When killing is a crime (original) (raw)

The Social Construction of Serial Murder. A Philosophical Critique

Since the publication of Philip Jenkins’s essay The Social Construction of Serial Homicide (1994), it is now widely acknowledged that serial murder shall be considered as an ill-founded criminological category mainly maintained by statistical errors, political strategies and ideological interests. Moreover, recent critiques of the FBI profiling methods (Muller 2000; Canter & Youngs, 2009) put into question the idea of tailored investigation techniques with respect to serial homicide. Last but not least, psychiatrists disagree on whether or not serial killers shall be qualified as a homogeneous group from a psychopathological or psychodynamic perspective. The aim of this contribution is to introduce a philosophical critique of this commonly accepted constructivist approach of serial homicide. Our study will start with some epistemological considerations on criminological classifications and investigation techniques. This will not only help us to clarify the methodological flaws in social constructionism essays (Caputi, 1987; Cameron & Frazer, 1987; Seltzer, 1998; Tithecott, 1998), but also enable us to refine our domain of inquiry with more specific guidelines. Secondly, aided by the works of Ian Hacking (1998; 2000; 2002), we will question the philosophical implications of the social construction of serial murder. Eventually, we will vindicate an anthropological approach for prospective researches on serial murder. In brief, we would like to establish two claims: (1) in the United States, serial murder was experienced as a nightmarish episode of the sexual revolution; (2) on a cross historical and cultural level, serial murder has to be described as a sacrificial practice—that is as a type of crime tying violence to the sacred.

The Architecture of Homicide

This article examines Jeremy Horder’s proposals for reform of the law of homicide in his book Homicide and the Politics of Law Reform. It focuses on Horder’s defence of the Law Commission’s proposals for a three-tier structure of homicide offences, and the ‘moderate constructivist’ theory that he relies upon in mounting this defence. Horder’s theory, it is argued, fails to provide sound normative foundations for his preferred structure. However, a qualified defence is offered of another of Horder’s proposals: to give public opinion research a role in homicide reform. This would help to give substance to the principle of fair labelling in an area of the law where this principle is frequently invoked, but is also uncertain in its implications and force.

Homicide as a Sociological Transaction: The Use of Victim Precipitation at a Criminal Trial

Free inquiry in creative sociology, 2000

This research examines the role of the sociologist as an expert in cases of homicide. The authors argue that sociological knowledge can be particularly important at trial by presenting an interpretation of the social context of a crime. This point is illustrated by describing several case studies of homicides and by using theories and models supporting victim precipitation as a explanation of the crime. Three interacting constructs of victim precipitation are described in which to frame a homicide: 1) the behavior of the victim as it encouraged the specific offender/victim interaction; 2) the level of deviant or criminal behavior in which the victim was engaged; and 3) the level of risk in the lifestyle of the victim.