See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/301699338

Homicide

Chapter · January 2010

CITATION READS

1 10,810

1 author:

Fiona Brookman
University of South Wales
69 PUBLICATIONS 1,080 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fiona Brookman on 29 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 12

Homicide
Fiona Brookman

Introduction

Homicide is a relatively rare yet high-impact event. Its consequences are

deadly for the victim but also devastating for those intimately connected to
the victim and offender and, often, the offender too. At the same time it is
an act that captivates many and is the subject of sustained media attention
and of numerous popular works of fiction. These depictions rarely reflect
the reality of homicide. Rather, they tend to focus on the more (statistically)
unusual forms of homicide such as those with a sexual or unknown motive,
serial or spree killings or those involving young children (see Peelo et al.
2004; Soothill et al. 2004). In stark contrast, homicides among intimates and
those involving young men in fights are much more prevalent, while deaths
caused by corporate negligence or neglect (corporate homicide – albeit often
not officially recognised and recorded as such) dwarf all of these other forms
of homicide combined (see Brookman 2005; Tombs this volume).
I begin this chapter by briefly considering the legal categories of unlawful
homicide in England and Wales, paying particular attention to some of the
limitations of the legal framework and recent proposals to amend the law
surrounding homicide. This is followed by a consideration of patterns and
trends of homicide before moving on to an evaluation of some of the most
important theoretical explanations of homicide and some reflections upon
how homicide has been tackled in the UK context.

Deconstructing Homicide
The term ‘homicide’ refers to the killing of a human being, whether the killing
is lawful or unlawful. Examples of lawful homicide would include the killing
of another human being during wartime combat, the implementation of the
death penalty or the accidental killing of a boxer by his opponent. Unlawful
homicide is legally classified, in England and Wales,1 as murder, manslaughter
or infanticide.2 Each of these categories share a common actus reus (guilty act).

217
Handbook on Crime

What distinguishes them is the extent to which the offender is deemed to

have intended to cause the death of the victim or, in legal terminology, the
perpetrator’s mens rea (guilty mind).3
The most serious category of unlawful homicide is murder in the UK and
carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment.4 The classic definition of
murder, generally accepted both academically and in practice, is that of Lord
Chief Justice Coke from the early seventeenth century:

When a person of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully

killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum
natura under the kings peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed
by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc.,
die of the wound or hurt, etc., within a year and a day after the same.5
(Card 1998: 184).

The phrase rerum natura refers to the notion that one can only be held to have
killed someone who is ‘in being’ (as opposed to an unborn child for example)
and the term ‘malice aforethought’ refers to the notion that a conviction for
murder requires proof of intention to kill. However, what is not clear from
the above extract is that intent to cause grievous bodily harm (that ultimately
results in death) is also sufficient for a conviction for murder.
The liability to conviction for murder may be reduced to manslaughter if
the killing stemmed from provocation, diminished responsibility or a
suicide pact (Homicide Act 1957). These are commonly referred to as forms
of ‘voluntary manslaughter’. Alternatively, where there is no apparent
intent to murder, an individual may be liable to conviction for ‘involuntary
manslaughter’ if it is shown that they acted in a reckless or grossly negligent
manner or that death resulted from an unlawful and dangerous act (adapted
from Ashworth and Mitchell, 2000). Finally, the defence of infanticide
applies when a woman causes the death of her biological child (who is less
than twelve months old) while suffering from some kind of psychological
imbalance linked to childbirth (e.g. postnatal depression). The Infanticide Act
1938 provides that a woman found guilty of infanticide should be dealt with
as though guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Manslaughter and infanticide
carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment though often attract much
lower sentences.
The circumstances surrounding homicide vary enormously, as does public,
media and ultimately the criminal justice response to them. In England and
Wales during the last decade (1998–2008) 35–40 per cent of suspects indicted
for homicide offences were convicted of murder and around a third received
a conviction for manslaughter (figures for infanticide are negligible). The bulk
of the remainder of cases resulted in acquittals (20 per cent) with a small
number resulting in convictions for lesser offences (see Povey et al. 2009: 26).
Hence, while around 800 individuals are indicted for homicide each year
in England and Wales, approximately 60 per cent are seen to have done so
under some sort of mitigating circumstances or not to have committed the
homicide at all.

218
 Homicide

Although legal categories of homicide may appear clear cut, in reality a

fine line separates ‘murder’ from ‘manslaughter’ or ‘accident’ or, as Croall
(1998: 179) notes, ‘licensed killings’ by law enforcers or euthanasia. As I have
pointed out elsewhere (see Brookman 2005), the divide between acceptable
and unacceptable killings is socially, historically and culturally constructed,
and what ‘counts’ (both literally and metaphorically) as murder or unlawful
homicide is the product of a complex legislative history.
It is pertinent to acknowledge at this point the introduction in April 2008
of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. This Act
introduced a new offence across the UK for prosecuting companies and other
organisations where there has been a gross failing throughout the organi­
sation in the management of health and safety with fatal consequences (see
[Link] The
introduction of this legislation is promising in that it recognises the importance
of holding corporations to account for their lethal actions. Nevertheless, the
maximum penalty, if found guilty, is an unlimited fine. This contrasts starkly
with the maximum penalty for other forms of manslaughter in the UK of
life imprisonment and seems to indicate that corporate crime is still not
viewed as ‘real crime’ (see Box 1983; Toombs this volume). It is too early to
determine whether the legislation will have any real impact upon the number
of prosecutions launched or their success. It will, nevertheless, be interesting
to see if corporate homicides begin to find their way into the annual homicide
statistics in future years.6
For many years there has been criticism of the law surrounding homicide,
often directed at the very broad category of manslaughter which, it has been
argued, ranges in gravity from cases that only just fall short of murder right
down to cases that are difficult to distinguish from accidental death (Law
Commission 1996). In addition, scholars have pointed to the complexities
in establishing the presence or absence of ‘intent’ (critical to determine
whether the defendant should be found guilty of murder) and the difficulties
of interpretation surrounding the defences of provocation and diminished
responsibility.
Most recently the Law Commission called for an overhaul of the law
governing homicide in England and Wales suggesting that it is a ‘rickety
structure set upon shaky foundations’ with several rules ‘unaltered since
the seventeenth century’ (Law Commission 2006b: 3; see also [Link]
[Link]/[Link]). The current proposal is to create a three-tier
law of homicide that would comprise:

• First degree murder:7 (a) intentional killings; (b) killing with intent to cause
serious injury where the killer was aware that his/her conduct involved a
serious risk of causing death (mandatory sentence of life imprisonment).
• Second degree murder: (a) killings intended to cause serious injury;
(b) killings intended to cause injury or fear or risk of injury where the killer
was aware that his or her conduct involved a serious risk of causing death;
(c) the result of a successful partial defence plea to first degree murder
(discretionary life sentence, with guidelines).

219
Handbook on Crime

• Manslaughter: (a) causing death by gross negligence; (b) causing death

through a criminal act intended to cause injury, or in the awareness of a
serious risk that injury may be caused (discretionary life sentence).
(Adapted from Law Commission, 2006b:
172–6, and Horder 2007: 19)

There is insufficient space here to deal in any detail with the potential benefits
and limitations of the proposed new structure, suffice it to say that second
degree murder would incorporate the worse kinds of killing by recklessness
(that currently fall under manslaughter) as well as those committed as a
result of provocation or diminished responsibility. It would also capture some
offenders who would currently be convicted of murder.
A number of the more specific proposals for reform include extending
the provocation defence to those who have overreacted in response to a
fear of serious violence. Advocates of this reform suggest that it ‘arises out
of longstanding concerns that the law is too generous for those who kill
in anger and too harsh for those who kill out of fear of serious violence’
(Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission 2008: 4). Moreover, the defence
of provocation has been seen to be gender biased in that it requires evidence
of a sudden loss of self-control that often characterises circumstances where
men kill (and in particular when a man kills an intimate partner). In contrast,
female victims of domestic violence who kill their abusers often do so as
a result of cumulative provocation or long-term abuse and there may be
a ‘cooling-off’ time between provocation and reaction to it – which has
undermined the case for using this defence. At the other end of the spectrum
is a proposal to reconsider the law on complicity in relation to homicide.
The Commission recommends that individuals be found guilty of complicity
to murder if they have helped or encouraged a fatal attack, provided that
they realised murder might be committed by the perpetrator. This proposal
aims to tackle some of the difficulties involved in successfully prosecuting all
members involved in a lethal joint-venture attack – notably gangs of young
men (see Law Commission 2006a).
As Horder (2007: 29) points out, “[T]here are no easy or perfect solutions
to be found in this hinterland between murder and lesser homicide offences.”
For him, however, the creation of the three-tier structure ‘takes some heat out
of the debate’. To what extent and precisely when the new legislative powers
will come into being is currently unknown. What is clear, however, is that – if
and when it comes into law – this will be the first substantial overhaul of the
legal framework of homicide in England and Wales for over 500 years.

Patterns and trends of homicide

Compared to most other forms of violent crime, homicide is relatively rare.

