Australian Institute of Criminology

GPO Box 2944, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Tel: 02 6260 9200

"On average, 125 females of all ages are murdered each year in Australia, with the greatest risk of homicide victimisation for females being between the ages of 21 and 23 years. Overwhelmingly, it is men who kill women—male offenders were responsible for killing approximately 94 per cent of adult female victims. However, the likelihood of a woman being killed by a male stranger is very slight—each year in Australia fewer than 14 women are killed by a man that they do not know.

Nearly three in five of all femicides, defined here as the killing of women aged 15 years and over, occur between intimate partners, and nearly all of these are as a result of a domestic altercation. When a woman is killed, she is most likely to be killed in a private residence. These and other factors that may contribute to the likelihood of a woman being killed in Australia are presented in full in a Research and Public Policy series report from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) entitled Femicide: The Killing of Women in Australia 1989–1998."

study of the intentional killing of adult women. The study

analysed data from the National Homicide Monitoring Program,

which is based on all cases of homicide identified by Australian State

and Territory police services. The data set analysed contains a total

of 2821 homicide incidents that occurred between 1 July 1989 and 30

June 1998. These incidents resulted in the death of 3045 victims,

perpetrated by 3314 identified offenders. Of these 3045 homicide

victims, 1125 (37%) were female and 1913 (63%) were male (in 7

cases, gender was unknown).

The differentiation of homicidal violence between the sexes is

over half of the homicides that occurred during the 9-year

period involved the killing of men by other men (Table 1). Similarly,

when a female kills, she is more likely to kill a male than another

female. Overall, in the 9-year period and where gender was known,

males accounted for 88.6 per cent and females for only 11.4 per cent

of all homicide offenders.

In general, females are at a consistently lower risk of homicide

victimisation than males (Mouzos 1999). During the period under

review, females in Australia were killed at an average annual rate of

1.4 per 100,000 population and males at an average annual rate of

2.4 per 100,000 population. There has been a slight declining trend

in the number of female homicide victims per year—the annual

number of female homicide victims from 1989–90 to 1997–98 ranged

Male 1464 54.2 237 8.8 1701 62.9

Female 931 34.4 72 2.6 1003 37.1

Total 2395 88.6 309 11.4 2704 100.0

*Excludes 125 unidentified offenders, and 222 cases where either

victim’s or offender’s gender was unknown/not stated.

Source: National Homicide Monitoring Program, AIC

0 .00

0 .50

1 .00

1 .50

2 .00

2 .50

3 .00

0 4 8 1 2 1 6 2 0 2 4 2 8 3 2 3 6 4 0 4 4 4 8 5 2 5 6 6 0 6 4 6 8 7 2 7 6 8 0 -

from 147 in 1990–91 to 111 in

1996–97. On average, 125 females

are murdered each year in Australia.

Homicide victimisation varies

significantly according to age

because of different levels of

exposure to violence during one’s

life cycle (James & Carcach 1998).

Figure 1 shows the rate of homicide

victimisation for females per

100,000 population for each

specific age.

Females are at a relatively

high risk of homicide victimisation

during early infancy, that is

less than one year old (rate of 2.7

per 100 000 population), and from

late teens (rate of 2.3) to early

thirties (average rate of 2.1, 18–31

years). The highest risk of homicide

victimisation for females

(rate of 2.8 per 100 000 population)

is between the ages of 21

and 23 years. Age-specific vulnerability

for males differs slightly

from females. For example, the

highest risk of homicide victimisation

for males is between the

ages of 24 and 26 years (Mouzos

1999).

The nature of the relationship

between victim and offender

determines the context and

dynamics of femicide. It is therefore

essential to examine the

contexts in which a woman is

killed based on the relational

distance between victim and

offender. This study has focused

on four victim–offender relationships:

intimates; family; friends/

acquaintances; and strangers.

Of the 1125 female homicide

victims identified over the 9-year

period, 875 victims became the

focus of analysis, excluding:

• 137 victims aged 0–14 years;

and

• 113 victims associated with

offenders who were

“unknown/not stated”, or in

relationships that were

unidentified or other than

the four specified.

