MR. MARK FLEISHER (Assistant District Attorney in the Career Criminal. Program of the Manhattan District Attorney's office): Professor Zahn, you. Bull.
530
A DISCUSSION OF PROFESSOR COLIN LOFTIN'S PAPER HOMICIDE RELATED TO CRIMES OTHER THAN DRUG TRAFFIC* MARGARET A. ZAHN, PH.D. Associate Professor of Sociology Temple University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
D R. Loftin suggests, quite correctly, that Supplementary Homicide Reports should be used cautiously because there are, as he points out, specific problems with their classification procedures. He demonstrates their unreliability, further, by comparing Baltimore's police narratives with these reports. While the comparisons are instructive, they also should be viewed with caution, as should any study based on a single city at a single point in time. This becomes especially clear when comparing the extent and pattern of felony murder which Loftin finds in Baltimore with that found in eight American cities in a study we recently completed for the National Institute of Justice. I In that study two cities from each of four regions in the United States were selected for analysis. One of the cities in the region represented the "typical" pattern of homicide for that region and the other represented a city which differed from the typical pattern. The cities studied included Philadelphia and Newark in the Northeast, Chicago and St. Louis in the Midwest, Memphis and Dallas in the South, and Oakland and one city pseudonamed "Ashton" in the west. The pseudoname was used because of the police chief's requirement of anonymity. Records on homicide cases for 1978 in each of the cities were collected from police and medical examiners' offices. Various types of homicide were then examined, including family, acquaintances and stranger homicides. The table shows the percent of felony-associated homicides in the eight cities. While there is some city variation, by and large one in four homicides is felony related. This percent is much lower than the 41 % found by Professor Loftin in Baltimore. *Presented as part of a Symposium on Homicide: The Public Health Perspective held by the Committee on Public Health of the New York Academy of Medicine October 3 and 4, 1985, and made possible by a generous grant from the Ittleson Foundation.
Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med.
531 PAPER DISCUSSION OF LOFTIN'S PAPER531
DISCUSSION
U2
00
,z
.
ON ON
N
0
O
o o
O
C)
C)
z Q
0
ON
IN
O
0
-
Cu
- O00 NO
0
z
01:
F-
C)
0
0Z le
F-
L.
C4)
N
FN
0
el
e'i
NO
ON
IfN
NO
-
NO
4
00
,It O
tn
N
N
O O
b' O
e~
00
0
z C)
Lz. -
0.-
C)
O
CN 00
f
Q
O O
C)
C)
_ NO (N
oo
O~
0
C) 0
6-
i S" ON N & C)~
-
-
0
-
0
-
0
00
.0 Cu
F-
0eN
00 N
"D tn (C)~ n
.
O O. eN
0 Cu0 O
ooC)(-
L.
0
b O
0
ti.0
t z z
*)
I
.
0:3 q6
c04
Vol. 62, No. 5, June 1986
z!~ C( 0
~
z2
I-
(S'
>
0
z
0
F-
532 532
M.A. ZAHN
The same study also showed that, in terms of victim-offender relationship, 54% of the felony connected murders were in fact between strangers. Another 19% were in relationships where the relationship between the victim and offender remained unknown. Since it is generally assumed that the police are more likely to solve cases in which a family member or friend is involved, it is likely that a large percentage of these with unknown relationships are also homicides between strangers. In general, it is clear that in the eight cities the percentage of felony murder among strangers was much higher and not nearly as many between friends and acquaintances as was found by Professor Loftin in Baltimore. In comparing data from the eight cities with that of Baltimore, then, we see some real differences. The question is why. One possible reason is that Baltimore is just different and for unknown reasons is unlike the eight cities studied. A second possibility is that the year of study made a difference. The eight cities were studied in 1978, whereas Professor Loftin studied Baltimore in 1983. It is conceivable that there has been enough shift in that period to account for the differences. A third explanation is that records are kept differently, are influenced by different jurisdictional procedures and that the resulting data reflect this. That possibility became very clear as we collected data in different cities. For example, the extensiveness of homicide reports varies from city to city. In Philadelphia, for example, there were often 100 pages of typed copy in a case record, with witnesses' statements from all people who saw the event. In other cities, on the other hand, a record contained only "body found in alley," as information on a particular case. When we compare extensive with much slimmer data files, clearly we may come out with differences in findings, especially in terms of the classification of the circumstances surrounding the murder. Differences in records throughout the country may be partially accounted for by differences in departmental and jurisdictional policies. For example, in Philadelphia a detective is provided one in every 10 working days to write up records. In Newark detectives are not given that time. As expected, this departmental policy is reflected in differing amounts of information in records. Furthermore, the kinds of information contained may reflect departmental or jurisdictional policies. In Chicago a lawyer must be present at interviews of witnesses to a homicide. If a lawyer is not present, interviews with witnesses may not be done, or at least are not included in the records that researchers would have available to them regarding a homicide. Clearly, Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med.
