Homicide in Modern
America
by
Chief Investigator,
Wayne A. Johnson
Known as the
“Ultimate Crime” (Adorjan, 1989) Homicide holds a profound fascination over the
American public. Much of this fascination is kindled by our news media and
their dedication to reporting the event in detail. Homicide has found its way
into the popular culture of American society as a captivating form of
entertainment. However, the interest also transcends the hallowed halls of
academia and has been studied with the zest and dedication of any phenomena of
this significance.
While many
studies in this area are predominately quantitative in nature, carried out by
social scientist, who tend to overwhelm us with statistical information that
can be vast and downright confusing (Homicides in Chicago 1965-1995, Block
& Block, 1995), over the era of modern policing (1960's-present) a more
conventional approach has emerged. This approach has taken on a more
medico/legal nature and deals deeply with the causative factors of homicide
(Studying and Preventing Homicide, Smith and Zahn, 1998). While knowing who is
killing whom and in what manner, it is as important to know why. Without this
knowledge of the “WHY factor” American society is ill equipped to stifle this
activity in the midst of becoming, by far, the most violent civilized society
on the planet. Although, this causative research, rarely is part of any
training curricula for homicide investigators.
While reviewing
such empirical data most of us come to a point where we find ourselves jaded by
opinionated jargon and contradictory studies. What I see as an important omission
in the process, is the absence of an experienced voice in the study of
homicide. The voice is that of criminal justice, the professionals who
investigate and prosecute a phenomena
only too familiar to our society. While rising to a status of icon in American
Culture, my ongoing study hopes to memorialize, if in fact, those homicide
professionals charged with this task, are adequately prepared to do so.
While many
researchers take a clinical approach, feeling that a phenomena that sees less
than one tenth of one percent (24,456 murders in a total population of
257,908,000 in 1993), of a total population being victimized as acceptable, the
human, economic and social costs preclude any acceptance whatsoever. What also
has come to the fore is an absence of outrage, probably due to the fact that
most homicides are confined to the lowest of socio-economic settings our
country has to offer and relegated to the minority environs of America. This
low priority of sorts is reflected even in the process of collecting homicide
data.
I have seen first
hand this dichotomy while assigned to a Chicago Homicide Unit. As the case
investigator of a specific homicide involving a middle class African American
female who was brutally murdered in the rear stairwell of her building in a
high crime area, I was re-assigned several days later along with three other
investigators to the equally brutal murder of an young female white graduate
student from an prominent Milwaukee family. This second crime occurred in an
upscale gold coast neighborhood and received a great deal of media coverage
because of the social status of who this victim was. This investigation was my
only assignment for six months and I eventually made an arrest while the other
case lay dormant. Fortunately upon refocusing my efforts on the original case,
I was able to make an arrest and clear that case also. The chief of detectives
at that time spoke out on the social ramifications of such investigations and
how the media can effect resource allocation in homicide investigations. This
official was sanctioned for his comments by the leadership of the department
and the city.
While setting the
stage for a scholarly treatise on homicide, I use the term Modern America as
the contiguous United States from 1900 to the present. At the turn of the 20th
century America was emerging as the industrial giant it is today and homicide
was just one of the growing pains that accompanied such maturation. Within this
new world leader, many of the industrialized cities such as Chicago, grew to be
some of the largest civilized cities in this country and the world.
The studies that
have previously portrayed homicide in this century found it necessary to divide
this millennium into three parts, starting with the years 1900 to 1930. This
era saw the need for governmental mandates in tracking homicide but, provided
little in investigative theory.
The next era from
1930 to 1960 saw the emergence of governmental mandates to track this phenomena
by congressional order. Still the investigative process was remedial at best,
and the ability to accurately classify homicides during this period was as
suspect as the ability to solve them.
