Many subsequent authors have also noted the importance of the victim–offender relationship, and how the characteristics of the homicide itself will vary depending on who gets killed and who does the killing (Silverman & Kennedy 1987; Polk 1994; Saltzman &Mercy 1993). This is particularly important in the context of family homicides, which can encompass various types of victim–offender relationship, such as intimate partners, parents killing children, children killing parents, siblings killing each other, and so on.

Most international research to date has focused predominantly on examining "family homicide" as a single entity. Few studies have explored, compared and contrasted the various types of family homicides in order to determine how they are similar and dissimilar. The purpose of this paper is to examine the different circumstances and characteristics of family homicide in Australia over a 13-year period. The examination includes details about the homicide of intimates, children, parents and other family members.

Attempted murder is excluded, as are violent deaths such as industrial accidents involving criminal negligence (unless a charge of manslaughter is laid). Lawful homicide, which includes incidents involving police in the course of their duties, is also excluded.

For the purposes of this study, family homicide includes the following:

The current study analysed data held as part of the NHMP at the Australian Institute of Criminology. In brief, the NHMP data set holds details pertaining to the incident, victim, offender, and the relationship between the victim and offender (a total of 77variables). Currently, this data set has details for a total of 4,112homicide incidents, 4,501identified offenders and 4,421victims of homicide, which occurred in Australia between1 July 1989 and 30 June 2002.

Of the 4,421 victims of homicide during the 13-year period, 1,671(or 38 per cent) were killed by a family member (as the primary offender). On average, about 129family homicides occur each year, with intimate partner homicides accounting for three out of five family homicides (Figure 1).Siblicide is the least common type of family homicide in Australia, with fewer than six homicides per year.

Over the 13-year period covered by this analysis there were 77intimate partner homicides, on average, each year. The majority involved males killing female intimate partners (75 per cent). Females comprised only 20 percent of offenders of intimate partner homicide, confirming prior research that males are more likely than females to kill their intimate partner (Johnson &Hotton 2003; Silverman &Kennedy 1993; Silverman &Mukherjee 1987; Websdale 1999).

Intimate partner homicide has been conceptualised according to the state of the relationship (intact or estranged) and relationship status (legal marriage, cohabiting, dating) (Dawson & Gartner 1998).Previous research finds that in terms of relationship state, women who have separated are at higher risk of homicide victimisation by intimate partners than women incurrent relationships (Hotton2001; Wilson & Daly 1993;Johnson & Hotton 2003; Wallace1986; Barnard et al. 1982). The present study indicates that a quarter of the intimate partner homicides occurred between separated, former, or divorced couples. Of these estranged couples, 84 per cent involved women as victims.

Previous research has also found that men and women in cohabiting relationships are at a much greater risk of being killed by their partners than are married men and women (Daly & Wilson1988; Wilson, Johnson & Daly1995; Shackelford 2001; Mouzos &Shackelford forthcoming). The present study indicates that a slightly higher proportion of intimate partner homicides occurred between cohabiting persons (34 per cent) than between married persons (33 per cent). In absolute terms, there appears to be little difference in risk of victimisation. However, recent Australian research that examined rates of intimate partner homicide by women and relationship status, indicated that men in cohabiting relationships incur a significantly higher risk of homicide than men in marital relationships (16 times higher; see Mouzos & Shackelford forthcoming).

Demographic differences in intimate partner homicides have also been noted. Racial disparity is one example. Research in the United States reports that minority populations consistently record higher rates of both homicide victimisation and offending (Fingerhut & Kleinman1990; Hawkins 1999). Despite Indigenous persons representing just over two per cent of the total Australian population, they account for just under a quarter of the intimate partner homicides (as both victims and offenders). Previous research on Indigenous Australian homicide finds that these homicides are quite different from non-Indigenous homicides in that they very rarely occur between strangers, and mostly involve family members, usually intimate partners. A high level of alcohol involvement is also apparent in Indigenous homicides see Mouzos 2001). Violence, particularly family violence, within the Indigenous community is well documented and has been linked with dispossession, marginalisation, unemployment and poverty (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s

Task Force on Violence 2000).Much violence within Indigenous communities has also beenassociated with the use of alcohol(Gray & Saggers 1998; Brady 1998;Alexander 1990).

Given the age structure ofintimate relationships—males areusually older than their femalepartners—it was not unexpectedto find that when male intimateswere killed, they were more likelyto be older than the offender(53 per cent), whereas femaleskilled by their intimate partnerwere more likely to be youngerthan the offender (68 per cent).

