Peace psychology chapter 3

Types of Violence

Direct Violence: Domestic /Intimate Violence, Violence against Minorities, War, Homicide,
Genocide and Democide, Terrorism

Types of Violence

Introduction

Violence derives from conflict, but conflict does not inevitably result in violence. Conflict can
often be constructive. Only under certain extreme conditions does conflict ultimately result in
violence. Conflict, defined as "perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties' ...
current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously" (Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim), can be dealt with
in a variety of ways, including cooperative problem solving, yielding by one of the parties, and
inaction. as well as various nonviolent contentious tactics such as ingratiation, persuasive
arguing, and threats. Alternatively, the conflict can be handled by violence.

There are certain preconditions for a violent response to conflict: (a) that a party care more about
its own interests than about the interests of the other, a basic principle of the dual concern model
of conflict (Blake & Mouton, 1979), and (b) that a party believe it will be successful if it acts
violently in pursuit of its goals. In addition, there are factors which increase the probability that
conflict will result in violence, among them the perception that nonviolent means will be
ineffective, that violence will have few negative repercussions for the aggressor, and that
violence will prevent the adversary from gaining an advantage if it were to initiate violence first.
Furthermore, there are certain contextual factors that predispose a party to act violently,
including social norms that condone violence and the availability of means (e.g., weapons) of
executing a violent act.

Violence

Violence is a complex concept. Violence is often understood as the use or threat of force that can
result in injury, harm, deprivation or even death. It may be physical, verbal or psychological. The
World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as "intentional use of physical force or
power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community
that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm,
maldevelopment or deprivation". This definition emphasizes intentionality, and broadens the
concept to include acts resulting from power relationships.

An expanded understanding of violence includes not only direct "behavioral" violence, but also
structural violence, which is often unconscious. Structural violence results from unjust and
inequitable social and economic structures and manifesting itself in for example, poverty and
deprivation of all kinds.

Forms of violence can be categorized in many ways. One such classification includes:

 direct violence, e.g. physical or behavioral violence such as war, bullying, domestic
violence, exclusion or torture
 structural violence, e.g. poverty and deprivation of basic resources and access to rights;
oppressive systems that enslave, intimidate, and abuse dissenters as well as the poor,
powerless and marginalized

Direct Violence

Direct violence, corresponding to the tip of the iceberg, has as its main characteristic the fact that
most of its effects are visible, mainly the materials, but not all of them: hate, psychological
trauma or the emergence of concepts such as ‘enemy’ are equally serious effects, but they are
often not seen as such. Being the most popular and obvious, it is commonly thought that direct is
the worst kind of violence, which is not true for precisely this visibility, which makes it easier to
identify and therefore to combat. It is important to note that this type of violence is the
manifestation of something, not its origin, and is in the beginning where it should be sought
causes and act more effectively. Direct violence does not affect many people as cultural and
structural violence, which are the hidden part of the iceberg.

Direct Violence represents behaviors that serve to threaten life itself and/or to diminish one’s
capacity to meet basic human needs. Examples include killing, maiming, bullying, sexual
assault, and emotional manipulation. There are different types of direct violence: Domestic
/Intimate Violence, Violence against Minorities, War, Homicide, Genocide and Democide,
Terrorism

1) DOMESTIC /INTIMATE VIOLENCE

Introduction

The prevalence of intimate violence has become frighteningly apparent: Current statistical
estimates suggest that 28 percent of marital relationships in the United States include incidents of
physical violence (Gelles & Straus, 1988; Straus & Gelles, 1990). Further, the rates of dating
violence are at least as high (Gelles, 1997). Clearly, the magnitude of intimate violence suggests
that a slap, punch, or kick within couples cannot be fully understood solely in terms of individual
pathology, though it may be tempting to do so. While individual behavior is certainly shaped by
psychological factors, it is simultaneously influenced by social structures such as the family,
religion, law, and power relations particular to gender, race, and class.

Peace psychology may contribute to understanding and transforming intimate violence because it
traverses difficult bounds between individual, organizational, and societal levels of analysis in
addressing conflict and violence. At its core, intimate "iolence rips away security, identity, and
self-determination. Intimate violence often centers on power and control over another person.

Nearly 700 husbands and boyfriends are killed by their girlfriends or wives each year, whereas
more than 1,500 wives and girlfriends are killed by husbands and boyfriends each year (U.S.
Department of Justice, 1995). Murder constitutes an extreme form of intimate violence: it
represents the tip of the iceberg of a problem that is widespread in intimate relationships.

Since peace psychology identifies and promotes conditions that favor human needs for security,
identity, and self-determination, peace psychology can and should concern itself with the
daunting problem of intimate violence. Research on violence for the twenty-first century must
develop a language that adequately addresses power relations as they relate to intimate violence.
Psychology must be more closely melded with sociology in research on intimate violence.

Physical violence is one form of intimate violence along with emotional abuse and sexual abuse.
In addition, child abuse within families is a huge problem in its own right.
History of Domestic Violence
The traditional view of violence in a relationship focused on a crime of abuse involving two
individuals in an opposite-sex (heterosexual) marriage. Typically, the abuser was the husband
and the wife was the victim. This is the origin of the term “domestic violence,” where the
abusive behavior was viewed as a form of violence that existed within a domestic relationship.
In the early 1970s, women’s rights groups began an organized campaign highlighting the need to
address the issue of abuse perpetrated by husbands upon their wives. In response, government
and non-profit agencies started providing emergency shelters and other advocacy services for
women who were survivors of domestic violence.
In addition to helping women in need, the emergence of these shelters also provided researchers
an opportunity to study the issue of domestic violence in greater depth since victims were now
easier to access. Previously, victims had few options and were forced to remain in abusive
relationships, which, in turn, made it difficult for researchers to contact them and also made them
less willing to discuss their situations.
As research on the topic of domestic violence increased, so did public awareness. In 1994,
Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). While laws addressing assault in
general already existed, this legislation strengthened those laws by specifically identifying
violence against women as a crime that needed more focused attention. Domestic violence
victims were considered the key recipients of protections provided by this legislation.

What Is Domestic Violence?

Domestic violence can be physical or psychological, and it can affect anyone of any age, gender,
race, or sexual orientation. It may include behaviors meant to scare, physically harm, or control a
partner. And while every relationship is different, domestic violence typically involves an
unequal power dynamic in which one partner tries to assert control over the other in a variety of
ways.

Domestic violence (DV) is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as:
“Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or
mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life”.

Insults, threats, emotional abuse and sexual coercion all constitute domestic violence. Some
perpetrators may even use children, pets, or other family members as emotional leverage to get
their victim to do what they want. Victims of domestic violence experience diminished self-
worth, anxiety, depression, and a general sense of helplessness that can take time and often
professional help to overcome.

Different Forms of domestic violence

The following forms of domestic violence have been seen in different societies worldwide:

“Physical abuse is hitting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, hair pulling, denying a
partner medical care, and forcing alcohol and/or drug use upon him or her. Sexual abuse is
coercing or attempting to coerce any sexual contact or behavior without consent, including
marital rape, attacks on sexual parts of the body, forcing sex, or treating one in a sexually
demeaning manner. Emotional abuse is undermining an individual‟s sense of self-worth and/or
self-esteem is abusive including, constant criticism, diminishing one‟s abilities, name-calling, or
damaging one‟s relationship with his or her children. Economic abuse is making or attempting to
make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources,
withholding one‟s access to money, or forbidding one‟s attendance at school or employment.
Psychological abuse is causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner,
children, or partner‟s family or friends; and forcing isolation from family, friends, or school
and/or work”.

Intimate Partner Violence Concept Introduced

Societal views expanded to better understand the types of violence that exist within
relationships as well as the reality that the roles of abuser and victim are not gender-specific. As
a result, the term “intimate partner violence” was introduced to encompass a broader
understanding of violence in relationships. While it is challenging to specifically identify when it
came into existence, but it appears to have gained momentum sometime around 2000.
 Use of the term “intimate partner violence” moved us away from the old view that
abusive violence only occurs in marital relationships where the husband was the abuser and the
wife was the victim. The concept of intimate partner violence acknowledges that abuse can exist
in any type of personal intimate relationship, regardless of sexual orientation, marital status, or
gender. Like “domestic violence,” this new term does not assign the roles of the abuser and
victim to one gender or the other.
Psychological Approaches to Intimate Violence

There are a variety of approaches within the field of psychology to intimate violence. In
particular, intimate violence has been studied in relation to abnormal psychology and personality
theories, behavioral and attitudinal approaches, and social learning theory.

 Abnormal Psychology and Personality Approaches

Early psychological research tended to emphasize the unique, abnonnal characteristics of

individuals who engaged in intimate violence. For example, physically assaultive husbands
were deemed sadistic (Pizzey, 1974) or suffering from brain lesions resulting in sporadic
outbursts of violence (Elliot, 1977). Sometimes, researchers suggested that battered women
were masochistic.In part, early research relied on small samples of violent relationships with
particularly skewed groups, such as men who had been convicted of assault. And, violence
was understood to be a rare occurrence in families. Most of the research, past and present,
has focused on violence against women by men in heterosexual relationships.

