[Update 2010 11 26: Name removed upon request *] wrote:
I once saw statistics cited as saying that most of spousal murders were committed by
wives. (55% or so...)
Would anyone know about figures and sources for this affirmation ?
The stats I found show that in large urban counties 222 wives were suspected for 318
suspected husbands in 1988, then follows the usual path of lesser rates of inculpation,
guilt verdicts, sentencing and parole or probation. (BJS 95)
Large Urban counties is fine but What about overall figure for United States or Canada?
* The name of the individual has been removed, although
that does not
imply that Fathers for Life has a legal obligation to do so.
The reason for complying with the request is that there is little
purpose to be served by displaying the man's name if he is worried more
about having his reputation damaged than about the loss of his rights
and the reputations of all men. He wrote:
....Even tough I have sympathy for the father's rights movement,
I wish not be publicly associated in such a strong manner,
especially so that I have a career of some public exposure and this
could cause prejudice....
The following is from the FBI web site at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm
---The murder count for 1995 totaled 21,597, a total 7 percent
lower than 1994 and 13 percent lower than 1991. The murder rate was 8 per 100,000
---Based on supplemental data received, 77 percent of murder
victims in 1995 were males, and 88 percent were persons 18 years or older. By race, 49
percent of victims were black and 48 percent were white.
---Data based on a total of 22,434 murder offenders showed that
91 percent of the assailants were males, and 85 percent were 18 years of age or older.
Fifty-three percent of the offenders were black and 45 percent were white.
---Fifty-five percent of murder victims were slain by strangers
or persons unknown. Among all female murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by
husbands or boyfriends, while 3 percent of the male victims were slain by wives or
---By circumstance, 28 percent of the murders resulted from
arguments and 18 percent from felonious activities such as robbery, arson, etc.
---In approximately 7 out of every 10 murders reported during
1995, firearms were the weapons used.
The trouble with statistics presented as percent figures is that these figures by
themselves appear to tell you something, but most likely tell you only what the presenter
wants you to know. In the case of the information in the fourth paragraph, anyone
with just an average understanding of statistics (and 25% of adults in North America
are functionally illiterate, which leads you to believe that there are very few people who
are truly qualified, able and willing to look critically at such statements) may get the
impression that men are nine times more murderous toward their spouses than wives are
toward theirs: 26% of female murder victims were slain by their husbands or boyfriend, and
3% of male victims were slain by their wives or girlfriends. Divide 3 into 26 and
presto, you have your factor of nine, right? Wrong!
It may well be that the FBI wants the average person to believe that, but that is not
what the ratio of spousal murders is. I think that BoJ statistics stated that the
ratio is actually 41
men killed by wives and girlfriends for every 59 women killed by husbands and
There is another problem with these statistics. A trick was used that is
frequently employed by people who lie with statistics. It very effectively misleads
anyone into misinterpreting the information presented. That is to quote a percent
figure for one aspect of the data and then to leave the reader to jump to the conclusion
that the corresponding group in the data set presents the remainder of the universe that
the data set represents. What does "77 percent of murder victims in 1995 were
males" make you think? It leads you to think that the other 23% of the victims
were women, right? That would be the wrong way of looking at things. There are
other victims who are neither men nor women, that is, children. In this case, the
information presented by the FBI leaves out the fact that, according to Child Protective
Services, in 1995 there were 1,215 victims of child murder. The real number of these
victims is most likely more than twice that, but they too are without doubt victims that
must be included in considering the problem of murder in the US.
It is at best misleading to quote percentages in the manner that the FBI did. If
percentages are used to identify any fraction of an overall population, then it is
necessary to calculate the percentage of each fraction by the common denominator of a
percentage of the overall population, if one wants to use percentages. Considering that
the people at the FBI who published the figure in the manner they did know more about
statistics than the average person, it must be assumed that the misleading percentage
figures were shown deliberately.
Here are tables that reflect absolute numbers and
percentages relating to items mentioned by the FBI in the above list. (The figures that I
calculated from the information provided by
the FBI are shown on gray background in the table.)
Murders in the US in 1995
| Children (Source:
|Men murdered by girlfriends/wives
|| 3% of 16,630
|Women murdered by boyfriends/husbands
|| 26% of 3,752
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1995
Discussion of data
Murders in the US in 1996
(Child Fatality Fact
|Men murdered by girlfriends/wives
|| 3% of 15,848
|Women murdered by boyfriends/husband
|| 30% of 2,711
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1996
Discussion of data
If you now calculate the percentages for the sexes in spousal murders as a percentage
of all spousal murders, you'll come up with the following:
According to the FBI, in 1995 spousal murder victims were comprised of 33.8% men and
That is a far cry from a factor of nine, but it still leaves open to question why the
figures quoted by the FBI are so vastly different from those quoted by the Bureau of
Justice. The latter stated that the
ratio is 41:59.
