Evaluate the claim "we can predict who will become a criminal"

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20

Deviant Behavior

ISSN: 0163-9625 (Print) 1521-0456 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

Understanding School Shootings with Crime Script Analysis

David A. Keatley, Sian Mcgurk & Clare S. Allely

To cite this article: David A. Keatley, Sian Mcgurk & Clare S. Allely (2019): Understanding School Shootings with Crime Script Analysis, Deviant Behavior, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2019.1596543

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1596543

Published online: 29 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 372

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Understanding School Shootings with Crime Script Analysis David A. Keatleya, Sian Mcgurkb, and Clare S. Allelyc

aMurdoch University, Perth, Australia; bUniversity of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK; cUniversity of Salford, Manchester, UK

ABSTRACT Mapping the antecedents of school shootings is an important step towards understanding and predicting when the tragedies occur. This study uses Crime Script Analysis (CSA) to map the variety of behaviors and precursors in sequence. An in-depth analysis of 16 school shooters in the United States of America was used to build a crime script. The results showed five key scenes through which school shooters progressed in the lead-up to their school shootings. The approach is the first to provide a temporal account of school shooters planning of their crimes and forms the foundation for future school shootings to be added to. This research also shows how a CSA approach can be used to generate crime prevention strategies for future school shootings.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 28 March 2018 Accepted 8 August 2018

It used to be the case that parents could send their children to school without fear for the children’s lives. Publicity surrounding recent events in America have raised awareness and concerns about the safety of children in high schools (Abouk and Adams 2013; Rocque 2012). While school shootings are not a new phenomenon, there remains uncertainty about the antecedents of these tragedies (Gerard et al. 2016; Meloy et al. 2001). Multiple risk factors have been identified in the literature, such as exclusion and isolation, bullying, and revenge motivations (Langman 2013; Leary et al. 2003). However, individual risk factors studied and presented alone do not provide a dynamic account of how individuals prepare for and execute their plans.

There was a sudden growth in research on school shootings in the 1990s, following the events at Columbine High School, Thurston High School, and Westside Middle School, as well as others (Baird, Roellke, and Zeifman 2017). Despite an increased focus on research into school shootings there remains a lack of clear understanding about what causes these events, and how to predict them. Some general trends have been shown, relating to economic status, ethnicity, and interpersonal disputes (Wike and Fraser 2009). General school violence is likely to be committed by low-income, ethnic minorities in urban school environments (Wike and Fraser 2009); school shootings, however, are more likely to be committed by white, middle-class students (Baird, Roellke, and Zeifman 2017). While general trends may provide the basis of understanding social processes and indicators of future violence, they do not offer specific accounts of the temporal dynamics preceding a school shooting.

Some of the most extensive and well-cited studies of school shootings include one which was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI; O’Toole 2000) and another conducted by the United States Secret Service and the United States Department of Education (Vossekuil et al. 2002). Borum et al. (2010) have highlighted that one of the things that makes these studies notable is that they both rejected efforts to develop a profile of the individual who perpetrates a school shooting. They also both discouraged the use of lists of warning signs or “checklists” as they are too simplistic. Instead, the focus should be shifted towards “threat assessment as a prevention strategy” (Borum et al. 2010). In the FBI study, a review was carried out of 14 cases of actual shootings and also four cases of planned shootings that were thwarted (O’Toole 2000). O’Toole identified 47 descriptors that

CONTACT David A. Keatley [email protected] School of Law, Murdoch University, Perth 6150, Australia © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1596543

were common across many shooters. Some of these common descriptors including 28 personality traits and behaviors, seven family dynamics, seven school dynamics, and five social dynamics. It was highlighted by O’Toole (2000) that not all the shooters had each of these features, but the identified dynamics were seen as constituting significant trends. Some of the common individual features included narcissism (which is consistent with a number of studies, e.g., Bondü and Scheithauer 2015), bigotry, alienation, poor anger management, a fascination with violence, low levels of self- esteem and a lack of empathy.

The FBI study (O’Toole 2000) was based on a five-day conference, which was attended by 160 invited experts and professionals in law enforcement, education, and mental health. The conference also included school staff members who had experienced a school shooting first-hand. The 160 delegates collectively assessed 18 completed or thwarted school shooting cases. The FBI experts in criminal profiling argued that profiling was an inappropriate method for the prevention of school shootings. It was unequivocally agreed that there exists no single set of characteristics that could define a would-be school shooter with sufficient levels of specificity to make it of practical value. They argued that the development of a “checklist” of warning signs to identify a would-be school shooter can be short-sighted and potentially dangerous. It is possible that some students who have no intention of perpetrating such an attack (are non-violent individuals) would be labeled as potentially dangerous (O’Toole 2000). The FBI report recommended that an assessment should comprise four key domains including personality traits and behaviors, family dynamics, school dynamics, and social dynamics (Borum et al. 2010). There is no single cause that propels or drives an individual to commit a school shooting. School violence needs to be seen as the outcome of a wide range of causal processes (Henry 2009).

In the study conducted by the United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education (Vossekuil et al. 2002), 37 incidents of school violence involving 41 students between 1974 to 2000 were examined. Findings indicated a variety of common features among the school shooters. The majority of the shooters were depressed, had feelings of persecution, had grievances against at least one of their targets and had an interest in violent entertainment. Interestingly, a history of drug abuse, prior violence or criminal behavior or animal cruelty were not found in the majority of the school shooters.

