Who killed whom?: victimization and culpability in the social construction of murder

Abstract

Based on in-depth interviews with relatives of people convicted of murder, this article examines the ways in which everyday understandings of 'murder' are socially constructed, as revealed by the narratives of murderers' relatives. To this end, interviewees' explanations of the killings are analysed and a distinction is drawn between interviewees who understood the killings committed by their relatives as manslaughter and those who accepted the murder verdict. In defining the offences in this way, interviewee s identified the significance of victimization and culpability to understandings of interpersonal violence. Through the analysis of interview data, it is possible to examine the ways in which 'murder' is seen to have occurred only when particular criteria of victimization and culpability are met.

It's Not as Simple as It Seems: Ambiguous Culpability and Ambivalent Affect In News Representations of Violent Youth

“…The problem is constructed by presenting two well‐known characters who play out a familiar drama of good versus evil. The innocence of the victims and the culpability of the victimizers simultaneously reinforce each other (May 1999).…”

“…This dual construction seems important in several respects. According to most constructionist readings of violence problems, the media typically impute individual responsibility to victimizers by backgrounding, or isolating them from, their social contexts (Ericson, Baranek, and Chan 1991; Lotz 1991) or by constructing their victims as pure innocents (Holstein and Miller 1990; Loseke 1993; May 1999). However, my reading of media constructions of violent youth suggests that the attributions of responsibility or culpability are considerably more complex.…”

“…The term “chilling” often appears in association with these portrayals, suggesting that the youthful victimizers are to be feared. May (1999) has argued that the culpability of the victimizer is crafted so as to reinforce the defenselessness or innocence of the victim. In these claims, the victims of youth violence are almost always other children or women, suggesting the appropriation of broader gendered and age‐related cultural images of innocence and vulnerability (Best 1999; Holstein and Miller 1990; Loseke 1993).…”

Sugar and Spice, and Everything Nice: Do Female Stereotypes Supersede In-group Favoritism Among Men When Evaluating Female Criminal Suspects in News Stories?

“…According to May (1999), violence is accompanied by social meaning that is tied to ideas of culpability and victimization, both of which are influenced by social processes and normative assumptions about the social actor. As such, individuals' interpretation of violent acts are linked to stereotypical beliefs about how a gender "should" behave.…”