In terms of the type of weaponsused in intimate partner homicides,knives and other sharp instrumentswere used in 40 per cent ofhomicides. This was followed byassaultive force (that is, withhands and/or feet; 22 per cent)and firearms (22 per cent). Bluntinstruments were used in one outof 10 intimate partner homicides.A higher proportion of femaleintimates than male intimateswere beaten to death (27 per centversus eight per cent), whereas ahigher proportion of maleintimates than female intimateswere stabbed to death (55 per centversus 33 per cent).

It has been suggested thatintimate partner homicide is at theextreme end of a continuum ofdomestic violence (Websdale1999). In his research, Websdalefound that the male perpetratorsof intimate partner homicide hadall used violence as a form ofcontrol against their femalepartners for a considerable timeprior to the homicide. He likenedhis work to that of Hanmer, whonoted that male violence againstwomen is "designed to control,dominate and express authorityand power" (Hanmer 1996, citedin Websdale 1999, p. 207). Wallace(1986, p. 23) similarly noted in herstudy of homicide in New SouthWales that men killing theirspouses was a reflection of theultimate attempt of the males toexert "their power and controlover their wives".

Most domestic violenceusually occurs within the privacyof the home. Intimate partnerhomicide is no different.Accordingly, four out of fiveintimate partner homicidesoccurred in a private dwelling,with almost two in five (39 percent) occurring between partnerswith a known history of domesticviolence. The majority took placeduring the evening or earlymorning (between 6pm and 6am),and on a weekday (70 per cent).

When the motive for intimatepartner homicides is examined,more than half (53 per cent)stemmed from a domesticaltercation between the victim andoffender. Slightly less than threein 10 (29 per cent) were believedto stem from jealousy ordesertion/termination of therelationship (actual or pending).This is consistent with thefindings of Johnson and Hotton’s(2003) Canadian study, where itwas shown that an argument wasthe most common motive (45 percent) for intimate partnerhomicides, with jealousy beinginvolved in more than one in fivecases (23 per cent).

Newspaper reports late in 2002reported a father receiving a termof life imprisonment for killing histhree children. The reports termedthese homicides as "abominablecrimes" (Daily Telegraph 2002).Few other crimes provoke asmuch outrage in society. This isespecially true when parents, whoare supposed to protect andnurture their children, take theirlives in the most unnatural of acts.

Between 1 July 1989 and30 June 2002 there were, onaverage, 25 children killed bytheir parents each year. Three-quarters of these homicides werecommitted in a residentiallocation. Just over half of thefilicides occurred during the day(54 per cent).

In terms of the gender of thevictims, both males and femalesexperienced a relatively similarlevel of risk of homicide by aparent. Younger children were at ahigher risk of filicide than olderchildren, with 68 per cent of allvictims aged five years oryounger. Children younger thanone year experienced the highestlevel of victimisation, accountingfor 26 per cent of all filicide victims.

Gender differences wereobserved among offenders(Figure 2). While fathers wereresponsible for the majority offilicides in Australia (63 per centcompared to 37 per cent), in termsof absolute numbers, more four-and five-year-olds were killed bytheir mother (n=21) than by theirfather (n=16).

The types of weapons used infilicide were different to thosemost commonly used in intimatepartner homicide. This findingreflects the vulnerability ofchildren, particularly youngchildren. Just under half of allfilicide victims were killed withthe use of assaultive force (46 percent), followed by a knife or othersharp instrument (13 per cent). Afurther 10 per cent were killed bypoison, including carbonmonoxide poisoning, through theuse of a motor vehicle, with theparent usually attempting orcommitting suicide in the incident.

The underlying motive behindincidents of filicide are difficult toexplain (Mouzos 2000). This isevident in the analysis of filicidesin Australia, where the motivewas undetermined in three out offive cases (61 per cent). The mostprevalent motives, where known,were domestic altercations (21 percent) and jealousy/termination ofa relationship—where the child is

killed by one parent as aconsequence of the actual orpending separation from the otherparent (nine per cent). Recentresearch on child deaths in NewSouth Wales reported that familybreakdown was a precipitatingfactor in almost one in fivefilicides, and parental mentalillness in three out of 10 filicides(adapted from Lawrence &Fattore 2002). Based oninformation available at the timeof data collection, the presentstudy found that 15 per cent offilicide offenders were sufferingfrom a mental disorderimmediately before or at the timeof the homicide incident. One-third of the female filicideoffenders were found to bementally ill. In the present study, aquarter of the filicides involvedthe parent also committing suicidefollowing the event. Thiscompares to about six per cent ofmurder–suicides in the generalhomicide offender population(Mouzos 2002).