It was during the
current period of 1960 to the present that we witnessed the emergence of
“Modern Policing” in America. Over this period of time, the field of homicide
investigation developed to near professional status in some circles and has
made great strides in technical evidence gathering procedures along with the
psychological aspects of murder that may eventually lead us to actual
prevention and a pro-active approach to the event, through what
Tafoya-Brensinger-Johnson (1999) refer to as Criminal Investigative Behavior
Analysis (CIBA), formerly known as Criminal Psychological Profiling. It is this
period that spawned a presidential report in the 1960's recommending college
education for the police, as a road to professionalization. Now, more that
ever, we experience leaders in the field who boast advance terminal degrees and
develop curricula fit for professional recognition.
While modern
policing has brought a great deal of credibility to the field of Criminal
Justice, we still experience an omission in the area of research. Few agencies
participate in research in various aspects of the field, especially homicide.
What assumptions that are drawn from the data we collect are often not
supported by empirical evidence outside of these quantitative assessments. And
those that do exist are produced by academics that have little or no practical
experience in the field.
This, often
politically inspired, process develops policy by a knee jerk reaction to short
term trends and high profile cases. This tends to be costly in tax dollars and
has little longevity in the social milieu where it is exercised. What we have
become in the process, is a public service entity that markets perceptions
while rarely providing a real product. Therefore we can not stand up to real
public scrutiny and grow silent when even valid questions arise regarding
effectiveness and accountability.
What is needed is
the ability to better understand homicide as a form of human behavior. This
understanding is needed by the practitioners who investigate and prosecute. It
allows them the foresight to not only investigate in the typical reactionary
manner but, allows them the ability to forecast such aberrant behavior in those
at risk of becoming killers before they actually do so. However, as some can
see the science provided in Criminal Investigative Behaviors Analysis (CIBA),
that can develop such skills only holds a very minor role in training
curricula.
Other
administrative obstacles to homicide investigations are politically generated
for instance, when the majority of supervisors in violent crimes units charged
with overseeing homicide investigations, possess no practical homicide
experience themselves. Homicide detectives that are promoted to the rank of
sergeant are forced to return to patrol units and never return to homicide
investigative units unless they have the needed political sponsorship, most do
not. This leads to a grievous underlying question, “are police consistently
capable of effective homicide investigations?”
Currently
Uniformed Crime Reports have been designed to expound upon causative factors in
Homicide which included: gang involvement, intimate partner associations, drugs
and alcohol associations, African American-Latino groups as disproportionate
participants in homicide, the current downward shift in the age of offenders
and firearms as a means to committing homicides. This information is relevant
in explaining the phenomena of homicide. I have to wonder if it goes far enough
in a psychological perspective to help prepare the practitioners. Does it even
hold a valid place in the preparatory curricula.
Data Collection
Developing data
on homicides, albeit a statistically rare event, is carried out in two national
forums: by law enforcement, with its legal perspectives and definitions and by
medical examiners, using medical evidence and definitions to draw their
conclusions. These two offices determine independently whether a homicide by
their perspective definition has occurred. The programs put in place lead
national officials to claim that by 1985, over 99% of all deaths occurring in
this country were reported properly (NCHS, 1985, p. 15).
Law Enforcement
The law
enforcement effort of gather homicide data, in any form, did not begin until
the 1920s. It is now carried out through a national program called Uniform
Crime Reporting (UCR) that was assigned under a Congressional order in 1930 to
the Attorney General of the United States, who in turn designated the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to serve as a national clearinghouse for crime
data.
Clearance rates
of homicides refer to the closing of cases by solving them and arresting
perpetrators, along with exceptional clearances that refer to the
administrative closing of cases for a variety of reasons, often beyond the
control of police departments. For example the conviction of a killer in
another state who may face the death sentence, who by a decision of the local
prosecutor’s office, will not be prosecuted locally for a homicide, even though
overwhelming evidence may exist. This case can be exceptionally cleared and
closed by the local police agency in what may be considered a cost cutting
process.
While it is not
the purpose of my investigation to present statistical data regarding homicide
in America, certain data is presented to merely highlight my concerns in
Homicide Investigation Training (HIT). Keeping this in mind, no single
statistic is more important than the fact that clearance rates have been
declining steadily since 1960. In that year, 93% of homicides were cleared by
arrest nationally, since then the clearance rate has steadily declined to 65%
in 1995 (FBI, 1962, 1996) and is even lower in Cook Co. currently, which
encompasses Chicago.
