‘Till death do us part : judging the men who kill their intimate partners

This paper examines the construction of masculinity in judge’s sentencing remarks across seventeen cases of male perpetrated intimate femicide sentenced between March 2005 and May 2007 in the Victorian Supreme Court. Using a narrative analysis of sentencing transcripts it investigates how ideal understandings of hegemonic masculinity are used in judicial decision making to condemn or sympathise with male offenders of intimate femicide. The findings illustrate the profound influence that traditional understandings of masculinity and fatherhood still have on current sentencing practises despite the current climate of homicide law reform both within Australia and overseas. Whilst this paper did not directly assess the impact of recent homicide law reforms, specifically provocation, it is explicitly concerned with the continued influence of gender norms and bias at the sentencing stage of the legal process. As such, it provides a preliminary illustration of the key role that judges play in advocating or rejecting change within the criminal justice system, and more broadly legitimising attitudes about male violence against women throughout society. In condoning the use of extreme violence, in any context, judges send a message to society that such behaviour is either generally or specifically acceptable and accommodated within a legal framework.