homicide studies 2014 ganpat 221 40

8/10/2019 Homicide Studies 2014 Ganpat 221 40

1/21

http://hsx.sagepub.com/Homicide Studies

http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/1088767912466082

2014 18: 221 originally published online 8 November 2012Homicide StudiesSoenita M. Ganpat, Marieke Liem, Joanne van der Leun and Paul Nieuwbeerta

Versus Nonlethal ViolenceThe Influence of Criminal History on the Likelihood of Committing Lethal

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Homicide Research Working Group

can be found at:Homicide StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hsx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221.refs.htmlCitations:

at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014hsx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014hsx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/HRWGhttp://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hsx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221.refs.htmlhttp://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hsx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.icpsr.umich.edu/HRWGhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221http://hsx.sagepub.com/


2/21

Homicide Studies

2014, Vol. 18(2) 221240

2012 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1088767912466082

hsx.sagepub.com

466082HSX18210.1177/108876792466082HomicideStudiesGanpat et al.012

1Leiden University, Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden, The Netherlands2Harvard Kennedy School; Harvard University; Cambridge, MA

Corresponding Author:

Soenita M. Ganpat, Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University, Steenschuur 25, 2300

RA Leiden, The Netherlands.

Email: [email protected]

The Influence of Criminal

History on the Likelihood of

Committing Lethal VersusNonlethal Violence

Soenita M. Ganpat1, Marieke Liem2, Joanne van der

Leun1, and Paul Nieuwbeerta1

Abstract

This study focuses on the criminal history of serious violent offenders. Our aim isto determine: (a) to what extent the criminal history of lethally violent offendersdiffers from nonlethally violent offenders and (b) to what extent ones criminalhistory influences the likelihood that violence ends lethally. We use criminal recorddata of offenders convicted of lethal violence (i.e., homicide offenders, N= 2,049)and offenders convicted of nonlethal violence (i.e., attempted homicide offenders,

N= 3,387). The results suggest that nonlethally violent offenders have a more severecriminal history and that offenders criminal history can be influential in predictinglethal versus nonlethal outcomes.

Keywords

homicide, attempted homicide, homicide offenders, lethal violence, nonlethal violence,criminal history, criminal records, self-control theory

Introduction

Serious violence is an alarming and frequent phenomenon with severe consequences

in the short term as well as in the long term. Across the globe, it causes serious bodily

harm, material damage, and a plethora of health problems. Indirectly, it affects com-

munity feelings of safety in public and private space (Crespi & Rigazio-DiGili, 1996;

Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). In the Netherlands, more than

Article

at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014hsx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/


3/21

222 Homicide Studies18(2)

120,000 violent offenses are registered every year (Statistics Netherlands [CBS],

2010). These violent offenses vary from minor assault to more serious violence such

as serious assault, threats of violence, unlawful deprivation of liberty, sexual offenses,

and homicide. In its most extreme form, serious violence becomes lethal, resulting ina homicide. In the Netherlands, on average 223 persons each year die in a homicide

(Ganpat & Liem, 2012).

In the literature, there are several explanations for why serious violence ends

lethally or nonlethally. Individual characteristics of offenders and situational factors

are considered important determinants in explaining offending behavior. Carrying a

weapon and having used alcohol are examples of such situational factors (e.g., Phillips,

Matusko, & Tomasovic, 2007). Some emphasize differences in personal characteris-

tics of individuals that influence the likelihood of committing lethal violence (e.g.,

Gottfredson & Hirshi, 1990). Here, the general assumption is that individuals differ inthe tendency to commit crime: some individuals have personal characteristics making

them more prone to commit lethal violence compared with individuals without these

characteristics. Overall, these personal characteristics comprise biological factors

(e.g., gender, testosterone, and intelligence) and/or psychological factors (e.g., person-

ality traits such as antisocial characteristics and impulsivity). In particular, criminal

propensity, impulsivity, and self-control are found to be important (e.g., Gottfredson &

Hirschi, 1990; Moffit, 1993).

In the literature, a persons criminal history is generally seen as an important

manifestation of ones personal characteristics, and especially of criminal propen-sity, impulsivity, and self-control. Moreover, it is well-established that an individu-

als criminal history is a crucial determinant of future offending. Numerous empirical

studies have shown that criminal history is one of the strongest predictors for future

offending behavior (e.g., Blokland, 2005; Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998). Among

others, the following aspects of ones criminal history are especially relevant. First,

individuals who have committed a high number of prior crimes have a higher likeli-

hood of future general offending (e.g., Wartna, Tollenaar, & Blom, 2005). Second,

those with a violent criminal history have an even higher likelihood of future general

offending (e.g., Wartna et al., 2005). Third, individuals with a violent criminal his-tory have a higher likelihood of future violent offending (Farrington, 1989). And

fourth, individuals with an early onset of their criminal activities have a higher like-

lihood to be involved in more severe crimes (e.g., Berk, Sherman, Barnes, Kurtz, &

Ahlman, 2009; Moffit, 1993). Thus, studying ones criminal history seems to be

crucial due to its probable predictive power with regard to future offending

behavior.

The aim of this study is to examine the influence of criminal history on the likeli-

hood of committing lethal violence versus nonlethal violence. By comparing two

groups of offenders we intend to add to a better understanding of why certain seriousviolent offenses may or may not end lethally. In doing so, we focus on the criminal

history of offenders who committed serious violence. The following two research

http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/http://hsx.sagepub.com/


4/21

Ganpat et al. 223

questions will be addressed: (a) To what extent does the criminal history of offenders

convicted of lethal violence differ from offenders convicted of serious nonlethal vio-

lence?; (b) To what extent does the criminal history of offenders convicted of serious

violence influence the likelihood that violence ends lethally?Empirical studies have indicated that criminal history and lethal versus nonlethal

outcomes are linked. First, studies have empirically shown that a majority of homicide

offenders had a criminal history for all kinds of offenses prior to homicide (e.g., DeLisi

& Scherer, 2006; Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, Smith, & Medina-Ariza, 2007; Soothill,

Francis, Ackerley, & Fligelstone, 2002). Second, studies have shown that among

homicide offenders with a criminal history, a significant proportion had a violent crim-

inal history (e.g., Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, Smith, et al., 2007; Farrington, Loeber,

& Berg, 2012; Loeber, Lacourse, & Homish, 2005; Loeber, Pardini, et al., 2005;

Soothill et al., 2002) and sometimes had a prior conviction for serious violence(Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, Smith, et al., 2007). Third, certain specific types of seri-

ous crime in a persons criminal historysuch as blackmailing, kidnapping, or threats

to killincrease the likelihood to commit homicide (Farrington, et al., 2012; Loeber,

Pardini, et al., 2005; Soothill et al., 2002). Fourth, research that compared the criminal

records of lethally versus nonlethally violent offenders found similarities as well as

differences between the two groups.

