Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 3, No.

2, 2000

Children Who Murder: A Review

David M. Shumaker1 and Ronald J. Prinz1,2

Despite considerable research on juvenile homicide, pre-adolescent homicide offenders have

received less attention. This paper reviews the existing literature on preteen murderers in
order to characterize the current state of research knowledge about this population, and
draws on some of the work on adolescent homicide as well. The analysis of this literature
considers historical context, methodological issues, previous attempts to classify youthful
homicide offenders, and predictors of preteen homicidal behavior. While there is a high
degree of heterogeneity within this population, several developmental similarities emerged
across cases that were associated with the perpetration of homicide by preteens. A high
percentage of preteen homicide offenders come from homes characterized by physical abuse,
domestic violence, poor or absent parenting, and overall instability. Gun availability may
have been a facilitating factor. Support for different etiologies of preteen versus adolescent
homicide is weak. Recommendations for future research directions are offered.
KEY WORDS: juvenile murder; youth crime; violence; delinquency.

INTRODUCTION (Howell, Krisberg, & Jones, 1995; Zahn & McCall,

Though homicidal youth have received consider-
able attention in the media and in the social sciences,
children under age 13 who commited homicide are
understudied. Research on youth homicide focuses
more on adolescents than preteens, most likely be-
cause of the differential offense rate. In 1996, 934
youth between 13 and 16 years old, as compared to
only 16 preteens, were arrested for homicide and
non-negligent manslaughter (which are both defined
as the willful killing of one human being by another)
(FBI, 1997).
Despite the low base rate, preteen homicide of-
fenders should be studied for several reasons. First,
young murderers (i.e., children who commit homicide
or non-negligent manslaughter) challenge longstand-
ing conceptions of child development and create a
serious dilemma for the justice system (Rowley,
Ewing, & Singer, 1987). Second, juvenile homicide
rates in the U.S. have doubled since the mid-1980s
1
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
2
To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department
of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina 29208.
1999). Third, the precursors and processes inherent
in such extreme misconduct by preteens are impor-
tant to understanding developmental trajectories and
avenues of potential prevention.
This review began with studies published in 1974
or later because a comprehensive review by Adams
(1974) adequately covered the earlier work. An ex-
ception to the 1974 cutoff was made for the compari-
son of case studies in order to boost the database.
Studies for the current review were identified via
searches of the psychological, social work, and crimi-
nal justice databases, as well as the Social Science
Citation Index. Studies were included if it was clear
that there were at least some preteen homicide of-
fenders in the sample. Caveats are noted when studies
with mixed samples (i.e., teen and pre-teen offenders)
were considered. Media accounts and books in the
popular press were excluded. Several studies were
excluded from consideration either because the
youth were 13 years old or older, or because the
age range of the sample was ambiguous (e.g., Darby,
Allan, Kashani, Hartke, & Reid, 1998; Sendi & Blom-
gren, 1975; Toupin & Morrissette, 1990). However,
data on homicide by adolescents were pertinent to
the paper in the following ways: (1) trends for pre-

97
1096-4037/00/0600-0097$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
98
teens with respect to arrests for homicide, violence
in general, and property offenses were placed in con-
text by considering the corresponding trends for ado-
lescents; and, (2) family, environmental, and child
variables profiled in preteen case studies were simi-
larly profiled in adolescent case studies, again to pro-
vide a developmental context.
The review examines classification schemes and
typologies of youthful homicide, predictors of homi-
cidal behavior in children, and how childhood behav-
ioral characteristics of adult murderers, particularly
adult serial-killers, might bear on the study of pre-
teen homicide.
BACKGROUND
Recent Trends in Youth Homicide
Though considerable data are available on re-
cent trends in juvenile homicide (Howell et al., 1995),
fewer statistics on preteen homicide are reported.
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
mortality files and two FBI resources, the Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR) (Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, 1997) and an annual Supplemental Homicide
Report (SHR) (Snyder & Finnegan, 1998), provide
summary statistics on youth homicide. NCHS statis-
tics, limited to victim characteristics, are seldom ref-
erenced in psychological studies of young perpetra-
tors (Riedel, 1999). The more commonly used UCR
and SHR statistics appear to have moderate reliabil-
ity and validity, but do not allow for precise estimates
of homicide by preteens (Flewelling & Williams,
1999; Heide, 1993; Reidel, 1999; Zahn & McCall,
1999). In addition, caution is recommended when
interpreting data based on arrests instead of convic-
tions because differences between the two categories
might be due in part to factors such as ethnicity, age,
and SES.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, less than 100
preteens per year were arrested for murder and non-
negligent manslaughter in the United States, account-
ing for less than 0.1% of all arrests for murder. De-
spite fluctuations, no time trend has emerged. During
the years 1991 to 1996, preteen males were approxi-
mately nine times more likely to be arrested for mur-
der or nonnegligent manslaughter than preteen fe-
males, while approximately 60% of all preteen arrests
for homicide involved African American youth
(Snyder & Finnegan, 1998).
For 1994 to 1997, arrests for homicide offenses
Shumaker and Prinz
decreased steadily for youth 1316 years old and
remained low during the same period for youth 12
years old and younger (see Fig. 1). Unfortunately,
UCR data providing a breakdown of homicide arrests
for 12 and under versus 1316 was not available prior
to 1994. However, to place these trends in context,
it is still helpful to examine violent offenses and prop-
erty offenses for the two age groups over a 10-year
span. In the 13- to 16-year-old group, arrests in-
creased both for offenses against person (which sub-
sumes homicide) and for offenses against property
from 1987 to 1997 by 109% and 21%, respectively,
while for the 12-and-under group, arrests for offenses
against person increased by 134% and offenses
against property increased 10% (see Figs. 2 and 3).
The population data suggest that although preteens
showed increasing rates of arrest for violent offenses
from 1987 to 1997, their arrest rates for homicide
offenses remained low. It is not clear however
whether preteen involvement in homicide offenses
remained constant, or alternatively preteens were un-
likely to be charged with homicide despite increased
involvement in violence. It was also apparent that
crime trends for the 12-and-under group essentially
paralleled that of the 13- to 16-year-old group.
The SHR, which aggregates the 10- to 17-year-
old age range, nonetheless offers some indication of
gender trends for reported homicide arrests among
youth. For the period of 1991 to 1996 based on 16,175
reported juvenile arrests for homicide, males used
guns more frequently than females (81% versus 40%),
males involved one or more accomplices more often
than females (54% versus 43%), males targeted vic-
tims their age or older more often than females (98%
versus 80%), and females more likely than males tar-
geted a family member (31% versus 5%) and less
likely targeted a stranger (16% versus 33%).
Historical Context
Research during the 1940s through 1960s on
youthful homicide offenders suffered from limita-
tions due to small sample sizes, broad age ranges
of perpetrators, and a tendency to focus on one
particular type of homicide (e.g., parricide cases
only) (Adams, 1974). For example, in the best
known of the early research efforts, Bender and
Curran (1940) focused on the case histories of an
8-year-old female and a nine-year-old male who
had each killed another child, nine highly aggressive
children (seven of whom were preteens), and four
Children Who Murder
Fig. 1. Number of arrests for homicide offenses by youth 1316 years of age and 12 years of age and under during the period 1994 to
1997 in the United States.
adolescents charged with homicide. Bender and
Curran (1940) concluded, based on their limited
sample, that preteens lacked a real understanding
of the immutability of death in their victims, while
adolescents grasped the finality of the act but gave
a superficial impression of not being emotionally
affected. In subsequent work with a larger sample,
Bender (1959) proposed several new hypotheses to
the field. Bender (1959) analyzed a sample of 21
preteens and 12 adolescents, all of whom committed
murder prior to the age of 16, and found that: (1)
preteens were more likely to drown, or set fire to,
their victims, while adolescents were more likely
to use guns; (2) half of the entire sample was
psychiatrically evaluated prior to their homicidal
acts, and several were diagnosed with schizophrenia,
epilepsy, chronic brain syndromes without epilepsy,
or depression; and, (3) other significant factors
included compulsive fire-setting, retardation, unfa-
vorable home environments, and personal life expe-
rience with a violent death. Most of Benders (1959)
99
evaluation did not address potential preteenteen
differences.
Research during the 1960s on homicidal youth,
again based solely on case studies, nonetheless ex-
panded the range of etiologies being considered. In-
vestigators attributed youth homicidal behavior to
maladaptive familial patterns (Easson & Steinhilber,
1961; Hellsten & Katila, 1965), to organically based
psychological disorder (Woods, 1961), or to a severe
lack of impulse control (Smith, 1965). A common
assumption among investigators was that a homicidal
child was acting on behalf of an adult who had hostile
feelings towards the victim (Easson & Stenhilber,
1961; Hellsten & Katila, 1965; Sargent, 1962), which
may have been an artifact from focusing predomi-
nantly on parricidal cases.
In the 1970s, several new hypotheses about
youth homicide emerged regarding self-destructive
impulses (Greenberg & Blank, 1970; Malmquist,
1971), psychopathic tendencies (Tooley, 1975), lan-
guage and educational deficits (King, 1975), and ma-
100
Fig. 2. Number of arrests for offenses against person by youth 1316 years of age and 12 years of age and under during the period 1987
to 1997 in the United States.
ternal dominance (Walshe-Brennan, 1977). Formula-
tions began to include the consideration of risk factors.