DISCUSSION OF LOFTIN'S PAPER DISCUSSION OF
LOFTIN'S
533
533
these records differ from those in other jurisdictions. They reflect legal, detective and departmental policies which differ in different jurisdictions. In sum, the initial point that Professor Loftin raises about records is important. As he suggests, the classification of cases involves a logical issue. It also involves, however, problems that emerge because of policies affecting record keeping and policies affecting how departments operate. All of these factors affect the kinds of data we collect. Part of the reason for the difference between Baltimore and the other cities, then, may have something to do with record keeping, although it is highly unlikely that this totally explains such differences. Professor Loftin, in the second part of his paper, discusses three key variables related to robbery murder: poverty, juvenile arrest records and guns. He has made a major contribution in isolating the important variables that help predict when a robbery murder will occur. There are, however, some alternative possibilities that need to be considered. In terms of alternative possibilities, it must be determined if the variables, as measured, are contaminated by other independent variables. We must also examine other important variables that may have been ignored and other linkages between the three variables that may exist. In terms of measurement, Loftin suggests that infant mortality be used as a measure of poverty. It certainly does have a high association with it. There may, however, be other confounding variables that affect both infant mortality and the homicide rate. Two possibilities that might influence both infant mortality and the homicide rate are low levels of education and drug and alcohol use. Low levels of education may lead to less information regarding nutrition, which then leads to high infant mortality. Inferior education may also lead to fewer verbal skills; fewer verbal skills may mean less ability to solve conflicts without physical means, which may result in higher homicide rates among those with low education. Low levels of education, then, may in fact contribute to both infant mortality and the homicide rate independently. A second possibility involves drugs and alcohol. Drugs and alcohol used by pregnant women increase infant mortality. Drug and alcohol use may also exacerbate conflicts and lead to homicide. The connection between infant mortality, a proxy for poverty, and the homicide rate, then, may be spurious given the potential effects of drug and alcohol use on each. In sum, while Professor Loftin has suggested a very important measure of poverty and has contributed to the evidence regarding the relationship of Vol. 62, No. 5, June 1986
534 534
M.A. ZAHN
poverty and homicide, it would be useful to consider the potential interactive effects with other variables such as level of education and drugs and alcohol usage. Furthermore, possible linkages between his three variables, i.e., between poverty, gun use and arrests early in a juvenile career might profitably be examined. It may be, for example, that poverty leads to early gun use because guns are more available and acceptable to youths in poor urban neighborhoods. Further, it is conceivable that youths with guns get arrested earlier than those without. In other words, poverty may lead to a certain kind of gun ownership which may lead to certain kinds of arrests. The important thing is that the three variables and their interactions need to be more thoroughly examined. We must also look at other variables which, in addition to the three important ones that Professor Loftin has isolated, may have been overlooked in this particular attempt to explain robbery murder. The male sex role, urban density and racial segregation and lack of effective criminal justice and legal prosecution may bear fruitful investigations. Criminological literature is replete with data showing that males commit robbery and males, by and large, also commit murder, especially felony murder. Yet females are also poor and live in densely packed urban areas. Rather than ignore this fact, we should extend our examinations and determine why this is so. In addition to socialization differences between males and females, we need to look at what it is that young black females do versus young black males, i.e., differences in their structural role position as teenagers. Young black females may have, by virtue of involvement in young child bearing and rearing, a socially meaningful role at a younger age than the young black male does. It may be the interaction between prior socialization and their current position that helps to determine the involvement in crime by males and the lack of that by females. In any event, additional study should be done regarding the persistent differences in robbery/murder rates in terms of sex. Second, the percent of urbanization has been consistently associated with the amount of robbery that exists. We need to examine what it is about urban areas that drives the robbery rate and the attached murder/robbery rate upwards. Expanded work on the impacts of density and racial segregation needs to be done,with measures of density including not only such objective indicators as number of persons per room, but also such subjective indicators as the perception of crowding. Whether the urban area contributes to high robbery rates because of diversity of populations also warrants examination. Perhaps the diversity of popuBull. N.Y. Acad. Med.
