亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊 第四卷第二期 2008，1-32 頁1 Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviorsof Adult and Juvenile Offenders Rhona Mae Amorado1, Chia-Ying Lin＊＊, Hua-Fu Hsu＊＊＊ Abstract Researchers of parricide have often concentrated on the characteristics of the offenders. However, research which has empirically documented the link between offender’s characteristics and crime scene evidence is scant. Therefore, the aim of this study is to attempt not only to explore the crime scene behaviors evident in parricide offenses, but also to determine whether there are any differences between juvenile and adult offenders in both personal and crime scene characteristics. Twenty-four cases of parricide offenses, obtained from the FBI Behavioral Science Unit case files, were analyzed using frequency and chi-square. The results revealed, contrary to literature, that mental illness and abuse were not significantly different for both groups. Regarding crime scene variables, differences between the two groups were found on a number of victims and movement of the victim’s body after death. Other interesting findings include initial approach to victim and overkill. These findings provide investigative and research implications, and provides a new direction in parricide research. 1 Rhona Mae Amorado is a master student at John Jay Colledge of Criminal Justice. Chia-Ying Lin is a master student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. 111 Hau-Fu Hsu is an associate professor at Department of Criminology, National Chung Cheng University, 168 University Rd., Ming-Hsiung, Chia-Yi, Taiwan. E-mail:
[email protected] ; Fax:+886-5-2720053 (In Contact) 11 2 Rhona Mae Amorado ,Chia-Ying Lin, Hua-Fu Hsu Introduction The fascination with criminal investigation and crime analysis is at an all time high. All the television shows – CSI, Law and Order, and Murder – have given the public instant access to what investigators go through when they are trying to solve a crime. Whether or not the events portrayed in these shows are accurate; viewers are turned on by the mystery of the investigative process, where one has to devise a story of the event and a profile of the offender based solely on physical and behavioral evidence. Much of the past researches on criminal behavior have concentrated on understanding what motivates a person to commit the offense (Ewing, 1997; Ewing, 2001; Moffatt, 2002). Studies have also been conducted to determine biological, psychological, and social factors related to criminal behavior (Eysenck, 1977, as cited in Salfati & Kucharski, 2005; Baxter, Duggan, Larkin, Cordess, & Page, 2001). These are all important in the field of forensic psychology, particularly in the area of treatment and rehabilitation, judicial procedures, and public understanding. Recently however, researchers have realized the need to study criminal behavior in a way that would aid law enforcers and detectives in the initial stages of criminal investigation. Hence, it becomes necessary that researchers utilize information that can be readily used by investigators and that they can immediately act on (Canter, 2000). The goal of this paper is to document the link between offenders’s characteristics and crime scene evidence in parricide cases. This paper will begin with a brief overview of parricide and the studies that have been done in this area. A review of criminal offender profiling will also be given as well as an examination of the research on crime scene behaviors and parricide. Then a description of the current research will be given, including its purpose and the procedures involved. Lastly, a discussion of the results and its research and investigative implications will be given. Parricide can be generally defined as the killing of parents or stepparents by their son or daughter, where the offender can be an adult, a juvenile, or a child (younger than 10). Accounts of parricide are not something new. In fact, stories about killing of one’s parent are present in several literary works, one of which is the Greek Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 3 mythology, “House of Atreus”. The story is about Orestes, the son of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon. Upon his return home from the war, he learned that his father was murdered by his own mother and her lover. Orestes then, at the urging of his sister Electra, killed their mother to avenge their father's death (Rubenstein, 1969, as cited in Newhill, 1991). Another parricidal theme from Greek mythology, and perhaps one of the most cited, is the story of Oedipus, who unknowingly killed his real father during an argument (Santrock, 2002). Other literary works include William Shakespeare's “Macbeth” and Dostoevsky's “Crime and punishment” (Newhill, 1991). Numerous media accounts are also available on parricide both nationally and internationally (Boots & Heide, 2006). Most statistics on parricide are taken from homicidal incidence rates. In 2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports published that about 21.6 per cent of murder victims were killed by family members. Moreover, among the 14,990 homicide victims where the relationship between offender and victim were known, 115 were mothers and 114 were fathers. This indicates that approximately 1.5 per cent of homicide involved parents as victims. This is not very surprising since several researchers have already noted the rarity of parricide cases (Shon & Targonski, 2003; Heide, 1993a; Flowers, 2002). Despite its infrequency parricide has garnered significant interest from the media, public, and scientific community. Review of Related Literature Efforts have been made to research parricide, largely in a clinical sense, identifying characteristics of offenders and their families. For example, psychological, educational, environmental, economic and sociocultural histories are identified, as well as other demographics such as sex and race. In this section, a discussion of the past research on parricide will be presented. This will be divided into two parts: Characteristics and crime scene behaviors. The studies will then be synthesized to show how far previous researches have reached with regard to the topic of parricide and what is yet to be explored in this area. 1. Offender and Victim Characteristics which yielded a total of 5. Of these offenders. It was revealed that fathers who were killed were usually in their early 50s. Firearms were also noted to be the weapon most used by the juvenile group. She also found a strong relationship between the age of the offender and parental victimization. 18 years old and up.Chia-Ying Lin. Unlike the first study (Heide. a large amount of stepparent parricide were committed by youths ages 18 years and below. and psychological variables. In a study exploring the differences between adult and juvenile parricides. (Marleau. and that females also tended to be older than their male counterparts. and while most of the offenders were adult. The data included parricide incidents from 1976 to 1999. explaining that this was perhaps due to the juveniles living at home and most likely. She found that biological parents were usually older than stepparent counterparts.4 Rhona Mae Amorado . stepfathers. The results show that a significant proportion of offenders and victims were White and non-Hispanic. Hua-Fu Hsu Heide (1993a) provided a statistical description of the characteristics of parricide offenders by analyzing incidents of single victim-single offender parricide situations from 1977 to 1986. Their results also show. In analyzing the data using chi-square. having both parents alive. 45 % were adults. 17 years old or younger. victim. or stepmothers while those between 20 to 50 years of age were most likely to kill their mothers. 2006) compared the two 55 parricide offenders from Institut Philippe Pinel de Montreal on factors such as demographic. concurrent with other literature. that majority of adult parricide offenders suffer from mental . while the mothers were in their late 50s. criminological. Analysis of victim age also revealed certain differences. where offenders under the age of 30 were most likely to kill their fathers. In a follow up study. and 12 % were juveniles. 1993a) the researchers included both single and multiple victim-offender. The researchers replicated Heide’s findings from the 1993 study. They also found that 23 per cent of juveniles had an accomplice while this was not found in any of the adult cases. and also found a relationship between victim age and gender. they found that juveniles were more likely to kill both parents. social. & Millaud.781 victims and 5. Heide and Petee (2007) analyzed parricide offender. further supporting that female victims are usually older. Auclair. and offense correlates. She also found that majority of the offenders were male.558 offenders. About half of the offenders also cited familial and personal history of . They also noted that all of the adult offenders were found insane at the time of the offense. Results showed that the parricides were less likely to have a disrupted childhood but more likely to be living in the same household as the victim. specifically paranoid schizophrenia (56%). In a study by Baxter et al. where personality disorder was the most common for mentally disordered stranger killers. Heide. Majority of the offenders were male and the mean age of both groups was 30-31 years. 