For example, Duncan and Duncan (1971) proposed
seven specific risk factors: (1) the intensity of a childs
hostile reactions; (2) the degree of control a child has
over impulses; (3) a childs ability to formulate alterna-
tive solutions to difficult life situations; (4) the provoc-
ativeness of the intended victim; (5) the degree of help-
lessness of the intended victim; (6) the availability of
weapons; and (7) a history of homicidal threats made
by the would-be perpetrator. All of these factors per-
tain to the childs cognitive, emotional, and coping
mechanisms or to the victims characteristics. The con-
ceptualization by Duncan and Duncan (1971) did not
share a single predictor in common with that of Bender
(1959) who focused exclusively on biological and fa-
milial predictors of homicide in children.
Methodological Considerations
Much of the work on preteen homicide pub-
lished in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s relied heav-
Shumaker and Prinz
ily on case studies, as noted in a review by Adams
(1974). In the past 20 years, preteen homicide re-
search has begun to move away from reliance on
case-study methodology. Of the 23 reviewed studies
(19751998), only 3 (13%) were case studies. Most
of the studies used either passive-observational de-
signs (8, 35%), one-group nonarchival descriptive
analysis (7, 30%), or archival designs (5, 22%).
For the studies using passive-observational de-
signs or one-group descriptive analyses, samples
ranged in size from 7 to 72 homicidal youth (mean
N 32.1). However, it was often unclear how many
youth in each sample were below the age of 13. Only
the three case studies (Adam & Livingston, 1993;
Paluszny & McNabb, 1975; Tooley, 1975) and one
other study (Petti & Davidman, 1981) consisted ex-
clusively of preteen homicide offenders. The other
19 studies mixed teens and preteens.
Some samples included homicidally aggres-
sive children who had not actually committed a ho-
micide (Lewis et al., 1985; Lewis, Sahnok, Gran, &
Ritvo, 1983; Mezzich, Coffman, & Mezzich, 1991;
Children Who Murder
Fig. 3. Number of arrests for offenses against property by youth 1316 years of age and 12 years of age and under during the period 1987
to 1997 in the United States.
Petti & Davidman, 1981; Pfeffer, 1980). For example,
Lewis et al. (1983) included children whose precipitat-
ing offense reportedly ranged from relatively less
serious behaviors (e.g., threatening and assaultive
behaviors) to more dangerous behaviors (e.g., at-
tempting to set afire or strangle victims). The hetero-
geneity of these samples is problematic for drawing
reliable inferences. On the other hand, studying chil-
dren who commit attempted murder or other violent
acts just short of homicide may shed light on key
etiological and circumstantial variables that relate
to youth at risk to commit homicide. Charting the
progression of aggressive behavior over childhood
and adolescence on the part of subsequently-
homicidal adolescents has proven to be informative
about pre-homicide adjustment (King, 1975; Myers,
1994).
The consideration of homicidally aggressive acts
is further complicated by differing thresholds in de-
fining these. For example, a homicidal act is typically
defined as an attack on an individual that was not fatal
101
simply owing to chance (Myers, Scott, Burgess, &
Burges, 1995). Such attacks were subsumed under the
term homicidally aggressive acts but investigators
varied somewhat in what other kinds of serious vio-
lence were considered homicidally aggressive acts.
In addition, studies of adolescent homicide per-
petrators offer a framework for conceptualizing pre-
teen homicide. Many of the methodological issues
confronted by teen homicide researchers are also per-
tinent to the preteen work. Nonetheless, caution is
required when making comparisons between the pre-
teens and either homicidally aggressive children or
teen homicide offenders. Certainly, as the age-gap
or offense-characteristics widens between the groups,
many more differentiating variables emerge that re-
duce the power of such a comparison. To complicate
matters, age is not always synonymous with develop-
mental level because some teen murderers exhibit
arrested development, and some preteens reflect ex-
posure to events and experiences well beyond their
years.
102
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
AND TYPOLOGIES
Researchers studying youth who murder have
constructed various classification systems or typolog-
ies of homicide offenders. Clearly defined subgroups
of youth at risk to commit homicide would presum-
ably aid in studying significant antecedent variables
(Flewelling & Williams, 1999). Generally, ap-
proaches to classifying youthful homicide offenders
are based on three frameworks: (1) psychiatric/psy-
chological constructs, (2) specific characteristics of
the crime, and (3) the victim-offender relationship.
The utility of each approach is considered.
Classification Based on Psychiatric/
Psychological Constructs
Stearns (1957) was one of the first to argue for
the presence of a biological or clinical syndrome that
explained the dynamics behind seemingly senseless
homicides. Though many of his assertions have been
questioned (Easson & Steinhilber, 1961), others have
joined Stearns in conceptualizing many youth mur-
ders from a medical-model perspective consistent
with a dispositional approach. For example, Miller
and Looney (1974) pointed to two dispositional fac-
tors, dehumanization and episodic dyscontrol, as key
facets of murder syndromes, and described cold
and non-empathic children in their sample who em-
braced violence and seemed to place little value on
human life. Similarly, Tooley (1975) described two
6-year-old children who had made murderous as-
saults on their siblings as cool, canny, and pos- Later Starters (n 27), Early Start Frequent and
sessing a sense of control and self-sufficiency far be-
yond their chronological age. Zenoff and Zients
(1979) made additional arguments for the presence
of predatory offenders, coining the term nonem-
pathic to refer to this sub-group. Sorrells (1980)
drew a distinction between nonempathic and two
other categories of youth homicide perpetrators that
he labeled pre-psychotic and neurotically fear-
ful. From these early works emerged a typology of
offender who lacked empathy, would murder either
in a calculated fashion or a fit of rage, did not suffer
from obvious psychotic symptomatology, and had a
biological or syndromal predisposition to exhibit
aggressive/violent behavior, all characteristics com-
monly associated with psychopathy.
In the past 10 years, conceptualization of pre-
teen and teen homicide as a psychopathic syndrome
Shumaker and Prinz
is much less common. Such broad psychiatric ap-
proaches have been replaced by attempts to classify
this population using standard diagnostic criteria
(Mezzich et al., 1991; Myers & Kemph, 1990). With
a sample of 14 youth ages 1017 who had committed
murder (N 10) or a homicidal act (N 4),
Myers and Kemph (1990) applied the DSM-III-R
version of the Diagnostic Interview for Children
and Adolescents as the primary screening tool and
confirmed conduct disorder (CD) for 86% of the
sample. Though there was no evidence of psychotic
symptomatology, half of the youth qualified for
diagnoses of anxiety and substance-use-dependence
disorders, while a few qualified for oppositional
defiant disorder, attention-deficit-hyperactivity dis-
order (ADHD), major depression, and functional
enuresis. No preteen-teen differences were noted.
In a study of 135 violent delinquent adolescents
(VDAs) between the ages of 12 to 19 years old who
had committed either homicide, rape, arson, robbery,
armed robbery, aggravated assault, or assault, Mez-
zich, Coffman, and Mezzich (1991) identified sub-
groups based on cluster analysis of DSM-IV disorders
and historical variables. The nine input variables in-
cluded: (1) Axis I diagnoses, (2) Axis II diagnoses,
(3) Axis III physical disorders, (4) Axis IV severity
of psychosocial stressors, (5) Axis V highest level of
adaptive functioning during the past year, (6) IQ
level, (7) an index of mental illness and criminality
in family, (8) chronicity of delinquent history, and
(9) severity and number of offenses. This approach
yielded four primary clusters of VDAs whom Mez-
zich et al. (1991) labeled as Stable Behavioral Handi-
capped Offenders (n 44), Brighter and Reactive
Serious Offenders (n 45), and Physically Ill Of-
fenders (n 19). In general, each cluster possessed
its own distinct familial, cognitive, criminal, and psy-
chiatric profile, leading the authors to suggest multi-
factorial etiologies. Unfortunately, the breakdown of
preteens and adolescents was not provided for this
study.
Myers and Kemph (1990) and Mezzich et al.
(1991) were among the first to apply a standardized
classification system of youthful homicide perpetra-
tors. It is not clear, however, why a psychiatric nosol-
ogy, such as the DSM system, has or may have utility.
Other researchers (e.g., Malmquist, 1996; Yarvis,
1991) have conceptualized Axis I and II diagnoses
as proximal causal factors involved in the perpetra-
tion of this offense, instead of diagnostic categories,
to inform a typology of youthful homicide. Recent
Children Who Murder
formulations by Myers (Myers & Blashfield, 1997;
Myers, Burgess, & Nelson, 1998; Myers et al., 1995)
seem to recognize the limitations of such a system
and rely more heavily on behavioral and offense char-
acteristics instead of on diagnoses. The Mezzich et
al. (1991) study better integrates psychiatric, physical,
cognitive, adaptational, familial, and historical vari-
ables. Preteen homicide classification systems based
on DSM constructs may increase in utility by adding
other factors (Malmquist,1996), particularly when
contextual issues are taken into account.
Classification Based on Specific Characteristics of
the Offense
Recent attempts to classify youthful homicide
perpetrators on the basis of specific characteristics of
the offense are found in the typologies developed by
Cornell (Cornell, 1989; Cornell & Benedek, 1987b)
and Myers (Myers et al., 1995). Specifically, Cornell
(Cornell, 1989; Cornell & Benedek, 1987b) proposed
that the majority of efforts in this area have not con-
sidered the reliability of proposed typologies, and
Myers et al. (1994) maintained that no adequate clas-
sification systems have yet emerged. Both research
groups developed typologies that shift the focus from
personal factors about the perpetrator to contextual
factors associated with the crime (e.g., criminal enter-
prise versus domestic situation, type of weapon, prov-
ocational circumstances).
