The trouble with spousal murder statistics — Plus, how to use the site-specific search feature at the website of Fathers for Life.
It can …be safely said that accuracy in reporting of murder statistics is considered to be less important than the accuracy required in tracking the expenditure of a single cent.
Today someone asked about the discrepancies between the reported numbers of spousal murders of men as identified by police forces and the numbers of convictions for spousal murders of men.
In my response I explained what the reasons for the discrepancies are and also how the site-specific search feature at the website of Fathers for Life (affiliated with this blog) can be used to quickly and conveniently find answers to such questions and other questions.
Thanks for writing and for your kind words.
You posed a good question, the answer to which is to some extent already available at the website of Fathers for Life. I will get to that a little later, right after I first comment on something you wrote. You stated,
So, if it’s just court verdicts Stats Can is counting, there’s probably alot men dying at the hands of their spouses that those yearly statistics show.
I will make the assumption that the sentence contains a couple of typos and should have read, “So, if it’s just court verdicts Stats Can is counting, there’s probably a lot more men dying at the hands of their spouses than those yearly statistics show.” Whether or not you had intended to write that, it is what you should have asked. Therefore I will respond based on that premise. However, the answer to the question will go to considerable length. The problem is far more complex than a first glance indicates.
The problem with murder statistics that you identified exists, but no one knows how large it is. The inaccuracy of statistics pertaining to spousal murders of men is far more serious than the preamble to your question implies.
You seem to assume, as many other people who think about it do, that there are bound to be considerable differences in the number of spousal murders by women of their spouses as reported by the police and as reported based on convictions. That assumption is correct, but it is by far not the only reason for the differences. That difference alone exists because of judicial bias, but police reports on spousal murders are affected by bias as well. Therefore one cannot simply subtract one number from the other and state that the difference identifies how wrong the statistics on murder convictions are.
To begin with, one would have to account for murders reported and for murderers exonerated at their initial trial, which trial could then also be the last in a given case, but not necessarily so. Then one would have to account for wrongful murder convictions on account of which prison sentences where or are being served, In Canada we have had quite a few of them over the years. I have never been able to determine whether the exoneration of a murderer, say in 1999, resulted in a corresponding downward correction of the murder convictions for the year in which the conviction occurred, say in 1979, and in a corresponding downward correction of the number of reported murders in the year in which the actual murder occurred, say in 1976. The same sort of problem exists with an exoneration during the initial murder trial, although then the time span between the year of the reported murder and the year of the murder trial may be no more than two, three or four years.
I am not aware of anyone watching for that cause of inaccuracies in murder statistics and making the appropriate corrections, although when it comes to accounting for money, we know that auditing procedures generally take into account every single cent. It can therefore be safely said that accuracy in reporting of murder statistics is considered to be less important than the accuracy required in tracking the expenditure of a single cent.
Still, the causes of statistical errors in the reporting of murder statistic I discussed so far only scratch the surface of the problem. For instance, we must also look at the problem of murders that do not come to trial and of murders that the police do not report. You may argue that it is quite inconceivable that murders are not reported because things are quite simple in that respect, namely that any death that is not from natural or accidental causes is necessarily caused by murder. However, police bias and bias by coroners come into the picture, and no one can tell accurately whether some or how many natural or accidental deaths were not murders.
With respect to women murdering their husbands or boyfriends, two important things come into the picture. One is that poison is the favorite murder weapon used by women and that the use of poison to murder a spouse routinely goes unsuspected.
Moreover, women are more likely than men to hire or entice someone else to commit the deed, someone who is routinely convicted of the resulting murder, while the instigating women go free or at worst get away with a conditional or nominal sentence. What is truly a spousal murder then naturally is counted into the general murder statistics and not as a spousal murder. No one has to my knowledge established accurate figures on how often that happens. We only know that it happens and that it happens often.
All that we know for certain is that murders of women are far more likely to be resolved as to who the perpetrators were than is the case with men who got murdered, and that the number of unsolved murders of men (roughly one third of all murders of men) whose murderers were never brought to trial is about equal to the number of women who have been murdered. It is up to anyone’s imagination what proportion of unsolved murders of men were spousal murders.
There is much more to all of this. Consider for instance what “FBI Statistics on Spousal Murder” states about some of the issues involved. Here is a summary of some of those and some other issues pertaining to respective biases for and against men and women with respect to murders:
- More so than at any time during human history, on account of thirty years of active and escalating propaganda against men, women are today far less likely to be considered to be capable of committing any kind of violence, all evidence to the contray. That is reflected in statistics relating to ratios of incarceration of the sexes. (see Domestic Violence Against Men, 1999)
- When individuals of either sex commit crimes of equal severity, women are far less likely to be suspected, less likely to be indicted, and less likely to be convicted. If they are convicted, in the U.S. they receive on average a sentence that is one-third the duration of what men will receive. In Canada, they are likely to go free on parole. However, even if they are made to serve a sentence, they are more likely to be released early on parole. In all of Canada there are currently no more than 150 women in federal prisons. The total capacity of our prison system is no more than 250 women! It stretches the imagination to pretend that these large differences are due to the inherent innocence of women, yet that is precisely what feminist gender-activists would like us to believe and accept as the truth…. (see Domestic Violence Against Men, 1999)
Fred, you must understand that it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to answer a question like yours. It has been a few years since anyone asked such a question here, for which reason I thought that I comment in detail. After all, others may have some questions like that, and I hope that, like you, they will benefit from what I will tell you now, and for which reason I posted all of this to Dads & Things.
I strongly suspect that you did not use the site-specific search tool accessible in the upper right-hand corner at virtually all of the web pages at Fathers for Life. You will greatly benefit by doing so. Our website is very large, in excess of a thousand web pages (exactly 2,868 as of 2018 03 29). To work your way through that to gain an impression on a specific issue is like memorizing an encyclopedia before you form an opinion on a given subject. No one uses an encyclopedia that way, and neither should anyone use the website of Fathers for Life like that.
All of that is explained in more precise detail at our home page. Did you read our home page? It seems not, although it is fairly short. Yet, if you had done so, you might not even have felt the need to write and would have been able to come up with a clear answer to your question without going through the trouble of doing it in writing.
Check what the search engine can do for you on the topic of “spousal murder“. That might lead you to narrow your search to “spousal murder statistics“. That in turn may eventually lead you to ask whether “women are “less likely to be suspected”“.
Such a train of thoughts and searches may also lead you to something else that should be of great interest with respect to the pro-female and anti-male bias in feminist jurisprudence, serial murder.
Searching in that manner works exactly like how you would use an encyclopedia, which, as our homepage states, is exactly what our website is, except that instead of having to pull down volumes from your bookshelf, turning a lot of pages and looking up references in the same laborious fashion, you have things far easier, and you spend far less time searching for an answer.
If I would have known, when I started our website about 16 years ago, that Wikipedia would come into existence, I would have chosen a different domain name, perhaps manopedia (not good because of some connotations that feminists would surely have brought into play) or familypedia, and you would perhaps have had no problem with figuring out how to use our website in the most efficient way.
I receive between 300 to 500 messages a day (not counting spam). A good portion of those are inquiries like yours. I cannot possibly answer all of them, but you can save yourself the trouble of asking me a question that you can easily find the answer to yourself. Most importantly, you will save me from being swamped with e-mail and you from running the risk of not having your question answered.