請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62456
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 華筱玲 | |
dc.contributor.author | Wen-Li Fong | en |
dc.contributor.author | 馮文儷 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T16:02:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2013-09-24 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2013-09-24 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-07-04 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
1. 王旭昇 (2005)。台灣地區家庭暴力犯罪因素之研究—以桃園縣為例。未出版 碩士論文,私立天主教輔仁大學,新北市。 2. 王珮玲 (2012)。親密伴侶殺人案件之分析:以男性謀殺女性案件為例。中華 心理衛生學刊,25(2),231-266。 3. 內政部家庭暴力防治網 (2007)。認識家暴與性侵害性騷擾。線上檢索日期: 2013 年 5 月 1 日。網址: http://dspc.moi.gov.tw/ct.asp?xitem 476&ctNode =567&mp=2#01 4. 內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。家庭暴力事件通報統計,2008-2012【資 料檔】。台北市:內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。 5. 內政部警政署 (2011)。100 年性別統計專刊 【資料檔】。台北市:內政部警政 署 6. 行政院衛生署 (2011)。民國 99 年死因統計完整統計表【資料檔】。台北市: 行政院衛生署 7. 法務部法醫研究所 (2008)。法醫鑑定業務統計年報。台北市:法務部法醫研 究所 8. 法務部法醫研究所 (2009)。法醫鑑定業務統計年報。台北市:法務部法醫研 究所 9. 法務部法醫研究所 (2010)。法醫鑑定業務統計年報。台北市:法務部法醫研 究所 10. 法務部法醫研究所 (2011)。法醫鑑定業務統計年報。台北市:法務部法醫研 究所 11. 侯崇文 (1999)。殺人事件中犯罪者與被害人關係研究 (國科會專題研究計畫)。 載於法務部犯罪問題研究中心主編,刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集〈二〉。台北:34 法務部。 12. 馬宗潔、廖美蓮、洪惠芬 (2012)。比較親密伴侶殺人案之性別差異。台大社 工學刊,26,1-40。 13. 游斯雯、白璐、蔡行瀚、賴建丞、黃怡衡與簡戊鑑 (2010)。台灣地區 1986-2007 年他殺死亡長期趨勢分析。中山醫學雜誌,21,47-59。 14. 鄭倩樺、鍾其祥與簡戊鑑 (2012)。利用傷害形態及醫療利用辨示親密伴侶暴 力受虐者。醫務管理期刊,13,32-47。 15. 潘淑滿、呂敏昌、林偉薰與鄭志偉 (民 2012)。親密伴侶暴力問題之研究。台 北:內政部委託研究報告(未出版)。 16. Aldridge, M.L., & Browne, K. D. (2003). Perpetrators of Spousal Homicide : A Review. Trauma Violence Abuse, 4, 265-276. 17. Astrid, I. N., & Berit, S. (2008). Partner violence and health: Results from the first national study on violence against women in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 36, 161–168. 18. Au, K.I., & Beh, S.L. (2011). Injury patterns of sharp instrument homicides in Hong Kong. Forensic Science International, 204, 201-204. 19. Baker, R.B., & Sommers, M.S. (2008). Physical injury from intimate partner violence: measurement Strategies and Challenges. Jognn, 37, 228-233. 20. Benson, M.L., Fox, G.L., DeMaris, A., & Van Wyk, J. (2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 207-235. 21. Berrios, D.C., & Grady, D. (1991). Domestic violence risk factors and outcomes. The Western Journal of Medicine, 155, 133-135. 35 22. Bhandari, M., Dosanjh, S., Tornetta, P., & Matthews, D. (2006). Musculoskeletal manifestations of physical abuse after intimate partner violence. The Journal of trauma injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 61,1473–1479. 23. Biroscak, B.J., Smith, P.K., Roznowski, H., Tucker, J., & Carlson, G. (2006). Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings From One State’s ED Surveillance System. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 32, 12-6. 24. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998). Violence by Intimates, Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vi.pdf 25. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ htus8008.pdf 26. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2012). Intimate Partner Violence, 1993–2010. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf 27. Caetano, R., Schafer, J., & Cunradi, C.B. (2001). Alcohol-related intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Alcohol research and health, 25, 58-65. 