Prior to introducing their classification system,
Cornell (Cornell, 1989; Cornell & Benedek, 1987b)
highlighted two important advantages inherent to a
typology based on circumstances surrounding the of-
fense. To begin, he argued that such a classification
system would have greater relevance to legal deci-
sion-making by virtue of its direct link to an illegal
act. In addition, he maintained that it would be easier
to validate the typology using factors that had tradi-
tionally served as the diagnostic criteria for psychiat-
ric classification systems (e.g., developmental and
prior adjustment factors). In terms of the actual clas-
sification system studied, he proposed three groups of
offenders: (1) psychoticencompassing individuals
who presented clear psychotic symptoms at the
time of the offense; (2) conflictencompassing non-
psychotic individuals who were engaged in an inter-
personal conflict with the victim; and (3) crime
encompassing non-psychotic individuals who
committed the offense in the course of committing
another crime.
103
Relying upon data from 72 children between the
ages of 12 to 18 years old charged with homicide and
a control group of 35 adolescents between the ages
of 15 to 18 years old charged with larceny, Cornell
et al. (1987b) argued that there was sufficient evi-
dence to support use of their three-group typology of
juvenile homicide offenders. Overall, very few youths
were classified as psychotic at the time of the offense
(N 5), while the crime group (N 37) and conflict
group (N 30) were more heavily represented. In
comparing the crime and conflict groups, it was dis-
covered that members of the crime group were more
likely to murder strangers, have an accomplice, flee
the crime scene, and be intoxicated at the time of
the offense. Whereas members of the conflict group
were more likely to murder family members, act
alone, use a weapon (usually a gun), and be caught
at the crime-scene. Though far more speculative, the
authors found preliminary evidence to suggest that,
as opposed to the conflict group, members of the
crime group were more likely to have had a history of
delinquency and prior criminal activity, poor school
adjustment, and substance abuse, but a lower fre-
quency of stressful life events prior to the offense.
No distinctions between preteen and adolescent
youth were noted.
Myers et al. (1995) examined a classification sys-
tem based on the FBI Crime Classification Manual
(CCM) (Douglas et al., 1992) in an attempt to im-
prove upon the Cornell (Cornell, 1989; Cornell &
Benedek, 1987b) typology. The CCM provided a
standard terminology for the classification of murder
and included several categories of offense-types to
allow for a more precise classification of a particular
offender. In terms of specific structure, the CCM is
divided into four major categories (24 subcategories)
according to motive: (1) criminal enterprise (eight
subcategories); (2) personal cause (nine subcategor-
ies); (3) sexual homicide (four subcategories); and
(4) group cause (three subcategories). In the study,
the authors interviewed a sample of 25 youth between
the ages of 7 to 17 years old who had committed a
homicide (N 21) or a homicidal act (N 4) in
an attempt to assess the utility of the CCM as a
classification system for juvenile murders.
All of the youth were classifiable according to
CCM criteria and fell into the criminal enterprise
(36%) or personal cause (64%) categories (Myers et
al., 1995). Closer analysis of children in the criminal
enterprise category revealed that the majority of ho-
micidal acts took place during commission of another
felony. Children in the personal cause category com-
104
mitted a greater range of crimes with the following
sub-categories represented: spontaneous domestic
homicide (8% of entire sample), staged domestic ho-
micide (8%), argument murder (12%), conflict mur-
der (12%), revenge murder (4%), and mixed sexual
homicide (20%). Myers et al. (1995) concluded that
the CCM was a promising classification method, but
called for improvements in the instrument that would
allow for more precise classifications of intrafamilial,
conflict, and psychotic homicides. Unfortunately, the
authors did not provide information about the type
of offenses committed by younger versus older chil-
dren in the sample.
Overall, Cornell (Cornell, 1989; Cornell &
Benedek, 1987b) and Myers et al. (1995) found that
homicidal youth were readily classifiable within a
framework based on specific characteristic of the of-
fense, with roughly half of their samples committing
murder in the course of another crime and half during
interpersonal conflicts. In addition to the advantages
cited by Cornell (Cornell, 1989; Cornell & Benedek,
1987b), Myers et al. (1995) noted that this classifica-
tion method uses standardized terminology that may
facilitate better communication among researchers,
mental health professionals, law enforcement offi-
cials, and the courts. By virtue of its extensive focus
on the characteristics of the crime, however, this ap-
proach ignores key developmental and psychological
differences among youthful homicide offenders.
Classification Based on the
Victim-Offender Relationship
Classification based on the victim-offender rela-
tionship is considered separately here because the
distinction between familial and non-familial homi-
cide may be important (Cormier, Angliker, Gagne, &
Markus, 1978; Cornell, Benedek, & Benedek,1987a;
Ewing, 1997; Heide, 1999). Early work examined chil-
dren who committed intra-familial homicide sepa-
rately from other youthful homicide perpetrators
(Adelson, 1972; Carek & Watson, 1964; Duncan &
Duncan, 1971; Sadoff, 1971; Scherl & Mack, 1966;
Tucker & Cornwall, 1977). Corder, Ball, Haizlip, Rol-
lins, and Beaumont (1976) and Cormier et al. (1978),
however, conducted the first systematic attempts to
compare intra-familial versus extra-familial youthful
homicide perpetrators. Although the Corder et al.
(1976) sample included only 13- to 18-year-olds, the
study merits review because of its influence on the
conceptualization and categorization of preteen and
Shumaker and Prinz
teen homicide. The researchers compared the per-
sonality, familial, and environmental characteristics
of 10 youth charged with parricide to 10 youth
charged with murdering a relative (other than their
mother or father) or a close acquaintance and 10
youth charged with murdering a stranger. Common
to the three groups was a history of family disorgani-
zation characterized by marital conflict, economic in-
security, parental brutality, and a lack of social or
community ties. Children charged with parricide,
however, were more socially isolated and had fewer
previous instances of aggressive behavior or lapses
of impulse control than the comparison groups. Cor-
mier et al. (1978) argued in favor of not only discrimi-
nating intra-familial from other types of juvenile ho-
micide, but also making a further distinction within
the sub-group of intra-familial offenders between
children who commit matricide (killing of ones
mother) versus patricide (killing of ones father) ver-
sus fratricide (killing of ones brother).
Cornell et al. (1987a) and Rowley, Ewing, and
Singer (1987) have also argued for classification
based on the victim-offender relationship. Cornell et
al. (1987a) argued that intrafamilial youthful homi-
cide offenders are more likely to have extended his-
tories of interpersonal conflict with the victim and
are more likely to use a gun in the commission of
the offense. Rowley et al. (1987) posited significant
psychological differences between intra- versus extra-
familial juvenile homicide perpetrators. The most
compelling support for this classification method can
be found in the extensive research conducted by
Heide (Heide, 1999a; Heide, 1997; Heide, 1996;
Heide, 1992). Relying on comprehensive clinical in-
terviews of 59 homicidal youth between the ages of
12 to 17 years old, Heide (1992) found seven different
types of offenders could be clinically identified and
reliably rated. Of the small group of children in her
sample who committed parricide (N 7), all but
one fit the profile of the situationally trapped kid
typology of offendercharacterized by a history of
severe abuse, an extreme sense of desperation, a gen-
erally passive approach to life, and a typically good
prognosis.
Findings from research on victimoffender rela-
tionship suggest the utility of the intrafamilial versus
extra-familial distinction. The pattern of differences
between these sub-groups parallels that observed be-
tween the conflict and crime typologies previously
discussed. The main risk associated with this type of
classification system is a tendency to examine samples
comprised exclusively of one type of offender (i.e.,
Children Who Murder
either intrafamilial or extra-familial perpetrators).
This would not allow for cross-typology comparisons
that are necessary for the field to continue to test the
validity of classification systems based on the victim-
offender relationship.
PUTATIVE PREDICTORS OF HOMICIDE
Many variables have been considered as putative
predictors of homicide by preteens, albeit sometimes
post hoc. Putative predictor variables are considered
at the individual, familial, environmental/contextual,
and offense-specific levels.
Individual Level
Psychological
In a review of 17 studies examining the psycho-
logical characteristics of homicidal youth, Ewing
(1990) concluded that the majority of offenders were
not psychotic at the time of the offense, but non-
psychotic disorders may or may not have been pres-
ent. Findings by Busch, Zagar, Hughes, Arbit, and
Russell (1990) and Zagar, Arbit, Sylvies, Busch, and
Hughes (1990) were consistent with Ewing (1990).
Busch et al. (1990) compared 71 homicidal youth
between 10 and 17 years old with 71 nonviolent delin-
quent youth and found psychotic symptoms (i.e., hal-
lucinations) in 3% and 0% of the groups, respectively,
and Zagar et al. (1990) found similar results with a
separate sample. However, Myers et al. (1995) found
that although no youth in their sample (N 21)
met DSM-III-R diagnostic criteria for a psychotic
disorder, 71% had a history of psychotic symptoms,
including paranoid ideation (67%), delusional think-
ing (10%), auditory hallucinations (29%), gustatory
hallucinations (5%), and derealization (5%). Taken
together with other studies (Lewis et al., 1988; Lewis
et al., 1985; Rosner, Weiderlight, Rosner, & Wiecz-
orek, 1978), Myers et al. (1995) suggest that homicidal
youth may have psychotic features that do not reach
a diagnostic threshold of psychosis.