DISCUSSION OF LOFTIN'S PAPER
535
535
lations reduces empathy with victims which may facilitate predatory crime. Moreover, the impact of perceptions of economic disparity needs to be examined. It is perhaps the case that there is more perceived economic disparity in urban areas and that when people perceive economic disparity, they may feel more entitled to take from others because of this perception. The point is that degree of urbanization is associated with robbery. Why it is and what it is about urbanization that is important needs to be elaborated. Finally, we need to look at criminal justice response systems as they impact on increases in robbery and robbery murder. How lack of effective criminal justice detection and legal prosecution may affect the robbery homicide rate is suggested by the following data on clearance rates. The clearance rate for homicide has been declining. In 1980 there were 23,044 homicides. The clearance rate was 72%. In other words, approximately 16,592 people were arrested for that crime.2 Of that number, 75% were convicted. In one year, then, 10,600 homicides did not result in a convicted offender. These offenders remain in society. I would suggest, as Loftin's Blatimore data do, and as a study by Greenwood also does, that robbery-related homicides are less likely to be cleared by arrest.3 Consequently, such offenders are more likely to be on the street. A Rand Corporation study found that the average robber robs about three times a year and that 10% rob more than 30 times a year.4 In sum, we have a population that commits repeated robberies, and we have a criminal justice system that is unable to detect or to prosecute many of these people. Over time this inflates the amount of robbery and robbery murder that occurs. In sum, a number of important variables are to be looked at in explaining robbery and robbery homicide. Professor Loftin's paper has made a substantial contribution in determining the important ones for us. Others such as sex roles, perception of economic disparity and criminal justice system responses might also be added to a model explaining robbery murder. In conclusion, we must examine not only why robbery-homicide exists but, more basically, why robbery exists and what fuels the increase. Conferences such as this will hopefully establish new interdisciplinary communication and will help to answer those questions more fruitfully.
Questions and Answers DR. LAWRENCE E. HINKLE, JR.: As one who has been involved in medical epidemiology for some time, I want to offer some words of sympathy and encouragement to you on what you have been doing. I can see you have had access to probably more sophisticated epidemiology than we people in Vol. 62, No. 5, June 1986
536
M.A. ZAHN
M.A. 536
ZAHN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mathematics. Nevertheless, I would like to say a little bit about records out of our experience that may give you some comfort. When we started to examine, for example, the incidence and prevalence of such things as the ordinary myocardial infarction, heart attack, we found exactly what you did. The definitions are not clear, were not specified for everyone, the records got coded in different ways and tabulated in different ways. We had to go back and set up our tabulation forms very carefully. Then we found that we had to get groups together and train the coders how to code before we could overcome some of these difficulties. I am sure that you will do the same, and I think it will not be an insurmountable task for you because the numbers of people you have to deal with in police departments and cities is no greater than we have to deal with in the Health Department. I would agree, then, that there are, in fact, logical problems about the coding form and about the decisions and method of coding and that there are mechanical ways to overcome a lot of that. I would also agree with Dr. Zahn about difficulties in the original record. Anyone who has looked at hospital records finds that they vary to the same degree that you found in police records; and sometimes in reputable hospitals around the country one cannot really determine from the record what the person had. Indeed, sometimes one cannot determine from the autopsies. But that, I think, can be overcome to a degree in gathering data by specifying the completeness of the data that go into it so that, when incomplete data preclude complete identification, one can decide whether to include it in your analysis. Finally, a word of comfort. I am sure the homicide records are no worse than death certificates. Anyone who compares what is on a death certificate with what is in the hospital record and the autopsy record and physician's records finds that, even today, when they are much better than they used to be, about 20% of them are grossly erroneous. Nevertheless, this has not prevented us over the past century, not only from erecting a highly profitable insurance industry based upon death certificates but also from carrying on some very effective epidemiology, just as I see you do. DR. ZAHN: Thank you for the comfort. MR. MARK FLEISHER (Assistant District Attorney in the Career Criminal Program of the Manhattan District Attorney's office): Professor Zahn, you Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med.
