chapter 7

Chapter 7.

THE MURDER BOOK

Confrontational Homicide

Prepared by Dr. J.L. Flexon

DEFINITION

• Ken Polk (1994) When Men Kill, describes confrontational homicides (a term he coined)

as those that begin with a public altercation viewed as a contest of honor by at least one

of the participants. The altercation then quickly evolves into violence and ends in death

(Polk, 1994: 60). Also referred to as honor contest violence, confrontational homicides

tend to occur in public places such as bars, parties, parking lots, or in nearby streets or

alleys (Polk, 1994). The participants (victims and offenders) are often, but not always,

intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or illicit substances.

• May be the most common homicide throughout the world

• Not always referred to as confrontational homicide

• Most often male on male violence, involves rapid escalation, and weapons of

opportunity and availability (e.g., fists, beer bottle, gun).

GENDER AND CONFRONTATIONAL HOMICIDE

• As previously noted, this is primarily about male/male crime. When women are discussed,

it is most often as a victim. (Women generally make up less than 15% of homicide

offenders in any country where such statistics are kept).

• However, it is important to recognize that just because the numbers are low DOES

NOT mean that women don’t engage in confrontational behavior that escalates to homicide. The point is that it is rare compared to men.

• Furthermore, the theories that explain confrontational homicide often postulate either

explicitly or implicitly some connection between masculinity and violence.

DATA ON CONFRONTATIONAL HOMICIDE

• No official organization classifies homicides as confrontational homicides leaving no way to be certain of how many homicides fit in this category.

• Studies suggest some idea about the frequency of confrontational homicide as well as the FBI circumstance categorizations may also give us an approximation.

• Wolfgang’s (1958) classic study of homicide in Philadelphia found that 35% of the homicides grew out of trivial altercations.

• Polk (1994) in his Victoria, Australia, study of homicide found that 22% of all homicides could be classified as confrontational homicides. Importantly, confrontational homicide makes up the largest category in his study.

• Similarly, 2004 homicide data from the FBI indicates that homicides resulting from arguments remain the most frequently cited circumstance for known circumstances (Fox & Zawitz, 2006). Nearly a third (29.8%) of homicides during 2004 were related to some type of brawl or argument.

 Definitional issues may lead to overinclusion and underinclusion, e.g., a homicide resulting from a lover’s triangle could be included as a confrontational homicide but might be counted as another type leading to underinclusion.

PERCENTAGE OF CONFRONTATIONAL

HOMICIDES

HISTORY OF CONFRONTATIONAL HOMICIDE

• The term confrontational homicide may be new (relatively), but this qualitative type of

homicide has been around seemingly forever.

• Any homicide resulting from an challenge to one’s honor

• Feuding, brawling, dueling, and lynching might end in and qualify as confrontational

homicide

• Andrew Jackson, 17th president of the United States, shot and killed a man in a

duel (See Box 7.1)

• Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arjECbuaYKI

• Contemporary affronts to honor may be thought of today as being “dissed”

VICTIM-PRECIPITATED HOMICIDE

• Marvin Wolfgang (1958) found it was not uncommon for the victim of a homicide to have

been involved in the events that led to his death. In fact, sometimes the victim initiated the

incident that resulted in his death.

• Wolfgang (1958) introduced the term victim-precipitated homicide to describe homicide

incidents in which the victim was the first to employ “physical force against the

subsequent slayer” (Wolfgang, 1958: 252).

• The concept of victim-precipitated homicide is very relevant as many cases of victim-

precipitated homicide can often also be categorized as confrontational homicides.

VICTIM-PRECIPITATED AND CONFRONTATIONAL HOMICIDES

SHARED CHARACTERISTICS

• Wolfgang determined that 150, or 26%, of the 588 criminal homicides in Philadelphia he examined were victim-precipitated homicides.

• More likely to be male and African American than in non-victim-precipitated homicides.

• In the victim-precipitated homicides:

• 94% of the victims were male as compared to 70% in the non-victim- precipitated homicides.

• Nearly 80% of the victims were African American in the victim-precipitated cases in contrast to 70% in the non-victim-precipitated homicides.

• Different from what we have so far defined as confrontational homicides, women were found to make up a larger percentage (29%) of the victim-precipitated homicide offenders as compared with the non-victim-precipitated homicides (14%).

• It may seem that Wolfgang’s finding that almost a third of homicide offenders who were provoked by their victims were women is in contrast to the notion of confrontational homicide. However, it is likely that many of these women were responding to men who initiated physical violence against them or challenged their masculinity in some way.

HOMICIDE AS A SITUATED TRANSACTION

• Luckenbill (1977: 176) emphasized that homicide is often the result of seemingly

inconsequential incidents that turn into “character contests.”

• Similar to what we think of now as confrontational homicide, homicides are the result

of a contest in which adversaries interact in a way that at least one of them believed

would keep him from looking weak.

• He called these interactions “situated transactions.”

