Journal of Criminal Psychology

Criminal history of homicide offenders: a multi-dimensional analysis of criminal specialization

Carrie Trojan Gabrielle Salfati
Article information:
To cite this document:
Carrie Trojan Gabrielle Salfati , (2016),"Criminal history of homicide offenders: a multi-dimensional analysis of criminal
specialization", Journal of Criminal Psychology, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 28 - 41
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCP-09-2015-0027
Downloaded on: 24 March 2016, At: 08:38 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 25 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"The dark figure of sexual offending: new evidence from federal sex offenders", Journal of Criminal Psychology, Vol. 6
Iss 1 pp. 3-15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCP-12-2015-0030
(2016),"Social psychological dynamics of hostage negotiation: forensic psychology, suicide intervention, police intelligence/
counterintelligence, and tactical entry", Journal of Criminal Psychology, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 16-27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JCP-01-2016-0001
(2016),"Is ROC analysis a tool that should replace probative analysis in studying lineups?", Journal of Criminal Psychology,
Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 42-48 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCP-07-2015-0024

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:172900 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Criminal history of homicide offenders:
a multi-dimensional analysis of
criminal specialization
Carrie Trojan and Gabrielle Salfati
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)
Carrie Trojan is based at
the Department of Sociology,
Western Kentucky University,
Bowling Green,
Kentucky, USA.
Gabrielle Salfati is based at
the Department of Psychology,
John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, New York,
New York, USA.
Received 29 September 2015
Revised 21 January 2016
Accepted 22 January 2016
The authors would like to sincerely
thank the Cincinnati Police
Department and the CPD
Homicide Unit for providing
access to the data used in this
study and their immense help
during data collection.
PAGE 28 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine how offenses co-occur in the backgrounds of homicide
offenders and if identified groups of offenses reflect an underlying theoretical construct or theme; and to
determine if offenders specialize in thematically similar offenses.
Design/methodology/approach – The previous convictions of 122 single-victim homicide offenders
were examined using smallest space analysis to identify groups of co-occurring offenses across offenders’
criminal histories.
Findings – The results showed a thematic distinction between violent vs instrumental offenses and 84
percent of offenders specialized in offenses within a single dominant theme, suggesting that the framework
can differentiate the majority of offenders’ criminal backgrounds. Possible sub-themes were identified that
could suggest further demarcation of the themes and provide a more refined framework that may be of even
greater utility in differentiating offenders.
Research limitations/implications – This study utilized data from a single American city that may affect
generalizability of the findings. The exclusion of a timeline for prior offending precludes consideration of
offending escalation.
Originality/value – The current study uses an alternative approach to conceptualize specialization
according to how offenses co-occur in the backgrounds of homicide offenders. This approach is less
restrictive than considering the offenses in isolation to one another and may be of greater utility in empirically
derived offender profiling models. The thematic framework developed herein can act as a foundation for
future studies.
Keywords Specialization, Differentiation, Homicide, Behavioural theme, Criminal history,
Smallest space analysis
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The way an offender commits a homicide and the behaviors they engage in at the crime scene
may be influenced by their previous criminal offending (Salfati, 2009). This idea is reflective of the
central issue behind empirical offender profiling efforts – whether there is continuity between
crime scene actions and the offender’s personal characteristics, what Canter (1995) refers to as
the Actions to Characteristics, or A to C, equation. A growing body of research has attempted to
establish these A to C relationships in homicide events using empirical methodologies
(e.g. Salfati, 2000; Salfati and Canter, 1999; Santtila et al., 2003b). Instead of trying to fit
offenders into rigid categories or providing neat checklists of behaviors or characteristics, this
line of research examines groups of behaviors or offender traits that co-occur across a sample of
offenders and then explain why they tend to co-occur in terms of a common uniting
j VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016, pp. 28-41, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829 DOI 10.1108/JCP-09-2015-0027
 psychological or theoretical construct (Canter and Heritage, 1990). The underlying assumption of
this approach is that a system of behaviors is best understood through a collective examination
of its parts (Canter, 2000). Moreover, this approach allows for some degree of variation as an
offender can possess characteristics from more than one theme, but remains centrally dominant
in only one (Salfati and Bateman, 2005) making it a less restrictive methodology for understanding
overall patterns in offender backgrounds and crime scene actions. The identification of
meaningful patterns at both ends of this behavioral equation and the development of the link
between them could eventually provide operational support to investigators, who based on
behavioral patterns at the crime scene, could narrow down suspect pools using likely prior
offenses as discriminators. However, studies attempting to develop the link between an
offender’s background and their crime scene behaviors have not typically focussed on patterns in
prior offending to the exclusion of other offender characteristics to determine its true utility to
investigators as part of this overall effort. In other words, existing studies have typically examined
previous criminality along with a variety of other offender background variables; the utility of
criminal history when it is the sole focus of examination remains largely unknown.

