Not so isolated: Rethinking the language of violence
How 'isolated incident' framing obscures patterns and undermines prevention
Turn on the news after a violent death, and you'll almost inevitably hear the same reassuring phrase: "this appears to be an isolated incident". The language is so familiar it's become formulaic. A standard response designed to calm public fears and suggest these tragedies are random, unpredictable deviations. The term 'isolated incident' is frequently used as a way to describe deaths that occur as a result of violence or abuse, which implies an element of randomness, rarity and unpredictability which can obscure the fact that many deaths that result from violence are predictable, patterned and systemic in nature. It makes them seem like one-off tragic events with no warning or context.
Just a quick recap of a few examples over the last few weeks highlights this across a range of incident types:
In late July, police in Romford launched a murder investigation following the death of a woman in her 60s who was found with multiple stab wounds at her home address. The case appeared to involve connections to a separate incident at a railway station, with early enquiries indicating that the deceased woman and a 20-year-old man found dead on train tracks "were known to each other." Despite these apparent connections and the violent nature of the attack, a Detective Chief Inspector stated: "At this stage, we believe this to be an isolated incident with no wider risk to the public."¹
Earlier that same week, an 18-year-old man died from gunshot wounds after being shot on Great Cambridge Road in Enfield. The incident occurred in broad daylight on a busy road, requiring a significant police response and road closures. While investigations continue, the Detective Chief Superintendent sought to reassure the community, stating: "this appears to be an isolated incident and a thorough investigation is underway." The language of isolation was used despite the serious concerns such incidents typically raise about youth violence and weapon enabled crime.²
Just days before, in Macclesfield, police were called to welfare concerns for a woman at a residential address. A 72-year-old woman was found dead at the scene, with a post-mortem later revealing the cause of death as "multiple injuries to the head and neck." A 49-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of murder. Despite the apparent domestic context and the violent nature of the attack, Detective Inspector Eli Atkinson told residents: "I'd like to reassure residents that this is an isolated incident, and we have made an arrest."³
What's striking about these three cases, beyond their tragic nature, is how quickly and consistently the language of "isolation" was deployed across different police forces, different types of violence, and different community contexts. The official response in each case was to emphasise the exceptional, isolated nature of these deaths rather than acknowledge the systemic contexts in which such violence typically occurs.
What do we mean by “an isolated incident”?
The term 'isolated' from a definition perspective means "to be set apart or separate from others, either physically or socially, or to be infrequent or rare". When applied to incidents of violence, it suggests that the event is detached, separate, or occurring alone, essentially exceptional and not connected to a broader pattern or system.
Deaths that occur as a result of violence and are quickly labelled as 'isolated incidents' are usually referenced as such because they involve individuals that were known to one another, or because there were specific factors that mean the violence was contextual to that particular group; be it a family unit, a peer group, or broader social community. Essentially, when the term isolated incident is used to describe the event, it means that there is no ongoing risk to anyone outside of the context in which the event occurred. The message is clear: "public, please don't panic, you aren’t at risk".
This serves legitimate purposes. Naturally, we want to minimise fear within society so we can all feel safe. There are also operational reasons, ongoing investigations require careful communication, and there's an understandable need to prevent vigilante responses or community tensions. The language aims to contain public anxiety while investigations proceed.
However, this focus on reassurance through isolation reflects a much deeper, long-standing issue within how we understand and respond to violence. The domestic abuse sector has long challenged what researchers call "incidentalism" - the tendency to view each act of violence as a discrete event rather than part of an ongoing pattern of abuse and control⁴. This incident-focused model has been critiqued for decades because it fundamentally misrepresents how domestic abuse actually works. As the Femicide Census highlighted in their 2020 report "Redefining an Isolated Incident," the framing of domestic homicides as isolated events obscures the reality that these deaths are often the final act in a long history of escalating abuse⁵.