1997. and Meunier (1996). Another study was by Millaud. as cited in Boots & Heide. A. They found that an overt sexual element did not exist as it did in the stranger group. contrary to literature. they found that juveniles had evidence of suicidal ideation and recurring thoughts of killing their parents. The sample comprised 98 individuals who committed parricide and 159 who committed stranger homicides. Interestingly. 2006).Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 5 illness. majority were reported to have been consuming substances or alcohol months prior to the offense. This suggests that alcohol or substance consumption might also be one of the factors for committing the act. A common finding for both groups was that 52 per cent had overkill. Additionally. none of them were sexually abused or were living in significantly hostile family environment. and of these offenders. they found that. They examined the relationship of mental illness and parricide by looking at six offenders who attempted parricide and six offenders who completed the parricide. Ewing. it was found that schizophrenia was the most common diagnosis for parricides on admission. In examining the juvenile group. (2001) comparing mentally disordered parricides and stranger killers. Mental illness Mental illness has been cited as one of the factors relating to parricide (Ewing. and five out of the 12 offenders had personality disorders. they discovered that personal and familial history of psychiatric illness was present in 75 per cent of the offenders. 1992. About 40 per cent of offenders were diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia or alcohol and drug abuse. It is interesting to note that many of the parricides appeared to have been a result of prolonged tension within the family and that some of the offenders had previously attacked the victims. Auclair. 2001. and significantly less likely to use alcohol or display a long antecedent criminal history. they mentioned that in about one third of the cases. They discussed that during the incubation phase. In the parricide and catathymic group. discontinuation of psychotropic medication was a factor in the parricides. as cited in Dutton & Yamini. as cited in Schlesinger. 2004) described the stages of the catathymic process as incubation. Overkill often serves to rid the offender of any remaining tension and prevent murder-suicide. 1992. The researchers also pointed out several risk factors in parricide. as is displacing the body from the scene of the crime. and is either projected inward (in the suicide group) or outward (in the parricide and catathymic group). A shame-based affect emerges where shame and guilt is attributed to the self. Undoing is also common in catathymic murders as well as parricides. and for a time. First. the individual feels a sense of relief. Second. Other researchers have also talked about parricide offenses in relation to catahymia. He found that both groups obsessively saw themselves as failures. The person believes that the only way to resolve the internal tension is through the act of violence. the individual becomes obsessed and preoccupied about wanting to kill another person (future victim). The commission of the act appears sudden and unplanned. 1995). Lastly. Hua-Fu Hsu violence as a factor contributing to the parricidal act. in 25 per cent of the cases. Catathmic violence is the result of an ongoing emotional tension due to traumatic experiences and projection of blame and responsibility onto others (Meloy. violent act then relief. After which. Revitch and Schlesinger (1981. The aversive self-awareness emerging from this shame becomes unbearable. experiences normalcy and internal homeostasis. They compared catathymic murderers and parricides to suicidal people in his study to describe the concept of projective-introjective cycling. so the anger is projected . almost half of the offenders sought psychiatric help weeks prior to the offense. Schlesinger (2004) explains common catathymic and parricidal characteristics. anger grows and an externalizing attributional style is adopted. or more force than is needed is used to accomplish ending someone's life. One such characteristic is overkill. an excessive amount of force used to kill a person.6 Rhona Mae Amorado . where the face or whole body is covered or turned away. consumption of alcohol or drugs seemed to have aggravated the psychotic symptoms of these patients.Chia-Ying Lin. Dutton and Yamini (1995) also examined the relationship of catathymia and parricide. 2007). and retaliate by killing the source of these punishments or abuse. physical abuse. Tanay (1973. who became a parricide perpetrator. Marleau (2003) analyzed 43 adult parricide offenders from the Institut Philippe Pinel de Montreal. Majority of the research in profiling deals with serial murderers (Dowden. 2000. All of the offenders were found to be insane at the time of their offense. has been limited. Salfati. Depression and feelings of failure often originated in the parricide's upbringing. also have been the victims of brutal. Some children get affected even by just witnessing his father beating up his mother or sexually assaulting his sister (Kelleher. researchers have been trying to improve on the validity and reliability of this tool. & Bloomfield. It is believed that offenders. killing of children) and parricides. 2003). Most families of parricidal children were also found to have a domineering mother and rejecting father (Dutton & Yamini. due to a long-standing abuse. sexual. where there was a parental standard that was impossible to achieve. In a study comparing weapon use in filicides (ie. B. most focusing on weapons used. Dutton (1995) found that these parents engaged in random punishment. These individuals are those who view their parents’ restrictions and rules as a form of abuse. however. There have also been other researchers who extended the study of profiling in the area of homicide (Salfati. Parricide and Crime Scene Behaviors Considering the benefits offender profiling can offer investigators. Abuse Perhaps one of the most common factors associated with parricide is abuse. 2001) discussed the concept of “reactive parricide”. 1995). Bennell. and emotional violence at the hands of their victims. perceive or believe that they have been mistreated. responds by killing his parents. His data revealed that majority of parricide offenders used a knife (56%) . and publicly belittling the child. as cited in Ewing. Abuse does not have to be directly experienced to have an effect. 2997) pointed that youths kill their parents because they could no longer tolerate the dysfunctional home. where the child. when in fact there was no evidence of abuse. The study of crime scene behaviors in parricide.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 7 outward. 2. on the other hand. 1998). Others. Heide (1992. verbal. as cited in Ewing. Heide (1993b) examined weapon use in parricide offenses. they found that majority of the offenders used firearms in killing their parents. They attributed the decline to changes in family structures proving that parricide. Furthermore. He explained that weapon use of parricide offenders were perhaps due to the simple reason that the target of these offenders' crime were more difficult to kill as compared to those offenders who committed filicide. but found that there was no relationship between the two. most studies have indicated that firearms were the most common weapons used in parricide. like other homicides. Using chi-square analysis. she found that majority of parricide offenders’ use of these . Hua-Fu Hsu and only 9 per cent of these offenders used a firearm in committing the offense. She had a total of 2. Shon and Targonski (2003) examined the stability of parricide over time as well as the weapons used in committing this offense. and that the use of weapon may have been the only way of committing the offense. 