İ. & Jansen, A. F. M. H. (2013). Intimate Partner Violence and the Relation Between Help-Seeking Behavior and the Severity and Frequency of Physical Violence Among Women in Turkey, Violence Against Women, 19(9) 1151–1174.
Ergöçmen, B.A. (2015). Institutional application process regarding violence against women. In Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIPS) (Eds.), Research on domestic violence against women (1st ed., pp. 203-225). Ankara: Elma Teknik Basım Matbacılık.
Ertürk, Y. (2015). Sınır tanımayan şiddet: violence aganist women in paradigmatic, political and practical aspects]. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
Eryurt, M. A. & Çağatay S. P. (2015). Consequences of violence against women. In Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIPS) (Eds.), Research on domestic violence against women (1st ed., pp. 125-149). Ankara: Elma Teknik Basım Matbacılık.
Garcia, L., Soria, C., & Hurwitz, E. L. (2007). Homicides and intimate partner violence a literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8 (4), 370-383.
Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A.F.M, Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva: WHO publications
Gover, A.R., Richards, T.N., & Patterson, M.J. (2017). Explaining violence against women within the context of intimate partner violence (IPV). In Renzetti, C. M., Edleson, J.L., & Bergen, R. K. (Eds.). Sourcebook on Violence Against Women (3rd ed., pp. 31-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIPS) (2009). Research on domestic violence against women in Turkey. Ankara: Elma Teknik Basım Matbacılık.
Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIPS) (2015). Research on domestic violence against women in Turkey. Ankara: Elma Teknik Basım Matbacılık.
Johnson, H., Eriksson, L., Mazerolle, P., & Wortley, R. (2017). Intimate femicide: the role of coercive control. Feminist Criminology, (April, 7), 1–21.
Kadın Cinayetlerini Durduracağız Platformu [We Will Stop Femicide Platform]. (2018, July 23). 2017 Veri raporu [Femicide report 2017]. Retrieved from http://kadincinayetlerinidurduracagiz.net/veriler/2845/kadin-cinayetlerini-durduracagiz-platformu-2017-veri-raporu
Krulewitch, C. J., Pierre-Louis, M. L., De Leon-Gomez, R., Guy, R., & Green, R. (2001). Hidden from view: Violent deaths among pregnant women in the District of Columbia, 1988-1996. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 46(1), 4-10.
Krulewitch, C. J., Roberts, D. W., & Thompson, L. S. (2003). Adolescent pregnancy and homicide: Findings for the Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 1994-1998. Child Maltreatment, 8(2), 122-128.
McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., Sharps, P. W., & Watson, K. (2002). Abuse during pregnancy and femicide: Urgent implications for women’s health. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 100(1), 27-36.
McFarlane, J., Campbell J.C. & Watson, K. (2002). Intimate partner stalking and femicide: urgent implications for women’s safety. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20 (1-2), 51–68.
Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario. (2015). Domestic violence death review committee 2013-14 annual report. Toronto, Ontario: Canada. Retrieved from http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/sites/default/files/content/mcscs/docs/ec165340.pdf
Reckdenwald, A., Szalewski, A. & Yohros, A. (2018) Place, Injury Patterns, and Female-Victim Intimate Partner Homicide. Violence Against Women 1–23.
Siegel, M. B., & Rothman, E.F. (2016). Firearm ownership and the murder of women in the United States: evidence that the state-level firearm ownership rate is associated with the nonstranger femicide rate. Violence and Gender, 3(1), 20-26.
Sheehan, B. E., Murphy, S.B., Moynihan, M.M., Dudley-Fennessey, E. & Stapleton, J.G. (2015), Intimate Partner Homicide: New Insights for Understanding Lethality and Risks. Violence Against Women. 21(2): 269–288.
Stöckl, H., Devries, K., Rotstein, A., Abrahams, N., Campbell, J., Watts, C., & Moreno, C.G. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: a systematic review. The Lancet, 382, 859–65.
Toprak, S., & Ersoy, G. (2017). Femicide in Turkey between 2000 and 2010. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182409.
Taylor, R. & Nabors, E.L. (2009), Pink or Blue . . . Black and Blue? Examining Pregnancy as a Predictor of Intimate Partner Violence and Femicide. Violence Against Women, 15(11): 1273–1293.
TURKSTAT (2019, February 17). Adress Based Population Registration System Results, Retrieved from https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=en
Vives-Cases, C., Goicolea, I., Hernández, A., Sanz-Barbero, B., Gill, A.K., Baldry, A.C., … Stoeckl, H. (2016). Expert opinions on improving femicide data collection across Europe: a concept mapping study. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148364. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0148364.
Wilson M. & Daly M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8, 3–15.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2009). Spousal conflict and uxoricide in Canada. In Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), InterCambios, Medical Research Council of South Africa (MRC), & World Health Organization (WHO) (Eds.). Strengthening understanding of femicide: using research to galvanize action and accountability Washington DC (pp. 73-76).
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2017). Homicide, New York: Routledge.
World Health Organization Department of Gender and Women’s Health. (2001). Putting women first: ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women. WHO/FCH/GWH/01.1. Geneva: WHO publications.
Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu, İ. (2015). Views of men on violence against women. In Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIPS) (Eds.), Research on domestic violence against women (1st ed., pp. 225-261). Ankara: Elma Teknik Basım Matbacılık.
Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu, İ. & Çavlin, A. (2015). Prevalence of violence against women. In Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIPS) (Eds.), Research on domestic violence against women (1st ed., pp. 81-125). Ankara
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work [6 months] after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)