Whatever the figures may be, it is very important to remember that women are far more
likely to be cleared of murder charges than men are. In such cases, even though the
men are quite dead and were according to common sense murdered, their deaths are not
included in the murder statistics. That points out one of the major flaws in the
compilations of such statistics. These statistics are based on convictions.
That would be perfectly all right in a justice system which treats all people equal and
just, a system that is perfect even in detecting and prosecuting all crimes, but that
isn't the system we have.
There is another flaw in these murder statistics. It involves another category of
victims. Many child murders go undetected, unreported and unprosecuted, or are, in
the best interest of women and social services, not prosecuted as murders. These
will not make it into the reported total of murders either. The lives of children,
especially when they were taken by women, are not considered of much value in our society.
I would appreciate it if anyone who has figures for Canada, like those shown on the FBI
web site, would pass them on to me. It would even be better, considering that this
is an issue of international concern, if all such information could be compiled in a
One last question remains. Why did the FBI not quote the figures of 34% and 66%
of all spousal murders (even if those may be still wrong)? You don't need to answer
that. It is very likely because they don't look horrible enough. 3% of male
victims versus 26% of female victims leaves far more of an impact, doesn't it?
There is one thing that should bother all of us. The number of spousal murders is
quite insignificant in relation to other causes of death, especially in relation to other
causes of violent death. Look at the disparity between all men and all women
murdered. Why are we barking up the tree of spousal murder? Is it because the
radical feminists have made that tree their home? All of the gender-war hype is driven by no more than a difference
of about 338 victims between the sexes, victims that resulted from spousal murder.
That proves it to me: 338 women who were murdered in spousal violence are worth a heck of
a lot more than 12,878 male murder victims. How does that come about?
How can the whole Western World be so intent on persecuting all men for the aberrations of
477 men who murdered their spouses? How could we ever let this happen?
If we wanted to establish victimhood for one sex, then it should be men who deserve
that status. They never wanted it, so the feminists claimed it on behalf of all
women and are making the best of it, to the detriment of men, half of humanity. But
if we want to be honest and quit with all of this number manipulation to make points for
one sex or the other, we'll find that in spousal murder, just as in all other types of
interspousal violence, women will most likely be as violent as men are. If we must
count murder cases, then let's count the dead, and not the convictions -- at least not for
as long as women as victims are more valuable than any number of men who were murdered.
All the best,
PS. (2001 12 14) See also The troubles with DV
Some messages that were follow-ups to the discussion
Subject: Re: [MENTION] spousal murder -- an additional
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 19:43:26 GMT
From: email@example.com (Dave Nevers)
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:45:55 -0700, in firstname.lastname@example.org, Walter Schneider
As to the UCR, I didn't mean to imply that it is a good source of information -- it
isn't. It does reflect the crimes reported to police and those that police know
about. Theoretically, it should include all data on convictions that occurred in the
year that the report covers. However, the FBI cautions that the numbers produced by
them and by the Bureau of Justice Statistics aren't necessarily compatible because of the
different methodologies applied in the collection of the two sets of data. That's
just a short paragraph in a report that is close to 500 pages long! Nowhere do they
appear to explain what the differences in methodologies are. That leaves only one
possible conclusion. Their figures are most likely as wrong as anyone else's.
Another good example (albeit a personal one) of how DV statistics get distorted, is
when a batterer plea bargains, or when the police refuse to let the victim file a report.
My ex was arrested under the IL Domestic Violence Act, and charged with domestic
battery. She plea-bargained down to simple battery. In other words, the
husband-wife relationship in the crime was statistically 'lost.' It was cataloged as
if it were a street crime between strangers.
On two other occasions, one where I had second-degree burns, the other where I had a
broken nose, the police simply refused to allow me to file charges. They based their
decision on the statements made by my [then] wife.
One other, early incident went unreported. I was simply too ashamed to report
what really happened. I told them I fell backwards into the storm door, and that
caused the glass to shatter and cut me (in truth, she kicked me in the groin).
I'm not saying my case was in any way representative of any larger society, but of my
four ER visits, not ONE appeared statistically as DV.