In some samples, homicidal youth have shown
a high rate of psychopathic characteristics (Green-
berg & Blank, 1970; Hellsten & Katilla, 1965; Sorrells,
1977; Tooley, 1975; Zenoff and Zents, 1979) as well
as impulse-control deficiencies (Cornell, 1989; Mc-
Carthy, 1978; Miller & Looney, 1974; Smith, 1965;
Woods, 1961), while in other samples little psycholog-
105
ical disturbance has been found (Corder et al., 1976,
Cornell et al., 1987; Walshe-Brennan, 1974). Busch
et al. (1990) did find a higher rate of alcohol abuse
by homicidal youth compared with non-violent of-
fenders (38% versus 24%), and others have similarly
found substance abuse to be common in juveniles
who commit homicide (Cornell et al., 1987; Corder
et al., 1976; Myers & Kemph, 1990; Myers et al., 1995).
Furthermore, three studies reported that anywhere
from 2550% of homicidal youth were intoxicated at
the time of the offense (Cornell, 1989; Sorrells, 1977;
U.S. Department of Justice, 1987), although it is un-
clear whether preteen homicidal offenders show the
same pattern.
Across several studies (Myers 1994; Myers &
Kemph, 1988; Myers & Kemph, 1990; Myers and
Mutch, 1992; Myers et al., 1995), Myers and col-
leagues have found a high incidence of CD (8488%),
as have others (Cornell et al., 1987; Lewis et al., 1983;
Malmquist, 1996; Petti & Davidman, 1981; Rosner et
al., 1978; Scott, 1999; Yates, Beutler, & Crago, 1984).
Similarly, adult serial killers often had a history of
childhood CD (Myers, 1994; Ressler, Burgess, &
Douglas, 1988). Myers et al. (1995) also found a high
rate of ADHD in their sample, which is consistent
with other work on early identification of psycho-
pathic characteristics in children (Frick, OBrien,
Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994; Lyman, 1996). Lyman
(1996) has argued that the co-occurrence of child-
hood CD and ADHD is a primary risk factor for
adult psychopathic tendencies. This finding links well
conceptually to the lack of empathy often found
among homicidal youth. Beyond CD, Malmquist
(1996) found a high rate of depressive symptomatol-
ogy in his sample and suggested that a sense of hope-
lessness in severely depressed children was a key
risk factor for future homicide or suicide. Malmquist
(1996) also has argued that an early history of impul-
sivity coupled with separation anxiety disorder in
these children may have foreshadowed the develop-
ment of borderline personality disorder.
Overall, recent investigations suggest the pres-
ence of CD and ADHD, two disorders with strong
connections to psychopathic behavior, in addition to
poly-substance abuse, depression, separation anxiety
disorder, and enuresis.
Cognitive
In a review of studies on homicidal youth (mixed
ages), Ewing (1990) found conflicting evidence re-
106
garding rates of intellectual deficiency, learning disa-
bilities, and neurological abnormalities. Several stud-
ies found significant cognitive impairment (Busch et
al., 1990; Lewis, Lovely, et al., 1988; Lewis et al., 1985;
Zagar et al., 1990), while other studies found low
rates of cognitive problems (Petti & Davidman, 1981;
Russell, 1986; Walshe-Brennan, 1977).
In a slight majority of the studies examining in-
telligence, homicidal youth scored below normal on
Full Scale IQ, with considerable variation (Busch et
al., 1990; Lewis, Lovely, et al., 1988; Hays et al., 1978;
Solway Richardson, Hays, & Elion, 1981; Zagar et
al., 1990), and in a sample of homicidal preteens
(N 9), Petti and Davidman (1981) reported Full
Scale IQ scores ranging from 73 to 106 with a mean
score of 89. Other researchers, however, found little
evidence of below average intelligence (Bender,
1959; Malmquist, 1971; Walsh-Brennan, 1975).
The majority of studies on learning disabilities
for homicidal youth offered evidence of either spe-
cific learning difficulties (Bender, 1959; Busch et al.,
1990; Lewis et al., 1988; Myers, 1995) or general
school adjustment problems (Cornell et al., 1987;
Sendi & Blomgren, 1975). Busch et al. (1990) found
that 10- to 17-year-old youth were significantly more
likely to have severe educational difficulties (e.g.,
retardation, lower perceptual IQ scores, and lower
full IQ scores) than non-violent adolescent offenders.
Myers and colleagues (Myers, 1995; Myers & Mutch,
1992) found high rates of language/learning disorders
and school retention. In the Myers (1995) sample,
76% of homicidal youth had a learning disability, and
86% had failed at least one school grade.
Although some studies did not find neurological
abnormalities in this population (e.g., Petti &
Davidman, 1981; Walshe-Brennan, 1975), the major-
ity did, including a high rate of neuropathy, including
evidence of epilepsy, serious head traumas, abnormal
EEG findings, and other neurological deficits (Bailey,
1996; Busch et al., 1990; Lewis, Pincus et al., 1988;
Myers et al., 1995). Lewis et al. (1988) found homi-
cidal juveniles were significantly more likely to have
neurological impairments than non-violent juvenile
offenders. However, neurological impairment did not
significantly differentiate homicidal juvenile offend-
ers from youths charged with other violent offenses.
Further, Busch et al. (1990) found that homicidal
youth in their sample were significantly more likely
to suffer from epilepsy or CNS conditions than non-
violent offenders (7% versus 1%). Overall, studies
investigating the cognitive characteristics of homi-
cidal youth found considerable evidence for learning/
Shumaker and Prinz
educational difficulties and neurological abnormalit-
ies; however, considerable variability and inconsis-
tency with respect to intellectual functioning was re-
ported.
Familial Level
For both intra- and extra-familial murders, the
majority of youthful homicide (both preteen and ado-
lescent) perpetrators have adverse family histories
(Crespi & Rigazio-DiGilio, 1996; Duncan & Duncan,
1971; Ewing, 1990/1999; Heide, 1992; McCarthy,
1978; Sargent, 1962). In a review of 18 studies since
1974 that examined familial factors, eight adverse
familial factors emerged in the histories of youthful
murderers, including physical abuse, sexual abuse,
instability of caretaker situation/residence, paternal
absence, parental alcohol/drug abuse, parental psy-
chiatric history, parental criminal background, and
violence in the home.
Child physical abuse and witnessing violence in
the home were the most frequently cited familial
factors. For example, Busch et al. (1990) found that
25% of their large sample had experienced physical
abuse, which was significantly higher than the 20%
rate found in the nonviolent offender group. Physical
abuse and exposure to violence may have affected
the youth in two distinct ways. First, children who live
in homes where abuse and violence are commonplace
may fail to experience adequate nurturance and so-
cialization from caregivers (Corder et al., 1976). Over
time, these children may seek out sources of immedi-
ate gratification, resulting in periodic aggressive out-
bursts when thwarted. Second, violence in the home
may produce modeling and normalizing effects
(Sorrells, 1977). Lewis (1983) expanded this position,
arguing that a combination of modeling and the pres-
ence of child neurological vulnerabilities increase the
risk of murder in cases where that child becomes
overwhelmed with the frustration of witnessing re-
peated violence in the household.
Less is known about the relationship between
preteen homicide and other adverse familial variables
besides the ones discussed above. Lewis et al. (1983)
suggested that a parental criminal, psychiatric, and/
or substance abuse history is indicative of a familial
predisposition towards maladaptive behavior. Youth
who murder are significantly more likely than either
non-violent or otherwise violent offenders to have a
criminally violent family member (Busch et al., 1990).
Another argument is that these variables are indica-
Children Who Murder
tors of an unstable family environment and poor par-
enting practices that yield an inadequate socialization
process (Corder et al., 1976). The more extensive
study of familial risk factors associated with juvenile
offending may provide clues regarding the familial
dynamics common to preteen homicide (Capaldi &
Patterson, 1996; Farrington, 1995; Hoge, Andrews, &
Leschied, 1996; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Patterson,
DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989).
Environmental/Contextual Level
Three relevant contextual variables are gun
availability, gang activity, and media portrayal of vio-
lence, all of which are frequently referenced in discus-
sions of homicidal youth. To date, however, relatively
little systematic research has been conducted in this
area. This could be due in part to the difficulties
inherent in finding a way to measure the impact of
environmental factors on individual behavior.
As previously discussed, guns are by far the
weapon of choice in juvenile homicide, with 81% of
the males and 41% of the females in the previously
discussed SHR sample using this weapon during the
commission of their murders (Snyder & Finnegan,
1998). Little systematic research, however, has been
conducted on the prevalence of gun usage in preteen
homicide. When considering research suggesting in-
creased rates of gun ownership with age (Bjerre-
gaard & Lizotte, 1995; Blumstein, 1995; Fox, 1996),
it would be inappropriate to assume equivalent rates
of gun usage in preteen and teen homicide. Conceptu-
ally, guns are the only variable that has been defined
as both a contextual risk factor and a tool used to
carry out the offense. Cook and Moore (1999), among
others, maintain that less availability of guns would
reduce youth homicide.
Sparse research on gun use in preteen homicide
has led to hypotheses based solely on clinical observa-
tion or archival data. Cornell (1993), who has con-
ducted the most extensive investigation on this topic,
argues for at least six circumstances in which access
to handguns places a youth (both preteens and ado-
lescents) at increased risk for homicidal behavior: (1)
criminally motivated children, emboldened by car-
rying a handgun, graduate from lower to higher
crimes; (2) youth gangs seek superiority over rival
gangs and an arms race eventually escalates into (1983) found that only 2.2% of the gang-related homi-
a shooting war; (3) adult criminals encourage children
to carry weapons so that the adults will not face
criminal charges if confronted by the police, and the
107
youth feels obligated to use a gun in the commission
of a crime in order to prove their prowess to the
adults; (4) youth who are the victim of abusive treat-
ment feel the need to retaliate after arming them-
selves with a gun; (5) youth carry guns as signs of
status but in the course of an ordinary disagreement
use the weapons to settle disputes; and, (6) in cases
where a gun is readily available in the home, an
emotionally disordered child might react to a family
argument in an unthinking and impulsive manner.
