<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE document SYSTEM
"http://www.vaw.umn.edu/xml/dtd/document.dtd">
<document>
<base>http://www.vaw.umn.edu</base>
<dir>/documents/fatality/</dir>

   <header name="vawheader" />

   <titles>
      <title>Reviewing Domestic Violence Fatalities</title>

      <subtitle>Summarizing National Developments</subtitle>
   </titles>

   <authors>
      <author>
         <name>Neil Websdale, Ph.D.</name>

         <title>Associate Professor of Criminal Justice</title>

         <affiliation>
            <a href="http://www.nau.edu/">Northern Arizona
            University</a>
         </affiliation>
      </author>

      <author>
         <name>Maureen Sheeran</name>

         <title>Policy Analyst</title>

         <affiliation>
            National Council of
            Juvenile and Family Court Judges
         </affiliation>
      </author>

      <author>
         <name>Byron Johnson, Ph.D.</name>

         <title>Senior Fellow</title>

         <affiliation>Crime and Justice Center, Vanderbilt
         University</affiliation>
      </author>
   </authors>

   <dates>
      <publication>Not Available</publication>
   </dates>

   <toc />

   <section>
      <title>Introduction</title>

      <p>This document brings together information from across the
      country on domestic violence fatality reviews
      <footnote>The need for such a document was identified at the
      planning meeting for Domestic Violence Fatality Review: A
      National Summit, held in Key West, Florida, October
      1998.</footnote>

      . The document:</p>

      <ul>
         <li>defines domestic violence;</li>

         <li>provides a state-by-state matrix of domestic violence
         death review initiatives;</li>

         <li>introduces teams' philosophies and some overarching
         philosophical questions;</li>

         <li>introduces a selection of the purposes and goals of
         teams;</li>

         <li>addresses team membership;</li>

         <li>explores death review team protocols;</li>

         <li>confronts concerns regarding confidentiality,
         liability, and immunity;</li>

         <li>offers a selection of questions, issues, concerns, and
         investigative methods already used by teams as they
         conduct death reviews;</li>

         <li>talks about the issue of effecting change through the
         process of reviewing domestic fatalities.</li>
      </ul>

      <p>The full appendices listed in the print (not online)
      version offer an overview of existing research into domestic
      homicide and provide a variety of sample documents from
      selected states and jurisdictions who are at various stages
      in implementing fatality reviews. Many of these forms were
      not available in an electronic format and are therefore not
      available online at this time.</p>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Working Definitions</title>

      <p>Statutory definitions of domestic violence vary from state
      to state. For the purposes of this document, "domestic
      violence fatalities" refer to those homicides caused by
      domestic violence. The National Council of Juvenile and
      Family Court Judges' 
      <em>Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence</em>

      defines domestic violence
      <footnote>Model Code 1-2,s 102(1994)</footnote>

      as one or more of the below acts:</p>

      <ol type="i">
         <li>attempting to cause or causing physical harm to
         another family member or household member;</li>

         <li>placing a family or household member in fear of
         physical harm; or</li>

         <li>causing a family or household member to engage
         involuntarily in sexual activity by force, threat of
         force, or duress.</li>
      </ol>

      <p>
      <strong>Preventable Death:</strong>

      "A preventable death is one in which, with retrospective
      analysis, it is determined that a reasonable intervention,
      (e.g., medical, educational, social, legal, psychological)
      might have prevented the death" (Colorado Child Fatality
      Review Commission Annual Report and Conference Proceedings,
      p. 15, 1991).</p>

      <p>
      <strong>Reasonable</strong>

      : is defined by "taking into consideration the condition,
      circumstances or resources available" (Colorado Child
      Fatality Review Commission Annual Report and Conference
      Proceedings, p. 15, 1991).</p>

      <p>
      <strong>Domestic violence death review</strong>

      : "means the deliberative process for identification of
      deaths, both homicide and suicide, caused by domestic
      violence, for examination of the systemic interventions into
      known incidents of domestic violence occurring in the family
      of the deceased prior to the death, for consideration of
      altered systemic response to avert future domestic violence
      deaths, or for development of recommendations for coordinated
      community prevention and intervention initiatives to
      eradicate, domestic violence."
      <footnote>Barbara Hart, Legal Commitee, Domestic Violence
      Death Review, February 9, 1995, National Council of Juvenile
      and Family Court Judges.</footnote>
      </p>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>State-by-State Matrix of Domestic Violence Death
      Review Initiatives<footnote>For sample legislation see Appendix B.</footnote></title>

      <p>The following is a synopsis of known domestic violence
      fatality review activity on a state-by-state basis. For each
      state the synopsis includes a discussion of legislation
      introduced; the names and contact information for known
      fatality review teams, or committees constituted to work
      toward the formation of such teams; the specific foci of
      teams; and, examples of reviews conducted by teams or other
      bodies.</p>

      <subsection>
         <title>California</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Legislation</strong>
         </p>

         <p>California Penal Code s 11163.3 (a) provides for the
         establishment of county-level interagency domestic
         violence death review teams. These teams investigate both
         homicides and suicides related to domestic violence. The
         teams serve to ensure the role of domestic violence is
         recognized and that subsequent preventive measures are
         introduced.</p>

         <p>California Penal Code s 11163.5 provides for the
         coordination and integration of state and local efforts to
         address fatal domestic violence and creates a body of
         information, the use of which is designed to prevent
         domestic violence deaths
         <footnote>CA Penal s 11163.5 (a).</footnote>

         . The legislation charges the California Department of
         Justice with the task of carrying out reviews. The
         California Department of Justice is to proceed with the
         cooperation of the state Department of Social Services,
         the state Department of Health Services, the California
         State Coroner's Association, the county Welfare Director's
         Association, and the state domestic violence coalition 
         <footnote>CA Penal s 11163.5 (b) (1).</footnote>

         . The Department of Justice produces an annual report of
         domestic violence deaths. Local teams report findings to
         the Department of Justice. Area agencies participating in
         the death reviews will finance the contributions of their
         team members. The state will not bear the costs of local
         teams.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Los Angeles County (California) Domestic Violence
         Fatality Review Team</p>

         <p>Alana Bowman 
         <br />

         Special Assistant to Los Angeles City Attorney James Hahn
         <br />

         1600 City Hall East
         <br />

         200 N. Main Street
         <br />

         Los Angeles 
         <br />

         CA 90012
         <br />

         213-237-0023
         <br />

         Fax: 213-485-8267</p>

         <p>Santa Clara County Death Review Committee</p>

         <p>Rolanda Pierre-Dixon
         <br />

         Chair
         <br />

         70 West Hedding Street 
         <br />

         San Jose
         <br />

         CA 95110
         <br />

         408-792-2533
         <br />

         Fax: 408-294-6746</p>

         <p>Shasta County Domestic Fatality Review Team</p>

         <p>McGregor Scott, Chairperson
         <br />

         Domestic Violence Coordinating Council
         <br />

         1558 West Street, Suite 1
         <br />

         Reading 
         <br />

         CA 96001</p>

         <p>See also:</p>

         <p>Lt. Harry Bishop (point person for the review team)
         <br />

         Shasta County Sheriff's Office
         <br />

         Major Crimes Unit
         <br />

         1525 Court St.
         <br />

         Reading, CA 96001
         <br />

         530-245-6172</p>

         <p>See also:
         <br />

         Mark Williamson
         <br />

         Family Court Services
         <br />

         Reading
         <br />

         CA, 96001
         <br />

         530-225-5707</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Los Angeles County's Team Stated Goals</strong>
         </p>

         <p>The Los Angeles County (California) Domestic Violence
         Fatality Review Team, formed in 1993 under the Chairship
         of Alana Bowman, identified four primary goals:</p>

         <ol type="i">
            <li>establish the means to determine with accuracy the
            number of homicides and suicides related to domestic
            violence;</li>

            <li>identify resources for appropriate on-site
            counseling services at the scene of a homicide or
            suicide (this project eventually separated off);</li>

            <li>analyze patterns common to abusers and victims for
            possible identification as lethality assessment
            indicators;</li>

            <li>develop systematic analysis of selected cases,
            focusing on the flow of each case through the various
            agencies in the system for indications of areas of
            improvement of strengthening of agency contacts and
            interagency response
            <footnote>See also Bowman, Alana. 1997. "Establishing
            Domestic Violence Review Teams". 
            <em>Domestic Violence Report</em>

            , August/September 1997, pp. 83, 93-94.</footnote>

            .</li>
         </ol>

         <p>
            <strong>Existing Reviews</strong>
         </p>

         <p>
            <strong>The Charan Investigation</strong>
         </p>

         <p>This domestic violence fatality review, conducted by
         the Commission on the Status of Women, City and County of
         San Francisco, is one of the most detailed ever conducted
         of a particular case. The Charan Investigation took place
         before the California legislation on domestic violence
         fatality reviews was introduced. Joseph Charan murdered
         his wife, Veena Charan, on January 15, 1990, and then took
         his own life. Veena Charan had sought the support of
         various government agencies for a period of 15 months
         prior to her demise. Veena had been separated from Joseph
         and was awarded custody of their nine-year-old son. During
         the 15 months preceding her death she made numerous
         reports to the police. Immediately prior to her death
         Joseph was arrested for felony wife beating and malicious
         mischief. As a result of his conviction for this offense
         Joseph received a 12-month suspended jail sentence. He was
         put on probation through the Adult Probation Department
         with the following three conditions: 1. domestic violence
         counseling; 2. stay away order; and 3. 30 days jail, of
         which he was given four days, the remainder to be served
         in the Sheriff's Work Alternative Program. Veena Charan
         obtained a restraining order through the civil courts. Mr.
         Charan violated the restraining order on several
         occasions. He also attempted to kidnap his son at the
         son's school. It was at the school that Mr. Charan killed
         his wife in front of school teachers and school children,
         before committing suicide.</p>

         <p>The San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium which
         commissioned the Charan investigation requested answers to
         three clusters of questions:</p>

         <ol>
            <li>Do the departments of the City and County of San
            Francisco have policies and procedures relating to
            domestic violence? If so, what are they and how
            adequate are they?</li>

            <li>Is there sufficient information-sharing among the
            departments in these particular types of cases?</li>

            <li>Are there sufficient data to evaluate the
            effectiveness of the system? If not, what additional
            data need to be collected? What changes, if any, to
            current procedures can be adopted to avert future
            tragedies?</li>
         </ol>

         <p>The case files and public testimony identified four
         essential gaps in service delivery in the Charan case:</p>

         <ol>
            <li>
               <p>Communication and Coordination</p>

               <p>Aside from the communication between the San
               Francisco Police Department and the District
               Attorney's Office, there was little communication
               among the multiple agencies which had contact with
               Veena Charan. These multiple agencies included the
               municipal court, adult probation, family court
               services, and social services. The review committee
               called for centralization of information and better
               coordination of service delivery.</p>
            </li>

            <li>
               <p>Data Collection</p>

               <p>The commission recognized the need for systematic
               information about domestic violence cases. The
               investigation notes, "Data on the number of domestic
               violence cases handled by the departments ranged
               from very limited to none at all."
               <footnote>Investigation. p. 5.</footnote>

               The Commission deemed the data to be of central
               importance in the identification of the level of
               need for services and the subsequent delivery of
               those services.</p>
            </li>

            <li>
               <p>Access to Services</p>

               <p>The Commission pointed out that a lack of
               sensitivity to and an understanding of multicultural
               and gay/lesbian issues in city departments increases
               the numbers of those suffering from domestic
               violence.</p>
            </li>

            <li>
               <p>Training</p>

               <p>Most of the training recommendations pertained to
               the issues regarding multicultural awareness.
               <footnote>For a good recent discussion of these
               issues see Wang, 1996.</footnote>

               Translation services were lacking. Specifically,
               there was a lack of translators in the Superior
               Court, Civil Division, and a limited number of
               translators in the Criminal Division. This problem
               created delays and misunderstandings of the
               agreements/court orders and proceedings.
               Specifically, the investigation called for the
               development of domestic violence advisory committees
               in each city department that worked with domestic
               violence cases.</p>
            </li>
         </ol>

         <p>Other excerpts from the Charan Investigation noted:</p>

         <ul>
            <li>Based on the incident reports involving Joseph
            Charan, the San Francisco Police Department did not
            deem the injuries Veena Charan and other family members
            received at the hands of Joseph Charan to be serious.
            Specifically, the report finds that "had the
            investigator looked at the pattern of violence
            established by Mr. Charan, and presented that
            information to the District Attorney's Office, stronger
            measures and responses to the situation may have
            prevented Joseph Charan from continuing the escalation
            of violence that led to the murder-suicide."
            <footnote>Charan Investigation. p. 7</footnote>
            </li>

            <li>According to the felony protocol of the District
            Attorney's Office, prior history was one of the factors
            taken into account regarding re-booking. If the
            Assistant District Attorney had access to the same
            information the Commission did, the re-booking charges
            may have been different.</li>

            <li>Probation officers were not adequately trained in
            the dynamics of domestic violence.</li>

            <li>The Commission called for greater domestic violence
            training of the Municipal Court, Criminal Division. In
            particular, it stated a "need for training judges on
            interpretation of restraining orders."
            <footnote>Final Report: Santa Clara County pp. 11, 12,
            13.</footnote>
            </li>

            <li>Family Court Services refused to answer questions
            posed by the Commission, citing their need to maintain
            confidentiality. The Commission described this failure
            as "intransigence."
            <footnote>Final Report: Santa Clara County pp. 11, 12,
            13.</footnote>

            The report states the resistance of Family Court
            Services "is indicative of the lack of the department's
            efforts to improve the City's response to battered
            women and their children."
            <footnote>Final Report: Santa Clara County pp. 11, 12,
            13.</footnote>

            The mediation strategies of the Family Court were also
            criticized by the Commission.</li>
         </ul>

         <p>
            <strong>Final Report: Santa Clara County (California)
            Death Review Committee, October 1997.</strong>

            <footnote>By Rolanda Pierre-Dixon, Chair.</footnote>
         </p>

         <p>The Committee began work in 1994 and appears to have
         been among the first domestic violence review teams in the
         country. It defined "domestic violence related death" as
         one where the perpetrator and victim were "romantically
         linked," either at the time of death or prior to the
         death. At time of writing the Committee is reviewing 51
         cases. Members selected three cases from 1993 to get
         started. The report contains information on:</p>