17 years and younger) and adult parricide offenders. comparing the victims of both juvenile (ie. he noted that 81 per cent of parricide offenders used a weapon to commit their crime while only about 40 per cent of filicide offenders did. Contrary to what Marleau (2003) found. guaranteeing the death of the parent. He also compared weapon use with the presence of schizophrenia. Shon and Targonski concluded that the two Freudian assumptions on parricide are flawed in that parricide is not caused by intrapsychic factors since it can be influenced by societal factors and there seems to be little or no sexual significance in these offenses because an overwhelming majority of these offenders used firearms. She used the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data base to gather records on weapons used by parricide offenders from 1977 to 1986. Testing two psychodynamic assumptions on parricide. He noted the possibility of the perception of imbalance of power. are affected by the changes in society.255 biological parents and 616 stepparents of single victim-single offender parricides.Chia-Ying Lin. In 1993.629 cases. Specifically. in committing the offense. In examining the 6. they wanted to see whether parricide had not been affected by social factors from 1976 to 1998 and if knives were the primary weapon used by the offenders due to its sexual significance. not knives.8 Rhona Mae Amorado . They also found that there has been a consistent decline in the rate of parricides since 1991. etc. were more likely to be killed with handguns or cutting instruments. She also found that fathers. Parricide. may be stronger than them. They also looked into the nature of the aggression or whether the offense was expressive (ie. Heide explained these results using the physical strength hypothesis stating that it is logical for juveniles to use firearms because adults. She concluded by saying that perhaps occurrence of juvenile parricides could be attributed to the availability of guns to these children. both biological and adoptive. In comparing adult and juvenile offenders. The act was purposeful or intentional). handgun. Fritzon and Garbutt were able to divide the crime scene variables into four different categories: Instrumental object. the data showed that juveniles were more likely to kill parents and stepfathers with a firearm. and expressive object. filicide. Consequently. They hypothesized that the crime scenes would differ depending on whether the offender saw the victim as a person (ie. Someone significant) or victim as an object (ie. more specifically rifles and shotguns. instrumental person. blunt instruments. They compared crime scenes according to the relationship of the victim to the offender. hands. and that the act of violence can either be a planned attack or due . familicide.). than adults. This indicates that victim’s role is significant in that they are the target of the offense. The act was driven by rage or anger) or instrumental (ie. Using a multidimensional analysis called Smallest Space Analysis (SSA). The victim does not have a significant role in the offense). they examined 191 cases of the different types of intrafamilial homicide (eg. In looking at Fritzon and Garbutt (2001) results on parricide. and personal weapons (eg. knives or cutting instruments. and shotgun). etc. expressive person. Mothers on the other hand. particularly males.). it appears that patricide cases can be categorized as being mostly expressive object. In the study of Fritzon and Garbutt (2001). Only one study was found that looked into actual crime scene correlates of parricide. and that the number of parricides committed by juveniles might decrease if access to firearms were restricted. body.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 9 four weapons: firearms (ie. regardless of the type of gun used. rifle. majority of the parricide cases appear to be either Expressive person or Instrumental person. This meant that the motivation for killing was the built up rage and frustration from the offender and that the father just happened to be the chosen target to vent out these frustrations. were more likely to be killed by firearms. involving an incubation period. white.10 Rhona Mae Amorado . Hua-Fu Hsu to an emotional outburst. where most adults are in their early 30s and target only the mother. the researchers wanted to know whether juvenile parricide offenders were more likely to have parental abuse in their backgrounds. Some parricides are also believed to be catathymic in nature. murder as the only-way-out. More importantly. on the other hand. Find out the crime scene characteristics of parricides. mostly focusing on the element of overkill and weapon type. Our research intends to supplement parricide literature by introducing parricide crime scene characteristics. Find out distinctions between crime scenes of adult and juvenile parricide offenders. acts of undoing. Specifically. and live in the same dwelling as the victim. It also wanted to know whether adult parricide offender were more likely to have some form of mental illness. The Purpose of this Study The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of parricide by confirming what has been found in the literature concerning parricide offender characteristics and expanding the research in this area by examining crime scene behaviors of these offenders. overkill. More specifically. the researchers hope to add to the growing literature on offender profiling and investigative psychology so as to gain a better understanding of criminal behavior in general. Parricide offenders are most often adult. the researchers wanted to: 1. Crime scene evidence.Chia-Ying Lin. the researchers hope to contribute to the development of more valid and . In doing this study. Verify the findings from previous literature on the characteristics of parricide offenders. 2. Research has shown that adults are more likely to suffer from schizophrenia at the time of the crime. Most juveniles are in their teens and target their father or both parents. where juveniles are reacting more to inescapable child abuse. is limited in parricide research. by adding to the literature on offender profiling. or those of highest frequency. and post-murder relief with flat affect. particularly the most prominent. male. Such knowledge has investigative implications for the discovery of a victim who also happens to be a parent. 3. The photos provided a clearer information on the location of the body. The data were then content analyzed by each researcher. coding was checked by exchanging cases and searching the files for descrepancies in coding or missed information. having only these case files as the data source. and the type of weapon used to commit the crime. A standardized data sheet was completed to begin the analysis of the cases. the researchers were able to assess the internal consistency reliability of each case and variable. and estimate the inter-rater reliability (Hoyle. The parricide cases were found among the domestic homicide and homicide by children files. Methodology The data from this study were taken from the case files provided to John Jay College of Criminal Justice by the FBI Behavioral Science Unit. Each researcher then was assigned a certain amount of cases (ie. and autopsy reports. as some cases involved multiple offenders. employment. its position.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 11 reliable investigative methods to be used by police officers and detectives. evidence left at the crime scene. In order to avoid different perspectives. using “yes” or “no” values for each of the variables. offender actions before. The data sheet included information such as offender and victim demographics. a list of variables was made to search and define the coded variables related to offender characteristics and crime scene behaviors. and criminal history. One of the strengths of the case files was a wealth information on the crime including police reports. went to the file room to gather the necessary data. Researcher 2 – cases 9 to 16. Most of the files also had extensive reports regarding the background of the offenders and victims such as level of education. In doing this. mode of death. However. witness statements. Researcher 3 – cases 17 to 24). 2002). and others. and in their own chosen time. Those 18 years or older) and juvenile (ie. as part of a joint research project. Researcher 1 – cases 1 to 8. limited the sample size. In order to improve inter-rater reliability. The first step in summarizing the data is to organize the data in some logical . during. Another strength was the presence of crime scene photos. Those 17 years or younger) offenders. These cases included both adult (ie. There were a total of 24 parricide cases and 36 offenders. and after the crime. Harris. A majority of these were coded dichotomously. & Judd. offender interviews. psychological history. compared to 53 per cent of adult offenders. Frequency is useful in condensing a large amount of information into an actual number or quantifiable data. parricide is primarily a male crime (Table 1).7%) of the offenders were White. mother's boyfriend). either in planning or in actual killing) were juveniles (x ¯ = 16.7%) 1 (14.65). These victims include parents. although the results failed to reach the significant level (p < 0.65) 15 (88. for both groups.76) 6 (85. Also. more than 50 per cent of adult offenders were found to be employed at the time of the offense. SD = 0. having at least a high school degree.8%) Juveniles 7 15 – 17 16 (0. In comparing the two groups in these variables. However. and other people (eg. it is necessary to use an appropriate exact test as Fisher’s exact test instead of the Pearson’s chi-square value. 