Within the realm of psychological literature, recent research benefits from the
understanding that violence cannot be adequately explained solely on the basis of personality
traits. While some researchers still look to personality disorders, they explain only a fairly
small proportion, estimated at 10 percent, of cases of intimate violence (Straus, 1980).
Clinical research is more likely than survey research to emphasize the characteristics of
individuals that might lead to violence.

Hamberger and Hastings (1986), for example, suggest that assaultive men may have
borderline personalities, they may be anti-social, and/or may suffer passive-dependent/
compulsive disorders. In a later comparative study of violent and non-violent men,
Hamberger and Hastings (1991) report that non-violent men are more comfortable in intimate
 relationships and experience greater control over their emotional states. Other researchers
report low self-esteem among men who batter their wives, as well as feelings of inadequacy
and powerlessness (Weitzman & Dreen, 1982).

Dutton (1995) finds that borderline personality disorder is positively related to assaultive
behavior among men in intimate relationships. He argues that men who experience absent,
abusive, or cold parental upbringing develop fear and anger with respect to attachment,
resulting in borderline personalities as well as intimate abuse.

One exciting area of research in psychology looks at a variety of different profiles of

abusers. Dutton and Golant (1995) outline a variety of types of physically assaultive men.
One type of physically abusive man they discuss is the psychopathic assaulter who
experiences no remorse for the abuse he inflicts and who is often violent outside as well as
inside the family. Another type of abuser is over controlled, emotionally withdrawn, and
passive-aggressive. Finally, cyclical abusers are emotionally volatile and experience an
extreme need to control intimacy.

 Behavioral and Attitudinal Approaches

In addition to considerations of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and personality disorders as

contributors to intimate violence, Riggs and O'Leary (1989) have considered behavioral and
attitudinal predictors of violence. They suggest that acceptance of violence, past use of violence,
partner aggression, and relationship conflict are important predictors of violent behavior in
intimate relationships. Another important behavioral correlate is alcohol consumption.
Considerable research has demonstrated a correlation between alcohol abuse and family
violence.

On the other hand, Song (1996), in her study of wife beating in Korean immigrant communities,
found that alcohol consumption had no relationship to rates of violence. Instead, traditional
cultural values predicted greater levels of violence. Indeed, the cultural expectations associated
with alcohol may have a greater impact on behavior than the drug itself. From his examination of
survey, police, cross-cultural, and experimental research, Gelles (1993a) also argues that alcohol
does not cause family violence. In particular, cross-cultural and experimental research indicate
divergent behavioral outcomes from alcohol consumption. It seems that as it relates to
aggression, the effects of alcohol are less physiological than they are based on social
expectations regarding cultural definitions of the effects of alcohol. As Gelles writes: "In the end,
the social expectations about drinking and drinking behavior in our society teach people that if
they want to avoid being held responsible for their violence, they can either drink before they are
violent or at least say they were drunk,".

Behavior is organized and explained in relation to the culture in which it exists. In her work on
behavioral cycles of violence, Lenore Walker recognizes that behavioral patterns exist within
particular cultural contexts (Walker, 1999). Walker (1979) outlines a behavioral cycle that she
calls the "cycle of violence" to explain intimate violence. The cycle includes a tension-building
phase, an acute battering phase, and a tranquil, nonviolent phase. During the tension-building
phase, the abuser may engage in psychological and/or relatively minor physical assaults. The
victim of assault, generally a woman, "walks on eggshells" to assuage her partner and prevent an
escalation of violence. Escalation is inevitable, however, and at some point, an explosion of
violence occurs, during which time the victim has no control over ending the violence and
generally feels trapped. Following the acute battering stage, the abuser is often remorseful and
loving in the tranquil phase:

During the third phase, the battered woman may join widl the batterer in sustaining the
illusion of bliss. She convinces herself, too, that it will never happen again; her lover can change,
she tells herself. This "good" man, who is gende and sensitive and nurturing toward her now, is
the "real" man, the man she married, the man she loves. Many battered women believe that they
are the sole support of the batterer's emotional stability and sanity, the one link their men have to
the normal world. Sensing the batterer's isolation and despair, they feel responsible for his well-
being.

The inherent loss of control of physical safety through the cycle of violence leads to a type of
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, according to Walker. Battered women may stay in violent
relationships in part because they feel they have at least some control in the situation they are in.
Escape would hurt them into the unknown. The psychological effects of the cycle of violence
also help explain why battered women kill their abusers. Walker describes Battered Women's
Syndrome as a form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder triggered by intimate violence in which
battered women kill their abusive partners. Walker is quick to point out that psychological
dynamics cannot be understood apart from the societal sanctioning of intimate violence and the
lack of adequate protection or response from the state (i.e., police). Battered women are trapped
not only in a psychological sense, but also through the lack of support they receive culturally,
economically, and from the criminal justice system.

Social Learning

Social learning provides another important area of research into intimate violence. Children who
observe violence and/or are victims of violence in their family of origin are more likely than
others to engage in violent behavior or to become victims of violence as adults. In other words,
through modeling, individuals may develop an acceptance of, and propensity to engage in,
violence (O'Leary, 1993). The effects of witnessing violence as a child are more likely to predict
violence for men than for women.

However, Kaufman and Zigler (1993), Straus (1980), and O'leary (1988) warn that the effects of
observing violence are easily overestimated. Growing up in violent households does not
determine that an individual will become violent. As a result, understanding intimate violence
must extend beyond an modeling approach.

While research on the psychological processes involved in intimate violence are important, the
problem of intimate violence spills beyond individual characteristics and dispositions and
relationship conflict into social structure. In order to understand what ties people to violent
relationships, it is important to consider societal constructions of the family and gender. To fully
explore the structural dimensions of intimate violence, sociological approaches to intimate
violence must be considered.

Sociological Approaches to Intimate Violence

Within sociology, there are two primary and conflicting approaches to intimate violence. One
approach emphasizes the construction of the family as a system and as a social institution. As
Gelles points out, "The family, with the exception of the military in times of war and the police,
is society's most violent institution" (1993b, p. 35). The other approach centers on gender
inequality.

Family Systems
Gelles and Straus (1979, 1988) suggest that a number of characteristics of families contribute to
intimate violence. In part, contemporary American culture encourages very high expectations for
intimacy within romantic relationships and families. High expectations regarding family
intimacy may also engender disappointment over unmet desires. Violence may result from
frustration over a sense of a lack of reciprocation of rewards within the family (Gelles, 1983).

Research on courtship violence suggests that dating relationships contain somewhat higher levels
of violence than do marital relationships (Gelles, 1997). Perhaps even more disturbing is the
finding by Henton et al. (1983) that one-quarter of victims of intimate violence and a little less
than one-third of offenders viewed physical violence as a sign of love. Clearly, cultural
definitions of romantic love and family intimacy feed into high rates of intimate violence.

Intimacy may combine with stress to produce intimate violence in families. Stress is an inherent
outcome of ever-changing family life as families grow throughout the life course (Gelles &
Straus, 1979). Stress experienced outside of the family may be projected onto the family. One
source of stress is financial: Intimate violence is more common in low-income households, and
in families where men are unemployed or employed part-time (Prescott & Letko, 1977;
Rounsaville, 1978).

Further, societal norms of family privacy also contribute to violence. What goes on in the family
is easily hidden from public scrutiny (Gelles & Straus, 1979). Gelles (1983) suggests that people
engage in family violence because the rewards of violence (for example, producing a desired
result from a family member, gaining control) outweigh the costs of violence such as negative
labeling in the larger community.

Gender Inequality

For many feminist researchers, the family as an institution is also deemed to contribute to
intimate violence, though here we begin to touch on one of the m.gor divisions within
sociological schools of thought regarding intimate violence. Language differences reveal
divergent perspectives: Family systems theory sociologists write about "domestic violence"
whereas feminist researchers write about "battered wives" and "battered women." Feminist
researchers emphasize gender inequality as the basis for violence (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Yllo
& Bogard, 1988).Indeed; cross-cultural research suggests that cultural expectations condoning
marital violence and emphasizing gender inequality contribute to high rates of intimate violence.
Around the globe, high rates of wife-beating occur in patriarchal societies (Walker, 1999). From
the many thousands of women burned alive by in-laws when dowry endowments are not deemed
high enough in India (Narasimhan, 1994), to Chilean rates of intimate violence against woman
reaching 60 percent of heterosexual relationships (Larrain, 1993), wife-beating is deeply
enmeshed in the "common sense" of patriarchal cultures.