         <ul>
            <li>the types of deaths: homicide, homicide-suicide,
            suicide, accidental death, and police shootings.</li>

            <li>the police agencies involved in the case. Most
            involved the San Jose police department.</li>

            <li>the age, race, sex, and substance abuse history of
            any parties; the presence of children; weaponry used;
            status of the relationship (divorced, cohabiting,
            separated, etc.); existence of prior restraining
            orders; prior police involvement; and location of
            residence.</li>
         </ul>

         <p>Highlights of the final report include:</p>

         <ul>
            <li>Age: average adult age of perpetrators and victims
            was 33 years (females 32; males 35).</li>

            <li>Sex of perpetrators: 44 male, seven female.</li>

            <li>29 of the 51 homicides were committed with
            firearms. The report stresses that "as a community we
            must advocate for handgun control." 
            <footnote>Santa Clara County Death Review Committee
            Final Report, October 1993-September 1997.</footnote>
            </li>

            <li>In 26 of the 51 cases the parties were separated or
            divorced at time of death.</li>

            <li>Police had prior domestic violence contacts with
            the parties in 11 cases.</li>

            <li>In six cases restraining orders were either active
            (four) or in the process of being issued (two).</li>

            <li>
               <p>Race/Ethnicity: of the 51 victims, 17 were Asian,
               14 white, 12 Hispanic, five African American, two
               mixed-race, one Indian (not Native American). Asian
               victims were over-represented among victims although
               only one of the Asian cases came to the attention of
               community agencies prior to the killing. The report
               notes, "This made members feel that we were not
               getting the word out about the dangers of domestic
               violence to the Asian community." 
               <footnote>Report. p. 13</footnote>

               This led to calls for greater Asian representation
               on the death review committee. The report notes
               three Asian members on the team. One committee
               member helped form the Asian Community Against
               Domestic Violence Coalition. This Coalition
               organized a domestic violence conference for the
               Vietnamese community in September 1997.</p>

               <p>The suggestion that more Asian women need to be
               accessed through support services should not be
               taken to mean that those women who do not utilize
               services are somehow culpable for their own deaths.
               Karin Wang (1996) points to the way the cultural
               background of Asian women makes it difficult for
               them to utilize the support services offered by a
               predominantly white-run domestic violence movement.
               <footnote>Wang, 1996. She defines "Asian American"
               broadly to include "all persons of Asian ancestry
               living in the United States" (1996: 152, n3). This
               includes people from East Asia (including China,
               Japan, and Korea), Southeast Asia (including Burma,
               Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam), South Asia
               (India) and the Philippines.</footnote>

               In addressing this issue, Wang argues that battered
               Asian-American women have not been well understood
               by the domestic violence movement. 
               <footnote>Asian women differ from white women in at
               least three ways. First Wang points to the fact that
               the majority of Asian women are immigrants and
               therefore experience numerous language problems.
               These problems make it difficult for Asian women to
               obtain help from police, social services, or
               immigration services. For example, if police
               officers attending domestic disputes at Asian homes
               can understand the man and not the woman, it is
               likely that without special translator services, the
               Asian woman's story will be marginalized or go
               unheard. Second, the Asian cultural emphais on
               saving face and valuing family above the individual,
               makes Asian women more hesitant when it comes to
               breaking up the family. Such a pronounced belief in
               the sanctity of the family in the face of violent
               victimization, combined with a cultural antipathy
               towards divorce, may make it more difficult for
               white shelter workers and advocates to offer support
               and understanding to groups like Korean women.
               Third, the traditional Asian gender roles of male
               provider and female homemakes are often disrupted by
               the American economy that requires both partners to
               work outside the home. This may be seen as
               liberating for Asian women, but it may, as Wang
               points out, be very threatening to the partners of
               Asian women, see Wang, 1996:171.</footnote>
               </p>
            </li>

            <li>The California legislation does not address the
            issue of domestic violence shelters turning over their
            records for purposes of death review. The reason
            offered in the report is that shelters were concerned
            about sharing information given by clients under
            guarantee of confidentiality. Informally, the team
            seems to have worked around this issue and it appears
            that a mechanism has emerged so that shelter team
            members do share information.</li>

            <li>The report also contains a list of questions that
            the team sought to answer regarding the delivery of
            services to families prior to the killing.</li>
         </ul>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Colorado</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Denver Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee</p>

         <p>Project Safeguard
         <br />

         815 East 22nd Avenue
         <br />

         Denver, 
         <br />

         CO 80205
         <br />

         303-863-7606</p>

         <p>Project Safeguard is a pilot scheme of the City of
         Denver, Colorado, designed to investigate and prevent
         domestic violence homicides. The key goals of the project
         include setting up a pilot Fatality Review Committee in
         order to review systematically domestic deaths and educate
         system personnel, service providers, and perpetrator
         treatment programs with a view to prevention.
         Additionally, Project Safeguard sought to establish a red
         flag system through the analysis of fatalities from
         1994-1996.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Delaware</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Legislation</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Delaware Statute Title 13 s 2105 empowers a domestic
         violence coordinating council to investigate and review,
         through a review panel, the facts and circumstances of all
         deaths occurring in Delaware resulting from domestic
         violence. This includes homicides and suicides. Reviews of
         deaths involving criminal investigations will be delayed
         at least six months from the time of death and must be
         authorized by the Attorney General's office. Child deaths
         are to be reviewed jointly by the Child Death Review
         Commission and the domestic violence fatal incident review
         panel. The death of a minor will be reviewed by the
         domestic violence fatal incident review panel only if the
         child's parents or guardians were involved in an abusive
         relationship and where the minor's death is directly
         related to that abuse.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Raina Fishbane, J.D. 
         <br />

         Domestic Violence Coordinating Council
         <br />

         900 King Street
         <br />

         Wilmington 
         <br />

         DE 19801
         <br />

         302-577-2684</p>

         <p>Formed in 1997, the fatality review team is a committee
         of the statewide coordinated council. The team is a
         multidisciplinary, multiagency group that meets monthly to
         research cases. The first report was expected in May
         1998.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>District of Columbia</title>

         <p>Charlotte Clark 
         <br />

         U.S. District Attorney's Office
         <br />

         Judiciary Center, Room 3433
         <br />

         Washington 
         <br />

         DC 20001
         <br />

         202-514-7375</p>

         <p>The committee has plans to review cases from 1992 up to
         the present time, but only after the resolution of any
         pending criminal charges. They have suspended their
         meetings until they are able to obtain more funding.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Florida</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>The Florida Governor's Task Force on Domestic and
         Sexual Violence is setting up four fatality review teams.
         This project is funded by the Violence Against Women
         Grants Office, U.S. Department of Justice.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Miami/Dade Fatality Review Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Lauren Lazarus
         <br />

         Director, Domestic Violence Division
         <br />

         Administrative Office of the Courts 
         <br />

         Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida 
         <br />

         Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building 
         <br />

         1351 N.W. 12th Street, Room #130 
         <br />

         Miami 
         <br />

         FL 33125 
         <br />

         Office: 305-547-7115; Fax: 305-547-7134</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Palm Beach County Fatality Review Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Cynthia Rubenstein 
         <br />

         Chair Person, Domestic Violence Council of Palm Beach
         County
         <br />

         YWCA Harmony House
         <br />

         901 South Olive Avenue
         <br />

         West Palm Beach
         <br />

         FL 33401
         <br />

         Office: 561-833-2439; Fax: 561-640-9155</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Tampa/Hillsborough Fatality Review
            Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Mabel Bexley
         <br />

         Co-Chair of Fatality Review Team 
         <br />

         The Spring of Tampa Bay 
         <br />

         209 N. Willow 
         <br />

         Tampa
         <br />

         FL 33606 
         <br />

         Office: 813-247-5433 ext. 312; Fax: 813-247-2930</p>

         <p>Sgt. Rod Reder
         <br />

         Co-Chair of Fatality Review Team 
         <br />

         Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department
         <br />

         P.O. Box 3371
         <br />

         Tampa
         <br />

         FL 33601 
         <br />

         Office: 813-247-8916; Fax: 813-247-8750</p>

         <p>Another good contact in Hillsborough County, Florida,
         is Detective Linda Burton, Hillsborough County Sheriff's
         Department, who heads up the Hillsborough County Child
         Fatality Review Team, 813-247-8678.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Volusia/Putnam County Fatality Review
            Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Ms. M.F. Warren
         <br />

         Co-Chair, Fatality Review Team
         <br />

         Chief Executive Officer
         <br />

         Domestic Abuse Council, Inc. 
         <br />

         211 North Ridgewood Avenue, Suite 301
         <br />

         Daytona Beach
         <br />

         FL 32114
         <br />

         Office: 904-257-2297x18; FAX: 904-248-1985</p>

         <p>Captain Craig Broughton
         <br />

         Co-Chair, Fatality Review Team
         <br />

         Volusia County Sheriff's Office 
         <br />

         P.O. Box 569 
         <br />

         Deland 
         <br />

         FL 32721
         <br />

         Office: 904-254-1537 ext. 1363; FAX: 904-254-1554</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Existing Reviews</strong>
         </p>

         <p>The first Florida Mortality Review Project Executive
         Summary was released in October 1998 
         <footnote>The project was carried out by Neil Websdale Ph.
         D. and Byron Johnson Ph. D. The project forms for the
         substrate for Neil Websdale's forthcoming book, 
         <em>Understanding Domestic Homicide</em>

         , Northeastern University Press, 1999.</footnote>

         . Highlights are shown below. For additional information
         contact:</p>

         <p>Robin Hassler J.D. 
         <br />

         Executive Director Governor's Task Force on Domestic and
         Sexual Violence
         <br />

         Executive Office of the Governor 
         <br />

         The Capitol 
         <br />

         Tallahassee 
         <br />

         FL 32399 
         <br />

         850-921-2168.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Florida Mortality Review Project: Executive
            Summary</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Introduction</p>

         <p>The Florida Department of Law Enforcement reported 230
         domestic homicides for 1994. As a result of this
         disturbing statistic the Florida Governor's Task Force on
         Domestic and Sexual Violence funded a study of domestic
         fatalities in order to better understand, intervene, and
         prevent these crimes.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Methodology</strong>
         </p>

         <p>For each domestic fatality in 1994 the researchers
         examined the following:</p>

         <ul>
            <li>The perpetrator-victim dyad: In particular the
            researchers examined the multiple dynamics of these
            murders, paying particular attention to the sex, race,
            ethnicity, sexual orientation, geo-cultural background
            (rural, suburban, urban), socioeconomic status, and
            marital status/familial relationship between
            perpetrators and victims.</li>

            <li>
               <p>The situational antecedents to the fatality:
               Researchers explored the following:</p>

               <ol>
                  <li>A prior history of domestic violence in the
                  relationship.</li>

                  <li>The presence or absence of injunctions both
                  prior to the fatality or when the fatality
                  occurred.</li>

                  <li>Whether a divorce was pending at the time of
                  death (with married couples).</li>

                  <li>Whether there was any sign of relationship
                  breakdown (variously measured).</li>

                  <li>Whether there was any sign of acknowledged
                  conflict in the relationship.</li>

                  <li>Prior police calls to residence.</li>

                  <li>History of drug/alcohol abuse.</li>

                  <li>The residential origins of the perpetrator
                  and victim. Was there a pattern of perpetrators
                  abducting or transporting victims to areas beyond
                  their regular communities before the
                  fatality?</li>

                  <li>
                     <p>Whether the victim or perpetrator had any
                     history of emotional problems or mental
                     illness and the specific forms of these
                     problems. Had the perpetrator:</p>

                     <ul>
                        <li>previously threatened to kill himself,
                        his spouse, partner, or children?</li>

                        <li>fantasized, hatched a plan, or
                        verbalized a plan to kill his
                        spouse/partner?</li>

                        <li>a history of using weapons, especially
                        firearms?</li>

                        <li>obsessively possessive beliefs about
                        his spouse or partner?</li>

                        <li>perceived his spouse/partner was
                        betraying him by ending the
                        relationship?</li>

                        <li>been hospitalized for depression and
                        fantasized about killing his partner?</li>

                        <li>a history of hostage-taking?</li>
                     </ul>
                  </li>
               </ol>
            </li>

            <li>
               <p>The lethal incident: Here researchers
               documented:</p>

               <ol>
                  <li>The specific mode of killing.</li>

                  <li>The types of weaponry used (handgun, rifle,
                  shotgun, other firearm, knife or cutting
                  instrument, blunt object, motor vehicle, poison,
                  explosives, fire or incendiary device, personal
                  weapons such as fists, feet, teeth, etc.).</li>

                  <li>The availability of weapons.</li>

                  <li>The involvement of drugs or alcohol during or
                  immediately preceding the fatal episode.</li>

                  <li>The presence of other parties at the scene
                  (e.g. children, police, other
                  professionals).</li>

                  <li>The non-fatal wounding of others at the
                  scene.</li>

                  <li>The involvement of professionals at the
                  scene.</li>

                  <li>The location of the fatal incident.</li>
               </ol>
            </li>
         </ul>

         <p>Researchers drew information from the following data
         sources: police records; social service reports; court
         documents; newspaper accounts; autopsy reports; mental
         health records; hospital and public health/medical data;
         and, other information that may have had a bearing on the
         decedent and their family. They also interviewed
         professionals including but not limited to police, court
         personnel, mental health workers, social service
         providers, and advocates for battered women.</p>

         <p>Key Findings
         <footnote>For a very detailed case study analysis of these
         cases, see Neil Websdale, 
         <em>Understanding Domestic Homicide</em>

         , Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA,
         1999</footnote>
         </p>

         <p>The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE)
         documented 230 domestic fatalities in Florida during the
         year of 1994. Perhaps the most important and compelling
         finding in this study was that the research revealed a
         total of 
         <strong>328</strong>

         domestic fatalities in 1994. The disparity stemmed from
         four major issues:</p>

         <ol>
            <li>Police departments often do not include child
            deaths due to abuse and neglect as part of their
            official domestic homicide count. The researchers
            included these deaths.</li>