Male offenders were responsible

for killing approximately 94 per

cent of adult female victims, and

the vast majority (61%) of these

killings occurred in an intimate

relational context. Only 14.6 per

cent (128) of adult female victims

were killed in a stranger relational

context. However, when

women kill women, the relationship

is more likely to be friends

(or acquaintances), or within the

family.

There also appear to be

distinct differences in the victim–

offender relationship between

male and female homicide victimisation.

For example, almost

60 per cent of women were killed

by an intimate partner (Figure 2),

but men are more likely to be

killed by a friend or acquaintance

(45%) or by a stranger (32%), and

in approximately 95 per cent of

these non-intimate homicides the

offender is also male. In comparison

to women, only 11 per cent of

men were killed by an intimate

partner, with the majority (84%)

of these offenders being female.

These findings indicate that

the killing of women in Australia

is overwhelmingly a male-dominated

act, where more often than

not there is some familiarity

between the victim and offender.

In an intimate context, approximately

90 per cent of femicide

victims were killed as a result of

“altercations of a domestic nature”,

referring to general domestic

arguments, desertion or

termination of an intimate relationship,

and jealousy and/or

rivalry. Domestic altercations

involving desertion, termination

of a relationship or jealousy were

found to provide the motives for

the deaths of approximately 40

per cent of the femicide victims.

When victims of femicide in

an intimate relational context are

killed as a result of a domestic

altercation, most (77%) are killed

in some private residence—either

at their home or at the offender’s

home. Less than a quarter (22.6%)

are killed at some other location,

such as a street/open area, commercial

location or public transport/

transport connected facility.

(All but three of these cases

involved a male offender.)

Source: National Homicide Monitoring Program, AIC

Family

11.8%

Stranger

14.6%

Intimates

57.6%

Friend /

Acquaintance

16.0%

Knife** 33.1% 38.2%

Hands, Feet 27.8% 24.7%

Firearm 22.8% 22.9%

Blunt Instrument 11.8% 11.4%

Other*** 4.3% 2.9%

* Excludes 207 cases where either victim’s gender

or type of weapon was unknown or not stated

** Includes other sharp instruments

*** Includes poison, fire, drugs & other

undetermined methods

Source: National Homicide Monitoring Program, AIC

Intimates 36 years old 39 years old

Family 50 years old 32 years old

Friends /Acquaintances 36 years old 31 years old

Strangers 41 years old 28 years old

Source: National Homicide Monitoring Program, AIC

In contrast, when men kill

women who are strangers, nearly

three-quarters of the victims are

killed at some location other than

a private residence. It has been

suggested that, contrary to popular

beliefs, homicides that occur

between strangers may also

involve an element of social

interaction, and such an incident,

as with other types of homicides,

does not occur in a vacuum

(Silverman & Kennedy 1993; Polk

1994). This is consistent with the

present study, where more than

half (57%) of the femicide victims

killed in a stranger relational

context died in the course of

other crime, including robberies,

sexual assault, abduction and

break-ins.

The type of weapon used to kill

the victim varied according to the

relational context. In an intimate

relational context, a male offender

is more likely to use a knife or

some other sharp instrument to

kill a woman. On the other hand,

when male strangers commit

femicide they are more likely to

use bodily force (assault with

hands and/or feet). A knife or

other sharp instrument is likely to

be used by both male and female

offenders against family or

friends.

Similarly, the study found

that both men and women were

most likely to be killed with a

knife or other sharp instrument

(see Table 2) and, overall, there

appeared to be no significant

difference between the percentage

of male and female victims

for any single type of weapon. In

other words, it would not be

possible to predict the gender of

the victim based on the type of

weapon used to commit the

homicide.

As we have shown, women are at

a relatively low risk of

victimisation. In those rare instances

where femicide does

occur, there are a number of

factors that are associated with an

elevated risk, including the

location of the killing, the motive

and the relational context. The

likelihood of femicide will vary in

accordance with these factors,

and with the degree to which

these factors are related to the

socio-demographic characteristics

of the femicide victims and their

offenders.

As previously mentioned, age is

associated with mortality risk,

just as the genders of victim and

offender shape the context within

which a killing occurs. Table 3

outlines the mean age of victims

and offenders based on the

victim–offender relationship. The

most striking finding is that the

offender’s age varies according to

the relational distance between

the victim and offender—as the

offender’s mean age decreases, so

does the level of familiarity

between the victim and offender.