In this study we are able to link a persons criminal history to a lethal versus non-

lethal outcome of violent incidents. To do so, we use two data sets. First, we use data

on all incidents with a lethal outcome committed in the Netherlands in the period1993-2009. This data set comprises incidents involving all offenders who have been

convicted for manslaughter or murder. In addition, we use a selected population of

incidents that ended in a serious nonlethal outcome registered in the period 2005-

2009. This data set consists of data on offenders who have been convicted for

attempted manslaughter or attempted murder. In doing so, we used an uncon-

ventional comparison group: in the literature, there seems to be a tradition to con-

sider attempted and completed homicide as one (and the same) group, often due to

the assumption that the distinction between attempted and completed homicide is

based on chance. In fact, according to DiCataldo and Everett (2008,p. 171) someresearchers claim that often the only difference between a completed homicide and

an uncompleted one is due to such random occurrences as the lethality of a gunshot

or the proximity and quality of a medical care available for the victim. Based on

this assumption one would expect that there is no difference in the criminal history

of attempted and completed homicide offenders. Using these unique data, we are

able to examine the influence of criminal history on the likelihood that serious vio-

lence ends lethally or not. We acknowledge that situational factors may also be

important, however, this is not the focus of this study. To our knowledge, this is the

first empirical study based on such large-scale and nationwide data to explicitlycompare the criminal history of offenders using these two samples of serious violent

offenders.



5/21


Theoretical Background

The focus of this study is to examine the influence of criminal propensity on the like-

lihood of committing lethal versus nonlethal violence by using a persons criminalhistory as an indicator for criminal propensity. There are several theories focusing on

ones criminal propensity in explaining offending behavior, of which the General

Theory of Crime(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) is considered one of the most impor-

tant. The founders of this theory postulate that self-control theory can explain several

types of criminal behavior, including homicide. According to the central notion of the

self-control theory, individuals differ in their propensity to commit crime. According

to this theory, the propensity to commit crimes can be explained by a common per-

sonal characteristiclow self-controlwhich is mainly caused by inadequate child-

rearing practices. Individuals with low self-control possess individual traits makingthem more prone to commit criminal behavior compared with people with higher

self-control. Impulsivity, the inability to consider the consequences of ones acts, low

frustration-tolerance, a physical rather than verbal orientation, and risk-seeking

behavior are considered to be important facets of low self-control (Gottfredson &

Hischi, 1990, p. 90). Due to these traits, people with low self-control tend to have a

here and now orientation making them less able to consider the consequences of

their acts, resist crime and other acts with short-term gratification. Once self-control

is established early in life, it remains relatively stable during the life course making

individuals with lower self-control more prone to be involved in risky behaviorincluding criminal behavior. In this study, we will test the General Theory of Crime

in predicting lethal versus nonlethal outcomes by considering criminal history as an

indicatorfor ones criminal propensity.

Overall, from self-control theory it can be derived that people with a higher crimi-

nal propensity are not only (a) more likely to commit crimes, but also to (b) have an

early onset of their criminal career, (c) commit a higher number of crimes, (d) commit

a wide variety of crimes, and (e) have a lengthy criminal career (Gottfredson &

Hirschi, 1990). Numerous empirical studies have tested self-control theory and con-

firmed the predictive power of low self-control on criminal behavior. Some research-ers have argued that those who start offending at an early age could be considered as

those who are most enduring crime prone (Nagin & Farrington, 1992). Also, in line

with self-control theory, some researchers have argued that individuals with low self-

control are not only more prone to be involved in risky conflict situations, but also to

violent reactions in such conflict situations. In fact, empirical studies have confirmed

that low self-control has a strong and direct influence on violent offending behavior

(e.g., Baron, Forde, & Kay, 2007; Piquero, MacDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, & Cullen,

2005). Offenders with low self-control also have been found to have more arrests for

violent offenses than offenders with higher self-control (DeLisi, 2001). Thus, wemight hypothesize that people with low self-control tend to use violence in conflict

situations and therefore are not only more likely to have a violent criminal history than

people with high self-control, but also have a higher number of violent offenses in



6/21

Ganpat et al. 225

their criminal history. Above all, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) postulated that low

self-control also explains homicide offending: people with lower self-control have a

higher likelihood to commit homicide than people with higher self-control. However,

when it comes to the severity of crimes, Gottfredson and Hirschi do not provide anelaborate explanation for why some offenders are more likely to commit more severe

violent crimes (i.e., lethal versus nonlethal violence) than other offenders.

Previous Studies

The literature shows that certain aspects of ones criminal history are especially

related to (serious) violent offending. Overall, in the literature early onset is con-

sidered one of the most important predictors for (a) a long-term criminal career,

(b) involvement in more severe crimes, (c) showing a wide variety of crimes andfor (d) committing a higher number of crimes compared with offenders who initiate

crime at a later age. However, even though numerous studies have shown that indi-

viduals with an early onset have a higher likelihood to be involved in more severe

crimes, other research has also provided some evidence that homicide offenders

often have their first criminal record in adulthood (Soothill et al., 2002). Empirical

studies did not only confirm that a significant proportion of homicide offenders had

a violent criminal history (e.g., Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, Smith, et al., 2007;

Farrington et al., 2012; Loeber, Lacourse, et al., 2005; Loeber, Pardini, et al., 2005;

Soothill et al., 2002), but also showed that homicide offenders tend to have morearrests for violence than chronic offenders (DeLisi, 2001). Moreover, research has

shown that violent behavior at an early age was associated with a higher number of

violent offenses and with more serious violent behavior (e.g., Tolan & Thomas,

1995). Other studies have shown that the higher the number of crimes committed, the

higher the likelihood to commit violent crimes (e.g., Capaldi & Patterson, 1996).