The goal of the current study was to explore patterns in the prior offenses of homicide offenders
and provide a foundation for future examinations seeking to refine these patterns and link prior
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

offending to crime scene behavior. However, this process involves two questions that must be
answered: first, is criminal history a viable variable suitable for analysis and common enough
among homicide offenders to be of potential use in most investigations; and second, what is the
best method for conceptualizing offender criminal history that accurately captures common
patterns among offenders’ prior offending without being overly restrictive and therefore of
diminished utility?

Criminal history of homicide offenders

Existing research makes clear that the average homicide is not an aberrant event in an otherwise
non-criminal lifestyle and that most single-victim (SV) homicide offenders commit other offenses
preceding a murder. Studies conducted in the USA and the UK have found that more than
50 percent of SV homicide offenders have a criminal record preceding the homicide event
(e.g. Broidy et al., 2006; DeLisi and Scherer, 2006; Soothill et al., 2002; Wolfgang, 1958). Further,
in Wolfgang’s (1958) classical study of homicide, 66 percent of offenders with a criminal history had a
record for offenses against persons and more than 70 percent of these individuals committed more
than one such offense, with approximately 22 percent committing more than six. In a study by DeLisi
and Scherer (2006), 60 percent of SV homicide offenders had previous arrests or police contacts
and nearly one-third were described as chronic offenders with at least five prior arrests.

In most studies of homicide offenders, criminal history is not the sole focus of examination nor is
specific attention given to what types of offenses tend to occur together in an offender’s
background. Despite this, what is evident in the existing literature is that most homicide offenders are
already in police records by the time the homicide is committed, suggesting that criminal history has
the potential to be a particularly useful characteristic to investigators. Prior to testing the investigative
utility of criminal history, an evaluation of whether patterns are present in offender criminal history –
how offenses group together across offenders’ backgrounds – needs to take place.

This leads to the next issue of what is the best way to identify and conceptualize patterns in
offending across offender backgrounds. If the eventual aim of such research is to differentiate
offenders according to this single characteristic, as others have done by combining previous
criminality with other offender traits (e.g. Almond et al., 2006; Godwin, 2000; Salfati and Canter,
1999), then simply considering the frequency with which an offender confines their offending to a
single legally defined criminal offense is too restrictive of an approach for useful differentiation.
This method ignores the possibility that the offender is committing several offenses that may carry
a different legal distinction but are similar to one another in a broader theoretical or thematic
sense. It also does not allow for a determination of whether offenders can be clearly allocated to
only one identified theme and hence, considered specialists in a broader sense (see Youngs
et al., 2016 for a discussion). The subsequent section will argue that examining broader patterns
in offending may be a better technique than considering the offenses singularly.

VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 29

 Offending versatility or thematic specialization
Though there is some evidence to indicate decreased criminal versatility later in life
(see Nieuwbeerta et al., 2011 for a discussion), the bulk of the criminal specialization literature
suggests that most offenders are generalists (e.g. Britt, 1994; DeLisi and Piquero, 2011; Klein,
1984; Parkinson et al., 2004; Simon, 1997). This may be due to the fact that studies of offender
specialization tend to rely on the specific criminal offense type using the legal definition of the
offense (e.g. the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) definition). However, using this approach an
offender would only be labeled as a specialist if they commit the same legally classified criminal
offense (e.g. burglary or assault) each time they are arrested. As such, a sole focus on the legal
classification accepts “a restricted perspective for examining patterns in offenders’ behavior and
may consequently overlook important similarities and differences” (Salfati and Taylor, 2006,
p. 107). It is suggested here that specialization may be better examined across different legally
defined offenses that are linked through a common underlying psychological or criminological
construct, or theme. For example, a study of specialization by Youngs et al. (2004) found most
offenders were generalists in that they did not repeatedly commit the same legally defined offense
over time. However, the study found that crimes reflecting a theme of dishonesty (e.g. fraud,
theft-related offenses, etc.) occur in higher frequencies and are more central to most offenders’
overall criminal offending. At the same time, Youngs et al. (2004) found that violent and antisocial
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