            <li>Police departments often do not include the suicide
            victims in domestic homicide-suicides in their official
            count. The researchers included these deaths. However,
            the researchers did not include those deaths from
            suicide that are related to domestic violence. This
            figure, largely unknown at this time, represents a huge
            number of potential deaths stemming from domestic
            victimization and is an area in urgent need of
            systematic research and policy initiatives.</li>

            <li>Police sometimes did not code domestic deaths as
            such.</li>

            <li>Police departments did not include
            boyfriend/girlfriend deaths as domestic homicides
            because they did not strictly meet the terms of the
            statute.</li>
         </ol>

         <p>Adopting a broader definition of domestic homicide than
         law enforcement sources, the researchers showed that in
         1994 approximately one-third of all homicides were related
         to domestic violence
         <footnote>Preliminary findings from 1995 reveal similar
         discrepancies between FDLE data and that number of
         domestic violence fatalities identified by the broader
         definition used Drs. Websdale and Johnson. Although FDLE
         identified 195 domestic homicides in 1995, as of October
         1, 1998, Drs. Websdale and Johnson had confirmed at least
         285 domestic violence related deaths.</footnote>

         . This ratio contrasts sharply with official police data
         which identifies only one-fifth of all homicides in
         Florida in 1994 as being caused by domestic violence. The
         essential findings from the 1994 Florida report on
         domestic violence deaths are shown below.</p>

         <p>The analysis indicated that 
         <strong>294</strong>

         of the 
         <strong>328</strong>

         fatalities were consistent with the Florida Domestic
         Violence Statute
         <footnote>Florida law defines "domestic violence" as "any
         assault, battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, or any
         criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death of
         one family or household member by another who is or was
         residing in the same single dwelling unit". A "family or
         household member" refers to "spouses, former sppouses,
         persons related by blood or marriage, persons who are
         presently residing together as if a family or who have
         resided together in the past as if a family, and persons
         who have a child in common regardless of whether they have
         been married or have resided together at any time".
         Florida Statute (1994) s 741.28.</footnote>

         . The 34 remaining domestic fatalities either fell outside
         the statute criteria (e.g. victim and perpetrator were not
         married, lived at different addresses, and had no children
         together) or the researchers simply did not have enough
         information to determine if they met all the criteria of
         the statute.</p>

         <p>Nearly all cases with multiple victims were perpetrated
         by men. In only six cases did a woman kill more than one
         victim, or murder her partner and then commit suicide. In
         no case did a woman murder her husband, her children, and
         then herself.</p>

         <p>Many of the factors present in the multiple domestic
         killings also appear in the killing of individual women.
         Most of the individual women were killed by men. Nearly
         all of these cases involved women who had an extensive
         history of violent victimization prior to being killed. As
         the statistical analysis reveals, other important factors
         include prior threats to kill, escalating abuse, and
         obsessive possessiveness and jealousy on the part of
         perpetrators. In fewer cases there was prior documented
         involvement of police and other criminal justice agencies.
         Of all adult women victims, only three were killed by
         other women. Five adult female fatalities resulted from
         women killing themselves as part of multiple killing
         scenarios.</p>

         <p>When women are killed in either multiple or
         single-victim domestic fatalities, it is usually the final
         event in an abusive relationship of long standing. When
         men are killed by other men or by women, it is rarely, if
         ever, the end-product of a battering relationship in which
         the men are the victims of abuse. When men are killed by
         other men in domestic situations, it is often because the
         two men are competing for a woman who has, in many cases,
         been victimized by one of the men. Three-quarters of all
         adult male domestic fatalities were perpetrated by men.
         Only one-quarter of the men who died were killed by
         women.</p>

         <p>Women who killed men nearly always did so out of
         self-defense, or less often, the defense of their
         children. These women have always, or nearly always, been
         pushed to the brink of human endurance by the batterers
         who they eventually kill. While the killing of batterers
         by the long-standing victims of battering may not qualify
         as self-defense in a court of law, the act of defensive or
         preemptive violence by women is qualitatively different
         from the offensive acts of violence perpetrated by men
         against women.</p>

         <p>The statistical analysis of child fatalities is
         hampered by missing data. Nevertheless, there are certain
         themes that seem to pervade these tragedies. The most
         common correlate is that the death of children resulting
         from abuse or neglect, occurs in homes where caretakers
         tend not to be married. About one-third of the
         perpetrators were mother's boyfriends, one-third were
         biological fathers, and approximately a quarter were
         biological mothers. These men sometimes had criminal
         records, including a history of violence. It is clear from
         multiple sources of data that child fatalities normally
         occur within a context of poverty, often abject poverty.
         Research findings also reveal that 50 percent of the
         children about whom we have reliable data have been
         physically abused before, often for a long period of time.
         However, it is not necessarily the case that this prior
         abuse has come to the attention of authorities. For
         example, very few of the families in which child
         fatalities occurred had prior documented contact with the
         police. Children who are under five years of age are
         clearly the most vulnerable. Over half of the child
         victims in our sample were under two years of age. Those
         who were older were often killed with easily obtained
         firearms.</p>

         <p>"Red Flags" (situational antecedents) identified in
         order of frequency in the 106 cases where men killed in
         intimate female partners in Florida in 1994.</p>

         <ol>
            <li>Prior history of domestic violence. Among these
            cases battered women often report an increasing
            entrapment.</li>

            <li>Obsessively possessive beliefs on the part of the
            perpetrator. This is often accompanied by stalking
            behavior, close surveillance, inability to sleep on the
            part of the perpetrator, acute depression, perhaps a
            history of medication use, history of suicidal
            ideations, or, less commonly, documented suicide
            attempts.</li>

            <li>Attempting to break away from the perpetrator,
            including divorce, separation, and estrangement. In a
            number of cases of breaking away researchers identified
            accompanying relationship difficulties regarding such
            matters as child custody/visitation.</li>

            <li>Prior police involvement in the case.</li>

            <li>Prior criminal history on the part of the
            perpetrator. In 43 percent of those cases where men
            killed their intimate female partners in non-multiple
            episodes, the men had prior histories of criminal
            behavior, nearly always involving violence.</li>

            <li>Threats to kill the eventual victim. These were
            often communicated to family friends, relatives,
            neighbors, and others prior to the homicide.</li>

            <li>Issuance of restraining orders (injunctions,
            protection orders).</li>

            <li>Alcohol or drug use that often escalates prior to
            the fatal episode.</li>
         </ol>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Hawaii</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Linda A. Kiyotoki
         <br />

         Supervisor, Domestic Violence Unit
         <br />

         Adult Services Branch
         <br />

         State of Hawaii Family Court
         <br />

         First Court
         <br />

         P.O. Box 3498
         <br />

         Honolulu 
         <br />

         HI 96811</p>

         <p>An informal, in-house judicial review, that expands to
         include other criminal justice agency professionals and
         community players, has been in operation through Judge
         Michael Town's office in the Family Court in Hawaii for a
         number of years.
         <footnote>See review of the homicide-suicide case
         involving Maria Llacuna and John Lewis (1994-1996). We are
         grateful to Judge Town for sharing the review
         documentation in this case.</footnote>
         </p>

         <p>More recently, Cindy Kraemer of WATCH (Minnesota)
         reports that Hawaii state coalition against domestic
         violence was unable to gain cooperation to implement
         domestic fatality reviews due to fiscal constraints,
         confidentiality issues, and finger pointing. The coalition
         passed it off to the legislature. The 1997 legislative
         session did not introduce fatality review legislation due
         to financial difficulties.
         <footnote>We are grateful to Cindy Kraemer, of WATCH
         (Minnesota) for this information regarding developments in
         Hawaii. WATCH conducted a survey of fatality review
         activity in the 50 states and received 47 replies. She
         found some activity in 19 states.We have used information
         from her draft document in this synopsis. E-mail
         communication August 14, 1998.</footnote>
         </p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Illinois</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Neil Hochstadt, Ph.D.
         <br />

         State Task Force Chairman
         <br />

         LaRabida Hospital
         <br />

         East 65th and Lake Michigan
         <br />

         Chicago, 
         <br />

         IL 60649
         <br />

         Office: 773-363-6700 ext. 420</p>

         <p>The area is trying to develop domestic violence
         fatality review teams using the existing child fatality
         review process as a linchpin.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Iowa</title>

         <p>Probation Officer Tracy Bray and the Iowa Coalition
         Against Domestic Violence initiated the Iowa Domestic
         Violence Fatality Review Team project, which has yet to
         review a domestic fatality. Law enforcement had concerns
         about being a target or scapegoat, but once they were on
         board many others followed; their legislation passed in
         the 1998 session. The Iowa Department of Public Health is
         the administrative agency and they are absorbing all
         additional expenses for the project. They anticipate
         reviewing approximately 12 domestic violence fatalities a
         year.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Kentucky</title>

         <p>No legislation passed and no teams are in place as yet.
         However, the attorney general's office did conduct a
         synopsis of patterns of domestic violence related
         deaths.</p>

         <p>Kentucky Attorney General's Task Force on Domestic
         Violence Crime: Domestic Violence Homicides and Suicides,
         October 1993. 
         <footnote>By Chris Gorman, Kentucky Attorney
         General.</footnote>
         </p>

         <p>This report emerged out of a broad initiative in
         Kentucky to increase awareness of domestic violence, a
         concern to furnish women and families with better state
         services, and a need to standardize data collection on
         domestic violence in general and domestic violence
         homicides and suicides in particular. The report
         summarizes the findings on domestic violence homicides and
         suicides which occurred in 1991, 1992, and the first
         quarter of 1993. The specific goals of the report were to
         collect and analyze all available data on domestic
         violence related homicides and suicides for the following
         purposes:</p>

         <ul>
            <li>To increase public and professional awareness about
            these particular crimes, the persons involved, and
            intervention measures utilized to prevent the homicide
            and suicide incidents.</li>

            <li>To improve the effectiveness of justice and
            community services planning for intervention in and
            prevention of these crimes.</li>

            <li>
               <p>To improve the collection and reporting of
               domestic violence homicide and suicide incidents at
               the local, state, and national levels. The
               preliminary findings revealed:</p>

               <ul>
                  <li>77 domestic violence related homicide and
                  suicide incidents for 1991 (resulting in 95
                  deaths).
                  <footnote>Some incidents resulted in multiple
                  deaths. This observation is relevant to the
                  analysis of a number of these
                  statistics.</footnote>
                  </li>

                  <li>63 incidents in 1992 (resulting in 74
                  deaths).</li>

                  <li>23 incidents in the first quarter of 1993
                  (resulting in 30 deaths).</li>

                  <li>For the whole period, 96 male perpetrators
                  killed 23 men and 82 women.</li>

                  <li>For the whole period, 48 female perpetrators
                  killed 48 men and no women.</li>

                  <li>Domestic violence related homicides
                  constituted 27 percent of all Kentucky homicides
                  in 1991 and 22 percent of homicides in 1992.
                  <footnote>The report cautions that because of
                  inconsistencies in data gathering these figures
                  are tentative. For an analysis of
                  homicide-suicides in Kentucky see Currens et al,
                  1991.</footnote>
                  </li>

                  <li>Firearms were used to effect the majority of
                  homicides (73 percent in 1991; 69 percent in
                  1992; 64 percent for the first quarter
                  1993).</li>
               </ul>
            </li>
         </ul>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Maine</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Legislation</strong>
         </p>

         <p>The Maine Commission on Domestic Abuse was constituted
         under Title 5, section 12004-I, subsection 74-C., and was
         required to establish the Domestic Abuse Homicide Review
         Panel, referred to in this subsection as the "panel," to
         review the deaths of persons who are killed by family or
         household members as defined by section 4002.</p>

         <p>A. According to the legislation, the chair of the
         commission shall appoint members of the panel who have
         experience in providing services to victims of domestic
         abuse and shall include at least the following: the Chief
         Medical Examiner, a physician, a nurse, a law enforcement
         officer, the Commissioner of Human Services, the
         Commissioner of Corrections, the Commissioner of Public
         Safety, a judge as assigned by the Chief Justice of the
         Supreme Judicial Court, a representative of the Maine
         Prosecutor's Association, an assistant attorney general
         responsible for the prosecution of homicide cases
         designated by the Attorney General, an assistant attorney
         general handling child protection cases designated by the
         Attorney General, a victim-witness advocate, a mental
         health service provider, a facilitator of a certified
         batterers' intervention program under section 4014 and
         three persons designated by a statewide coalition for
         family crisis services.</p>

         <p>B. The panel shall recommend to state and local
         agencies methods of improving the system for protecting
         persons from domestic abuse, including modifications of
         laws, rules, policies, and procedures following completion
         of adjudication.</p>

         <p>C. The panel shall collect and compile data related to
         domestic abuse.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Anita St. Onge
         <br />

         207-780-5851
         <br />

         Portland 
         <br />

         ME</p>

         <p>This state just formed a team which has held one
         meeting.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Minnesota</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Jenny Harding 
         <br />

         WATCH
         <br />

         612-341-2747</p>

         <p>WATCH has funding to research fatality review teams.
         This initial research is expected to be up and running
         January, 1999. WATCH has an advisory committee and is
         planning a site visit to observe an established team at
         work.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Nevada</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Legislation</strong>
         </p>

         <p>N.R.S. 217.475 (1997) states that a court or agency of
         local government can organize or sponsor one or more
         multidisciplinary teams to review deaths caused by
         domestic violence as defined in N.R.S. 33.018. The team
         serves at the pleasure of the court or agency. If a
         written request from a person related to the victim within
         the third degree of consanguinity is received within
         one-year after the fatality, then the court or agency
         shall review the death.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>
            <strong>Washoe County Fatality Review Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Judge Jan Berry 
         <br />

         District Court One
         <br />

         75 Court Street
         <br />

         Reno 
         <br />

         NV 89501
         <br />

         Office: 702-328-3171</p>

         <p>This team was established in 1994 as a subcommittee of
         the Washoe County Task Force on Domestic Violence. The
         team is multidisciplinary, multiagency, and meets
         regularly.
         <footnote>Nevada Revised Statute N.R.S. 217.245</footnote>
         </p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>New Mexico</title>

