Theoretical Analysis
TropJ
ORDINARYHOMICIDEonline11.pptxORDINARY HOMICIDE
1
The complexity of crime is complex. Simply by looking at a very different type of homicide with a very different theoretical modeling, that point becomes clear.
Ordinary homicide: not to suggest that the untimely and tragic death of anyone is ordinary, simply called ordinary as it is a more common type of homicide
2
Luckenbill’s study
Examined all cases (71) of criminal homicide over a ten year period in a medium sized California county by using all official documents connected to the case
He reconstructed these homicides and found that they were the result of a culmination of an interchange between victim and offender
3
The question for you think about is whether these types of homicides, that generally occur between people who know each other, can be reduced. What social policy do you think would help reduce these to verbal arguments or physical non-lethal outcomes?
4
Luckenbill’s goal in his research: to reconstruct how homicides occur (usually in the context of people who know each other involved in an interpersonal dispute situation)
5
One person insults or offends another person
Verbal insult
Physical (flirtation, affair)
Failure to cooperate with a request
Stage 1: Offense
6
Case 34: (verbal insult) “The offender, victim, and two friends were driving toward the country where they could consume their wine. En route, the victim turned to the offender, both of whom were located in the back seat and state, ‘You know, you really got some good parents, You know, you’re really an (expletive). You’re a leech. The whole time you ere out of a job, you were living with them and weren’t even paying. The car you have should be your father’s. He’s the one who made the payments. Any time your dad goes to the store, you’re the first in line to sponge off him. Why don’t you grow up and stop being a leech?’ The offender swore at him and told him to shut up. But the victim continued, “someone ought to come along and really expletive you up.”
7
Case 10 (physical or nonverbal gesture) “When the victim finally came home, the offender told her to sit down; they had to talk. He asked her if she was ‘fooling around’ with other men. She stated that she had and her boyfriends please her more than the offender. The offender later stated that ‘this was like a hot iron in my gut.’” He ripped her clothes off and examined her body finding scars and bruises. She said that her boyfriends liked to beat her. His anger magnified.
8
The insulted person seeks clarification (i.e., personal insult or can this be explained away).
Seeks clarification from:
Victim
Audience
Reviewing past history
Stage 2: Clarification
9
Case 28 (seeks clarification from the person) “The offender entered the back door of the house. His wife said to her lover, the victim, ‘there’s _____.’ The victim jumped to his feet and started dressing hurriedly. The offender having called to his wife without avail, entered the bedroom. He found his wife nude and the victim clad in underwear. The startled offender asked the victim, ‘Why?’ The victim replied, ‘haven’t you ever been in love? We love each other.’ The offender later stated, ‘If they were drunk or something, I could see it. I mean, I’ve done it myself. But when he said they loved each other, well that did it.’”
10
Case 20 (clarification sought from audience). “the offender and his friend were sitting in a booth at a tavern drinking beer. The offender’s friend told him that the offender’s girlfriend was playing with another man (victim) at the other end of the bar. The offender looked at them and asked his friend if he thought something was going on. The friend responded, ‘I wouldn't let that guy fool around with her, if she was mine.’ The offender agreed and suggested to his friend that his girlfriend and the victim be shot for their actions. His friends said that only the victim should be shot, not the girlfriend.
11
Case 35 (clarification imputed on past history) “During a family quarrel, the victim had broken the stereo and several other household goods. At one point, the victim cut her husband, the offender, on the arm. He demanded that she sit down and watch television so that he could attend to his wound in peace. On returning from the bathroom, he sat down and watched television. Shortly after, the victim rose from her chair, grabbed an ashtray and shouted, ‘you expletive, I’m going to kill you.’ As she came toward him, the offender reached into the drawer of the end table, secured a pistol, and shot her. On arrest, the offender told police officers, ‘You know how she gets when she’s drunk. I had to stop her, or she would have killed me. She’s tried it before, that’s how I got all these scars, pointing to several areas on his back.”