offenses – when viewed collectively and as reflecting a common underlying construct – did not
tend to co-occur with other thematically dissimilar offenses. In other words, when offenses that
were thematically similar were considered, a potentially higher degree of specialization became
evident in that offenders whose crimes fell within these thematic foci did not commit other types of
offenses. In a similar vein, Soothill et al. (2002) examined the criminal backgrounds of homicide
offenders and found that offenders with certain offenses (i.e. criminal damage, other wounding,
robbery, arson, theft from automated machines, wounding/endangering life, absconding from
lawful custody, kidnapping, manslaughter, blackmail, soliciting a man, adulteration of food or
drugs) in their criminal history had a significantly greater likelihood of committing a homicide.
At the same time other offenses were associated with a decreased risk of committing a homicide
(i.e. other theft, shoplifting, receiving, fraud, theft from vehicles, drug offenses, attempting to
pervert the course of justice). Examining the separate legal classifications of the offenses listed
above fails to demonstrate a notable pattern. However, a closer examination of potential themes
underlying these offenses suggests that homicide offenders may demonstrate a greater likelihood
of specialization in thematically related offenses pertaining to violence (committed against a
person or against property) or antisocial activity.
Sullivan et al. (2009) note that recent years have seen a growth in the number of methodologies
for measuring specialization available to researchers in an effort to better understand criminal
careers. Though the authors note that the variety of approaches being used is likely to produce
inconsistent findings on the degree of specialization (Sullivan et al., 2009), deviating from
traditional ways of conceptualizing specialization is appropriate if one is equally interested in how
offenses cluster together across the entirety of an offender’s background. For example, Sullivan
et al. (2009) provide an example from their own analyses in which latent class analysis – which
allows one to consider how offenses cluster together across the sample – demonstrated that
substance use tended to cluster with violent offenses. Considering this non-violent variable
according to its typical legal classification and in isolation to its associations with other
variables potentially misses important theoretical and policy implications pertaining to the role
of substance use as a facilitating factor in violent offenses (Sullivan et al., 2009). This idea of
grouping offenses that are thematically similar rather than examining single, separate offenses
defined only by their legal classification was expressed more than two decades ago by
Farrington et al. (1988). In their study of criminal specialization among juvenile offenders, the
results demonstrated significant transitions from one offense to another (e.g. trespassing to
larceny-theft, aggravated assault to disorderly conduct), leading the authors to suggest that the
separate offense categories used in the study “might be grouped into broader categories, so that
one offense category corresponded to one underlying theoretical construct” (Farrington
et al., 1988, p. 482). This essentially proposes utilizing a thematic approach to understand
patterns in offender criminal history and was more recently proposed by Youngs et al. (2016).
In this latter study, the authors advocate for an approach to measuring specialization according to

PAGE 30 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016

 thematic groupings of offenses as they occur in an offender’s overall criminal background.
Utilizing a sample of 200 general criminal offenders, the authors found that their criminal
backgrounds demonstrated a thematic split into expressive vs instrumental offending styles.
However, the development of a thematic framework across a sample of offenders is only part of
the process. As Salfati and Canter (1999) note the model’s utility in differentiating offenders must
be demonstrated through an examination of individual offenders to determine if an offender can
be clearly allocated to a single dominant theme.
If such thematic patterns are identified and individual offenders can be clearly allocated to one
theme, it could indicate thematic specialization according to an underlying theoretical construct.
Conversely, generalization would be indicated if offenders could not be allocated to a single
theme suggesting that the proposed thematic distinction is less useful in differentiating offender
backgrounds and alternative offender characteristics may consequently be of greater use.
Not many studies have applied this approach exclusively to a sample of general, SV homicide
offenders. Therefore, the current study aims to explore criminal specialization among a sample of
homicide offenders using the proposed thematic approach in order to determine if basic patterns
in offending exist and if homicide offenders specialize in themes of offending prior to the
commission of their homicide. If such patterns are found, they could act as a bridge between
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

the current and future examinations of criminal history in terms of the more substantive theoretical
issues (e.g. patterns of escalation in offending prior to a homicide) and how this offender
characteristic links to crime scene behaviors committed during the homicide, if at all.