There were, for example, less than 800 homicides recorded in England and
Wales in 2007/8 (see Table 12.1 below) compared to almost 10,000 recorded
cases of threat or conspiracy to murder, over 15,000 acts involving serious
wounding or endangerment to life, over 17,000 offences involving a firearm,

220
 Homicide

Table 12.1 The number and rates of homicides in the UK in 2007/8

Jurisdiction Number Rate per 100,000 population

England and Wales 763 1.4

Scotland 114 2.2
Northern Ireland* 30 2.0

Source: Tavares and Thomas (2008). The Northern Ireland figure is an average for the
three-year period 2004–6.

84,000 robberies, and over 41,000 serious sexual crimes (see Kershaw et al.
2008: 25). Provisional data for 2008/9 show the police recorded 648 incidents
of homicide, a decrease of 17 per cent on the previous year and the lowest
recorded level in the last 20 years. The number of attempted murders also
decreased (Walker et al. 2009).8
As Figure 12.1 illustrates there has been a steady increase in the number
of homicides in England and Wales since the mid-1960s. There was also a
sudden spike in 2003, with over 950 homicides recorded. However, this peak
is almost wholly artificial – the result of 172 homicides attributed to the serial
killer Harold Shipman being coded to this time period.9 This and other unusual
events can artificially inflate the overall figures and particular characteristics
of homicide for that period. For example, the vast majority of Shipman’s
victims were elderly females whom he killed by administering lethal doses
of (in the main) morphine and diamorphine and so for 2002/3 the proportion
of female victims of homicide is unusually elevated, as is death by poisoning
(see Cotton and Bibi 2005). Overall, the offences attributable to Shipman
artificially inflated the homicide rate by 20 per cent during 2002–3. While
this one-off peak is artificial, the general upward trend is not. Homicide has
increased since the mid-1960s in Britain and this is characteristic of homicide
across Europe (see Spierenburg, 2008: 208).10 For example, the homicide rate
has almost doubled from 7.3 per million population in 1967 to 14.1 per million

Figure 12.1 Annual totals of recorded homicide in England and Wales, 1967–2007/8

221
Handbook on Crime

population in 2007/8 in England and Wales. On the other hand, the rise
appears to have been abating across some parts of Europe and the US (see
Miethe and Regoeczi 2004, regarding US rates). This pattern has not yet been
reflected in England and Wales, unless the above-mentioned fall in homicides
in 2008/9 represents the first signs of a trend reversal.

International homicide rates

Comparative analysis of homicide statistics needs to be approached
cautiously due to differences in legal definitions of homicide across countries
and differences in the criteria adopted to collect and record homicide. For
example, some jurisdictions include attempted homicide in their figures
while others, such as Japan, exclude robbery homicide (see Finch 2001). In
terms of recording homicide, this is partly dependent upon the capacity of
national institutions to gather data and accurately record events (Aebi, 2004).
Moreover, there is some evidence that variations in crime reporting rates are
strongly related to measures of institutional stability and police presence and,
in some instances, to ‘a subjective index of corruption’ (see Soares 2004, cited
in Krause et al. 2008: 69).
There are also numerous difficulties in explaining homicide trends. For
example, despite a proliferation of lethal weapons in developing countries
since the 1960s, the lethality of assaults has decreased due to developments in
medical technology and care (Krause et al., 2008). Hence, assessment of long-
term trends needs to take account of improvements in health care and, when
drawing international comparisons, one needs to be mindful of differences in
healthcare systems across countries and regions. With these caveats in mind,
Krause et al. (2008) indicate that the world average homicide rate for 2004 is
7.6 per 100,000 population. The highest homicide rates are concentrated in
Africa (excluding North Africa) and Central and South America (20–30,000
homicides per 100,000 population). East and South East Asia and West and
Central Europe (which includes the UK) exhibit the lowest levels – with rates
generally lower than 2 per 100,000 population (see Table 12.2 below).
Reiner (2007: 367) argues that international patterns of homicide rates
correspond systematically to variations in political economies. Specifically,
‘neo-liberal’ countries have the highest homicide rates (in particular South
Africa and the USA) followed by ‘conservative corporatist’ countries (such
as Italy, Germany and France) and finally ‘social democracies’ with the
lowest rates (such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway). Reiner draws upon
the work of a number of authors (e.g. Currie 1998; Hall 1997) in arguing
that neo-liberal economies foster violence through high levels of inequality,
relative deprivation and involuntary, exclusionary unemployment.11 However,
the association is not perfect and there are several anomalies to this pattern
– for example, social-democratic Finland (see Savolainen et al. 2008, for
an interesting discussion). Jacobs and Richardson (2008), like Reiner, have
noted the importance of economic inequality and homicide rates but also
acknowledged the importance of the proportions of young males in the
population – an issue that becomes particularly salient when we consider
homicide in Japan.

222
 Homicide

Table 12.2 Homicide rates per 100,000 population, selected countries of the world by
region, 2004–6

Country Rate Country Rate

Southern Africa Near & Middle East/South

  West Asia
Botswana 21.5 Afghanistan 3.4
South Africa 69.0 Iraq 6.7
Zimbabwe 32.9 Israel 4.7
North Africa Pakistan 6.3
Algeria 9.6 Saudi Arabia 3.2
Egypt 1.3 India 5.5
Morocco 1.1 Sri Lanka 7.2
East Africa East & South East Europe
Kenya 20.8 Russian Federation 29.7
Mauritius 2.7 Ukraine 12.0
Uganda 25.2 Albania 6.6
West & Central Africa Bulgaria 2.6
Cameroon 16.1 Croatia 1.8
Gambia 13.5 Serbia 1.4
Senegal 14.2 Turkey 6.2
Americas – Caribbean West & Central Europe
Bahamas 22.5 Austria 0.7
Barbados 15.1 Belgium 1.8
Cuba 6.0 Cyprus 1.9
Dominican Republic 24.2 Czech Republic 2.2
Jamaica 55.2 Demark 1.1
Trinidad & Tobago 19.6 Estonia 7.3
Central America France 1.6
El Salvador 57.5 Germany 1.0
Panama 13.4 Greece 1.0
North America Iceland 0.7
Canada 2.0 Ireland 1.5
Mexico 11.2 Italy 1.2
United States of America 5.9 Netherlands 1.2
South America Norway 0.7
Argentina 5.5 Poland 1.5
Brazil 30.8 Spain 1.1
Colombia 61.1 Sweden 1.0
Uruguay 6.0 England & Wales 1.5
Central & East Asia Northern Ireland 1.8
Kazakhstan 16.2 Scotland 2.3
China 2.2 Oceania
Japan 0.5 Australia 1.5
Thailand 9.0 New Zealand 1.5
World average homicide rate: 7.6 per 100,000 population.

Source: Adapted from UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) (2008),
International Homicide Statistics and (for EU countries) Table 2, Tavares and Thomas
(2008) Crime and Justice Statistics. The former cover the period 2004 only and the
high estimate has been included here.

223
Handbook on Crime

Japan has fewer homicides per capita than almost any other nation and
the rate has dropped some 70 per cent in the last 50 years (Johnson 2008).
Moreover, the demographic group most responsible for the dramatic decline
is young men aged 20–24; the murder rate among them is now one tenth of
what it was 50 years ago. The ‘vanishing young male killer’ (Johnson 2008)
has been described as unprecedented (Uchiyama 2003). There are no clear
answers yet as to what factors have brought about the dramatic decline of
homicide in Japan. Johnson speculates that Japan’s postwar commitment
to antiwar values (including a pacifist constitution) may have strengthened
inhibitions against killing in Japanese culture. Alternatively, growing affluence
in Japan in the absence of pockets of poverty and, thereby, relative deprivation
(that often characterises other developed nations) may be significant. What is
also striking about Japanese culture is that it has the highest suicide rates
in the developed world. Males commit almost three-quarters of suicides in
Japan and it is now the second leading cause of death among young Japanese
people aged 15–24 and the leading cause of death amongst those aged 25–39
leading Johnson (2008: 155) to urge that the possible links between suicide
and homicide be explored.
Moving to the other extreme, Krause et al. suggest that the high homicide
rates in Africa may be associated with a series of social and economic
indicators often linked to crime including ‘a low overall Human Development
Index12 (HDI), low economic performance, high levels of income inequality, a
youthful population, rapid rates of urbanization, poorly resourced criminal
justice systems, and a proliferation of firearms, related in part to the recurrence
of conflict in all regions of the continent’ (UNODC 2005: ix, cited in Krause
et al. 2008: 72). Moreover, there is a plausible link between armed conflict
and homicide rates both during and after hostilities in that the psychological,
social and economic impact of war combined with an increased availability of
weapons may contribute to homicide levels (UNODC 2005).
McAlister (2006) has found some evidence to suggest that international
variation in homicide rates may be attributable to cultural differences in
acceptance of moral justifications for killing. In combined data from four
surveys of young people and adults in 19 nations, McAlister found that
national and regional attitudes toward killing were strongly related to homicide
rates. Association does not, of course, mean that the two are causally related.
Rather, a third (unknown) variable might explain the presence of both high
rates of homicide and high levels of acceptance of killing. Moreover, even if
there is a causal connection, it is not clear in which direction it works. For
example, high homicide rates in a particular jurisdiction may affect residents’
acceptance of homicide (they may become desensitised for example), or pro-
violence sentiments may indeed affect levels of homicide (see subcultural
explanations later).