An overwhelming
question must be posed as: Are current homicide investigators properly trained
to solve homicides? Are the changing trends in homicide, responsible for these
dismal solve rates? Despite the advancement in forensic technologies i.e. DNA,
fingerprint data bases, improved collection techniques, can more be done
administratively and in the classroom to prepare investigators to take on the
most grave responsibility in law enforcement? And finally, Are law
enforcement agencies and their encompassing government entities committed to
solve homicides at all costs?
Legal
Responsibilities to protect the public and serve a constituency are paramount,
but are we also responsible to prevent murders in a pro-active manner or simply
respond after the fact and go through the motions of an investigation. Should
the practitioners be required to perform with passion and exhibit outrage at
our failures in this mission? Are we marketing a perception of safety, when we
well know that no one is safe from random violence in the streets of America.
It seems accurate
tracking of this phenomena is a move in the right direction. This process
however, has been a long time coming. The information we collect to track
homicide has only been reliable in the latter half of this century. And this
was only after congressional mandates. It seems like politicians would just as
soon not talk about it. I feel that is part of the reason we are in the
position we are (current clearance rates in Cook Co. are below 60%).
How homicide is
defined provides the functional dichotomy of the two data bases in dealing with
Homicide. A brief legal definition is: the willful killing of another under
illegal circumstances. While this legal definition is adverse to the definition
used in the medical field we must consider that the UCR does not count Justifiable
Homicide while NCHS (mortality data) does.
Mortality Data
Much like the UCR
the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) produces a yearly report
titled Vital Statistics. This report is produced using information provided by
coroners and Medical Examiners via standardized death certificates that go to
the Vital Statistics Division of the NCHS. Unlike the struggles of the UCR with
compliance throughout most of the century, the NCHS claims complete coverage
since 1933 from 50 states, New York City and the District of Columbia report
separately.
Not surprising is
the variance between this data and the UCR statistics that has existed for some
time. This is partly due to the fact that mortality data includes justifiable
homicides in their statistics while the UCR does not. It is also difficult to
compare because the UCR reports are published in a timely fashion (yearly)
while NCHS reports are commonly released 2 to 3 years after the reporting year.
The fact that
Coroners in many areas are not required to have medical training put the
validity of their data at risk. Is some jurisdictions the only requirement for
a person to hold the title of “Coroner” is to be at least 18yrs. old. That is
only exasperated by a variance in the working definitions. A brief medical definition of homicide is:
all cases in which there is the intentional taking of another’s life.
While validity
has always been a question mark, the NCHS system was not fully national until
the 1930's. However, some states maintained this data as early as 1900, and in
Boston mortality data goes back to 1880.
Cause of death
determinations were also problematic in the early years do to limitations set
forth by policy. Prior to 1968 death investigations could only be classified as
accident or homicide. This left local coroners in a quandary when insufficient
evidence existed to make that resolution. A change was put forth in 1968 that
allowed for cases to be classified as undetermined and could allow for
additional information to be gathered.
A 1993 Rand
report concluded that in juxtaposing the two programs, the differences between
the cases in the data files are to a great degree the result of differences in
the two programs’ purposes and procedures. Basically, the UCR measures crimes,
of which death is one outcome. The Mortality System (NCHS) measures deaths, of
which crime is one cause. (P. 112)
Trends
Changing trends
in homicide over the course of the century can provide enforcement with the
information they need to make adjustments in policing strategies. What we see
by the following trends is a problem in the American culture that is endemic to
large urban settings despite technological advances in the forensic sciences.
Beginning at the
turn of the century 6 people per every 100,000 were victims of homicide, which
increased to 9.5 by the 1930s. However, such statistics are suspect before the
congressional mandate to accurately store such data which became much more
reliable after 1930. As America grew and its cities advanced, so did the
phenomena of homicide, and by 1974, 10.2 people of every 100,000 were victims
of homicide which increased to 10.7 by 1980. While these statistics seem
staggering when we consider the human side of the issue, we have seen positive
changes, as in 1985 when the statistics dipped to 8.3 people in 100,000 as
victims of homicide. But this trend was not to last and returned back to 10.0
in 1990. Currently we are in such a dip and saw the rates dropping again to 7.4
in 1996. An overall view of the century shows the lowest rates in the 1950s and
highest in last two decades.
