Abstract Studies of homicide offenders that engage in repeat, non-serial homicide offending are scarce and most studies lack comprehensive criminal career data that include convictions for 1st degree murder. Keywords Homicide.
Download here. Murder In America A History History Crime Criminal Jus. Murder in America: A History [Roger Lane] on serious study of the history of criminal. 1Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century. One is an annual report by the FBI of serious crimes reported to total in recent years, its murder rate in – about 21 murders and To complete the subscription process, please click the link in the email we just sent you.
Recommended articles Citing articles 0. Published by Elsevier B. But when Axton Betz-Hamilton got to college, she realized that her identity had It was just before 2am on December 31, Edwards followed the SUV and ran the license plate number. When his computer indicated that In , Kathleen Peterson was found dead in a pool of her own blood. In the Moss Side case, the prosecution argued that each defendant had acted in some way to contribute to the fatal attack — by beating up Hafidah before he was stabbed, by helping to chase him down or by offering implicit support through their presence.
According to the new standard set by the Jogee decision, to be found guilty, a secondary defendant must share the same intention as the principal defendant. The prosecution in the Moss Side case pointed to the presence of a hammer during the chase, and the possibility that a defendant other than Cantrill might have also had a knife, to suggest that the defendants must have foreseen that weapons would be used, fatally.
If the Moss Side defendants could foresee the use of a deadly weapon and still continued the chase, the prosecution argued, they must have intended it. This seems to make the Jogee decision much more equivocal than many activists had first hoped. Hafidah was not struck with the hammer, nor was he stabbed by anyone other than Cantrill.
If the others were carrying lethal weapons and intended to use them against Hafidah, why did they not do so? Some of the defendants say they only ran after the commotion to see what happened, or, like the year-old Cordell Austin — the only defendant to be acquitted — to look out for the safety of younger boys. Those who appeared, in CCTV footage, to be near the front of the chase as it crossed Princess Road said they had disengaged before the fight began. The fight itself was not caught on camera.
Nobody admitted to having participated in the attack itself, perhaps afraid of incriminating themselves, or of being forced to describe the actions of others. Some of the defendants knew Hafidah, and regarded him with a mixture of fear and hostility. Local youth workers knew him, and had had concerns about him — he was someone they wanted to protect, but they also knew he had been responsible for violence against others.
Some of the boys had been attacked or threatened by him in the past, or knew of others who had been. Some, though not all, likely bore a grudge against him. In the five or so minutes before the chase began, the group were hanging around in a park by Westwood Street, chatting and listening to music. Hafidah was hiding in the grounds of a nearby derelict building. According to the courtroom testimony of several defendants, Hafidah began throwing stones at one of their cars.
His judgment impaired by alcohol — he was around 1. In this reading, the chase that ensued was spontaneous, with each participant having a different understanding of what was going on, and what would happen if Hafidah was caught. I think one had the intention to stab him. But the claim that the defendants were members of a gang helped prosecutors argue that they shared the same joint purpose, no matter how peripheral their conduct was to the act of killing Hafidah.
Even the most trivial facts became evidence of this gang intention, including some that might have also suggested a lack of coordination. Rather than a spontaneous fight taken to another level by one angry young man, in the prosecution story, each defendant had played his role in the gang violence. Hafidah sustained dozens of injuries from the many blows he received on Moss Lane East, but the pathologist judged that none of these contributed to his death. After a woman shouted at the attackers to stop, only Devonte Cantrill continued to attack Hafidah.
He had been the last to arrive at the scene on Moss Lane East. He was the only attacker to cover his face, to wear gloves, and to strike Hafidah with a weapon. According to one witness, he seemed to be in a state of fury. Cantrill had had some difficult times in his life, and it was not the first time he had been violent.
July There, they would wait until it was time for them to emerge and rule what was left of the world. The second wound occurred as Jesse was cleaning one of his revolvers. Manson was considered so thoroughly institutionalized by authorities that upon his release from a California prison, he asked the warden if he could stay. They drew up a new state constitution in that forbade slavery.
He had a previous conviction for head-butting a PCSO, for which he received a custodial sentence. While inside, he attacked a prison officer. He also told them that once, when he was in Deerbolt young offender institution, he went to the doctor for help with his mental health. I spoke to her and then two days, three days, I got shipped out. T he rhetorical association of minority — especially black — youth, with gangs and violence is a persistent feature of the British criminal justice system.
And alleged gang rivalry is a frequent element in joint enterprise prosecutions. Clarke and Williams found that Although young black people are more likely to be suspected by the police of being gang members, they commit a proportionally small amount of violence. To Clarke, the disparity between the policing priorities and the reality of offending is striking. The evidence of gang membership that prosecutors bring to bear in joint enterprise trials is often of questionable merit, according to Clarke and Williams.
The boys and their families reject this. The 13 defendants were not a particularly close group, but it was easy to find links between them.
Two of the other boys played football together, others went to the same youth club, or were neighbours. For Crompton, these links were enough to suspect all the defendants of being gang members.
Months later, during police interviews in November , several defendants were still being asked about alleged associations with that gang. It was hard to avoid the conclusion that the gang theory might have been formulated before police knew which gang to attribute the violence to. Similarly, Crompton doubted that you could map the territory allegedly controlled by Active Only — a direct contradiction of what a police expert witness said at the trial.
There is a striking discrepancy between the more complex picture admitted privately by the senior police officer who led the investigation, and the certainty with which the prosecution presented the case in court. This imposed order creates the narrative clarity that enables joint enterprise convictions. For the family members, this practice represents bad faith. I n responding to the challenges of youth violence, some seem more interested in getting convictions than securing justice.