More specifically, earlier studies that compared the criminal history of those who

committed lethal versus nonlethal violence found that most offenders of both groups

had a prior conviction record (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza, 2007;

Soothill et al., 2002). However, nonlethally violent offenders were more likely to havea prior conviction than lethally violent offenders (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, &

Medina-Ariza, 2007). Also, offenders of (attempted) homicide have committed a higher

number of crimes than offenders convicted for (attempted) aggravated assault (Smit,

Bijleveld, Brouwers, Loeber, & Nieuwbeerta, 2003). When it comes to the types of

crimes committed in the criminal history of lethally versus nonlethally violent offend-

ers, the literature shows that a criminal history including burglary or drug offenses was

more prevalent among lethally violent offenders (Soothill et al., 2002), whereas public

order offenses were less prevalent (Smit et al., 2003). When it comes to a history of

violence, the literature shows mixed results: some studies found that a conviction his-tory for violence was more prevalent among lethally violent offenders (Soothill et al.,

2002), whereas others found that it was more prevalent among nonlethally violent

offenders (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza, 2007; Smit et al., 2003).



7/21


When the relative risks for committing lethal violence were compared among violent

offenders, certain types of crimes in the criminal historyincluding violent crimes

such as wounding (endangering life), robbery, kidnapping, and arsonsignificantly

increased the likelihood of committing lethal violence (Soothill et al., 2002).Also, comparing the age at the time of the index offense, it appeared that lethally

violent offenders were on average older compared with nonlethally violent offenders

(Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza, 2007; Smit et al., 2003; Soothill et al.,

2002). However, the literature provides mixed results when it comes to the age of first

offense: some studies found that lethally violent offenders were on average younger

when they were convicted for the first time compared with nonlethally violent offend-

ers (Soothill et al., 2002); in contrast, others research found that lethally violent

offenders were older compared with nonlethally violent offenders (Smit et al., 2003).

In sum, previous studies provided some mixed results when it comes to comparing thecriminal history of lethally versus nonlethally violent offender groups.

A possible explanation for differences in these results may be related to the fact that

these studies used different methodologies and samples. For instance, Dobash, Dobash,

Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza (2007) focused only on intimate partner violence; thereby

they compared a sample of intimate partner murderers with a sample of offenders of

nonlethal intimate partner violence. Soothill et al. (2002) focused on murderers of all

subtypesthus without restricting themselves to intimate partner violenceand made

comparisons with other violent offenders. Smit et al. (2003) compared offenders of

murder and manslaughter with three groups of offenders: (a) attempted homicideoffenders, (b) offenders of attempted aggravated assault, and (c) offenders of aggra-

vated assault. Also, Soothill et al. (2002) used a matched case-control design (e.g.,

matching by age and gender) whereas both Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Medina-

Ariza (2007) and Smit et al. (2003) made comparisons without matching. These

aspects might have resulted in different findings.

Based on the above-mentioned theoretical considerations and earlier empirical

studies, we have derived the following hypotheses, including conflicting hypotheses

on the influence of early onset (Hypotheses 1a and 1b).

Hypothesis 1a: The earlier the age of onset of offending, the higher the likeli-

hood of committing lethal violence compared to nonlethal violence;

Hypothesis 1b: The earlier the age of onset of offending, the lower the likelihood

of committing lethal violence compared to nonlethal violence;

Hypothesis 2a: Having a criminal history increases the likelihood of committing

lethal violence compared to nonlethal violence;

Hypothesis 2b: The higher the number of crimes in the criminal history, the

higher the likelihood of committing lethal violence compared to nonlethal

violence;Hypothesis 3a: A criminal history of violence increases the likelihood of com-

mitting lethal violence compared to nonlethal violence;



8/21

Ganpat et al. 227

Hypothesis 3b: The more violent crimes in the criminal history, the higher the

likelihood of committing lethal violence compared to nonlethal violence.

Method

Selected population of lethally and nonlethally violent offenders. To gain information on

all known individuals who had been prosecuted by the public prosecutor for commit-

ting lethal violence in the Netherlands, we retrieved data from the Dutch Homicide

Monitor. This ongoing monitor includes all homicides in the Netherlands that took

place in the period 1992-2009. It is based on multiple sources, including prosecution

data from the computerized inventory of the Public Prosecutors Office (for more

information about the Dutch Homicide Monitor, see Ganpat & Liem, 2012; Nieuw-

beerta & Leistra, 2007). The Dutch Homicide Monitor included information on a totalof 3,891 individuals who had been prosecuted in first instance by the public prosecutor

for committing a homicide (art. 287-291 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Law) in the

Netherlands in the period 1993-2009. Manslaughter refers to crimes where a person

has intentionallykilled another person. Murder refers to crimes where a person killed

another person intentionally and with premeditation.

For the selection of nonlethally violent offenders, we started by extracting prose-

cution data using the computerized inventory of the Dutch Public Prosecutor of indi-

viduals who were convicted in first instance for attempted homicide (art. 45 in

combination with art. 287-291 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Law)1

registered in theperiod 2005-2009. This resulted in a selected population of 4,853 individuals con-

victed in first instance for attempted homicide. In other words, we used (a) a study

group of lethally violent offenders consisting of all offenders convicted for man-

slaughter or murder committed in the period 1993-2009; and (b) a comparison group

of nonlethally violent offenders consisting of a selected population of offenders who

were convicted for attempted manslaughter or attempted murder between 2005-2009.

The longer time-frame for homicide offenders was chosen because homicide is a rela-

tively rare phenomenon compared with attempted homicide and we opted for a rela-

tively large sample of lethally violent offenders.

Criminal Record Register

To investigate the influence of criminal history on lethal versus nonlethal outcomes of

violent offenses, we use criminal record data from the Criminal Record Register

administered by the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Dutch

Ministry of Justice. The Criminal Record Register contains information on all offi-

cially registered criminal records of all individuals who have been prosecuted in the

Netherlands from the age of 12, regardless of whether or not they were convicted. TheCriminal Record Register is particularly useful for our purpose due to the following

reasons: First, this data set allows us to reconstruct the entire criminal history of serious



9/21


violent offenders from the age of 12 years until the index offense. Second, the data set

is based on large-scale and nationwide data allowing us to explicitly compare the

criminal history of a relatively large sample of serious violent offenders in detail.

