More on the Candidates' Crime Positions

In addition to the information we've already posted about the presidential candidates' positions on crime issues, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has just published a report detailing Senator Obama and Senator McCain's responses to six questions about issues related to crime, terrorism, and homeland security that were posed to them by the IACP. This Q-and-A with the candidates is a potentially important step in helping to correct the absence of crime issues in the national political discourse, as we have already noted.

Maintaining Focus Amid the O.J. Spectacle

So, OJ's back on trial. For crimes that don't involve the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman:

O.J. Simpson's robbery and kidnapping trial begins today with the attorneys outlining in opening statements what they expect to prove. Simpson, perhaps the most notorious criminal defendant in modern history, smiled and gave a thumb's up as he entered the Clark County Regional Justice Center.

You know, in a recent race and crime course I taught, I had my students watch a documentary about O.J. Simpson. Most of them were too young to remember his trial with any clarity, so just after the tenth anniversary of his acquittal (and shortly after the announcement of his quickly-aborted "If I Did It" book), we discussed in class the fundamental tension between (a) the cultural and societal significance of his acquittal (e.g., the symbolic victory of a Black man "beating" a white man's justice system that has long been regarded as a tool of oppression against Black men) and (b) the uncomfortable reality that he almost certainly got away with murder. We also discussed the extent to which the murders were recognized as lethal intimate partner violence, and the role the news media played in characterizing both the murders and Simpson's alleged involvement in them. It was an engaging, thought-provoking discussion I believe my students enjoyed very much, but when it was over I couldn't help but feel a tiny bit guilty that I had focused any attention at all on Simpson, even if only in my classroom. After all, how can there be justice for the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman when Simpson is the one receiving all of the attention?

Fast-forward a few years and Simpson is again dominating headlines. I sit here today wondering, can he please, please just go away? Not just figuratively, but literally?

Instead of wasting another second reading about O.J. Simpson, I encourage you to check out the Nicole Brown Simpson Foundation, whose mission it is to:

...pledge our time, our energy and our voices in an effort to educate the national and international communities to the dangers of domestic violence. We help organizations that shelter and protect families in crisis, support long term solutions and work with educational programs specializing in rehabilitation and job training. We will continue our work until domestic violence is eradicated.

Here's what I would love to see happen: every time Simpson's name is mentioned by the mainstream news media, a donation is made to the Nicole Brown Simpson Foundation. That way our collective attention stays focused firmly where it should: on the two victims who lost their lives and whose memories are honored by ongoing efforts to reduce domestic violence and empower its survivors.

When Hate, Politics, and Guns Collide

I was greatly disturbed by news of the church shooting in Knoxville over the weekend, in part because I have several close friends and relatives who live (or have lived) in Knoxville, so I have a great affection for the area. But publication today of news reports identifying shooter Jim David Adkisson's alleged motives disturbed me even more. From the Knoxville News Sentinel:

[Knoxville Police Chief Sterling] Owen said it appeared Adkisson targeted the [Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church] because the "church had received some publicity regarding its liberal stance." The TVUUC regularly announces in the Knoxville News Sentinel its meetings for gays and their support groups...

Police found a four-page, handwritten note in Adkisson's 2004 Ford Escape that was parked at the church. The letter written in ink on lined notebook paper was not addressed to anyone, but explained Adkisson's reason for targeting the church, Owen said.

Owen said Adkisson wrote that he was angered by "his lack of being able to obtain a job," a reduction in his food stamp allotment, and "the liberal movement." Owen explained the liberal movement, as defined by Adkisson, included liberal philosophies and issues pertaining to gays...

[Knoxville PD Investigator Steve] Still seized three books from Adkisson's home, including "The O'Reilly Factor," by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," by radio personality Michael Savage; and "Let Freedom Ring," by political pundit Sean Hannity.

Before anyone accuses me of taking a knee-jerk, "blame the right" approach to this story, I want to acknowledge the obvious: it is probably safe to assume that the suspect is mentally ill or otherwise suffers serious mental and/or emotional health problems. To be fair, his lethal anger might just as easily have been directed toward another movement or person he perceived as being unjust. In other words, mental disturbance likely is far more relevant to the etiology of this tragedy than Adkisson's political views...but can we go so far as to say that his political views are irrelevant? I'm not sure we can.

First, whether it is framed as such by the media, this shooting is a hate crime. (Indeed, the FBI is involved in the investigation for precisely this reason.) As suggested in the News Sentinel article, the shooter targeted a Unitarian Universalist church in part because of its liberal theology, which includes openness to gay and lesbian members. (Not to be ignored is the fact that Adkisson's ex-wife -- whom he once threatened at gunpoint -- used to belong to this church, in all likelihood adding an additional layer of hate/revenge to his motivation.) Indeed, a longtime acquaintance described Adkisson as hating "black, gays, and anyone different from him".