         <p>The University of New Mexico Department of Emergency
         Medicine is the administrative agency for their local
         domestic violence fatality review team. They initiated
         their effort in July, 1997 with a one-year Violence
         Against Women Act grant. All team members must sign a
         confidentiality agreement to enable them to share
         confidential information. With the exception of medical
         records, they have encountered little resistance to
         acquiring information when it is available. They are not
         pursuing legislation at this time. New Mexico had
         approximately 45-50 domestic violence fatalities in 1997.
         <footnote>We are grateful to Cindy Kraemer, of WATCH
         (Minnesota) for this information regarding developments in
         New Mexico.</footnote>
         </p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>New York</title>

         <p>Bob Nicholais 
         <br />

         Staff Member on Commission
         <br />

         New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic
         Violence
         <br />

         Capital View Office Park
         <br />

         52 Washington Street, Room 366
         <br />

         Rensselaer, 
         <br />

         New York 12144
         <br />

         518-486-6262</p>

         <p>The Governor established a commission for a one-year
         review of domestic violence related homicides. A report of
         these findings entitled the "Commission on Domestic
         Violence Fatalities: Report to the Governor 1997" became
         available in October 1997. The Commission is still active
         with one full-time and one part-time paid position. New
         York City also produced a report on female homicides
         entitled, "Female Homicide Victims in New York City
         1990-1994" available from: NYC Dept. of Health, Injury
         Prevention Program, 2 Lafayette Street, 20th Floor, New
         York, New York 10007.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Existing Reviews</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Commission on Domestic Violence Fatalities: Report to
         the Governor, 1997 
         <footnote>By Jeanine Ferris-Pirro, Westchester County
         District Attorney, Commission Chairperson.</footnote>
         </p>

         <p>The Commission was appointed by Executive Order of
         Governor George Pataki on October 1, 1996. It was charged
         with the responsibility to "investigate select domestic
         violence fatalities to determine whether the deaths were
         associated with any deficiencies in the social service
         system, law enforcement, the courts, or any other public
         or private entity."
         <footnote>Report page 1. see note 1.</footnote>

         One of the tasks of the commission was to "assess whether
         a Fatality Review Board should be created to examine
         domestic violence fatalities."
         <footnote>Report p. 1</footnote>

         The commission was appointed in response to a number of
         high-profile domestic homicides that occurred when other
         forms of violent crime (e.g. murder, robbery, aggravated
         assault) in New York were declining.
         <footnote>From 1991-1995 violent crimes such as murder,
         robbery, and aggravated assault declined each year. There
         was a similar decline in property crimes such as burglary,
         larceny, and motor vehicle theft.</footnote>
         </p>

         <p>Highlights of the 57 deaths,
         <footnote>All decedents were females who had been in
         heterosexual relationships.</footnote>

         reviewed by the Commission include:</p>

         <ul>
            <li>In most of the cases domestic violence preceded the
            homicide. In 70 percent of cases the perpetrator had a
            known history of physically abusing the decedent. Only
            six cases (11 percent) revealed no known history of
            prior abuse.</li>

            <li>Twenty-six of the 57 perpetrators (45.6 percent)
            had a prior criminal record of one or more arrests. All
            but four of those 26 offenders had prior arrests for
            domestic violence.</li>

            <li>In 21 of the 57 cases (36.8 percent) there was at
            least one active order of protection. In 17 of these 21
            cases (81 percent) there had been a violation of an
            order prior to the homicide.</li>

            <li>Forty-three of the 57 victims (75 percent) had
            terminated, or had indicated an intention to terminate,
            their relationships at the time of the homicide.</li>

            <li>Reviewers found child custody disputes at the root
            of three homicides. In two of these three cases the
            homicide was committed in connection with the pick-up
            or drop-off of children.</li>

            <li>Most homicides took place in the home (75 percent).
            Nine percent occurred in the workplace and 11 percent
            in other public areas.</li>

            <li>Handguns were used in 20 (35 percent) of the cases;
            long guns in nine (16 percent). Of the 20 handguns used
            only four were possessed lawfully.</li>

            <li>Of the 57 offenders, 27 (47 percent) had
            indications of a history of alcohol abuse and 17 (30
            percent) had indications of a history of drug use.
            These 44 offenders with a history of substance abuse
            included 12 with a history of both alcohol and drug
            use.</li>

            <li>The Commission makes the point that in 30 percent
            of cases there was no known history of domestic
            violence in the relationship. They conclude that the
            absence of any reported violence should not lead to the
            conclusion that there is a low-risk of mortality.</li>

            <li>Disappointingly, the Commission did not recommend
            the establishment of domestic fatality review
            teams.</li>
         </ul>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Ohio</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>
            <strong>Hamilton County Fatality Review Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Ann McDonald 
         <br />

         Co-Chair 
         <br />

         Women Helping Women Inc.
         <br />

         216 E. Ninth Street
         <br />

         Cincinnati 
         <br />

         OH 45202-6109
         <br />

         513-977-5541</p>

         <p>Terry Daly 
         <br />

         Co-Chair
         <br />

         Hamilton County Coroner's Office
         <br />

         3159 Eden Avenue
         <br />

         Cincinnati
         <br />

         OH 45219
         <br />

         513-221-4524</p>

         <p>The fatality review panel is organized under the
         auspices of the Hamilton County Domestic Violence
         Coordinating Council and is chaired by the Hamilton County
         Coroner. Their first meeting took place in July, 1996.
         Members worked on policies until January 1997, then
         conducted a review of an older closed case. In April, 1997
         they did their first official review. They expect to
         review six or seven deaths a year.</p>

         <p>Dayton
         <footnote>At time of going to press there is little
         information about this team.</footnote>
         </p>

         <p>The Criminal Justice Council started their project in
         April, 1997. They began reviewing cases in August, 1997.
         Their local domestic violence coordinating council is a
         multidisciplinary agency, which helped in getting
         cooperation, especially from the police department. The
         Family Violence Collaborative handles all of the
         administrative responsibilities which are absorbed by
         their operating budget. They expect to review
         approximately 11 cases a year.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Oregon</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>
            <strong>Multnomah County Fatality Review Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Chiquita Rollins
         <br />

         Domestic Violence Coordinator
         <br />

         Department of Community and Family Services
         <br />

         421 S.W. 6th, Suite 700
         <br />

         Portland 
         <br />

         OR 97204
         <br />

         503-248-3691 ext. 27806</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Pennsylvania</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>
            <strong>Philadelphia Women's Death Review Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Dawn Berney 
         <br />

         Project Director
         <br />

         Philadelphia Health Management Corporation
         <br />

         260 South Broad Street 
         <br />

         Philadelphia
         <br />

         PA 19102-5085
         <br />

         215-985-2500</p>

         <p>Another important contact in Philadelphia is Mimi Rose,
         J.D.</p>

         <p>The Philadelphia Women's Death Review Team is a
         multiagency, multidisciplinary group convened as a
         public-private collaboration. Its aims are to reduce the
         number of domestic violence deaths by examining the role
         of violence in the lives of Philadelphia women killed by
         an intimate partner and the effects of the killing on
         their children. Without any funding or legislation the
         Philadelphia Department of Public Health with support from
         the District Attorney's Office is conducting reviews. This
         multidisciplinary team goes down to medical examiners'
         offices to review all homicides, suicides, unintentional
         injury, undetermined, inadequate certificates, peculiar
         circumstances (asthma, AIDS), all deaths of women from 15
         to 60 years of age, not just domestic violence cases.
         <footnote>This is not to suggest that the deaths of women
         aged over 60 are not due to domestic violence. In fact,
         the phenomenon of suicide pacts in which elderly men kill
         elderly women and then themselves cannot be assumed to be
         free of a history of domestic violence. Indeed,
         gerontologist Donna Cohen found that homicide-suicides
         involving elderly women in West Central Florida from
         1988-1994 doubled. In all, such homicides accounted for 20
         % of the total homicides of people aged over 55. Cohen
         also notes that while 50% of the women's health had
         deteriorated, two-thirds had expressed "no desire to die."
         Evidence that women killed in so-called mercy killings or
         suicide pacts had previously expressed "no desire to die"
         may suggest they were battered prior to their demise
         (Cited in Charles Ewing, 1997, 
         <em>Fatal Families</em>

         . Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 143).</footnote>

         These deaths could either be directly related to domestic
         violence or indirectly related due to women's inability to
         access health care. Three thousand women die in
         Philadelphia every year and the team expects to look at
         400 to 500 deaths. A central objective of the team is to
         be able to identify any domestic violence directed at
         decedents in the 12 months prior to the fatality. The
         meetings are quarterly.</p>

         <p>
            <strong>Existing Reviews</strong>
         </p>

         <p>
            <strong>The Deliberations of the Philadelphia
            Team</strong>
         </p>

         <p>The Philadelphia Team
         <footnote>At time of writing the Philadelphia Team is in
         the process of producing preliminary systematic data on
         the deaths of women. Contact Dawn Berney for details,
         215-985-2500.</footnote>

         makes the following important observations about the
         deaths of women:</p>

         <ol>
            <li>It is difficult to locate information on many of
            the female decedents, especially psycho-social data.
            Many of these women led invisible lives and their
            deaths often went unnoticed. Many of the women who die
            prematurely are not known to any community/legal
            systems.</li>

            <li>Perpetrators of domestic homicide are often known
            within their communities and not only in their role as
            offenders. Some are known to mental health providers.
            The team asks whether it is not possible to flag or
            track such offenders who need but refuse psychiatric
            help.</li>

            <li>Gun merchants do not always refuse to sell firearms
            to individuals with Protection from Abuse Orders
            against them. Additionally, judges do not always order
            perpetrators in domestic violence situations to
            relinquish previously acquired weapons. The team raises
            a number of questions about the use of the judiciary to
            remove or manage access to weaponry.</li>

            <li>Women who die from HIV/AIDS are often connected to
            lifestyles involving drug use and prostitution. It is
            well documented that prostitutes suffer inordinate
            amounts of abuse at the hands of men. Indeed there is a
            clear correlation between women enduring lives as
            prostitutes and women's poverty and interpersonal
            brutalization. There is also a growing literature
            pointing to the vulnerability of battered women to HIV
            infections.
            <footnote>See Websdale, N. &amp;Johnson, B. 1997.
            "Battered Women's Vulnerability to HIV Infection," 
            <em>Justice Professional</em>

            , Vol. 10, #4.</footnote>
            </li>
         </ol>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Tennessee</title>

         <p>According to Tennessee's pending legislation they will
         have a state panel attached to the Department of Health.
         Some of the duties of the state panel will include:
         reviewing reports from local domestic violence lethality
         and fatality review panels; making recommendations for any
         changes to laws, rules, and policies that would promote
         the safety and well-being of families and children of
         domestic violence; undertaking annual statistical studies
         of the incidence and cause of domestic violence
         fatalities; providing training and written materials to
         the local panels; developing protocols for the collection
         of data; providing technical assistance to local panels;
         and periodically assessing the operations of domestic
         violence lethality and fatality prevention efforts.</p>

         <p>They are to establish a minimum of one local panel in
         each judicial district. The local panels are to: review
         all deaths related to domestic violence; collect and
         submit data to the state panel; submit recommendations and
         advocate for system improvements and resources where gaps
         and deficiencies may exist; and participate in training
         provided by the state panel.
         <footnote>I am grateful to Cindy Kraemer, of WATCH
         (Minnesota) for this information regarding developments in
         Tennessee.</footnote>
         </p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Washington</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>
            <strong>Domestic Violence Fatality Review
            Project</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Margaret Hobart 
         <br />

         Project Manager
         <br />

         DSHS Children's Administration
         <br />

         P.O. Box 45710
         <br />

         Olympia
         <br />

         WA 98504-5710
         <br />

         Office: 360-902-7976</p>

         <p>Under a Violence Against Women Act grant to encourage
         arrest, the Washington State Domestic Violence Fatality
         Review Project has begun to document the decision-making
         process regarding the form and purpose of fatality review,
         and has established procedures and protocols to guide it.
         As of October 1, 1998, the project has overseen the review
         of four domestic violence fatalities.
         <footnote>Coversation between the authors and Margaret
         Hobart (July 16, 1998). The pilot projects in Washington
         State have begun in Spokane County, Pierce County, and
         Chelan/Douglas/Okanogan Counties.</footnote>

         The team has created many materials including an overview,
         educational tools, surveys and forms. As of August, 1998
         four fatality review teams were operating in five counties
         in Washington State. These teams are coordinated through
         Margaret Hobart's office.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>West Virginia</title>

         <p>The Supreme Court of Appeals voted unanimously to
         establish fatality review teams in December, 1994. The
         role of the fatality review teams is to examine court
         cases where a death has occurred in order to identify any
         patterns or trends that may be present, to examine court
         procedures to determine whether proper steps were taken,
         to review applicable statutes and rules to see whether
         amendments are needed, and to assess whether other
         involved agencies followed required processes and whether
         there was a coordinated effort among agencies to address
         the issues in the case.</p>

         <p>The West Virginia program does not focus on domestic
         violence deaths only, although they do acknowledge most of
         the cases reviewed are domestic violence related. In 1997
         they reviewed four cases involving five deaths. One was a
         murder-suicide. The administrative director of the program
         reviews cases to determine if they meet their criteria.
         Then the case is shown to the Chief Justice of the State
         Supreme Court, if they concur the case is referred to one
         of their three Fatality Review Teams. A case is never
         reviewed by the team from the community in which the death
         occurred. The team will examine the case, produce
         findings, and develop recommendations. This information is
         given to the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court who
         may make recommendations to the Supreme Court. This
         document is not public; however, a synopsis of all the
         fatality review team reports is produced each calendar
         year.
         <footnote>I am grateful to Cindy Kraemer, of WATCH
         (Minnesota) for this information regarding developments in
         West Virginia.</footnote>
         </p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Wyoming</title>

         <p>
            <strong>Team Activity</strong>
         </p>

         <p>Rick Robb
         <br />

         Department of Social Services
         <br />

         Hathaway Building #322
         <br />

         Cheyenne
         <br />

         WY 82002
         <br />

         307-777-7150</p>

         <p>Area social service agencies review domestic fatalities
         as those deaths are reported. There is no multiagency
         committee. Teams are just starting to review adult
         cases.</p>
      </subsection>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Fatality Review Team Philosophies</title>