Third, the data set is not only especially created for research purposes, but it alsoincludes those criminal records that are usually excluded in other data sets due to

expiration periods. Fourth, the Criminal Record Register contains the most up-to-date

records and, unlike prosecution data from the Public Prosecutor Service for example,

it also includes cases on appeal.

The WODC provided data from the Criminal Record Register on 3,814 lethal vio-

lent offenders and 4,814 nonlethal violent offenders.2 Eventually, a total of 3,752

lethally violent offenders and 4,788 nonlethally violent offenders were extracted from

the Criminal Record Register. A total of 62 lethally violent offenders and 39 nonle-

thally violent offenders could not be found in the Criminal Record Register and havebeen excluded from analyses. Next, we only included those individuals in our analyses

that could be matched on the index offense. For this matching, we compared the

encrypted district numbers registered in the Criminal Record Register with the

encrypted district number we received from the Central Judicial Documentation

Department of the Dutch Ministry of Justice (JDS). Eventually, a total of 3,678 lethally

violent offenders and 4,788 nonlethally violent offenders were matched on the index

offense. Next, we included only those individuals who were eventually convictedfor

lethal or nonlethal violence. As a result, we exclude those offenders who had not (yet)

been convicted, or were convicted for a less severe offense or were eventually acquit-ted of lethal or nonlethal violence. Finally, we excluded cases where the decision was

unknown. Our final sample size comprises data on a total of 2,049 convicted lethally

violent offenders and 3,387 convicted nonlethally violent offenders.3Most cases that

were excluded for analyses involved cases with an unknown or pending decision.4,

5

Variables

We used the Criminal Record Register to construct the complete criminal history of

serious violent offenders by measuring concepts of criminal history as follows. First,criminal records mean court appearances where either (a) the public prosecutor has

made a decision (with the exception of technical dismissals), (b) the judge declared

the suspect guilty, or (c) no decision was made yet. When we refer to cases, we mean

court appearances. The Criminal Record Register does not contain criminal records of

acquittals or records where there was a technical dismissal. Strictly speaking, this

means that a criminal record does not require a conviction, because some cases were

pending. Further, the public prosecutor or judge can decide to nest other criminal

offenses within a case to make an overall decision when the case comes to court.

When this happens, the overall decision was taken into account. This means that welimited our analyses to the case level. In a court appearance where more than one

offense was committed, the most severe offense was analyzed.



10/21

Ganpat et al. 229

Second, existence of a prior criminal recordconsisted of a dichotomous variable

indicating whether an individual had at least one officially registered criminal record

in the Criminal Record Register for an offense prior to the index offense. Third, we

measured the number of prior criminal records(as a continuous variable) by taking thenumber of registered criminal records prior to the index offense. Fourth, age of onset

was defined as the age at the time of the first officially registered criminal record.

Fifth, the length of criminal history(i.e., continuous) was measured by deducting the

number of years between the index offense and first offense. Sixth, we measured type

of offensesby constructing different variables indicating separately whether an indi-

vidual had at least one criminal record for the following types of offenses: violent

offenses, property offenses, drug offenses and other offenses.6Also, four continuous

variables were included indicating separately the total number of these type of offenses.

Seventh,prior prison sentenceconsisted of a dichotomous variable indicating whethera person had at least one prior conviction involving a prison sentence. Finally, the

demographic variables measured were age, gender, and country of birth, which served

as control variables.

We conducted descriptive and explanatory analyses to study the criminal history of

serious violent offenders. First, we used crosstabs to examine the extent to which the

criminal history of lethally violent offenders differed from nonlethally violent offend-

ers. Next, we used binary logistic regression models to determine to what extent crimi-

nal history variables are influential in predicting lethal versus nonlethal outcomes. In

doing so, the dependent variable was the dichotomous variable that we strived toexplain: lethally violent offending (1) versus nonlethally violent offending (0).

Results

To answer our first research questionto what extent the criminal history of lethally

versus nonlethally violent offenders differswe conducted descriptive analyses.

Table 1 displays the results regarding background characteristics and criminal history

characteristics of both groups of offenders. When comparing background characteris-

tics, the results show that nonlethally violent offenders are more likely to be born inthe Netherlands, and were found to be younger at the time of the index offense.

When we compare the criminal history between the two groups, the results show

thateven though the majority of both groups had a criminal historynonlethally

violent offenders are more likely to have a criminal history prior to the index offense

compared with lethally violent offenders. The results further indicate that nonlethally

violent offenders are more likely to have committed a higher number of crimes com-

pared with their counterparts. On average, nonlethally violent offenders are more

likely to begin offending at an earlier age than lethally violent offenders.7In compar-

ing the average length of the criminal history between the two groups, the resultsindicate that nonlethally violent offenders have a longer criminal history compared

with lethally violent offenders. When we compare the types of crimes in the criminal



11/21


Table 1.Background Characteristics and Criminal History Characteristics for Lethally versusNonlethally violent offenders.

Lethally violent

offenders(N= 2,049)

Nonlethally violent

offenders(N= 3,387) p Statistical test

Male (%) 92 92a ns Pearson Chi-Square

Born in the Netherlands (%) 54b 65 ** Pearson Chi-Square

Birth countryc(%)

The Netherlands 54 65

Morocco 5 4

Turkey 8 4

Dutch Antillean 8 7

Surinam 8 5

Other Western countries 8 6

Other non-Western countries 9 9Unknown 0 0

Mean age at index offense 31.0 (SD= 10.2) 29.9 (SD= 11.5)d ** Mann-Whitney

Age category at index offensee(%)

< 17 5 11

18-25 31 33

26-40 47 36

41-65 17 19

>66 0 0

Unknown 0 1

Existence of prior criminal record (%) 68 76 ** Pearson Chi-Square

Average number of prior criminal records 6.7 (SD= 12.7) 7.1 (SD= 13.1) ** Mann-Whitney

Mean age onset 23.2 (SD= 9.5)f 21.1 (SD= 9.2)g ** Mann-Whitney

Age category onset (%)

66 0 0

Unknown 1 1

Average length of criminal history (in

years)