The frequency with which each of these typologies
occurs in preteen homicide however is unclear.
Gang involvement is also frequently cited as a
risk factor in youth homicide (Maxson, Woods, &
Klein, 1995; NYGC, 1997). On a national level, the
UCR classified 43% of all murders committed by
juveniles in 1994 (N 1,157) as juvenile gang kill-
ings (FBI, 1997). This finding has been confirmed
in a series of regional (city-wide) investigations of
gang-related homicides (e.g., Block & Block, 1993;
Rogers, 1993). Bush et al. (1990), for example, classi-
fied 41% of 71 juvenile murders as having a gang-
related motivation.
Gang involvement can increase youth risk for
homicide in a variety of ways. Ewing (1990) proposed
four categories, including drug-related homicides, ho-
micides committed in the course of other crimes (e.g.,
rape and robbery), gang-on-gang member/internal
strife homicides, and unintentional deaths of inno-
cent bystanders. In addition, some authors have
focused more specifically on the relation between
illegal drug trade and gang-related homicides
(Blumstein, 1995), while others have argued that ter-
ritorial turf battles between rival gangs account
for a higher percentage of gang-related murders
(Block & Block, 1993; Goldstein, 1991). Alterna-
tively, Bjerregard and Lizotte (1995) have argued
that gang-members are more likely to own a gun and
be involved in a range of illegal activities, two risk
factors that in combination greatly increase the likeli-
hood of homicide and other serious crimes.
The few authors who have carefully considered
the ages of gang-affiliated homicide offenders found
that the vast majority of homicides are committed
by relatively older juveniles. For example, Maxson,
Gordon, and Kleins (1996) recent study of Los
Angeles gangs found the mean age of homicide sus-
pects in 1994 was approximately 20 years old. Spergel
cides in Chicago between the years 1978 to 1981 were
committed by children under 14 years old. Though
this latter study runs a risk of being out of date, as
108
recently as 1995, Spergel argued that gang violence
is perpetrated primarily by youth between 15 and 24
years of age. While the exact frequency of gang-
related preteen homicide is unknown, these data sug-
gest that gangs play a relatively greater role in teen
homicide than in preteen homicide.
Media violence and youth homicide might be
related. Although an exhaustive review of this topic
is beyond the scope of this paper, some general obser-
vations are in order. Undoubtedly, viewing television
violence increases a childrens likelihood of acting
in an aggressive manner in laboratory situations
(e.g., Friedrich-Coffer & Huston, 1986; Roberts &
Macoby, 1985). Some experimental evidence even
suggests that exposure to television violence in-
creases aggressive behavior in real-world situations
(e.g., Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). Furthermore,
longitudinal studies conducted in real-world settings
have shown relatively high correlations between
childhood television violence viewing and later ag-
gressive and/or criminal behavior (e.g., Huesmann,
Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Singer, Singer, &
Rapacznski, 1984). Thus, a substantial amount of data
indicates that exposure to media violence can have
a causal effect on aggression in children under specific
conditions and may correlate with criminal behavior
in adulthood.
What has been more difficult to show, however,
is a causal connection between television violence
and childrens violent criminal behavior. Paik and
Comstock (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of 217
studies that investigated the relationship between vi-
olent television viewing and a range of antisocial be-
havior in children. The researchers found small-to-
medium overall effect sizes relating consumption of
televion violence in simulated aggressive behavior
and minor aggressive behavior (R2 .10), illegal
activities (R2 .03), and interpersonal violence
(R2 .01). This finding supports other research which
suggests a lack of a substantial relationship between
exposure to media violence and real-world, violent
behavior in children (Freedman, 1984; McGuire,
1986). Many youth are exposed to large amounts of
television violence, but only a minuscule proportion
commit homicide.
While viewing television violence by itself may
not have a substantial impact generally on violent
behavior in children, another possibility is that this
factor may have a contributory and interactional ef-
fect on the violent behavior of children already suffer-
ing from emotional, aggressive, and/or cognitive
problems (Lande, 1993). Even this hypothesis, how-
Shumaker and Prinz
ever, suffers from a lack of supporting evidence. For
example, Gadow and Sprafkin (1993) conducted a
series of studies on the viewing habits of a sample
of children with emotional and behavioral disorders
and found that, in comparison to a group of non-
emotionally disturbed children, emotionally dis-
turbed children watched more hours of aggressive
television, were more likely to prefer aggressive char-
acters, had more difficulty comprehending the unre-
ality of the television portrayals of violence, and were
more willing to hurt other children following expo-
sure to aggressive content in laboratory situations.
Surprisingly, however, the researchers found that,
in real-world settings, both violent and nonviolent
television were equally likely to induce antisocial be-
havior in the subjects as compared to no television
at all, leading the authors to conclude that television
is, at best, a secondary risk factor associated with
interpersonal conflicts in children.
Considering these findings, it could be that expo-
sure to media violence should be conceptualized as an
environmental risk factor that operates in a manner
approaching that of the physical abuse and witnessing
of violence variables discussed in an earlier section.
This argument has been previously put forth with
respect to youth homicide (Hardwick & Rowton-
Lee, 1996; Sorrells, 1977).
Offense-Specific Prediction
Because of the relative lack of systematic re-
search on preteen homicide, the discussion of of-
fense-specific prediction will only draw a basic dis-
tinction between intra-familial versus extra-familial
homicide. The research literature does not yet sup-
port differential patterns of predictors for preteen
versus adolescent homicide with respect to discrimi-
natig intra-familial and extra-familial homicide.
Overall, four factors appear to discriminate intra-
familial from extra-familial youth homicide. Specifi-
cally, intra-familial murders are more often charac-
terized by: (1) access to a gun in the home; (2) exten-
sive physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse and
interpersonal conflict in the household (that is com-
paratively more severe than that of extra-familial
murderers); (3) few alternative modes of reaction to
stress available to the child; and, (4) a notable in-
crease in adverse conditions in the home immediately
prior to the murder (Corder et al., 1976; Cornell et
al., 1987; Heide, 1992; Post, 1982). These factors seem
to be related more to parricide than to fratricide.
Children Who Murder
Given that preteens are physically smaller than teens,
they might target siblings more readily than parents
(Ewing, 1990). Much less is known, however, about
the predictors of fratricide in particular. Dynamics
of patricide may be somewhat different than what
might be operating in fratricide. For example, escape
from the family might be a motive for patricide but
not fratricide.
Youth including preteens who murder acquain-
tances or strangers appear to have more extensive
histories of aggressive and violent behavior and per-
haps are more likely to have hyperactivity and im-
pulse-control deficits (Corder et al., 1976; Cornell et
al., 1987). They also are more likely to have engaged
in other criminal activity and to have been removed
from the home, which would reduce the risk to family
members (Corder, 1976). Based upon these factors,
extra-familial preteen murderers would be at in-
creased risk for psychopathy in adulthood and contin-
ued involvement in serious violent crime.
COMPARISON OF CASE STUDIES
Using case reports derived from several pub-
lished articles, the present section compared the be-
havioral, psychiatric, and familial predispositions of
several preteens who either committed homicide
(N 10) or a homicidally aggressive action (N 1)
with a larger sample of adolescents who also either
committed homicide (N 22) or a homicidally ag-
gressive act (N 6). Eight articles contributed cases
to the pool of preteen offenders: Paluszny and
McNabb (1975) (one case), Bender and Curran
(1940) (two cases), Bernstein (1979) (one case),
Sargent (1962) (one case), Greenberg and Blank
(1970) (one case), Tooley (1975) (two cases), Adam
and Livingston (1993) (one case), and Easson and
Steinhilber (1961) (two cases). Nine articles contrib-
uted cases to the pool of adolescent homicide offend-
ers: Bender and Curran (1940) (two cases), Myers
(1994) (three cases), Holmes and Holmes (1994) (one
case), Woods (1961) (two cases), Smith (1965) (three
cases), Hellsten and Katila (1965) (four cases), Rus-
sell (1979) (five cases), Russell (1985) (two cases),
and Easson and Steinhilber (1961) (six cases).
There are obvious limitations to case-study
methodology even though this area of inquiry fre-
quently depends on case data as a primary method
of study. Case studies have over-represented intra-
familial homicides committed by preteens. Indeed,
the fact that 63% of the preteen cases (7 out of 11)
109
and 57% of the adolescent cases (16 out of 28) in this
sample are intra-familial potentially obscures the true
picture of the modal preteen murderer. Ewing (1990)
estimated that 10 to 20% of all murders by youth
are intrafamilial.
A second caution concerns the considerable
variability across case studies regarding the focus and
descriptive detail. Some authors focused more inten-
sively on individual factors while others emphasized
familial variables. In addition, several of the case
reports were short in length and provided only mini-
mal detail about history of the offense. While these
considerations almost ensure that additional salient
factors have been omitted in some of the cases, we
have attempted to reduce the impact of this issue by
reporting the presence of a particular factor when it
is suggested in the text.