Second, though they undoubtedly will repudiate the shooting and tsk-tsk over the loss of human life, arch-conservative personalities like Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity have engaged in plenty of hate speech on their television and radio programs, often devaluing and demeaning the lives of people who do not think, act, look, love, or worship like they do. Does this mean that they are directly responsible for the church shooting? No. (And, clearly, as evidenced by Jesse Jackon's recent caught-on-camera comments, the right has no monopoly on violent hate speech.) Nonetheless, I wonder about the cumulative impact of repeated exposure to these pundits' messages of racism, xenopobia, homophobia, misogyny, and other forms of intolerance -- particularly among people who are mentally unstable, have access to firearms, and are willing to kill. For this handful of dangerous people -- though they constitute only a tiny percentage of the total population that avidly consumes (and thereby implictly endorses) these messages -- isn't lethal violence inevitable?

Interestingly, I searched the news archives on the Fox News website for stories about the shooting so I could peruse the reader comments, but it appears as though Fox has not covered it at all, at least not online and not as of the publication of this post. Though an archive search turned up nothing, a Google search reveals that Fox News did indeed cover this story here and here. I also was not able to find any coverage of this event on the personal websites of Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, or Sean Hannity (to which I will not link; Google 'em if you're so inclined).

Shakesville has more commentary on this story here and here. My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of the victims of this tragedy -- as well to the millions of Americans from all walks of life working to combat the very type of bigotry Adkisson apparently embodied.

Friday CJ Funnies: Razzle Dazzle 'Em

I was thinking the other day about how long it's been since I've seen a stage production. Given my love of musical theatre, this is most distressing to me. So, I decided that this Friday CJ Funny would come courtesy of the Great White Way.

Originally I wanted to post ""The Crime of the Century" from Ragtime, a terrific menage-a-trois-and-murder-themed song from one of my all-time favorite musicals. ("Oh! Oh!/Harry's a jealous man/Bang! Bang!/That was the end of Stan!") Alas, I could not find a video of the Broadway cast performing this number, though I did find this clip of a summer theatre group performing it so you can at least hear the song.*

Instead, I decided to post a different (but equally great) menage-a-trois-and-murder-themed song from another one of my favorite shows: ""We Both Reached for the Gun" from Chicago. A synopsis for those who (gasp!) are unfamiliar with the plot:

Chorus girl Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger, here in the 2002 movie version) has murdered her lover and hired slick, handsome defense attorney Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) to represent her. At a press conference, Billy spins an alternate (and false) version of the murder in which Roxie acted in self-defense (because, you know, she and her ex "both reached for the gun"). This number is staged as a ventriloquist act in which Billy supplies the words coming from the mouth of his "dummy," Roxie. Naturally, the gullible press corps -- powerless before Billy's substantial charm -- gleefully laps up his story.

So please enjoy the clip, but be warned: you'll be singing this song for the rest of the day. Oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes, oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes, you will!

*To get a taste of just how amazing Ragtime is, watch the Broadway cast perform the show's opening number at the 1998 Tony Awards (at which it won Best Original Score) here.

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 12

"Husband charged with murdering soldier wife"

It's getting to the point where I wonder why I even bother posting stories like this.

More from ABC News here.

Sad Story out of Maryland

Some of you may have already heard about this story, in which a 19-year old inmate in the Prince George's County Jail, Ronnie White, was killed in what is being called an act of "vigilante justice". White is believed to have been behind the wheel of an allegedly-stolen vehicle that struck and killed Corporal Richard Findley of the Prince George's County Sheriff Department two days ago. It is not known whether White, found strangled and asphyxiated on the floor of his cell, was killed by a corrections officer, a police officer, or someone else...but, given that White had been in solitary confinement, it seems likely that someone acting in an official capacity was involved in some way with White's death. (In other words, it probably wasn't a fellow inmate.)

I'll try to post updates to this story as they become available.

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 9

It's been a while since our last Totally Unshocking Crime Headline, so posting a new one seems like a nice way to round out the work week:

"Murder charges await Marine captured in Mexico"

Well, duh.

Regarding the capture of and charges facing U.S. Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean, the mother of the victim -- 20-year old Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, who had accused Laurean of raping her and who was approximately eight months pregnant at the time of her death -- said, "Of course, I'm a great believer too in the American system of justice, where you have a presumption of innoncence until proven guilty...But in my heart of hearts I do believe he probably is [Maria's killer]."