28. Campbell, J.C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331-1336. 29. Campbell, J.C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., & Curry, M.A., et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 7, ProQuest pg. 1089. 30. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Intimate Partner Violence Injuries — Oklahoma, 2002. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54, 36 1041-1049. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ Mmwrhtml/mm5441a2.htm 31. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Crime in the United States: Expanded homicide data. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Retrived May 1, 2013 from http://www.2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/ fomicide.html 32. Fischer, J., Kleemann, W.J., & Triiger, H.D. (1994). Types of trauma in cases of homicide. Forensic Science International, 68, 161-7. 33. Frye, V., & Wilt, S. (2001). Femicide and Social Disorganization. Violence Against Women, 7, 335-351. 34. Gantner, A.B., & Taylor, S.P. (1992). Human Physical Aggression as a Function of Alcohol and Threat of Harm. Aggressive behavior, 18, 29-36. 35. Gordon, M. (2000). Definitional issues in violence against women. Violence against women, 6,747-783. 36. Hotaling, G.T., & Sugarman, D.B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101-124. 37. Howard, A., & Michael, C. (1996). Are head, neck and facial injuries markers of domestic violence?The journal of the American dental association, 127, 757-761. 38. Hoyert, D., Kochaneck, M., & Murphy. Death: Final data for 1997 (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47). Hyattsville, MD: National Certer For Health Statistics. 39. Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359, 1423-1429. 40. Le, B.T., Dierks, E.J., Ueeck, B.A., Homer, L.D., & Potter, B.F. (2001). Maxillofacial Injuries Associated With Domestic Violence. Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, 59, 1277-1283. 37 41. Muelleman, R.L., Lenaghan, P.A., & Pakieser. (1996). Battered women: injury locations and types. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 28, 5. 42. Munoz-Rivas, M.J., Grana, J.L., O’Leary, K.D., & Gonzalez, M.P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40:298–304. 43. Ochs, H.A., Neuenschwander, M.C., & Dodson, T.B. (1996). Are head, neck and facial injuries markers of domestic violence? The journal of the American dental association, 127, 757-761. 44. Oneida, A., Travis, A., Hsueh, Y., Aynehchi, B., & Haug, R. (2009) Maxillofacial injuries and violence against women. Arch Facial Plast Surg, 11, 48-52. 45. Petridou, E., Browne, A., Lichter, E., Dedoukou, X., Alexe, D., & Dessypris, N. (2002). What distinguishes unintentional injuries from injuries due to intimate partner violence: a study in Greek ambulatory care settings. Injury Prevention, 8, 197–201. 46. Rogde, S., Petter Hougen, H., & Poulsen, K. (2001) Asphyxial homicide in two Scandinavian capitals. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 22, 128–133. 47. Rosenbaum, M. (1990). The Role of Depression in Couples Involved in Murder-Suicide and Homicide. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1036-1039. 48. Sharps, P.W., Campbell, J., Campbell, D., Gary, F., & Webster, D. (2001). The role of alcohol use in intimate partner femicide. The American Journal on Addictions, 10, 122- 135. 