There have also been some other well-cited studies investigating school shooters. Verlinden, Hersen, and Thomas (2000) carried out a review of risk factors among 10 school shooters. Similar to the O’Toole (2000) study, a number of areas were examined including individual, family, school/peers, and societal/ environmental factors were examined in the study. The factors which were identified as being most common were: a history of aggression, uncontrolled anger, depression and suicidal ideation, discipline problems and feeling rejected and bullied (“picked on”). Another study carried out by Meloy et al. (2001) reviewed 37 adolescent mass murderers. Eight of these 37 adolescent mass murderers were classified as “classroom avengers” and are therefore of specific interest here. Findings showed that the school shooters often were bullied but did not bully others. They were also found to be preoccupied with weapons and fantasy. Many also had a history of substance abuse. The majority were not depressed and had no history of antisocial behaviors. In another study, Leary et al. (2003) reviewed 15 school shootings and found a number of common features. The sample comprised of cases which were well-documented cases of school violence which occurred in the United States between January 1995 to March 2001. They started from 1995 because that was when school shootings started to receive national attention. Findings from the study showed that acute or chronic rejection (in the form of ostracism, bullying, and/or romantic rejection) was present in all but two of the incidents. It was also found that there was a tendency for the shooters to be characterized by one or more of three other risk factors, namely, an interest in firearms or bombs, a fascination with death or Satanism, or psychological problems involving depression, impulse control, or sadistic tendencies (Leary et al. 2003). The findings by Leary and colleagues are consistent with the hypothesis that social rejection is a contributory factor in the majority of school shooters. Specifically, 12 of the cases involved an ongoing pattern of teasing, bullying, or ostracism. Also, at least six of the school shooters had experienced a recent romantic rejection. No clear evidence of rejection was

2 D. A. KEATLEY ET AL.

found in only two of the 15 school shooters (Leary et al. 2003). Such findings support earlier findings (e.g., Vossekuil et al. 2002). Vossekuil et al. (2002) found evidence for bullying, ostracism, and social rejection in over two-thirds of the school shooting cases they examined (Vossekuil et al. 2002).

There are a variety of reasons which makes the study of school shooters difficult to study (Langman 2009). For instance, thankfully, the event is relatively rare so sample sizes are relatively small across studies. Also, the perpetrators very often commit suicide or are killed by police at the scene. This further limits researchers to a retrospective review of the perpetrators’ lives, and/or interviews with people who knew the perpetrators. Lastly, across studies investigating school shooters, there are varying definitions of what a school shooting or a rampage school shooting is. This results in somewhat different, but nevertheless overlapping, populations being investigated. Some samples studied by researchers include student-perpetrated firearms deaths which took place at school, while other samples studied by researchers include perpetrators of larger-scale attacks (Langman 2009). Newman (2004) and Newman and Fox (2009) define rampage school shootings as involving students who attend (or had formerly attended) the school where the shooting occurred; took place on a school-related “public stage” (i.e., in full view of other people); and involving multiple victims, at least some of whom were shot randomly or as a symbol (such as a principal who represents the school). Other victims may be targeted as a result of a grievance or perceived wrong (Langman 2009). The definition of school shooters outlined by Newman (2004) is the definition used in the present study.

Clearly, the focus of research is being directed towards crime prevention through understanding the complex dynamics leading-up to school shootings. This is the key focus of the current study, too: to elucidate the complex pattern of behaviors and antecedent events that precede a school shooting. Understanding individual risk factors for school shooting provides an overview of key warning signs to be vigilant towards; however, mapping the temporal relationships between risk factors can provide an insight into the predictive pathways that lead towards crime (Keatley 2018).

Recently, research in criminology has begun to focus on temporal methods, such as Behaviour Sequence Analysis (BSA, Keatley 2018; Keatley et al. 2018), Indicator Waves (Keatley and Clarke 2018), and Crime Script Analysis (Leclerc and Wortley 2014), which allow researchers to clearly map the life histories and antecedent events and behaviors that lead to a school shooting. The focus of temporal research is not to undermine the important research into risk factors; but, to take a step further and ask not only what the risk factors are; but, whether the order they occur in matter. From here, important issues can be highlighted, such as key “hot spots” or “critical points” (Keatley 2018), wherein inter- ventions are most effective. Clearly, school shootings are underpinned by a wide variety of behaviors or “risk factors”, and no single behavior is reliably predictive of later events. However, temporal analyses allow researchers to understand whether the progression of several behaviors is more likely to lead to a school shooting than other sequences.

However, a limitation of BSA research is that it requires complete, detailed datasets, which are often hard to gather comprehensively in real-world events. Information regarding every step and detail of school shootings is either vague, missing, or classified. This poses a problem for traditional BSA approaches, as misleading chains may occur (if events or behaviors are systematically missing across samples). There are, however, other temporal methods that provide an overview of the general trends and chains in behavior, while requiring less detailed data, such as Crime Script Analysis (CSA; Cornish 1994; Ekblom and Gill 2016).

Crime script analysis (CSA; Cornish 1994; Ekblom and Gill 2016) was developed from general schemata and scripts in Cognitive Psychology (Schank and Abelson 2013); though, it can also be conceptualized in terms of computer scripts in programming. In the same way that actors in a play follow a theatrical script, with acts and scenes, researchers have suggested that criminals follow a similar script in the commission of their crime (Leclerc, Smallbone, and Wortley 2013; Leclerc and Wortley 2014). In a similar psychological process as individuals entering a restaurant and knowing the general progression of events, as criminals act out their crimes they follow scripts that direct or guide their behavior. Nisbett and Ross (1980) outline scripts as being temporal sequences that extend

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 3

across time and infer some causal relationships between scenes, in that earlier behaviors or events precede or enable later events.

