19.07.2013 Views

Murder and Serious Sexual Assault - Lancaster EPrints - Lancaster ...

Murder and Serious Sexual Assault - Lancaster EPrints - Lancaster ...

Murder and Serious Sexual Assault - Lancaster EPrints - Lancaster ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

MURDERERS AND SERIOUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS WITH A CRIMINAL HISTORY<br />

<strong>Murder</strong>ers<br />

Table 6 identifies the 25 statistically significant differences between murderers <strong>and</strong><br />

the general control group in terms of their previous criminal history. A little over<br />

half of the differences indicate in which ways a previous criminal history reveals a<br />

significantly greater likelihood of becoming a murderer (those with a relative risk<br />

score significantly greater than 1). The remaining differences indicate where a<br />

previous history reveals a significantly lesser likelihood of becoming a murderer<br />

(those with a relative risk score significantly lower than 1). In medical terms the<br />

latter variables would be called ‘protective’ factors (Farrington [2000] uses this term<br />

when referring to social factors in a criminological context).<br />

Taking the variables that indicate high relative risk scores, there are some<br />

anticipated outcomes. For example, increased risks exist for offenders with previous<br />

manslaughter <strong>and</strong> wounding (endangering life). <strong>Murder</strong> is 19 times as likely for<br />

those with a previous conviction for the offence of manslaughter compared to those<br />

active criminals without such a conviction, while a previous conviction for<br />

wounding (endangering life) more than doubles the risk. There are also some<br />

surprising findings. The offences of ‘soliciting by a man’ <strong>and</strong> ‘adulteration of<br />

food/drugs’ have high relative risks of subsequent murder. However, for each of<br />

these, only two of the cases had a previous conviction for the offence, with none of<br />

the controls having such a conviction in their criminal history.<br />

Table 6 shows that where the relative risk was above one <strong>and</strong> statistically<br />

significant, measures of custody at any previous conviction <strong>and</strong> custody at the<br />

previous conviction, came into the ‘frequent’ category. Three offences (criminal<br />

damage, other wounding <strong>and</strong> robbery) also came into this category. Arson, theft<br />

from automated machines <strong>and</strong> wounding (endangering life) came into the ‘sizeable’<br />

category, while absconding from custody came into the ‘rare’ category. Five<br />

offences were in the ‘unusual’ category – kidnapping; manslaughter; blackmail;<br />

soliciting by a man; <strong>and</strong>, adulteration of food <strong>and</strong> drugs; these are considered in<br />

more detail in Chapter 5.<br />

18

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!