Recent research has reinforced these concerns about incidentalism in practice. Project BlueLight, a comprehensive study of the police response to domestic abuse in Avon and Somerset, found that "intimate partner violence is still responded to as a series of isolated incidents rather than as patterns of abuse." The research noted that this conflicts with established understandings that most intimate partner violence takes place within a wider pattern of coercive control, and "discourages officers from taking the approach necessary to build cases around patterns." The study concluded that "the overall police response remains one of incidentalism"⁶.
This challenge extends beyond domestic abuse. In youth violence contexts, young people themselves recognise the interconnected nature of violence in ways that official narratives often miss. As one young woman told inspectors investigating serious youth violence: "It's not an isolated incident, do you know what I'm saying? Because it could stem into so many different things... it's an issue that is bigger than just me and the people who done it"⁷. Her words capture something crucial - those living with the reality of violence understand its systemic, connected nature in ways that official communications consistently fail to acknowledge.
When families who have experienced escalating domestic abuse, or young people navigating community violence, hear their lived reality described as an "isolated incident," the disconnect will be profound. They know these deaths weren't isolated. They were often predictable culminations of patterns they had been desperately trying to escape or survive.
Why do we jump to calling them isolated incidents?
Beyond the legitimate operational reasons for reassuring the public, there are deeper psychological and institutional forces at play when we reach for the language of isolation. There's a fundamental human need to maintain our sense of safety and control. When we can categorise violence as "isolated", as something that happens to "other" people in "other" circumstances, it allows us to preserve the belief that we are somehow protected from similar harm. This psychological distancing is comforting but comes at a cost.
Institutionally, the pressure to provide immediate reassurance is immense. In our 24-hour news cycle officials face demands for instant statements that calm public fears without the time to fully understand complex patterns or systemic factors. "Isolated incident" has become the default response, a linguistic safety net that satisfies immediate media and political pressures while investigations unfold.
There's also an organisational tendency toward what researchers call "categorical thinking" - the preference for clear, bounded explanations over complex, interconnected realities. Individual incidents are easier to investigate, prosecute, and close than systemic patterns that might require long-term, resource-intensive responses across multiple agencies.
This combination of psychological comfort, institutional pressure, and organisational efficiency makes "isolated incident" an almost irresistible framing, even when the evidence suggests these deaths are anything but isolated.
Why is this problematic?
The gaslighting effect: when official language contradicts lived reality
Media coverage shapes public understanding of crime and justice in profound ways. When violent incidents receive extensive coverage but are consistently described as exceptional occurrences, it creates a disconnect between official messaging and public intuition. This becomes particularly problematic when violence deaths are consistently framed as "isolated incidents," creating what can only be described as a gaslighting effect with the public who, from recent research, we know feel as though incidents of violence and abuse are on the rise, not isolated or rare.
This disconnect is profound. Nearly half of the public believe that Britain is becoming a "lawless country" (49%) according to a recent Survation poll⁸, while 78% of people think that crime is on the rise according to the 2024 Crime Survey for England and Wales⁹. This is despite an overall 22% fall in crime since 2017, and nearly 90% fall over the last 30 years in most forms of crime¹⁰. As Patrick Olajide from National Centre for Social Research posed the question in July 2025: "We are, by most objective measures, a safer society from crime today than we were in the 1990s... but it is to raise a critical question: if crime is falling, why don't people feel safer?"¹¹
The answer may lie partly in how we frame individual incidents. When each violent death is labelled as exceptional and isolated, we fail to acknowledge the patterns that people intuitively recognise. The public knows that these aren't truly isolated incidents – they understand, often better than official narratives suggest, that violence has systemic roots.
