Situational Factors in Disputes Leading to Criminal Violence

Abstract

This article examines the interactive process leading to criminal violence. Official data from 159 incidents of homicide and assault that were not committed in conjunction with other crimes and that resulted in incarceration were examined with respect to the actions of offenders, victims, and third parties. These incidents tended to follow systematic patterns. They began with identity attacks, followed by attempts and failures to influence the antagonist. Threats were made and finally the verbal conflict ended in physical attack. It appears that retaliation is a key principle in the escalation of these incidents in that aggressive actions by the victim were associated with aggressive actions by the offender and the likelihood that the victim would be killed. The importance of situational identities for retaliating was suggested bg the moderately strong relationship observed between identity attack and counterattack. Retaliation also occurred for strategic reasons, in that offenders were more likely to kill aggressive victims when those victims used weapons. (Ball-Rokeach, 1973;Athens, 1977;Hepburn, 1973;Stark et al., 1974; Luckenbill, 1977). Such suggestions are based on the assumption that the outcomes of an aggressive interaction are not predetermined by either the characteristics or the initial goals of participants; rather, they AUTHORS' NOTE: We wish to thank Ronald Farrell, Marcus Felson, and Victoria Swigert for their comments on an earlier draft. The contributions of Stephen R i h r to this research, especially in developing the coding categories, is gratefully acknowleged. A number of scholars have suggested the need for research on the processual development and interactional dynamics of violent situations

Social Networks and the Risk of Gunshot Injury

“…Indeed, research suggests that gun violence is intensely concentrated within high-risk populations. 10,11 For example, recent studies in Boston found that from 1980 to 2008, only 5 % of city block faces and street corners experienced 74 % of gun assault incidents 12 and that 50 % of homicide and nearly 75 % of gun assaults were driven by less than 1 % of the city's youth population (aged [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24], most of whom were gang involved and chronic offenders. 13 To better understand how gunshot injury is distributed within highrisk populations, we conducted a study to determine whether the risk of gunshot victimization is related to characteristics of one's social networks.…”

The Influence of Event Characteristics and Actors' Behaviour on the Outcome of Violent Events: Comparing Lethal with Non-Lethal Events

“…Such a one-sided focus creates an incomplete picture of lethal events. Research that directly compares how victims and third parties behave in lethal vs. non-lethal events is virtually nonexistent (Felson and Steadman 1983). Consequently, it remains unclear to what extent event characteristics and actors' behaviour differ in lethal vs. non-lethal events.…”

“…Felson and Staff 2010;Pridemore and Eckhardt 2008). Felson and Steadman (1983) found that victims of lethal violence were more likely to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs than victims of non-lethal violence. However, evidence is inconsistent as to whether offenders of lethal violence are more likely to be under influence of substance than offenders of non-lethal violence (e.g.…”

“…see review Darke 2010) -but some also found substance use by victims and lethal vs. non-lethal outcomes to be connected (e.g. Felson and Steadman 1983).…”

“…Second, several studies have emphasized the importance of dynamic interactions between actors in conflict-related events, potentially contributing to the escalation into a lethal outcome (e.g. Collins 2008;Decker 1995;Felson and Steadman 1983;Luckenbill 1977;Von Hentig 1948;Wolfgang 1958).…”