Crime Script Analysis is important in being able to understand the sequential flow of behaviors and actions, allowing deeper understanding and insight into the process of crime. This provides investigators with a more detailed account of how crimes unfold over time, rather than “snapshot” approaches, which portray crime as a single event in space and time. However, a more important output of CSA is in terms of crime prevention strategies. Recent research has focused on crimes such as burglary (Homel, Macintyre, and Wortley 2014) and child sexual assault (Leclerc, Smallbone, and Wortley 2013) through a CSA lens, not only to understand the process of the crimes; but, to highlight key stages of the script in which intervention might have more effect. A similar approach has been taken with terrorist acts to highlight how interventions such as transportation might have been an effective deterrent (Meyer 2013). In terms of school shootings, purchasing or acquiring a weapon necessarily precedes the school shooting event. The CSA approach outlines what other behaviors and events are related to such key actions, and further analyses then allow researchers to provide intervention strategies.

Current study

The aim of the current paper is to provide a novel method for mapping and describing the temporal development of school shootings. Crime Script Analysis (CSA; Cornish 1994; Ekblom and Gill 2016) will be outlined and shown to be an effective method, which has not been previously applied to the area of school shootings. Crime Script Analysis (CSA) is a methodological approach that builds on the cognitive psychology approach of script analysis (Schank and Abelson 2013), using schemata (Cornish 1994). Script analysis essentially outlines the general trends of behavior, with the quintessential example being the restaurant script, in which people can operate in different restaurants successfully by following a generalized script of how to behave in such contexts. The script concept has been applied to crimes (Beauregard et al. 2007; Ekblom and Gill 2016; Hutchings and Holt 2015), showing that criminals follow a similar script and schemata process when planning and commissioning their crimes.

The aim of the current study is to investigate the behavioral sequences of school shootings, using a crime script analysis approach. The general script will outline the preparation and planning stage behaviors, and how these lead to the commission of the act itself, which leads to the “exit” or final behaviors. A series of school shooting events will be used to define and clarify the scenes in the crime script analysis, and provide examples of the typical behaviors exhibited in each scene. This is the first paper, to the authors’ knowledge, to explicitly link crime script analysis to school shootings and provides an initial framework to understand the dynamics of school shootings, and a starting point for future cases to be added to.

Methods

Sample

The sample consisted of 16 individual cases of school shootings in the United States of America (see Table 1). The majority of cases involved in a male shooter (n = 15); and the average age was 20.68 years (SD = 10.09, range = 11–55). An average of 11.88 (SD = 12.41, range = 2–45) people were killed in the school shootings. An average of 15.44 (SD = 14.14, range = 1–58) people were injured in the school shootings. Guns were the most used weapon; however, bombs or dynamite were also used in several cases. There were almost equal numbers of suicides (n = 6) as arrests (n = 7) in the sample.

When identifying individuals for the sample a variety of sources were consulted, including databases for school shootings (e.g., schoolshooters.info; PACER.), news reports, court reports, police and government reports, and general media accounts. In cases where data were not sourced from official

4 D. A. KEATLEY ET AL.

Ta b le

1. D es cr ip ti ve

in fo rm

at io n of

sc h oo l sh oo te rs .

N am

e A g e

D at e

G en d er

Lo ca ti on

Ty p e/ n am

e of

sc h oo l

N um

b er

ki lle d

N um

b er

in ju re d

W ea p on

s us ed

A rr es te d /

Ki lle d / su ic id e

A n d re w

Ke h oe

55 1s t Fe b 18 72

M M ic h ig an

(U .S .)

Ba th

C on

so lid at ed

sc h oo l

45 58

Bo m b s & d yn am

it e

Su ic id e

C h ar le s W h it m an

25 1s t A ug

19 66

M A us ti n (U .S .)

U n iv er si ty

of Te xa s

14 31

G un

s Ki lle d b y p ol ic e

Br en d a Sp en ce r

16 29

th Ja n 19 79

F C al ifo rn ia (U .S .)

G ro ve r C le ve la n d El em

en ta ry

sc h oo l

2 9

G un

A rr es te d

Er ic C h ri st op

h er

H ou

st on

20 1s t M ay

19 92

M C al ifo rn ia (U .S .)

Li n d h ur st H ig h sc h oo l

4 9

G un

s A rr es te d

Lu ke

W oo d h am

16 1s t O ct

19 97

M M is si ss ip p i (U .S .)

Pe ar l H ig h sc h oo l

3 7

G un

s & kn iv es

A rr es te d

M ic h ae l C ar n ea l

14 1s t D ec

19 97

M Ke n tu ck y (U .S .)

H ea th

H ig h sc h oo l

3 5

G un

s A rr es te d

A n d re w

G ol d en

11 24

th M ar ch

19 98

M A rk an sa s (U .S .)

W es ts id e M id d le

sc h oo l

5 10

G un

s A rr es te d (la te r re le as ed )

M it ch el l Sc ot t Jo h n so n

13 24

th M ar ch

19 98

M A rk an sa s (U .S .)

W es ts id e M id d le

sc h oo l

5 10

G un

s A rr es te d

Ki p la n d Ph

ill ip

Ki n ke l

15 30

th A ug

19 98

M O re g on

(U .S .)

Th ur st on

H ig h sc h oo l

4 26

G un

s A rr es te d

D yl an

Kl eb ol d

17 20

th A p ri l 19 99

M C ol or ad o (U .S .)

C ol um

b in e H ig h sc h oo l

13 20

G un

s & p ip e b om

b s

Su ic id e

Er ic H ar ri s

18 20

th A p ri l 19 99

M C ol or ad o (U .S .)

C ol um

b in e H ig h sc h oo l

13 20

G un

s & p ip e b om

b s

Su ic id e

D av id

A tt ia s

20 23

rd Fe b 20 01

M C al ifo rn ia (U .S .)

U n iv er si ty

of C al ifo rn ia , Sa n ta

Ba rb ar a ca m p us

4 1

C ar

A rr es te d

Se un

g H ui

C h o

23 16

th A p ri l 20 07

M V ir g in ia (U .S .)