2006). sibling and grandparents). This enables researchers to see if the differences between the frequencies or percentages between variables are statistically significant (Braces. Table 1 Offender demographics of the two groups Variables Total Age range Mean age in years (SD) Gender (Males) Gender (Females) Adults 17 18 – 57 30 (10. since the total sample size is small. about 86 per cent of juvenile offenders were educated. no differences were found between them and the primary offender group in terms of ethnicity and gender. other relatives (eg. 1. there were slight differences found. Therefore. The second step is to test for significance using Chi-square. In looking at level of education. The data indicated that. Hua-Fu Hsu fashion. SD = . The victims' age ranged from six to 83 years old (x ¯ = 52.05).12 Rhona Mae Amorado . & Snelgar. the majority (85. approximation of the chi-square distribution breaks down if expected frequencies are too low.Chia-Ying Lin. SD = 10. Richard.76) and 17 were adults (x ¯ = 30. as seen in Table 1. in this study.. Regarding work.2%) 2 (11.3%) A total of 42 victims were killed by the 24 primary offenders. Offender and Victim Characteristics Seven of the primary offenders (ie: those mainly responsible for the offense. In examining the accomplices (age ranging from 14 to 50 years old). 913. acquaintance. indicate that intrafamilial homicides might have certain aspects in their crime scenes that would differentiate them from other types of homicides. as those committed by strangers or acquaintances. SD = 19.76).7%) 1 (3. unlike the primary offenders.5%) 2 (12. These variables were taken from past literature that analyzed crime scene variables of homicides (eg. with the juvenile group having a mean victim age of 44 years old (ranging from 10 to 78. about 55 per cent of the victims were female.9%). and intrafamilial). In their study examining expressiveness in these three types of homicide (ie. Salfati.16). 2000. However. Last and Fritzon (2005) discovered that intrafamilial homicides could be. particularly the one done by Last and Fritzon (2005).339). Majority of the victims. df = 1.8%) Juveniles 6 (37. They found that in intrafamilial homicide.3%) 3 (18. Stranger. Salfati. Crime Scene Variables Both groups were compared on a number of crime scene variables as can be seen from Table 3. SD = 17. it can be said that adult offenders were more likely to kill their mother than juvenile offenders.16) and adult group having around 57 years old (ranging from 6 to 83. be differentiated from these other types.2%) 2 (7. Studies on homicides. In examining the relationship of these victims with the primary offender (Table 2). 2005.5%) 0 (0%) 2.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 13 19. Last & Fritzon. p = 0.5%) 12 (46. They also said. that . as with the primary offender. to some degree. Table 2 Variables Fathers Mothers Siblings Other Relatives Others Victim relationship of the two groups Adults 10 (38. although no significant differences were found between the two groups (X2 = 0. the offenders were more likely to use a weapon from the scene and to inflict multiple wounds in one body part than the other two types.5%) 5 (31. were found to be White (92.8%) 1 (3. 2003) since the researchers were not able to find any parricide literature that looked into the crime scene behaviors of the offenders. in examining victim-offender relationships. Aggression and harm to the victim is the primary motivation). Waiting for over and beyond that required to victim. dismemberment) Face covered Body covered (inside the house) Body hidden (outside) Defense wounds Homicide inside Body found inside Con/Deceived Per offense (24 cases) Double homicide Single offender Victim other than parents Forensic awareness Property of value taken Arson Weapon from scene Weapon brought Staging Blitz (ie. excessive wounding Surprise (eg. sex acts. Table 3 Crime scene behaviors Per victim (42 cases) Manual Blunt object used Sharp object Shot (firearm) Multiple weapon used Single wound Multiple wound one area Multiple wound distributed Body positioned Body moved (within the house) Body transported (use of vehicle) Postmortem (ie. In total.) Note: The data were taken from the case files provided to John Jay Colledge of Criminal Justice by the FBI Behavioral Science Unit. the researchers had 31 variables that were compared and analyzed for each of the 24 cases.Chia-Ying Lin. etc. Mutilations. Initial approach was direct and immediate) Overkill (ie. A total of 42 victims were killed by the 24 primary offenders. Hence. but also to test whether the high frequencies found from this study would concur with those found in the literature regarding intrafamilial homicides.14 Rhona Mae Amorado . while victim was cause death) sleeping. the researchers found it fitting to adapt certain crime scene variables from these studies. Hua-Fu Hsu intrafamilial homicides had more expressive crime scenes (ie. . not only for the purpose of using variables that are grounded in literature. Criminal and antisocial backgrounds (ie. and incarceration) were also found to be prevalent in the juvenile group.6 42. It should be kept in mind that while every single case has provided a great amount of valuable information.7 29. 1.7 17.9 41.1 42.9 41. the juvenile group outnumbered the adult group by 10 per cent in this variable (57% vs. .4 41. due to the small size of the sample.3 0 100 0 Variables Adults (%) Juveniles (%) Note: The differences between the two groups in these variables were not statistically significant.7 41.2 Juveniles (%) 14. about 53 per cent of the adult group was found to have more altercations with the victims in the past.9 Criminal history Mental illness Abuse Neglect Drug history Alcohol history Residence Posses (ie.3 85.9 14. While 50 per cent of all the offenders had criminal or antisocial histories. juvenile records.2 64.2 23.4 42. especially for the juvenile group (Table 4).6 28.5 52.9 71.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 15 Results This section will be divided into two parts – one for offender characteristics and the other for crime scene variables.6 57.2 52.9 64. Hearing voices at time of offense) 47.1 64. caution should be exercised when interpreting the results. On the other hand.. Offender Characteristics Majority of the offenders were living with the victim/s at the time of the offense. 47%). School sanctions.3 28.7 14. Table 4 Variables Current relationship Siblings Adopted Psychiatric history Prior aggression to Victim Prior aggression OTHER Frequencies for Primary offender data of both groups Adults (%) 52. It is also interesting to note that none of the juvenile group had alcohol related histories. and Spitz (1999) stated that mental illness is more often the motivator for adult parricide. Alexandre. They found that the adult group had more accounts of mental illness and psychiatric history than juveniles. adults outnumbered juveniles by almost 40 per cent. while about 41 per cent of adults did. several factors can be related to the act of parricide. as consistent with the other results.Chia-Ying Lin. In examining alcohol and substance histories. The results also show that majority of the . whereas it is child abuse for juvenile parricide. Young.16 Rhona Mae Amorado . Specifically. past studies have asserted that differences can be seen between juvenile and adult parricide offenders in terms of their characteristics. However. Adult parricide offenders had more drug related histories than their juvenile counterparts (53% vs. the results revealed that about 67 per cent of the offenses happened at night or around midnight. indicating that juveniles were no more abused or neglected than the adults in this sample. Hence. almost 65 per cent of adults were acknowledged to have some form of mental illness (mainly schizophrenia and paranoia).05..05). these differences were not statistically significant. the researchers found none of them to be significant at p-level of 0. Nonetheless. 14%). It is also interesting to note that almost 20 per cent of the adult group reported hearing voices or being possessed at the time of the offense. Hua-Fu Hsu As evidenced in literature. past/current treatment for mental illness). Crime Scene Variables In analyzing the data. More than 40 per cent of the adult group have also received treatment at some point or were incarcerated in the past. the researchers tested for significant differences on the factors listed in table 4 between juveniles and adults. 