DISCUSSION OF LOFTIN'S PAPER
DISUSSONOF
OFIN'
537
PPER53
speculated that the reason black females may not engage in robbery is that they are too busy raising their kids. Doesn't that ignore.... DR. ZAHN: That was speculation. You are right to use that term. MR. FLEISHER: In every society, every race, every country from time immemorial, crime, particularly violent crime, is committed disproportionately by males and not females. Hasn't it been pretty much accepted by now that genetically men are more aggressive, that there are certain aggressive traits that infants demonstrate before any socialization process can take place? That is one question. Another point I wanted to bring out-I suppose an obvious point-when you talk about economic disparity between perpetrator and victim. As someone who prosecutes robberies on a daily basis, I find that at least as often as not the victim is also poor and that economic disparity is really not the precipitating factor. The other thing I wanted to bring out with respect to a point Professor Loftin made, I disagree with your analysis about the situation where someone kills, for example, his girl friend and then as an afterthought decides to take the stereo. My legal analysis of that is that that is not a robbery at all. If, in fact, it is an afterthought, then, by hypothesis, the lethal force used was not used with intent to steal, but rather with intent to kill. If someone decides to steal after that, that becomes a nonforcible larceny. DR. LoFrIN: This is not a legal analysis. MR. FLEISHER: It is misleading to call it a robbery. DR. LoFrIN: I did not. I said there are two dimensions and we need to distinguish them. I agree with you completely. DR. ZAHN: Let me respond to the economic disparity issue first. In terms of economic disparity, I did not mean to imply that the robber necessarily steals from somebody wealthier than he is. By "perception of economic disparity," I meant that he can perceive that some have more than he does and he wants more. The choice of the victim is a separate issue; and certainly the target selected is frequently a readily available one, somebody who may be just as poor as he is. The target selection may not be so wise in terms of wanting to get money-and that is not the only reason people rob, as I am sure you are aware. Economic disparity is really the perception of economic disparity as it motivates people to rob. In response to your first comment, it is clear that the male/female difference persists through time and space. We mentioned yesterday that there Vol. 62, No. 5, June 1986
538
M.A. ZAHN
seems to be a social law about that. However, through time and space women are the ones who raise children, so that is not specific just to the population I mentioned. Perhaps we should look at young women's roles and how they curtail violence. I would not agree with you that differences in robbery and murder rates between males and females is totally a genetic thing. There is evidence, certainly, that males show more aggression than females do and do so fairly early on. However, there is a wide range of diversity in the male population just as there is in the female population. It seems to me that an important question to be asked is why does that diversity exist within those populations, and how is it that even if males are more aggressive, that some become triggered into criminal actions and others are not? There are some aggressive women too. Not all women are alike either. Why are many more women, even if some would be aggressive, curtailed from it? Certainly those differences are persistent. There may be some biological base to male-female differences in aggression; I do not know, however, what the exact nature of that biological base is. Furthermore, even when the exact base becomes known, I doubt that biological differences alone will completely explain differences in levels of violence between men and women.
REFERENCES 1. Riedel, M. and Zahn, M.A.: The Nature and Patterns of AmericanHomicide. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C., Govt. Print. Off., 1985. 2. Federal Bureau of Investigation: Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1980. Washington, D.C., Dept. of Justice, 1980.
3. Greenwood, P.W., Chaiken, J.M. and Petersilia, J.: The Criminal Investigation Process. Lexington, MA, Heath, 1977. 4. Greenwood, P.W.: The Violent Offender in the Criminal Justice System. In: Criminal Violence, Wolfgang, M.E. and Weiner, N.A., editors. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, 1982, pp. 32046.
Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med.