Offenders tend to be older than

their victims in those femicides

where the bond between the

victim and offender is strongest,

namely those relationships

between intimates and family.

However, when the bond

between the adult female victim

and offender may be weaker,

offenders tend to be younger than

their victims (Smith & Stanko

unpub.).

Racial appearance and victim–

offender relationship are also

associated with differential

homicide mortality. The proportion

of Aboriginal/Torres Strait

Islander (TSI) femicide victims

that were killed by an intimate

partner (75.4%) was higher than

both Caucasian (54.2%) and Asian

(51%) femicide victims that were

killed by an intimate partner. As

noted in Figure 2, just under 58

per cent of all femicide victims

were killed in an intimate relational

context.

Only 1.5 per cent of Aboriginal/

TSI victims were killed by a

stranger, whereas 17.2 per cent of

Source: National Homicide Monitoring

Program, AIC

Caucasian victims and 16.3 per

cent of Asian victims were killed

by a stranger. This difference may

be explained in terms of the

structure of Aboriginal/TSI

communities, where more often

than not Aboriginal/TSI people

live amongst immediate family

and relatives in a close-knit

community where there is a high

degree of familiarity. A stranger

(who is most likely to be a displaced

Aboriginal from some

other area) who enters such a

community is more likely to be

noticed than in any other setting

and therefore have fewer opportunities

to commit homicide.

Further differences in the

homicide of males are associated

with racial appearance and

relational context. When Aboriginal/

TSI men and Caucasian men

were killed, they were most likely

to be killed by a friend or acquaintance.

However, Aboriginal/

TSI men were twice as likely

(21.7%) as Caucasian men (10.2%)

to be killed by an intimate partner.

Overall, these findings

indicate that a higher proportion

of Aboriginal/TSI men and

women than Caucasian men and

women were killed by an intimate

partner.

Femicides in Australia

generally occur between victims

and offenders who have the same

racial appearance, with only 5 per

cent being of an inter-racial

nature. Furthermore, the interracial

femicides are most likely to

occur between strangers. In

contrast, approximately 10 per

cent of homicides involving male

victims were of an inter-racial

nature and, similar to the

femicides, these were most likely

to occur between strangers.

Moreover, the place of

occurrence tended to vary with

the racial appearance of both the

victim and offender. When Caucasian

and Asian women are

killed, they are most likely to be

killed at some private residence.

In contrast, when Aboriginal/TSI

women are killed, they are most

likely to be killed in a location

other than a private residence.

Although similar in some

ways to homicide between Caucasian

people, homicide between

Aboriginal/TSI people exhibits

these unique characteristics:

• a higher proportion of both

men and women are killed

by an intimate partner;

• women are highly unlikely

to be killed by a stranger;

and

• women are more likely to be

killed in a location other than

a private residence.

In addition to these, one of

the most significant differences is

the over-representation of Aboriginal/

TSI people as both victims

and offenders of femicide. In

16 per cent of femicide cases, both

the victim and offender were of

Aboriginal/TSI appearance.

Overall, Aboriginal/TSI women

accounted for approximately 15

per cent of the femicide victims,

although comprising only about 2

per cent of the total female Australian

population (ABS 1996). On

the other hand, Aboriginal/TSI

men (aged 15 and over) account

for approximately 12.3 per cent of

all male homicide victims.

A number of researchers have

addressed the relationship between

marital status and homicide

victimisation. Some argue

that, for men, marriage is a form

of social control that keeps them

from engaging in the risky

behaviour that attends homicide

victimisation—frequenting the

bar scene, heavy drinking, staying

out late, fighting, etc. (Breault

& Kposowa 1997). On the other

hand, it has been found that, for

women, marriage is more of a

homicide risk than non-marriage

(Gartner & McCarthy 1991).

Therefore, these studies suggest

that any advantage marriage

might otherwise have for women

is offset by the homicide risk they

face from their spouses. For

example, Kposowa and Singh

(1994) found that married women

in the United States were twice as

likely to be victims of homicide

as were married men.

The routine activities theory

suggests that socio-demographic

characteristics that are associated

with individuals spending more

time at home should also be

associated with disproportionately

high levels of homicide at or

near the home, in comparison

with other locations (Messner &

Tardiff 1985). This theory further

suggests that socio-demographic

characteristics such as gender

(female), employment status (not

working) and marital status

(married) are also associated with

higher risks of homicide victimisation

at or in the home (Messner

& Tardiff 1985; Carcach & James

1998).