2. Particularly. compared to less than 30 per cent of the juvenile group. but none of the juvenile offenders did. In analyzing these differences however. Institutionalization at a psychiatric facility. the differences between the two groups in these variables were not statistically significant (p < 0. Hillbrand. Another important factor that the researchers looked at was mental illness and psychiatric history (ie. The frequencies (Table 4) reveal that juveniles were more likely to experience abuse and neglect compared to adults. 2% vs. Table 5 Chi-square test for crime scene behaviors of both groups Variables Double homicide Single offender Victim other than parents Forensic awareness Property value taken Arson Weapon from scene Weapon brought Staging Manual Blunt Overall (%) 25 75 20. even without urging.8 23.5% fathers) while juveniles were more likely to kill their fathers (37.045).7 19. In relation to this.033. In fact.2 8. killing of just one parent). The results also showed that more than 65 per cent of these offenses were single homicides (ie. Moreover. Nevertheless.3 31. 38.3 12.3 6. seven were family members.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 17 offenders committed the crime by themselves (75%) and only a few had accomplices. and it is interesting that of these. the researchers found that there were a total of 12 accomplices for the whole sample. p = 0.557 0.000 0. as cited in Ewing. the results indicate that there were 10 per cent more female victims than male (includes siblings and other victims).657 1.8 Adults (%) 12.2 Juveniles (%) 57.5% vs. 1997) had similar findings. 31.000 0.8 31. Regarding the victim relationship with the offender.3 0 68.517 0.3 7. stating that some parricide offenders are consciously or unconsciously swayed by other family members (most often a parent) to kill. the researchers noted that these were mostly committed by juveniles (Table 5).05.3% mothers). commit the offense in order to protect other members of the family (usually from abuse).045 ** 1. in analyzing those with double homicide.000 0.3 70.3 Significance 0.5 37.5 31.5 29. However these differences were not found to be significant at p-level of 0.000 1. Ewing (1997) noted that the offender.2 4. Sargent (1962.2 4. the difference between the two groups were found to be statistically significant (X2 = 5.083 1.1 62.000 1. df = 1. This indicates that in parricides where both parents were killed.5 81.8 29.374 . the most likely offender would be a juvenile.8 37.5 50 25 25 75 25 0 0 31. the researchers found that adults were more likely to kill their mothers (46. 627 0.7 26.08) The researchers also found that majority of the offenders used a blitz style approach (69%).3 18. Also.5 37. p = 0.1 50 50 31.5 7.965.3 50 31.18 Rhona Mae Amorado .5 2. .085 0.223 0.7 19.063 * 0.1 16.5 0 0 6.471 0.8 31.000 0.0 42.3 46.9 61.180 0.7 7.275 0.888 0. majority of which were distributed all over different areas of the body (57%).084 0.7 3.7 7.063).0 21.9 7.8 19. For weapon choice.5 62.038 ** 0.1 28.Chia-Ying Lin.0 11.275 0.5 25 12. Hua-Fu Hsu Sharp Shot Multiple weapon Single wound Multiple wound ONE Multiple Distributed Body positioned Moved Transported Postmortem Face covered Body covered Hidden Defense wounds Homicide inside Found inside Blitz Surprise Con/devceive Overkill 45.2 7.138 1.8 73.5 80. it appeared that majority (more than 45%) of the offenders used firearms or sharp/cutting objects (eg. the results indicate that about 80 per cent of the victims sustained multiple wounds.9 28.628 1.281 0.292 0.6 19.05. df = 1.05 but < 0.6 57.3 37.471 NOTE: (**) means significant at p < 0. although it did not reach the p-level of 0.5 73.5 0 62.000 0.8 69.2 47.5 11.4 7.5 7. knife).4 11.1 11.7 38.808 0. In comparing the two groups.9 73. while (*) indicates a Hint at significance (p > 0.05.3 9.6 92.0 40.5 88.5 100 62.5 0. around 70 per cent used weapons that were found on location or from the scene. it appears that juveniles were more likely than their adult counterparts to use a surprise approach than blitz or conning (X2 = 3.1 69. Both of these results can explain why the researchers did not find a significant difference for defense wounds.7 7.3 12.352 0.2 11. In analyzing location and number of wounds. df = 1. One case nonetheless stood out. analysis showed that fathers were more likely than mothers to have overkill (X2 = 4.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 19 In connection to wounding. 31 per cent of juvenile offenders positioned the victim’s body while only 8 per cent of adult offenders did. Chi-square analysis revealed that female victims were more likely to have over kill than males (X2 = 4. when compared to wounding. however due to the small sample size of the study the value did not reach statistical significance. p = 0.038). It is also interesting to mention that positioning of a victim’s body was found for more than 15 per cent of the cases. df = 1. p = 0. Although there were no significant differences between the two groups.049). when the relationship of the offender and victim were taken into account. On the other hand. Specifically.857. They found that juvenile parricide offenders were more likely to move the victims’ body than the adult group. Also.018). the researchers noted that the bodies were not positioned in any degrading way. .036).375.884.009). It was also noted that male offenders were more likely to move the victims’ body. p = 0. almost all of the homicides were found to have been committed inside as seen in table 5 (mostly victim’s home). This implies that victims who had overkill were more likely to have been killed using a blunt object than other weapons. a vast majority of overkill cases also had multiple distributed wounding (X2 = 6. They found that. For most cases. p = 0.707. About 40 per cent of the victims have been transported to a different location and almost 20 per cent were moved (either in position or location within the house). df = 1. df = 1. the bodies were positioned in a way that it looked like the victims were peacefully sleeping or watching TV. A very interesting finding regarding overkill was that it was also found to be significant when related to victim gender and relationship. the researchers did find statistically significant results when overkill was compared with other variables. The bodies were positioned in an almost circular way. Regarding location of the offense and victim body. df = 1. The researchers found the moving of the body after death particularly interesting since there was a significant difference between the two groups (X2 = 5.388. a significant relationship between blunt instrument and overkill was found to exist (X2 = 5. p = 0. a vast majority of the victims were identified as having overkill (Table 5). Looking at the crime scene photos of these cases however. It is also important to note that in only one of these four cases did an offender engage in necrophilia with one of his victims (sister). The findings in this current study however did not confirm that. Hillbrand et . but due to the small sample size of this study. Mental illness too was not found to be significant. The results show that juveniles did not significantly experience more abuse in the hands of their parents compared to the adults. A final result to discuss is postmortem activity. 1992. looking at the frequencies. it shows that more than 70 per cent of the juveniles reported abuse while only about 41 per cent of adults did. this runs contrary to most of the literature stating that adults are more likely to have mental health issues that contributed to the offense (Millaud et al. 2001. the researchers wanted to find out if there were differences between the two groups. Previous studies have shown that juveniles were more likely to have abuse in their backgrounds and this might have been a factor in their commission of parricide (Hillbrand et al. and the two male victims were located away from the females. Heide. Hua-Fu Hsu with each of the female victims’ feet touching the others.. In examining offender characteristics.. 1999. as cited in Ewing. they did find a number of interesting findings. He stated that there were people calling to him for help. 1996. While this is just a small percentage.. In one case however. some contradictory to other research while others supporting previous findings. About 10 per cent (4 cases) of the cases had postmortem activity. the offender felt the need to slice his father’s body open due to a delusion that there were people inside his father. asking him to release them. Again.Chia-Ying Lin. Most of the postmortem behaviors that the offenders engaged in were slicing or cutting off the body parts. Discussion Majority of what the researchers found point to the two groups not having any difference in terms of either characteristics or crime scene behaviors.20 Rhona Mae Amorado . Nevertheless. This might mean that there could be differences between the two. mainly for easy disposal. 