The hidden scale: what the data really shows about "isolated" violence
The framing of violence as isolated becomes even more problematic when we examine what the data actually reveals about patterns and repetition. Research consistently shows that violence, particularly domestic abuse and youth violence, is characterised by escalation and repetition rather than isolation.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales has long struggled to capture the true extent of repeated victimisation. Academic critics have identified that the survey significantly underestimates violence by capping the number of repeat incidents that can be reported per person at five per year¹². Professor Ken Pease and Professor Graham Farrell estimated in 2007 that this practice alone leads to underreporting of about 3 million incidents annually, with domestic abuse figures potentially 140% higher without this artificial cap¹³.
More recent research has revealed the systematic nature of what gets labelled as isolated incidents. Research shows that 39% of accused perpetrators in domestic abuse cases had been previously arrested for other domestic abuse incidents¹⁴, suggesting these "isolated" deaths are often the culmination of documented patterns. Women experience higher rates of repeated victimisation and are much more likely to be seriously hurt or killed than male victims of domestic abuse¹⁵, with almost a third (30%) of abuse reported by female respondents classified as coercive control, contrasting with only 6% of abuse reported by male respondents¹⁶.
In youth violence contexts, the interconnected nature of incidents is equally evident. Young people understand this reality in ways that official narratives often miss. As one young woman told inspectors investigating serious youth violence: "It's not an isolated incident, do you know what I'm saying? Because it could stem into so many different things... it's an issue that is bigger than just me and the people who done it"⁷.
The research reveals a troubling pattern: the more we study violence, the less isolated it appears. Yet official communications continue to emphasise the exceptional nature of these deaths rather than acknowledging their predictable, systematic occurrence.
Impact on justice: how "isolated incident" framing shapes legal outcomes
The language we use to describe violence doesn't just shape public perception – it has concrete impacts on how justice is delivered. Juries are drawn from a public whose understanding of violence has been shaped by years of "isolated incident" messaging, potentially affecting how they evaluate evidence about patterns of abuse, escalation, and the predictability of violence across different contexts – from domestic abuse to youth violence to workplace violence.
This matters profoundly in legal proceedings. Research shows that when women were recorded as the perpetrator the majority (62%) had only one incident of abuse recorded and the highest number of repeat incidents for any female perpetrator was eight, while men are significantly more likely to be repeat perpetrators and significantly more likely than women to use physical violence and threats¹⁷. Yet if juries have been conditioned to think of violent deaths as random, isolated events rather than predictable escalations of documented patterns, they may struggle to understand the significance of previous incidents or warning signs across different types of violence.
The "isolated incident" framing also undermines the legal system's growing recognition of coercive control as a criminal offence. Coercive control explicitly acknowledges that domestic abuse is a pattern of behaviour occurring over time, not a series of unrelated incidents¹⁸. When official communications consistently frame related deaths as isolated, it contradicts the very legal framework designed to protect victims from systematic abuse.
Policy and resource implications: the cost of misframing violence
Public attitudes don't just shape jury decisions – they drive policy priorities and resource allocation. If the public believes violent deaths are truly isolated, random events, there's less imperative to invest in the systematic interventions that research shows actually prevent violence: early intervention programmes, coordinated community responses, perpetrator programmes, and long-term support for survivors.
This misframing becomes particularly problematic in the current UK political climate, where "tough on crime" rhetoric dominates policy discussions. Recent polling suggests public support for longer prison sentences and more punitive measures, despite extensive evidence showing that prevention and early intervention are more effective at reducing violence¹⁹. The "isolated incident" narrative reinforces this punitive approach by suggesting that these deaths couldn't have been predicted or prevented through systematic intervention – they just require individual punishment after the fact.
Yet research consistently shows the opposite. Domestic abuse often involves escalating patterns of behaviour, and research indicates that violence often escalates rather than ending when relationships dissolve²⁰. In youth violence contexts, those experiencing serious violence recognise the interconnected nature of incidents and understand that effective responses need to address broader social and community factors, not just individual incidents²¹.