Our analysis shows that an

increased likelihood of femicide

victimisation was associated with

four significant factors:

(1) female victim not working;

(2) male offender not working;

(3) victim and offender are

involved in an intimate

relationship; and

(4) incident occurred in a private

residence.

On the other hand, the

lowest likelihood of femicide

victimisation, at least amongst

intimates or family, is associated

with the victim being employed.

These findings indicate that

women’s access to employment

opportunities and economic

independence reduces the

amount of time that they would

spend in or near the home, and it

also reduces exposure to violence

from an intimate partner. In

addition, a woman’s improved

economic status may further

reduce her exposure to violence,

as the financial barriers associated

with exiting a violent relationship

may be lessened (Dugan,

Nagin & Rosenfeld 1997).

Alcohol appears not to be a major

factor associated with the occurrence

of femicide. It did appear,

however, that when both the

victim and offender were under

the influence of alcohol, the

femicide was most likely to occur

in some other location than in a

private residence.

Incident occurred at Private Residence *69.8% 54.7%

Incident occurred at Other Location *30.2% 45.3%

Jealousy/Desertion *29.4% 7.1%

Domestic Altercation *43.7% 13.7%

Money/Drugs *7.3% 15.2%

Revenge *2.6% 11.7%

Alcohol-related Argument *5.0% 24.1%

Other *3.2% 19.4%

No Apparent Motive 8.8% 8.8%

Knife and other sharp instrument 33.1% 38.2%

Mean Age of Victim 38 years 37 years

Mean Age of Offender 35 years 29 years

Median Age of Victim 35 years 34 years

Median Age of Offender 32 years 27 years

Victim Younger than Offender *52.5% 31.0%

Victim Same Age as Offender 7.4% 5.8%

Victim Older than Offender *40.1% 63.2%

Male Offender *93.8% 85.8%

Female Offender *6.2% 14.2%

Victim & Offender Caucasian 75.3% 74.3%

Victim & Offender Aboriginal/TSI *15.5% 11.7%

Victim & Offender of Different Race *5.1% 9.6%

Victim/Offender Working 10.9% 10.2%

Victim Working/Offender Not Working *10.3% 22.6%

Victim Not Working/Offender Working *16.5% 8.2%

Victim/Offender Not Working 62.4% 59.0%

Both Victim & Offender Drinking *20.7% 39.1%

Victim Drinking But Not Offender *2.5% 6.0%

Offender Drinking But Not Victim 10.5% 8.3%

Neither Victim/Offender Drinking *66.3% 46.4%

Intimates *57.6% 11.1%

Family 11.8% 12.3%

Friends/Acquaintances *16.0% 44.9%

Strangers *14.6% 31.8%

*p<0.05.

A separate analysis included the

racial appearance of the victim

and offender and whether they

had been under the influence

of alcohol at the time of the

incident. In nearly three-quarters

of the femicides (where information

was available) that occurred

between Aboriginal/TSI people,

both the victim and offender

were under the influence of

alcohol. In contrast, only 12 per

cent of victims and offenders of

Caucasian appearance were both

under the influence of alcohol at

the time of the incident.

In addition, 75 per cent of

victims and offenders who were

of Caucasian appearance were

not under the influence of alcohol,

whereas only 19 per cent of

victims and offenders of Aboriginal/

TSI appearance were not

under the influence of alcohol

at the time of the incident.

These findings indicate that

there is a relatively high level of

alcohol involvement in femicides

that occur between Aboriginal/

TSI people. However, patterns of

alcohol consumption cannot be

considered without reference to

cultural considerations. According

to the work of many researchers,

Aboriginal drinking

has been widely assimilated into

basic cultural notions such as

those of sharing and reciprocity

(Brady & Palmer 1984). Nonetheless,

it would be overly simplistic

to attribute the excessive alcohol

consumption found in the present

study merely to differences in

cultural background. Furthermore,

it should be acknowledged

that any treatment or intervention

measures put forth must

take into consideration that the

treatment needs for Aboriginal

problem drinkers are different

to those for non-Aborigines

(Douglas 1993).