2005). particularly in the area of abuse and mental illness. the researchers were not able to see the differences. this is very note worthy since the common notion about intrafamilial homicides is that rarely involve postmortem activities (Last & Fritzon. However. Baxter et al. 1997). Analyzing the crime scene behaviors of these cases was an important interest in this study as the researchers have not found any literature that dealt with this.. both these findings might also indicate that previous research might have overplayed the effect of these two factors so as to give rationale for these disturbing offenses. While most of the crime scene variables were not found to be significantly different for the two groups. they do show a difference between the two groups. they found that juveniles were more likely to commit double parricide than adults. for the time being. mental illness. the sample size might have affected the results. and abuse for answers. (2006) found in their study that juveniles usually kill both parents during the offense. the researchers did find two significant differences. (2006) was that. Nonetheless. This gives support to what Marleau et al. society finds it easy to understand why they commit crimes. For others. society looks to alcohol. most of the case files that were reviewed either had nothing on the mental history or abuse history of these offenders or the information was too ambiguous that the researchers were not able to code them. in hearing about crimes. However. For some offenders who have extensive criminal backgrounds. Moreover. This however could not be confirmed for all the cases in this study due to the lack of background history in the case files. which was also presented by Marleau et al. however. juveniles were more likely to be residing with their parents at the .Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 21 al. as with the case of the variable abuse. society has a tendency to want to understand the motivations behind these. It is these types of offenders that shake the beliefs of society regarding “good” and “bad” people. it can be said that in order to make sense of heinous inexplicable crimes. when society hears about “good” people committing crimes. First. making it more possible for both parents to still be alive. Thus. especially those who do not seem to have any violent background. Another possible explanation for this. In looking at the frequencies. the fear and panic that these crimes instill becomes neutralized. This perhaps is due to the age of the offenders in that juveniles have younger parents compared to the adult group. there is an immediate need to find even the most subtle explanation for these acts so that. the reason behind the crimes are more difficult to decipher. Kelleher (1998) explained that. 1999). As Kelleher puts it. 22 Rhona Mae Amorado . the offender not only moved the bodies of all the victims to the master’s bedroom. Since both parents are at home. the offender might feel that if he kills one. In Green (1981. this was found to be true for the current study. However. he states that about 97 per cent of parricide offenders just leave the crime scene and the victim as is. Last and Fritzon (2005) also found in their study that post-mortem activity as moving the body after death was the only variable that was exclusively not found in any of their intrafamilial homicide sample.Chia-Ying Lin. upon seeing his mother approaching. He rushed to her. This seemed logical since it can be assumed that adults would be stronger than their juvenile counterparts. moved. as the offender and his accomplice were struggling with the victim. literature indicates that the act of moving a body after the murder reflects planning on the part of the offender (Last & Fritzon. In fact. In one of the cases. as cited in Last & Fritzon. the researchers did have cases wherein there was clear evidence of planning for months or weeks prior to the murders. Contrary to these two studies. Killing of both parents therefore may be due to necessity than anything else. decides to kill her as well. the mother of the offender heard the commotion and went downstairs to see what was happening. 2005). 2005). the researchers found that adults were more likely to move the body after the offense (70. etc. he has to kill the other so as to leave no witnesses behind. Second. In one case for example.6%). held her down. wherein the offender tries to hide or manipulate the evidence by moving the body some place else. but also positioned them in a way that the feet of the . While this may be the case for some parricide offenders. Hua-Fu Hsu time of the offense. Fritzon and Garbutt (2001) found that a common characteristic (ie.). In looking at the meaning of this behavior. as some of the offenders did move the body of their victims. all of the juvenile offenders were living with their parents compared to only about 65 per cent of the adult offenders. however. This is quite contrary to previous literature on parricide since some show that the homicidal acts were sudden and unplanned. covered. Planning can also happen after the offense. Happening more than 50% of the time) of homicides within families was disturbing the body after death (eg. Indeed. hidden. and called for his accomplice to kill his mother. The offender then. the primary target of the killing was the father. Other offenders waited for the victim to come inside the house or get out of the bathroom. was placed away from the other victims.05). when overkill was compared to the type of weapon used by the offender.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 23 three females were touching each other and the two males were apart from them. the researchers found that victims who had overkill were more likely to have distributed multiple wounding in different areas of their body. as cited in Last & Fritzon. Other journals have actually found that firearms were the most used weapons in this type of homicide (Shon & Targonski. In a few cases for example. However. They stated that manual killing or use of blunt force is mostly associated with unplanned homicides. While this finding did not reach the significance level (p < 0. Boots & Heide. 2006. These victims might have been sleeping when they were killed. The researchers also discovered that overkill had a significant relationship to location of wounds. Other interesting results were found for the variable overkill. Surprise approach usually involves a non-confrontational attack on the victims. they found that one of the distinguishing characteristics of intrafamilial homicides was that the victims sustained multiple wounds in one area. One. Marleau et al. these offenders prefer to use an approach that requires the minimum amount of confrontation. Perhaps this was due to the act of parricide being sudden. which in fact was also found in this study. Daly and Wilson (1988. Instead. the offenders waited for their fathers to come out of the bathroom and then hit them in head. the researchers found that it had a significant relationship with the use of blunt weapon. This type . but at the same time. the father who was the first to be killed and was the primary target of the offense. 1993b). This was actually found to be true by Last and Fritzon (2005). 2006). hidden from sight. The researchers also found that adolescents were more likely to use a surprise approach. 2005) also stated that most offenders who utilize these types of weapons had a close relationship with the victim or who knew the victim well. To add to that. This type of initial approach to the victim may be explained by physical strength hypothesis (Heide. where the offender. In the study by Last and Fritzon (2005). this was not found to be true in the current study. 2003. She explained that since the parents of juveniles might be physically stronger than them.. in the heat of the moment just grabs whatever he or she can and starts hitting the victim. will ensure the killing. it still warrants attention. 24 Rhona Mae Amorado . there was overkill (69%). When a person is emotional. Hua-Fu Hsu of wounding pattern can be interpreted as resulting from the intense emotions surrounding the incident. siblings. the results revealed that significantly more female victims had overkill compared to males. They found this to be especially true in homicides within families. the results showed that fathers had significantly more overkill than mothers. This view is supported by Salfati and Canter (1999) and Fritzon and Garbutt (2001) stating that inflicting wounds in numerous body parts are indicative of a loss of control.Chia-Ying Lin. The researchers found that in the 24 cases they examined. Finally. it is interesting to note that in analyzing the frequencies of the crime scene variables. in looking at their high frequency findings. Some offenders even indicated in their interviews that they killed their mothers quickly because they did not want her to suffer. the weapon was from the scene (71%). as cited in Salfati & Canter. Last. a blitz type of attack (69%). The cases examined in this study did show that some of the fathers had a very abusive relationship with their child. more than half had multiple distributed wounding (57%). They also noted that in some cases of double parricide. However. Even so. for more than half of their sample the victims’ bodies were . the victim was found inside (74%). it did show that. The researchers posit that overkill of fathers were due to fathers being more hostile and abusive than mothers. the researchers found that variables that happened in more than 50 per cent of the time were consistent with crime scene variables being described as characteristic of intrafamilial homicides. and the homicide happened inside (93%). 