7.7 (SD= 8.3) 8.8 (SD= 9.2) ** Mann-Whitney

Existence prior violent record (%) 38 48 ** Pearson Chi-SquareAverage number of prior violent records 0.9 (SD= 1.8) 1.3 (SD= 2.3) ** Mann-Whitney

Mean age onset violent offenses 27.6 (SD= 10.2)h 25.6 (SD= 10.9)i ** Mann-Whitney

Existence property offenses (%) 45 46 ns Pearson Chi-Square

Average number of prior cases of which

property offenses

2.8 (SD= 7.8) 2.7 (SD= 7.8) ns Mann-Whitney

Existence of drug offenses (%) 10 13 ** Pearson Chi-Square


drug offenses


Existence other offenses (%) 56 62 ** Pearson Chi-Square


other offenses


Prior prison sentence (%) 45 49 ** Pearson Chi-Square

Average number of prior prison sentences 1.8 (SD= 3.5) 2.0 (SD= 4.2) ** Mann-Whitney

Note: aMissing=1. bMissing= 5. cMissing= 5. dMissing= 26. eMissing= 26. fMissing= 28. gMissing= 29. hMissing= 28. iMissing= 29.

*p< .05.**p< .01. ns = not significant.



12/21

Ganpat et al. 231

history between the two groups, the results show that nonlethally violent offenders

are not only more likely to have a violent history, but are also more likely to have

committed more violent crimes and to begin committing violence at an earlier age

compared with their counterparts.8Also, nonlethally violent offenders are not only

more likely to have committed at least one drug offense and at least one other offense

but are also more likely to have committed a higher number of these offenses com-

pared with lethally violent offenders. Finally, nonlethally violent offenders are not

only more likely to have a prior conviction involving a prison sentence, but on aver-

age they are also more likely to have a higher number of prior prison sentences com-

pared with lethally violent offenders. Thus, overall, nonlethally violent offenders

tend to have a more severe criminal history compared with lethally violent offenders

in many respects.

Next, to answer our second research questionto what extent are criminal history

variables influential in predicting lethal versus nonlethal outcomeswe used binary

logistic regression analyses. Table 2 reflects which characteristics of criminal history

are influential in predicting lethal versus nonlethal outcomes.9We present two models

that contain the same variables, but with one exception: Model I shows the effect of

the dichotomous variable existence of a prior criminal record and existence of a

prior violent record, whereas Model II shows the effect of the continuous variables

Total number of prior criminal records and Total number of prior violent records.

Model I is included to test hypotheses 2a and 3a whereas Model II is included to test

the other hypotheses. In all models we also included our control variables. First, we

examined whether our control variables (i.e., gender, age at index offense, and birth

Table 2.Logistic Regression Model for criminal history: Lethal (1) vs. Nonlethal (0).

Model I Model II

Exp(b) Exp(S.E.) Exp(b) Exp(S.E.)

Age at index offense 0.999 1,004 0.990* 1,004

Male 0.996 1,112 0.966 1,112

Born in the Netherlands 0.662** 1,062 0.650** 1,062

Age of onset 1.017** 1,005 1.028** 1,005

Existence of prior criminal record 0.889 1,094

Total number of prior criminal records 1.023** 1,003

Existence of prior violent record 0.687** 1,078

Total number of prior violent records 0.835** 1,022

Prior prison sentence 1.262** 1,084 1.132 1,077Constant 0.637** 1,169 0.585** 1,161

Nagelkerke R square 0.037 0.049

N 5,371 5,371

*p< .05.**p< .01.



13/21


country) influence the likelihood of lethal versus nonlethal outcomes. Model II shows

that age at index offense and country of birth have a significant negative effect on

lethal versus nonlethal outcomes: the younger a persons age at committing the index

offense the higher the likelihood to commit lethal violence. Also, those who are bornoutside the Netherlands had a significantly higher likelihood of committing lethal vio-

lence compared with those born in the Netherlands. These findings should be inter-

preted with care, as this may be related to homicide within the criminal milieu (e.g.,

drug related or contract killings), as the majority of offenders of this subtype are born

outside the Netherlands.

In testing our first hypothesis (conflicting hypotheses 1a and 1b) that the earlier the

age of onset of offending, the higher/lower the likelihood of committing lethal vio-

lence compared with nonlethal violence, Table 2 showsin contrast to hypothesis 1a,

but in line with hypothesis 1bthat age of onset of offending had a significant posi-tive effect on the likelihood of committing lethal violence compared with nonlethal

violence (Model I and II). In other words, the later the age of onset, the higher the

likelihood of a lethal outcome. For every one year increase in age of onset, the odds of

a lethal versus nonlethal outcome increased by a factor of 1.028 (Model II).

Next, we tested hypotheses 2a and 2b: that a criminal history increases the likeli-

hood of committing lethal violence and the higher the number of crimes in a persons

criminal history the higher the likelihood of committing lethal violence compared

with nonlethal violence. The results indicatein contrast to hypothesis 2athat hav-

ing a prior criminal record did not have a significant influence (Model I),but in linewith hypothesis 2b,the total number of crimes in ones criminal history had a posi-

tive significant influence on lethal versus nonlethal outcomes (Model II). For each

one-unit increase in the total number of prior criminal records, the odds of a lethal

versus nonlethal outcome increased by a factor of 1.023. Then, we tested our third

hypothesis (hypothesis 3a) that a history of violence increases the likelihood of com-

mitting lethal violence compared with nonlethal violence. Model I indicates thatin

contrast to hypothesis 3ahaving a history of violence had a negative significant

influence on lethal versus nonlethal outcomes. We also tested hypothesis 3b that the

more violent crimes in ones criminal history, the higher the likelihood of committinglethal violence compared with nonlethal violence. In contrast to hypothesis 3b, Model

II shows a significant negative effect of the number of violent crimes in ones crimi-

nal history on the likelihood of committing lethal violence compared with nonlethal

violence. Finally, we tested the influence of having at least one prior conviction for a

prison sentence on the outcome of violent conflicts. Although the results in Model I

suggest that those who had at least one prior conviction involving a prison sentence

had a significantly higher likelihood of committing lethal violence, its effect disap-

peared when controlling for the total number of prior crimes (Model II). Thus, those

individuals who had committed a high number of prior crimes, started offending at alater age, and those who did not have any prior violent record or had committed a low

number of prior violent crimes had a significantly higher likelihood of committing

lethal violence.