This has significant resource implications. Police recorded domestic abuse-related crimes have shown substantial increases in recent years, with 830,926 offences flagged as domestic abuse related in the year ending June 2024²². If these incidents continue to be framed as isolated rather than part of systematic patterns requiring systematic responses, we'll continue to fund crisis responses rather than the prevention programmes that evidence shows actually work. The current focus on punishment over prevention – reinforced by "isolated incident" messaging – diverts resources away from the early intervention and systematic approaches that could prevent these deaths in the first place.
The deeper harm: invalidating survivors' experiences
Perhaps most harmfully, the "isolated incident" framing invalidates the experiences of those who know these deaths weren't isolated. Survivors of domestic abuse, families affected by youth violence, victims of workplace violence, and communities impacted by different forms of violence understand the patterns, warning signs, and escalating nature of abuse in ways that official communications consistently fail to acknowledge.
Women are not only more likely to experience domestic abuse, but more likely to be subject to coercive control, repeat victimisation and be seriously harmed or killed, through abuse that is primarily perpetrated by men²³. For these survivors, hearing their reality described as an "isolated incident" compounds the trauma. They know these deaths weren't isolated – they were often predictable culminations of patterns they had been desperately trying to escape or get help with.
The young woman quoted earlier captured this perfectly: "It's not an isolated incident... it's an issue that is bigger than just me and the people who done it"⁷. Those living with the reality of violence understand its systematic, connected nature in ways that official communications consistently fail to acknowledge. When we call their lived experience "isolated," we not only misrepresent the problem – we silence the voices of those who understand it best.
This invalidation extends beyond individual survivors. Communities experiencing different forms of violence – whether youth violence, domestic abuse, or other forms of interpersonal violence – recognise the interconnected patterns that official "isolated incident" messaging denies. This disconnect between lived experience and official narrative undermines trust in institutions and prevents the kind of community engagement that's essential for effective violence prevention.
Moving forward: better language for better outcomes
The evidence is clear: the routine use of "isolated incident" to describe violent deaths creates more problems than it solves. While the intention to reassure the public is legitimate, the costs to survivors, to public understanding, to policy responses, and ultimately to prevention, are too significant to ignore. But what's the alternative?
Practical alternatives to "isolated incident"
The good news is that we don't need to choose between public reassurance and accurate communication. Police forces can achieve their legitimate operational goals while being more truthful about the nature of violence. The key is moving away from language that minimises and isolates incidents toward language that provides reassurance while acknowledging broader contexts. The ABC response:
a) The principle of reassurance without minimisation: Communications can still provide the public safety reassurance that's needed, but without the implication that the violence was random, unpredictable, or disconnected from broader patterns. The goal should be to inform the public about their immediate safety while avoiding the harmful framing that treats systematic violence as exceptional.
Better approaches might include:
"Our investigation indicates this current event was contained to those involved"
"We are treating this as a targeted incident between known individuals"
b) Adding context to prevent minimisation: More effective communications go further by acknowledging the broader significance rather than stopping at reassurance. This helps avoid the minimisation that comes with "isolated incident" framing:
"While the current event appears contained to those involved, we recognise the broader concerns this raises about [domestic abuse/youth violence/community safety]"
"This incident highlights the ongoing challenges we face as a community in addressing [domestic abuse/serious violence]"
c) Providing context with evidence: The most comprehensive communications acknowledge the broader scale of the issue with relevant facts that help the public understand why these incidents matter beyond the immediate case. This helps counter the impression that violence is rare and unpredictable by providing context about patterns and prevalence. For example:
"This incident highlights ongoing concerns about domestic abuse, which affects an estimated 4.6% of people aged 16 and over each year according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales"
This approach achieves the same reassurance goals while avoiding the implication that the violence exists in isolation from broader patterns. Rather than treating each death as exceptional, it acknowledges that violence often occurs within predictable contexts that communities and policymakers need to address.