Friday CJ Funnies: Murder in Toyland

The other day I was out running errands for a few hours. I came home and walked downstairs into the basement, where I was greeted at the base of the stairs by scattered bits of red, hard plastic:


"Damn it," I thought to myself. "The dog chewed up one of the girls' toys while I was out." I examined the stray bits of plastic in an attempt to determine which toy the dog has destroyed, all the while praying silently that it was not a particularly beloved item. Puzzled, I considered the options: Lego? Farm animal? Dora accessory? Still unsure, I looked around the room for more evidence, when suddenly I made a gruesome discovery.

Spring Break and Risky Decision-Making

I just came across an article on MSNBC.COM about how students on spring break in Texas are avoiding Mexican border towns in light of increased drug-related violence.

So here's a question: how many times in your life have you looked back on past events and thought, "what in the HELL was I thinking?" (And then later, my mother would probably still kill me if she knew I ever did that....)

Anyway, when I was a sophomore at the University of Texas in1988, my roommate and I agreed to go to South Padre Island for spring break with a group of her friends that I barely knew. They seemed OK and were in the marching band, so how much trouble could we get in to? (Come on, I was in the marching band in high school, I know the score.)

At the last minute, she dropped out of the trip and I was left to travel 6.5 hours by car to SPI with a group of near strangers (Thanks a lot, Jill!!). Her friends turned out to be fine, but unfortunately the weather was not--the cold, gray skies lasted all week and nixed our beach plans. The first night, the gang wanted to go to Matamoros, across the border in Mexico. We were early arrivals and the towns were still quiet--not yet flooded with UT and A&M students on break.

So, we crossed the Rio Grande and entered the first bar we found. It was like a scene from a movie--we walk in, the music stops, and everyone turns to stare at us. We're all dressed in our 80's pastels and big hair and the room is full of local Mexican workers, probably enjoying their last night in town until it's taken over by obnoxious American students. There was even a guy in the corner--I kid you not--playing a game which entails holding on to electrodes for as long as you can. I was freaked out--my New Jersey upbringing had not prepared me for this. We ordered some Dos Equis, drank our beer quickly and crossed back immediately thereafter.

Two days later, the town was COMPLETELY different--it was a tourist trap, with loud music, cheap goods for sale, and alcohol everywhere. The gang decided they wanted to go deep, deep, DEEP into Matamoros since the beach was not going to happen, so we hailed a taxi and told him to take us into the town to a decent restaurant. We ate lunch in a place with dirt floors and live chickens running around--it was a hoot. However, 20 years later I look at the satellite picture of Matamoros above, and think--MY GOD, that city is SO BIG--who knows where we were or what might have happened. And of course, we didn't have cell phones back then--no one knew I was there (they knew I was in South Padre, but none of my family members knew I would visit Mexico on the trip).

Anyway, we ended up having a fun time and the friends-of-Jill were pretty cool. We came back to Austin and got back to our studies.

The following year (1989), I stayed in Austin for spring break and slept late every day. Watching the news one night, I caught a story about Mark Kilroy, a UT student who was reported missing in Matamoros. He was a junior, as was I, and he had wandered away from his friends to take a leak in an adjacent alley. A few minutes later, he was gone.

They searched for him and questioned over 100 known criminals for weeks, until finally, someone picked up on a routine drug sting provided evidence to the police that led to Mark. He had been abducted and murdered in a satanic worship ceremony on a ranch outside Matamoros. The description of what they did to him is not for the faint of heart.

Perhaps the saddest part of this story is that many Mexicans were also killed by this Satanic group, few of which received any attention from the Mexican government until Mark. It took the murder of a U.S. citizen for them to recognize the dozens of murders that had already taken place and seek out the offenders. The "mastermind" of the group eventually committed suicide just as he was about to be arrested.

I didn't know Mark, but I've been thinking about how to tie his story to our field's study of risk and victimization. He placed himself at risk by visiting a border town, likely drinking too much, wandering away from his friends, and pissing in an alley. Natalee Holloway similarly took risks, purportedly leaving a bar with a man she had just met. How many hundreds (or thousands) of stupid, drunk college students make similar risky decisions and are luckily to survive to the next day? How many of those students are raped or assaulted as a result of their risky behavior? How many stupid risks have I personally taken in my life, and somehow have emerged unscathed?

Food for thought. Perhaps the ShockSpouse will share his thoughts on the Kilroy incident as well.