It was desirable to have some common pool of
variables on which to compare the case studies. In
the absence of any other obvious strategy, the chosen
approach involved focusing on variables found to be
prevalent in the childhood backgrounds of adults who
committed the most egregious homicides because
there is concern that youth who kill might have been
heading for an extremely troubled adulthood. The
specific behavioral, psychiatric, and familial variables
selected for comparison were ones that appeared in
at least 50% of the 38 cases of sexual and serial killers
described by Ressler et al. (1988). Four other vari-
ables were added: deviant sexual experiences, cruelty
to animals, truancy, and ruminations about murder
prior to the event.
Several variables cited by Ressler et al. (1988)
did not appear at all in any of the case studies and
so were excluded from further consideration (com-
pulsive masturbation, nightmares, destroying prop-
erty, poor body image, voyeurism, pornography, fe-
tishism, rape fantasies admitted, and consenting sex).
Using the case studies, a series of chi square analyses
were conducted comparing the performance of pre-
teens and adolescents across 18 selected variables
and are summarized in Table I. Overall, both age-
groups indicated a high presence of adverse family
and individual variables, with preteens and adoles-
cents reporting an average of 7.5 and 6.5 risk factors
per case, respectively. In addition, both groups exhib-
ited a wide distribution of risk factors. With the ex-
ception of truancy, unhealthy sexual experiences, and
ruminations about murder, each of the remaining risk
factors occurred at least once in each age group.
Of particular note, youth in both groups reported
especially high levels of physical/emotional abuse
110 Shumaker and Prinz

Table I. Comparisons of Homicidal Preteens and Adolescents

Preteens (N 11) Adolescents (N 28) Chi-square
Variable number (%) indicated number (%) indicated significance
Familial/environmental variables
Negative relationship with male caretaker 10 (91%0 14 (50%) p .05
Family psychiatric problems 6 (55%) 11 (39%)
Child perceives unfair treatment 4 (36%) 9 (32%)
Family alcohol/drug problems 4 (36%) 13 (46%)
Unstable residency/home environment 7 (64%) 20 (71%)
Child physical/emotional abuse 9 (82%) 21 (75%)
Domineering mother 5 (45%) 14 (50%)
Child variables
Cruelty to children 9 (82%) 6 (21%) p .01
Unhealthy sexual experiences 0 (0%) 12 (43%) p .01
Lying 4 (36%) 2 (7%) p .05
Fire-setting 3 (27%) N1 (4%) p .05
Ruminations about murder 0 (0%) 9 (32%) p .05
Truancy 0 (0%) 8 (29%) p .05
Oppositional behavior 8 (73%) 12 (43%)
Fantasy/day dreaming 1 (9%) 8 (29%)
Stealing 2 (18%) 9 (32%)
Cruelty to animals 1 (9%) 2 (7%)
Enuresis 3 (27%) 8 (21%)

and instability in the home living environment. Al-
though youth appear to have family backgrounds sim-
ilar to Resslers adult sample, caution is recom-
mended in assuming that the youth were similar to
the adult murderers in other respects.
Shifting focus, there were several key differences
between preteens and adolescents in this sample. Re-
ports about preteens reflected greater incidence of
lying, cruelty/violence with other children, fire set-
ting, and a negative relationship with primary male
caretaker. By contrast, adolescents reflected more
reporting of truancy, deviant sexual experiences (in-
cluding sexual abuse), and rumination about murder.
Developmental factors could be operating here. For
example, sexual development and associated experi-
ences accelerate in adolescence, and so with the ex-
ception of sexual victimization might not be as promi-
nent for children.
One of the most intriguing findings concerned
the high rate (82%) of preteens who had engaged in
cruel behavior towards other children, compared
with 21% for adolescents. It is possible that more
adolescents had a childhood history of cruelty than
reported. Nonetheless, early evidence of cruel and
violent behavior towards peers seems to engender
risk for future violence.
The finding that preteens were significantly more
likely to have experienced negative relationships with
their male caretakers can best be interpreted when
viewed in conjunction with the similarly high levels
of physical and emotional abuse reported in this age
group. The majority of the preteens households can
best be described as unpredictable, non-empathic en-
vironments where the child was consistently at risk
for witnessing or experiencing violence, usually at
the hand of their primary male caretaker. Post (1982)
and Heide (1992) have argued that the intense psy-
chological pressure with little opportunity for release
common to these environments, results in highly ag-
gressive behavior under certain conditions.
While Post (1982) and Heide (1992) have argued
that psychological pressure is a factor in intra-familial
murder, this factor may play a role in extra-familial
murder as well. In the collective sample of case stud-
ies, no significant differences between intra- and ex-
trafamilial homicidal youth were observed with the
exception of the lying risk factor. This suggests that,
contrary to previous assumptions (Heide, 1992),
there were more similarities than differences in the
developmental backgrounds of these two groups.
The other significant differences between pre-
teens and adolescents can be interpreted in a variety
of ways. For example, it could be that older children,
by virtue of their increased level of independence,
have a greater opportunity to be truant from school,
thus explaining their higher rates of this behavior. In
addition, by the time a child reaches adolescence, the
scope of troublesome behavior might have increased
to such an extent that researchers are less likely to
focus on relatively more minor behavior problems
Children Who Murder
such as lying; thus, explaining the lower rate of this
behavior found in the teenage sub-group.
Overall, the case study analysis revealed that
both children and adolescents who murder reflect
similar backgrounds to Resslers adult sample, a find-
ing that has ominous prognostic implications for
youthful murderers. Either the absolute number or
a particular combination of these risk factors has
a strong bearing on whether a youth will commit
additional violent actions in adulthood. Alterna-
tively, there could be a host of unknown differences
between child and adult murderers that mitigate the
impact of these adverse factors and make it harder to
predict future dangerousness. It appears that Hagan
(1997) has conducted the only systematic longitudinal
investigation to date into the recividism rates of youth
incarcerated for homicide. While Hagan (1997) was
unable to document additional homicides upon re-
lease, he found a majority of subjects engaged in
criminal activity and, furthermore, a sizable portion
of these crimes were committed against persons. Un-
til longitudinal studies that follow the progress of
preteen murderers are conducted, the true recidivism
rates in this population will continue to be a matter
of speculation. However, the present case study com-
parison, in combination with Hagans findings, should
alert clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers that
there is cause for concern when attempting to predict
future aggression and psychopathic behavior in this
population.
CONCLUSION
The incidence of homicide by preteens in com-
parison to homicide by adolescents has remained low
and does not appear to be on the increase, at least
as characterized by homicide arrest rates. Perhaps
because of the low base rate, there is relatively little
research devoted to this population. Most studies in
this area have been forced to rely on small samples,
which has limited findings and in some cases spawned
inaccurate assumptions about this population.
A number of studies attempted to classify youth-
ful homicide on the basis of either psychiatric con-
structs, specific characteristics of the offense, or the
victimoffender relationship. Each of these ap-
proaches has some utility. However, classification sys-
tems based on specific characteristics of the offense
have the advantages of allowing consideration of a
greater range of developmental factors and facilitat-
ing interdisciplinary communication.
111
In terms of predisposing and predictive factors,
preteen homicide offenders were likely to have men-
tal health histories characterized by high rates of CD
and ADHD, disorders which have clear links to adult
psychopathy. Though less certain, there is also evi-
dence pointing to elevated rates of subtle psychotic
symptomatology, separation anxiety disorder, poly-
substance abuse, enuresis, and depression. In terms
of cognitive functioning, while there are conflicting
data regarding the intellectual characteristics of this
population, there is substantial evidence indicating
an elevated rate of neurological abnormalities and
learning disabilities. Perhaps the clearest finding,
however, pertains to family background. A high per-
centage of preteen homicide offenders come from
homes characterized by abuse, domestic violence,
poor or absent parenting, and overall instability.
There is qualified support for gun availability as a
predictor. It is important to note, however, that many
if not most pre-adolescent youth who are exposed to
family violence, inadequate parenting, and related
adversity do not commit murder. Similarly, the vast
majority of children exposed to such prior conditions
who do commit assaultive and otherwise violent acts
do not kill their victims. So the aforementioned ad-
verse and predisposing conditions, including gun
availability, may facilitate the development of homi-
cidal behavior but may not tell us why one child
commits homicide while many others do not.
Overall, while this pool of predictors closely re-
sembles that of adolescent homicide offenders, it
would be incorrect to assume an identical etiology
between preteen and juvenile homicide. What ap-
pears to distinguish preteens from this older age-
group is not the range of risk factors that can contrib-
ute to their offense but, instead, the sheer number
and intensity of risk factors that impact an individual
prior to the murder. For example, by virtue of their
more limited physical and cognitive abilities, it is clear
that preteens have a higher threshold for committing
murder than adolescents. In a select few cases, how-
ever, this threshold will be reached when a certain
amount, combination, or intensity of conditions is
present. The case study comparison provided some
preliminary support for this hypothesis in light of
slightly elevated number of risk factors in preteen
cases as well as differences in the prevalence of cer-
tain predictors. The challenge for researchers is to
begin to tease apart the specific combination(s) of
risk factors that will cause a preteen to murder (or
engage in violent or pre-violent behavior that is a
prelude to homicide, such as using a weapon or
112
threatening to kill someone) and to develop models
of offending that coherently explain these dynamics.
While there are most likely key differences be-
tween preteen murderers and their peers who are
involved in less serious crimes, youth homicide re-
searchers perhaps have assumed too many differ-
ences between these populations. Alternatively, it
might be useful to examine continuities and disconti-
nuities of behavior to better understand what leads
children to escalate from relatively minor to more
serious offenses, including marked violence. Loebers
(and colleagues) work on developmental trajectories
is particularly pertinent for this issue (Loeber, DeLa-
matre, Keenan, & Zhang, 1998; Loeber, Farrington,
Stouthamer-Loeber, Moffitt, & Caspi, 1998). Eventu-
ally, through a combination of studies that focus ex-
clusively on preteen homicide offenders and those
that look at juvenile offending in general, the field
should reach a point where comprehensive models
of preteen homicide offending are proposed akin to
that of Harwick and Rowton-Lees (1996) recent
model of juvenile homicide.