Victimization
rates continue to climb for two age groups, 15 to 24 and 25 to 34. By 1989 the
15 to 24 age group surpassed the 25 to 34 age group. By 1993 the 15-24 age
group was 23.5 per 100,000 as victims of homicide and by 1993 the 25-34 age
group was 19.5 per 100,000. Equally disturbing in the spiral in patterns of
juvenile killers from 8.3 per 100,000 in 1984 to 16.2 per 100,000 in 1993 and
to 16.7 per 100,000 in 1994.
The relationships
between victim and offender have drastically changed during the last forty
years. Prior to that time homicide was perceived as an intimate crime committed
between people known to each other. During the period of 1900 to 1930's such
information has been problematic because no national data base for homicides
existed. The only information available was through specific studies on
homicide that varied greatly by researcher, criteria and locale. These studies
did produce information of note, to a modern society finally dealing with the
over abundance of handguns. This consensus revealed that 71.5% of all homicides
during that period were committed with guns. In retrospect, never was there any
discourse at the time that would even suggest limiting the availability of the
weapons that were part and partial to over two thirds of all homicides.
Other information
regarding relationships between participants of homicide found that a large
percentage of homicides were justifiable 18% (noncriminal), while almost an
equal number were domestic at 18.2% and friends and acquaintances at 18.2%,
while criminal transactions constituted only 16.6% of all homicides. Of the
criminal homicides about 30% were related to control of bootlegging during
prohibition (Boudouris, 1970). Lashly’s 1929 analysis of Chicago Homicides
reflected similar results.
During the period
from the 1930's to 1960's several studies in northern and southern
cities reported a growing number of homicides were domestic and love related.
Furthermore, males killing males in combative situations continued to be a
frequent form of homicide. Surprisingly, criminal transactions actually
decreased to a very small percentage of all homicides.
These same
studies saw homicides amongst low income Blacks and Hispanics, many of which
were laborers and domestics, emerge as the highest groups involved in Homicide
in a Houston study (Bullock, 1955). This same study revealed that in 87% of
the cases, the victim and offender were acquainted. A northern study during
this same period found that only 4.5% of the homicides were cases where the
victim and offender were unknown to each other. Wolfgang in his 1950
Philadelphia study found that the most dangerous place to be for potential
victims was inside a home, over 50% of all homicides occurred there.
During the period
from the 1960's to 1990's certain types of homicides were the subject of
in-depth studies to include: drug related, gang related, stranger robbery and
spousal homicide.
In 1961 the FBI
began publishing, what was to become a new source of national homicide data, in
what is now called the Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR). This report is an
adjunct to the Uniform Crime Report produced by the FBI under congressional
mandate since 1930. In this report homicides are classified in four general
categories: family, acquaintance, stranger and unknown.
By the late 1970's a change was seen in these
previous patterns that involved a dramatic increase in unknown murders and
strangers murders to represent almost 50% of all homicides by 1995. Could
this change be accredited to a new breed of recreational killer traveling from
state to state, leaving a trail of carnage in their midst?
Throughout the 20th
Century homicide trends show the highest rates occurring during the last two
decades. Is this change in the relationship between killer and victim solely
responsible for current solve rates that have plummeted to below 60% locally?
Are the training techniques for Homicide Detectives, that have held hard and
fast for the last two decades, sufficient to the task of solving this new type
of murder? Should we incorporate training theory, developed to address stranger
homicides through profiling techniques, into every homicide training curricula
available? These and other questions will be addressed in the following months
at the Chicago Crime Commission.