      <p>Domestic violence fatality review committees have learned
      much from death reviews in the field of medicine. The medical
      review model is based on the internal reviews of deaths that
      occur in hospital settings. Personnel involved with patients
      who die in questionable circumstances present information to
      the team. The team gathers the information together and
      reaches a conclusion about the reasons for the fatality.
      Teams adopting the medical review model should be aware of
      one of the earlier problems in this process, namely,
      "catching rascals, rather than on improving hospital wide
      performance" (Rosen and Susman, 1983). Child fatality review
      teams initially emerged with a punitive ethos.
      <footnote>Stone, 1995:13.</footnote>

      In particular, some teams sought to identify breakdowns in
      the system of service delivery. Later teams focused less on
      individual accountability and more on system-wide service
      coordination. However, as the Colorado Committee points out,
      if cases are handled improperly, or if a crime is committed,
      agencies with the greatest involvement and clearest
      responsibility are asked to put things right. In especially
      egregious situations, matters can be submitted to a grand
      jury (see Stone, 1995: pp. 15-17 and especially note 59).</p>

      <p>Domestic violence fatality reviews that have gotten off
      the ground in a small number of states have tried to adhere
      to this no-blame and shame ethos. Examples where this
      philosophy is explicitly written into the operational
      protocols include the reviews in Hawaii conducted out of
      Judge Michael Town's office and the Project Safeguard reviews
      through the City of Denver. For example, the mission
      statement of Project Safeguard includes, "It is recognized
      that perpetrators of domestic violence are ultimately
      responsible for the death of victims. Thus, the goal of this
      committee is 
      <em>not to place blame</em>

      but rather to better understand the dynamics of domestic
      violence when death is involved and thereby diminish the
      possibilities of future fatalities."</p>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Death Review Team Purposes and Goals</title>

      <p>From reviewing existing literature, a common purpose for
      the existing teams is to better understand, intervene, and
      prevent domestic homicide.
      <footnote>This wording was used explicitly in initiating the
      domestic mortality review process in Florida under the
      Governor's Task Force on Domestic and Sexual
      Violence.</footnote>
      </p>

      <p>Family Court Judge Michael Town, Hawaii, hopes review
      teams will:</p>

      <ol>
         <li>improve communication among the court and agencies in
         a time of crisis;</li>

         <li>provide accurate information to others including the
         media and elected officials;</li>

         <li>suggest improvements in the multiple systems involved
         in domestic violence cases.
         <footnote>Honorable Michael A. Town, Domestic Violence
         Death Review Teams, National Council of Juvenile and
         Family Court Judges, 
         <em>Family Violence: State of the Art Court Programs,</em>

         89, (1992).</footnote>
         </li>
      </ol>

      <p>
         <strong>Scope of Review</strong>
      </p>

      <p>It is clear from review teams across the country that
      there is considerable variation in terms of which deaths are
      reviewed. As noted, the Philadelphia Project reviews hundreds
      of cases, taking perhaps 30 minutes per review. The idea in
      Philadelphia is to identify as many cases as possible where
      women died as a direct or indirect result of domestic
      violence. Conversely, reviews like the Charan Investigation
      seek to identify system failures through an extremely
      detailed analysis of one case. In many ways the Florida
      fatality review project is intermediate between these two
      ends of the continuum. Although the Florida study has not
      conducted public hearings with respect to the cases reviewed,
      the deaths are scrutinized in great detail using materials
      from multiple agencies. At the same time the Florida study
      identified and then reviewed 328 domestic deaths, a number
      comparable to the Philadelphia undertaking.</p>

      <p>As the Florida teams form and begin their review work
      another recurring theme has been whether to review near
      fatalities. This concern to review near fatalities has also
      cropped up elsewhere. One possibility is the formation of a
      subcommittee or offshoot review body, charged with reviewing
      incidents where women are severely injured but not killed.
      Given the fact that witnesses who survive these near-fatal
      episodes will be severely traumatized the approach to this
      kind of review raises important ethical questions.</p>

      <p>
         <strong>Education and Awareness</strong>
      </p>

      <p>Another commonly stated goal of teams is to educate the
      community in general, and women in particular, about the
      heightened risk of lethal domestic violence. Ideally,
      education may enable victims of domestic violence to make
      more informed choices about their survival strategies and
      service providers to assist them more effectively. As Stone
      points out, "there is a fine line between warning and
      frightening. The women should not be discouraged from leaving
      a dangerous situation; they should be assisted in developing
      a safety plan and protected during its implementation." 
      <footnote>Stone, 1995:11.</footnote>

      However, given that battered women are often extremely
      perceptive about men's use of violence and finely attuned to
      escalations in violence, none of the above should be taken to
      mean the reason battered women are killed is they are poorly
      informed of the risks they face. Clearly, as noted elsewhere,
      batterers are responsible for their violence and the
      extension of multiple services to battered women in
      combination with the incapacitation of batterers is the best
      prevention tool.</p>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Fatality Review Team Membership</title>

      <p>Legislation setting up child fatality review teams is
      varied in its mandates and recommendations regarding team
      membership. As Stone indicates, some states did not legislate
      membership, 
      <footnote>See for example, MO. Rev. Stat. ss 210-192, 194-196
      (1994). Stone, 1995: 19 and note 70.</footnote>

      others required a small number of members,
      <footnote>See for example, GA Code Ann. ss 19-15-1, 3, 4
      (1995). Stone, 1995: 19 and note 71.</footnote>

      and still others spelled out who members should be or where
      they should be drawn from.
      <footnote>See Oka. Stat. Tit. 10 ss 1150. 1-4, mandating the
      team be composed of 21 members. See Stone, 1995: 19 and note
      73. Ten of these members are the: Chief Medical Examiner;
      Director of the Department of Human Services; Director of the
      Office of Child Abuse Prevention; Director of the Oklahoma
      Commission of Children and Youth; Chief Child Abuse Examiner;
      Chief of Maternal and Child Health Services of the State
      Department of Health; Director of the Department of Mental
      Health and Substance Abuse Services; Chairman of the Child
      Protection Committee of the Children's Hospital of Oklahoma;
      State Epidemiologist of the State Department of Health. The
      remaining eleven members are to be appointed by the Director
      of the Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth. The
      legislation specifies the agencies from which these eleven
      remaining members are to be drawn.</footnote>

      The discussions about membership of child fatality review
      teams varied by state. These discussions have informed the
      debate about membership of adult review teams. Usually adult
      fatality review teams are inclusive rather than exclusive,
      often being open to incorporating new members and agencies.
      With regard to adult review teams, Stone recommends including
      a member of the public to guard against members engaging in
      cover-ups. In Nevada, teams must include, without limitation,
      representatives of organizations concerned with law
      enforcement, physical and mental health, or the prevention of
      domestic violence and assistance to victims of domestic
      violence.
      <footnote>N.R.S. 217.475 ss 3.</footnote>

      In Delaware, a Fatal Incident Review Team will be co-chaired
      by two members of the Coordinating Council. In addition to
      the Chairs, the Review Team shall consist of six other core
      members: the Attorney General or his or her designee, the
      Director of the Division of Family Services or his or her
      designee, the chair of the Domestic Violence Task Force or
      his or her designee, the Chief Judge of the Family Court or
      his or her designee, the Chief Magistrate of the Justice of
      the Peace Courts or his or her designee and a law enforcement
      officer to be appointed by the Delaware Chiefs of Police
      Council. The Team can invite other members to serve on an ad
      hoc basis and participate as full members of the team for a
      particular review. Such persons may include, but are not
      limited to, individuals with particular expertise that would
      be helpful to the review panel, representatives from
      organizations or agencies that had contact with or provided
      services to the individual prior to his or her death, that
      individual's abusive partner or family member, or the alleged
      perpetrator of the death.</p>

      <p>Under California Penal Code 11163.3 (d1-11) domestic
      violence death review teams shall be comprised of, but not
      limited to, the following:</p>

      <ol>
         <li>Experts in the field of forensic pathology.</li>

         <li>Medical personnel with expertise in domestic violence
         abuse.</li>

         <li>Coroners and medical examiners.</li>

         <li>Criminologists.</li>

         <li>District attorneys and city attorneys.</li>

         <li>Domestic violence shelter service staff and battered
         women's advocates.</li>

         <li>Law enforcement personnel.</li>

         <li>Representatives of local agencies that are involved
         with domestic violence abuse reporting.</li>

         <li>County health department staff who deal with domestic
         violence victims' health issues.</li>

         <li>Representatives of local child abuse agencies.</li>

         <li>Local professional associations of persons described
         in 1-10.</li>
      </ol>

      <p>The California legislation still allows for local
      discretion around the construction of teams. Since the
      originating agency is not restricted by the legislation, each
      county is free to decide upon the convening agency. Alana
      Bowman recommends that several advocates for battered women
      be included in the makeup of the teams to assure that the
      perspectives of victims are incorporated into social policy.
      Given the importance of appreciating the perspectives of
      underserved populations, it might also be useful to have
      advocates who have experience working with abused minority
      women, the elderly, women from rural communities, and
      disabled women.</p>

      <p>Although membership patterns vary slightly from state to
      state, the core of the teams seems to be drawn from three
      main arenas: public health; criminal justice; and,
      advocacy/social services. I refer readers to the appendices
      for these minor variations by state.</p>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Death Review Team Protocols
      <footnote>See Appendix A for sample interagency
      agreements.</footnote>
      </title>

      <p>In the case of child fatality review teams, participants
      tended to organize locally and engage in face-to-face
      deliberations. Except for Georgia,
      <footnote>As Stone notes, "Georgia's state panel was not part
      of any state agency or the responsibility of any state
      official (1995:16; n. 26).</footnote>

      all states which pioneered child teams put them under the
      auspices of an existing agency or state official. The early
      legislation establishing child death review teams did not
      delineate specific activities, duties, and protocols for
      those teams. Rather, local teams worked out these issues.
      Later legislation benefited from these pioneering activities
      and the work of subsequent teams was more closely specified.
      <footnote>See for example, Cal. Penal Codes ss 11166.7, 8
      (Deering 1995); Minn. Statute s 256.01 (1994); Or Rev. Stat.
      s 418.747 (1994); Georgia Code Ann. ss 19-15-1,3,4 (1995);
      all cited in Stone, 18, note 68.</footnote>
      </p>

      <p>A number of adult domestic violence fatality review teams
      have produced interagency agreements that facilitate the
      sharing of information and otherwise assist with the
      collation, coordination, and synthesis of data from each
      agency.
      <footnote>See Appendix A for a sample document from Washoe
      County, Nevada.</footnote>
      </p>

      <p>Under California Penal Code s 11163.3 (c) a county can
      develop a protocol that may be used as a guideline to assist
      coroners and other persons who perform autopsies on domestic
      violence victims to determine whether domestic violence
      contributed to death or whether domestic violence had
      occurred prior to death, but was not the actual cause of
      death.</p>

      <p>The Washington State Project highlights two models for
      death reviews: the "Investigative Fatality Review" and the
      "Systems Analysis Fatality Review." The "investigative model"
      prioritizes the need to identify domestic violence fatalities
      which have not previously been identified as domestic
      violence related by police, prosecutors, and coroners. Its
      goals include understanding how or why deaths were not
      classified as domestic violence related and working toward
      clearer elucidation of causes of death. In particular, the
      investigative reviews make much of the need to improve
      protocols for coroners and others investigating deaths. If
      this is achieved then the outcome will be not only a more
      accurate count of domestic violence related deaths, but also
      an increase in public awareness of domestic violence as a
      threat to life and well-being. The "systems approach"
      prioritizes the need to identify how interventions were
      ineffective. The goal is to change the policies and
      procedures of involved agencies. Under this model, it is not
      necessary to identify every domestic violence related
      death.</p>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Confidentiality, Liability and Immunity
      <footnote>See Appendix C for sample confidentiality
      documents.</footnote>
      </title>

      <p>This section introduces a complex set of issues that will
      be discussed at great length at the Domestic Violence
      Fatality Reviews: A National Summit, in Key West, October
      1998. The information below is not designed to present
      definitive positions on confidentiality, liability, and
      immunity. Rather it is anticipated that jurisdictions will
      move toward resolving these issues and concerns in their own
      way.
      <footnote>Our observations are greatly extended by
      information provided by Barbara Hart at the Key West
      Summit.</footnote>
      </p>

      <p>Among child fatality review teams, Minnesota was one of
      the first states to address the confidentiality issue. Under
      the Minnesota Statute,
      <footnote>Minnesota Public Welfare and Related Activities,
      Chapter 256 Human Services; Minn. Stat. 256.01, subd. 12
      (1994). Cited by Stone, 1995: 21 n. 34.</footnote>

      the team has access to confidential (non-public) information
      if maltreatment is thought to have contributed to the death.
      This includes private hospital records. This confidential
      information is not subject to subpoena or discovery. Neither
      can the deliberations at the Minnesota team meetings be
      disclosed, unless disclosure furthers the process of
      reviewing the death.</p>

      <p>Regarding adult domestic violence fatality review, a small
      number of states have addressed issues regarding
      confidentiality, liability, and immunity. In Nevada,
      information can be shared among team members regarding the
      decedent or any person who was in contact with the victim and
      any other information deemed by the team to be pertinent to
      the review. This information is to remain confidential.
      <footnote>N.R.S. 217.475. ss 4.</footnote>

      In addition, each member of the team is immune from civil or
      criminal liability for an activity related to the review of
      the death.
      <footnote>N.R.S. 217.475 ss 8. Subsection 9 states that the
      "results of the review....are not admissable in any civil
      action or proceeding."</footnote>

      Those related to the decedent within the third degree of
      consanguinity may receive a report of the domestic fatality
      from the team.</p>

      <p>In Delaware, the review process, and any records created
      by it, shall be exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of
      Information Act in Chapter 100 of Title 29. All records and
      documents contributing to the formulation of reviews are
      deemed confidential. Such records and documents are not
      subject to subpoena or discovery. Team members will not be
      required to make any statements regarding review
      deliberations.
      <footnote>Delaware Statute Title 13 s 2105 (h).</footnote>

      Likewise members and their agents will be immune from claims
      and not be subject to any suits, liability, damages or any
      other recourse, civil or criminal, arising from any act,
      proceeding, decision or determination undertaken or performed
      or recommendation made, provided such persons acted in good
      faith and without malice in carrying out their
      responsibilities; good faith and lack of malice are presumed
      and the burden of proving otherwise falls upon the
      complainant.
      <footnote>Delaware Statute Title 13 s 2105 (i).</footnote>
      </p>