The economic structuring of society is woven into cultural traditions supporting intimate
violence against women in families. In Western industrialized nations, women are still primarily
responsible for domestic labor including child care and are more likely to have interrupted career
trajectories to care for small children while being paid less than men for the work that they do in
the paid labor force across racial categories (Thornborrow & Sheldon, 1995). Interviews with
women who are survivors of intimate violence indicate that economic dependence is one
important bind to domestic assault (Barnett & laViolette, 1993; Pagelow, 1981). In this way,
patriarchal structures of the family and labor force contribute to wife-battering. One avenue for
addressing the problem of intimate violence involves promoting economic as well as domestic
equality.

At the same time, some research suggests that when husbands have lower status educationally
and occupationally than their wives they are more likely to engage in intimate violence.

Despite important legal changes as well as growing economic resources from the state to aid
victims of intimate violence in the United States, battered women still experience a lack of
support from the police, courts, and support services (Barnett & LaViolette, 1993; Hoff, 1990).
As a result, battered women are left in violent homes in states of fear. Feminist research on
battered women also reveals that fear holds women in families in which they experience intimate
violence (Hoff, 1990). This fear is far from irrational. Indeed, the greatest likelihood of serious
injury and death occurs after women have left their violent partners (Saltzman et al., 1990).
Women are not adequately protected from violence by the state.

Thus, while the issue of violence against men has been controversial and heated within
sociological discourse and popular culture, the fact that men encounter violence inflicted by
women does not erase gendered power relations of intimate violence. Still, it is important to
recognize the reality that men are beaten, and that gender is not the sole determinant of violent
behavior.

Moving Into the Twenty-First Century: Expanding the Discourse

Feminist research on intimate violence contributes a great deal to an understanding of the

patriarchal structures that produce intimate violence. Clearly, cultural constructions of gender
playa central role in such violence. Gender is not, however, the entire explanatory framework
necessary for intimate violence. Men are sometimes victims of intimate violence in heterosexual
couples. And, violence occurs in gay and lesbian relationships.

While international perspectives on intimate violence highlight the importance of gender

inequality (Walker, 1999), we must both acknowledge the importance of gender and avoid the
insistence that gender is the only important dynamic underlying intimate violence.

Further, this new discourse must somehow bind more adequately sociological and psychological
approaches to violence. That is, psychological factors contributing to violence must be
understood in a sociocultural context. For example, Dutton (1994) takes us in the wrong
direction when he suggests that gay and lesbian violence demonstrates the explanatory power of
psychological rather than social-structural factors (such as gender) in intimate violence.

Internalized homophobia occurs when gay men and lesbians accept heterosexual society's
negative evaluations of them and incorporate them into their self-concepts . . . Clinicians report
that internalized homophobia causes homosexuals to experience lowered self-esteem, feelings of
powerlessness, obsessive closeting of sexual orientation, denial of difference between themselves
and heterosexuals, and self-destructive behavior such as substance abuse. It may also lead to
aggression against members of one's own group, which could take the form of partner abuse.
Thus, societal homophobia (a social structural variable) generates internalized homophobia (a
psychological variable), which, in tum, may lead to partner abuse in same-sex relationships.

The danger in relying too heavily on psychological approaches to intimate violence is that it
misses the "big picture,· the social structures in and through which people act. On the other hand,
the danger in relying solely on sociological explanations for violence is that it may
overgeneralize structural categories as explanations for violence and miss out on individual-level
variables that contribute to violent behavior in intimate relationships. The problem of intimate
violence requires that we develop a new, integrated language for explaining and understanding
the dynamics underlying such violence: a language that weaves together psychological and
sociological approaches to intimate violence.

THEORIES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

From a theoretical perspective, domestic violence has been seen differently by the sociologists,
psychologists, and other scholars in order to describe its causes and factors. Following discussion
delineates the theories of domestic violence:

1. Sociological Theories

Sociological theories extensively describe the causes of domestic violence. For example, the
general systems theory suggests, “violence as a system rather than as a result of individual
mental disturbance.” The Resource theory states, “the more resources such as social, personal,
and economic a person can command, the more power he or she can potentially call on.” The
Exchange/Social Control Theory argues, “Violence can be explained by the principle of costs
and rewards.” The Subculture of Violence Theory posits, “there is a subculture of violence in
which some groups within society hold values that permit, and even encourage, the use of
violence.” “Perhaps, the Subculture theory of violence is the most widely accepted theory”.

2. Psychological Theories:

From a psychological perspective, the developmental and personality theories emphasize, “the
individual-level explanations of domestic violence and variously suggest interrelated factors such
as early abuse trauma, harsh, shaming, disrupted parenting, insecure or disorganized attachment
styles, personality disorders, anger, depression, emotional difficulties, substance misuse
problems or low self-esteem, explain why some men become violent to their partners.”2
Similarly, psychologists view domestic violence as, “a medical problem, suggesting that abusive
men have some sort of illness that causes them to behave violently toward their partners, such as
excessive use of alcohol and drugs.”

3. Feminist Theory
Feminist theories posit, “societal patriarchal structures of gender-based inequalities of power are
at the root of the problem. Therefore, the violence is an expression of male domination over
females and includes a variety of „control tactics‟ meant to control women.”

4. Ecological Model

According to the ecological model, “the source of domestic violence is demonstrated into four
major co-existing factors, namely the individual perpetrator, relationship, community and
society.”

2) VIOLENCE AGAINST MINORITIES

Introduction

Violence against minorities refers to the acts of violence in which victims are selected because
of their ethnic, racial, religious, cultural, or national origin. These victims are attacked not in
their capacities as individuals, but as representatives of such minority groups. There is
widespread consensus among researchers that this is the defining core of the phenomenon, but
no agreement on how to delimit it or what label to use. This form of violence is described as
racist violence, xenophobic violence, hate crime, or rightwing extremist violence.

Until the early 1990s, there was very little academic research published on racist violence or hate
crimes. However, especially from 1993 onwards, a large number of substantial empirical studies
were published, partly as a response to the worldwide attention to the problem caused by the
wave of xenophobic violence in Germany and several other countries.

Violence aimed at individuals who identify, or are perceived as lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer (LGBTQ), or otherwise gender variant has been a part of the fabric of most
societies both historically and in the present era.

With regard to both ideological and violent dimensions, racism, right-wing extremism,
xenophobia, and hate crime are to a large extent overlapping-but not completely
interchangeable--categories. Different labels, covering different aspects, are used in academic
and political discourse in various countries. "Racist violence" and "racial violence" (the latter
often meaning "interracial violence") are predominant labels in British discourse. In Germany
and the Scandinavian countries, a common label is "fremdenfeindliche Gewalt" /
''fremmedfiendtlig void, " which means xenophobic or, literally, "foreigner-hostile violence." In
North America, "hate crime" is the predominant label in academic and legal discourse. These
various labels are not synonymous, as they tend to restrict or expand the scope of the
phenomenon in different ways and place the emphasis on different aspects, whether on the
characteristics of the victims, or on the perpetrators with their motives and ideologies.

Racism, xenophobia, and hatred directed against specific categories of people are central
elements in most forms of right-wing extremism, but there are also forms of rightwing
extremism where racism or xenophobia does not necessarily play any role (cf. Sprinzak, 1995).
Heitmeyer (1987:13-16) describes the basic elements of a right-wing extremist orientation as 1)
an ideology of considering inequality between people as a nature-given principle and 2) an
acceptance of violence as a legitimate form of political action. However, many researchers find it
somewhat arbitrary to place this phenomenon on the one end of a right-left dichotomy, preferring
other labels.

Racism is no less disputed as a concept and label. Some definitions of racism emphasize that it is
an ideology of inequality based on certain phenotypical and/or genetic characteristics of human
beings, in other words an ideology of superior and inferior races. Others see racism as a practice
of social exclusion that does not necessarily require a conscious or explicit ideology of racial
differences or superiority (Barker, 1981).

Xenophobia (literally "fear of foreigners") does not require an ideological theory but is merely a
reflection of people's negative "gut" feelings, prejudices, or aggression towards groups that
appear strange and different. Thus, xenophobia is affective rather than cognitive. In its practical
expressions, however, xenophobia can hardly be distinguished from other varieties of racism.

The notion of hate crime does not refer to any specific target group but rather to the more
general tendency to give symbolic status to various categories of "others" that represent
something or someone to hate. In American discourse, the label "hate crime" is therefore not
restricted only to criminal acts against various ethnic minorities, but is also applied to violence
against homosexuals, women, and others.
Hate Crimes

"Hate crimes are words or actions intended to harm or intimidate an individual because of her or
his membership in a minority group; they include violent assaults, murder, rape, and property
crimes motivated by prejudice, as well as threats of violence and other acts of intimidation".

In the United States, hate crimes are committed against racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual
minorities. According to official reports, racial bias results in approximately 60 percent of all
hate crimes in the United States, with African-Americans being the most vulnerable to hate
crimes. Crimes com mitted against people because of their religious affiliation rank second,
while crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation rank third. It should
be noted that according to FBI statistics, most hate crimes based on religion are property crimes
directed at religious institutions, i.e., vandalism of synagogues, churches, and cemeteries.