49. Sheridan, D. J. (2001). Treating survivors of intimate partner abuse: Forensic identification and documentation. In J. S. Olshaker, M. C. Jackson, & W. S. Smock (Eds.), Forensic emergency medicine, 203-228. Philadelphia:Lippincott Williams 38 & Wilkins. 50. Sheridan, D.J., & Nash, K.R. (2007). Acute Injury Patterns of Intimate Partner Violence Victims. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8, 281-289. 51. Silverman, R.A., & Mukherjee, S.K. (1987). Intimate Homicide: An Analysis of Violent Social Relationships. Behavioral Sciences & the Lm, 5, 37-47. 52. Stevenson, T.R., Goodall, E.A., & Moore, C.B.T. (2008). A retrospective audit of the extent and nature of domestic violence cases identified over a three year period in the two district command units of the police service of Northern Ireland. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine,15, 430–436. 53. Sutherland, C.A., Bybee, D.I., & Sullivan, C.M. (2002). Beyond Bruises and Broken Bones: The Joint Effects of Stress and Injuries on Battered Women’s Health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 609-636. 54. Thomas, K.A., Dichter, M.E., & Matejkowski, J. (2011). Intimate Versus Nonintimate Partner Murder : A Comparison of Offender and Situational Characteristics. Homicide Studies, 15, 291-211. 55. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey . Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice ( Publication No. NCJ 181867 ). Retrieved June 1, 2007, from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm 56. Trojan, C., & Krull, A.C. (2012). Variations in Wounding by Relationship Intimacy in Homicide Cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2869 -2888. 57. Valdez-Santiago, R., Hijar, M., Martinez, R.R., & Burgos, L.A. (2013). Prevalence and severity of intimate partner violence in women living in eight indigenous regions of Mexico. Social Science & Medicine, 82, 51-57. 58. Vincent, J., Howard, A., & Thomas, B. (1999). Head, neck, and facial injuries as Markers of domestic violence in women. Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, 57, 760-762. 59. Wilbur, L., Higley, M, Hatfield, J., Surprenant, Z., Taliaferro, E., Smith, DJ., et al. (2001). Survey Results of Women Who Have Been Strangled While in an Abusive Relationship. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 21, 297–302. 60. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8, 3-16. Retrieved May 28, 2013 form http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8292563 61. White, H.R., & Chen, P.H.( 2002). Problem Drinking and Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of studies on alcohol, 205-214. 62. World Health Organization. (2005). Multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Summary report of initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 63. World Health Organization. (2012). Intimate partner and sexual violence against women. Retrieved June 28, 2013 form http://www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs239/en/ 64. Wu, V., Huff, H., & Bhandari, M. (2010). Pattern of Physical Injury Associated with Intimate Partner Violence in Women Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11, 71-82. 65. Zachariades, N., Koumoura, F., & Konsolaki-Agouridaki, E. (1990). Facial tauma in women resulting from violence by men. Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, 48, 1250-1253. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62456 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 一、研究背景與目的