      <p>In Maine, persons disclosing or providing information or
      records upon the request of the panel are not criminally or
      civilly liable for disclosing or providing information or
      records in compliance with this paragraph. The proceedings
      and records of the panel are confidential and are not subject
      to subpoena, discovery or introduction into evidence in a
      civil or criminal action. The commission shall disclose
      conclusions of the review panel upon request, but may not
      disclose information, records or data that are otherwise
      classified as confidential.</p>

      <p>Other teams have required team members to sign statements
      saying they will not disclose confidential information. Under
      this arrangement case-identifying information with agency
      identifiers can only be removed from team meetings by the
      agency contributing the information.
      <footnote>To overcome the confidentiality issue across state
      lines may require passing federal legislation.</footnote>
      </p>

      <p>Immunity laws may be required to insulate team members
      from personal liability stemming from their participation in
      death reviews. States may want to pass laws to protect team
      members. However, the consensus seems to be that the risk of
      personal liability is minimal.
      <footnote>See Ronald F. Wright and Jack C. Smith, "State
      Level Expert Review Committees --- Are They Protected?" 1990.
      U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health
      Reports 105: 13-23. Cited by Stone, 1995, note 125. However,
      concerns about liability have assumed center-stage in our
      work in Florida. Team members have consistently expressed
      feeling vulnerable to subpoena in lawsuits if they share or a
      party to the sharing of sensitive information.</footnote>
      </p>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Conducting the Reveiw: Some Practical
      Considerations</title>

      <p>Alana Bowman has identified a number of possible steps
      involved in creating review teams. I paraphrase these
      below:</p>

      <ol type="a">
         <li>Decide upon an agency to house the project, send out
         notices, gather information, and generate reports.</li>

         <li>Identify key agencies and their possible
         representatives and alternates.</li>

         <li>Require everyone involved to sign confidentiality
         agreements, both individually and on behalf of their
         agencies.</li>

         <li>Define goals, purposes, etc. of team.</li>

         <li>Develop procedures and protocols for what the team
         will review.</li>

         <li>Select cases to review.</li>

         <li>Have team members conduct reviews of their own agency
         involvement in a case and contribute this information when
         team review convenes. The team can then synthesize
         respective contributions into an overall review.</li>

         <li>Summarize review.</li>

         <li>Decide upon dissemination of review findings.</li>

         <li>Develop aggregate data from many reviews and decide
         upon public dissemination and formatting.</li>
      </ol>

      <p>Team members will likely review the deaths in their
      respective agencies and bring those findings to the death
      review team. Protocols need to be established regarding the
      timing of the review, producing reports, disseminating
      information, etc.. Most existing teams examine domestic
      violence-related deaths in which there are/were romantic
      links between the parties (e.g. Santa Clara County,
      Washington State). It seems that teams have paid less
      attention to phenomena such as the killings between men
      stemming from competition over women. Another key issue is
      whether to review open or closed cases. Research in Florida
      reveals that reviewing cases pending prosecution is
      problematic because the state is unwilling or unable to share
      information that might compromise a conviction.
      <footnote>See Websdale, 1999.</footnote>

      Most known teams find closed cases ideal to review. Alana
      Bowman suggests that for teams starting their review work it
      is best to review homicide-suicides in which the perpetrator
      is clearly identified and there is no prosecution
      pending.</p>

      <p>Existing teams have varying powers regarding the
      acquisition of information. In Florida, teams are discussing
      the feasibility of bringing in witnesses to improve
      understanding of domestic deaths. Other states have formally
      empowered teams in this area. For example, the Delaware
      review team has the power and authority to administer oaths
      and to compel the attendance of witnesses whose testimony is
      related to the death under review. It can also compel the
      production of records related to the death by filing a
      praecipe
      <footnote>A praecipe is an original writ drawn up in the
      alternative.</footnote>

      for a subpoena, through the office of the Attorney General,
      with the Prothonotary
      <footnote>A prothonotary is an officer who officiates as
      principal clerk of courts in states such as
      Pennsylvania.</footnote>

      of any county.
      <footnote>Delaware Statute Title 13 s 2105 (d).</footnote>
      </p>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Changing Policies</title>

      <p>
         <strong>Monitoring Change</strong>
      </p>

      <p>Policy changes have developed as a result of team
      activity. The San Francisco Task Force investigating the
      Charan case suggested that an independent task force be
      established to monitor the implementation of the Charan
      investigation recommendations (see Stone, p.6). Under the
      medical model, mortality reviews are themselves reviewed.
      First, causes of death are scrutinized. Second, the review
      process is assessed by a central body under the broad
      umbrella of "Quality Assurance" (see Stone, 1995: 13-14 and
      note 52). This review of the reviews can occur on an annual
      basis.</p>

      <p>Delaware review teams must issue annual reports to the
      Domestic Violence Coordinating Council summarizing in
      aggregate fashion all findings and recommendations made over
      the preceding year. The summaries must note any systemic
      changes introduced as a result of review work.
      <footnote>Delaware Statute Title 13 s 2105 (g).</footnote>

      The commission shall disclose conclusions of the review panel
      upon request, but may not disclose information, records or
      data that are otherwise classified as confidential.</p>

      <p>The Maine Commission shall submit a report on the panel's
      activities, conclusions, and recommendations to the joint
      standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction
      over judiciary matters by January 1, 1999, and annually
      thereafter.</p>

      <p>
         <strong>Typical recommendations for change
         include:</strong>
      </p>

      <ul>
         <li>Disseminating information to victims of domestic
         violence so that they can make more informed choices
         regarding risk of lethal violence, leaving violent men,
         etc..</li>

         <li>Educating the public through agencies such as schools
         and the media. For example, the Santa Clara County report
         recommends all school districts develop a curriculum which
         addresses domestic violence.
         <footnote>Santa Clara County Death Review Committee Final
         Report, October 1993-September 1997. p. 15.</footnote>
         </li>

         <li>Producing user-friendly screening mechanisms for
         advocates, the courts, law enforcement, social service
         providers, attorneys, child protection workers,
         medical/public health personnel, etc..</li>

         <li>Creating a greater awareness of the links between
         workplace violence and domestic violence. The Santa Clara
         County team notes that seven of its 51 deaths occurred in
         the workplace.
         <footnote>Santa Clara County Death Review Committee Final
         Report, October 1993-September 1997. p. 5.</footnote>
         </li>
      </ul>

      <p>
         <strong>Recommendations from the Florida Mortality Review
         Report</strong>
      </p>

      <ol>
         <li>That systematic data on domestic fatalities be
         collected from multiple sources in order to better
         identify, statistically weigh, and as a consequence,
         prioritize the correlates of domestic fatalities. These
         correlates may then be used across agencies for awareness
         and sensitivity training and also as crucial frames of
         reference for intervening in those domestic violence
         episodes that present the threat of lethality. This will
         never be a foolproof science. However, a system of red
         flags based on systematic data may provide a simple and
         user-friendly means of assessing danger.</li>

         <li>That the reporting of domestic fatalities to Florida
         Department of Law Enforcement should contain the names of
         the victims in addition to the demographic and impersonal
         minutiae currently available. Additionally, the report
         recommends that reporting agencies code their domestic
         fatalities more carefully, remaining cognizant of the
         statutory definition of domestic violence.</li>

         <li>That police agencies who provide a wealth of important
         and useful information on domestic fatalities go several
         steps further and investigate whether or not red flags or
         warning signs existed prior to fatalities. It is crucial
         to be able to see clearly from a domestic violence report
         the history of prior violence, police involvement,
         injunctions, prior criminal histories, any obsessively
         possessive behavior, mental illness, separation pending in
         the relationship, etc.. At some point there must be some
         kind of screening mechanism or instrument that identifies
         high risk cases before fatalities occur. Once this
         identification has occurred then plans need to be made for
         unusual and highly proactive police/judicial/social
         services interventions.</li>

         <li>That improved access be given to data on child
         fatalities.</li>

         <li>That much more multiagency coordination and
         cooperation needs to take place to protect women better.
         Twenty-two women were killed in domestic fatalities in the
         state of Florida in 1994 while in possession of an
         injunction. Clearly, issuing injunctions without providing
         other important supports and protection for battered women
         is not enough. Much work remains to be done to intervene
         in pre-lethal situations to prevent further
         escalation.</li>

         <li>That agencies within jurisdictions work together to
         review domestic (adult and child) fatalities. However,
         this review should be more than a social post-mortem.
         Rather the review should set in motion those strategies
         that interagency teams can use to prevent fatalities. The
         report recommends transcending the rhetoric of blame and
         shame, and bringing agencies to the table. This does not
         mean that agencies should not be held accountable for
         their negligence or malfeasance. Rather the report
         strongly recommends the carefully planned and gradual
         establishment of fatality review teams in selected
         jurisdictions in Florida.</li>
      </ol>

      <p>
         <strong>Recommendations from the Kentucky Attorney
         General's Report, 1993</strong>
      </p>

      <p>The recommendations promoted the establishment of
      county-level domestic violence councils. These interagency
      councils should develop, coordinate, and strengthen local
      criminal justice and community service responses to domestic
      violence. In particular with regard to the potential for
      lethal violence, these interagency councils should work to
      better protect women who decide to leave violent
      relationships.</p>

      <p>
         <strong>Other Recommendations</strong>
      </p>

      <p>A number of child fatality review teams have identified
      the need to provide grief counseling for the surviving family
      members of the decedent. This seems particularly pressing in
      the case of children whose parents are killed in domestic
      violence homicides, or who survive attempted domestic
      homicides themselves. As Jerry Adler notes, children should
      be encouraged to grieve, express their feelings of fear,
      loss, and anger. Particularly vulnerable according to some
      experts are children aged 9-13 who are moving toward
      independence and who may be less likely to share their
      emotions publicly.
      <footnote>See "How kids mourn", by Jerry Alder, 
      <em>Newsweek</em>

      , September 22, 1997, p. 58, 60-61.</footnote>

      Children who witness parental homicides are emotionally
      traumatized, stigmatized, and deeply scarred by such a
      terrifying incident. According to Sondra Burman and Paula
      Allen-Meares, these children exhibit debilitating symptoms
      comparable to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
      <footnote>See "Neglected victims of murder: Children's
      witness to parental homicide." Social Work, January 1994, 39,
      1: 28-34. See also "Guidelines for intervention with
      survivors of fatal/severe family violence," from Michael
      Durfee, 4/7/97, ICAN Grief and Mourning Group. Contact
      Michael Durfee, DHS, 241 N. Figueroa, L.A. 90012, Tel #
      213-240-8146, fax # 213-893-0919, e-mail michaeld55@aol.com.
      Another good contact person for working with decedent's
      children is Dr. Tasha Boychuk, Arizona State University,
      College of Nursing, who currently runs a group for children
      who have lost parents due to domestic homicide.</footnote>

      These authors describe the behavioral and expressive
      therapeutic treatment strategies used to assist two child
      victims.
      <footnote>The Philadelphia Team has identified similar issues
      regarding grieving and the post-homicide process.</footnote>
      </p>

      <p>The Courts and Communities: Confronting Violence in the
      Family Conference Highlights Document, San Francisco (1993),
      noted the importance of awareness of lethality issues in the
      disposition of domestic cases. The 
      <em>Highlights Document</em>

      raises important questions about children's safety and makes
      the basic point that "children are safer when moms are
      safer." Regarding issues of safety in the courtroom the
      report identifies red flags for lethal violence (prior use of
      deadly weapon; separation/estrangement; escalating domestic
      violence; public violence; threats to kill; stalking;
      obsessive jealousy; alcohol or drug abuse; sexual abuse;
      violence toward children; suicide attempts; hostage-taking).
      Specifically the report notes "because a domestic homicide is
      often preceded by numerous contacts with the justice system,
      developing better information systems and communications
      among courts, law enforcement and prosecution is an important
      way to reduce the risk of lethal violence." 
      <footnote>Report p. 30</footnote>

      There are also brief but useful notes on pretrial release
      issues, courtroom security, accelerated dockets/special
      dockets, and case coordination.</p>

      <p>
         <strong>New York Commission</strong>
      </p>

      <p>The Report of the New York Commission recommends that:</p>

      <ul>
         <li>coordinated safety plans be developed by victims in
         conjunction with multiple involved agencies. The plans
         must take into account the victim's special needs
         including any issues of health, language, culture, or
         sexual orientation.</li>

         <li>medical practitioners be required to report to local
         police any serious physical injury stemming from the
         assaultive behavior of another. Three members of the
         Commission dissented on this point arguing that victims of
         domestic violence are better served by a combination of
         domestic violence counseling, safety planning, and
         referral at a hospital, than by mandatory reporting by the
         hospital or doctor.
         <footnote>For a discussion of the role of the medical
         profession in domestic violence see Report p.
         25-37.</footnote>
         </li>

         <li>existing requirements that hospitals and diagnostic
         treatment facilities document and offer referrals to
         victims of domestic violence to all medical practitioners
         be extended. Records of confirmed or suspected domestic
         violence currently required to be noted in a patient's
         chart medical staff be reported on an anonymous basis to
         the New York State Department of Health to provide data
         for research and policy development.</li>

         <li>the New York Criminal Procedure Law and Family Court
         Act be amended to expand the definition of family or
         household to include cohabiting couples, same-sex couples,
         and dating couples.</li>

         <li>sole or joint custody of a child not to be granted to
         perpetrators of domestic violence. If visitation is
         granted then it should be supervised (no recommendations
         are made as to the nature of that supervision or any
         indication of security arrangements or training in
         domestic violence issues for supervisory staff).
         <footnote>The Philadelphia Team is also raising important
         policy questions about the issues surrounding child
         visitation and lethal domestic violence. See summary of
         policy notes, November 1997- April 1998, p.
         3-4.</footnote>
         </li>

         <li>the New York Penal Code be amended to provide that
         commission of domestic violence is sufficient grounds for
         a charge and conviction for Endangering the Welfare of a
         child.</li>