Hate violence is a form of terrorism. Hate violence traumatizes not only the direct victim but all
members of the targeted group. Richard Berk, Elizabeth Boyd, and Karl Hamner (1992) note that
a key ingredient of hate-motivated violence is the "symbolic status of the victim". As Greg Herek
points out, bias crimes "are especially serious because they potentially victimize an entire class
of people ... they assail the victim's identity and intimidate other group members".

Anti-Gay /Lesbian Hate Crimes: Overt, Direct, Episodic Violence

In Los Angeles, a man yelling "sick mother-fucker" threw a beaker of acid into the face of a
lesbian employee of the local Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center.

A 21-year-old University of Wyoming student was pistol whipped and then left lashed to a fence
in the near freezing cold outside of Laramie. He was found after 10 hours and died after five
days in a coma.

Gay men and lesbian women, as well as other sexual minorities, including bisexual and
transgendered men and women, are frequent targets of hate crimes in the United States. The
Southern Poverty Law Center has estimated that gay men and lesbians are six times as likely to
be physically attacked as Jews and Hispanics in America, and twice as likely as Mrican
Americans. Kendal Broad note: "By many accounts, violence motivated by homophobia and
heterosexism represents the most visible, violent, and culturally legitimated type of 'hate crime'
in this country.

Official statistics on hate crimes are an inaccurate measure of anti-gay lesbian violence. Many
gay men and lesbian women do not report verbal harassment or physical violence against them to
the authorities because they fear that they will be subjected to secondary victimization at the
hands of police or others who may learn of their sexual orientation and subject the victim to a
second round of mistreatment. Greg Herek, Roy Gillis, Jeanine Cogan, and Eric Glunt (1997)
found that while approximately two-thirds of lesbian and gay victims of non-bias crimes reported
the incident to law enforcement authorities, only about one third of the hate crime victims did so.
In a study on sexual orientation hate crimes in Los Angeles, Edward Dunbar (1998) reported that
gay and lesbian people of color were both more likely to be victimized and less likely to report
the hate act than European white gay men and lesbian women.

In El Paso, Texas, a gay man was assaulted by his cousin, brother, and father during a wedding
reception because of his sexual orientation. The man drove himself to the hospital for x-rays and
emergency treatment. When asked why he was there, he told a male nurse what had happened
and was advised not to disclose his sexual orientation to anyone else at the hospital because
"they won't treat you right.' The victim declined to report either incident to the police or hospital
administration.

Since official statistics only record those who have reported the attack, many researchers survey
samples of gay and lesbian communities to determine the rates of hate violence. Reviewing these
surveys, Greg Herek (1989) reports as many as 92 percent of lesbian women and gay men
responded that they have been the targets of anti-gay verbal abuse or threats, and as many as 24
percent report physical attacks because of their sexual orientation. In a survey of Sacramento-
area adults, Herek, et al (1997) found that, since age 16, 11 percent had experienced assault with
a weapon, based on their sexual orientation; 14 percent had experienced assault without a
weapon; 17 percent vandalism; 45 percent had been threatened with violence; 32 percent had
been chased or followed; 33 percent had objects thrown at them; and the overwhelming m~ority
had been verbally harassed.

Characteristics of Anti-Gay / Lesbian Hate Violence

A number of studies have been conducted to understand the nature of hate crimes. These studies
have focused on the characteristics of the perpetrators and the circumstances in which hate
crimes occur.

1. The perpetrators of anti-gay/lesbian violence (and most hate crimes) are pre dominantly
male teenagers and young adults. In a survey of almost 500 community college students,
Karen Franklin (1998) found that 18 percent of the men said that they had physically
assaulted or threatened someone they thought was gay or lesbian compared to 4 percent
of the women. Thirty-two percent of the men and 17 percent of the women said that they
were guilty of verbal harassment.
2. Anti-gay /lesbian violence frequently happens in groups. Groups increase violence
through social contagion and deindividuation. People in groups don't feel personally
responsible for their behavior-often thinking, "It is the group, not me, who is doing this."
3. The targets of anti-gay and lesbian attacks are often unknown to the perpetrator and
chosen at random. This randomness may make it harder for the person to cope with the
consequences than if he or she was a victim of some other crime. Victims may feel that
there is nothing they could have done to prevent the attack, especially since . they were
attacked for something over which they feel they have no control and which may be a key
aspect of their personal identity-their sexual orientation.
4. Anti-gay/lesbian violence is particularly brutal. Kevin Berrill, formerly the director of the
Anti-Violence Project of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), reports that
homosexual murder victims are less likely to be shot than to be "stabbed a dozen or more
times, mutilated and strangled".

Some Psychological Explanations of Anti-Gay/ Lesbian Violence

Psychologists have a long history of attempting to understand what causes prejudice and
violence. These approaches have focused primarily on intrapsychic and interpersonal
psychological processes.

Authoritarian Personalities

In keeping with psychology's emphasis on understanding individual behaviors, one of the earliest
explanations of prejudice was based on individual personality. People who were prejudiced
shared characteristics referred to as an authoritarian personality. The characteristics included
submissiveness to the authority of the in-group, a tendency to punish others who violated
conventional values, preoccupation with dominance, exaggerated concern with sex and
repression of sexual feeling, and rigid thinking. While it may be argued that the leaders of
organized hate groups may demonstrate these "authoritarian" characteristics, very little research
has been done on the perpetrators of anti-gay/lesbian hate crimes.

Frustration, Scapegoating, and Realistic Group Conflict

Another early psychological explanation of prejudice and aggression comes from the work of
John Dollard and his colleagues at Yale University. They suggested a theory of scapegoating or
displaced aggression: Frustrated people often direct their anger toward members of another
group. Racial prejudice, for example, was seen as related to economic insecurity.

Related to the frustration-aggression theory, is Muzafer Sherifs (1966) realistic conflict theory
(RCT). The realistic group conflict theory can be seen in Levin and McDevitt's (1993)
description of zero-sum thinking. "They view two or more individuals or groups as striving for
the same scarce goals, with the success of one automatically implying a reduced probability that
others will attain their goals ... Zero-sum thinking engages the individual in a competitive
struggle to upgrade himself and downgrade others", which can set the scene for hate violence.
For example, Jeanine Cogan (1996) suggests that marginalized groups, the poor, immigrants,
ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities are being scapegoated by society-at-large for the
growing disparity between the very rich and the rest of society in the United States. "The victims
are blamed for the offender's personal or economic plight".

Social Identity Theory and Ingroup Bias

According to social identity theory, people have both an individual and a social identity. Seeing
one's group as superior increases personal self-esteem. People have a tendency to enhance their
self-esteem by evaluating more favorably the groups to which they belong (ingroups) compared
to other groups (outgroups). Simply being placed in a group can create ingroup bias.

Ingroup biases means favoring one's own group, but it can also, although not always, mean
devaluing the other. A sense of belonging increases when there is a common enemy. Studies
have shown that those ingroup members who have an experience which lowers their self-esteem,
are more likely to highly rate the ingroup and denigrate the outgroup. Bias against the outgroup
is also more common if there are social supports for degrading the outgroup. In the United States
there are social, religious, political, and legal supports for prejudice against gay men and lesbian
women.

Violence against Religious Minorities

In 2007, Minority Rights Group International, a watchdog organization, ranked Pakistan as the
world's top country for major increases in threats to minorities — along with Sri Lanka, which is
embroiled in civil war. The group lists Pakistan as seventh on the list of 10 most dangerous
countries for minorities, after Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar and Congo.

Religious minorities represent about 5 percent of Pakistan's 160 million people, according to the
CIA World Fact book. At the same time, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom,
has named Pakistan as one of the 13 countries where violence against religious minorities is
common and condoned or supported by the government.

The country’s constitution states that adequate provisions shall be made for minorities to profess
and practice their religions freely; however the policies, laws and practices in force do not appear
to be in line with the same. For instance, in state run schools students of other faiths are exempt
from Islamiyyat (Islamic studies) however; in practice, teachers force non-Muslim students to
complete Islamic studies. Similarly, while the law provides for up to 10 years in prison for
insulting another's religious beliefs with the intent to offend religious feelings however, till date
this penalty has been used only against those who have allegedly insulted the Prophet
Muhammad. Furthermore, all citizens, muslims and nonmuslims alike, are subject to the
blasphemy laws. Freedom of speech is constitutionally subject to "any reasonable restrictions
imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam”; and the penal code calls for death sentence
or life imprisonment for anyone who blasphemes the Prophet Muhammad.

Violence against religious minorities is not new in Pakistan and is generally characterized by
massive bloodshed and the desecration of their religious and personal assets. Among the
religious minorities present in the country, Christians constitute a major percentage. Of the four
provinces, Punjab hosts the majority of Pakistan's 3 million impoverished Christians. For this
reason it is also the place where most cases of violence against religious minorities in general,
and Christian minority in particular are reported. During the last year alone, the burning of a
church in Gujranwala; attack on 50 Christian houses in Kasur; attack on Christians on alleged
defiling of Koran in Gojra and murder of Christians facing blasphemy charges in jails, are a few
cases in point. In majority of such cases the apparent reason behind the carnage are accusations
of blasphemy that have marred the image of Muslim world in general and that of Pakistan in
particular.

