Table 1.
Sample description
| Perpetratorsa (n = 77) | Victims (n = 86) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age mean (SD) | 46.87 years (SD = 17.11) | 47.02 years (SD = 21.56) |
| Nationality | ||
| Italian | 76.8% | 74.4% |
| Foreigner | 23.2% | 25.6% |
| Employment | ||
| Employed | 46.2% | 56.4% |
| Unemployed | 53.8% | 43.6% |
| Profession | ||
| Qualified | 38.5% | 20.5% |
| Unqualified | 7.7% | 35.9% |
| Criminal careersb | ||
| Previous convictions | 24.7% | |
| No previous convictions | 75.3% | |
| Victim typec | ||
| Known (n = 64) | 76.2% | |
| Unknown (n = 20) | 23.8% | |
| Type of link with victim % | ||
| Familiar or acquaintance (n = 57) | 67.9% | |
| Stranger (n = 6) | 7.1% | |
| Prostitutesd (n = 21) of whom: | 25.0% | |
| Italian | 42.9% | |
| Foreigner | 57.1% | |
| Relationshipe | ||
| Intimate relationshipf (n = 49) of whom: | 58.3% | |
| wife, daughter, and mother-in-law | - 2.04% | |
| wife and daughters | - 2.04% | |
| partner and friend | - 2.04% | |
| Acquaintance (n = 29) | 34.5% | |
| Stranger (n = 6) | 7.1% | |
| Motives of femicide of whomg: | ||
| passion killing (n = 25): | 30.5% | |
| against intimate victim | 96.0% | |
| against non-intimate victim | 4.0% | |
| family problems (n = 18): | 22.0% | |
| against intimate victim | 88.9% | |
| against non-intimate victim | 11.1% | |
| consequence of another crime (n = 14): | 17.1% | |
| against intimate victim | 7.1% | |
| against non-intimate victim | 92.9% | |
| predatory (n = 13): | 15.9% | |
| against intimate victim | – | |
| against non-intimate victim | 100% | |
| loss of control (n = 6): | 7.3% | |
| against intimate victim | 66.7% | |
| against non-intimate victim | 33.3% | |
| mental disorder (n = 6): | 7.3% | |
| against intimate victim | 66.7% | |
| against non-intimate victim | 33.3% | |
Percentages exclude missing values
aIn three cases, the perpetrator had two victims; in three other cases, the perpetrator had three victims
bWith the concept of “criminal careers” is meant here the official previous crimes and convictions attributed to the individual perpetrator, as indicated in the forensic files examined. We are aware that this is only a partial perspective of what a criminal career is. Albeit scientifically important, the study of criminal careers of femicide perpetrators was beyond the scope of this study. For further details on the criminal career paradigm, see the specialized literature [16, 64–66]
cAccording to the victimology literature, a victim is considered “known” if the perpetrator and the victim knew each other for at least 24 h prior to the femicide, while a victim is considered “unknown or stranger” if the victim did not know the offender (or vice versa) 24 h before the femicide. Some of the prostitute victims were killed by their habitual clients (known victims), but in other cases, it was difficult to establish if they knew each other for less than 24 h (unknown victims). In two instances, it was not possible to establish whether victims and perpetrators knew each other (missing data)
dThe proportion of victims who practiced “prostitution” as a profession. In two cases (9.5%), the women were having an intimate relationship with their perpetrator and also were living together. In one case, the perpetrator felt emotionally attached to the victim, who did not reciprocate the interest
eThis dimension involved three subcategories of relationship: affective and intimate; acquaintance or superficial; stranger or unknown
fIn three cases (6.12%), IPF were characterized by multiple killings that followed soon after the murder of the partner/wife. In the case in which the killing involved the murder of only the mother, it was reported that the perpetrator had a complex and ambivalent relationship with her. They were living together
gMotives of femicide are comprised of six subcategories that find support in the typology literature on batterers [58, 67] and on domestic violence [17, 43] that helps to distinguish between IPF and NPF