         <li>child protection and adult advocacy services be
         coordinated.</li>

         <li>New York Criminal Procedure Law be amended to provide
         that prosecutors can appeal bail determinations and
         lenient sentences; and that the criteria for bail
         determinations be expanded to include: the issuance of
         prior orders of protection against the defendant; the
         violation of any court order by the defendant; the
         defendant's history, if any, of prior domestic violence or
         threats of violence; and other circumstances that would
         show a propensity to harm the victim or others.</li>

         <li>New York Criminal Procedure Law be amended to permit
         the introduction of a witness's prior testimony as direct
         evidence, if it is inconsistent with the witness's
         testimony at trial and if the declarant is subject to
         cross-examination; and to broaden the exceptions to the
         hearsay rule in New York for present sense impressions and
         excited utterances.</li>

         <li>police departments be allowed to either confiscate or
         accept the surrender of any handguns or long guns if the
         owner is arrested, the subject of an order of protection,
         if the incident involves the use or threatened use of
         force, or if the officer reasonably believes that the
         presence of the weapon at the scene creates imminent risk
         of violence or serious physical injury.</li>

         <li>employers be responsible for developing strategies to
         enhance the safety of domestic violence victims in the
         workplace. See for example the policy adopted by Merrill
         Lynch to protect its employees who are victimized by
         domestic violence.
         <footnote>Report p. 69 and note 81. See also the response
         of the Polaroid Corporation, report p. 69-70.</footnote>
         </li>

         <li>review of availability of shelters, funding levels for
         shelters, and nature of service delivery be
         conducted.</li>

         <li>broad public education programs be instituted in
         schools, faith communities, workplaces, and other
         community organizations.</li>

         <li>a state fatality review board not be established at
         this time. However, local communities to review their own
         fatalities on an as-need-to basis, with the possibility of
         a state review board being established at some later
         date.</li>
      </ul>
   </section>

   <section>
      <title>Appendices</title>

      <subsection>
         <title>Appendix A: Sample Interagency Agreements</title>

         <p>Interagency Agreement: Washoe County, Nevada, Domestic
         Violence Fatality Review Committee.</p>

         <p>Working Assumptions and Group Agreement for Domestic
         Violence Fatality Reviews: Washington State Domestic
         Violence Fatality Review Project.</p>

         <p>Interagency Agreement to establish the
         multidisciplinary child fatality review committee, Denver,
         Colorado.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Appendix B: Sample Legislation</title>

         <p>Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated. Title 16.
         Correctional Institutions; Aid to Victims of Crime.
         Chapter 217. Aid to Certain Victims of Crime. Assistance
         to Victims of Domestic Violence.</p>

         <p>Delaware Code Annotated. Title 13. Domestic Relations.
         Chapter 21. Domestic Violence Coordinating Council.</p>

         <p>West's Annotated California Codes. Penal Code. Part 4.
         Prevention of Crimes and Apprehension of Criminals. Title
         1. Investigation and Control of Crimes and Criminals.
         Chapter 2. Control of Crimes and Criminals. Article 2.
         Reports of Injuries.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Appendix C: Sample Confidentiality
         Documents</title>

         <p>Denver Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee:
         Member Confidentiality Agreement.</p>

         <p>Colorado Department of Health, Division of Health
         Statistics and Vital Records: Agreement Regarding Access
         to and Use of Confidential Vital Records Information.</p>

         <p>Barbara Hart, Legal Committee, Domestic Violence Death
         Review, February 9, 1995, National Council of Juvenile and
         Family Court Judges.</p>

         <p>Washington State. Survey: Confidentiality and Access to
         Information for Washington Domestic Violence Fatality
         Reviews.</p>

         <p>Domestic Violence Death Review Panel: Operating
         Guidelines, Hamilton County, Ohio. Includes section on
         confidentiality.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Appendix D: Sample Summary Instruments for Case
         Review</title>

         <p>Santa Clara County: Criteria for Review.</p>

         <p>Washington State Domestic Violence Fatality Review
         Project: Information forms.</p>

         <p>Washoe County, Domestic Violence Fatality Review:
         Report and Recommendation.</p>

         <p>Hamilton County, Domestic Violence Death Review Panel:
         Data form.</p>
      </subsection>

      <subsection>
         <title>Appendix E: The Research on Domestic Violence
         Fatalities</title>

         <p>
            <em>Intimate Partner Homicide</em>
         </p>

         <p>"Intimate partner homicide" refers to the murder or
         non-negligent manslaughter of a person by her/his intimate
         or former intimate partner.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Trends in Intimate Partner Homicide</em>
         </p>

         <p>According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in
         the United States during the 1976-1996 period, intimate
         partner murder fell by 36 percent from 3,000 (1976) to
         1,800 (1996). The number of U.S. women murdered by
         intimates fell from 1,600 in 1976 to 1,326 in 1996. During
         the same period the number of men murdered by intimates
         decreased from 1,357 (1976) to 516 (1996). This overall
         decline in intimate murder is most marked in the black
         community. The per capita rate of intimate murders among
         blacks was 11 times that among whites in 1976, but only
         four times that among whites in 1996. The sharpest
         decrease occurred among black male victims. The BJS report
         specifically notes:</p>

         <blockquote>In 1976 the per capita rate of intimate murder
         of black men was nearly 19 times higher than that of white
         men. The rate among black females that year was seven
         times higher than the rate among white females. In 1996
         the black male rate was eight times that of white males,
         and the black female rate was three times higher than the
         white female rate.</blockquote>

         <p>
            <em>Age</em>
         </p>

         <p>In general, younger rather than older people are more
         likely to be both the victims and perpetrators of intimate
         homicide. In their analysis of FBI Supplemental Homicide
         Reports from 1976-1985, Mercy and Saltzman identified
         16,595 spousal homicides. They found that the risk of
         spousal homicide increased as the age differential between
         the partners increased. Wilson and Daly note that
         "marriages with exceptionally high age disparities....have
         homicide rates four times as high as that prevailing in
         marriages with the most common gap, namely those in which
         the husband is about 2 years older."</p>

         <p>
            <em>Race and Ethnicity</em>
         </p>

         <p>Block and Christakos note that in 1990 in Chicago the
         intimate partner homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 for
         African-Americans compared with the much lower rates of
         1.1 for Latinos and 0.4 for Whites. Mercy and Saltzman
         found similar differentials by race in their longitudinal
         analysis of spousal homicide. Among blacks, the rate of
         spousal homicide was 8.4 times higher than among
         whites.</p>

         <p>Stark and Flitcraft point out that the seemingly high
         rates of black domestic homicide may have more to do with
         the lowly social class position of blacks than with race.
         Their argument is consistent with a number of other
         studies that argue that socioeconomic status rather than
         racial variations offer a better explanation for
         variations in homicide rates across states and between
         cities. For example, in his study of 222 intraracial
         domestic homicides in Atlanta, Georgia, Centerwall used
         the number of persons per room in residences as a proxy
         for socioeconomic status (SES). He reached the conclusion
         that once SES was controlled, blacks were no more likely
         than whites to commit domestic homicide. In a replication
         study of 349 intraracial homicides in New Orleans,
         Louisiana, Centerwall found similar results.</p>

         <p>Clearly the disproportionately high number of
         African-American intimate partner homicides cannot be
         explained by innate black tendencies toward violence or
         homicidal behavior. If this were the case we would expect
         to find much higher rates of homicide in general, and
         domestic homicide in particular, in predominantly black
         cultures in Africa, and we do not. If differential rates
         of domestic homicide are not attributable solely to
         factors such as SES, then it is likely that the legacy of
         slavery, oppression, and discrimination plays an important
         part.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Sex</em>
         </p>

         <p>In the United States from 1976-1985, inter-spousal
         killings accounted for an estimated 18,417 fatalities.
         Wives comprised 10,529 victims and husbands 7,888. Using
         U.S. homicide data Wilson and Daly note, "for every 100
         men who killed their wives, about 75 wives killed their
         husbands." Wilson and Daly use the term "Sex Ratio of
         Killing" (SROK) to refer to the "homicides perpetrated by
         women per 100 perpetrated by men." These sex ratios are
         unique to the United States. In other societies such as
         Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, and Wales, Scotland,
         and India, the proportion of women killers is much lower.
         However, as Moore and Tennenbaum argue, rather than asking
         why the U.S. SROK is so high compared with other
         countries, a more important and central question to ask
         is, "Why is the SROK so much higher for Blacks?" According
         to Moore and Tennenbaum the high black SROK drives up the
         total SROK for the U.S. They note, "Excluding blacks from
         our analysis reduces the total SROK for the U.S. to 48."
         With a SROK of 48, the (adjusted) U.S. (non-black) SROK
         comes much closer to that in New South Wales (1968-1986;
         31), Canada (1974-1983; 31), and Scotland (1979-1987;
         40).</p>

         <p>The BJS (1998) notes that the SROK for intimate
         partners is declining. Reporting on the period 1976-1996,
         the BJS notes that 20,311 men were intimate murder victims
         (62 percent killed by wives, four percent by ex-wives, and
         34 percent by non-marital partners such as girlfriends).
         In the same period, 31,260 women died at the hands of
         intimates (64 percent killed by husbands, five percent by
         ex-husbands, and 32 percent by non-marital partners such
         as boyfriends). This gives a SROK of 65. While the overall
         rate of intimate partner murder has declined, the SROK has
         declined, meaning that women are increasingly more likely
         than men to be the victims of intimate murder.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Dynamics</em>
         </p>

         <p>Marvin Wolfgang's classic study of 588 homicides in
         Philadelphia revealed that in the case of intimate partner
         homicide, the killing of men differs substantially from
         the killing of women. In the 47 cases in which wives
         killed husbands, Wolfgang concluded that 28 of the 47
         husbands had precipitated their own deaths by striking a
         blow against the woman or showing and using a deadly
         weapon. This compared with only nine percent of wife
         killings that Wolfgang deemed "victim precipitated." In 38
         of the 47 cases where husbands were killed by wives,
         Wolfgang found husbands had "strongly provoked" the
         killing. These findings on the gendered nature of intimate
         partner homicide have been replicated in numerous other
         studies.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Killing The Competition</em>
         </p>

         <p>As intimate relationships change, new partners can
         arrive on the scene. Sometimes women's new male partners
         compete with women's ex-lovers. At times these
         competitions end in lethal violence. As such, these
         so-called "love triangle" killings between competitors for
         the same person, can be seen as derivative of the conflict
         between sexual intimates, and particularly the tension
         surrounding women leaving one partner and developing a
         love interest elsewhere. In their classic and often-cited
         study entitled 
         <em>Homicide</em>

         , Wilson and Daly remark that "Sexual jealousy and rivalry
         have been prominent in virtually every study of homicide
         motives."</p>

         <p>
            <em>Family Homicide</em>
         </p>

         <p>"Family homicide" refers to the willful killing of
         someone by a victim's relative by blood or marriage.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Parricide</em>
         </p>

         <p>Parricide, the killing of parents by their children, is
         a form of family homicide that has received scant
         attention in the extant literature. Kathleen Heide
         identifies three types of individuals who kill their
         parents: severely abused children, severely mentally ill
         children, and dangerously antisocial children. Among these
         three groups the "severely abused child" is most
         frequently encountered among the ranks of those who commit
         parricide. According to Mones, more than 90 percent of
         youths who commit parricide have been abused by their
         parents. Severely abused children who kill their parent(s)
         typically endure one or more forms of physical, sexual,
         and emotional abuse, or they witness some combination of
         these abusive episodes within their families. Much less
         often individuals who kill parent(s) are suffering from
         serious mental illness to the point that they qualify as
         psychotic. Heide describes these people as follows:
         "Psychotic individuals have lost contact with reality.
         Their personalities are typically severely disorganized,
         their perceptions are distorted, and their communications
         are often disjointed. Their behavior may be inappropriate
         to the setting and characterized by repetitive,
         purposeless actions....They may experience
         hallucinations....and bizarre delusions." Finally, Heide
         notes the dangerously antisocial child, nowadays referred
         to as someone with a conduct disorder or antisocial
         personality disorder who does not suffer from delusions
         and hallucinations. Among the ranks of these offenders we
         may see those who kill their parents for personal
         gain.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Fratricide and Sororicide</em>
         </p>

         <p>Ewing notes that sibling killings are about as common
         as parricides. Most are committed by males and over 80
         percent of the victims and perpetrators are adults. These
         forms of family homicide, like intimate partner homicides,
         are often preceded by a long history of domestic rivalry
         and unresolved conflicts. As in other forms of domestic
         homicide, the precipitating event is prefaced by a
         long-standing antagonism that is often exacerbated prior
         to the killing by a change in one of the sibling's
         circumstances. Ewing puts it as follows:</p>

         <p>In many adult sibling homicides, perpetrators are
         dealing not only with unresolved childhood conflicts and
         the stress of living with a brother or sister but often
         trying to cope with a variety of other problems in living.
         Indeed, in many cases, these other stressors - such as
         unemployment, divorce, substance abuse, and illness- have
         forced the perpetrator into a situation of being
         financially dependent on parents and/or the sibling who is
         eventually killed.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Multiple Domestic Killings</em>
         </p>

         <p>Multiple domestic homicides involve various
         permutations and combinations of victims including
         intimate partners, competitors or love-triangle
         antagonists, family members including children, and the
         perpetrator him or herself. As such, these killings
         combine many of the features of intimate partner, love
         triangle, and family killings. However, multiple domestic
         killings also have a number of unique characteristics that
         warrant mention.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Homicide-Suicide</em>
         </p>

         <p>Homicide-suicide involves the killing of one or more
         persons followed soon after by the suicide of the
         perpetrator. It is usually men who kill their wives,
         ex-wives, lovers, and ex-lovers, sometimes in combination
         with their children. In their study of homicide-suicide in
         North Carolina from 1972-1977, Palmer and Humphrey found
         few women among perpetrators of homicide-suicide. Out of
         90 homicide-suicides during this period only six percent
         were committed by females. Wolfgang's Philadelphia study
         found that out of 24 cases of homicide-suicide, only eight
         percent were committed by women. Woman battering is a
         significant antecedent to homicide-suicide. For example,
         Marzuk, Tardiff and Hirsch note:</p>

         <p>While some murder-suicides occur shortly after the
         onset of "malignant jealousy," more often there has been a
         chronically chaotic relationship fraught with jealous
         suspicions, verbal abuse, and sub-lethal violence.</p>