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 8

Death of former cop's third wife ruled a homicide

I think it is now safe to assume that Drew Peterson has murdered not one but two of his wives. Of course, as I stated before, should Ms. Peterson suddenly appear healthy, happy, and in the arms of the secret paramour with whom her husband claims she has fled, I will be happy to offer my heartfelt apologies to Drew Peterson. Until then, I hope the DA's office is working around the clock to assemble a rock-solid case that will put this guy behind bars forever.

The CNN article notes that the classification of Kathleen Savio's death as a homicide leaves Stacy Peterson's family "with a feeling of dread". My sincere condolences to the families of both Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson. I can't imagine losing a loved one this way.

P.S. Incidentally, the death of Kathleen Savio shares some eerie similarities with another death making headlines lately: that of Julie Jensen, whose husband recently was found guilty of murdering her. Like Savio, Jensen--who died of ethylene glycol (antifreeze) poisioning her husband claimed was self-inflicted--had expressed concern that her husband would kill her. In Savio's case, she reportedly had told her sister, "He's gonna kill me. It's gonna look like an accident." Likewise, Jensen had a similar fear, writing in a letter: "I pray I'm wrong + nothing happens ... but I am suspicious of Mark's suspicious behaviors + fear for my early demise".

Tragedy at Northern Illinois University

In a tragic scenario eerily reminiscent of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech University last April, a gunman earlier today opened fire at Northern Illinois University, leaving 18 people injured and 5 people -- including the gunman -- dead.

This is such a profound loss for a university community to sustain, and will no doubt rekindle the conversations begun after the Virginia Tech massacre about campus security measures and how (or whether) universities can protect students and faculty from such horrific acts of violence.

I will post more about this story as information becomes available. In the meantime -- as with all of you, I'm sure -- my thoughts and prayers are with the students, faculty, and staff of NIU.

UPDATE: Turns out the tragedy at NIU hits particularly close to home for those of us in criminology/criminal justice. The man responsible for the shooting deaths at NIU is Steven Kazmierczak, who had studied corrections as a sociology graduate student at NIU. (Though the Chicago Tribune reports that at the time of the shootings Kazmierczak was a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, having presumably left NIU.) He co-authored a reaction essay in the February 2006 issue of Criminology & Public Policy entitled, "Self-injury in correctional settings: "Pathology" of prisons or of prisoners?". His author biography accompanying that article reads:

Steve Kazmierczak is beginning graduate work at Northern Illinois University. In addition to his interests in corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice, he is co-authoring a manuscript on the role of religion in the formation ofearly prisons in the United States with Jim Thomas and Josh Stone. He is also develops [sic] content for online education and is an executive board member of the NIU student chapter of the American Correctional Association.

Finally, an additional victim has died, bringing the total number of deaths to 6, including Kazmierczak.

More on Homicides in Detroit

Yesterday the Detroit Free Press published another article about homicides in Detroit, this time analyzing the city's consistently high number of murders relative to other large cities:

New York has a population of 8.2 million and had 494 homicides in 2007.

Detroit's population is much smaller at 919,000, but there were 404 homicides last year, according to preliminary figures.

And while the city's unofficial homicide total for 2007 is a decline from 418 in 2006, the number remains near where it has been for nearly a decade.

The causes of Detroit's murder problem -- according to the Detroit police chief, criminologist Alfred Blumstein, and other experts -- include insufficient police manpower and resources, the infestation of drugs and weapons, a struggling economy, a violent lifestyle adopted by many young people in the city, and citizens' (victims and/or witnesses) unwillingness to cooperate with police.

Thoughts from our policing/gun violence experts?

Detroit Homicide Investigations in Sorry State

Recently, the Detroit Free Press reported that the success of homicide investigations in Detroit is at an all time low:

According to the most recent statistics, Detroit police arrested a suspect in one of every three homicide cases in 2005, a stark decline from previous years and far below other major U.S. cities and the nation's average.

Also well below the average is Detroit's 1-in-3 ratio for clearing homicides -- that is, in charging or identifying the killer.

Experts cite the apparent end of police dragnets, the illegal practice of rounding up large groups of potential witnesses and suspects for questioning, for much of the drop in arrests.

But the experts also blame a homicide section decimated by budget cuts, more drug-related slayings in which witnesses are less likely to talk and slipshod handling of evidence and investigative files in several high-profile cases.

This article caught my eye for a couple of reasons. First, being a native metro-Detroiter, I am always saddened by the (often, but not always, deservedly) bad press the city receives. This story is no exception. Combined with Detroit's history of sitting at or near the top of the most-murders-per-capita list, news of dwindling homicide clearance rates is a one-two punch of bad news for the city, and for the DPD in particular.

