Homicide

Studies
http://hsx.sagepub.com/

The Influence of Criminal History on the Likelihood of Committing Lethal

Versus Nonlethal Violence
Soenita M. Ganpat, Marieke Liem, Joanne van der Leun and Paul Nieuwbeerta
Homicide Studies 2014 18: 221 originally published online 8 November 2012
DOI: 10.1177/1088767912466082
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Homicide Research Working Group

Additional services and information for Homicide Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://hsx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/2/221.refs.html

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

466082
12466082Homicide StudiesGanpat et al.
2012

HSX18210.1177/10887679

Article

The Influence of Criminal

History on the Likelihood of
Committing Lethal Versus
Nonlethal Violence

Homicide Studies
2014,Vol. 18(2) 221240
2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1088767912466082
hsx.sagepub.com

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 is
to determine: (a) to what extent the criminal history of lethally violent offenders
differs from nonlethally violent offenders and (b) to what extent ones criminal
history influences the likelihood that violence ends lethally. We use criminal record
data 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 severe
criminal history and that offenders criminal history can be influential in predicting
lethal 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 community feelings of safety in public and private space (Crespi & Rigazio-DiGili, 1996;
Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). In the Netherlands, more than
1

Leiden University, Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden, The Netherlands
Harvard 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: s.m.ganpat@law.leidenuniv.nl

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

222

Homicide Studies 18(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 in
a 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 characteristics of individuals that influence the likelihood of committing lethal violence (e.g.,
Gottfredson & Hirshi, 1990). Here, the general assumption is that individuals differ in
the 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., personality 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 propensity, impulsivity, and self-control. Moreover, it is well-established that an individuals 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 likelihood 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 history have a higher likelihood of future violent offending (Farrington, 1989). And
fourth, individuals with an early onset of their criminal activities have a higher likelihood 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 likelihood of committing lethal violence versus nonlethal violence. By comparing two
groups of offenders we intend to add to a better understanding of why certain serious
violent 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

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

223

Ganpat et al.

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 violence?; (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 criminal 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 serious 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 nonlethal 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 period
1993-2009. 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 20052009. This data set consists of data on offenders who have been convicted for
attempted manslaughter or attempted murder. In doing so, we used an unconventional comparison group: in the literature, there seems to be a tradition to consider 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) some
researchers 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 violence 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 explicitly
compare the criminal history of offenders using these two samples of serious violent
offenders.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

224

Homicide Studies 18(2)

Theoretical Background
The focus of this study is to examine the influence of criminal propensity on the likelihood of committing lethal versus nonlethal violence by using a persons criminal
history 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 important. 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 personal characteristiclow self-controlwhich is mainly caused by inadequate childrearing practices. Individuals with low self-control possess individual traits making
them 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 behavior
including 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
indicator for ones criminal propensity.
Overall, from self-control theory it can be derived that people with a higher criminal 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 confirmed the predictive power of low self-control on criminal behavior. Some researchers 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 selfcontrol 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, we
might 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

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

225

Ganpat et al.

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 an
elaborate 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 considered 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 and
for (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 individuals 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 more
arrests 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 have
a 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 offenders, 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 history 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).

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

226

Homicide Studies 18(2)

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 offenders (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 the
criminal 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 homicide
offenders, (b) offenders of attempted aggravated assault, and (c) offenders of aggravated assault. Also, Soothill et al. (2002) used a matched case-control design (e.g.,
matching by age and gender) whereas both Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & MedinaAriza (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 likelihood 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 committing lethal violence compared to nonlethal violence;

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

227

Ganpat et al.

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 committing 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; Nieuwbeerta & Leistra, 2007). The Dutch Homicide Monitor included information on a total
of 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 intentionally killed 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 prosecution data using the computerized inventory of the Dutch Public Prosecutor of individuals 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 the
period 2005-2009. This resulted in a selected population of 4,853 individuals convicted 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 manslaughter 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 relatively rare phenomenon compared with attempted homicide and we opted for a relatively 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 officially 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. The
Criminal 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

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

228

Homicide Studies 18(2)

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 also
includes 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 violent 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 nonlethally violent offenders could not be found in the Criminal Record Register and have
been 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 convicted for
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 acquitted 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.3 Most 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 we
limited our analyses to the case level. In a court appearance where more than one
offense was committed, the most severe offense was analyzed.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

229

Ganpat et al.