         <p>Sherry Currens et al (1991) examined the phenomenon of
         homicide-suicide occurring in Kentucky from 1985-1990.
         These researchers defined a homicide-suicide cluster as
         one or more homicides with the subsequent suicide of the
         perpetrator. The 67 homicide-suicide clusters accounted
         for six percent of all homicides during this period.
         Perhaps most significantly, 65 of the 67 perpetrators were
         male, and 58 of the 80 homicide victims were women. In 64
         homicide-suicide clusters, the homicide victim and
         perpetrator were known to each other. Again, very
         significantly, in 47 of the 67 clusters the perpetrator
         was either a current husband (37 clusters), boyfriend
         (seven clusters) or a former husband (three clusters) of
         the homicide victim. Currens et al found that many
         homicide-suicides are preceded by a history of woman
         abuse. They note that "the typical perpetrator is a man
         married or living with a woman in a relationship marked by
         physical abuse."</p>

         <p>Steven Stack reports that the odds of a suicide
         following a homicide are significantly increased if the
         victim of the homicide is or was in an intimate
         relationship with the perpetrator. Analyzing 16,245
         homicides (including 265 homicide-suicides) in Chicago and
         controlling for sociodemographic variables, Stack
         concludes that if the victim of the homicide is the
         ex-spouse/lover of the perpetrator, then the risk of
         suicide is 12.68 times higher than it is for non-intimate
         homicides. The risk of suicide declines as the socially
         prescribed intensity of the bond between the perpetrator
         and victim diminishes. Suicide risk is also higher if the
         perpetrator kills their own child (10.28), their current
         spouse (8.0), their current girlfriend or boyfriend
         (6.11), or a friend (1.88), than a stranger. Drawing upon
         the work of qualitative researchers, Stack identifies the
         relationship between perpetrators and victims as
         "frustrated, chaotic," and "marked by jealousy and
         ambivalence." Also present is a feeling on the part of the
         perpetrator: that one cannot live with the other person
         but cannot live without them either. A separation or
         threatened separation arouses anger and depression at the
         same time. The act of homicide overcomes a sense of
         helplessness. However, the associated depression and guilt
         over the loss of one's love object result in suicide.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Suicide Pacts and Mercy Killing</em>
         </p>

         <p>A number of authors allude to the role of the serious
         and usually chronic illness of the victim, perpetrator, or
         both, as a motive in suicide pacts or mercy killings.
         Usually the elderly male partner, who may be suffering
         ill-health himself, kills the ailing female with a gun and
         then commits suicide. The motive for the homicide
         allegedly is to end her suffering. His own subsequent
         suicide is attributed to his loss of his love object, the
         prospect of impending helplessness, and more rarely,
         guilt. However, suicide pacts and so called mercy killings
         are not as simple as they might first appear. In Florida
         Byron Johnson and I have found it necessary to explore the
         possibility that some of these killings in fact constitute
         murder and may have been preceded by abuse.</p>

         <p>
            <em>Familicide</em>
         </p>

         <p>Charles Ewing observes that it is almost always men who
         kill their entire families. He suggests that these men do
         not just kill as the culmination of increasing attempts to
         control their female partners, and the frustration that
         arises when those attempts fail. Rather, Ewing notes, "the
         typical family killer is more likely to have been
         concerned about losing control over more than just his
         wife and/or family. His concern is more often with losing
         control over all aspects of his life, or at least those
         that he most values. He is a man who, in his own eyes, is,
         or is about to become, a failure."</p>

         <p>
            <em>Inter-related Antecedents To Adult Intimate Partner
            Homicide/Red Flags</em>
         </p>

         <p>The research literature on domestic homicide identifies
         a number of inter-related antecedents to lethal violence.
         These antecedents include: escalating domestic violence
         and the increasing entrapment of battered women; the
         separation/estrangement/divorce of the parties; obsessive
         possessiveness or morbid jealousy on the part of the
         abusive partner; threats to commit intimate partner
         homicide, suicide, or both; prior agency involvement,
         particularly with the police; the issuance of protection
         or restraining orders against one of the parties, nearly
         always the male; depression on the part of the abuser;
         and, a prior criminal history of violent behavior on the
         part of the abusive man.</p>

         <p>Dobash, Dobash, Wilson and Daly nicely summarize these
         antecedents:</p>

         <p>Men often kill wives after lengthy periods of prolonged
         physical violence accompanied by other forms of abuse and
         coercion; the roles in such cases are seldom if ever
         reversed. Men perpetrate familicidal massacres, killing
         spouse and children together; women do not. Men commonly
         hunt down and kill wives who have left them; women hardly
         ever behave similarly. Men kill wives as part of planned
         murder-suicides; analogous acts by women are almost
         unheard of. Men kill in response to revelations of wifely
         infidelity; women almost never respond similarly, though
         their mates are more often adulterous. The evidence is
         overwhelming that a large proportion of the spouse-killing
         perpetrated by wives, but almost none of those perpetrated
         by husbands, are acts of self-defense.</p>
      </subsection>
   </section>

   <references>
      <title>References</title>

      <ref name="no name">Alder, Jerry. 1997. "How kids mourn," 
      <em>Newsweek</em>

      , September 22, 1997, p. 58, 60-61.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Allen, N. H. 1983. "Homicide followed by
      suicide: Los Angeles, 1970-1979." 
      <em>Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior</em>

      13 3: 155-165.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Barnard, George W., Hernan Vera, Maria I.
      Vera, and Gustave Newman. 1982. "Till Death do us Part: A
      Study of Spouse Murder." 
      <em>Bulletin of the AAPL</em>

      10 (4): 271-280.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Berman, Alan L. 1979. "Dyadic Death:
      Murder-Suicide." 
      <em>Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior</em>

      9 (1): 15-22.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Block, Carolyn R., and Antigone
      Christakos. 1995. "Intimate Partner Homicide in Chicago over
      29 Years." 
      <em>Crime &amp; Delinquency</em>

      41 (October): 496-526.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Bowman, Alana. 1997. "Establishing
      Domestic Violence Review Teams." 
      <em>Domestic Violence Report</em>

      , August/September 1997, pp. 83, 93-94.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Browne, A. 1987. 
      <em>When Battered Women Kill</em>

      . New York: Free Press.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
      Department of Justice. 1998. "Violence by Intimates: Analysis
      of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends,
      and Girlfriends." NCJ-167237 March 1998.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Burman, Sondra and Paula Allen-Meares.
      "Neglected victims of murder: Children's witness to parental
      homicide." 
      <em>Social Work</em>

      , January 1994, 39, 1: 28-34.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Buteau, Jacques, Alain Lesage, and
      Margaret Kiely. 1993. "Homicide followed by suicide: A Quebec
      case series, 1988-1990." 
      <em>Canadian Journal of Psychiatry</em>

      . 38:552-556.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Centerwall, Brandon S. 1984. "Race,
      socioeconomic status and domestic homicide, Atlanta,
      1971-1972." 
      <em>American Journal of Public Health, 74</em>

      : 813-815.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Centerwall, Brandon S. 1995. "Race,
      Socioeconomic Status, and Domestic Homicide." 
      <em>JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association</em>

      ), 273 (22) (June 14): 1755-1758.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Corder, B.F., B.C. Ball, T.M. Haizlip, R.
      Rollins, and R. Beaumont. 1976. "Adolescent Parricide: A
      Comparison With Other Adolescent Murder." 
      <em>American Journal of Psychiatry</em>

      133: 957-961. et al. 1976.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Currens, S. et al. 1991. "Homicide
      followed by suicide-Kentucky, 1985-1990." 
      <em>Journal of the American Medical Association,</em>

      266 15: 2062-2063.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Davis, John A. 1976. "Blacks, crime and
      American culture." 
      <em>Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
      Science</em>

      , 423 (January 1976), 89-98.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Dawson, J. M. and Langan, P. A. (1994).
      "Murder in Families." U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
      Justice Statistics Special Report. U.S. Government Printing
      Office. Washington DC.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Dorpat, T. L. 1966. "Suicide in
      Murderers." 
      <em>Psychiatry Digest</em>

      27 (June): 51-54.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Easteal, Patricia. 1994.
      "Homicides-Suicides between Adult Sexual Intimates: An
      Australian Study." 
      <em>Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior</em>

      , 24(2) (summer): 140-161.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Ewing, Charles Patrick. 1997. 
      <em>Fatal Families: The Dynamics of Intrafamilial
      Homicide</em>

      . Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Hart, Barbara. (1988). "Beyond the duty
      to warn: A therapist's duty to protect battered women and
      children." In Yllo, K. &amp; Bograd, M. (Eds.) 
      <em>Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse</em>

      (pp. 234-248). Newbury Park, California. Sage.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Hart, Barbara. 1995. "Domestic violence
      death review," February 9, 1995, National Council of Juvenile
      and Family Court Judges, Legal Committee.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Heide, Kathleen. 1995. 
      <em>Why kids kill parents: child abuse and adolescent
      homicide.</em>

      Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Johnson, Byron, De Li, Websdale, Neil.
      1998. Florida Mortality Review Project. Florida Governor's
      Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Klein, A.R. 1993. Spousal/Partner
      Assault: 
      <em>A Protocol for the Sentencing and Supervision of
      Offenders.</em>

      Swampscott, MA: Production Specialties.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Lester, David. 1992. 
      <em>Why people kill themselves.</em>

      Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Loftin, Colin, and Robert H. Hill. 1974.
      "Regional Subculture and Homicide: An Examination of the
      Gastil-Hackney Thesis." 
      <em>American Sociological Review</em>

      29: 714-724.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Marzuk, Peter M., Kenneth Tardiff, and
      Charles S. Hirsch. 1992. "The Epidemiology of
      Murder-Suicide." 
      <em>Jama,</em>

      267(23) (June 17): 3179-3183.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Mercy, James A., and Linda E. Saltzman.
      1989. "Fatal Violence among Spouses in the United States,
      1976-85." 
      <em>American Journal of Public Health</em>

      , 79(5): 595-599.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Mones, P. 1991. 
      <em>When a child kills: Abused children who kill their
      parents.</em>

      Pocket Books. New York.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Moore, Angela M. and Abraham N.
      Tennenbaum. 1994. "Why is there anexceptional sex ratio of
      spousal homicides in the United States? A replication and
      extension of Wilson and Daly." 
      <em>Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice</em>

      10, 3: 164-183.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Muscat, Joshua E. 1988. "Characteristics
      of Childhood Homicide in Ohio, 1974-84." 
      <em>American Journal of Public Health</em>

      , 78(7) (July): 822-824.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">National Council of Juvenile and Family
      Court Judges. 1993. 
      <em>Courts and Communities: Confronting Violence in the
      Family. Conference Highlights.</em>

      San Francisco, CA. March 25-28.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Palermo, George. 1994. "Murder-suicide:
      An extended suicide." 
      <em>International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
      Criminology</em>

      31: 205-216.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Palmer, Stuart, and John A. Humphrey.
      1980. "Offender-Victim Relationships in Criminal Homicide
      Followed by Offender's Suicide, North Carolina, 1972-1977." 
      <em>Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior</em>

      10 (2) (summer): 106-118.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Rosen, Harry M. and Susman, Elliot J.
      1983. "Making Peer Review More Productive." 
      <em>JAMA</em>

      , 250: 2305-2306</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Rosenbaum, Milton. 1990. "The Role of
      Depression in Couples Involved in Murder-Suicide and
      Homicide." 
      <em>American Journal of Psychiatry</em>

      147(8): 1036-1039.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Russell, D.H. 1984. "A Study of Juvenile
      Murderers of Family Members." 
      <em>International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
      Criminology</em>

      28:177-192.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Selkin, James. 1976. "Rescue Fantasies in
      Homicide-Suicide." 
      <em>Suicide and LifeThreatening Behavior</em>

      6 (Summer): 79-85.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Stack, Steven. 1997. "Homicide Followed
      by Suicide: An Analysis of Chicago Data." 
      <em>Criminology</em>

      35 (3): 435-453.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Stark, Evan, and Anne Flitcraft. 1996. 
      <em>Women at Risk: Domestic Violence and Women's Health</em>

      . Sage. London.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Stone, Maria. 1995. "Domestic Violence
      Fatality Reviews." Boalt Law School.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Town, M. 1992. "Domestic Violence Death
      Review Teams." National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
      Judges, 
      <em>Family Violence: State of the Art Court Programs,</em>

      89, (1992).</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Wang, Karin. 1996. "Battered Asian
      American Women: Community Responses from the Battered Women's
      Movement and the Asian American Community." 
      <em>Asian Law Journal</em>

      3:151-185.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Websdale, N. 1999 (in press). 
      <em>Understanding Domestic Homicide,</em>

      Northeastern University Press. Boston, MA.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Websdale, N &amp; Johnson, B. 1997.
      "Battered Women's Vulnerability to HIV Infection," 
      <em>Justice Professional</em>

      , vol. 10, #4.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">West, D.J. 1967. 
      <em>Murder followed by suicide</em>

      . Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Williams, K.R. 1984. "Economic Sources of
      Homicide: Re-estimating the Effects of Poverty and
      Inequality." 
      <em>American Sociological Review</em>

      49: 283-289.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Wilson, Margo I. and Martin Daly. 1988. 
      <em>Homicide.</em>

      Aldine de Gruyter. New York.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Wilson, Margo I. and Martin Daly. 1992.
      "Who Kills Whom in Spouse Killings? On the Exceptional Sex
      Ratio of Spousal Homicides in the United States." 
      <em>Criminology</em>

      30(2):189-215.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. 
      <em>Patterns of Criminal Homicide.</em>

      Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958a. "An Analysis
      of Homicide-Suicide." 
      <em>Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psycho pathology and
      Quarterly Review of Psychiatry and Neurology</em>

      19(3): 208-218.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Wright, Ronald F. and Jack C. Smith.
      1990. "State Level Expert Review Committees--Are They
      Protected?" U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: 
      <em>Public Health Reports</em>

      105: 13-23.</ref>

      <ref name="no name">Zimring, Franklin E. and Hawkins, Gordon.
      1997. 
      <em>Crime is not the problem: Lethal violence in
      America.</em>

      Oxford University Press. New York.</ref>
   </references>

   <footnotes />

   <footer name="vawdocfooter" />
</document>