V ir g in ia Te ch

U n iv er si ty

32 18

G un

s Su ic id e

A d am

La n za

20 14

th D ec

20 12

M C on

n ec ti cu t (U .S .)

Sa n d y H oo k El em

en ta ry

sc h oo l

27 2

G un

s Su ic id e

El lio t Ro d g er

22 23

rd M ay

20 14

M C al ifo rn ia (U .S .)

U n iv er si ty

of C al ifo rn ia , Sa n ta

Ba rb ar a ca m p us

6 14

Kn iv es

& h an d g un

Su ic id e

C h ri st op

h er

H ar p er

M er ce r

26 1s t O ct

20 15

M O re g on

(U .S .)

U m p q ua

C om

m un

it y co lle g e

10 7

G un

s Su ic id e

Ev id en ce

of m en ta l h ea lt h is su es /b ra in

in ju ry /

n eu ro d ev el -o p m en ta l d is or d er s

H is to ry

of b ul ly in g

in ch ild h oo d

Pa re n ts

d iv or ce d /

se p ar at ed

in ch ild h oo d

Ex p el le d fr om

sc h oo l

A ca d em

ic at ta in m en t

d et er io ra ti on

Pr ev io us

cr im in al

h is to ry

A cc es s to

w ea p on

s (o w n ed

b y sh oo te r/

fa m ily ) & w ea p on

p ro fic ie n cy

Th re at s/

ve rb al is in g vi ol en t th ou

g h ts

to ot h er s, in

w ri ti n g et c

U N

U N

U N

U N

U N

N Y

Y Y

U N

N D is ch ar g e fr om

m ili ta ry

Y N

Y Y

Y U N

Y N

Y Y

Y Y

U N

U N

N – d ro p p ed

ou t

N N

U N

Y

Y Y

Y N

N N

N U N

Y Y

N N

N N

N Y

N N

N N

U N

U N

Y U N

U N

N Y

U N

U N

Y N

Y Y

U N

N N

U N

Y Y

Y N

Y N

N N

Y N

Y Y

Y N

N N

Y N

Y Y

N N

N U N

U N

Y U N

Y Y

N N

U N

N N

Y Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

N U N

N N

Y Y

Y Y

Y – d is ch ar g ed

fr om

ar m y

U N

N Y

Y

N ot e. Y = ye s (p re se n t) ; N = n o (n on

e/ ab se n t) ; U N = un

kn ow

n ; sc h oo l sh oo te rs ar e lis te d in d iv id ua lly , ev en

if th ey

w or ke d in

p ai rs (e .g ., Kl eb ol d & H ar ri s; G ol d en

& Jo h n so n ).

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 5

Law Enforcement sources, facts were cross-referenced between independent sources to ensure validity. While this does not guarantee accuracy, it is an approved method in applied research (Keatley 2018).

Inclusion criteria were that the school shooting was documented in enough detail to allow clear and comprehensive analyses. Inclusion criteria in the current study were that: the offense happened in a “public location” – here operationalized as the school property; there were multiple victims (both killed and injured); multiple victims targeted and untargeted; the offender had current or former links with the school. A final inclusion criterion was method-specific and considered the depth and quality of information available. For CSA to provide a systematic, step-by-step account of developing behaviors, reports of the school shooting had to provide enough detail to satisfy this criterion. This was important as the current research forms the foundation framework for future research; therefore, complete accounts allowed for more informed crime script analysis. Future cases with less data may be included as long as the base framework is well informed. This allows for consistent comparative analyses between cases.

Script development

Crime scripts can be built from a variety of data, and there are no clear guidelines on the type of data that can be used (Borrion 2013); indeed, the inclusion of multiple sources and types of data is a strength of the crime script approach. There have been several revisions to the crime script approach (Ekblom and Gill 2016); therefore, the current study will apply the most recent advance- ments in crime script developments, to provide clear and concise scripts that break down long chains of behaviors into five clear scenes or stages: preparation; pre-condition; instrumental actualization; doing; and exit. The current study will follow Leclerc, Wortley, and Smallbone’s (2011) recommen- dations, and include a visualization approach to outline the crime script and details. The current study visualizes the data in the form of a Crime Script table (see Table 2).

The process of developing a crime script in the current study followed previously approved protocols in the literature (Chiu 2015). First, cases were found with in-depth, sequential information (rather than simply stating, “suspect had a gun”, the information needed to be grounded in some form of timeline so that we could understand when they obtained the gun). Once multiple cases of school shooter timelines had been sourced, a process of familiarization took place, wherein research- ers read through each timeline and began mapping the sequential flow of scenes within each case, using CSA scenes as a building block. For each case, behaviors were analyzed and discussed in terms of which scene they belonged to. This process was iterated for each new case, and scenes were developed to represent the data, rather than the data being forced to fit into scenes, which is why the scene codes for the current study follow a similar structure as previous research; but, have different scene names. Once researchers agreed that all behaviors were included in the crime script, and the scenes within the crime script were sequential but distinct, the CSA was finalized.

Coding procedure

Cornish (1994) suggested that a standardized method for promoting richer, more comparable crime scripts is to use a universal script. The universal script allows researchers to develop and organize crime scripts in a systematic way that provides a cohesive framework and allows for future research to easily build on. The universal script also outlines procedural aspects and requirements of the planning and commissioning of a crime, at a more generalized, global level. More specific scenes can then be developed for particular subtypes of related crimes (e.g., “school shootings” → Schools/ Colleges/Universities). As the present research is the first of its kind, a global, universal script was developed. The data in the current study were initially coded through open coding and data-driven approaches, using the universal script scenes proposed by Cornish (1994). All scenes and informa- tion therein were agreed on by two researchers.

