Scholarlink

<p>Femicide is defined as a murder of women perpetrated because of a failure to recognize the victim’s right to self‑determination, distinguishing gender‑motivated killings from other homicides by motive, context, and injury patterns. This study aims to explore regional forensic features of femicide and compares intimate‑partner femicide (IPF) with non‑intimate partner femicide (NIPF).&#xa0;We performed a retrospective cross‑sectional forensic analysis of femicide cases autopsied at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Belgrade, Serbia (2006–2022). Cases were included when available evidence indicated a gender‑related motive and the perpetrator-victim relationship was documented. Data extracted from autopsy reports, family interviews and police records included sociodemographic variables, perpetrator relationship and gender, motive, crime scene, weapon type, anatomical distribution of fatal and nonfatal injuries, defensive wounds and injury counts. Comparative analyses between IPF and NIPF used appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests.&#xa0;Fifty‑three femicide cases meeting inclusion criteria were identified (mean annual incidence 3.53 cases). Victims were predominantly middle‑aged (41–70 years). Thirty‑seven cases (69.8%) were IPF and 16 (30.2%) were NIPF; all perpetrators were male. Most events occurred in victims’ apartments (71.7%); firearms were the most common weapon (47.2%), followed by sharp and blunt force. Fatal injuries frequently involved the head or multiple anatomical regions. Motives differed by relationship: IPF was chiefly associated with jealousy, quarrels and prior partner abuse, whereas misogynistic motives appeared only in NIPF cases. No significant differences in weapon type, injury distribution or defensive wounds were observed between groups.&#xa0;The forensic profile emphasizes the domestic setting, high prevalence of firearm use, severe head and multi‑regional injuries, and distinct motivational patterns by perpetrator type. Findings support targeted prevention, enhanced risk assessment, firearm access control and rigorous forensic investigation to reduce femicide.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Patterns of femicide: a 17-year comparative forensic analysis of intimate and non-intimate partner cases

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月11日

查看全文
  • Milenko Bogdanović,
  • Veljko Milošević,
  • Tijana Gojković,
  • Tijana Petrović,
  • Bojana Radnić

摘要

Femicide is defined as a murder of women perpetrated because of a failure to recognize the victim’s right to self‑determination, distinguishing gender‑motivated killings from other homicides by motive, context, and injury patterns. This study aims to explore regional forensic features of femicide and compares intimate‑partner femicide (IPF) with non‑intimate partner femicide (NIPF). We performed a retrospective cross‑sectional forensic analysis of femicide cases autopsied at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Belgrade, Serbia (2006–2022). Cases were included when available evidence indicated a gender‑related motive and the perpetrator-victim relationship was documented. Data extracted from autopsy reports, family interviews and police records included sociodemographic variables, perpetrator relationship and gender, motive, crime scene, weapon type, anatomical distribution of fatal and nonfatal injuries, defensive wounds and injury counts. Comparative analyses between IPF and NIPF used appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests. Fifty‑three femicide cases meeting inclusion criteria were identified (mean annual incidence 3.53 cases). Victims were predominantly middle‑aged (41–70 years). Thirty‑seven cases (69.8%) were IPF and 16 (30.2%) were NIPF; all perpetrators were male. Most events occurred in victims’ apartments (71.7%); firearms were the most common weapon (47.2%), followed by sharp and blunt force. Fatal injuries frequently involved the head or multiple anatomical regions. Motives differed by relationship: IPF was chiefly associated with jealousy, quarrels and prior partner abuse, whereas misogynistic motives appeared only in NIPF cases. No significant differences in weapon type, injury distribution or defensive wounds were observed between groups. The forensic profile emphasizes the domestic setting, high prevalence of firearm use, severe head and multi‑regional injuries, and distinct motivational patterns by perpetrator type. Findings support targeted prevention, enhanced risk assessment, firearm access control and rigorous forensic investigation to reduce femicide.