Kobuk: Sexual rejection does not explain deadly violence

Because it was recently posted here as a standard article and yet there were some opinions that the Crown had written a normal article here. Here’s another post from Kobuk about it.

Unfortunately only on FB, hence the text copied:

With this text, the crown suggests a causality: the woman is dead because she was dissatisfied with the sex and is said to have offended the man with it.

Firstly, this is exclusively a depiction of the alleged perpetrator – and secondly, it is not a useful explanation for femicide.

Because we know from research that femicides often happen because of a deeply rooted possessive mentality – a sudden insult may be the trigger, but not the cause.

(see “Femicides and femicide attempts in relationships. Qualitative study on perception of danger and seeking help in Vienna” or “Femicides in Germany – An empirical-criminological study of the killing of women”)

In its texts, the Crown indirectly attributes complicity to the victim: her “blatant criticism” would have insulted his honor. At the same time, she describes in detail the view of the man and his lawyer: he had “lost his temper”.

In her print edition she also trivialized the crime as a “deadly night of love”.

All of this is problematic.

This type of reporting does not help to understand why the woman was killed.

Instead, it makes intimate details public, ignores the structural causes and conveys the “litigation PR”* of the suspect.

*This is what press work in legal disputes is called.