6 D. A. KEATLEY ET AL.

Ta b le

2. C ri m e sc ri p t an al ys is of

sc h oo l- sh oo te r b eh av io rs .

Sc h oo l- sh oo te r

sc ri p t sc en e

U n iv er sa l sc ri p t

sc en e

Be h av io ur s

Ex am

p le s

1. In flu en ce s

Pr ep ar at io n

● A tt en d ed

th er ap y, p ar en ts

se p ar at ed .

● Ra is ed

ar ou

n d fir ea rm

s, p re vi ou

s cr im es .

● Sa id

to h av e sh ow

n an g ry

b eh av io rs an d m ay

h av e p re vi ou

s ch ar g es

fo r un

re la te d cr im es .

● La n za

– m ot h er

= g un

en th us ia st

● W h it m an

– ta ug

h t b y p ar en ts

to h an d le

g un

s ●

Ki n ke l – fa th er

b ou

g h t h im

th e g un

● M er ce r – sh ow

ed in te re st in

m as s sh oo ti n g s & IR A

2. O p er at io n al

Pr e- co n d it io n

● St ol e fr om

p ar en ts

or g iv en

to th em

b y a p ar en t.

● Kn

iv es

an d h om

em ad e b om

b s al so

us ed .

St ol e w ea po n

● La n za

(M ot h er ’s ); C or n ea l (o w n an d fr ie n d ’s h ou

se )

G iv en

w ea po n

● Sp en ce r (F at h er ); Ki n ke l (F at h er )

3. Re co n n ai ss an ce

In st ru m en ta l

ac tu al iz at io n

● Th ei r ow

n sc h oo l/ un

iv er si ty , cu rr en tl y at te n d in g or

p re vi ou

sl y.

● Jo h n so n , G ol d en , W oo d h am

, st ol e a p ar en t’s

ca r fo r tr an sp or t.

O w n/ Cu rr en t Sc ho ol

● La n za ; Kl eb ol d & H ar ri s

Pr ev io us

Sc ho ol

● Ki n ke l

4. A ct iv it y

D oi n g

● So m e b eg an

at h om

e b ef or e m ak in g th ei r w ay

to th e sc h oo l/

un iv er si ty .

● M os t se em

ed d is or g an iz ed , sh oo ti n g ra n d om

ly .

● So m e sh ow

ed cl ea r m ot iv at io n to

ki ll ce rt ai n st ud

en ts .

H ar m

fa m ily

m em

be rs

● La n za

(M ot h er ); Ke h oe

(W ife ); W h it m an

(W ife ,M

ot h er ); W oo d h am

(M ot h er );

Ki n ke l (F at h er

an d M ot h er )

Ta rg et

in di vi du al

● W oo d h am

(G ir lfr ie n d )

5. W it h d ra w al

Ex it

● Se ve ra l co m m it te d su ic id es

at th e sc en e.

● A ll w h o w er e ar re st ed

sh ow

ed so m e so rt of

re si st an ce .

● So m e g iv en

d ia g n os is af te r ar re st .

Su ic id e

● La n za , Ke h oe

A rr es te d

● H ou

st on

, Ki n ke l, W oo d h am

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 7

Results

Cornish (1994) suggested a series of universal script scenes should be used in crime script analysis (preparation; entry; pre-condition; instrumental actualization; doing; post-condition; exit). These were used as a starting point in the current research. After analyzing and structuring the data in the current study, five empirical scenes emerged (see Table 2). These five script scenes were renamed to make them more specific and relevant for a school shooting crime script; however, their overlap with Cornish’s universal script have been outlined in Table 2 for clarity. The five scenes in the current crime script analysis were: Influences; Operational; Reconnaissance; Activity; and Withdrawal.

Crime script analysis

Influences The influences scene, which relates to Cornish’s (1994) preparation scene, relates to the school shooters upbringing and past events that may be seen to be precursors or influencers of the school shooting. In this scene, factors like parents separating (n = 6) and the individual having mental health issues (n = 11) were common influential precursors. Furthermore, the influencing effects of being raised in a pro-gun culture (i.e., being raised in a family where guns are prevalent) is observed in school shooters’ childhoods. For example, Lanza, Kinkel, and Whitman were raised around guns and taught to handle them by their parents. Many school shooters are also known to have exhibited anger issues and have a criminal history for unrelated crimes (n = 5). Being bullied was seen in a number of cases (n = 6), as well as a marked deterioration in school academic performance (n = 2; however, there were only data available for 7 of the cases).

It would be easy to suggest that the presence of guns in childhood is a contributing factor to later school shootings; however, the influence may be more nuanced than this. It is also not as easy as blaming the parents for having guns. Indeed, Kinkel’s father, for instance, tried to discourage gun use and enrolled Kinkel on a gun safety course. Also, it is not simply guns alone that are a recurring factor in this scene. Anger issues and criminal misdemeanors are also prevalent in the sample, for example, 13 of the 16 cases had a history of verbalized or written threats and violent ideation. Therefore, it is a number of factors, occurring in chains that are precursors to later school shootings, in this scene.

Operational The operational scene relates to Cornish’s (1994) pre-condition, scene and outlines the initial pre- paratory behaviors that school shooters exhibited. The preparatory behaviors may be subtle and not immediately overt, which is why the crime script approach is so important – allowing individuals to become aware of progressive behaviors, however subtle. The development of ideation to written and verbalized anger, for instance, could be an example of operationalizing ideas to actions. An important factor in this scene is the acquisition of the weapon, which was later used in the school shooting. In several cases (e.g., Spencer, Kinkel) the school shooter was given a weapon. However, when a weapon has not been given to the individual, then they may resort to stealing a weapon from their parent (e.g., Lanza) or another source (e.g., Carneal). In this scene, school shooters may also begin researching and preparing the other weapons used in school attacks (e.g., bombs).

