This dissertation looks at the legal response to intimate homicide. This form of intimate partner violence is usually the last act in a continuum of violence against women in, or after, relationships. When women kill their intimate partners they kill out of fear of death or bodily injury. When men kill their partners they kill to control or to punish. The legal response to these crimes does not reflect the true nature of either group. For women, this means that they are subject to male aggression that is not legally sanctioned, and from which they cannot effectively protect themselves. Necessity for reform is clear, but many suggestions for change focus on only one gender, and while this may help, it will always be limited. The author argues that to adequately protect women, discourses and assumptions that render women powerless and men powerful, must be directly challenged. Legal systems must understand that domestic violence and intimate homicide are related and are completely different to male paradigms of violence. Part I discusses violence and intimate homicide, and how the gap between reality and legal response has occurred and been maintained. Part II outlines the gap between the reality of intimate homicide and the legal construction of the crimes, and highlights the common reasons for the differences. Part III considers suggestions for new defences, reformulations of current defences and new definitions of crimes, for both male and female offenders, and highlights their dependency on each other.--AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT

nz