Aims
The first aim of the current study was to determine what criminal offenses co-occur in the
backgrounds of SV homicide offenders and if a thematic division is evident. Given the findings of
Youngs et al. (2016) who found an instrumental/expressive thematic split among general criminal
offenders and the findings of other studies who found a similar thematic pattern across a wider
array of offender background traits across samples drawn from different countries and
composed of different types of offenders (e.g. Hakkanen et al., 2004; Salfati and Canter, 1999;
Salfati and Haratsis, 2001; Santtila et al., 2003a, b), it was hypothesized that the present sample
would demonstrate a thematic distinction. Specifically, the current study hypothesized that a
co-occurrence would be identified between previous offenses that are more instrumental in their
aim and those that are more expressive or violent in a manner generally similar to existing studies.
The second aim of the study was to determine whether offenders could be allocated to a
dominant offense theme, indicating specialization in thematically similar offenses in order to
provide a more discrete measure of the framework’s utility in differentiating offenders.

Methods
Sample, data collection, and variables
Data for the current study were collected directly from investigative case files belonging to the
Cincinnati Police Department. To be included in the sample, the cases had to meet several
criteria. First, only cases involving a single offender and a single targeted victim were selected.
Second, the case had to be resolved by a conviction, with an initial charge of murder or
aggravated murder regardless of the final disposition charge to account for the plea bargaining
process. Third, juvenile offenders were excluded from the sample because many of their offenses
were status offenses (e.g. truancy) making comparison to adult offenders whose juvenile records
could not be obtained unsuitable. Finally, as this study examined offender criminal history using
previous convictions, offenders who had no prior convictions were excluded from the sample.
This resulted in the elimination of a very small subset of the original sample, as 96 percent of
offenders had some type of previous criminality[1]. This resulted in a final sample of 122
homicide offenders and the sample’s demographic features are included in Table I.
Cases were coded using the Homicide Profiling Index version 3 (HPIv3) (Salfati, 2005). The HPIv3
is a coding dictionary developed specifically for use with homicide case files and contains
information on more than 200 variables covering a range of items pertaining to the offender,

VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 31

 Table I Demographic description of sample

Gender % (n) Race % (n) Age

Female Male White Black Other Mean Range

Victims (N ¼ 122) 25 (31) 75 (91) 19 (23) 80 (98) o 1 (1) 30.5 o1-83

Offenders (N ¼ 122) 11 (13) 89 (109) 14 (17) 85 (104) o 1 (1) 30 18-65

victim, and crime scene. The HPIv3 includes detailed variable definitions and guidelines that
coders follow to ensure reliable data collection. The HPI has demonstrated rater agreement
ratings as high as 89 percent (Salfati, 2005). The protocol outlined in the HPIv3 converts
information taken from a file into a numerical format, either dichotomous or categorical. Coding
the majority of the data in this manner helps to reduce ambiguity and enhance reliability of data
collection, as well as assists in maintaining confidentiality of the data. Personal or identifying
information is never extracted from the files or recorded.
Included in the HPIv3 is a set of criminal history variables. The definitions provided by the HPIv3
were used to code the criminal convictions of offenders in the current study sample. However, it
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

became necessary to include additional conviction variables because some offenses could not
be placed into one of the existing offense variables in the HPIv3. These new variables and the
specific criminal charges contained within them were arrived at by a consensus of the authors
and guided by relevant research (e.g. Salfati, 2000; Youngs et al., 2004). Table II provides brief
descriptions of the criminal history variables used in the current study and their relative frequency.