14/21

Ganpat et al. 233

Conclusion and Discussion

This study examined to what extent criminal propensity can explain some individuals

committing a homicide in a given situation, while other individuals commit violentacts that do not end lethally. More specifically, the aim of this study was to compare

the criminal histories of lethally versus nonlethally violent offenders and to examine

the influence of criminal history on the likelihood of committing lethal violence,

using the offenders criminal history as an indicator for criminal propensity. Using a

unique data set of criminal record data for two groups of offenders, our results

showed thatin line with previous researchmost lethally as well as nonlethally

violent offenders had a criminal history.

In line with the results of Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza (2007),

nonlethally violent offenders were significantly more likely to have a criminal his-tory compared with lethally violent offenders. Also, on average, we found that non-

lethally violent offenders were significantly more likely to have committed more

prior crimes compared with lethally violent offenders. In addition, similar to the

results of Smit et al. (2003), we found that on average nonlethally violent offenders

were significantly more likely to begin offending at an earlier age than lethally

violent offenders. Furthermore, in comparing the average length of the criminal

history between the two groups, nonlethally violent offenders had a significantly

longer criminal history compared with lethally violent offenders. In line with previ-

ous studies, we found that a significant proportion of lethally violent offenders hada violent criminal history (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, Smith, et al., 2007;

Farrington et al., 2012; Loeber, Lacourse, et al., 2005; Loeber, Pardini, et al., 2005;

Soothill et al., 2002), and that nonlethally violent offenders were more likely to

have a violent history compared with lethally violent offenders (Dobash, Dobash,

Cavanagh, & Medina-Ariza, 2007). In addition, in this study we also found that

nonlethally violent offenders were more likely to have a higher number of prior

violent records and to have a prior prison sentence compared with lethally violent

offenders. Although previous research has shown that initiating violent behavior at

an early age is associated with committing a higher number of violent offenses andalso with committing more serious violent behavior as well (e.g., Tolan & Thomas,

1995), our results showed that, on average, most serious violent offenders in our

study initiated violent behavior in adulthood. In sum, our results demonstrate that

nonlethally violent offenders had a more severe criminal history compared with

lethally violent offenders. Thus, when we use ones criminal history as an indicator

for ones criminal propensity, our results indicated thatcontrary to what we

expected based on the central notions of the self-control theorynonlethally vio-

lent offenders have a higher criminal propensity than lethally violent offenders.

These findings are not in line with the expectations derived from the self-controltheory. Therefore, we answer our first research question by concluding that ones

level of criminal propensitymeasured by ones criminal historydoes not seem

to be sufficient in explaining why certain individuals commit a homicide whereas



15/21


others do not. We suggest that future studies should not solely restrict themselves

to examining the role of criminal propensity, but should also consider the role of

other factors in explaining lethal versus nonlethal outcomes, especially the role of

certain specific situational factors.In answer to our second research question, we found that a persons criminal

history can be influential in predicting lethal versus nonlethal outcomes, although

the influence of certain aspects of ones criminal history were not always in line

with our expectations. More specifically, in contrast to what we expected, a prior

criminal record did not significantly predict lethal versus nonlethal outcomes.

However, in line with what we expected, we found that the total number of previous

crimes had a significant positive effect on the likelihood of committing lethal vio-

lence, suggesting that the more crimes one has committed prior to the index offense,

the higher the likelihood for a lethal outcome to the violent act. In contrast tohypothesis 1abut in line with hypothesis 1bwe found that those who started

offending at an earlier age did not have a higher likelihood of committing more

severe crimes (i.e., lethal violence). In fact, we found that age of onset had a signifi-

cant positive effect on the likelihood of committing lethal violence, suggesting the

later one has started with the first crime, the higher the likelihood of a lethal out-

come. These results contradict findings from numerous previous studies showing

that individuals with an early onset have a higher likelihood of being involved in

more severe crimes compared with those who initiate crime at a later age (e.g.,

Moffit, 1993). In fact, in our study, on average, most serious violent offenders (bothlethally as well as nonlethally violent offenders) started committing their first reg-

istered crime in adulthood.

This result questions the general applicability of the assumption that those who

start offending at an early age could be considered the most enduring crime prone

(Nagin & Farrington, 1992). For serious violence, including homicide, we do not find

support. In this respect, our findings are more in line with the work of Soothill et al.

(2002), who also found that homicide offenders often have their first criminal record

in adulthood. It may be the case that for other types of crimes the hypothesis still holds.

One possible explanation for the late onset of serious violent offenders might berelated to difficulties that emerge with the transition to adulthood. For instance,

Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, Smith, et al. (2007) found that lethally violent offenders

who started offending at a later age tend to experience a relatively unproblematic

childhood, butin contrasttend to experience many problems in adulthood, such as

substance abuse and relationship problems. Tentatively, this may apply to lethally as

well as nonlethally violent offenders.

Next, in contrast to what we expected, having a history of violence had a negative

effect on the likelihood of committing lethal violence. The results also indicated that

the number of violent records matters: in contrast to hypothesis 3b we found thatcommitting a higher number of violent crimes has a negative effect on the likelihood

of committing lethal violence, indicating that the higher the number of prior violent



16/21

Ganpat et al. 235

crimes, the lowerthe likelihood to commit lethal violence. This result is not in line

with our expectations derived from the self-control theory. Alternatively, this find-

ing may be explained as follows: those individuals who commit a higher number of

violent crimes learn and gain certain experience and skills in committing crimes,which can make them more able to restrain themselves and to prevent a violent con-

flict from ending lethally. After all, criminal behavior can be learned. As lethally

violent offenders tend to have a lower number of violent records they may lack the

skills and experience that other individuals do have to resolve a conflict in a nonle-

thal manner. Also, when interpreting this result, one has to take into consideration

thatwhile strictly speaking in the Netherlands an intent to kill is required to con-

vict a person for attempted homicideevidence indicates that over the past two

decades, the Dutch Public Prosecutor has decided increasingly to prosecute cases for

attempted homicide rather than aggravated assault (see, for example, Smit &Nieuwbeerta, 2007). Possibly, the above-mentioned argument may gain in strength

when this development is also considered. However, it must be stressed that the

study at hand does not allow for firm conclusions here. Future research could test the

validity of this explanation. Also, it has to be noted that our sample only consists of

serious violent offenders, so we should not conclude that committing a high number

of violent crimes decreases the likelihood of committing lethal violence for all

offenders. This stresses the need for future research to examine in more detail the

influence of criminal history by also including offenders who have committed less

serious violent crimes.This study aimed to contribute to the existing knowledge on violent crime. It is the

first empirical study based on large-scale and nationwide data to explicitly compare

the criminal history of offenders using these two samples of serious violent offenders.