Second, existence of a prior criminal record consisted 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 the
number 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 offenses by constructing different variables indicating separately whether an individual had at least one criminal record for the following types of offenses: violent
offenses, property offenses, drug offenses and other offenses.6 Also, four continuous
variables were included indicating separately the total number of these type of offenses.
Seventh, prior prison sentence consisted of a dichotomous variable indicating whether
a 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 offenders. Next, we used binary logistic regression models to determine to what extent criminal history variables are influential in predicting lethal versus nonlethal outcomes. In
doing so, the dependent variable was the dichotomous variable that we strived to
explain: 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 characteristics, the results show that nonlethally violent offenders are more likely to be born in
the 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 compared with their counterparts. On average, nonlethally violent offenders are more
likely to begin offending at an earlier age than lethally violent offenders.7 In comparing the average length of the criminal history between the two groups, the results
indicate that nonlethally violent offenders have a longer criminal history compared
with lethally violent offenders. When we compare the types of crimes in the criminal

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

230

Homicide Studies 18(2)

Table 1. Background Characteristics and Criminal History Characteristics for Lethally versus
Nonlethally violent offenders.
Lethally violent
offenders
(N = 2,049)
Male (%)
Born in the Netherlands (%)
Birth countryc (%)
The Netherlands
Morocco
Turkey
Dutch Antillean
Surinam
Other Western countries
Other non-Western countries
Unknown
Mean age at index offense
Age category at index offensee (%)
< 17
18-25
26-40
41-65
>66
Unknown
Existence of prior criminal record (%)
Average number of prior criminal records
Mean age onset
Age category onset (%)
<14
14-17
18-25
26-40
41-65
>66
Unknown
Average length of criminal history (in
years)
Existence prior violent record (%)
Average number of prior violent records
Mean age onset violent offenses
Existence property offenses (%)
Average number of prior cases of which
property offenses
Existence of drug offenses (%)
Average number of prior cases of which
drug offenses
Existence other offenses (%)
Average number of prior cases of which
other offenses
Prior prison sentence (%)
Average number of prior prison sentences

Nonlethally violent
offenders
(N = 3,387)
a

Statistical test

92
54b

92
65

ns
**

54
5
8
8
8
8
9
0
31.0 (SD = 10.2)

65
4
4
7
5
6
9
0
29.9 (SD = 11.5)d

**

5
31
47
17
0
0
68
6.7 (SD = 12.7)
23.2 (SD = 9.5)f

11
33
36
19
0
1
76
7.1 (SD = 13.1)
21.1 (SD = 9.2)g

**
**
**

6
29
34
24
6
0
1
7.7 (SD = 8.3)

9
37
33
15
5
0
1
8.8 (SD = 9.2)

**

Pearson Chi-Square
Pearson Chi-Square

Mann-Whitney

Pearson Chi-Square
Mann-Whitney
Mann-Whitney

Mann-Whitney

38
0.9 (SD = 1.8)
27.6 (SD = 10.2)h
45
2.8 (SD = 7.8)

48
1.3 (SD = 2.3)
25.6 (SD = 10.9)i
46
2.7 (SD = 7.8)

**
**
**
ns
ns

Pearson Chi-Square
Mann-Whitney
Mann-Whitney
Pearson Chi-Square
Mann-Whitney

10
0.2 (SD = 0.8)

13
0.3 (SD = 0.9)

**
**

Pearson Chi-Square
Mann-Whitney

56
2.8 (SD = 5.0)

62
2.9 (SD = 5.0)

**
**

Pearson Chi-Square
Mann-Whitney

45
1.8 (SD = 3.5)

49
2.0 (SD = 4.2)

**
**

Pearson Chi-Square
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.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

231

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

Exp(b)

Exp(S.E.)