Second, having spent many, many hours (along with Scooby and others) coding homicide files at the DPD headquarters, I was struck by the article's description of the DPD homicide unit's decline, both in number of officers and in prestige:

Once acknowledged among America's investigative elite, Detroit homicide cops were invited to help solve the notorious Atlanta child killings of the late 1970s and early '80s, and were portrayed as shrewd sleuths in Hollywood films and books by Elmore Leonard.

But in recent years, the downsized unit has suffered humiliating setbacks, many self-inflicted. It has lost or mislaid reports and files, been implicated in bogus confessions and has seen the demise of the discredited dragnets.

Finally, I have mentioned before my obsession with The First 48, a program upon which the DPD homicide unit regularly is featured. I am continually chagrined by the decrepit conditions of the Detroit facilities compared with those in Miami, Memphis, Dallas, etc. As Scoob and I unwittingly learned firsthand, for years the DPD homicide unit lacked basic amenities like an interrogation room in which to question suspects. Although, as the article notes, the DPD recently "yielded to years of accusations that it coerced confessions by agreeing to record the interrogation of murder suspects at its new high-tech facility in the former Second Precinct station."

Here's hoping that the new, improved facility will help boost homicide clearance rates in the coming year. While we wait for the 2008 statistics to reveal whether or not that's the case, I'll be keeping an eye on things when the new season of The First 48 premieres January 10th.

We Want Our Students To Learn From Us, But...

...I don't think this is what anybody hopes for in terms of students' retention of our course material:

"Confessed serial killer had law enforcement degree"

In his early 30s, fresh off his release from prison on rape charges, Timothy Krajcir enrolled in college to study psychology and the criminal justice system.

Like other students, Krajcir was seeking self-enlightenment, a detective said.

But over the next six years, Krajcir murdered at least six women in two states, covering up his crimes in part by using what he learned at Southern Illinois University, authorities said.

Authorities say Krajcir is a rare specimen -- smart enough to elude police during his crime spree, and apparently private enough to keep his deeds secret in the ensuing years. He eventually graduated from Southern Illinois with a degree in law enforcement...

"If he was studying criminal justice and law enforcement, he definitely would know what police were looking for and how to avoid detection," Smith said.

Obviously this case is an anomaly; needless to say, the vast majority of criminal justice students do not go on to use the knowledge they've gained in class to avoid detection in their careers as serial rapist-murderers. And, though I understand why the media have seized upon this story (headlines doesn't get much more tantalizing than "confessed serial killer had law enforcement degree"), I have to admit to being somewhat annoyed. It doesn't take a criminal justice degree to become reasonably familiar with police homicide investigations. A marathon viewing session of The First 48 would accomplish the same thing. (Not that I'm obsessed with that show or anything.)

Violence and the American Athlete - RIP Sean Taylor

For those of you who are unaware, Washington Redskins free safety Sean Taylor died this morning after being shot in the upper thigh sometime last night during what is being called a robbery. The only shot that hit Taylor severed his femoral artery, leading to a great deal of blood loss. Although he slipped into what appeared to be a coma, it is being reported that at some point during the early morning hours, Taylor managed to squeeze the hand of his nurse. He never regained consciousness, however, and the world lost another young black male due to gun violence.

The point has already been made all over the internet, and perhaps rightfully so, that his death is not unique in that young black males die due to gun violence every day in America. So what makes hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people who have never met Sean Taylor so despondent about the situation? Put simply, he was "their" player - either at "Tha U" (University of Miami) or for the Redskins. Unfortunately, Sean Taylor is no longer quite so unique as a professional athlete either. Darrent Williams was gunned down last New Year's Eve; both Antoine Walker and Eddy Curry were held at gunpoint and robbed in their own homes. While these things happen everyday, millionaire athletes are obviously more visible, and thus the media pick up on these events.

Perhaps the saddest part of the Sean Taylor murder is all of the conjecture surrounding the incident - not because of the conjecture itself, but rather due to some of the vitriol that it spurs. Sean Taylor (whose father happens to be the chief of police in a small Florida town) is known to have associated with some pretty questionable characters and to have displayed some questionable decision-making on the field. It also now appears that several days before his murder, someone broke into his home and left a kitchen knife on his bed in what would seem to be a menacing message. Although we do not know what happened in Sean Taylor's home the night of his murder, it would not be surprising if Sean was murdered, rather than shot during an aborted burglary attempt. The shame of this situation is that almost everyone who knew Sean personally has admitted that while he was immature over the past several years, he had become a different person since the birth of his child and was trying to distance himself from any dangerous friends and activities. Despite this, there has been an astounding amount of commentary on the internet (particularly in the comments section of the ESPN story on his murder) along the lines of "he was a thug and deserved it". Some of this is simply racist idiots trying to stir up trouble, but quite a bit appears to be sincere, which may be even more unnerving. That is, rather than some racist rant, it appears that many of these commenters believe that Sean's death was simply a matter of his past catching up to him, and that he deserved it because of his past. While the former may be true, the latter certainly is not.

