Behavioral Perspectives on Child Homicide

Abstract

This article reviews existing research on the topics of child abduction and child homicide and attempts to identify and assess potential victim risk factors through a discussion of victim access, vulnerability, and routine activities theory. For example, are children of certain ages or genders more likely to be targeted by offenders? Who are the offenders in child homicides and what are the relationships between the offenders and their victims? Does motive or crime technique differ between offenders who have familiarity with victims versus those who are strangers? Ecological perspectives on child homicide are also discussed, including the concepts of competition, predation, and developmental victimology. Research that addresses these questions directly benefits law enforcement personnel, social workers, and forensic scientists actively working child homicide cases, and social scientists involved in the formulation of child homicide prevention programs and policies. In addition, this information helps improve prevention programs designed to protect children, helps children protect themselves, and provides potential avenues for identifying offenders in such cases.

Sexually Motivated Child Abduction Murders: Synthesis of the Literature and Case Illustration

“…Sex has been identified as one of the three primary motives in child murders (Boudreaux, Lord, & Dutra, 1999;Boudreaux, Lord, & Jarvis, 2001). For a murder to be considered sexual, Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas (1988) suggest that the murder has to include at least one of the following: (a) partial or complete removal of the victim's attire or lack of attire, (b) exposure of the sexual parts of the victim's body, (c) sexual positioning of the victim's body, (d) insertion of foreign objects into the victim's body cavities, (e) evidence of sexual intercourse (oral, anal, vaginal), and (f) evidence of substitute sexual activity, interest, or sadistic fantasy such as mutilation of the genitals.…”

Child Abduction, AMBER Alert, and Crime Control Theater

“…Fifteen hundred children died of maltreatment and neglect in 2003, and 86% of the time the perpetrators were parents or other relatives (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families, 2003). It is likely that this number, derived from reports of child protection agencies, is a conservative estimate because of the difficulty of proving parental maltreatment (Boudreaux, Lord, & Jarvis, 2001). Thus, horrific child abductions represent only a tiny fraction of deadly crimes against children, so their domination of public discourse and public policy in the form of AMBER Alert and similar efforts is out of proportion to the level of threat they pose.…”

“…This risk diminishes for 4-year olds and remains low until the teenage years, after which increased independence and risk-taking behaviors cause death rates to spike, especially for young males (Boudreaux & Lord, 2005). Furthermore, although roughly 75% of the general population is White, White children constitute just over half of the victims of wrongful child death (Boudreaux et al, 2001;Grieco & Cassidy, 2001). All these patterns of crime type and victim-offender demographics contrast sharply with that of a preadolescent or adolescent White girl that has been so commonly associated with AMBER Alert or the discussion surrounding it (e.g., Amber Hagerman, Elizabeth Smart, & Carlie Brucia).…”

Comparing trends in infanticides in 28 countries, 1960–2009

“…Most of the national studies are based on varying local register sources, producing basic demographic information on the perpetrators or the victims of child homicides (see e.g. Boudreaux, Lord, & Jarvis, 2001;Flynn, 2009;Porter & Gavin, 2010). In addition, there are several typologies of child homicides based on the motives of the perpetrators (see e.g.…”