Age at index offense

Male
Born in the Netherlands
Age of onset
Existence of prior criminal record
Total number of prior criminal records
Existence of prior violent record
Total number of prior violent records
Prior prison sentence
Constant
Nagelkerke R square
N

0.999
1,004
0.996
1,112
0.662**
1,062
1.017**
1,005
0.889
1,094

0.687**
1,078

1.262**
1,084
0.637**
1,169
0.037
5,371

Model II
Exp(b)

Exp(S.E.)

0.990*
1,004
0.966
1,112
0.650**
1,062
1.028**
1,005

1.023**
1,003

0.835**
1,022
1.132
1,077
0.585**
1,161
0.049
5,371

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

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.8 Also, 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 compared with lethally violent offenders. Finally, nonlethally violent offenders are not
only more likely to have a prior conviction involving a prison sentence, but on average they are also more likely to have a higher number of prior prison sentences compared 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.9 We 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

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

232

Homicide Studies 18(2)

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 born
outside the Netherlands had a significantly higher likelihood of committing lethal violence compared with those born in the Netherlands. These findings should be interpreted 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 violence 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 positive 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 likelihood 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 having a prior criminal record did not have a significant influence (Model I),but in line
with hypothesis 2b,the total number of crimes in ones criminal history had a positive 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 committing 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 committing
lethal 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 criminal 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 disappeared 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 a
later 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.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

233

Ganpat et al.

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 violent
acts 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 history compared with lethally violent offenders. Also, on average, we found that nonlethally 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 previous studies, we found that a significant proportion of lethally violent offenders had
a 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 and
also 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 violent offenders have a higher criminal propensity than lethally violent offenders.
These findings are not in line with the expectations derived from the self-control
theory. 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

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

234

Homicide Studies 18(2)

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 violence, 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 to
hypothesis 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 significant 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 outcome. 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 (both
lethally as well as nonlethally violent offenders) started committing their first registered 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 be
related 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 that
committing 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

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

235

Ganpat et al.

crimes, the lower the likelihood to commit lethal violence. This result is not in line
with our expectations derived from the self-control theory. Alternatively, this finding 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 conflict 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 nonlethal 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 convict 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 the
major criticisms of the self-control theorynamely that it is to some extent tautological (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 behavior 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

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

236

Homicide Studies 18(2)

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 violence. Therefore, we suggest that further research also includes a comparison group
consisting of offenders who were convicted of different types of less severe violent
crimes. 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 potentially 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 results
also imply that the self-control theory may be improved by addressing more systematically 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 criminal propensity than lethally violent offenders, which was not in line with our expectations 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 offenders 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 policy for repeat violent offenders. It also calls for additional research that combines both
criminal 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 understanding 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.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

237

Ganpat et al.
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 may
be 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 offenders 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 of
whether 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 homicide 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 leaving 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., 20052009). 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 otherwise included as violent offenses. Sexual offenses are considered as violent offenses. The
category other comprises traffic offenses, vandalism, property damage, public disorder
offenses, and other offenses.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

238

Homicide Studies 18(2)

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 Criminology, 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 among
mentally 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 abusers. Violence Against Women, 13, 329-353.
Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violence
and Victims, 4, 79-100.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

239

Ganpat et al.

Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., & Berg, M. T. (2012) Young men who kill: A prospective longitudinal 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 trajectories. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of
aggression (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 developmental 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 Netherlands: Balans.
Phillips, S., Matusko, J., & Tomasovic, E. (2007). Reconsidering the relationship between alcohol 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. Journal 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 aggravated
assaults. 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 Netherlands: 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 misdrijf en politieregio 2005-2008 [Registered crime; offenses by type of offense and police
region 2005-2008]. Voorburg: Statistics Netherlands.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014

240

Homicide Studies 18(2)

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 statistical 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. Ganpat is 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 the
department 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 der Leun is 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 interests
include the development of crime over the life course, the determinants and consequences of
judicial interventions, incarceration and homicide research.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on August 5, 2014