In recent years, the inhuman acts against the Christian minorities have been a subject of great
public debate and criticism. However, in spite of this the Government has not taken any concrete
measures for safeguarding Christians from facing persecution in the name of blasphemy laws
and becoming victims of cruel atrocities.

Ethnic Violence

Pakistan’s ongoing religious and sectarian conflict overlaps with ethnically-motivated violence.
Ethnic violence is largely rooted in the city of Karachi, one of Pakistan’s most diverse cities with
migrant populations from across the country. A projection of population growth shows that 44
percent of Karachi’s population in 2011 were Urdu speakers, many of whom identify as
belonging to the Mohajir community, which originally relocated from India in 1947. The second-
largest group comprised Punjabi and Seraiki speakers (17 percent), followed by Pashto speakers,
suggesting membership in the Pashtun community.

Ethnic conflict has dominated the city of Karachi since the 1980s, when clashes broke out
between the Pashtun and Mohajir communities. This stemmed from a long-established sense of
resentment against the central government over resources, resistance by older settlers to new
waves of migrants, and long-established xenophobia.

Although the the earliest clashes between these communities had criminal motiveslocal politics
increasingly became delineated on ethnic lines, particularly after the emergence of the Mohajir
Qaumi Movement party (the MQM, now called the Muttahida Qaumi Movement), which sought
to represent the interests of the Mohajir community. As such, Karachi’s politics became a mix of
ethnically-driven political parties, religious groups, and mainstream political groups, and has
developed a distinctly militant nature. Political groups like the MQM trained armed forces and
built strongholds in the neighborhoods where their constituencies reside.

Since the 1980s Karachi has seen several extended periods of ethno-political violence. During
these episodes, the violence fanned out to include conflict with the state, and drew in other ethnic
communities such as the Baloch, Kutchi Memons, and Sindhis, as well as migrants from the
southern parts of Punjab. These ethnic groups were represented by a range of political parties and
criminal groups, including the MQM, the Pashtun nationalist Awami National Party, and the
Peoples Amn Committee, a criminal syndicate affiliated with the mainstream Pakistan Peoples
Party, which drew support from Baloch communities in Karachi. This has led to repeated
paramilitary and police operations against these groups over the course of the past three decades.

Ethnic violence is also prevalent in the province of Balochistan, where Punjabi workers have
been killed by what is widely cited as Baloch separatist groups fighting an insurgency against the
Pakistani government. These attacks are seen as part of the insurgency’s reaction to the influence
of the Punjab province in Pakistani politics, which is why migrant workers from that province
are targeted.

3) WAR

Introduction

Much of the complexity stems from the fact that the epithets refer to different aspects of, and
perspectives on, war: e.g. war as condition, techniques of warfare, alleged motives and/or
objectives of war, or assumptions about belligerent behavior and the causes (causative factors,
determinants, conditions, etc. ) of war. War is a species in the genus of violence; more
specifically it is collective, direct, manifest, personal, intentional, organized, institutionalized,
instrumental, sanctioned, and sometimes ritualized and regulated, violence. These distinguishing
features and dimensional delineations are not limitative. It should be perfectly clear; however,
that war, or the state of belligerence, is a very special category of violence. War is the oldest,
most prevalent, and most salient issue in international relations. Attention to war and security is
necessary: security comes first in international relations; all other competing values such as
human rights, the environment, and economic development presuppose security. Although 3.5
billion have died in the 14,500 armed struggles throughout history, the number and intensity of
war has dropped by one-half since 1991. International relations theorists disagree over the
inevitability of war.

Definitions of war

 Von Clausewitz (1911) defined war as “an act of violence intended to compel our
opponents to fulfil our will”, and elsewhere he emphasized the continuity of violence
with other political methods: “War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse,
with a mixture of other means.”
 Sorel (1912) defined war as a “political act by means of which States, unable to adjust a
dispute regarding their obligations, rights or interests, resort to armed force to decide
which is the stronger and may therefore impose its will on the other”.
 B. Russell’s ( 1916) definition of war as “conflict between two groups, each of which
attempts to kill and maim as many as possible of the other group in order to achieve some
object which it desires” is even more general and uncritically inclusive. Russell states the
object for which men fight as “generally power or wealth”.
 Deutsch and Senghaas (1971): “By ‘war’ we mean actual large-scale organized violence,
prepared and maintained by the compulsion and legitimacy claims of a State and its
government, and directed against another State or quasi-State, i.e. a relatively comparable
political organization”.

Types of War

Interstate wars: wars between two or more states. In the past these were the focus of most
research. They are the easiest to study and have caused the most damage.

Intrastate wars: wars between groups within a state, with or without international participation.
While the number of ongoing intrastate wars has declined, the decline has been less precipitous
than the decline in interstate wars.

Total war: Wars involving multiple great powers. Total wars include significant destruction and
loss of life. Since the end of World War II, total wars have become less frequent; the number of
countries participating in total wars has fallen, and they tend to last for shorter lengths of time
This has led some to argue that this type of war is obsolete.

Limited war: the objective is not surrender and occupation of enemy territory, but rather to
attain limited goals. The Korean War, the Gulf War, and conflicts in Sudan and Sierra Leone are
examples of limited war.

Impact of War/Political Violence on Families

Related/committed persons who live together. Family members' shared lives are often disrupted
by war, and members are often separated. Death is the most obvious and permanent form of
separation. As established above, in the decade preceding 1996, civilians represented 90 percent
of the casualties of war. The result was an overwhelming number of people in war zones who
were separated by death from family members.

Families may be forced to live apart for other reasons. A family member or multiple family
members may be involved as soldiers in combat. This could include voluntary or forced fighting
and may affect families surrounded by the conflict (e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) or those
far from the war (e.g., United States's military forces deployed in the Middle East).

Family members may be separated in refugee situations. The "unbridled attacks on civilians and
rural communities have provoked mass exoduses and the displacement of entire populations who
flee conflict in search of elusive sanctuaries within and outside their national borders. Among
these uprooted millions, it is estimated that 80 percent are children and women" (United Nations,
1996, art. 26). In 1996, the United Nations identified more than 27.4 million refugees, and the
number is estimated to have grown since then. At least half of these refugees and displaced
people were children, and millions of them were separated from their families.

War has a more devastating effect on poor families than families with more resources. This may
indicate that poor families are more vulnerable and are at risk for severe effects of war; it could
also indicate that wealthier families have the resources to get out of harm's way to avoid many
negative consequences. War can ruin a society's infrastructure (businesses, schools, utilities,
transportation, etc), an effect that leaves many poorer families with an unemployed head of
household. Therefore, "not only do the usual problems that [poor families] face not evaporate
because of the onset of political violence, but it is likely that there is a cumulative effect with the
negative consequences of political violence added to the effect of economic and social
disadvantage" (Cairns 1996, p.71). During war situations, families can expend most of their
efforts trying (and often failing) to meet the basic needs of their members. Displaced families
(either in refugee camps or those staying with friends or relatives within the war zone) face a
constant struggle to meet the basic needs of their members in a situation in which there are never
enough resources to meet the needs of all.

Protection and safety. Protection and safety are of great concern for families involved in
political violence. Trying to keep members safe from injury, exploitation, and death in a war
zone can dominate a family's life. It is difficult and highly unlikely that families can provide for
the safety of their members during wars. This is an especially salient issue for female-headed
families, because women and girls often are targets of sexual exploitation as well as other forms
of violence

Education and socialization. Because schools are part of the infrastructure, they often are
closed or destroyed in war zones. Therefore, families are expected to meet the educational needs
of their members. However, other basic survival needs tend to dominate the time and energy of
the adults. This leaves little time for extras such as education.

Socialization, or helping children learn appropriate behavior for the culture, may overemphasize
issues related to the conflict during a war. Several authors have questioned whether children in
war zones have a less developed moral sense compared to children who do not grow up
surrounded by political violence (e.g., Garbarino; Kostelny; and Dubrow 1991; Punamaki 1987).
"In such societies, children cannot be successfully socialized . . . in a period when the behaviour
of their whole society is based on . . . the denial of basic human values" (Punamaki 1987, p. 33).

4) HOMICIDE

Introduction

Homicide is a relatively rare yet high-impact event. Its consequences are deadly for the victim
but also devastating for those intimately connected to the victim and offender and, often, the
offender too. At the same time it is an act that captivates many and is the subject of sustained
media attention and of numerous popular works of fiction. These depictions rarely reflect the
reality of homicide. Rather, they tend to focus on the more (statistically) unusual forms of
homicide such as those with a sexual or unknown motive, serial or spree killings or those
involving young children.