It is important to note that there is no clear, systematic pathway that individuals use to obtain guns. There is no clear single indicator that predicts later school shootings. More problematic for prevention is the fact that in several cases weapons were obtained from parents as a gift or present (n = 8). In these cases, there is no warning behavior for parents or friends to become aware of – it is not the case that a parents gun goes missing and parents should become aware of the dangers. If the school shooter is given a weapon, then they legitimately own it and can use it without warning precursors.

8 D. A. KEATLEY ET AL.

Reconnaissance The reconnaissan, relates to the behaviours and movements that individuals begin once preparations have been made. Obviously, in the case of school shootings, many students are or have recently attended the school and have an existing working knowledge of the attack location. Indeed, the majority of cases show school shooters attacking their own, current school (e.g., Lanza, Klebold, Harris). Kinkel attacked a school he had recently been expelled from; therefore, he still had a good geographical knowledge of the location.

The difficulty for crime prevention is that there may be no overt irregular behaviors leading up to the school shooting. The reconnaissance scene may be subtle and otherwise undetectable to bystanders. Typically around the time of this scene, the individual will begin preparing and running reconnaissance regarding the use of vehicles, if they intend to drive on the day of the attack. Several school shooters used a car (e.g., Johnson, Golden, Woodham); and it is likely they considered this ahead of the attack. However, from a crime prevention perspective, it would be very difficult to intervene at this scene, owing to the subtlety of behaviors.

Activity The activity scene, similar to Cornish’s (1994) doing scene, relates to the behaviors performed on the day of the attack. There are several sub-streams within this scene. Several school shooters began their attack at home (n = 4), before traveling to school. In a number of cases, it is the parents that are harmed or killed, before school shootings occur (e.g., Kinkel, Lanza, Woodham, Whitman).

While exact timings are not included in a crime script analysis, there is a very close temporal proximity between the harming of parents and subsequent school shootings. This does not leave law enforcement with a large window of opportunity to react to the initial crime commissioned at home, and the subsequent attack at the school. However, knowing this link could raise alert levels quicker for future attacks.

Finally, there does appear to be a difference in the focus of attacks. Many school shooters (n = 15) appear to fire randomly and in a disorganized way (i.e., not focusing on particular groups or individuals).1 However, there are cases (e.g., Woodham) in which a particular individual is the primary focus and target. In the case of Woodham, it was his former girlfriend and could show a motivation for his attack.

Withdrawal The withdrawal scene, or exit scene in Cornish’s (1994) universal script, is the final scene of the crime script. The crime script ends with one of two main outcomes: school shooter committing suicide or school shooter being arrested by police (in one case – Whitman- the school shooter was killed by police). The data show that the type of withdrawal from the school shooting is largely a part of an individual’s plan. Evidently, in several cases, the school shooter planned to end the attack through suicide (n = 7). It is also apparent that in some cases, arrest occurs before suicide or owing to an obstruction of suicide. For instance, Kinkel appears to have wanted to die as a part of the school shooting; but, was overwhelmed by students.

There were not any cases, in the current sample, in which the shooter escaped and continued their attacks beyond the school shooting. While crime script analysis does allow for continued scripts beyond withdrawal or exit scenes (Cornish 1994), this extension is not shown in the current data. It is not always entirely clear, from the data, when the suicide occurs, in terms of antecedent events. Clearly the suicide marks the end of the school shooting; however, the choice point at which a school shooter decides to end their life is not a systematic or clear moment.

1This may be a caveat of the data collection approach. Those cases in which students shoot multiple students are more likely to be widely documented and detailed – allowing for inclusion in the analyses. Instances of single-victim shootings may receive less mainstream attention and therefore are simply omitted from the current analyses owing to a lack of information.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 9

Discussion

The aim of the current study was to apply Crime Script Analysis to school shooting events, to provide an account of the dynamic behaviors and antecedents that school shooters progress through leading up to their attacks. A sample of 16 school shootings was investigated in-depth to provide detailed accounts of the precursors of each school shooting. The depth of data acquisition allowed for more informed scripts to be developed, and a stronger framework to be built for future research to be added to. A strength of the crime script methodology is that diverse cases can be collected and analyzed parsimoniously, to provide a generalized, or universal script. This also means that a variety of further cases can be added to the current dataset, to build a general overview of the school shooting crime script.

The current research did not make a priori hypotheses about the outcomes; however, it was not atheoretical. Based on previous research, a number of factors were expected to occur. For instance, in the majority of cases in the current study included behaviors in the influences scene that have previously been shown in the literature. For instance, several school shooters showed signs of anger management issues, which supports previous findings in the literature (Langman 2013; Meloy et al. 2001). Also, many school shooters had previous criminal charges for unrelated crimes. There are, therefore, precursors of school shootings; however, in terms of a crime prevention strategy approach, it is not simply a case of labeling every child who shows anger and criminal tendencies as a potential future school shooter. Similarly, in this scene, there is clearly an influence of guns in the home environment, with many cases reporting parents buying guns for the child. However, it would be simplistic to suggest this is a clear causal relationship, given that parents also encouraged gun safety.

Crime Script Analysis is not simply a descriptive tool; but, if used effectively, should also be a crime prevention method (Leclerc and Wortley 2014). Understanding the sequential process of a crime commis- sion allows investigators to pinpoint crime prevention points. One of the repeated preventative measures that is commonly suggested is gun control legislation. This would certainly lower the prevalence of guns and would lower the opportunity for individuals to attain guns. However, in several cases, school shooters stole the guns; therefore, gun control would need to ban guns on a national level and impede all access to guns. While guns may provide an easily accessible weapon, removing guns might not stop school attacks. Several individuals also used explosive devices in their attacks, which means if guns were made more difficult to attain, it is possible that school attacks would take the form of a different method.

