The findings revealed that, first, contrary to the widespread assumption that intimate partner violence is a crime of passion, evidence of premeditation and intent to harm was more frequent among the intimate partner homicides (41 percent) than among the non-intimate partner homicides (31 percent). Moreover, defendants who killed intimate partners were more likely to receive shorter sentences than those who killed other types of victims. Thus, even when there was evidence of premeditation, defendants who killed intimate partners were treated more leniently by the court than defendants who killed non-intimate partner victims. Data on 54 cases of intimate partner homicide and 54 cases of non-intimate partner homicide that were resolved by courts in Toronto, Ontario between 1974 and 1996 were drawn from coroner’s files, police records, crown attorney files, and newspaper archives. The two samples of homicide cases were compared according to the relative frequency of evidence of premeditation or intent. The author begins the analysis by identifying 10 perspectives about intimacy and violence found within the research literature. The 10 perspectives are divided into 3 focal concerns that have been emphasized by judges and other criminal justice decisionmakers: (1) defendant culpability; (2) protection of the public; and (3) practical constraints. For each perspective, the author offers a hypothesis about how such a perspective may lead to criminal justice leniency. The results of the current study should be considered preliminary. Future research should investigate how to systematically collect data on the non-legal variables that may impact criminal justice outcomes. Tables, footnotes, appendix