In contrast to much of the existing research in the field, this study also combined

descriptive analyses and explanatory analyses when studying the criminal history of

serious violent offenders.

Despite the insights delivered, some limitations should also be addressed. A first

limitation is that in this studylike is done in many other studieswe used criminal

history as an indicator for criminal propensity. Ideally, anticipating on one of themajor criticisms of the self-control theorynamely that it is to some extent tautologi-

cal (e.g., Akers, 1991)future research should measure criminal propensity more

directly, for instance by using low self-control scales. This, however, requires access

to the population. A second limitation concerns the data we used. Criminal record

data only provide information about individuals who were arrested or convicted for

an offense from the age of 12 years onwards. Therefore, undetected offending behav-

ior and behavior that was never registered by the police is not included, producing an

underestimation of criminal history of some individuals. Also, as a result of our large

sample size, relatively small differences between groups can be found significant.Therefore, our results should be interpreted with care. A third limitation concerns the

group of serious violent offendersnamely offenders of attempted versus completed



17/21


homicideincluded in this study. As this may be a specific group of serious violent

offenders our findings cannot be extended to offenders of less severe forms of vio-

lence. Therefore, we suggest that further research also includes a comparison group

consisting of offenders who were convicted of different types of less severe violentcrimes. The same can be said about different types of homicide, which have been

grouped together in the present study. A fourth limitation is that in this study we only

considered criminal propensitymore specifically criminal historyin explaining

lethal versus nonlethal outcomes. Other factors not included in our model can poten-

tially play a more contributory role in explaining lethal versus nonlethal outcomes.

After all, like many other types of crimes, serious violent offenses do not occur in a

vacuum. Although Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) acknowledge that opportunities

may also matter, the theory has been criticized for not systematically addressing the

role of opportunities in explaining criminal behavior (e.g., Geis, 2000). Our resultsalso imply that the self-control theory may be improved by addressing more system-

atically the role of opportunities. To conclude, although most previous studies have

neglected the study of the criminal history of serious violent offenders, this has been

the central focus of our study.

By doing so, we have provided several new insights to the existing literature. First,

this study questions the general assumption that the distinction between an attempted

and completed homicide is solely based on chance. In fact, this study suggests that

nonlethally violent offenders (i.e., attempted homicide offenders) have a higher crimi-

nal propensity than lethally violent offenders, which was not in line with our expecta-tions derived from the self-control theory. Second, when the influence of criminal

history is studied among serious violent offenders, this study suggests that certain

aspects of criminal history do not always have the effect among serious violent offend-

ers as what is generally assumed in criminology, especially when it comes to age of

onset and frequency of a violent history.

In sum, our study emphasizes the need for future research to examine the influence

of criminal propensity on lethal versus nonlethal outcomes of violent incidents more

systematically and in more detail, which may be especially relevant for treatment pol-

icy for repeat violent offenders. It also calls for additional research that combines bothcriminal propensity of the offender and situational factors, to provide a more complete

picture of the complex realities of serious violent events and a more in-depth under-

standing of why certain conflict situations end lethally and others do not. This may

also require the study of processes of interaction between all parties present, including

victims and third parties. In an ideal situation these types of insights may even support

preventative measures with respect to the most harmful and frightful types of crimes:

lethal violence.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful

suggestions.



18/21

Ganpat et al. 237

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of

this article.

Notes

1. In the Netherlandsas in many other countriesto be convicted for attempted homicide

an intent to kill is required (e.g., a combination with physical injury is not strictly required

to be convicted of attempted homicide). As countries differ in their legal systems, it maybe possible that in some countries additional elements are required to be convicted for

attempted homicide.

2. Before we were able to gain data from the Criminal Record Register for these individuals,

we had to retrieve the encrypted district number from the Central Judicial Documentation

Department of the Dutch Ministry of Justice (JDS). A total of 3,814 lethally violent offend-

ers and all 4,853 nonlethally violent offenders were eventually tracked down by the JDS.

Of these individuals we received the encrypted district number, which makes it possible to

identify the index offense in the Criminal Record Register.

3. We chose to focus on the criminal history of serious violent offenders regardless ofwhether some offenders had a prior record for completed or attempted homicide. If this was

the case, this was coded as a violent history. Of the 3,387 attempted homicide offenders, 17

individuals committed a completed homicide in their history. Of the 2,049 convicted homi-

cide offenders, 69 individuals committed attempted homicide in their history, including 18

persons in the period 2005-2009 (i.e., the years the attempted homicide were selected). As

this only concerns a relatively small number of offenders, we also did all our analyses leav-

ing out these 17 and 18 persons, and the results did not greatly affect our conclusions.

4. In a total of 67 percent of the excluded lethal violence cases, the decision of the cases was

unknown. This was especially the case for acts committed in more recent years (i.e., 2005-2009). In less than a third of the excluded lethal violence cases, there was a conviction for

a less severe offense.

5. In a total of 62% of the excluded nonlethal violence cases, the decision of the cases was

unknown. This was especially the case for nonlethal violence cases committed in more

recent years (i.e., 2005-2009). In 38% of the excluded nonlethal violence cases, there was

a conviction for a less severe offense, again especially committed in more recent years (i.e.,

2005-2009).

6. Property offenses are restricted to property offenses without the use of violence or other-

wise included as violent offenses. Sexual offenses are considered as violent offenses. Thecategory other comprises traffic offenses, vandalism, property damage, public disorder

offenses, and other offenses.



19/21


7. In cases where offenders had no prior criminal record, the index offense is considered the

first offense.