The review suggested four additional recom-
mendations for future research:
1. Though statistics suggest that there are only
a handful of murders committed by preteen females
each year in the United States, there is some evidence
indicating differences in the types of homicides fe-
males commit as compared to males. This would sug-
gest etiological differences between male and female
preteen homicide offenders that warrant closer exam-
ination in future research efforts.
2. The review found sufficient evidence to sup-
port continued investigation into whether (and how)
psychological assessment measures can be used to
predict vulnerability to extreme aggression in pre-
teens. Neither of these recommendations, however,
precludes the study of contributing environmental
conditions, including easy access to lethal weapons.
3. Given how little we still know about preteen
homicide, it is important to study preteens who en-
gage in attempted homicide or similar potentially
lethal acts that do not result in homicide, to overcome
some of the base rate limitations. The distinction
between attempted and completed homicide may be
somewhat arbitrary and more a function of circum-
stances than of significant subgroup characteristics.
4. Little is known about how ethnic and cultural
variables interact with homicidal behavior by chil-
dren. The base rate problem obstructs the study of
this issue as well. Including attempted homicide
should greatly increase the size of available samples.
Shumaker and Prinz
Ethnographic and qualitative methodologies are rec-
ommended in conjunction with quantitative ap-
proaches so that valid conclusions can be reached.
In closing, the most striking impression about
the literature on children who murder is the high
degree of individual, familial, and environmental dif-
ficulties and stressors present across cases. Indeed,
the popular notion that extreme conditions will give
rise to extreme behavior appears to ring true in the
phenomenon of preteen homicide. Invariably, envi-
ronmental conditions, which are potentially mallea-
ble, set the stage for this most tragic of youth be-
haviors.
REFERENCES
Adam, B. S., & Livingston, R. (1993). Sororicide in preteen girls:
A case report and literature review. Acta Paedopsychiatrica,
56, 4751.
Adelson, L. (1972). The battering child. The Journal of the Ameri-
can Medical Association, 222, 159161.
Adams, K. A. (1974). The child who murders: a review of theory
and research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1, 5161.
Bailey, S. (1996). Adolescents who murder. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 19, 1939.
Bender, L. (1959). Children and adolescents who have killed.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 510513.
Bender, L., & Curran, F. J. (1940). Children and adolescents who
kill. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 1, 297322.
Bjerregaard, B., & Lizotte, A. J. (1995). Gun ownership and gang
membership. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
86, 3758.
Bernstein, J. I. (1979). Premeditated murder by an eight-year old
boy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Compara-
tive Criminology, 23, 4756.
Block, R., & Block, C. R. (1993). Street gang crime in Chicago.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Insti-
tute of Justice.
Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug
industry. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 1036.
Busch, K. G., Zagar, R., Hughes, T. M., Arbit, J., & Bussell,
R. E. (1990). Adolescents who kill. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 46, 472485.
Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Can violent offenders
be distinguished from frequent offenders: Prediction from
childhood to adolescence. Journal of Research on Crime and
Delinquency, 33, 206231.
Carek, D. J., & Watson, A. S. (1964). Treatment of a family
involved in fratricide. Archives of General Psychiatry, 16,
533542.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (Eds.). (1979). Quasi-experimenta-
tion: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Cook, P. J., & Moore, M. H. (1999). Guns, gun control, and homi-
cide: A review of research and public policy. In M. D. Smith &
M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research.
(pp. 277296). London: Sage Publications.
Corder, B. F., Ball, B. C., Haizlip, T. M., Rollins, R., & Beaumont,
R. (1976). Adolescent parricide: a comparison with other ado-
lescent murder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 957961.
Cormier, B. M., Angliker, C. C., Gagne, P. W., & Markus, B.
(1978). Adolescents who kill members of the family. In J.
Eekerlaar and S. Katz (Eds.), Family violence: an international
Children Who Murder
and interdisciplinary study (pp. 466478). Toronto: Butter-
worth.
Cornell, D. G. (1989). Causes of juvenile homicide: A review of
the literature. In E. P. Benedek & D. G. Cornell (Eds.),
Juvenile homicide. (pp. 336). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Press.
Cornell, D. G. (1993). Juvenile homicide: a growing national prob-
lem. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 389396.
Cornell, D. G., Benedek, E. P., & Benedek, D. M. (1987). Charac-
teristics of adolescents charged with homicide: a review of 72
cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 1123.
Cornell, D. G., Benedek, E. P., & Benedek, D. M. (1987). Juvenile
homicide: Prior adjustment and a proposed typology. Ameri-
can Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 383393.
Crespi, T. D., & Rigazio-DiGilio, S. A. (1996). Adolescent homi-
cide and family pathology: Implications for research and treat-
ment with adolescents. Adolescence, 31, 353367.
Darby, P. J., Allan, W. D., Kashani, J. H., Hartke, K. L., & Reid,
J. C. (1998). Analysis of 112 juveniles who committed homi-
cide: Characteristics and a closer look at family abuse. Journal
of Family Violence, 13, 365375.
Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., & Burgess, A. G. (1992). Crime
Classification Manual. New York: Lexington Books of Mac-
millan.
Duncan, J. W., & Duncan, G. M. (1971). Murder in the family:
A study of some homicidal adolescents. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 127, 7478.
Easson, W. M., & Steinhilber, R. M., (1961). Murderous aggression
by children and adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry,
4, 19.
Ewing, C. P. (1990). When children kill: The dynamics of juvenile
homicide. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Ewing, C. P. (1997). Fatal families: The dynamics of intrafamilial
homicide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Farrington, D. P. (1995). The development of offending and antiso-
cial behaviour from childhood: Key findings from the Cam-
bridge Study in delinquent development. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 360, 929964.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (1997). Uniform Crime Reports
1996. Washington DC: Author.
Flewelling, R. L., & Williams, K. R. (1999). Categorizing homi-
cides: The use of disaggregrated data in homicide research.
In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook
of social research. (pp. 96106). London: Sage Publications.
Fox, J. A. (1996). Trends in juvenile violence. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
Freedman, J. L. (1984). Effect of television violence on aggressive-
ness. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 227246.
Frick, P. J., OBrien, B. S., Wootton, J. M., & McBurnett, K. (1994).
Psychopathy and conduct problems in children. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700707.
Friedrich-Cofer, L., & Huston, A. C. (1986). Television violence
and aggression: The debate continues. Psychological Bulletin,
100, 364371.
Godow, K. D., & Sprafkin, J. (1993). Television violence and
children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 5463.
Goldstein, A. P. (1991). Delinquent gangs: a psychological perspec-
tive. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.
Greenberg, H. R., & Blank, R. H. (1970). Murder and self-destruc-
tion by a 12-year-old boy. Adolescence, 5, 391396.
Hagan, M. P. (1997). An analysis of adolescent perpetrators of
homicide and attempted homicide upon return to the commu-
nity. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Compara-
tive Criminology, 41, 250259.
Hardwick, P. J., & Rowton-Lee (1996). Adolescent homicide: To-
wards assessment of risk. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 263276.
Hays, J. R., Solway, K. S., & Schreiner, D. (1978). Intellectual
113
characteristics of juvenile murderers versus status offenders.
Psychological Reports, 43, 8082.
Heide, K. M. (1992). Why kids kill parents. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State University Press.
Heide, K. M. (1993). Juvenile involvement in multiple offender
and multiple victim parricides. Journal of Police and Criminal
Psychology, 9, 5364.
Heide, K. M. (1996). Why kids keep killing: The correlates, causes,
and challenges of juvenile homicide. Stanford Law and Policy
Review, 7, 4349.
Heide, K. M. (1997). Juvenile homicide in America: How can we
stop the killing? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 203220.
Heide, K. M. (1999a). Young killers: The challenge of juvenile
homicide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Heide, K. M. (1999b). Youth homicide: An integration of psycho-
logical, sociological, and biological approaches. In M. D.
Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social
research. (pp. 221238). London: Sage Publications.
Heide, K. M. (1993). Weapons used by juveniles and adults to kill
parents. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 397405.
Heide, K. M. (1994). Evidence of child maltreatment among ado-
lescent parricide offenders. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, 151162.
Heide, K. M. (1999). Youth homicide: An integration of psycholog-
ical, sociological, and biological approaches. In M. D. Smith &
M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research.
(pp. 221238). London: Sage Publications.
Hellsten, P., & Katila, O. (1965). Murder and other homicide by
children under 15 in Finland. Psychiatric Quarterly, Suppl.
39, 5474.
Hoge, R. D., Andrews, D. A., Leschied, A. W. (1996). An investiga-
tion of risk and protective factors in a sample of youthful
offenders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37,
419424.
Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (1994). Murder in America. Lon-
don: Sage Publications.
Howell, J. C., Krisberg, B., & Jones, M. (1995). Trends in juvenile
crime and youth violence. In J. C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J. D.
Hawkins, & J. J. Wilson (Eds.), Serious, Violent, & Chronic
Juvenile Offenders: A Sourcebook (pp. 135). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder,
L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations.
Developmental Psychology, 20, 11201134.
King, C. H. (1975). The ego and the integration of violence in
homicidal youth. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45,
134145.