The reconnaissance scene poses the most difficulty for crime prevention strategies. Most school shooters have intricate knowledge of the location of their attack, which is gained as part of their daily activity in attending the school. Attempts to ascertain potential school shooters at this scene is extremely difficult, and this is problematic given that is the final scene before the attack occurs. Any attempt to intervene at this stage would most likely need to be based on observing changes in students’ behavior or detecting behavioral markers. This information was not available for the current analyses, and it is difficult to suggest how it might be validly obtained. Interviews with school friends and teachers might indicate behavioral patterns; however, this would need to be systematically conducted and validation would be difficult.

The current sample showed some differences in the activity scene. Several school shooters began their attack at home, injuring or killing members of their family. There was typically very little time between the attacks at home and the subsequent school shooting. It would not always be possible for police to respond to or even become aware of the attacks at home, prior to the school shooting. However, the link between killing of family members and school shootings should be investigated further to allow police investigators quicker insight into possible follow-up attacks if they are called to a homicide case.

It remains unclear why some cases in the sample ended in suicide, while others resulted in arrest during the withdrawal scene. Some of the school shooters who were apprehended claimed to want to die as part of their school shooting crime. A strength of the crime script approach is that the withdrawal scene can be elaborated and developed with further investigation. It may be that there are behavioral predictors of whether a school shooter is likely to commit suicide or be arrested. At present, the data are not clear enough on this outcome, especially given the fact that intervention

10 D. A. KEATLEY ET AL.

(from police, security, teachers, or students) means that cases which would have otherwise been “suicide” are instead coded as “arrested”.

While the current research takes a more nomothetic approach to grouping data, this is not to undermine the importance of idiographic approaches. Langman (2009) highlights that it is impor- tant to understand the differences between school shooters, as well as similarities between them. Variations in demographics and childhood backgrounds in school shooters highlight the importance of understanding individual differences (Langman 2009; Verlinden, Hersen, and Thomas 2000). Future research could seek to integrate crime script tracks to account for different individuals with distinct typologies; however, the literature in both crime script research and typology verification would both need to be developed to make integrated analyses more effective.

The researchers made every effort to ensure all data in the current study were verified and valid. This means that the dataset was limited to only those cases where enough information was available, and facts were supported by cross-referencing. A strength, therefore, of the current dataset is the depth and quality of the data included. This was important to build a strong initial framework foundation for future cases to be applied to. Unlike other temporal methods, such as behavior sequence analysis, crime script analysis can be conducted with incomplete, limited, or idiosyncratic datasets (Keatley 2018). The current findings should be expanded to include further cases, especially those that also have detailed information. When a large and strong enough dataset is developed, subthemes and sub-scenes may be developed to account for different types of school shooting (e.g., those involving only guns; those motivated by revenge; those involving other weapons). A further area of research would be to investigate the differences between high school shootings and college/ university shootings (see Newman and Fox 2009); this would allow for sub-scripts to be formed and more specific understanding of different shootings gained.

Conclusion

The current paper uses crime script analysis to understand school shooters’ preparation and attack behaviors. Five scenes emerged, which provided a concise overview of the temporal chain of precursors leading-up to school shootings. The five sequential scenes were: 1) influences; 2) opera- tional; 3) reconnaissance; 4) activity; and 5) withdrawal. School shootings are complex events with multiple precursors; crime script analysis allows for a complete and systematic overview of these precursors to be investigated. The outcomes of the current study can be used to understand other school shootings, as well as provide the foundation for future research to extend.

Notes on contributors

David A. Keatley is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Murdoch University, Australia, and the Director of Researchers in Behaviour Sequence Analysis (ReBSA). Dr Keatley collaborates on a number of international research projects into violent crime resulting in multiple publications and case reports, and has written a book on investigating crime. Dr Keatley is also a researcher and consultant in criminal investigations, cold cases, and behavioural analysis, and regularly provides assistance to Law Enforcement worldwide.

Sian Mcgurk is an undergraduate student at the University of Lincoln. She is currently a member of Researchers in Behaviour Sequence Analysis (ReBSA) and has assisted with multiple papers. Sian will be continuing her work on applying Crime Script Analysis to Forensic Psychology, and will be carrying on with her education, studying for a Masters beginning in September 2019.

Clare S. Allely is a Reader in Forensic Psychology at the University of Salford in Manchester, England and is an affiliate member of the Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre at Gothenburg University, Sweden. Clare holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of Manchester and has previously graduated with an MA (hons.) in Psychology from the University of Glasgow, an MRes in Psychological Research Methods from the University of Strathclyde and an MSc in Forensic Psychology from Glasgow Caledonian University. Clare is also an Honorary Research Fellow in the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences affiliated to the Institute of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 11

References

Abouk, Rahi and Scott Adams. 2013. “School Shootings and Private School Enrollment.” Economics Letters 118 (2):297–99. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.11.009.

Baird, Abigail A., Emma V. Roellke, and Debra M. Zeifman. 2017. “Alone and Adrift: The Association between Mass School Shootings, School Size, and Student Support.” Social Science Journal 54(3):261–70. doi: 10.1016/j. soscij.2017.01.009.

Beauregard, Eric, Jean Proulx, Kim Rossmo, Benoît Leclerc, and Jean-François Allaire. 2007. “Script Analysis of the Hunting Process of Serial Sex Offenders.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 34(8):1069–84. doi: 10.1177/ 0093854807300851.

Bondü, Rebecca and Herbert Scheithauer. 2015. “Narcissistic Symptoms in German School Shooters.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 59(14):1520–35. doi: 10.1177/0306624X14544155.