Homicide
Murder is “the
unlawful killing of another human being that is premeditated (planned) or that
has malice aforethought: (Oran, 1985: 201). Special cases of non-rapacious
killings include the double-murder and the triple-homicide. While highly
uncommon occurrences, they are rarely the work of a serial offender. These
crimes occur in a single location during one event. The killing of more than
three individuals in one event and at a single site is described as mass
murder; there are two types.
The classic mass
murderer kills four or more people in a single location and in one time frame.
This could occur in a matter of minutes or over a period of several hours. This
killer is generally mentally disordered; a person who acts out against
bystanders who have nothing to do with the issues troubling the killer. A classic
example happened on August 1, 1966, in the space of 90 minutes from the clock
tower of the University of Texas at Austin, sniper Charles Whitman
indiscriminately shot and killed 16 and wounded 30 others who happened to be
walking on the campus grounds below. Again on August 20, 1986 in an Edmund, OK.
Post Office, Patrick Sherrill killed 15 and wounded 6 co-workers. It is from
this incident that the term, “going Postal,” originated. But the most notorious
mass murderer to date is Timothy McVeigh. He was convicted of killing 168
people April 19, 1995 in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City. The victims of this type of killer are people in the wrong
place at the wrong time; there is no substantive nexus.
Spree killing is
yet another subcategory of mass murder. The killings take place in two or more
locations in a single event with no emotional cooling-off period between
incidents. Perhaps the best known is David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz. In a
13-month period (June, 1976 – August, 1977) in New York City, he shot 13 men
and women at 8 different occasions; six of his victims died (Hickey, 1991). In
a 15-month rampage (June, 1984 – August, 1985) the “Night Stalker,” Richard
Ramirez, terrorized suburban Los Angeles. On March 17, 1985, he broke into an
apartment killing a young woman. When her roommate returned, Ramirez shot her
as well. The same night in an adjoining community, Ramirez dragged a young
woman from her car and killed her. On June 27th he slit the throat
of a young woman. Five days later in a nearby community Ramirez bludgeoned to
death a grandmother. Two weeks later in a third community Ramirez shot a man to
death in his bed and tried to decapitate the man’s wife. The same night in a
fourth community, the Night Stalker shot a man and raped his wife. Ramirez was
convicted of 12 first-degree murders, one second-degree homicide, and 30
additional major crimes of rape and burglary (Cyriax, 1993). A recent spree
killer was Andrew Cunanan. In an 11-day
odyssey that began April 29, 1997, at 4 different locales in three states,
Cunanan killed four people. Aware that the authorities had linked him to the
first two murders in Minnesota, the last two murders were committed while he
was on the run. Having tortured his third victim, Cunanan exhibited the
characteristics of both a spree killer and a serial killer (Tafoya, 1997). On
July 15, 1997, sixty-seven days after the fourth killing, Cunanan murdered
clothing designer Gianni Versace assassination style at point-blank range in
front of his Miami Beach home. On July 23, 1997, Cunanan took his own life
(Robinson and Vest, 1997).
Serial killers
take the lives of three or more people in separate events with an emotional
cooling-off period between incidents. In this context, an emotional cooling-off
means that the predator is not in a steady state of rage between killing
events. The serial killer carefully selects and targets specific victims (Douglas
and Olshaker, 1998; Ressler and Shachtman, 1998; Hazelwood and Burgess, 1995;
Douglas, et al, 1992).
Phases of
Predation
Predation is a
life style of exploitation and plunder. The predator lives to prey on others.
Serial offenders are predators. They spend every waking moment thinking about
feeding an insatiable emotional hunger. Between attacks, they relive their last
conquest and fantasize about their next victim. The two most common are the
serial killer and the serial rapist.
Some of the most
infamous serial killers were: John Wayne Gacy, Jeffery Dahmer, Larry Eyler and
in Florida Bobbie Joe Long, a cousin of prolific serial killer, Henry Lee
Lucas. It was Long who began his career as a serial rapist, searching local
newspapers for victims via the want adds.
In considering the psychological aspects of homicide, I
think those of us in the field of education and training, would be remiss if we
did not incorporate these aspects into training modules for detectives faced
with the most daunting task in all of Law Enforcement, HOMICIDE.