The term parricide refers to the killing of one’s father (patricide) or mother (matricide). The literature suggests that there are varioustypes of parricidal offenders. Forexample, Heide (1992) suggeststhat three types of individuals commit parricide:

Previous research also suggeststhat the most common type ofparricidal offender is the severelyabused child. Mones (1991)reports that more than 90 per centof youths who commit parricidehave been previously abused bytheir parents. This abuse can take the form of physical, psychological,sexual and verbal abuse.

Furthermore, Murray (1999)suggests that, excluding mentally ill offenders and cases of so-calledmercy killing, there are four maintypes of parricide:

Murray suggests that, of each ofthese types of parricide,reactionary parricides are mostsimilar to homicides occurring inthe general community.

In Australia there are about 12parricides committed annually.The overwhelming majority occurin a residential location (94 percent) and during the evening. Aswith research examining parricidein reported legal cases in Canada(Murray 1999), the majority ofoffenders and victims are male—just over half of all parricidesinvolved a male victim andoffender. Daughters are morelikely to kill their mothers thantheir fathers (Figure 3).

As with filicides, the motivebehind parricides can be difficultto explain. In the present study, adomestic argument was the mostprevalent motive (49 per cent) forparricides, although a motive wasnot determined in 30 per cent ofcases. Revenge killings, such asthe killing of a parent for previousabuse suffered by the offender,was the motive in less than one-tenth (nine per cent) of allparricides. The use of alcohol byeither the victim, offender or bothparties was present in one-third(33 per cent) of parricides.

Similar to intimate partnerhomicides, a knife or other sharpinstrument was the most commonweapon used to commit parricide(44 per cent), followed by afirearm (23 per cent) or assaultiveforce (19 per cent). This did notvary by the gender of the victims.These results are similar to thoseof an analysis of parricideconducted in 1997 by Weismanand Sharma (cited in Underwood& Patch 1999), which foundknives to be significantly morecommon in incidents of parricide.Compared to filicide, fewparricides in Australia involvedthe death of the offender (nine percent), with no female parricideoffenders committing suicidefollowing the murder.

There is a paucity of research onviolence between siblings,especially lethal violence. Of thelimited research available, theconsensus is that the most commoncircumstances preceding siblicideswere some form of argument.However, Ewing (1997, p. 117)explains that the precipitatingcircumstances may in fact be morecomplex than they appear:

In Australia there are, on average,about six homicides a yearbetween siblings. Like otherfamily homicides, most occur in aresidential location (79 per cent) andduring the evening (58 per cent).

Available research suggeststhat, as with other types ofhomicide, the victim of a siblicideis likely to be a brother, regardlessof the gender of the offender(Wallace 1986; Underwood &Patch 1999; Ewing 1997; Daly etal. 2001). The present researchoffers further support, with fourout of five siblicides involving thekilling of a brother. All five femalesiblicide offenders killed theirbrother. As with other types offamily homicide, a domesticargument was the most prevalentmotive for siblicide (42 per cent),followed by an alcohol-relatedargument (15 per cent). Themotive was not known in 22 percent of cases.

In an analysis of siblicides inCanada, Britain, Japan andChicago, Daly et al. (2001) foundthat siblicide offenders tended tobe younger than the victim,particularly in the case of male-on-male siblicide. They suggest thatthe reason for this lies in the "olderbrother’s presumption of authorityand entitlement that fuels violentresentment in the younger" (Dalyet al. 2001, p. 43). The currentresearch supports this finding,with 53 per cent of siblicidesinvolving a younger sibling killingan older sibling. Interestingly, allsiblicides in the current researchwere committed by an offenderacting alone. A knife or othersharp instrument was the mostcommon weapon used (41 percent), followed by assaultive force(17 per cent). Firearms and bluntinstruments were employedequally (14 per cent) in siblicide.

Each year in Australia there are, onaverage, 11 homicides that occurbetween other family members.This includes cousins, in-laws,grandparents and other family. Aswith intimate partner homicides,filicides and siblicides, most otherfamily homicides take place at aresidential location (76 per cent).