Offender, victim and offence characteristics13

This section will include brief consideration of the socio-demographic

characteristics of those who become involved in homicide as well as some

224
 Homicide

details of the homicide event.14 It is important to note that while the data
available on homicide are more comprehensive than is generally the case for
other offence categories, certain kinds of killings are not routinely included
in the Home Office homicide statistics – such as those that arise as a result of
dangerous driving or corporate negligence or neglect (Brookman 2005). This
has important implications regarding the overall shape or picture of homicide
and skews it in certain directions – not least in terms of the social class and
ethnicity of those involved.

Offenders and victims

Gender and Age
One of the most significant ‘facts’ about homicide is that it is dominated by
males or, to be more precise, young men. Over 90 per cent of offenders are
male, over 70 per cent of victims are male and, as illustrated in Table 12.3,
60 per cent of homicides over the last decade were male-on-male. In stark
contrast, only 3 per cent of homicides occur among females. Forty-four per
cent of all homicides in England and Wales between 1998 and 2008 (for which
age and gender of suspect are known) were committed by young males aged
less than 30.
Both gender and age also have a considerable impact upon the likelihood
of falling victim to homicide. For example, males are three to four times more
likely to fall victim to homicide than females and comprise 70–80 per cent of
the victims in an average year. Somewhat peculiar to homicide, the age group
most at risk are infants under one year old (at 36 per million population). This
group are followed by young adults aged 16–29 (at 24 per million population)
(Povey et al. 2009: 13).

Ethnicity
It is now well established that black and Asian people are over-represented
as both victims and offenders of homicide. For example, for the period 2003–
5, black people were 5.5 times more likely to fall victim to homicide than
whites and Asian people were 1.8 times more likely than white people to
become victims of a homicide (CJS Race Unit 2006: 7).15 Black individuals
comprise 14 per cent of homicide victims despite them comprising less than
3 per cent of the population of England and Wales (Census 2001). Whites
make up over 90 per cent of the population but only 73 per cent of homicide
victims. Homicides involving a black victim exhibit some distinct qualities.

Table 12.3 Gender ‘mix’ of suspect and victims of homicide in

England and Wales: 1998–2008

Main suspect Main victim

Male Female

Male 60% (4,900) 29% (2,359)

Female 7% (589) 3% (228)

225
Handbook on Crime

For example, during the last decade (1998–2008) almost a third of black
victims were shot, compared to 5 per cent of white victims, 9 per cent of
Asians and 7 per cent of other ethnic groups. Blacks are also more likely
than other ethnic groups to be killed with a sharp instrument (40 per cent of
black victims compared to around a third of all other groups). Finally, it is
more common for homicides involving black victims to remain unsolved (28
per cent) in comparison with white or Asian victims (11 per cent) (CJS Race
Unit 2006). This may be a reflection of particular difficulties associated with
investigating shooting incidents or, as is widely perceived within minority
ethnic communities, because such cases are investigated less rigorously (see
Phillips and Bowling 2007).
Finally, non-white people are over-represented as homicide offenders, with
blacks comprising 12 per cent of offenders, Asians 7 per cent and other non-
white groups 3 per cent. More than one-fifth (21 per cent) of all homicide
suspects between 1998 and 2008 were non-white males. We will explore
later in the chapter the possible reasons for the over-representation of ethnic
minority groups in homicide.

Social class and occupation

There is little reliable information in the UK regarding the social class and
employment status of offenders and victims of homicide. What is clear from
the limited data available on the Homicide Index is that at least 28 per cent
of victims of homicide over the last decade were unemployed at the time
of their death (this figure excludes students and retired individuals) and a
quarter were in employment. The employment status of a quarter of victims
was unknown/not recorded and it is likely that many if not most of these
cases involved unemployed victims (see Brookman 2003).
Dobash et al. (2002), in their Homicide in Britain study, discovered that
almost 70 per cent of the 786 male offenders that they studied were usually
unemployed and that most had left school without qualifications. Overall, the
available evidence indicates that homicide is dominated by offenders from
the lower classes and a significant number are unemployed at the time of the
offence. However, this finding is, in part, a reflection of the kinds of killings
that are routinely included in the statistics and those that are generally not
(as outlined earlier).

Victim-offender relationship
Around a quarter of homicides occur among friends or social acquaintances,
16 per cent among intimate partners/ex-partners and 15 per cent among
strangers. Seven per cent involve the murder of a son or daughter and a
further 5 per cent involve the killing of another kind of family member (e.g.
an in-law or sibling. Business and criminal associates comprise a further 7 per
cent (see Figure 12.2).
Unsurprisingly perhaps, these patterns vary by gender. For example, of the
208 females killed in England and Wales in 2007–8, 35 per cent were killed
by a partner or ex-partner (compared to just 6 per cent of male victims), 22
per cent by another family member (compared to just 11 per cent of males)
and only 13 per cent of female victims were killed by a stranger (compared

226
 Homicide

Business associate No suspect

5% 12%
Friend/social
acquaintance
22% Not known
15%

Other known
1%
Other family
5%
Stranger
Son/daughter
15%
7%
Criminal associate
Partner/ex-partner
2%
16%

Figure 12.2 Victim–offender relationship, 1998–2007/8

to 36 per cent of male victims). Clearly, homicides involving females (as

killer, victim or both) tend to occur between intimates, whereas male-on-male
homicides are more likely to involve strangers or acquaintances. The basic
patterns of victim–offender relationship have remained relatively stable over
the last decade with just two exceptions; the number of ‘no suspect’ cases has
increased over time (more than doubled in ten years from 7 per cent to 15
per cent) and homicides among ‘partners/ex-partners’ have decreased from
20 per cent to 13 per cent.

Features of the homicide event

The homicide event refers to the micro-environment in which the homicide
takes place and includes ‘the social context that unites offenders and victims’
(Miethe and Meier 1994: 3) and the ‘setting and props’ (Block 1977: 74) that
facilitate homicide. These include temporal and spatial features of homicide,
the characteristics of a particular social setting, the availability of weapons
and the role of drugs and alcohol – to name but a few. Due to the limitations
of space, I will deal here only with weapons and the role of drugs and
alcohol.

Weapons and method of kill

In the UK, homicide is most likely to be perpetrated with a knife or other sharp
instrument (around a third of cases in England and Wales and almost 50 per
cent of cases in Scotland). The number of homicides perpetrated with a sharp
instrument in England and Wales in 2007/8 was the highest recorded during
a financial year since the Homicide Index was introduced in 1977. The use
of sharp instruments is perhaps unsurprising given that knives are routinely
found in people’s homes and, therefore, easily accessible. At the same time,
there is some evidence of an increasing ‘knife culture’ (Eades et al. 2007) so
that both indoors and outdoors knives become a readily available weapon of
choice. Stabbings are followed in frequency by lethal fights involving hitting

227
Handbook on Crime

and kicking (an average of 13 per cent over the last decade) and assaults with
blunt instruments (8 per cent average). An average of 6 per cent of victims
are strangled (generally female victims of male attacks) and a further 4 per
cent of victims are suffocated (generally infants).
Despite increased concern and attention to shooting incidents, there has not
been an upward trend in the number of fatal shootings in the UK. Firearms-
related homicides ranged between 6 and 12 per cent in the last decade in
England and Wales (an average of 8 per cent and 64 cases each year). Most
recently fatal shootings accounted for 7 per cent of homicides in England
and Wales (and 4 per cent in Scotland) (Povey et al. 2009; and Scottish
Government 2008). While there has been a certain level of exaggerated media
(and government) coverage of fatal shootings, this should not distract from
the fact that lethal weapons permeate sections of certain cities in the UK and
particular contexts much more than others, thereby making it more likely that
minor disputes end lethally. Shootings almost always occur among young
males and sometimes emerge in the context of rival gang activity (whether
in relation to the protection of lucrative drug dealing ‘turf’ or ‘status’ and
reputation confrontations – see section on making sense of seemingly senseless
acts below). Despite the high profile of such killings they present the police
with particular challenges in terms of identifying suspects – i.e. suspects have
not been identified in one-third of fatal shootings recorded during the last
decade. In stark contrast, suspects remain unidentified in just 8 per cent of
homicides that were not perpetrated with a firearm.

