Self-justification strategies of women convicted of homicide: narrative analysis

• In Event: Characteristics of violent offenders

Abstract

Homicides by women have been understudied compared to those by men, despite evidence that the motives and circumstances differ significantly by gender, highlighting a critical research gap. Recent decades have seen increased interest in this area and emphasized the fact that the choice of data source is a controversial issue. Mainly, there are two options: court sentences, where a homicide is reconstructed by court, and interviews, where a homicide scenario is reconstructed only by the person who killed. Each type of source has its own advantages and limitations. Compared to interviews, court sentences are distinguished by the fact that they contain testimony from different sides of the case. At the same time, the testimony of the person who committed the homicide may be presented in a distorted form there: the judicial process is inherently associated with discursive violence. Ultimately, neither the court sentence nor the interview is a valid source of information. That is why it is beneficial to triangulate the data by combining both data sources. In addition to the typology of homicides committed by women previously built by the author based on 300 court sentences, it was decided to conduct 10 narrative interviews. Moreover, instead of the legal term “motive” for homicide, the term “self-justification” is introduced, which can include both the true motive and some self-defense strategies used in court. It is proposed to compare the narratives constructed by women during interviews with the testimony (distorted narratives) presented in the sentences. During the interview, information will also be obtained about the legal process, the role of the lawyer in arguing in court, pressure from government officials, etc.

Author

• Anna Lulikyan, Higher School of Economics