親密伴侶暴力是全球性常見的造成傷害甚至死亡的一種暴力行為,美國聯邦 調查局統計,女性他殺致死的案件中,有三分之一其加害人是親密伴侶,而男性的他殺致死案件中,加害人是親密伴侶者佔3%,世界衛生組織報告則指出高達七成的被謀殺婦女是被他們的異性伴侶殺死。親密伴侶暴力致死的傷勢與傷痕型態,可能與其他的他殺案件不同,我國目前只有少數學者研究。我們研究的目的是要比較親密伴侶暴力致死與非親密伴侶暴力致死的傷害型態與解剖發現。 二、研究方法 本研究以台灣地區2001至2010年間法務部法醫研究所相驗及解剖鑑定為他殺之女性案例作為研究範圍,收集其中因親密伴侶暴力致死(實驗組)與非親密伴侶暴力致死(對照組)受害者之基本資料、受傷部位、傷痕型態與解剖發現,作回溯性、描述性的統計與比較。 三、研究結果 共收案114例親密伴侶暴力致死與96例非親密伴侶暴力致死之女性受害者,親密伴侶組的被害者平均年齡為40.0歲,加害者多為男友(53.5%)與丈夫(29.8%);非親密伴侶組的被害者平均年齡為49.6歲,加害者多為家人親戚(38.8%)和朋友、同學和同事佔25.5%。 兩組被害者比較,親密伴侶組較非親密伴侶組年輕,且非親密伴侶組之易受傷性情形較親密伴侶組多(各35.4% 與14%)。加害者方面,在非親密伴侶組中有前科者(35.7%)較親密伴侶組(20.2%)多。此外,親密伴侶之加害者於殺害被害人後,有15%以上之案件有加害人殺人-自殺之行為發生。 親密伴侶組最常見傷害型態為瘀傷(52.6%),最常見傷害部位為頸部(58.8%)和臉部(56.1%);非親密伴侶組最常見傷害型態也為瘀傷(67.7%),最常見傷害部位為臉部(66.7%)和上肢(65.6%);傷害部位在兩組間有顯著差異者為顱部,親密伴侶組(41.2%)較非親密伴侶組(62.5%)少(p=0.002),此外,親密伴侶組中臉部傷(41.2%)比非親密伴侶組中臉部傷(55.2%)少(p=0.043)。傷害型態在兩組間有顯著差異者為瘀傷,親密伴侶組(52.6%)較非親密伴侶組為(67.7%)少(p=0.027)。將傷數量依部位統計,親密伴侶組在胸部的傷痕數(2.6 ± 2.1)較非親密伴侶組胸部的傷痕數(1.8 ± 2.4)多(p=0.006);親密伴侶組下臉部傷痕數(0.9 ± 1.8)較非親密伴侶組(0.41 ± 2.0)多(p=0.005)。此外,骨折在親密伴侶暴力佔31.6%,在非親密伴侶暴力佔36.5%,所佔比例在兩組被害者超過三成,但未達顯著差異。死亡原因在親密伴侶組以銳器傷致死(52.6%)和窒息(包括懸吊、絞勒及悶氣)(27.2%)最為常見,在非親密伴侶組也以銳器傷致死(54.2%)和窒息(包括懸吊、絞勒及悶氣)(19.8%)最為常見。 四、研究結論: 本研究分析了女性親密伴侶組暴力致死與非親密伴侶組暴力致死司法解剖時的傷痕型態與致死原因,兩組皆以瘀傷最常見,最常見有傷部位在親密伴侶暴力組為頸部及臉部,在非親密伴侶暴力組為臉部及上肢。親密伴侶組顱部及中臉部有傷的比率較低,而親密伴侶組胸部及下臉部的傷痕數較多,兩組死亡原因皆以銳器傷致死最多,窒息次之。此研究結果可作為法醫師實務工作參考資料。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background and Objectives:According to the report of World Health Organization, over 70% of female were killed by their heterosexual couples. The pattern of injury of intimate partner violence death may be different from that of other cases of homicide death. The purpose of our research is to compare the injury patterns and autopsy findings between intimate and non-intimate partner femicide.
Methods:The cases of female homicide with autopsy reports of Institute of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice from 2001 to 2010 were analyzed. The victims’ data including demographic information, location of injuries, types of injuries, and cause of death were collected. The data of the intimate partner and the non-intimate partner femicide were compared. Results:There are 114 cases of intimate partner femicides and 96 cases of non-intimate partner femicides recruited. The average age of victims of intimate partner group is 40 year-old and most of the offenders are boyfriend (53.5%), whereas the average age of victims of non-intimate partner group is 49.6 year-old and most of the offenders are family relatives (38.8%). In the intimate partner group, the most common type of injuries is bruise(52.6%), and the most common sites of injuries are the neck(58%) and the face(56.1%). The most frequent injury type in non-intimate partner group is also bruise (67.7%), and the most common sites of injuries are the face (66.7%) and the upper limbs (65.6%)。The rate of cranial trauma of intimate partner group and the non-intimate partner group is 41.2%, and 62.5%, respectively, with significant difference (P=0.02). The rate of middle face injury of intimate partner group (41.2%) is less than that of non-intimate partner group (55.2%) (p = 0.043)。