Learning from best practice
Some police forces are already moving in this direction. When communications acknowledge systemic contexts while still providing appropriate reassurance, they help build rather than undermine public understanding. For example, statements that say "this appears to be a domestic-related incident with no ongoing risk to the wider public, and we encourage anyone experiencing domestic abuse to seek support" achieve multiple goals: they reassure, they educate, and they avoid the harmful "isolation" framing.
The domestic abuse sector has long advocated for this kind of contextual communication. Rather than treating each incident as disconnected from broader patterns, effective communications can acknowledge the reality of systematic violence while still providing appropriate reassurance about immediate risk.
The broader shift needed
Ultimately, moving away from "isolated incident" language is part of a much bigger challenge: shifting from reactive, incident-focused responses to systematic, prevention-focused approaches to violence. This requires changes not just in how we communicate about violence, but in how we understand and respond to it.
This means:
Training communications teams in the realities of violence patterns and the impact of language choices
Developing alternative frameworks that balance public reassurance with accurate representation of violence
Engaging with survivors and affected communities about how official communications land with those who understand violence best
Linking communications to prevention messages that help the public understand how violence can be prevented rather than just responded to after the fact
A call for change
The "isolated incident" framing has become so routine that it's rarely questioned. But as this analysis shows, its impacts extend far beyond the immediate goal of public reassurance. It shapes how we understand violence, how juries evaluate evidence, how policies are developed, and how resources are allocated. Most importantly, it invalidates the experiences of those who know that these incidents are rarely isolated at all.
Police forces, policymakers, and media organisations all have a role to play in moving beyond this problematic framing. The alternative isn't to create panic or abandon the need for public reassurance, it's to find ways of communicating that serve these legitimate goals while being honest about the nature of violence.
The victims of violence related deaths, and their families, deserve better than to have their experiences minimised as "isolated incidents". The survivors who recognise the patterns deserve to have their understanding acknowledged rather than contradicted. And the public deserves communications that help them understand violence in ways that might actually contribute to preventing it.
We can do better than "isolated incident”.
References:
Metropolitan Police (2024). Murder investigation launched in Romford. Available at: https://news.met.police.uk/news/murder-investigation-launched-in-romford-499629
Metropolitan Police (2024). Murder investigation launched following the death of an 18-year-old man. Available at: https://news.met.police.uk/news/murder-investigation-launched-following-the-death-of-an-18-year-old-man-498920
Various local news sources reporting on Macclesfield incident, July 2024
Hearn, J.R. (1998). The violences of men: How men talk about and how agencies respond to men's violence to women. Kelly, L. and Westmarland, N. (2016). Naming and defining 'domestic violence': Lessons from research with violent men. Feminist review, 112(1), pp.113-127.
Femicide Census (2020). Redefining an Isolated Incident
SafeLives (2024). Project BlueLight Policy Briefing: Learning from Avon & Somerset Police's approach to domestic abuse. Available at: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/35480/1/FINAL%20BL%20Policy%20Briefing%20National.pdf
HMICFRS (2024). Young people's experiences of serious youth violence: Care not criminalisation
Survation poll for Friderichs Advisory Partners, 2024
Crime Survey for England and Wales, 2024
Office for National Statistics crime statistics, 2017-2024
Patrick Olajide, National Centre for Social Research, Policing Insights, July 2025
Walby, S. et al. (2014). The concept and measurement of violence against women and men
Pease, K. & Farrell, G. (2007). Crime Survey methodology critique
Turner, E. et al. (2021). Domestic abuse case analysis
Walby, S. & Towers, J. (2018). Measuring violence against women
Myhill, A. (2015). Measuring coercive control in Crime Survey data
Hester, M. (2013). Gender patterns in domestic abuse perpetration
Serious Crime Act 2015, Coercive Control provisions
Public opinion polling on criminal justice policy, 2024
UK domestic violence research on post-separation violence
HMICFRS youth violence report, 2024
ONS (2024). Crime in England and Wales: year ending June 2024
Women's Aid (2024). Domestic abuse is a gendered crime