12
The situation is not normalized and the offended party strikes back in one of the following ways:
Lethal
Verbal
Physical, non-lethal
Stage 3: Retaliation
13
Case 12 (lethal): “The offender, victim, and group of bystanders were observing a fight between a barroom bouncer and a drunk patron on the street outside the tavern. The offender was cheering for the bouncer and the victim was cheering for the patron, who was losing the battle. The victim, angered by the offender’s disposition toward the fight, turned to the offender and said, ‘You’d really like to see the little guy have the expletive kicked out of him, wouldn’t you big man?’ The offender turned toward the victim and asked, ‘What did you say? You want the same thing, punk?’ The victim moved toward the offender and reared back. The offender responded ‘OK buddy.’ He struck the victim with a right cross. The victim crashed to the pavement and died a week later.”
14
Case 54 (verbal, nonlethal): The offender, victim, and two neighbors were sitting in the living room drinking wine. The victim started calling the offender, his wife, abusive names. The offender told him to ‘shut up.’ Nevertheless, he continued. Finally, she shouted, ‘I said shut up. If you don’t shut up and stop it, I’m going to kill you and I mean it.’”
15
Case 4 (physical, nonlethal): The offender, victim, and three friends were driving in the country drinking beer and wine. At one point, the victim started laughing at the offender’s car which he, the victim, scratched a week earlier. The offender asked the victim, why he was laughing. The victim responded that the offender’s car looked like junk. The offender stopped the car and all got out. The offender asked the victim to repeat his statement. When the victim reiterated his characterization of the car, the offender struck the victim, knocking him to the ground.
16
If both the victim and the offender are still alive, the fourth stage becomes the mirror image of the third stage.
Instead of an implicit decision being made that all is even, these are all cases that ended in homicide.
Stage 4: Counter-retaliation
17
Case 54 (continued: husband and wife)
“The victim continued his abusive line of conduct. The offender proceeded to the kitchen, securing a knife. She returned to the living room. She repeated her warning. The victim rose form his chair, swore at the offender’s stupidity and continued laughing at her. She thrust the knife deep into his chest.”
18
If both individuals are still alive, the course of action continues until one is dead.
Various scenarios
Weapons present
Offender leaves the scene to secure a weapon
Existing prop (e.g., in these cases, a telephone cord, beer mug, or baseball bat) are turned into a lethal weapon
Finally (Stage 6), decisions are made by the killer and/or audience, but homicide has occurred.
Stage 5: Battle
19
Why does the United States have a high rate of homicide compared to other nations of a similar level of economic development?
A disputed area of criminology: some argue that it is structural and others that it is cultural
So, McCaghy’s model is presented so you can think about it and come to your own conclusions
McCaghy’s model
20
Ordinary homicide rooted in:
interpersonal dispute situations
Plus alcohol (changes the context of offenses and their interpretation
Plus weapons (especially guns) (guns more lethal than knifes more lethal than fists)
Plus general cultural values supporting violence (Frontier Tradition as called by McCaghy)
Cultural values that permeate culture across place and time
21
Violence as solution to problems: violence is viewed as a direct and efficient way to solve a problem
General cultural values
22
Tradition of gun ownership
Regardless of your opinion about guns and how much control should be placed on guns, guns are simply more lethal than knives and knives are more lethal than fists
23
Idealized version of manhood (standing tall, confidence in physical prowess, standing tall vs. danger or affront)
While gender roles are changing, cultural notions have made it harder for men to walk away from an interpersonal dispute situation.
Persistent discrepancies in male and female homicide despite changing gender roles would have to be explained by nature (e.g., testosterone) or nurture (gender roles as shaped by society)
24
Independence from authority: rooted in the vigilante tradition
A perception that we have to avenge our own wrongs rather than turning problems over to authority or a neutral party
In the case of divorce, people have to go to an expensive arbitrator (i.e., lawyer) of interpersonal dispute situations. Other than that, there is a resistance to going to arbitrators (e.g., neighborhood resolutions, etc.)
25
What social policy do you think would help bring down homicide rates (for this type of homicide)?
Question to ponder
26
27