Data in Table 4 provide a comparison

between male and female

homicide victims on characteristics

associated with the incident,

victim and offender, and the

relationship between the victim

and offender. It is quite obvious

that there are a number of noticeable

differences between the

killing of women and the killing

of men.

General Editor, Trends and Issues in

Crime and Criminal Justice series:

Dr Adam Graycar, Director

Australian Institute of Criminology

GPO Box 2944

Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

Jenny Mouzos is a Research Analyst

at the Australian Institute

of Criminology.

The main differences between the

killing of a woman and the killing

of a man are:

• A woman is more likely than

a man to be killed at home.

• A woman is more likely to be

killed as a result of a

domestic altercation,

whereas a man is more likely

to be killed as a result of an

alcohol-related argument.

• The female victim is more

likely to be younger than the

offender, whereas a male

victim is more likely to be

older than the offender.

• Female victims are less likely

than male victims to be killed

by females.

• Homicides involving female

victims are less likely than

homicides involving male

victims to be of an interracial

nature.

• Homicides involving female

victims are less likely than

homicides involving male

victims to involve alcohol.

• A female is more likely to be

killed by an intimate partner,

whereas a male is more likely

to be killed by a friend or

acquaintance.

There are also some similarities

between the killing of a woman

and the killing of a man:

• Men and women are equally

likely to be killed with a

knife or some other sharp

instrument.

• A similar percentage of men

and women victims are the

same age as their offenders.

• The distribution of

employment status (victim

and offender) did not differ

between male and female

homicide victims.

• The distribution of alcohol

involvement (victim not

drinking/offender drinking)

did not differ between male

and female homicide victims.

• A similar proportion of male

and female homicide victims

(approximately 12%) are

killed by a family member.

When women are killed intentionally

by another, they are more

likely than not to die at the hand

of an intimate partner. It follows

that factors that are associated

with a woman spending more

time at home—that is, not working—

are also associated with an

increased likelihood of

victimisation. Not surprisingly,

when a woman is killed, she is

most likely to be killed in the

privacy of her own home.

Our findings raise a number

of policy implications:

• the need for women who are

not working to have better

access to resources and

services that protect women

and that would allow them

to protect themselves;

• the availability of subsidised

counselling for couples who

are both not working;

• comprehensive programs

that involve Aboriginal/TSI

people as a community in

managing and responding to

alcohol and violence

problems;

• increased participation by

women in the labour force,

which may be expected to

reduce their vulnerability to

intimate homicide.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 1996,

Australian Population Census, ABS,

Canberra.

Outback, North Australia Research

Unit, Australian National University,

Darwin.

Breault, K. & Kposowa, A. 1997, “The

effects of marital status on adult

female homicides in the United

Criminology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 217-30.

Trends and Issues in Crime and

Criminal Justice series, no. 90,

Australian Institute of Criminology,

Canberra.

Douglas, M. 1993, An alcohol treatment

program for an Aboriginal community

in the Kimberley Region of

Western Australia, Master of Public

Health thesis, University of New

South Wales.

Dugan, L., Nagin, D. & Rosenfeld, R. 1997,

Working Paper, April 28, H. John

Heinz III School of Public Policy and

Management, Carnegie Mellon

University.

Gartner, R. & McCarthy, B. 1991, “The social

distribution of femicide in urban

Review, vol. 25, pp. 287-311.

Australia: 1989-96, Research and

Public Policy series, no.13, Australian

Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Kposawa, A. & Singh, G. 1994, “The effect

of marriage on male and female

homicides in the United States”,

Sociological Focus, vol. 27, pp. 343-62.

Messner, S. & Tardiff, K. 1985, “The social

ecology of urban homicide: An

application of the ‘routine activities’

241-67.

Homicide, Paper presented at the 3rd

National Outlook Symposium, 22-23

March 1999, Australian Institute of

Criminology, Canberra.

Masculine Violence, Cambridge

University Press, UK.

Deeds, Nelson, Canada.

Smith, J. & Stanko, E. (unpub.), Femicide:

The killing of women in England and

Wales 1986-1996, Working Paper,

ESRC Violence Research Program,

Brunel University.

The AIC gratefully acknowledges

the cooperation and continuing

assistance of police and coronial

services in all jurisdictions.