Borrion, Herve. 2013. “Quality Assurance in Crime Scripting.” Crime Science 2(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/2193-7680-2-6. Borum, Randy, Dewey Cornell, William Modzeleski, and Shane. Jimerson. 2010. “What Can Be Done about School

Shootings? A Review of the Evidence.” Educational Researcher 39(1):27–37. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09357620. Chiu. 2015. “Patterns in Unsolved Sexual Offences against Women by Strangers.” PhD Thesis, Submitted to: Griffith

University. Cornish, Derek. 1994. “The Procedural Analysis of Offending and Its Relevance for Situational Prevention.” Pp.

151–96 in Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3. , Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Ekblom, Paul and Martin Gill. 2016. “Rewriting the Script: Cross-Disciplinary Exploration and Conceptual

Consolidation of the Procedural Analysis of Crime.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 22 (2):319–39. doi: 10.1007/s10610-015-9291-9.

Gerard, Jeane, Kate Whitfield, Louise Porter, and Browne Kevin. 2016. “Offender and Offence Characteristics of School Shooting Incidents.” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 13(1):22–38. doi: 10.1002/jip.1439.

Henry, S. 2009. “School Violence beyond Columbine.” A Complex Problem in Need of an Interdisciplinary Analysis’. American Behavioral Scientist 52 (9):1246–65.

Homel, R, S. Macintyre, and R. Wortley. 2014. “How House Burglars Decide on Targets.” Pp. 26–47 in Cognition and Crime: Offender Decision Making and Script Analyses, edited by B. Leclerc and R. Wortley. Oxford: Routledge,

Hutchings, Alice and Thomas J. Holt. 2015. “A Crime Script Analysis of the Online Stolen Data Market.” British Journal of Criminology 55(3):596–614. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azu106.

Keatley, David. A. 2018. Pathways in Crime: An Introduction to Behaviour Sequence Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Keatley, David. A. and David. D. Clarke. 2018. “Indicator Waves: A New Temporal Method for Measuring Multiple Behaviours as Indicators of Future Events.” Paper Presented at the 11th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research: Measuring Behavior Conference. Pp 92–95, Manchester, UK.

Keatley, David. A., Hayley Golightly, Rebecaa Shephard, Enzo Yaksic, and Sasha Reid. 2018. “Using Behaviour Sequence Analysis to Map Serial Killers’ Life Histories.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Advance online publica- tion. doi: 10.1177/0886260518759655.

Langman, Peter. 2009. “Rampage School Shooters: A Typology.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(1):79–86. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.10.003.

Langman, Peter. 2013. “Thirty-Five Rampage School Shooters: Trends, Patterns, and Typology.” Pp. 131–58 in School Shootings: International Research, Case Studies, and Concepts for Prevention, edited by N. Böckler, T. Seeger, P. Sitzer, and W. Heitmeyer. London: Springer,

Leary, Mark R., Robin M. Kowalski, Laura Smith, and Stephen Phillips. 2003. “Teasing, Rejection, and Violence: Case Studies of the School Shootings.” Aggressive Behavior 29(3):202–14. doi: 10.1002/ab.10061.

Leclerc, B., R. Wortley, and S. Smallbone. 2011. “Getting into the Script of Adult Child Sex Offenders and Mapping out Situational Prevention Measures.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48 (2):209–237. doi:10.1177/ 0022427810391540.

Leclerc, Benoit, Stephen Smallbone, and Richard. Wortley. 2013. “Interpersonal Scripts and Victim Reaction in Child Sexual Abuse: A Quantitative Analysis of the Offender-Victim Interchange.” Pp. 101–119 in Cognition and Crime: Offender Decision Making and Script Analyses, edited by B. Leclerc and R. Wortley. Oxford: Routledge.

Leclerc, Benoit and Richard. Wortley. 2014. Cognition and Crime: Offender Decision Making and Script Analyses. Oxford: Routledge.

Meloy, J. Reid, Anthony G. Hempel, Kris Mohandie, Andrew A. Shiva, and B. Thomas Gray. 2001. “Offender and Offense Characteristics of a Nonrandom Sample of Adolescent Mass Murderers.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 40(6):719–28. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200106000-00018.

Meyer, Sunniva. 2013. “Impeding Lone-Wolf Attacks: Lessons Derived from the 2011 Norway Attacks.” Crime Science 2(7):1:13. doi: 10.1186/2193-7680-2-7.

Newman, K. 2004. Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. New York: Basic Books. Newman, K., and C. Fox. 2009. “Repeat Tragedy: Rampage shootings in American high school and college settings,

2002-2008.” American Behavioral Scientist 52 (9):1286–1308. doi:10.1177/0002764209332546.

12 D. A. KEATLEY ET AL.

Nisbett, Richard, E and Lee Ross. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. New Jersey: Patience Hall.

O’Toole, Mary, E. 2000. The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective. Quantico, VA: Critical Incident Response Group. National Centre for the Analysis of Violent Crime, FBI Academy.

Rocque, Michael. 2012. “Exploring School Rampage Shootings: Research, Theory, and Policy.” Social Science Journal 49(3):304–13. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2011.11.001.

Schank, R. C. and R. P. Abelson. 2013. “Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding.” Pp. 190–223 in Readings in Cognitive Science: A Perspective from Psychology and Artificial Intelligence, edited by A. Collins and E. E. Smith. Massachusetts: Morgan Kaufmann,

Verlinden, Stephanie, Michel Hersen, and Jay Thomas. 2000. “Risk Factors in School Shootings.” Clinical Psychology Review 20 (1):3–56.

Vossekuil, B., R. Fein, M. Reddy, R. Borum, and W Modzeleski. 2002. The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center.

Wike, Traci L. and Mark W. Fraser. 2009. “School Shootings: Making Sense of the Senseless.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(3):162–69. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.005.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 13