Lande, R. G. (1993). The video violence debate. Hospital and
Community Psychiatry, 44, 347351.
Lewis, D. O., Lovely, R., Yeager, C., Ferguson, G., Friedman, M.,
Sloane, G., Friedman, H., & Pincus, J. H. (1988). Intrinsic
and environmental characteristics of juvenile murderers. Jour-
nal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychi-
atry, 27, 582587.
Lewis, D. O., Moy, E., Jackson, L. D., Aaronson, R., Ritvo, U.,
Settu, S., & Simons, A. (1985). Biopsychosocial characteristics
of children who later murder: a prospective study. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 11611166.
Lewis, D. O., Pincus, J. H., Bard, B., Richardson, E., Prichep,
L. S., Feldman, M., & Yeager, C. (1988). Neuropsychiatric,
psychoeducational, and family characteristics of 14 juveniles
condemned to death in the United States. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 145, 584589.
Lewis, D. O., Shanok, S. S., Gran, M., & Ritvo, E. (1983). Homicid-
ally aggressive young children: neuropsychiatric and experien-
tial correlates. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 148153.
Loeber, R., DeLamatre, M. S., Keenan, K., & Zhang, Q. (1998).
A prospective replication of developmental pathways in dis-
ruptive and delinquent behavior. In R. B. Cairns & L. R.
114
Bergman (Eds.), Methods and models for studying the individ-
ual (pp. 185218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delin-
quency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 6899.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt,
T. E., & Caspi, A. (1998). The development of male offend-
ing: Key findings from the first decade of the Pittsburgh
Youth Study. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 7, 141
171.
Lyman, D. R. (1996). Early identification of chronic offenders:
Who is the fledgling psychopath? Psychological Bulletin,
120, 209234.
Malmquist, C. P. (1971). Premonitory signs of homicidal aggression
in juveniles. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 9397.
Malmquist, C. P. (1996). Homicide: A psychiatric perspective.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Maxson, C. L., Woods, K. J., & Klein, M. W. (1995). Street gang
migration in the United States. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California, Center for the Study of Crime and Social
Control, Social Science Research Institute.
Maxson, C. L., & Klein, M. W. (1996). Defining gang homicide:
an updated look at member and motive approaches. In C. R.
Huff (Ed.) Gangs in America: 2nd Edition (pp. 320). London:
Sage Publications.
McCarthy, J. B. (1978). Narcissism and the self in homicidal adoles-
cents. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 38, 1929.
McGuire, W. J. (1986). The myth of massive media impact: Savag-
ings and salvagings. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communica-
tion and behavior: Vol. 1, (pp.173257). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press.
Mezzich, A. C., Coffman, G., & Mezzich, J. E. (1991). A typology
of violent delinquent adolescents. Journal of Psychiatry and
Law, 19, 6378.
Miller, D., & Looney, J. (1974). The prediction of adolescent
homicide: Episodic dyscontrol and dehumanisation. American
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34, 187198.
Myers, W. C. (1994). Sexual homicide by adolescents. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
33, 962969.
Myers, W. C., & Blashfield, R. (1997). Psychopathology and per-
sonality in juvenile sexual homicide offenders. Journal of
the American Academy Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 497
508.
Myers, W. C., Burgess, A. W., & Nelson, J. A. (1998). Criminal
and behavioral aspects of juvenile sexual homicide. Journal
of Forensic Sciences, 43, 340347.
Myers, W. C., & Kemph, J. P. (1988). Characteristics and treatment
of four homicidal adolescents. Journal of the American Acad-
emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 595599.
Myers, W. C., & Kemph, J. P. (1990). DSM-III-R Classification
of murderous youth: Help or hindrance? Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 51, 239242.
Myers, W. C., & Mutch, P. J. (1992). Language disorders in disrup-
tive behaviour disordered homicidal youth. Journal of Foren-
sic Sciences, 37, 919922.
Myers, W. C., Scott, K., Burgess, A. W., & Burgess, A. G. (1995).
Psychopathology, biopsychosocial factors, crime characteris-
tics, and classification of 25 homicidal youths. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34,
14831489.
National Youth Gang Center. (1997). 1995 National youth gang
survey. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence
on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Re-
search, 21, 516546.
Paluszny, M., & McNabb, M. (1975). Therapy of a 6-year old who
committed fratricide. Journal of the American Academy of
Child Psychiatry, 14, 319336.
Shumaker and Prinz
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A
developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American
Psychologist, 44, 329335.
Petti, T. A., & Davidman, L. (1981). Homicidal school-age chil-
dren: cognitive style and demographic features. Child Psychia-
try and Human Development, 12, 8289.
Pfeffer, C. R. (1980). Psychiatric hospital treatment of assaultive
homicidal children. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34,
197207.
Post, S. (1982). Adolescent parricide in abusive families. Child
Welfare, 61, 445455.
Reidel, M. (1999). Sources of homicide data: A review and compar-
ison. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A
sourcebook of social research. (pp. 7595). London: Sage Pub-
lications.
Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual
homicide: Patterns and motives. New York: The Free Press.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing
predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 63, 737748.
Roberts, D. F., & Macoby, N. (1985). Effects of mass communica-
tion. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 539598). New York: Random House.
Rogers, C. (1993). Gang-related homicides in Los Angeles County.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 831834.
Rosner, R., Weiderlight, M., Rosner, M. B. H., & Wieczorek,
R. R. (1978). Adolescents accused of murder and manslaugh-
ter: A five year descriptive study. Bulletin of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 23, 6572.
Rowley, J. C., Ewing, C. P., & Singer, S. I. (1987). Juvenile homi-
cide: The need for an interdisciplinary approach. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 5, 110.
Russell, D. H. (1979). Ingredients of juvenile murder. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
23, 6572.
Russell, D. H. (1986). Girls who kill. International Offender Ther-
apy and Comparative Criminology, 30, 171176.
Sadoff, R. L. (1971). Clinical observations on parricide. Psychiatric
Quarterly, 45, 6569.
Sargent, D. (1962). Children who killa family conspiracy? Social
Work, 17, 3542.
Scherl, D. J., & Mack, J. E. (1966). A study of adolescent matricide.
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 5
569593.
Scott, C. L. (1999). Juvenile violence. Forensic Psychiatry, 22,
7183.
Sendi, I. B., & Blomgren, P. G. (1975). A comparative study of
predictive criteria in the predisposition of homicidal adoles-
cents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 423428.
Singer, J. L., Singer, D. G., & Rapaczynski, W. (1984). Family
patterns and television viewing as predictors of childrens
beliefs and aggression. Journal of Communication, 34, 7389.
Smith, S. (1965). The adolescent murderer: A psychodynamic in-
terpretation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 13, 310319.
Snyder, H., & Finnegan, T. A. (1998). Easy access to the FBIs
Supplementary Homicide Reports, 19801996. [Data presen-
tation and analysis package]. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center
for Juvenile Justice.
Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1995). National report on juvenile
offending and victimization. Washington, DC: Office of Juve-
nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Solway, K. S., Richardson, L., Hays, J. R., & Elion, V. H. (1981).
Adolescent murderers: Literature review and preliminary re-
search findings. In J. R. Hays, T. K. Roberts & K. S. Solway
(Eds.), Violence and the violent individual (pp. 193210). New
York: SP Medical and Scientific Books.
Sorrells, J. (1977). Kids who kill. Crime and Delinquency, 23,
312320.
Children Who Murder
Sorrells, J. (1980). What can be done about juvenile homicide?
Crime and Delinquency, 26, 152161.
Spergel, I. A. (1983). Violent gangs in Chicago: Segmentation and
integration Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.
Spergel, I. A. (1995). The youth gang problem: a community ap-
proach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stearns, A. W. (1957). Murder by adolescents with obscure motiva-
tion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 114, 303305.
Tooley, K. (1975). The small assassins: Clinical notes on a subgroup
of murderous children. Journal of the American Academy of
Child Psychiatry, 14, 306318.
Toupin, & Morissette, (1990). Juvenile homicide: A case control
study. Medicine & Law, 9, 986994.
Tucker, L. S., & Cornwall, T. P. (1977). Mother-son folie a deux:
A case of attempted patricide. American Journal of Psychia-
try, 134, 11461147.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1987). Survey of youth in custody
(Bureau of Justice Statistics special report). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Walshe-Brennan, K. S. (1975). Children who have murdered. Med-
ico Legal Journal, 43(1), 2024.
115
Walshe-Brennan, K. S. (1977). A socio-psychological investigation
of young murderers. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 5863.
Wood, W., Wong, F., & Chachere, J. (1991). Effects of media
violence on viewers aggression and unconstrained social in-
teraction. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 371383.
Woods, S. M. (1961). Adolescence violence and homicide. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 5, 3844.
Yates, A., Beutler, L. E., & Crago, M. (1984). Characteristics
of young, violent offenders. Journal of Psychiatry and Law,
16, 137149.
Yarvis, R. M. (1991). Homicide: Causative factors and roots. Lex-
ington, MA: Lexington Book Company.
Zagar, R., Arbit, J., Sylvies, R., Busch, K., & Hughes, J. (1990).
Homicidal adolescents: A replication. Psychological Reports,
67, 12351242.
Zahn, M. A., & McCall, P. L. (1999). In M. D. Smith & M. A.
Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research. (pp.
923). London: Sage Publications.
Zenoff, E. H., & Zients, A. B. (1979). Juvenile murderers: should
the punishment fit the crime? International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 2, 533553.
Copyright of Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review is the property of Springer Science & Business
Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.