In this article it showed relationships between economic standings and family homicides. It described the different types of homicides within a family and the specific motives/reasoning for them. The importance of understanding more about these homicides is it could help future prevention; Diem and Pizarro specifically wanted to know what was causing family homicides because of how rare they were. To find these specific cases they used the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports from 2000-2007.
The first type they touched on was intimate partner homicide (murder of a spouse) although family homicides are rare; this was the most common with 1,692 cases. It was found that one of the motives for IPH is previous abuse or sexual jealousy. Sexual jealousy was a more common motive for men but as for women, the motive was because of previous abuse in the relationship. A big issue with women murdering their spouse was the lack of social capital they had and issues with trusting in law enforcement. In places with economic disadvantages they usually have lower level of support for women, causing them to think the only way out of the abuse is murder.
The second most common was filicide (person who kills son or …show more content…
But as Diem and Pizarro found in their study economic deprivation isn’t as strong of a factor in family homicides as once was thought. It is thought that it mostly has an indirect relation by effecting somebodies mental health rather than being effected because of low income or limited access to economic opportunities. Social structure however has a very large effect on these incidents, it explains about 46% of family homicides on the areas that were studied. These finding show that Diem and Pizarro’s hypothesis was only partially supported but the study was still able to break down some of the effects within family