1999). Focusing on the last two variables. etc. grandparents. he sometimes loose control over his actions. Fritzon and Garbutt’s study (2001) on intrafamilial homicide did not find these to be the common crime scene characteristics for their parricide offender group. 1979. where offenders become consumed by their anger and frustration that their crime scene reflects a frenzied act of violence. when the researchers isolated the analysis to the parents. The researchers then believe that the finding for females was due to the inclusion of other victims in the analysis (eg. Thinking does not even seem to play a part during that moment because it is being blocked out by too much emotion (Zillman.). as with the current study. the attacks on the fathers were more aggressive compared to the mothers. This behavior was interpreted by the researchers as indicative of unplanned attack. in reviewing Salfati’s (2000. This may indicate that. Weapon from scene was also found by Last and Fritzon (2005) to be prominent in intrafamilial homicides. perhaps due feelings of intense aggression at the time of the offense. In connection. In fact. As what the researchers noticed in the 24 cases. Hence. the killing of the parent was due to overwhelming emotions experienced by the offender prior and during the offense. . all the victims that were found inside the house were also killed in there. these high frequency findings show that. the act of killing was planned rather than just an expression of anger or rage against the victim. This supports what Fritzon and Garbutt (2001) found. This shows that this type of behavior is perhaps characteristic of homicides committed by family members. Other cases on the other hand were carefully planned – killing to end an abusive relationship or to gain a sense of freedom. She also noted that these types of behaviors are indicative of a more impulsive and emotional act. However. She explained that taking a weapon from the scene represent a more intentional or planned action against the victim. found that in more than 50 per cent of homicide cases the victim’s body was found in the same place where he/she was killed. in analyzing crime scene behaviors of homicides. while parricide cannot be exclusively classified as either expressive or instrumental. all the attacks are directed at the victim. and was expecting it to fall into the category of expressive homicides. some of the parricide offenses were spontaneous – happening during or immediately after arguing with the victims. In the current study.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 25 found inside their home. that for some parricide offenses. This consistent with what Fritzon and Garbutt (2001) found that some parricide offenses could be classified as expressive in nature. their study revealed that this was one of the most significant variables that differentiated intrafamilial homicides from homicides committed by strangers and acquaintances. it was discovered that this behavior fell within the instrumental category. at least for some of the cases. Salfati (2003). 2003) studies on homicides. One explanation may lie in the fact that their parents are younger than the parents of adult offenders hence both parents were still alive. it may be a good indication that the victims knew the offender. Another explanation is that. it was discovered that high frequency behaviors of parricides were consistent with past literature. The researchers were able to observe that overkill is usually committed with blunt instruments.Chia-Ying Lin. the researchers. the study provides a new direction for the aspect of overkill. In analyzing the data. when victims are murdered and found inside a house or a building. these were not found to be statistically significant. it was revealed that adolescents were more likely to kill both parents than adults. living with both parents may account in part for this finding.26 Rhona Mae Amorado . were able to note the most prominent behaviors of parricide offenders in their crime scenes. Firstly. The last purpose of this study was to compare crime scene behaviors of juveniles and adults. Second. the results also showed remarkable differences between juveniles and adults in terms of the nature of homicide. Furthermore. several interesting findings are worth to be noted. Here. despite the small sample. the current study was able to show that juvenile and adult offenders might not really have differences in characteristics as postulated by previous literature. just by looking at percentages. the researchers found that. Another . Majority of homicides that involved weapons taken from the scene and multiple wounding suggests that the offender might be someone close to the victim. More importantly. Thus. the juvenile offenders were still dependent on their parents. they were able to compare their findings from previous works on crime scene behaviors of intrafamilial homicides. although frequencies did indicate that juveniles have experienced more abuse and adults were more likely to have mental illness. In doing so. Hua-Fu Hsu Conclusion This study presents the result of the relationship between various crime scene behaviors in both juvenile and adult groups. but it is not entirely convincing without any support from historical background provided in individual cases. Thus. One. It was also discovered that overkill and distributed the wounds on the body were significantly related. In studying actual crime scene behaviors of parricide offenders. Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 27 difference between the groups was that adult offenders were more likely to move the body after committing parricide. and homicide happened inside – gives further support on the research on victim-offender relationship. As mentioned. Investigative Implications By analyzing actual behaviors in a crime. when observed at a crime scene. blitz type of attack. if there is evidence that the body was moved. the goal of profiling is to help investigators narrow down the suspect pool to the most likely offender through analyzing the crime scene (Salfati & Kucharski. Thus it is important that objective and observable variables be used. the behaviors used are exactly those that investigators might encounter when working on a case. B. This can help detectives and police officers prioritize their search and investigation. hence its results have investigative significance. it would be more likely that the offender is an adult. victim found inside. overkill. weapon from the scene. Knowing the differences between the crime scenes of juveniles and adults can help narrow down the search to a specific age group. 2005). the researchers were able to discover interesting information about how parricide offenders acted during the commission of their crime. A. in cases where both parents are dead. the researchers are able to provide valuable information to investigators. As found in this study. A combination of these behaviors. On the other hand. These behaviors – multiple distributed wounds. Implications and Future Directions This study has shown the importance of examining crime scene behaviors of homicide offenses. Perhaps the most important of the findings are the high frequency behaviors noted for parricide offenders. . may indicate that the offender is someone who is most likely close to or even related to the victim. Research Implications It has been emphasized that research on offender profiling is still at its early stages. Despite the lack of statistical significance in majority of the variables. either in position or location. the most likely suspect would be someone aged 17 years old or younger. suggesting that there may be a sense of planning. The results presented in this paper have substantial implications both in the area of investigation and research. In this study. the only source of information for this research was the FBI case files. However. a good understanding of the data is needed. & Ressler. Hua-Fu Hsu The researchers realize that this study is just a small part of a larger study on homicide and profiling. 