Table II Criminal history conviction variables

Prevalence
Variable and definition % (n)

Alcohol Offense involving use of alcohol (excluding DUI/drunk and disorderly) 20.5 (25)
Armed Robbery of a person with the use of weapon
robbery 5.7 (7)
Arrest Offenses arising out of the arrest process, such as resisting arrest or fleeing 29.5 (36)
Assault Includes offenses of bodily harm and assault 24.6 (30)
Auto-theft Theft of an auto or unauthorized use of a vehicle 8.1 (10)
Burglary Breaking and entering; burglary of a home or business 13.1 (16)
Damage Criminal damaging or vandalism 15.5 (19)
Dependent Crimes against a dependent, such as child neglect, animal cruelty, child
endangerment 4.1 (5)
Disobey Any offense involving violation of posted or known city/local ordinance 17.2 (21)
Domestic Violence in a domestic setting 14.7 (18)
violence
Disorder Any disorderly offense such as disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace 50.8 (62)
Drug Any narcotics offense involving possession of drugs/paraphernalia or
trafficking 62.3 (76)
Fraud Fraud or deception, including forgery 29.5 (36)
Harass Offenses involving threatening or harassment of another through verbal
or non-physical behavior, such as stalking, menacing, or intimidation 8.2 (10)
Legal Offenses arising from legal proceedings such as perjury or obstruction 34.4 (42)
Robbery Robbery of a person without the use of weapon 5.7 (7)
Sexual Any sexual offense such as minor sexual assault, rape, etc. 4.9 (6)
Theft Offenses involving taking the property of another without direct confrontation
of a victim or breaking into a home or business, such as petty theft, shoplifting,
and grand larceny 32.0 (39)
Theft related Theft-related offenses that do not actually involve seizing the property of
another, such as possession of criminal tools, receiving stolen property, etc. 18.0 (22)
Traffic Violation of any traffic law including DUI or any other moving violation 85.2 (104)
Vice-sex Vice crimes of a sexual nature, such as public sex act, solicitation, prostitution 5.7 (7)
Weapon Any offense involving illegal possession of a weapon or brandishing, but
excluding offenses where a weapon was used against a victim 18 (22)

PAGE 32 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016

 Analyses
In order to identify thematic patterns in the prior offenses of homicide offenders, smallest space
analysis (SSA) was used. SSA is a multi-dimensional scaling procedure that examines each variable
in the analysis in relation to every other variable simultaneously and computes a series of association
coefficients. The underlying assumption of SSA is that collective examination of the variables will
identify more meaningful patterns than a series of item-to-item correlations. Because the association
matrix would be difficult to interpret meaningfully if a large number of variables were used, SSA
produces a visual output of the relationships (Guttman and Greenbaum, 1998). The variables are
represented as points in the plot and the plot is interpreted through an examination of the spatial
distances between variables in the geometric space where the distance represents the relative
strength of their relationship. Those variables that occur closer to one another are more strongly
associated than those occurring at a greater distance. Variables located in the center of the plot are
more common among the sample, usually present in more than 50 percent of cases; those located
furthest out from the center occur more rarely within the sample. Additionally, there is an assumed
regionality in SSA where variables occurring in the same region of the plot are likely to co-occur
across cases in the sample and share an underlying theme (Canter and Heritage, 1990). In the
current study, the points in the SSA plot each represent a prior conviction variable; the closer two
offenses appear in the space, the more likely it is that if one is present in an offender’s background
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

the other will be present as well. Here the results were presented in a three dimensional space to
visually capture the most valid relationships between the variables in the geometric output.

As the SSA plot is a geometric representation of the underlying association matrix, a coefficient of
alienation is computed to determine how well the plot reflects this matrix (Guttman and Greenbaum,
1998). The coefficient of alienation ranges from 0 to 1 and the smaller the coefficient, the better the
“fit” (Borg and Lingoes, 1987). In this manner, SSA will allow for the identification of co-occurring
criminal offenses across offenders in the sample and thematic regionality between them.

Canter and Heritage (1990) note that SSA allows for hypothesis generation, as well as hypothesis
testing. As such, the results of such analyses can be of “heuristic value in helping to indicate if
there are any directions from the results that can be used to focus future studies” (Canter and
Heritage, 1990, p. 192). For this reason, SSA was appropriate for the central aim of the current
study that is somewhat exploratory in nature and the results can provide a foundation for future
studies seeking to replicate the findings or expand upon them.