Homicide of a socio-political nature, which is often linked to power-related agendas, may also be
dominant in some States with recent experiences of conflict. This is particularly true in countries
where the causes of armed conflict have not been fully resolved and the distinction between
conflicts related deaths and intentional homicides is particularly blurred. For example, recorded
deaths due to intentional homicide may overlap with recorded civilian casualties attributed to the
conflict, making it difficult to determine the types of policies and prevention efforts that need to
be implemented from a criminal justice perspective.

Definition

“Homicide is the killing of a person by another with intent to cause death or serious injury, by
any means. It excludes death due to legal intervention and operations of war”.

Deconstructing Homicide

The term ‘homicide’ refers to the killing of a human being, whether the killing is lawful or
unlawful. Examples of lawful homicide would include the killing of another human being during
wartime combat, the implementation of the death penalty or the accidental killing of a boxer by
his opponent. Unlawful homicide is legally classified, in England and Wales, as murder,
manslaughter or infanticide. Each of these categories shares a common guilty act.

Types of Homicide

The most common types of homicide include:

 First Degree Murder – which is the premeditated killing of a person or fetus. Examples
include intentional poisoning, hiring someone to murder another, or to cover up another
crime.
  Second Degree Murder – murder that is unintentional, but is the direct result of an
unlawful activity. This could be the result of committing a misdemeanor or felony
offense.
 Felon Murder – is similar to second degree murder, only in these instances the
defendant was engaging in an unlawful activity that was a felony, such as a burglary, a
robbery or other similar crimes
 Vehicular Manslaughter – a killing that took place because of reckless driving
 Voluntary Manslaughter – the intentional killing of another human being in the heat of
the moment. An example is a lover who discovers their partner has been cheating, and in
the heat of the moment, kills the partner or the other party in question.
 Involuntary Manslaughter – which is very similar to second degree murder

As seen in the types of homicides above, there are slight variations between the definitions, but
these defining factors will have a huge impact in conducting trials for murder and homicide.
Factors that affect charges for murder include:

 Whether the killing was premeditated

 Whether the killing was intentional
 Whether the killing was a result of negligence

Murder carries some of the most severe penalties in categories of crimes, including the death
penalty. In the penal codes of California for example, punishments range from 25 years to life,
imprisonment without parole, and in other states – capital punishment. This is why many lawyers
will be a the forefront of homicidal cases. There are many legal defenses for murder, with one of
the most prominent being self-defense. Another popular defense strategy is pleading insanity,
which will be discussed in another posting.

Offender, victim and offence characteristics

This section will include brief consideration of the socio-demographic characteristics of those
who become involved in homicide as well as some details of the homicide event.

Offenders and victims

Gender and Age

One of the most significant ‘facts’ about homicide is that it is dominated by males or, to be more
precise, young men. Over 90 per cent of offenders are male, over 70 per cent of victims are male
and, as illustrated in Table 12.3, 60 per cent of homicides over the last decade were male-on-
male. In stark contrast, only 3 per cent of homicides occur among females. Forty-four per cent of
all homicides in England and Wales between 1998 and 2008 (for which age and gender of
suspect are known) were committed by young males aged less than 30.

Both gender and age also have a considerable impact upon the likelihood of falling victim to
homicide. For example, males are three to four times more likely to fall victim to homicide than
females and comprise 70–80 per cent of the victims in an average year. Somewhat peculiar to
homicide, the age group most at risk are infants under one year old (at 36 per million
population). This group are followed by young adults aged 16–29 (at 24 per million population).

Ethnicity

It is now well established that black and Asian people are over-represented as both victims and
offenders of homicide. For example, for the period 2003– 5, black people were 5.5 times more
likely to fall victim to homicide than whites and Asian people were 1.8 times more likely than
white people to become victims of a homicide. Black individuals comprise 14 per cent of
homicide victims despite them comprising less than 3 per cent of the population of England and
Wales (Census 2001). Whites make up over 90 per cent of the population but only 73 per cent of
homicide victims. Homicides involving a black victim exhibit some distinct qualities.

For example, during the last decade (1998–2008) almost a third of black victims were shot,
compared to 5 per cent of white victims, 9 per cent of Asians and 7 per cent of other ethnic
groups. Blacks are also more likely than other ethnic groups to be killed with a sharp instrument
(40 per cent of black victims compared to around a third of all other groups). Finally, it is more
common for homicides involving black victims to remain unsolved (28 per cent) in comparison
with white or Asian victims (11 per cent).

Finally, non-white people are over-represented as homicide offenders, with blacks comprising 12
per cent of offenders, Asians 7 per cent and other nonwhite groups 3 per cent. More than one-
fifth (21 per cent) of all homicide suspects between 1998 and 2008 were non-white males. We
will explore later in the chapter the possible reasons for the over-representation of ethnic
minority groups in homicide.

Social class and occupation

There is little reliable information in the UK regarding the social class and employment status of
offenders and victims of homicide. What is clear from the limited data available on the Homicide
Index is that at least 28 per cent of victims of homicide over the last decade were unemployed at
the time of their death (this figure excludes students and retired individuals) and a quarter were
in employment. The employment status of a quarter of victims was unknown/not recorded and it
is likely that many if not most of these cases involved unemployed victims.

Dobash et al. (2002), in their Homicide in Britain study, discovered that almost 70 per cent of the
786 male offenders that they studied were usually unemployed and that most had left school
without qualifications. Overall, the available evidence indicates that homicide is dominated by
offenders from the lower classes and a significant number are unemployed at the time of the
offence. However, this finding is, in part, a reflection of the kinds of killings that are routinely
included in the statistics and those that are generally not.

Victim-offender relationship

Around a quarter of homicides occur among friends or social acquaintances, 16 per cent among
intimate partners/ex-partners and 15 per cent among strangers. Seven per cent involve the murder
of a son or daughter and a further 5 per cent involve the killing of another kind of family member
(e.g. an in-law or sibling. Business and criminal associates comprise a further 7 per cent.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, these patterns vary by gender. For example, of the 208 females killed in
England and Wales in 2007–8, 35 per cent were killed by a partner or ex-partner (compared to
just 6 per cent of male victims), 22 per cent by another family member (compared to just 11 per
cent of males) and only 13 per cent of female victims were killed by a stranger (compared to 36
per cent of male victims). Clearly, homicides involving females (as killer, victim or both) tend to
occur between intimates, whereas male-on-male homicides are more likely to involve strangers
or acquaintances. The basic patterns of victim–offender relationship have remained relatively
stable over the last decade with just two exceptions; the number of ‘no suspect’ cases has
increased over time (more than doubled in ten years from 7 per cent to 15 per cent) and
homicides among ‘partners/ex-partners’ have decreased from 20 per cent to 13 per cent.

The seeds of homicide: structural forces

Structural theorists have been concerned primarily to explain certain striking patterns to be found
in the social characteristics of offenders (and sometimes victims) of both violence in general and
homicide in particular. They try to unravel, for example, how and why certain factors or
conditions such as poverty, deprivation and inequality or social disorganization may explain
homicide patterns. Most recently, McCall et al. (2008) highlighted a number of contemporary
social and economic factors relevant to the sharp increase in US homicides (from the mid-1980s
to the early 1990s) followed by its equally dramatic decline – including, recession, illicit drug
market activity, incarceration rates and police presence.

Cultural influences

While structural theories focus upon the social conditions that can foster crime, cultural theorists
focus upon the ideas and values that particular groups hold and how these can generate
involvement in crime. For example, the ‘subculture of violence’ theory (Wolfgang and Ferracuti
1967) starts from the premise that homicide predominantly occurs among individuals from the
lowest socio-economic groups in society and that the lethal encounters in which they become
embroiled often arise from trivial incidents – such as minor insults or scuffles. These findings
can apparently be explained by the fact that the vast majority of these people share beliefs that
are conducive to the use of force and violence when insulted or challenged such an exaggerated
sense of honour, courage and manliness.

Both cultural and structural explanations suffer from the age-old problem of over-prediction.
Explanations of relative deprivation or poverty and homicide, for example, cannot account for
the fact that most people suffering from economic inequality do not engage in violence.

Approaches to Prevent homicide

Broadly speaking approaches to reduce or prevent homicide fall into one of the following
categories:
 1) Strategies to reduce the overall frequency of interpersonal violence (the assumption being
that a decrease in violence will automatically bring about a decrease in homicide).
Examples would include efforts to reduce domestic violence (see Robinson this volume)
or violence in the context of the night-time economy or, more broadly, programmes to
tackle poverty and social exclusion.
2) The identification of people, locations or situations with an exceptionally high risk of
serious violence/homicide in order to ‘target’ these for preventative interventions (the
basic assumption similar to that above, however, with the potential benefit of a greater
reduction in homicide through a more focused use of resources). Examples include ‘risk
factor’ research to identify infants most at risk of being killed by a parent or specialist
strategies to target gang-related shootings (such as Operation Trident in London).
3) The use of measures that reduce the likelihood that an assault will end lethally (the aim
being to reduce the degree of violence or its impact upon the victim without necessarily
aiming to reduce the overall numbers of violent incidents). Examples include the use of
toughened or plastic drinking vessels in pubs and clubs or improvements in the speed and
efficiency of emergency medical treatment for victims of serious violence.