1992). This base rate can be used in further analyzing parricide or comparing parricide to other types of intrafamilial homicides and homicides in general. Previous studies on profiling have concentrated on the creation and verification of offender typologies (eg. Burgess. For example.Chia-Ying Lin. before typologies can be created it is important that frequencies or base rates be first established. It is expected by the researchers that in doing small studies as this and taking things one step at a time. Future Research It is acknowledged by the researchers that the study has a small sample size. Douglas. Burgess. Aside from parricide being a rare crime. The larger the sample size. 1999. based on the crime scene behavior it could be inferred that the offender is someone who is aggressive and highly reactive. The study was very specific in that it just looked into the area of parricide. This would especially be helpful to investigators in narrowing the search for specific types of persons. the study contributes to the current research on profiling and homicide classifications. This was exactly what the researchers did – they provided a base rate for the crime scene behaviors of parricide offenders. Moreover. Keppel & Walter. future studies in this area are encouraged by the researchers to utilize various data bases in gathering their data so as to arrive at an acceptable number of cases.28 Rhona Mae Amorado . thereby increasing the reliability and validity of the past researches in this area. investigators . research on profiling can be enhanced ultimately adding to the improvement of profiling as an investigative tool. Nonetheless. Hence. As Canter (2000) and Salfati (2003) pointed out. By knowing this type of information. before any typology can be created and validated. There is a pressing demand on researchers in this field to improve on profiling techniques and make sure that these tools are valid and reliable. C. the more reliable the results would. in doing so. Future research should also consider studying the correlation of parricide offender characteristics and their crime scene behaviors. the variables that would be used in those researches would increase thereby providing investigators more valuable information to work with. By analyzing similarities and differences between the crime scenes of. It would also be interesting to examine catathymic behaviors and parricide. It has been suggested in the literature that some parricides are catathymic in nature. if certain crime scene behaviors can be identified as being catathymic. for example. In order to increase the reliability and validity of profiling research. it can be discovered whether these types of homicide lie in a single continuum and can be analyzed together or not. parricide cannot be categorized as either of the two. Lastly. This – relating offender characteristics and crime scene behaviors – are exactly what offender profiling is about. parricide and infanticide. it is suggested that future research be done on analyzing the nature of parricide crime scene behaviors – are they instrumental or expressive? As this study has shown. The same is true for studying homicides in general. caution should be employed when interpreting the results. due to the small sample size. it can be discovered whether there are behavior patterns more indicative of a certain type of homicide or not. It would also be interesting to compare the crime scene behaviors of parricide with other types of intrafamilial homicides and homicides in general. Parricide is one of the more hard to understand types of homicide. it would be good to look at how these relate to parricide. . Thus. there should be an ongoing analysis between the different types and subtypes of homicide. However.Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 29 could look at those suspects with a criminal history and interview them first before branching out to other possible suspects. In comparing intrafamilial homicides with stranger homicides. Douglas. (2001). C. (1995). S. Murder at the end of the day and night: A study of criminal homicide offenders... 309-331..7.. (2006). P. & Snelgar. Parricide. Larkin. 65. (1997). Pagani (Eds. (2000). Fatal families: The dynamics of intrafamilial homicide. K. K. J. Offender profiling and criminal differentiation. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster. Brace. C. Illinois: Charles C.22. & Yamini. (2001). A.Chia-Ying Lin. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry. R. D. Springfield.. (2001). New York: Cambridge University Press. Advances in offender profiling: A systematic review of the profiling literature published over the past three decades. A.30 Rhona Mae Amorado . M. P. Thomas Publisher. Pinard & L. Hua-Fu Hsu References Baxter. G. Burgess. & Heide. Boots. D. C. Fritzon.. R. F. (1992). Canter. Cordess. Mentally disordered parricide and stranger killers admitted to high-security care 1: A descriptive comparison. K. Spss for psychologists. Crime & Law. (2002). California: Sage Publications. W. Psychology. V. Dowden. . D. Ewing. New York: Palgrave Mac Millian.. 418-445. 5. (2007). 287-299. H. Dutton. Legal and Criminological Psychology. Bennel. (2006).. & Ressler. victims. C. Richard. Adolescent parricide: An integration of social cognitive theory and clinical views of projective-introjective cycling. 181-194). 12. B. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. C. Parricides in the media: A content analysis of available reports across cultures. & Garbutt. 50. Duggan. P. E. & Page. Burgess.. In G.. G. Ewing. S. 44-56. E. and circumstances. K. & Bloomfield. 23-46. R. A fatal interaction: The role of the victim and function of aggression in intrafamilial homicide. Clinical assessment of dangerousness (pp.. C. Crime Classification Manual. Flowers. N. 39-47. R. K. LTD.). G. 6. (2002). (2003). 375-394. Parricide: Characteristics of offenders and victims. Auclair. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. New York: Thomson Learning. R. R. Marleau. (1999). (1991). K. Salfati. 391-406. (1999). & Walter. 519-520.. C. A. Investigating the nature of expressiveness in stranger. 17.. 1382-1399. Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender characteristics from behavioral styles. Newhill. data.J. M. M. Psychological Reports. J. Heide. 22. 321-325. 531-544. Journal of Family Violence. aggressive individuals. (1996). (2002). Weapons used by juveniles and adults to kill parents. Connecticut: Praeger..Parricide: An Analysis of Offender Characteristics and Crime Scene Behaviors of Adult and Juvenile Offenders 31 Heide. (1999). Journal of Interpersonal Violence. J. 4. (1998). D. Alexandre. & Canter. (1993b). W.M. R. & Petee. Kelleher. (1993a). Parricide: An empirical analysis of 24 years of U. K. T. V. acquaintance and intrafamilial homicide. legal factors. 397-405. Last.H.. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender profiling. D. & Judd. J. and treatment issues. Westport. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 173-182. K. 93. (2005). Marleau. K. 417-437. Parricde and mental illness: A study of 12 cases. M. 11. Hillbrand. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comprehensive Criminology. Parricide. 179-193. 19. 4. Connecticut: Praeger. D. N. E. M. (2007). Moffatt. & Meunier. J. D. K.. (2006).. M. Heide.S. Profilling killers: A revised classification model for understanding sexual murder. K. Parents who get killed and the children who kill them. F. R. Research Methods in Social Relations. L. & Spitz. When good kids kill. Comparison of factors associated with parricide in adults and adolescents. S. D. F. 179-190. Methods of killing employed by psychotic parricides. Journal of Family Violence... M. Millaud. Harris. C. Aggression and Violent Behavior. N. 21. D. Auclair. Young. G. & Millaud. A violent heart: Understanding Westport. . & Fritzon. T. 8. Keppel. 2. Hoyle. C. Sexual murder: Catathymic and compulsive homicides. (2003).S.Chia-Ying Lin. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. (2002).gov/ucr/cius2006/ .32 Rhona Mae Amorado . 26. Boca Raton. parricides. Offender interaction with victims in homicide: A multidimensional analysis of frequencies in crime scene behaviors. Salfati. 4. H. Retrieved (November 5. G.fbi. C. 2006. Declining trends in U. 18. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Guarino (Eds. In J. (2000). (September 2007). 99-134). & Targonski. 265-291. W. 2007). C. Santrock. J. (2003). Shon. The common subject of crime: A multi-disciplinary approach (pp. C.).). from http://www. 490-512. Crime in the United States. L. (2004). 387-402. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Homicide Studies. Psychology (6th ed. C. T. G. Trevino & S. United States Department of Justice. B. Hua-Fu Hsu Salfati. (2005). R. Anderson: Lexis Nexis. The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide: Implications for offender profiling. G. Federal Bureau of Investigation. & Kucharski. Schlesinger. The psychology of criminal conduct. J. Florida: CRC Press LLC. Inc. 1976－ 1998: Testing the Freudian assumptions. Salfati.