Results
The 122 offenders in the sample had an average of 23 prior arrests (M ¼ 23.29, SD ¼ 17.16) and
nearly 15 prior convictions (M ¼ 14.66, SD ¼ 12.08). Excluding traffic offenses, which are
exceedingly common, the typical offender still had multiple prior arrests and convictions. This
distribution is shown in Figure 1.
The possibility that the number of offenders with multiple previous arrests and convictions may be
due to the higher than average age of the sample deserved specific consideration. According to
the FBI’s UCR, homicide offenders are most commonly between the age of 20 and 24 (Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2013), which is lower than the average age in the current sample.
However, a basic scatterplot comparing the total number of previous convictions and offender
age does not show a clear positive correlation (see Figure 2)[2].

SSA of prior convictions

The central aim of the study was to identify co-occurrences of prior convictions among SV
homicide offenders across the sample and the resulting SSA plot is seen in Figure 2. The
coefficient of alienation was 0.13 indicating an excellent “fit” of the three dimensional plot to
the underlying association matrix (Figure 3).
The regionality hypothesis holds that convictions occurring in the same region of the plot are
thematically similar and the co-occurrences of conviction variables in the SSA above demonstrate
a partitioning of the geometric space into two broad thematic regions, violent and instrumental.

VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 33

 Figure 1 Criminal history distribution showing the mean, median, and maximum number of
arrests and convictions across the sample

Criminal History Distribution

84
Arrests 18
23.29

54
Convictions 11
14.66

57
Arrests (Excluding Traffic) 11
14.1
Maximum
41 Median
Convictions (Excluding
6
Traffic)
8.33 Mean

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

Note: n =122

Figure 2 Scatterplot depicting the relationship between the age of the offender at the time of
the homicide and their total number of previous convictions

50
Total Convictions Excluding Traffic

40

30

20

10

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Age of Offender

Violent offenses, incorporating directly and indirectly violent offenses, co-occurred on the left side
of the plot. Instrumental offenses (i.e. those guided by the attainment of an ulterior goal or benefit
(Feshbach, 1964)) – co-occurred on the right side of the plot. Three high frequency
variables – drug, disorderly, and traffic offenses – occurred in more than 50 percent of cases. The
usage of 50 percent as a cut-off criterion for a variable to be considered high frequency is
consistent with existing studies (e.g. Salfati, 2000; Salfati and Taylor, 2006). Because these
high frequency variables simply represent the most typical offenses among offenders in the
sample they cannot help to differentiate between offenders and are not included in the thematic

PAGE 34 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016

 Figure 3 Smallest space analysis of homicide offenders’ prior criminal convictions with
thematic division reflecting violent and instrumental themes

damage
burglary
domestic violence
assault
weapon
Instrumental
harass theft
disorder
arrest theft related auto-theft
disobey
traffic legal
fraud
drug
Violent alcohol

robbery
sexual
armed robbery
vice-sex

dependent
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

Violent

Instrumental

High Frequency (>50 percent)

Notes: Coefficient of alienation = 0.12939. Variables occurring in more than 50 percent

of the sample define the common offenses across the sample and are not used in the
thematic classification

framework (Youngs et al., 2004). It is important to reiterate that with SSA the focus is not on the
individual meaning of a particular offense or offense category considered in isolation, but on
the thematic link between them that may help to understand why they co-occur.

Violent offenses. The upper most portion of the violence region of the SSA plot showed a
co-occurrence of offenses that involve more direct violence – person to person as with domestic
violence and assault or against property or a physical structure in the case of damage offenses.
The co-occurrence of these directly violent criminal offenses could potentially indicate the
presence of a sub-theme (discussed later), yet the nature of the sample (i.e. size and restricted to
a single city) precludes further development of this possibility. Most of the variables occurring in
the remainder of this region involve more indirect violence against a person, legal entity, or
disregard for the well-being of another. Harassment offenses involve indirect, predominantly
verbal, aggression against another. Arrest-related offenses (such as resisting) can include
violence, yet the location of this variable along the border between the thematic regions is likely
being influenced by its close proximity to the high frequency variables, simply indicating that
common offenses are likely to result in an additional charge. Most of the remaining variables for
the thematic region involve offenses with an antisocial nature (i.e. alcohol and disobey) or involve
exploitation of or disregard for others (i.e. sexual, dependent, and vice-sex). Their clustering
within the plot simply indicates that when these offenses appear in an offender’s background they
are more likely to appear amidst a generally violent background, instead of alongside variables
aimed at material or personal gain. At the bottom of the violent region, three offenses cluster
together apart from other variables – sexual offenses, crimes against dependents, and vice-sex
offenses – that contain either an element of violence, exploitation, or both and again could
indicate a sub-theme nested within the dominant model.