Drugs and alcohol

Evidence from a range of studies illustrates that both alcohol and/or drugs
play a significant role in homicide events and, often, the lives of offenders
and victims. For example, Shaw et al. (2006) found that over half of the 1,579
homicides that they examined involved offenders who were misusing either
alcohol or drugs in the 12 months prior to the homicide and that overall in
45 per cent of cases that they examined, alcohol or drugs contributed to the
homicide in that the offender was intoxicated in some way at the time of
the offence (Shaw et al. 2006: 1119–20). Brookman (2003) found that alcohol
had been consumed (often to excess) by either the offender or victim in over
half of all cases of male-on-male homicide that she examined in England and
Wales, while Dobash et al. (2002) found that 38 per cent of male homicide
offenders were drunk or very drunk at the time of the offence and 14 per cent
were using illegal drugs. Furthermore they discovered that a quarter of the
men in their study (786 in total) had problems with alcohol before the age of
16 and 17 per cent had abused drugs. By adulthood these figure rose to 49
per cent for alcohol and 25 per cent for drugs.
While alcohol and/or drug consumption permeates many situations in
which homicide occurs, it is nevertheless rare for people to become violent
every time they consume such substances. Hence, while alcohol and/or drug
consumption is doubtless frequently implicated, it is not on its own a sufficient
or necessary explanation for violence. There are various ways in which the
consumption of drugs and alcohol may be related to homicide (some of which
will be explored in the following section). For example, in the case of drugs

228
 Homicide

and violence, Goldstein (1985) suggests that there are at least three distinct
levels at which one might uncover a relationship; (a) psychopharmacological
(i.e. the effects upon one’s mind and body); (b) economic compulsive (the
notion that individuals commit violent crimes, such as robbery, to secure the
funds to sustain a drug habit); and ‘systemic’ (which refers to the violence
associated with the often very lucrative supply and distribution of drugs
that can lead to territorial disputes within the drugs trade (see Bennett and
Holloway, this volume). Moreover, the links between alcohol and homicide
and drugs and homicide are somewhat distinct. For example, recent research
by Chapple (2008) indicates some interesting differences between alcohol-
related homicides, drug-related homicides and non-substance related
homicides in England and Wales. Alcohol-related homicides were more likely
than other homicides to involve a friend or former friend, no weapon use and
some kind of quarrel or dispute. Drug-related homicides were more likely
than other homicides to involve an acquaintance, shooting the victim and
economic motivation.

Making sense of seemingly senseless acts

There is a vast range of explanations of homicide which is unsurprising, given

the diversity of homicide itself (e.g. infanticide at one extreme, serial killing at
another) and the different sorts of questions posed regarding its aetiology (e.g.
a focus on patterns and trends on the one hand or the situational dynamics of
a particular case on the other). It is not possible to do justice to the plethora
of theories here.16 I am going to pay particular attention to structural, cultural
and situational explanations of male-on-male homicide and will end this
section with a consideration of gang-related homicide in a UK context. I will
suggest that in order to understand homicide it is crucial to recognise the
combined importance of all three approaches.
In focusing upon structural, cultural and situational factors, I pay no real
attention to explanations that look ‘inside’ the offender. While there is no doubt
that some homicides are committed by individuals with some enduring or
transient individual pathology (e.g. a neurological or biochemical dysfunction
or a personality disorder), and some evidence that certain people simply
enjoy hurting and killing other people and commit violence for violence sake
(see Schinkel 2004) most criminologists would agree that these represent the
exception rather than the rule. Moreover, there is clear evidence that any
individually based factors that play a role in homicide must be understood
in combination with environmental precursors or facilitators – otherwise such
individuals would presumably be violent most or all of the time. Hence, the
most pertinent work in this area acknowledges the link between the individual
and environmental stimuli and cues (see, for example, Denno 1990; Niehoff
1999; Freedman and Hemenway, 2000).

The seeds of homicide: structural forces

Structural theorists have been concerned primarily to explain certain striking
patterns to be found in the social characteristics of offenders (and sometimes

229
Handbook on Crime

victims) of both violence in general and homicide in particular. They try to

unravel, for example, how and why certain factors or conditions such as
poverty, deprivation and inequality or social disorganisation may explain
homicide patterns. To these ends, structural researchers often rely upon the
statistical analysis of aggregate data. As discussed earlier, when considering
international homicide patterns and trends, there is a great deal of evidence
correlating poverty (Pridemore 2008), inequality and social disorganisation
(Messner and Rosenfeld 1999; Jacobs and Richardson 2008), population
turnover and population demographics (Jacobs and Richardson, 2008) with
homicide rates. Most recently, McCall et al. (2008) highlighted a number of
contemporary social and economic factors relevant to the sharp increase
in US homicides (from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s) followed by its
equally dramatic decline – including, recession, illicit drug market activity,
incarceration rates and police presence.

Cultural influences
While structural theories focus upon the social conditions that can foster
crime, cultural theorists focus upon the ideas and values that particular
groups hold and how these can generate involvement in crime. For example,
the ‘subculture of violence’ theory (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 1967) starts from
the premise that homicide predominantly occurs among individuals from
the lowest socio-economic groups in society and that the lethal encounters
in which they become embroiled often arise from trivial incidents – such as
minor insults or scuffles. These findings can apparently be explained by the
fact that the vast majority of these people share beliefs that are conducive to
the use of force and violence when insulted or challenged such an exaggerated
sense of honour, courage and manliness (see Curtis 1975). Research in this
area has burgeoned recently with various criminologists exploring ‘codes of
the street’ (Anderson 1999) and how these codes demand violent responses
to interpersonal confrontation and vengeance and retaliation for certain
infractions (Anderson 1999; Hochstetler and Copes 2003; Jacobs and Wright
1999; Wright et al. 2006). These accounts provide rich descriptions of the
circumstances under which such violence is approved or even demanded
and, to varying degrees, acknowledge that such cultures are formed as a
result of the marginalisation of certain sections of society. For the most part,
the theories that have developed focus upon street cultures and fit well with
Bourgois’ definition of street culture (2003: 8): ‘a complex and conflictual web
of beliefs, symbols, modes of interaction, values and ideologies that have
emerged in the opposition to exclusion from mainstream society’. For Bourgois,
street culture is an alternative forum for autonomous personal dignity where
power in mainstream society has been denied (see also Sandberg 2008). These
accounts, then, recognise the critical link between structural forces and the
development of violent street cultures.
Both cultural and structural explanations suffer from the age-old problem
of over-prediction. Explanations of relative deprivation or poverty and
homicide, for example, cannot account for the fact that most people suffering
from economic inequality do not engage in violence. This point is particularly

230
 Homicide

pertinent when gender is entered into the equation. How might we explain
the very low rates of female homicide while acknowledging that women are
among the most disadvantaged of citizens (see Wilson 1993)? Similarly, not
all members of a violent subculture engage in violence all of the time and
few become embroiled in lethal violence (leading some critics to challenge
the notion of a distinct violent subculture that approves of violence in general
– see Corzine et al. 1999). As Levi (1997: 860) notes, such accounts ‘seldom
generate anything close to a causal account which makes sense of non-
violence as well as of violence’. This is because, in isolation, both cultural and
structural approaches fail to specify the situational conditions that channel
particular dispositions for violence into concrete lines of action. Incorporating
situational analyses into the equation helps to overcome this weakness. As
Luckenbill and Doyle (1989: 421) state: ‘Violence is performed by individuals
in the context of face-to-face interactions and therefore involves a number of
psychological and interpersonal processes.’

Foreground factors: the micro-environment and situational dynamics

The micro-environment of crime can be defined as ‘the social context that unites
offenders and victims and comprises both physical and social dimensions’
(Miethe and Meier 1994: 3). Research into the micro-environment of homicide
is vast and includes studies exploring victim–offender relationships (Wolfgang
1958; Polk 1994a; Decker 1996), the interactional dynamics of offenders,
victims and third parties where relevant (Luckenbill 1977; Decker 1995), the
lethality of situations dependent upon temporal and spatial aspects of the
environment, the routine activities of those who inhabit particular locations
(Weaver et al. 2004; Pizarro, 2008), the lethality of situations dependent upon
access to weapons (Phillips and Maume 2007) and the situational role of
drugs and alcohol (Parker 1995; Parker and Auerhahn 1999). The overall aim
of this approach is to provide a ‘contextualised account of homicide in action’
(Chapple 2008: 20). What this approach, more than any other, acknowledges
is that homicide is a dynamic and evolving event where the ‘actors’ mould
each other’s behaviour.
The major substantive approach that has guided this work comes from
symbolic interactionism that stresses the role of situational identities or self-
images in interaction (e.g. Becker 1962; Goffman 1967; Toch 1969; Athens 1977;
Tedeschi and Felson 1994). One illuminating analysis of lethal interactions
is Luckenbill’s (1977) paper ‘Criminal homicide as a situated transaction’.
Luckenbill’s research, based on the analysis of 70 murders, documents the
dynamic interchange of moves and counter-moves between offenders, victims
and oftentimes bystanders of homicide. During these interactions (which he
places into six major stages) the key players develop lines of action shaped in
part by the actions of each other and predominantly focused towards saving
or maintaining ‘face’ and reputation and demonstrating character.
More recently, Polk (1994a 1995) has built upon this work drawing upon
qualitative data from homicides in Australia in the 1980s. Most notably, he
manages, through the use of discrete homicide scenarios (disaggregated
by victim–offender relationship and situational circumstances), to unravel

231
Handbook on Crime

the dynamic nature of homicide situations while also acknowledging the

importance of social class and masculinity in the evolution of homicide events
(see also Brookman 2003). For example, Polk argues that confrontational
homicide (where the offender and victim become involved in a spontaneous
dispute and engage together in a violent confrontation) has its source ‘in the
willingness of males, first, to lay down challenges to the honour of other
males, and second, the masculine readiness to engage in physical violence in
response to such challenges’ (Polk 1994b: 169). He notes, however, that such
violent encounters are much more likely to occur among young, working-class
(or underclass) males, which he relates to the manifestation of a particular
kind of masculinity in response to economic marginality:

Males who are well integrated into roles of economic success are able
to ground their masculinity through methods other than physical
confrontations and violence. For economically marginal males, however,
physical toughness and violence become a major vehicle for the assertion
of their masculinity and a way of defending themselves against what
they see as challenges from other males. (Polk 1994b: 187)

Other researchers, particularly throughout the 1980s and 1990s, developed

ideas around the relationship between social class, race and age and the
development and expression of particular kinds of masculinity in explaining
violence (see Messerschmidt 1993; Segal 1990), though this line of research
seems to have abated recently with a resurgence of interest in street (or
‘corner’17) cultures.
Despite this important body of work, there is still very little research
that helps us to unravel why particular acts of homicide occur at particular
moments in time – i.e. why here? why now? why this victim? Someone
who has made an important contribution to this conundrum is Athens
(1980 1997), a symbolic interactionist who carefully analysed the accounts of
violent offenders focusing upon the interpretations they made of situations
in which they committed violent acts, their interpretations of situations in
which they almost committed such acts, the self-images that they held
and their violent criminal careers. Athens discovered that individuals who
had committed violent criminal acts (including homicide) formed one
of four possible interpretations of the situation: (a) physically defensive;
(b) frustrative; (c) malefic; or (d) frustrative-malefic. On those occasions when
these same individuals almost resorted to violence they formed a ‘restraining
judgement’, escaping the tunnel vision that characterised the violent events
and redefining the situation as not requiring violence. There were various
reasons for the change of interpretation and sentiment such as: perceiving
that the attack would fail, fear of jeopardising an important intimate or
social relationship, deference to the other person or fear of legal sanctions.
Finally, other individuals indicated that they re-evaluated the situation in
light of a change in the course of action of the other person (e.g. the potential
victim conceded in some way or apologised). Athens’ work moves us much
closer to the moment of the interaction than most other research in this
area.

232
 Homicide

Unsurprisingly, people form restraining judgements far more often than

they form overriding ones or become locked in fixed lines of indication.
Consequently – and fortunately – far more violent criminal acts are
begun than are ever completed. (Athens 1997: 52–3)

Integrated Approaches
It is not possible to do justice to the complexity of homicide without
acknowledging the interplay of structural, cultural and situational factors. For
example, Luckenbill’s work, while valuable in unpacking the micro-situational
dynamics of homicide, failed to look outward from the encounter to the social
and economic forces that set the context for such lethal violence to occur.
What occurs in specific settings, while in part a product of that particular
environment, is also a product of wider structural forces that themselves pave
the way for the development of particular cultural adaptations and values
that may support violence as a way of dealing with conflict; in short, arenas
of interaction are not hermetically sealed from the outer world. Untangling
the relative effects of structure, culture and situational factors is a complex
business but increasingly researchers are moving away from uni-dimensional
approaches. Bernard (1990), for example, charts the mechanisms that mediate
between negative structural conditions and expressions of ‘angry aggression’
among the ‘truly disadvantaged’. Bowling (1999) similarly linked the macro-
structural forces of economic recession and poverty to the emergence of despair
and relative deprivation at the community and individual level while also
acknowledging the importance of the development of lucrative crack and heroin
markets and the widespread availability of guns (situational) in his exploration
of the dramatic surge in New York murder in the 1980s. Furthermore, some
theorists focus upon particular types of homicide, allowing them, arguably, to
be more context-specific (Polk 1994a; Brookman, 2005). For example, Kubrin and
Weitzer (2003) examined the intersection of structural and cultural influences
upon retaliatory homicide in St Louis, Missouri, while Williams and Flewelling
(1988) found that different cultural and structural factors had varied impacts
upon different types of homicide. Finally, recent analysis of the emergence
of gang-related homicides in particular parts of the UK also provides a clear
illustration of the value of adopting an integrated approach.

Gang-related homicide: the influence of structural, cultural

and situational factors
Gang-related homicide refers to homicides committed by or among gang
members. A gang is taken to mean ‘children and young people who see
themselves and are seen by others as affiliates of a discrete, named, group
with a discernable structure and a recognised territory’ (Pitts 2008: 6). It is
difficult to determine, with any degree of accuracy, the proportion of homicides
attributable to gangs. The Home Office (2009) recently suggested increases in
gang violence and shooting incidents linked to gangs and organised criminal
groups (see also McLagan 2006). However, analysis of data from the Homicide
Index indicates that no more than 3 per cent of all homicides are linked to
gangs.18

233
Handbook on Crime

There is a good deal of evidence from international research that street gangs
emerge and flourish where inequality and marginality prevail. Vigil (2006: 22),
for example, argues that ‘the street gang is an outcome of marginalization, that
is, the relegation of certain persons or groups to the fringes of society where
social and economic conditions result in powerlessness’. He used the term
‘multiple marginality’ to express the extent and complexity of the forces that
set the context for the emergence of street gangs. These include macro-historical
forces (racism, social and cultural repression and fragmented institutions) and
macrostructural (immigration and migration and the development of migrant
poor barrios/ghettos) (pp. 22–3).
Pitts’ (2008) research into armed youth gangs in London neatly illustrates the
powerful role of structural changes in Britain in the emergence of violent gangs.
Pitts (2008: 56) suggests that there have been ‘seismic economic and political
changes’ in the UK in the past two decades that have led to the emergence
of US-style armed youth gangs. These changes include: (a) the widening gap
between rich and poor; (b) the concentration of the poorest sections of the
population in social housing; and (c) structural youth unemployment (due to
the decline of Britain’s industrial base). Ultimately, segregation, marginalisation
and the creation of ‘discredited populations’ (Baum 1996, cited in Pitts 2008:
63) set the scene for the development of gangs and gang violence. How,
precisely? Some theorists have suggested that frustration and rage born of
injustice (see Bernard 1990) breed ‘norms and narratives supportive of gang
violence’ (Kennedy 2007, cited in Pitts 2008). Other researchers focus more
upon the psychological strain that negative neighbourhood conditions foster
noting that stress strips those affected of their coping skills and can impact
negatively upon their assessment of risk; minor insults are seen as major
threats (see Bernard 1990; Niehoff 1999; Vigil 2006) and a ‘soldier mentality’
characterised by heightened sensitivity to threats and a constant preparedness
for action prevails (Sampson and Lauritsen 1994). Still others make reference
to competition over scarce resources, observing that individuals raised in
impoverished environments learn that they must be aggressive in their efforts
to compete for scarce resources (see Sánchez-Jankowski 2003; see also Daly
and Wilson 1988, 1990, for an evolutionary twist on this position). What
each of these theorists agree upon is that material conditions establish the
foundations for a ‘culture of force’ that can ultimately be labelled a ‘culture
of violence’ (Sánchez-Jankowski 2003: 209). Specific situational contexts then
promote the enactment of these cultural codes or, as Copes and Hochstetler
(2003: 301) put it: ‘Certain settings and activities trigger cognitive frames that
make offending seem reasonable.’ An example of such an activity would
be drug dealing and the setting would include particular housing estates
or neighbourhoods where gangs compete to control the sales of drugs.
Involvement in drug dealing inevitably heightens the risk of gang violence
and victimisation as members’ routine activities expose them to volatile and
unpredictable situations (Maher this volume; Chapple 2008). Where firearms
or other lethal weapons are readily available the chances of minor disputes
ending fatally is, of course, considerably enhanced. Moreover, the nature of
their illicit activities (e.g. drug dealing and the carrying of firearms) places
gang members outside formal avenues of redress so that they are not in

234
 Homicide

a position to call upon the criminal justice system to assist when they fall
victim to violence – even if they wanted to. As Topalli et al. (2002: 341) state:
‘As drug dealers conduct their trade outside the limits of legal protection, a
reputation for formidability represents one of the only mechanisms available
to them for deterring victimization.’ In short, a ‘menacing and capable’ street
reputation is especially critical for men inhabiting this social setting and they
are particularly sensitive to challenges to their courage and character (pp.
340–3). What these kinds of accounts clearly demonstrate is the intersection
between structural disadvantage, cultural adaptations and micro-action on the
street (see also Rosenfeld et al. 2003).
In conclusion, making sense of homicide requires that we unravel the
structural, economic and social forces that constrain individuals’ chances
and choices (Pitts, 2008) as well as the cultural and micro-situational pushes
and pulls towards violence. Putting all the pieces of the puzzle together is
a complex task. However, there is little doubt that such endeavours lead to
richer and more meaningful accounts of homicide (and violence generally)
than those that remain more narrowly focused.

