Homicide–parasuicide: a qualitative comparison with homicide and parasuicide

Abstract

Previous studies on homicides followed by the suicide of the perpetrator have mostly regarded this phenomenon as a variation of homicidal or as a variation of suicidal behaviour resulting from external or internal blame attribution. The aim of this study is to qualitatively assess to what extent homicide–suicide can be understood as a dichotomous phenomenon, using homicides followed by a failed suicide by the perpetrator (homicide–parasuicides). Particular attention is paid to both internal and external blame attribution. Three different homicide–parasuicide groups emerged from the data: one being primarily homicidal, one being primarily suicidal and one constituting a separate phenomenon. Blame attribution as well as interpersonal dependency on the victim differentiated homicide–parasuicides from other homicides and other parasuicides. The findings of this study suggest that homicide–parasuicide cannot easily be dichotomized into either a homicide or a suicide category. More insight into the concept of interpersonal dependency may aid the prevention of this phenomenon.

Keywords:

• homicide–suicide
• murder
• domestic violence
• forensic psychiatry and psychology
• forensic setting
• qualitative research

Notes

1. Although homicide–suicide is often referred to as murder–suicide, the latter denotes the legal aspect of homicide, whereas homicide–suicide includes both murder and manslaughter. Therefore, the term ‘homicide–suicide’ will be used rather than the term ‘murder–suicide’.

2. The Pierce Suicide Intent Scale has a maximum value of 25. According to this scale, the risk for suicide was considered low if they scored less than 4; risk was regarded as medium if their score ranged from 4 to 10 and risk was high if the total score was higher than 10.