Wallace (1986) reported that thecommon theme running throughother family homicides andparticularly in-law killings, wasmarital conflict and marital violence:

Most other family homicides arecommitted by males (88 per cent),with the gender of victims closelyresembling the distribution ofhomicide victims in general (63 percent male; 37 per cent female). Ahigh proportion of other familyhomicides involved an Indigenousvictim and offender (33 per cent),which may reflect the extendednature of many Indigenous familyrelationships. Similar to siblicide,the victim of other family homicideis usually older than the offender(56 per cent). In addition, a knifeor other sharp instrument is themost common weapon of choice(38 per cent), followed byassaultive force (28 per cent) and afirearm (23 per cent).

As with other types of familyhomicide, a domestic argumentwas the most prevalent motive,although to a lesser extent (23 percent). This was followed by analcohol-related argument (18 percent). The motive was not knownin 28 per cent of other familyhomicides. A very smallproportion (four per cent) resultedin the offender committing suicidefollowing the incident.

This paper has examined the circumstances and characteristics of the various types of familyhomicide in Australia between1 July 1989 and 30 June 2002.Differences emerged between typesof family homicide in terms of theweapons used, gender distributionof victims and offenders, and temporal characteristics. This contribution has importantimplications for policy, as the resultsprovide a basis for targetingintervention efforts toward thosedistinctive types of familyrelationships in which lethalviolence is more prevalent, for instance, between intimate partnersand between parents and children.

Research overseas suggeststhat greater awareness andresources directed at the plight of women in domestic situations aids in the prevention of womenkilling their partners. Browne andWilliams (1989) argued thatincreasing resources for batteredwomen would result in a decline in female-perpetrated intimate homicide. The rapid proliferation of shelters across the United Statesand the recent decline inhomicides by women (Pollock1999, p. 31) suggests that thisprediction was accurate.

Dugan and colleagues (1997;1999) consider additional factors contributing to the decline. Theyposit that the decline in intimate partner homicides in the US was possibly a result of three things:

These factors suggest that as women’s social status improvesand they are afforded moreoptions, they are less likely toresort to lethal violence.

Connected to this is the need for greater accessibility to the lawfor women in domestic situations.This would include the consistentenforcement of restraining ordersby police and tougher penaltiesfor violation. Apsler et al. (2002)suggest that police should move beyond their customary role ofstopping the violence, obtainingaid for the injured and followingprocedures in dealing withperpetrators. Police could providefollow-up visits and support fortaking action, whether the action involves bringing charges, seekingassistance from a shelter, ormoving away from the abuser.There is a need to move towardsmore proactive policing. This isonly one avenue of redress.

The use of perpetrator programsfor violent males is another avenueavailable for the prevention ofmale-perpetrated intimate partnerhomicide. Perpetrator programsmay be undertaken eithervoluntarily or under court order,and aim to end the violence,rather than "cure" the offender.For further discussion ofperpetrator programs, refer to National Crime Prevention (1999).

Children in Australia are mostat risk of homicide victimisationby a parent than any other person(Mouzos 2000). Similarly to intimatepartner homicide, there is a need toview and address the prevention ofchild homicide in the context of thebroader problem of family violence.  Programs aimed at educating parents about appropriateparenting behaviours are one suchmeasure that can be taken. Theseprograms may educate parentsabout the vulnerability of childrenand their susceptibility tounintended injury, offer supportservices for young inexperiencedmothers or teach parents non-violent coping skills (Scott 1995;Mouzos 2000). Other preventionstrategies include:

Jenny Mouzos is a Senior ResearchAnalyst at the Australian Instituteof Criminology.

Catherine Rushforth is a ResearchAssistant at the AIC.

Human services, law enforcementand other related agencies all playa role in the prevention of childhomicide. The early recognition ofwarning signs of unsafe familysituations would enable protectiveor supportive services to beprovided (Lawrence & Fattore2002, p. 142), thus minimising therisk of homicide.

Children are not just at risk ofhomicide through fatal abuseincidents; family breakdown hasalso been identified as aprecipitating factor in somefilicides. The improvement ofcounselling and support servicesfor separating parents may play animportant role in reducing childhomicide in these instances. Otherfamily and friends may also playa vital role by raising the alarm ifthey notice a family breakdownaffecting the parents’ mentalhealth and by encouraging theparents to seek medical or otherassistance in dealing with possibleillnesses such as depressionresulting from the separation.