• In both Polk’s and Luckenbill’s samples, most of the homicides occurred when the

offender and victim were taking part in leisure activities such as dancing, partying,

watching television, and, importantly, drinking alcoholic beverages.

SITUATED TRANSACTIONS (CONTINUED)

• Luckenbill (1977: 177) found that these homicides followed a similar pattern in which

the eventual offender and victim each played a role. (6 Moves or Stages)

• Stage 1, Opening move, 3 Basic types:

• Most Common: the victim does something that is viewed as an affront by

the offender (41% of cases)

• A victim refuses to do what an offender wants. The offender interprets this

refusal as a “denial of his ability or right to command obedience” (34% of cases)

• The eventual offender finds a nonverbal gesture made by the victim to be

personally offensive. Luckenbill indicated that often the offender believes

this gesture is an insult to his sexual prowess (25% of cases)

–

- -

SITUATED TRANSACTIONS (CONTINUED)

• Stage 2, the interpretation of the opening move as an affront. The offender views whatever the victim has done as offensive, whether it was meant to be or not; the key point of the second stage is the interpretation. (60% of the cases in his sample, the victim or witnesses to the interaction helped the offender define the opening move as offensive.

• Stage 3, having determined that the victim has affronted him, the offender could excuse or ignore the insult this is where the offender defines “if” the situation will progress to violence. Luckenbill reports that in each

of the homicide scenarios in his study, the offenders made a retaliatory move to save face and not sully their own reputation.

• Stage 4, is the would be victim’s response at which point reputation would be on the line, e.g., the would be victim fled or apologized at the risk of being seen as weak or respond in kind

• Stage 5, is the “forging of a working agreement” at which time both victim and offender seem to be committed to battle (Luckenbill,1977: 184). It is during this fifth stage that a weapon of some sort is brought in and the actual homicide occurs.

• Stage 6, is the final move by the offender. Luckenbill reports three general moves the offender may make in stage 6 following the homicide. 1) Most often in Luckenbill’s study, the offender fled the scene. 2) In nearly a third of the cases, the offender remained until the police arrived, and 3) In approximately one in five cases, the offender was held involuntarily by observers until the police arrived (See Figure 7.2)

 Not all confrontational homicides easily fit into these stages or into all stages.

IMPORTANCE OF AUDIENCE

• Audience seems particularly important in stage 6 for either escalating or deescalating violence

• Although they may not have focused only on confrontational homicide, their work is valuable for understanding confrontational violence.

• Felson (1982) interviewed over 500 individuals about disputes in which they had taken part in the past:

• found that most interpersonal aggression was a response to a perceived rule violation and is thus justified by the aggressor.

• males were more likely than females to express their anger when insulted, which may explain why confrontational homicide is more closely linked to males.

• In relation to audiences, third parties (an audience) affected aggressive interactions.

• If third parties prompted the conflicts, the interactions tended to be more severe, which was particularly true when the participants were both male.

• If a third party mediated a conflict, the interaction did not escalate as much.

 It appears to be the case then that confrontations are more likely to end in violence when others are present who support the violent interaction in contrast to having someone present who tries to nullify the violence.

CONFRONTATIONAL HOMICIDE AND CULTURES

• Subculture of Violence & Southern Subculture of Violence (Discussed earlier)

• The argument is that there is a culture that promotes confrontation in efforts to save face.

• Wolfgang (1958) introduced the idea of a subculture of violence. Like Luckenbill’s stages of homicide, Wolfgang found that much of the violence among the youth, primarily African American males he studied was a reaction to some trivial matter and that a young man who did not respond to an affront with violence or aggression would be seen as weak.

• Some critics argue that high rates of homicide among African Americans are not explained by a subculture of violence. Instead, structural factors are to blame for high rates of violence and homicide among minority group members.

• Higher rates of homicide among African Americans are explained not only by greater levels of structural disadvantage among African Americans but are also a reflection of advantages that whites have over blacks in U.S. society. Among these advantages are higher home ownership rates, higher educational levels, and higher average household incomes

• The southern subculture of honor is similar to the subculture of violence in that both theories propose that high levels of violence among particular groups of people can be explained by a subculture that requires men to react violently to insults that could potentially damage their reputation. However, the southern subculture of violence explains violence by southern white men rather than violence by urban African American youth. The theory falters in the same manner as Wolfgang’s theory on the subculture of violence.

CONFRONTATIONAL HOMICIDE: IS IT A MAN’S…

• Adler and Polk (2001) “For the male players in the homicide drama, the challenge to

manhood is far from a trivial matter” (p. 97).

• Seemingly homicide is often the result of a character contest between men.

• Too frequently a man kills a stranger or someone known to him because he is afraid to be

seen as unmasculine, a “punk,” so he strikes out with physical violence.

• In the place of other types of power (e.g., economic), perhaps among men in lower

socioeconomic classes who have little power other than their physical prowess, violence

is a way to prove one is a man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nld-QOcRG7c