Responding to homicide

Just as explanations of homicide are many and varied, so too are responses
to it. Moreover, there is something of a debate regarding the extent to
which homicide should be conceived as a distinct phenomenon (requiring
very specific kinds of explanations and control strategies) or whether, on
the other hand, it can be understood as an extreme manifestation of serious
violence. It has been argued by a number of writers that the dynamics of
homicide are basically identical to those of other forms of violence (Fyfe et
al. 1997), differing in outcome rather than process. Whether the victim dies,
according to this viewpoint, is often happenstance. Others note that there are
some homicides in which the perpetrator fully intends to kill (as opposed to
injure) the victim and ensure his or her death (see Fyfe et al. 1997; Felson and
Messner 1996). Ultimately the two arguments are not incompatible. Clearly,
there are homicides which are similar in dynamics to other acts of violence
and homicides which are not (Brookman and Maguire 2005).
Broadly speaking, approaches to reduce or prevent homicide fall into one
of the following categories:

1 Strategies to reduce the overall frequency of interpersonal violence (the

assumption being that a decrease in violence will automatically bring
about a decrease in homicide). Examples would include efforts to reduce
domestic violence (see Robinson this volume) or violence in the context
of the night-time economy (see Winlow this volume) or, more broadly,
programmes to tackle poverty and social exclusion.
2 The identification of people, locations or situations with an exceptionally
high risk of serious violence/homicide in order to ‘target’ these for
preventative interventions (the basic assumption similar to that above,
however, with the potential benefit of a greater reduction in homicide

235
Handbook on Crime

through a more focused use of resources). Examples include ‘risk factor’

research to identify infants most at risk of being killed by a parent or
specialist strategies to target gang-related shootings (such as Operation
Trident in London).
3 The use of measures that reduce the likelihood that an assault will end
lethally (the aim being to reduce the degree of violence or its impact
upon the victim without necessarily aiming to reduce the overall
numbers of violent incidents). Examples include the use of toughened or
plastic drinking vessels in pubs and clubs or improvements in the speed
and efficiency of emergency medical treatment for victims of serious
violence.

Given the relative infrequency, diversity and apparently low predictability of

homicide incidents, reducing or preventing it is no simple task (Brookman
and Maguire 2005). For example, domestic violence has been the subject of
sustained Home Office attention and funding with a number of multi-agency
programmes flourishing across the UK (see Robinson this volume). A key
plank of the work in this area revolves around trying to identify and intervene
with the women or men who are especially vulnerable to lethal violence.
However, despite considerable energy having been expended to identify ‘risk
factors’ for domestic homicide it remains a very difficult offence to predict
(category 2 above). The presence even of those factors that appear particularly
salient as risk factors (and which may be good predictors of violence), such
as threats to kill or the recent termination of the intimate relationship, do
not lead to homicide in the great majority of cases (Brookman and Maguire
2005). Nevertheless, as noted earlier, domestic homicide has decreased over
the last decade and it is possible that this is the result of the growth of a
number of innovative multi-agency initiatives to combat domestic violence
more generally.
Specific efforts to reduce homicide are relatively rare in the UK – rather there
are efforts to reduce particular kinds of violence – from which lethal violence
can emerge (category 1 above). A recent example of one such strategy is the
Tackling Knives Action Programme (TKAP), which was launched in response
to a number of high-profile knife-related murders and serious stabbing among
young people. This Home Office-led intensive ten-month initiative aimed to
reduce the carrying of knives, related homicide and serious stabbings among
teenagers aged 13–19 (Ward and Diamond 2009). Interventions, implemented
initially in ten police force areas, included increased use of intelligence-led
patrolling of weapon-related violence ‘hot-spots’ and increased use of stop
and searches, the targeting of gangs and the return of at-risk, unsupervised
children to their homes. Police forces also ran weapons-awareness courses and
many produced posters or DVDs highlighting the dangers of knives. Focus
groups, youth crime forums and youth conferences were used to engage
young people and involve them in the programme (Ward and Diamond 2009).
The evaluation of phase 1 found that while the programme led to a decrease
of sharp-instrument related violence generally, there was no change in the
number of provisionally recorded sharp-instrument-related homicides among
victims aged 19 and under and a slight increase among victims aged 20 and

236
 Homicide

over. Clearly, even fairly intensive interventions that combine enforcement

with education and youth engagement are only partially effective.
A unique example of an initiative specifically developed to reduce and
prevent homicide is Operation Trident (see [Link]
[Link]), a major coordinated strategy based in London but with a national
brief, which was launched in 1998. This has both an intelligence-gathering
and analysis function and an operational arm. Although there has been no
independent research conducted to date to assess the work of Operation
Trident, there are indications that it is performing well in terms of detecting
offenders. This apparently high level of success has been attributed by officers,
in part, to the close working of key members of the black community in
London with the police, which has permitted officers to bridge gaps with
black victims and witnesses who were previously afraid to give evidence
against offenders (see also the Manchester Gun Project, modelled on the
Boston Gun Project – Bullock and Tilley 2008).
While it could be argued that efforts to reduce homicide are multifarious,
critics point to a failure to invest in long-term strategies, such as programmes
of social and economic change, in favour of short-term ‘fixes’ that have more
political appeal (Buvinic and Morrision 2000).
As Polk (1994a: 210) aptly noted over fifteen years ago:

A society which is serious about the reduction of violence should look

above all else to its economy, and to ways of providing for the deflection
of individuals from the economic traps involved in under-class life.

This message is all the more pertinent given the current climate of global
economic recession and the widening gap between rich and poor.

Concluding comments

Our journey began, in this chapter, by considering the legal definition of

homicide through to its patterns, characteristics, causes and, briefly, responses
to this crime. It should be apparent at this juncture that homicide comes in
numerous guises. Understanding why around 900 people die each year in
the UK and around 490,000 worldwide (Krause et al. 2008: 71) as the result
of unlawful homicide requires careful consideration. There is a growing
recognition among homicide researchers of the need to disaggregate homicide
into conceptually meaningful subtypes if one is to develop worthwhile
explanations. Simultaneously it is necessary to consider both offenders and
victims of homicide and to explore their actions in relation to both the physical
and social contexts within which they interact and the broader social and
cultural environment that they inhabit (Chapple 2008; Brookman 2005). The
‘official’ picture of unlawful homicide is clearly just the tip of the iceberg of
actual lives lost due to interpersonal violence. The moment we include deaths
due to corporate negligence and neglect or genocide the figures increase
dramatically. It is, therefore, something of a puzzle as to why the bulk of
homicide research, media and government attention focuses on relatively

237
Handbook on Crime

uncommon homicide situations – such as gang shootings, fatal knife attacks

among children or teenagers, and stranger, serial and female killers (Miethe
and Regoeczi 2004). As Box (1983: 9) aptly notes:

We are encouraged to see murder as a particular act involving a very

limited range of stereotypical actors, instruments, situations and motives.
Other types of avoidable killing are either defined as a less serious
crime than murder, or as matters more appropriate for administrative
or civil proceedings, or as events beyond the justifiable boundaries of
state interference.

This is not simply a matter of distorted public consciousness. Rather, as

Miethe and Regoiczi (2004) acknowledge, it can lead to the misdirecting of
criminal justice and other resources away from the most deserving.

Suggested further reading

Until relatively recently there was not a great deal written by the academic community
about homicide in the UK. Rather, the literature was dominated by research and theory
from the USA and, to a lesser extent, Australia and some parts of Europe. The most
recent comprehensive overview of homicide in the UK can be found in Brookman’s
Understanding Homicide (2005). Polk’s (1994) When Men Kill is also a valuable text to
consult and is broader than the title suggests while Spierenburg’s (2008) A History
of Murder is an essential read for those wishing to locate murder in its historical
context – he charts the changing patterns of homicide across Western Europe since
the late Middle Ages. The annual homicide statistics published by the Home Office
and available online provide a useful overview of patterns and trends on homicide
in England and Wales. The most recent are available at: [Link]
uk/rds/pdfs09/[Link] (they tend to be released in February each year). The
Scottish Government provide a similar set of annual statistics on their website (http://
[Link]). The most recent are available at: [Link]
uk/Publications/2008/12/15155727/0. In terms of the investigation and detection of
homicide, by far the best text is Innes’ (2003) Investigating Murder: Detective Work and
the Police Response to Criminal Homicide. A useful overview of the scope for reducing
and preventing homicide can be found in Brookman and Maguire (2005) Reducing
Homicide: A Review of the Possibilities. Finally, the journal Homicide Studies (Sage) is
worth consulting on a regular basis and is the only journal dedicated to research
papers from various parts of the world dealing specifically with homicide.

Notes

1 Of the four countries that make up United Kingdom, England and Wales share
a common legal system and are treated as a single entity for the purposes of
recording crime. Scotland has a very different legal system based on Roman law
whereby offence definitions are often inconsistent with those of England and
Wales. Northern Ireland has a separate criminal justice system that has been
profoundly affected by terrorist troubles. Due to these anomalies, and for the sake
of clarity, it will be necessary to deal mainly with the law related to homicide in
England and Wales, referring separately to Scotland and Northern Ireland where
necessary.