Sean Taylor's death is merely the latest high-profile crime against a rich athlete, but it is so much more than that to his family and friends. It represents something far worse - the silencing of a bright future both professionally (in the NFL) and personally (with his family). Yes, young black males are gunned down every day, and the fact that he was a rich athlete does not make Sean Taylor more important than anyone else. But we should use the fact that his death is so visible to really examine what it means to "be a thug" or to "come from the wrong neighborhood", and figure out how we can protect the next generation of potential victims.

Is Domestic Homicide a "Gender Thing"?

I'm not sure this is a gender thing. I mean, there are plenty of examples of women engaging in unconscionable violence against the family – Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, that doctor from Illinois (I can’t remember her name). The interesting thing is that many of these and other women who murder their children are found NGRI. It must be insanity, we reason, for a woman to kill her children. I can’t think of a single case where a man who killed his kids was found NGRI. To be sure, this is a bit of a separate issue, because ABP is talking about IPV – not killing of kids. But I’m sure there are plenty of examples of women killing their partners (anyone know the data on this?). When a man kills a women in any context it is not a good thing – but it is especially vituperative when it is done in the company of the child. My point is that we have cases where women act in violent ways that don’t make sense to us, just like these men have done. It doesn’t make sense for a father to kill the mother of his children in front of the children. It just doesn’t. If we could figure out the cause or how to prevent it – now that would be something to be thankful for…
-------------------------------------------

Thanks to Patch for raising these questions, and for providing me with an opportunity to offer some information about the role of gender in domestic homicide -- that is, intimate partner homicide as well as filicide, or the murder of one's own child(ren).

So, is domestic homicide a "gender thing"? This is a good question. There are a couple of issues that are important to address in order to answer this question.

First, a good way to determine whether gender plays a role in intimate partner homicide is to examine patterns in national data. According to a recent BJS report on intimate homicide trends, since 1975 the number of women killed by an intimate partner has outpaced the number of men killed by an intimate partner. While the margin of difference was relatively small in 1975 (roughly 1.2 female victims for every male victim), by 2005 male intimate homicides (but not female intimate homicides) had declined drastically, putting the ratio at roughly 3.6 female victims for every male victim:


In addition, female murder victims are ten times more likely than male murder victims to have been killed by an intimate partner (3% of all male murders are committed by intimate partners, compared to about one third of all female murders). So, speaking in general terms, intimate partner homicide is a gendered crime to the extent that women are victimized much more frequently than men.

Beyond that is the issue of women's versus men's use of lethal violence in intimate relationships. As Patch pointed out, women do kill their intimate partners. However, there is substantial evidence -- and not in just feminist scholarship, by the way, but also in "mainstream" criminological scholarship -- that most women who kill their intimate partners had experienced a history of violent victimization by that partner. According to Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld (1999), one of the "consistent findings" of IPV research is that "victim precipitation is common in cases of women killing their partner, whereas it is unusual in cases of men killing their partner" (p. 190). As with IPV more generally, there is NOT gender symmetry in intimate partner homicide; while women do kill their intimate partners, they do so for different reasons and with far less frequency.

Specifically, while women tend to kill their intimate partners in response to prolonged (and often extremely injurious) abuse, men tend to kill their intimate partners in response to women's attempts to separate or end the relationship. This finding has been supported by both empiricial research (see, for example, Stout & Brown, 1999) as well as anecodtal evidence like the news articles I linked to in my original post. In fact, increased violence following a period of separation or attempted separation is so common that it has its own term: “separation assault” (Mahoney, 1991). It is widely recognized that perhaps the most dangerous period of time for a female IPV victim is immediately after she moves out, files for divorce, or otherwise makes an effort to leave her partner, as this critical time is when lethal violence is particularly likely to occur. Of course there are always exceptions, but in general women kill intimate partners who beat them, while men kill intimate partners who leave them.

