Chapter 1 Homicidal Syndromes A Clinical Psychiatric Perspective George B. Palermo Summary After a brief review of pertinent sociological, neurological, and psychological theories of crime, an overview of the various types of single and multiple homicides is presented. Anger and uncontrolled destructive hostility are thought to be the basis of homicidal acting-out in all groups. INTRODUCTION Homicide, the taking of one or more human lives, is the worst manifes- tation of interpersonal violence and often mirrors the personality of the offender. Great passion and emotions are frequently behind the act of murder. Holmes and Holmes summarized well the personality of the violent offender as the “result of a special combination of factors that include biological inheritance, culture, and environment as well as common and unique experiences. Because of this unique combination, the violent personal offender will commit crimes as an outgrowth of an existing pathological condition” (1, p. 46). Homicide, from the Latin homicidium, is a term composed of homo, meaning “man,” and cidium derived from the verb caedo, meaning “to cut” or “to kill.” From a legal point of view, there is a difference between homicide and murder: homicide is defined as “the killing of one human being by another,” whereas murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially From: Criminal Profiling: International Theory, Research, and Practice Edited by: R. N. Kocsis © Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 3 4 G.B. Palermo with malice aforethought.” (2) There are various types of homicide, including intentional homicide, manslaughter, reckless/negligent homicide, felony and suspected felony homicide, argument-motivated homicide, and homicide due to unknown motives. Homicide may be further differentiated into single or multiple homicides. Examples of single homicides are parricide, spousal homicide, jealous paranoia homicide, filicide, matricide, patricide, and drive-by shootings. Multiple murders are classified as mass murder, spree murder, and serial murder. From an epidemiological point of view, we encounter social periods with varying levels of homicide. These fluctuations are the result of different factors. One can safely say, however, that the frequency of homicide generally reflects not only the character of the person who commits the homicide but also the moral and socioeconomic status of the society in which he or she lives. From a historical point of view, homicide is part of humankind. It is ubiquitous and has been reported since earliest recorded history. Although initially it may have been a means of protecting one’s property or of providing food for one’s family, over time it has become a predatory means of carrying out vengeance at all social levels (e.g., Cain’s killing of Abel or present-day kidnappings and killings for political reasons). Great writers, such as Dante, Shakespeare, and Dostoyevsky, have rendered immortal famous and infamous homicidal acts in their works (3). In an attempt to reach a better understanding of such destructive types of behavior, various theories have been proposed to examine factors thought to be at the basis of homicidal violence and violence in general: sociological theories, neurobiological theories, and psychological theories. Thus, as can be seen, the approach is a multifactorial one. SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF CRIME Sociological theories that have attempted an interpretation of homicidal violence are many, including those of Lorenz (4), Sutherland (5), Durkheim (6), Merton (7), Reik (8), and Glueck and Glueck (9). Wolfgang and Ferracuti (10) asserted that homicidal tendencies belonged to the so-called subculture of violence. They claimed that this behavior is typical of urban ghettos, a mixture of learned violence and social rebellion against blocked opportunities and the inability to obtain occupations commensurate with their skills. Others, such as Foucault, Rousseau, and Marcuse, viewed violence as the consequence of a social vacuum (3). Homicide is more frequent in large and medium-sized cities, where stress may, at times, cause people to give vent to violent homicidal impulses, especially when the individual is in a state of disinhibition because of drugs Homicidal Syndromes 5 or alcohol. Merton’s strain theory of violent aggression can well explain such behaviors (7). Homicide is present at all levels of society. It seems, however, that there is an inverse rapport between social status and homicidal tendencies. Scholars have found that individuals at risk of committing, or who have committed, homicide are likely to be members of socially dysfunctional families, live in substandard economic conditions, and tend to use drugs and alcohol and to behave antisocially. These persons are socially dysfunctional and are subject to social emargination (3,11). Other factors contributing to homicide, frequently found among the violent/antisocial group, are poor school achievement, lack of specific skills, and lack of steady employment. Langevin and Handy (12), in a 1987 study, found that perpetrators of homicide are frequently unmarried (50% less than the general population). Daly and Wilson, analyzing the relationship between homicide and family (intimate homicide), noted that the homicidal offender usually does not kill consanguineous family members, but their homicidal fury is more likely to be directed at acquired relatives, such as a spouse or in-laws (13). In the 1970s, Abraham Maslow (14) proposed a theory of basic needs— what he believed to be fundamental for each individual to achieve social maturity. They include physiological needs (hunger, thirst, sleep, etc.), personal security, affection/love and self-esteem, and a chance to achieve the highest level of social maturation possible for the individual in a progressive fashion. If one believes that the satisfaction of the above needs is necessary for good social development, one can argue that frustration at any of those levels may lead to antisocial behaviors, one of which may be homicide. In other words, Maslow’s theory may also be applied to explain cases of homicidal violence. Personal space is often equated with a sense of security. Lorenz (4) and Ardrey (15) found that even the primate subjects of their experiments cherished their own shelter and tended to fight away unwelcome strangers. We all recognize the importance of adequate space when in an overcrowded situation. That space may be a room, a house, or even a nation. Wars have been fought claiming the necessity for space. However, limiting the discussion to the overcrowding of a home, or even a jail cell, there can be no doubt that it may be an incentive for arguments and physical struggle, often with deleterious consequences. Correctional institution management is quite aware of the so-called vital space, and some US federal judges have ruled that prisoners need 60 square feet of cell space (16). Sociological theories have taken into consideration economic and social opportunities when trying to explain the rise and fall of homicidal violence. In fact, microlevel interpersonal dynamics may be influenced by macrolevel social dynamics. The latter factor may include blocked opportunities, the consequence 6 G.B. Palermo of economic frustration, and/or the unequal distribution of economic possibil- ities and their restrictive realization. Only rarely expressed socially, this type of homicidal violence is frequently acted out in the domesticity of a person’s home, and the victims are well known to him or her. Exceptions to this are found in those adolescent violent crimes in which the victims are strangers—in some mass murders, in sexual killings, and even more so in serial killing. Messner (17) subscribed to the possibility that economic inequality is positively related to the societal level of homicide. Durkheim (18) asserted that as a society becomes larger, it becomes progressively more heterogenous and differentiated, and instead of benefiting from competitive individuals or group contributions, this may lead to an apathetic stance and anomie. It is such a state of anomie that breeds homicide. Chamlin and Cochrane, subscribing to the ideas of Messner, are of the opinion that “ascribed economic inequality undermines the legitimacy of the social order…[and society] simultaneously loses its moral authority and thereby the capacity to regulate the behavior of [its] members…[and] will be positively related to homicide rates…” (19, p. 22). Although it should be recognized that ascribed/illegitimate economic inequality may undermine the moral authority of a conventional society, as proposed by Chamlin and Cochrane, this author believes that it is only partially and indirectly responsible for the fluctuation in the rates of homicide. Both social and psychological factors contribute to homicidal aggression. Bergson recognized this when stating that society may exert a constraint on violent people, he rightly added, “For society to exist at all, the individual must bring with it a whole group of inborn tendencies; society, therefore, is not self explanatory, so we must search below the social accretion” (20, p. 270). Below that social accretion, there are people with their individuality who remain unknown in their totality because of the complexity of their nature. From Lombroso’s long-outdated theory of the born criminal to the more recent dyscontrol theory of Menninger, the act of murder, short of those cases in which there is premeditation, organization, and clear planning, is viewed today as the