238
 Homicide

2 Scottish law makes a similar distinction between murder and common law culpable
homicide but does not have separate legislation for the killing of infants.
3 Deaths caused by dangerous or careless driving or while under the influence of
alcohol or drugs are dealt with by separate legislation (see Road Traffic Acts 1988
and 1991).
4 Prior to 1965, with the passing of the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty)
Act, murder was a capital offence.
5 Until 1996 an individual could not be prosecuted for murder if the individual they
had harmed died after a year and a day of the original attack. One of the original
rationales for this rule lay in the difficulty in proving a causal connection between
old injuries and subsequent death. However, this rule came under increasing
criticism, especially as modern medicine and life-support machines meant that
a murderer could avoid liability simply because of lengthy medical attempts to
save someone’s life. Hence in 1995 the House of Commons’ Select Committee
on Home Affairs and the Law Commission produced papers recommending the
abolition of the rule, and Parliament did so in the Law Reform (Year and a Day
Rule) Act 1996.
6 There have been just five recorded cases of corporate manslaughter since 2000 in
the homicide statistics for England and Wales which bears no resemblance to the
number of lives lost due to corporate negligence and neglect (see Toombs this
volume).
7 In their original proposals the Law Commission restricted first degree murder to
intentional killings only (see Law Commission 2005: 249–58).
8 Caution is needed when interpreting these preliminary figures because deaths
that are not initially believed to be suspicious may be recategorised as homicides
at a later date. Hence these unconfirmed data have not been included in Figure
12.1.
9 Harold Shipman was convicted in January 2000 of murdering 15 of his patients
while he was a general practitioner in Hyde, Greater Manchester. The independent
public inquiry identified a further 172 victims – believed to have been killed over
an estimated 25-year period. These additional homicides were recorded by Greater
Manchester Police in 2002/3 and thus appear in the 2002/3 homicide figures (see
Smith 2002). Other events of note include the 52 victims of the 7th July London
bombings (recorded in 2005/6) the 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe
Bay (recorded 2003/4) and the 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in
a lorry en route in the UK (recorded 2000/1).
10 That said, current homicide rates are insignificant when compared to the incidence
in the Middle Ages or 1700s (see Spierenburg 2008).
11 For further discussion of longer-term homicide trends and their links to the
political economy see Eisner (2001) and Spierenburg (2008).
12 The HDI combines measures of life expectancy, literacy, education and gross
domestic product (GDP) per capita as a means of measuring the comparing levels
of human development (Krause et al. 2008: 72).
13 This section focuses principally upon England and Wales and includes analysis
of the Home Office Homicide Index 1998–2008 as well as relying upon the most
recent homicide statistics published by the Home Office (see Povey et al. 2009).
14 The Home Office and Scottish Government publish annual homicide statistics that
are generally much more detailed and informative than those that are available for
other offences. The reader is referred to these publications as well as Brookman
(2005) for further detailed analysis of offender, victim and offence characteristics.
15 This excludes 172 homicides of white people killed by Harold Shipman and the
20 Morecambe Bay homicides as these cases unusually skew the data.

239
Handbook on Crime

16 More detailed coverage can be found in Brookman (2005).

17 Simon and Burns’ (1997) The Corner is a highly illuminating depiction of an
inner-city drug culture.
18 The Home Office began recording gang-related homicides on the Homicide Index
in 2007. However, the data are not comprehensive due, in part, to incomplete
returns made to the Home Office and an inevitable lack of certainty in some cases
as to whether gang members were involved, e.g. unsolved shooting incidents.

References

Aebi, M. (2004) ‘Crime trends in Western Europe from 1990 to 2000’, European Journal
on Criminal Policy and Research, 10 (2–3): 163–86.
Anderson, E. (1999) Code of the Street: Decency, Violence and the Moral Life of the Inner
City. New York: W. W. Norton.
Ashworth, A. and Mitchell, B. (2000) Rethinking English Homicide Law. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Athens, L. H. (1977) ‘Violent crime: a symbolic interactionist study’, Symbolic Interaction,
1: 56–70.
Athens, L. H. (1980) Violent Criminal Acts and Actors: A Symbolic Interactionist Study.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Athens, L. H. (1997) Violent Criminal Acts and Actors Revisited. Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Baum, D. (1996) ‘Can integration succeed? Research into urban childhood and youth
in a deprived area of Koblenz’, Social Work in Europe, 3 (2): 30–5.
Becker, E. (1962) ‘Anthropological notes on the concept of aggression’, Psychiatry, 23:
328–38.
Bernard, T. J. (1990) ‘Angry aggression among the truly disadvantaged’, Criminology,
28 (1): 73–96.
Block, R. (1977) Violent Crime. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Bourgois, P. (2003) In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bowling, B. (1999) ‘The rise and fall of New York murder’, British Journal of Criminology,
39 (4): 531–54.
Box, S. (1983) Power, Crime and Mystification, Tavistock Studies in Sociology. London:
Routledge.
Brookman, F. (2003) ‘Confrontational and grudge revenge homicides in England and
Wales’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36 (1): 34–59.
Brookman, F. (2005) Understanding Homicide. London: Sage
Brookman, F. and Maguire, M. (2005) ‘Reducing homicide: a review of the possibilities’,
Crime, Law and Social Change, 42: 325–403.
Bullock, K. and Tilley, N. (2008) ‘Understanding and tackling gang violence’, Crime
Prevention and Community Safety, 10 (1): 36–47.
Buvinic, M. and Morrison, A. R. (2000) ‘Living in a more violent world’, Foreign Policy,
118: 58–72.
Card, R. (1998) Criminal Law. London: Butterworths.
Central Statistics Unit, PSNI (2008) PSNI Annual Report, Recorded Crime and Clearances
April 2007 – March 2008, Central Statistics Branch, Operational Support Department.
Belfast: PSNI. Online at: [Link]
Chapple, C. (2008) ‘Substance-Related Homicide in England and Wales: Pathways,
Processes and Events’. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, School
of Law.

240
 Homicide

Coleman, K. (2007) ‘Homicide’, in D. Povey (ed.), Homicides, Firearm Offences and

Intimate Violence 2006/07, Supplementary Vol. 2 to Crime in England and Wales
2006/7, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 03/08. London: Home Office.
Copes, H. and Hochstetler, A. (2003) ‘Situational construction of masculinity among
male street thieves’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32 (2): 279–304.
Corzine, J., Huff-Corzine, L. and Whitt, H. P. (1999) ‘Cultural and subcultural theories
of homicide’, in M. D. Smith and M. A. Zahn (eds), Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social
Research. London: Sage.
Cotton, J. and Bibi, N. (2005) ‘Homicide’, in D. Povey (ed.), Crime in England and
Wales 2003/2004: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime. London: Home
Office.
Criminal Justice System Race Unit (2006) Race and the Criminal Justice System: An
Overview to the Complete Statistics 2004–2005. London: CJS Race Unit.
Croall, H. (1998) Crime and Society in Britain. London: Longman.
Currie, E. (1998) Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Holt.
Curtis, L. A. (1975) Violence, Race and Culture. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1988) Homicide. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1990) ‘Killing the competition: female/female and male/
male homicide’, Human Nature, 1 (1): 81–107.
Decker, S. (1995) ‘Reconstructing homicide events: the role of witnesses in fatal
encounters’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 23 (5): 439–50.
Decker, S. (1996) ‘Deviant homicide: a new look at the role of motives and
victim–offender relationships’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33:
427–49.
Denno, D. (1990) Biology and Violence: From Birth to Adulthood. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K. and Lewis, R. (2002) Homicide in Britain:
Risk Factors, Situational Contexts and Lethal Interventions (Focus on Male Offenders),
Research Bulletin No.1. Department of Applied Social Science, DASS, University
of Manchester.
Eades, C., Grimshaw, R., Silvestri, A. and Solomon, E. (2007) ‘Knife Crime’: A Review of
Evidence and Policy. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Eisner, M. (2001) ‘Modernisation, self-control and lethal violence: the long-term
dynamics of European homicide rates in theoretical perspective’, British Journal of
Criminology, 41: 618–38.
Felson, R. B. and Messner, S. F. (1996) ‘To kill or not to kill? Lethal outcomes in
injurious attacks’, Criminology, 34 (4): 519–45.
Finch, A. (2001) ‘Homicide in contemporary Japan’, British Journal of Criminology, 14:
219–35.
Freedman, D. and Hemenway, D. (2000) ‘Precursors of lethal violence: a death row
sample’, Social Science and Medicine, 50: 1757–70.
Fyfe, J., Goldkamp, J. and White, M. (1997) Strategies for Reducing Homicide: The
Comprehensive Homicide Initiative in Richmond, California. Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York:
Doubleday.
Goldstein, P. J. (1985) ‘The drugs/violence nexus: a tripartite conceptual framework’,
Journal of Drug Issues, 15: 493–506.
Hall, S. (1997) ‘Visceral cultures and criminal practice’, Theoretical Criminology, 1:
453–78.
Hochstetler, A. and Copes, H. (2003) ‘Situational construction of masculinity among
male street thieves’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32: 279–304.