Further evidence of the role gender plays in domestic homicide is the frequency with which men commit "familicide," or the murder of one's spouse and children. As Wilson, Daly, & Daniele (1995) point out, women almost never are responsible for crimes in which both their intimate partner and their children are murdered -- this crime is almost exclusively male-perpetrated. Then there is the related issue of suicide. Very few of the women who kill their intimate partners commit suicide afterward, while by some estimates as many as half of male-to-female intimate partner homicides end with the perpetrator committing suicide. Together these findings lend credence to the idea that men's use of lethal violence against their intimate partners is rooted in power, control, and domination. In societies like ours in which gender is power, we can safely assume that intimate partner homicide is a gendered event.

Finally, there is evidence to suggest that filicide -- the murder of one's child(ren) -- follows similar patterns. A recent Journal of Family Violence study examined filicides in Quebec by sex of and presence of self-destructive behaviors in the perpetrator (Leveillee, Marleau, & Dube, 2007). The authors note that men who kill their children often do so within the context of IPV, while this tends not to be the case for women. In addition, depressive disorders are more common among filicidal women than men who exhibit no self-destructive behaviors:

"[M]en compared to women are more likely to commit spousal homicide, to kill a higher number of victims, to be going through a conjugal separation, to have committed conjugal violence, to have threatened suicide, and to have threatened to kill their spouse. For the group of individuals who commit no self-destructive acts, women are more likely to present with a depressive disorder, whereas men are more likely to [have] maltreated their children. Men who do not commit a self-destructive act are characterized by a significantly higher likelihood of maltreatment against their children and of tyrannical discipline, whereas men who commit a self-destructive act perpetrate filicide as a means of reprisal against their spouse. Results underscore the importance of considering the different groups of individuals who commit filicide as a function of sex as well as presence or absence of self-destructive behaviour" (p. 287).

One last thing about NGRI verdicts for women who kill their children. Yes it is true that women who kill their children sometimes are found NGRI. While I am not as familiar with this literature as I am with the domestic homicide literature, I do know that these verdicts often are returned in cases in which the mother suffered from a diagnosed and documented mental illness. In Andrea Yates' case it was postpartum psychosis. She had been institutionalized several times, had attempted suicide more than once, and by all accounts was in exceedingly fragile mental health at the time she killed her children. Similarly, Regina Moss Monroe (who threw her three children to their deaths off a bridge because she believed that God had instructed her to do so) also had a diagnosed mental illness. Does this mean that all women who kill their kids are insane? No. Do some women kill their kids simply out of convenience, or poor anger management skills, or neglect? Of course. Does it make the deaths of the children any less tragic when the mother is declared insane? By no means. But it is important to note that, especially in some of the most well-publicized cases, filicidal mothers often have a history of, well, insanity. This may be less true for filicidal fathers because these murders tend to happen in the context of intimate partner homicide, as I mentioned above. (For more on issues of gender and mental illness in cases of maternal filicide, see West & Lichtenstein, 2006).

Gendered patterns in intimate partner homicide (as well as filicide and familicide) attest to major differences in men's and women's use of and motivations for committing lethal violence against intimate partners. Sadly, men's use of lethal violence often boils down to "if I can't have you, no-one can," even (and sometimes especially) if that means killing the children (and/or themselves) to emphasize the point. While there may be isolated cases of women killing their partners for similar reasons, the totality of the evidence demonstrates that domestic homicide is indeed a "gender thing".

1. Dugan, L., Nagin, D., & Rosenfeld, R. (1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partner homicide: The effects of changing domesticity, women's status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies, 3(3), 187-214.
   
2. Mahoney, M. R. (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of separation. Michigan Law Review, 90, 1-94.
3. Stout, K. & Brown, P. (1995). Legal and social differences between men and women who kill intimate partners. Affilia, 10, 194-205.
   
4. West, D. & Lichtenstein, B. (2006). Andrea Yates and the criminalization of the filicidal maternal body. Feminist Criminology, 1(3), 173-187).
5. Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Dainele, A. (1995). Familicide: the killing of spouse and children. Aggressive Behavior, 21(4), 275-291.
   

The FCC, National Media, and Violence Against Women

Amanda's heart-wrenching post about domestic violence made me think more about the representation of these cases in the media, and how we come to know about victimization in America. Is there anyone who doesn't know the names Natalee Hollway, Laci Peterson, and now Stacy Peterson? Thanks to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, we are inundated with stories about these young, sad victims of crime--all likely killed at the hands of men.

Of course, it is very helpful for us to know about these cases. It is desperately important that the public recognize the prevalence and seriousness of domestic abuse and domestic homicide. Unfortunately, the media is quite selective about which stories make it to airtime--after all, every second is valuable, right? (I plant tongue firmly in cheek as I consider the minute-by-minute Anna Nicole Death Coverage and it's "value" to the citizens of the world.)