5) GENOCIDE AND DEMOCIDE

Genocide

The U.N. Genocide Convention, passed on December 9, 1948, has defined genocide as "acts
committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group.

By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined
by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient
Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to
such words a tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide
does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by
mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of
different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups,
with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be
disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings,
religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal
security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Genocide, however, is a confused and confusing concept. It may or may not include government
murder, refer to wholly or partially eliminating some group, or involve psychological damage. If
it includes government murder, it may mean all such murder or just some. Boiling all this down,
genocide can have three different meanings.

One meaning is that defined by international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This makes genocide a punishable crime under
international law, and defines it as:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Democide

Democide is any murder by government--by officials acting under the authority of government.
That is, they act according to explicit or implicit government policy or with the implicit or
explicit approval of the highest officials. Such was the burying alive of Chinese civilians by
Japanese soldiers, the shooting of hostages by German soldiers, the starving to death of
Ukrainians by communist cadre, or the burning alive of Japanese civilians purposely fire-
bombed from the air by American airmen.
Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual
killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes
practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved
indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets
her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do
exhausting work throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her
gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault,
but our practical intention. It is murder. Similarly, for example, as the Soviet government
forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of thousands of them died at the
hands of criminals or guards or from heat, cold, and inadequate food and water. Although not
intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It
was democide.

The Roots of Group Violence

How do human beings develop the motivation to kill large numbers of people or even to
exterminate a whole group? How do the inhibitions that normally stop us from killing other
people decline? Understanding the roots of genocide and mass killing requires us to look at
social conditions, culture, political systems, relationships between groups, individual and group
psychology, and the behavior of "bystanders."

Difficult Life Conditions as a Source of Group Violence

Intense life problems in a society, as a starting point for group violence, include severe economic
problems, great political conflict, rapid and substantial social change and their combinations. For
example, Germany faced tremendous life problems before Hitler came to power. In Rwanda, a
very poor, overpopulated country, preceding the genocide of the Tutsis and the massacres of
"moderate" Hutus in 1994, there was further increase in population, great increase in economic
problems, a civil war, and political conflict among the Hutus who ruled the country.

Difficult life conditions create social upheaval and frustrate fundamental human needs (Kelman,
1990). Especially important are the following needs: for physical and material security, including
the belief that one will be able to feed oneself and one's family; for defense of one's identity or
self-concept, including one's values and ways of life; for a feeling of effectiveness and control
over important events that affect oneself; for a comprehension of reality, especially as social
disorganization and change make people's world views ineffective in understanding the world
and their place in it; for connection to and support by other people, especially in difficult times
when connection is disrupted by people focusing on their own needs (Staub, 1996b).

Psychological Responses

In response to difficult life conditions, people often scapegoat a particular group, blaming the
group for life problems. They adopt new ideologies, conceptions or visions of how to organize
society or the world. People need positive visions, especially in difficult times, but the ideologies
they adopt are often destructive, in that they identify "enemies" who supposedly stand in the way
of the ideology's fulfillment. Many authors suggest that scapegoating and destructive ideologies
are created by leaders in an effort to gain followers or solidify their influence over followers.

Another theory, however, is that when people cannot find ways to fulfill their basic needs
constructively, they act to fulfill them in destructive ways, such as turning to and even seeking
leaders who initiate or encourage scapegoating and offer destructive ideologies.

By scapegoating others, people come to feel better about themselves and their group: The
difficulties they face are not their fault. By adopting destructive ideologies, they adopt a new
understanding of what reality is and should be. The Nazi ideology told Germans that while
others, especially Jews, are inferior, they themselves are superior people and have a right to more
"living space," to the territories of other people. The ideology of Cambodia's communists, the
Khmer Rouge, proclaimed total social equality, identifying those who previously had power and
educated people in general as enemies unable to contribute to an equal society. Thus, some must
be destroyed to create a better world for "all." Both scapegoating and ideology strengthen
identity and connect people to others who join them in working for a shared cause against a
targeted group. Both create hope.

The Evolution of Destructiveness

Genocide does not directly result from turning against others. Its motivation and psychological
possibility evolve gradually. In most instances, there is a progression of actions and a
psychological evolution along a continuum of destruction. Sometimes the evolution starts long
before those who commit genocide appear on the scene. For example, long before the genocide
in Turkey in 1915 to 1916, the Armenians were discriminated against as a subject people and
suffered repeated attacks. In one period during the late nineteenth century, at least 200,000
Armenians were killed.

Both research with individuals (Buss, 1966; Goldstein et al., 1975) and my analysis of group
violence (Staub, 1989) indicate that people learn by doing. Engaging in harmful acts changes
individual perpetrators, bystanders, societal norms and institutions, and the entire culture. Such
changes not only make possible but also often encourage increasingly harmful acts.

Cultural/Societal Characteristics

A number of cultural/societal characteristics predispose a group to respond to difficult life

conditions by thoughts and actions that lead to violence. Most societies possess these
characteristics to some degree; they become dangerous, however, when they are present in
combination and to a substantial degree.

Differentiating between "us" and "them," and devaluing "them," are essential, central roots of
people turning against others. Such devaluation often becomes part of a culture and societal
institutions. Cultural devaluation evolves because it serves a number of functions, like
strengthening identity by elevating one's group over another or justifying the lesser status or
rights of some group. There was a history of devaluation of Jews by Germans; of Tutsis by
Hutus; and of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims by one another. There was a rift, suspicion and
antagonism in Cambodia between the ruling classes and wealthier people living in the cities and
the peasants working the land in the countryside.

A monolithic society, in contrast to a pluralistic society, is another important predisposing

characteristic. In a monolithic society, the range of values and beliefs and the freedom to express
them are limited-either by the political system or by the nature of the culture. In such a society, it
is less likely that members of the population will speak out against policies and practices that
inflict harm on some group. In a pluralistic society, by contrast, many voices intermingle in the
public domain. The public dialogue makes scapegoating, the widespread adoption of destructive
ideologies, and progression along a continuum of destruction less likely.
A strong respect for and obedience to authority is another predisposing cultural characteristic.
For example, long before Hider came to power Germans were regarded as extremely respectful
of and obedient to authority (Girard, 1980). In societies that are strongly oriented to authority,
people will be more affected by difficult life conditions, as their leaders and society fail to
protect them. They will also be less likely to speak out as leaders move the society along the
continuum of destruction.

Finally, unhealed group trauma can be a source of collective violence. Trauma creates insecurity
and mistrust. Members of victimized groups will see the world as a dangerous place. During
periods of conflict, they will tend to focus on their own vulnerability and needs, making it
difficult for them to consider the needs of others. Individuals and groups that have experienced
great suffering, especially violence at the hand of others, are more likely to respond to a renewed
threat with violence, which they will view as defensive aggression.

However, it is far from inevitable that survivors of group violence will become perpetrators.
Many individual survivors devote themselves to the service of other human beings (Valent,
1998). Most likely, these are people who have experienced genuine human connections to others
or have had protective or healing experiences and want to make sure that others won't suffer as
they have.

Preventing Collective Violence

Even when there is no imminent danger of intense violence, instigating conditions and culture
may make future collective violence probable. In such instances, prevention is extremely
important. The role of outsiders, of bystanders, of "third parties" is crucial here as well (Staub,
1996c).

A number of organizations, like Peace workers and Peace Brigade International, send foreign
volunteers into countries where the government or the military appears ready to perpetrate
violence against some group. Usually, perpetrators do not want the world to know about their
violence and do not want other countries involved. As a result, the simple presence of foreign
witnesses can sometimes stop violence at demonstrations or against individuals whom the
perpetrators consider undesirable. For example, in the fall of 1997, a coalition between Peace
workers and a new youth-led human rights organization, Global Youth connect, sent American
college students to be present at student demonstrations in Kosovo. No violence occurred at
these demonstrations.

6) TERRORISM

Introduction

Acts of terrorism, whether bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, or other actions, are rooted in
violent behavior. As observed by McCue (2005), “In many ways terrorism is violence with a
larger agenda.” Yet in contrast to most violent offenders, terrorists use violence to support the
attainment of political, moral, or social goals. Terrorism has become a considerable and constant
threat in today’s world. Largescale attacks such as 9/11, the Madrid train bombings, and the
London subway bombings, have demonstrated the increasing willingness of terrorists, mainly
Islamic extremists, to engage in indiscriminate largescale destruction and murder. Since 1968,
19,960 terrorist incidents have taken place worldwide, resulting in 66,757 injuries and 22,668
deaths. Over this period, the number of international terrorist incidents has increased nearly 15-
fold from 132 incidents in 1968 to 1,932 in 2004.

Terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and
thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political
organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by
revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

Defining Terrorism

When discussing terrorism, one of the initial stumbling blocks is often the definitional
complexities that arise when trying to explain exactly what terrorism refers to. Although
terrorism is a term that is used widely in modern vocabulary, there has been and continues to be
much debate over how it should be defined. Schmid (1983) examined more than 100 existing
definitions of terrorism and dedicated more than 100 pages to the discussion, but was still unable
to make any reasonable progress toward a mutually acceptable definition. Interestingly, in his
review he found that “violence” was by far the most common word used to define the concept of
terrorism.

Jenkins (1980) described it as a “weapons-system” that can be used by a range of different

actors, including governments, political factions, criminal gangs, and religious movements or
cults.

Hoffman (1998) believes that “the terrorist is fundamentally a violent intellectual, prepared to
use and indeed committed to using force in the attainment of his goals.” He goes on to
characterize terrorism as (a) political in aims and motives; (b) designed to have more widespread
psychological effects beyond the immediate victims or targets; (c) carried out by a subnational
group or nonstate entity; and (d) conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of
command or cell structure.

Despite the rather extensive quantity and variety of the definitions of terrorism, models of
terrorist behavior tend to fall into one of two paradigms: (1) the rational/strategic paradigm,
which views terrorist behavior as a deliberate, calculated choice made by an organization as part
of its overall strategy and (2) the psychological paradigm, which argues that individuals who are
drawn to and ultimately join terrorist organizations and commit violent acts are in some way
psychologically damaged. Although these two schools of thought remain dominant within the
field, it is significant to note that, as the study of terrorism has expanded, most scholars
acknowledge that multiple forces (i.e., social, psychological, political, economic, and cultural)
contribute to an individual’s decision to join a terrorist organization and to participate in the
perpetration of terrorist acts.

The term “terrorism” is fairly generic and is used by the media and others to refer to a
tremendously wide range of acts, including assassinations, the distribution of chemicals such as
anthrax through the mail, and insurgency efforts in countries such as Iraq. It was first coined in
the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against
their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of
Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine. Although terrorism in this usage implies an
act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been
applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an
effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime. Terrorism is not legally defined in all
jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements.

Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct
victims but among a wide audience.The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy the public’s
sense of security in the places most familiar to them. Major targets sometimes also include
buildings or other locations that are important economic or political symbols, such as embassies
or military installations. The hope of the terrorist is that the sense of terror these acts engender
will induce the population to pressure political leaders toward a specific political end.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines both international and domestic
terrorism as involving “violent, criminal acts.” The element of criminality, however, is
problematic, because it does not distinguish among different political and legal systems and thus
cannot account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate. A
frequently mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, which
committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid government but commanded broad
sympathy throughout the world. Another example is the Resistance movement against
the Nazi occupation of France during World War II.

Characterizing Terrorism and Violence

Conceptually a greater understanding is needed of the congruence, or lack thereof, between

terrorism and violent crime. Terrorists and organized criminal networks both use violence to
achieve their goals, yet these groups have normally been seen as distinct threats. Yet, in recent
years there is increasing evidence that criminal networks and terrorist organizations are working
together with increasing regularity. As the threat of terrorism increases and as we continue to
dedicate more resources toward preventing future attacks, it makes sense that we should benefit
from our understanding of violent crime. A greater appreciation for the theoretical connections
(and disconnections) between terrorism and “ordinary” violence could lead to the transfer of
effective strategies used for analyzing and preventing violent crime (LaFree & Dugan, 2004).
For instance, by identifying the areas of overlap, we can use advancements in the behavioral
analysis of violent crime to improve our understanding and prediction of terrorist events.

Terrorists Have Different Motivations for Using Violence

One of the key distinctions between terrorists and their criminal counterparts is motivation.
Although terrorists engage in specific violent acts (e.g., homicide, assault, kidnapping), they are
driven by political or moralistic goals against what they often perceive is some “chronic”
grievance with a long history. Islamic fundamentalists, such as Osama bin Laden and his
followers, are not motivated to attack America only because of recent acts committed by U.S.
governments but by what they perceive are thousands of years of social injustice perpetuated by
the West. In this sense, terrorists are altruistic and view their crimes as serving the greater good
and supporting their constituency (Hoffman, 1998). Terrorists are highly motivated and loyal to a
particular cause, and their actions have symbolic value and are meant to send a message to a
wider audience (Paletz & Schmid, 1992). The immediate targets of violence, who are often
innocent victims, are distinct from the targets of influence, which can represent an entire segment
of society or the government decision makers representing them. Unlike most criminals,
terrorists often want their actions to be made public and to attach their group’s identity to these
crimes, as demonstrated by the recent use and distribution of videos of beheadings by a variety
of Islamic groups. When captured and prosecuted, terrorists frequently seek to turn their trials
into political theater.

In contrast to terrorists, who are motivated by ideology, religion, or a political cause, the typical
offender engages in violent crime for personal gain (Douglas et al., 1992). For most offenders,
violence is simply a method used for obtaining something desired by the individual, such as
financial reward, drugs, revenge, or power. Criminal drug organizations use violence as a
method of enforcement and to protect their business interests. An armed robber uses violence to
accomplish the means of obtaining something of value, such as money or clothing, from a
specific victim. With some notable exceptions, such as victims of hate crimes including racially
motivated homicide and assassinations perhaps, the immediate victim of violence is not symbolic
of a larger political or social agenda.

Types of Terrorism

You will need to be familiar with the five types of terrorism.

 State-Sponsored terrorism, which consists of terrorist acts on a state or government by

a state or government.
 Dissent terrorism, which are terrorist groups which have rebelled against their
government.
 Terrorists and the Left and Right, which are groups rooted in political ideology.
 Religious terrorism, which are terrorist groups which are extremely religiously
motivated and
 Criminal Terrorism, which are terrorists acts used to aid in crime and criminal profit.

One popular typology identifies three broad classes of terrorism: revolutionary, subrevolutionary,
and establishment. Although this typology has been criticized as inexhaustive, it provides a
useful framework for understanding and evaluating terrorist activities.

Revolutionary terrorism is arguably the most common form. Practitioners of this type of
terrorism seek the complete abolition of a political system and its replacement with new
structures. Modern instances of such activity include campaigns by the Italian Red Brigades, the
German Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Gang), the Basque separatist group ETA, the
Peruvian Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), and ISIL (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant;
also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria [ISIS]).

Subrevolutionary terrorism is rather less common. It is used not to overthrow an existing

regime but to modify the existing sociopolitical structure. Since this modification is often
accomplished through the threat of deposing the existing regime, subrevolutionary groups are
somewhat more difficult to identify. An example can be seen in the ANC and its campaign to
end apartheid in South Africa.
Establishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by
governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government’s
citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups. This
type of terrorism is very common but difficult to identify, mainly because the state’s support is
always clandestine. The Soviet Union and its allies allegedly engaged in widespread support of
international terrorism during the Cold War; in the 1980s the United States supported rebel
groups in Africa that allegedly engaged in acts of terrorism, such as UNITA (the National Union
for the Total Independence of Angola); and various Muslim countries (e.g., Iran and Syria)
purportedly provided logistical and financial aid to Islamic revolutionary groups engaged in
campaigns against Israel, the United States, and some Muslim countries in the late 20th and early
21st centuries.

Causes of Terrorism

Discussions about the causes of terrorism are controversial, with many people viewing the focus
on underlying causes, motivation and grievance as implicit with justifying violence. A
dispassionate outlook is required to understand the driving forces and devise effective long-term
counter measures.

However, no comprehensive review of why some countries experience terrorism more than
others, exist. Explanations are varied and disagreements occur. For example, psycho-
pathological explanations for terrorism tend to divest terrorism of socio-economic and political
motivations. While researchers agree that one of the characteristics of a terrorist is normality,
psycho-pathological factors amongst group leadership can play a significant role. Other theories
over the causes of terrorism include:

 Perceptions of deprivation and inequality, especially amongst culturally defined groups.

This can lead to civil violence, of which terrorism may be a part. Terrorism represents
social control from below, as attacks are directed upon targets symbolizing central
government or a superior community.
  A lack of political legitimacy and continuity, as well as a lack of integration for the
political fringes, encourages ideological terrorism. The potential is exacerbated by
ethnic diversity.

 Terrorism in one country can spillover into neighboring areas. Mass media can influence
the patterns of terrorism by enhancing agenda setting, increasing lethality and
expanding the transnational character.

 A skewed gender balance and high proportion of unmarried males increases the
association with intra-societal violence and instability. Political and criminally motivated
violence is largely the work of young unmarried men.

 Windows of opportunity when terrorist violence can serve to influence opinion and
resource. In the case of peace agreements, radical members of coalition groups resume
and escalate hostilities to undermine confidence and prevent compromise, thus regaining
the initiative and avoiding marginalization.

 Hegemony in the international system by one or two actors will cause a high level of
transnational anti-systematic terrorism as a war by proxy develops. Therefore, terrorism
can represent a backlash against globalization and modernization.