Intimacy, homicide, and punishment: Examining court outcomes over three decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about changing patterns in official responses to crime over time despite changes in recent decades in how the law treats various types of violent crime. Drawing from data documenting court outcomes in homicides in one Canadian urban jurisdiction from 1974 to 2002, this study examines the role played by intimacy in law during several distinct social and public policy periods in one country. The central hypothesis is that the accused in intimate partner homicides will be subject to ‘less law’ than those in non-intimate partner homicides. However, given social and policy transformations, it is further hypothesized that evidence of differential treatment should be less in recent years and, specifically, post-Bill C-41 which was meant to change the way intimacy was considered at sentencing. In examining multiple decision points, results show that while differential treatment of intimate partner and non-intimate homicide was evident at some stages, it was not always in the direction hypothesized. Further, while patterns in treatment did change over time with ‘more law’ evident in cases involving intimate partners in more recent years, plea resolutions remained more common for intimate partner killers than for those who killed victims with whom they shared more distant relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".