While it is helpful for the media to present these stories and educate the world about DV, it is also quite unnerving to know that the cases presented to the public are selectively screened. While stories such as those of Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, and Stacy Peterson will continue to make headlines (and feature live "on-site" broadcasts from Greta V.S. & Nancy Grace), the stories of women like LaToya Figeroa, Reyna Alvarado-Carrera and Tamika Hudson will never be told. It turns out there's some truth to "missing white woman syndrome", even though it is virtually impossible to collect meaningful data on the practice.

This is something I've been ranting about for some time--in class I ask my students to raise their hand if they've heard of Laci Peterson, then keep it up if they've heard of LaToya Figeroa--both disappeared while pregnant, both killed by the father of their unborn child. One makes the national news instantly, one finally gets a few minutes of time on CNN after bloggers and families bombard the networks with email.

Unfortunately, upcoming events suggest this practice will only get worse. The current chairman of the FCC is planning to lift restrictions that keep media conglomerates from owning more than one television network or newspaper per market. In theory, the news media could be run by all 6 (or fewer) mega-corporations in the next couple of years. Rupert Murdoch will be in heaven.

What does this mean? The conglomeration of big media will lead to even more selective news, and finally to censorship. We will hear more stories about victimized women who are attractive, white, and middle-class. Minority women and those in the lower classes will continue to be ignored by big media because their stories do not bring ratings, thus their lives are not as valuable. Good bye, diversity; hello, McAmerica (or maybe Disneymerica®--I can't decide which I like better).

If you feel as strongly as I do about this, visit http://stopbigmedia.com and write to the FCC opposing this change: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

A Heavy Heart

Am I just particularly sensitive to them, or have there been a lot of heart-wrenching news stories lately about intimate partner homicides?

First, there's the ongoing coverage of Stacy Peterson's disappearance, which anyone with more than four brain cells understands is going to be linked back to her (abusive police officer) husband, from whom she had been trying to separate and whose previous wife died in 2004 under mysterious circumstances. (However, as this terrific Women's eNews article points out, for all of their coverage the mainstream media have been disappointingly reluctant to discuss Peterson's disappearance within the context of domestic violence.*)

Then, a few days ago we learned about the horrific case out of Laytonville, MD in which a man shot and killed his ex-wife and their three children (and then killed himself) as she prepared to transfer custody of the children to him.

Finally, today came a story out of Boston with the following headline: Boy Tells Police: "Daddy Killed Mommy". That was all my heart could take this holiday weekend. I actually wept as I read this article, my chest tightening from a mixture of fury and grief. What is it that makes these men think they have the right to simply snuff out the lives of women who dare to escape their control? This story was particularly anguishing as I thought about the three-year old boy who watched as his father stabbed his mother to death. It recalled for me another domestic homicide that dominated headlines recently -- that of Jessie Davis, whose toddler son also witnessed his mother's murder and told his grandmother that "mommy's in the rug".

My heart just breaks thinking about all of the bright, vibrant, hopeful lives cut tragically short by men who are hellbent on exerting control until the violent, bloody end. Even in a "best case" scenario in which the men are apprehended, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for life (or sentenced to death), I can't help but wonder: can there ever really be justice for these women and children?

*Thanks to Velma for the link.

UPDATE: Sadly, there's another to add to the list -- a murder-suicide in Detroit today that also injured the couple's 9-year son.

And now another. What is going on?

The Plot Thickens

A few days ago I posted about the man accused of murdering at least 5 women in Lansing, MI. Today the Detroit Free Press reports that Lansing residents and people who know Matthew Macon are not so convinced that he is responsible for the murders -- including two women with whom he fathered children. It seems that one of the primary pieces of evidence linking Macon to the slayings (in addition to his purported resemblance to a police composite sketch) is that one of the homicide victims was sexually assaulted with a stick, echoing an identical assault for which a teenage Macon was incarcerated fourteen years ago. Still, despite police claims that they've got the right man, questions -- and fear -- linger in the minds of some area residents.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...and whether another homicide occurs while the alleged perpetrator is in custody. This case raises questions about whether the urgency felt by police to declare the streets safe contributed to a rushed apprehension, as well as about eye-witness identifications, which are notoriously problematic (especially when the victim of a violent crime is identifying his or her attacker). Or, maybe the police absolutely have the right guy, and his relatives and acquaintances simply cannot accept that someone close to them is capable of such brutal crimes. I will continue to provide updates on this story...