8. In cases where offenders had no prior criminal record, the index offense is considered the

first violent offense and therefore we used the age of onset of the index offense.9. The VIF-value did not exceed a value of 4, indicating that multicollinearity probably did

not bias the results. Also, to examine whether possible outliers distorted the outcome of our

model, we considered the values of Cooks Distance (cutoff point Di < 0.1). As a result, we

excluded 3 observations in our analyses.

References

Akers, R. L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime.Journal of Quantitative Criminol-

ogy, 7, 201-211.

Baron, S. W., Forde, D. R., & Kay, F. M. (2007). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and situation:The role of opportunity and context in the general theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35,

119-136.

Berk, R., Sherman, L., Barnes, G., Kurtz, E., & Ahlman, L. (2009). Forecasting murder within

a population of probation and parolees: A high stakes application of statistical learning.

Journal of Royal Statistics, 172, 191-211.

Blokland, A. A. J. (2005). Crime over the lifespan; Trajectories of criminal behavior in Dutch

offenders. Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement

(NSCR).

Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism amongmentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-142.

Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Can violent offenders be distinguished from frequent

offenders: Prediction from childhood to adolescence. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency, 33, 206-231.

Crespi, T. D., & Rigazio-DiGili, S. A. (1996). Adolescent homicide and family pathology:

Implications for research and treatment with adolescents.Adolescence, 31, 353-367.

DeLisi, M. (2001). Its all in the record: Assessing self-control theory with an offender sample.

Criminal Justice Review, 26, 1-16.

DeLisi, M., & Scherer, A. M. (2006). Multiple homicide offendersOffense characteristics,social correlates, and criminal careers. Criminal Justice Behavior, 33, 367-391.

DiCataldo, F., & Everett, M. (2008). Distinguishing juvenile homicide from violent juvenile

offending.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52,

158-174.

Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., Smith, D., & Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Onset

of offending and life course among men convicted of murder. Homicide Studies , 11,

243-271.

Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Lethal and nonlethal

violence against an intimate female partner: Comparing male murderers to nonlethal abus-ers. Violence Against Women, 13, 329-353.

Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violence

and Victims, 4, 79-100.



20/21

Ganpat et al. 239

Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., & Berg, M. T. (2012) Young men who kill: A prospective longitu-

dinal examination from childhood.Homicide Studies, 16, 99-128.

Ganpat, S. M., & Liem, M. C. A. (2012). Homicide in the Netherlands. In M. C. A. Liem &

W. A. Pridemore (Eds.),Handbook of European homicide research: Patterns, explanations,and country studies(pp. 329-342). New York, NY: Springer.

Geis, G. (2000). On the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime: A

critique. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 35-53.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Krug, E., G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R., (Eds., 2002). World report

on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Loeber, R., Lacourse, E., & Homish, D. (2005). Homicide, violence, and developmental tra-

jectories. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins ofaggression(pp. 202-220). New York, NY: Guilford.

Loeber, R., Pardini, D., Homish, D. L., Wei, E. H., Crawford, A. M., Farrington, D. P., &

Rosenfeld, R. (2005). The prediction of violence and homicide in young men. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1074-1088.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A devel-

opmental taxonomy.Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

Nagin, D. S., & Farrington, D. P. (1992). The onset and persistence of offending. Criminology,

30, 501-523.

Nieuwbeerta, P., & Leistra, G. (2007). Dodelijk geweld. Moord en doodslag in Nederland[Lethal violence. Murder and manslaughter in the Netherlands]. Amsterdam, The Nether-

lands: Balans.

Phillips, S., Matusko, J., & Tomasovic, E. (2007). Reconsidering the relationship between alco-

hol and lethal violence.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 66-84.

Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Self-control,

violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime.Jour-

nal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 55-71.

Smit, P., Bijleveld, C., Brouwers, M., Loeber, R., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2003). Differences

between convicted violent offenders: Completed and attempted homicides and aggravatedassaults. In C. R. Block & R. L. Block (Eds.),Public health and criminal justice approaches

to homicide research. Proceedings of the 2003 meeting of the Homicide Research Working

Group (pp. 281-286). Chicago, IL: Homicide Research Working Group.

Smit, P. R., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2007).Moord en doodslag in Nederland, 1998 en 2002-2004

[Murder and manslaughter in the Netherlands, 1998 en 2002-2004]. Den Haag, The Neth-

erlands: Research and Documentation Centre (WODC).

Soothill, K., Francis, B., Ackerley, E., & Fligelstone, R. (2002). Murder and serious sexual

assault: What criminal histories can reveal about future serious offending(Police Research

Series, Paper 144). London, UK: Home Office.Statistics Netherlands [CBS] (2010). Geregistreerde criminaliteit; misdrijven naar soort mis-

drijf en politieregio 2005-2008 [Registered crime; offenses by type of offense and police

region 2005-2008]. Voorburg: Statistics Netherlands.



21/21


Tolan, P. H., & Thomas, P. (1995). The implications of age of onset for delinquency risk: II.

Longitudinal data.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 157-181.

Wartna, B. S. J., Tollenaar, N., & Blom, M. (2005).Recidive 1997. Een cijfermatig overzicht van

de strafrechtelijke recidive van volwassen en jeugdige daders [Recidivism 1997. A statisti-cal overview of criminal recidivism of adult and juvenile offenders in the Netherlands]. The

Hague, The Netherlands: Research and Documentation Centre (WODC).

Author Biographies

Soenita M. Ganpatis PhD-candidate in criminology at Leiden University, The Netherlands.

Her PhD-thesis investigates the role of criminal propensity and specific situational factors in

lethal versus nonlethal events.

Marieke Liem received her PhD in forensic psychology. She is assistant professor at thedepartment of criminology at Leiden University and is currently a Marie Curie fellow at the

Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Her research focuses on recidivism of homicide

offenders.

Joanne van derLeunis professor of Criminology at Leiden Law School, the Netherlands. She

works on a variety of topics in criminology that include the study of urban crime, crime policies

and crime and migration.

Paul Nieuwbeerta is professor in criminology at Leiden University. His research interestsinclude the development of crime over the life course, the determinants and consequences of

judicial interventions, incarceration and homicide research.

homicide studies 2014 ganpat 221 40

Documents