Instrumental offenses. The offenses occurring in the instrumental region are those guided by the
attainment of some sort of ulterior goal or need other than harm to a living victim either through
the direct acquisition of material or monetary items or some sort of tangible benefit to the
offender. Included in this region are offenses typically considered property offenses, such as

VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 35

 burglary, theft, and auto-theft. Offenses involving any sort of theft-related action or offenses that
stop just short of physically stealing something of value (e.g. possession of criminal tools) also
occurred in this region and it is not surprising to find a close association with more traditional theft
offenses. In the same manner, fraud offenses involve the taking of property or other material
goods/benefits through the use of deception. Legal offenses (e.g. obstruction, perjury, etc.) do
not involve an actual taking of tangible items but could still be instrumental in that the offender is
seeking to obtain a personal benefit, such as evading detection, prosecution, or punishment.
Unlike other instrumental offenses, robbery and armed robbery involve the taking of property or
money directly from a human victim, and in the case of armed robbery, with the use of a weapon.
These offenses are clearly instrumental in their primary aim, but include the additional condition of
confronting a person, reflecting a willingness to more directly and aggressively pursue an
instrumental goal. The UCR classification system considers robbery to be a crime against
persons, placing it in the same category as aggravated assault, rape, and homicide, with many
legal jurisdictions following suit by considering it to be a violent offense. Their co-occurrences
here, however, indicted that these offenses are likely to occur within the context of an overall
criminal background characterized by instrumentally, instead of violence. As with the regional
location of several violent variables, yet another sub-theme could be at work here, as could
potential patterns of escalation in offending which will be discussed.
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

In sum, the first aim of the study was to determine if the prior convictions of homicide offenders
could be examined thematically, emphasizing the theoretical constructs that may explain why
some offenses occur together in their backgrounds. The SSA showed that offenders’ criminal
histories displayed alternative patterns in violent offenses vs instrumental offenses. Moreover,
several clusters could be indicative of sub-themes and suggest further refinement of the overall
model, yet the exploratory nature of the current study and the nature of the sample preclude
definitive determination of this possibility.

Identifying thematic specialization

The second aim of the study was to test the violent/instrumental framework and determine if
offenders could be allocated to only one theme and 84 percent of offenders could be clearly
allocated to a single dominant theme using a stringent criterion. This was accomplished through
an individual examination of each offender’s criminal history with a focus on the frequency with
which that offense appeared in an offender’s background utilizing the actual number of
convictions for each offense to determine specialization and thematic dominance. Additionally, to
maintain consistency with prior thematic studies of homicide (e.g. Salfati, 2000; Salfati and
Haratsis, 2001), a stringent criterion was used that required the offender to have at least double
the number of convictions in one theme compared to the other to be allocated to a dominant
theme. (See Trojan and Salfati, 2008 for a discussion of determining dominance in thematic
studies and alternative methodologies to the one used in the current study.)
Using this method, only 16 percent of offenders displayed generalization in their previous
offending behavior, demonstrating no discernable patterning in their criminal history and
significant overlap in offenses across the two themes. Among the 84 percent of classifiable cases,
52 percent were classified as instrumental specialists and 48 percent specialized in violent
offenses. The fact that such a large proportion of offenders could be allocated to a single theme
using a stringent criterion suggests a relatively robust framework of homicide offenders’ previous
criminality that can sufficiently differentiate between them according to how offenses group
together in an offender’s background. The results suggest two distinct criminal backgrounds
among the offenders in this sample and these results can provide a foundation for future studies
seeking to refine more precise sub-groups of offenses.

Discussion
The current study undertook an exploration of the criminal histories of SV homicide offenders
using an approach that accounts for how offenses co-occur across offenders’ backgrounds, as
opposed to a more restrictive method that examines single offenses in isolation to one another.