241
Handbook on Crime

Home Office (2009) Extending Our Reach: A Comprehensive Approach to Tackling Serious
Organised Crime. London: HMSO. Online at: [Link]
media/222240/[Link].
Horder, J. (2007) Homicide Law in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Hart.
Innes, M. (2003) Investigating Murder: Detective Work and the Police Response to Criminal
Homicide. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jacobs, B. and Wright, R. (1999) ‘Stick-up, street culture, and offender motivation’,
Criminology, 37: 149–74.
Jacobs, D. and Richardson, A. M. (2008) ‘Economic inequality and homicide in the
developed nations from 1975 to 1995’, Homicide Studies, 12 (1): 28–45.
Johnson, D. T. (2008) ‘The homicide drop in postwar Japan’, Homicide Studies, 12 (1):
146–60.
Kershaw, C., Nicholas, S. and Walker, A. (2008) Crime in England and Wales 2007/08.
Findings from the British Crime Survey and Police Recorded Crime. London: Home
Office. Online at: [Link]
Krause, K., Muggah, R. and Wennmann, A. (eds) (2008) Global Burden of Armed Violence,
Secretariat of the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development. Geneva:
Geneva Declaration Secretariat.
Kubrin, C. E. and Weitzer, R. (2003) ‘Retaliatory homicide: concentrated disadvantage
and neighbourhood culture’, Social Problems, 50 (2): 157–80.
Law Commission (1996) Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter, Report
No. 237. London: HMSO.
Law Commission (2005) A New Homicide Act for England and Wales? An Overview,
Consultation Paper No. 177. London: Stationary Office. Online at: [Link]
[Link]/docs/cp177_overview_web.pdf.
Law Commission (2006a) Report on Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, Law
Commission Report No. 304, Press Briefing Paper. London: Stationary Office.
Law Commission (2006b) Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, Project 6 of the Ninth
Programme of Law Reform: Homicide, Law Commission Report No. 304. London:
Stationary Office. Online at: [Link]
Levi, M. (1997) ‘Violent crime’, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Luckenbill, D. F. (1977) ‘Criminal homicide as a situated transaction’, Social Forces, 25:
176–86.
Luckenbill, D. F. and Doyle, D. P. (1989) ‘Structural position and violence: developing
a cultural explanation’, Criminology, 27 (3): 419–35.
McAlister, A. L. (2006) ‘Acceptance of killing and homicide rates in nineteen nations’,
European Journal of Public Health, 16 (3): 259–65.
McCall, P., Parker, K. F. and MacDonald, J. (2008) ‘The dynamic relationship between
homicide rates and social, economic and political factors from 1970 to 2000’, Social
Science Research, 37: 721–35.
McLagan, G. (2006) Guns and Gangs. London: Alison & Busby.
Messerschmidt, J. (1993) Masculinities and Crime. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Messner, S. F. and Rosenfeld, R. (1999) ‘Social structure and homicide’, in M. D. Smith
and M. A. Zahn (eds), Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research. London: Sage.
Miethe, T. D. and Meier, R. F. (1994) Crime and Its Social Context: Towards an Integrated
Theory of Offenders, Victims and Situations. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Miethe, T. D. and Regoeczi, W. C. (2004) Rethinking Homicide. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Niehoff, D. (1999) The Biology of Violence. New York: Free Press.
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (2008) Response to Murder, Manslaughter and
Infanticide: Proposals on the Reform of the Law. Belfast: Human Rights Commission.

242
 Homicide

Parker, R. N. (1995) ‘Bringing “booze” back in: the relationship between alcohol and
homicide’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32 (1): 3–38.
Parker, R. N. and Auerhahn, K. (1999) ‘Drugs, alcohol and homicide: issues in theory
and research’, in M. D. Smith and M. A. Zahn (eds), Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social
Research. London: Sage.
Peelo, M., Francis, B., Soothill, K., Pearson, J. and Ackerley, E. (2004) ‘Newspaper
reporting and the public construction of homicide’, British Journal of Criminology,
44: 256–75.
Philips, S. and Maume, M. O. (2007) ‘Have gun will shoot? Weapon instrumentality,
intent, and the violent escalation of conflict’, Homicide Studies, 11 (4): 272–94.
Phillips, C. and Bowling B. (2007) ‘Ethnicities, racism, crime and criminal justice’, in
M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pitts, J. (2008) Reluctant Gangsters: The Changing Face of Youth Crime. Cullompton:
Willan.
Pizzaro, J. M. (2008) ‘Reassessing the situational covariates of homicides: is there a
need to disaggregate?’, Homicide Studies, 12 (4): 323–49.
Polk, K. (1994a) When Men Kill: Scenarios of Masculine Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Polk, K. (1994b) ‘Masculinity, honour and confrontational homicide’, in T. Newburn
and E. A. Stanko (eds), Just Boys Doing the Business? London: Routledge.
Polk, K. (1995) ‘Lethal violence as a form of masculine conflict resolution’, Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 28 (1): 93–115.
Povey, D., Coleman, K., Kaiza, P. and Roe, S. (eds) (2009) Homicides, Firearms Offences
and Intimate Violence 2007/08, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/09. London: Home
Office.
Pridemore, W. A. (2008) ‘A methodological addition to the cross-national empirical
literature on social structure and homicide: a first test of the poverty-homicide
thesis’, Criminology, 46: 133–54.
Reiner, R. (2007) ‘Political economy, crime and criminal justice’, in M. Maguire, R.
Morgan and R. Reiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th edn. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rosenfeld, R., Jacobs, B. and Wright, R. (2003) ‘Snitching and the code of the streets’,
British Journal of Criminology, 43 (2): 291–309.
Sampson, R. and Lauritsen, J. (1994) ‘Violent victimization and offending: individual-,
situational-, and community-level risk factors’, in A. J. Reiss and J. A. Roth (eds),
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Vol. 3, Social Influences. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Sánchez-Jankowski, M. (2003) ‘Gangs and social change’, Theoretical Criminology, 7 (2):
191–216.
Sandberg, S. (2008) ‘Street capital: ethnicity and violence on the streets of Oslo’,
Theoretical Criminology, 12 (2): 153–71
Savolainen J., Lehti, M. and Kivivuori, K. (2008) ‘Historical origins of a cross-national
puzzle: homicide in Finland, 1750 to 2000’, Homicide Studies, 12 (1): 67–89.
Schinkel, W. (2004) ‘The will to violence’, Theoretical Criminology, 8 (1): 5–31.
Scottish Government (2008) Homicide in Scotland 2007–08. Edinburgh: Scottish
Government. Online at: [Link]
15155727/0.
Segal, L. (1990) Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changing Men. London:
Virago.
Shaw, J., Hunt, I. M., Flynn, S., Amos, T., Meehan, J., Robinson, J., Bickley, H., Parsons,
R., McCann, K., Burns, J., Kapur, N. and Appleby, L. (2006) ‘The role of alcohol and
drugs in homicides in England and Wales’, Addiction, 101: 1117–24.

243
 Handbook on Crime

Simon, D. and Burns, E. (1997) The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighbourhood.
Edinburgh: Canongate.
Smith, J. (Dame) (2002) The Shipman Enquiry, First Report, Vol. One: Death Disguised.
Norwich: HMSO. Online at: [Link]
Soares, R. R. (2004) ‘Crime reporting as a measure of institutional development’,
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 52: 851–71.
Soothill, K., Peelo, M., Pearson, J. and Francis, B. (2004) ‘The reporting trajectories of
top homicide cases in the media: a case study of The Times’, Howard Journal, 43 (1):
1–14.
Spierenburg, P. (2008) A History of Murder. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tavares, C. and Thomas, G. (2008) Crime and Criminal Justice, Eurostat 19/2008.
Luxembourg: European Communities.
Tedeschi, J. T. and Felson, R. B. (1994) Violence, Aggression and Coercive Actions.
Washington: American Psychological Association.
Toch, H. (1969) Violent Men: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Violence. Chicago:
Aldine.
Topalli, V., Wright, R. and Fornango, R. (2002) ‘Drug dealers, robbery and retaliation’,
British Journal of Criminology, 42: 337–51.
Uchiyama, Y. (2003) ‘“Heitai san Moderu” kara Toku’ [translated for the International
Herald Tribune on 16 April as ‘Peace motive: are Japanese men more timid? Or
is the low murder rate a product of postwar culture?’], Asahi Shimbun (evening
edition), 5 April, p. 3.
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) (2005) Crime and Development in
Africa. Vienna: UNODC. Online at: [Link]
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) (2008) International Homicide
Statistics. Online at: [Link]
[Link].
Vigil, J. D. (2006) ‘A multiple marginality framework of gangs’, in A. Egley.,
C. Maxson, J. Miller and M. Klein (eds), The Modern Gang Reader, 3rd edn. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Walker, A., Flatley, J., Kershaw, C. and Moon, D. (eds) (2009) Crime in England and
Wales 2008–09, Vol. 1: Findings from the British Crime Survey and Police Recorded
Crime, Home Office Statistical Bulleting 11/09. London: Home Office. Online at:
[Link]
Ward, L. and Diamond, A. (2009) Tackling Knives Action Programme (TKAP) Phase
1: Overview of Key Trends from a Monitoring Programme, Research Report No. 18.
London: Home Office.
Weaver, G. S., Wittekind, J. E. C., Huff-Corzine, L., Corzine, J., Petee, T. A. and Jarvis,
J. P. (2004) ‘Violent encounters: a criminal event analysis of lethal and non-lethal
outcomes’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20 (4): 348–68.
Williams, K. R. and Flewelling, R. L. (1988) ‘The social production of criminal homicide:
a comparative study of disaggregated rates in American cities’, American Sociological
Review, 53 (3): 421–31.
Wilson, N. K. (1993) ‘Gendered interaction in criminal homicide’, in A. V. Wilson (ed.),
Homicide: The Victim/Offender Connection. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Wolfgang, M. (1958) Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
Wolfgang, M. E. and Ferracuti, F. (1967) The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated
Theory in Criminology. London: Tavistock.
Wright, R., Brookman, F. and Bennett, T (2006) ‘The foreground dynamics of street
robbery in Britain’, British Journal of Criminology, 46: 1–15.

244

View publication stats