The rate of bruise of intimate partner group (52.6%) is lower than that of non-intimate partner group ( 67.7%) (p = 0.027). The average number of chest injuries of intimate partner group (2.6 ± 2.1) is more than that of the non-intimate partner group (1.8 ± 2.4) (p = 0.006). The average number of lower facial injuries of intimate partner group (0.9 ± 1.8) is more than that of the non-intimate partner group (0.41 ± 2.0) (p=0.005). The most common cause of death in the intimate partner groups is sharp injuries (52.6%), followed by suffocation(27.2%), which is similar to that of the non-intimate partner group with 55.2% of sharp injuries, followed by 19.8% of suffocation. Conclusions:The average numbers of chest and lower facial injuries of intimate partner femicide are more than that of non-intimate partner femicide. This study presents the injury patterns of the intimate partner femicide and the non-intimate partner femicide victims. This data will be helpful for forensic examiners and clinic healthcare providers. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T16:02:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R97452004-1.pdf: 4205021 bytes, checksum: ec96fd113410224803e68cd9f70b0167 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書………………………………………………………i
誌謝………………………………………………………………ii 中文摘要……………………………………………………iii 英文摘要………………………………………………v 目錄…………………………………………………………vii 圖目錄……………………………………………………………ix 表目錄…………………………………………………………x 第一章 研究背景……………………………………………1 第一節 前言……………………………………………1 第二節 文獻回顧………………………………………………3 第三節 研究動機與目的…………………………………9 第二章 研究方法與材料..........................10 第一節 資料來源………………………………………10 第二節 研究流程……………………………………………10 第三章 研究結果………………………………………………12 第一節 個案資料統計…………………………………………12 第四章 討論………………………………………………………24 第一節 研究結果討論……………………………………………24 第二節 研究限制…………………………………31 第五章 結論……………………………………………………32 參考文獻……………………………………………………………33 附錄……………………………………………………………………58 附件1………………………………………………………………58 附件2………………………………………………………………60 附件3………………………………………………………………61 圖目錄 圖1、被害者年齡百分比圖……………………………………………………….…..40 表目錄 表1、被害人基本資料………………………………………………………………...41 表2、被害者易受傷性(Vulnerability)比較…………………………………………...42 表3、加害人基本資料………………………………………………………………...43 表4-1、親密伴侶暴力致死之加害人與被害人關係型態分佈……………………....44 表4-2、非親密伴侶暴力致死之加害人與被害人關係型態分佈……………….…...44 表5、加害者易受傷性(Vulnerability)比較…………………………………………....45 表6、加害者前科種類…………………………………………………………….…..46 表7、案發與檢驗結果統計……………………………………………………….…..47 表8、被害人傷害型態統計……………………………………………………….…..48 表9、被害人傷害型態依傷痕數統計…………………………………………….…..49 表10、被害人傷害部位統計……………………………………………………….....50 表11、被害人傷害部位依傷痕數統計…………………………………………….....51 表12-1、臉部細分傷害部位統計………………………………………………….….52 表12-2、臉部細分傷害部位依傷痕數統計…………………………………………..52 表13、骨折部位分佈表………………………………………………………………..53 表14、被害人死亡原因統計(依ICD)分類…………………………………………..54 表15、依法醫學(解剖醫師)所述死亡原因分類………………………………….….55 表16、被害人死亡原因與酒精反應相關性統計…………………………………....56 表17、致死部位統計…………………………………………………………….…...57 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 台灣地區2001年至2010年女性受親密伴侶暴力致死與非親密伴侶暴力致死傷害形態之比較 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A comparison of the injury patterns between the female intimate partners violence death and non-intimate partners violence death during 2001 to 2010 in Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 沈瓊桃,宋賢儀,張琳 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 親密伴侶殺人,非親密伴侶殺人,親密伴侶暴力,傷害型態,他殺, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Intimate partner femicide,Non- intimate partner femicide,Intimate partner violence,Injury pattern,Homicide, | en |
dc.relation.page | 64 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-07-04 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法醫學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法醫學科所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 4.11 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。