PAGE 36 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016

 This allowed for the consideration not of what offenses appear in an individual offender’s
background in terms of their frequency and exclusivity, but in terms of groups of thematically
similar offenses manifest across the sample as a whole that may indicate distinct offending styles.
The results presented here demonstrated that it is possible to differentiate offenders’ previous
criminal offenses according to a violent (expressive) and instrumental thematic distinction.
In doing so, the current study utilizes an alternative methodology for identifying broader patterns
in specialization that may prove more appropriate in research seeking to link offender
characteristics, like criminal history, to crime scene behaviors. As stated at the outset of this
paper, forming such a definitive link lies beyond the scope and intent of the current study
and would be premature at this stage. Still, the violent/instrumental model proposed here
provides a starting point for such endeavors and possible extension of the findings presented
herein that may provide a more in-depth conceptualization of patterns in previous criminality,
as outlined below.
The clustering of smaller groups of variables within the overall framework could suggest that
further refinement of the model is possible. For instance, the results suggested that violent
offenses that are more direct in their nature may pull away from other offenses within the overall
theme and demonstrate a tighter co-occurrence if a larger, more generalizable sample were
used. The co-occurrence of sexual and exploitative offenses could similarly indicate a separate
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

distinct sub-group of prior offences. Sexual offenses obviously contain an element of violence in
which a human victim is physically targeted and harmed as in the case of rape, but the
violence in sexual offenses also has an exploitative element in which the victim is treated as an
object thereby making it thematically similar to vice-sex offenses. Taking into account that the
methodology used here does not consider the violent/instrumental meaning of individual
offenses, but why various offenses tend to cluster together, the location of these offenses within
the context of an overall violent or expressive background is not wholly inconsistent with the
findings of others. For example, Youngs et al. (2016) found that the specific sexual offense of
indecent exposure – containing an expressive need for thrill or excitement – occurred in the
context of an overall expressive offending style. The current study incorporated this sexual act
within the broader variable of sexual offenses, and as such, this may provide an explanation as to
why the present configuration of co-occurrences manifested in an overall expressive offending
style. Moreover, these three offenses occur in a portion of the plot with few other variables. Canter
and Heritage (1990) note that portions of an SSA plot with no or relatively few variables may
indicate a missing facet element not being accounted for in the current model. In this manner,
future studies using expanded samples of homicide offenders may be able to identify offenses
that were not committed by offenders in the current sample to refine the framework and identify a
sub-group of offenses within the broader theme.
A similar pattern emerged within the instrumental region in which both robbery and armed
robbery closely associated with one another at a relative distance from the remaining variables in
the larger theme. Though legal classifications typically consider these offenses to be violent or
person oriented offenses, when they are considered in terms of their co-occurrence with other
variables, they seem to be indicative of a theme of instrumentality in offending, not violence.
Though the location of these variables within the instrumental theme is not inconsistent with the
findings of Youngs et al. (2016), the current study found them to occur far from the thematic
border. The study by Youngs et al. made specific note of the fact that in their analyses, all offenses
instrumental in the aim, but containing an element of violence occurred on the border between
the two regions. This and other differences in the co-occurrences of variables within the overall
thematic regions across the two studies could be a by-product of variables analyzed,
cross-national variation between the studies, or it could indicate an important point of difference
in the criminal histories of general criminal offenders vs homicide offenders. Which of these
realities explains the present findings cannot be determined at this point. It is at least theoretically
possible that homicide offenders with an overall instrumental background escalate their offending
from offenses such as theft or burglary to more aggressive offenses like robbery, yet the exclusion
of a timeline of prior criminal offending prevents direct examination of this possibility here. Finally,
nested within the instrumental region as well were weapon offenses, which in the present sample
most typically involved illegal possession of a firearm. This may simply indicate that some
individuals committing an instrumental offense, such as a burglary, are prepared for a

VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 37

 confrontation when committing the offense should it become necessary. This possibility is
in accordance with the existing literature on instrumental offending (e.g. Feshbach, 1964;
Youngs et al., 2016).

Given the ultimate aim of this line of research – provision of empirically derived offender profiles to
assist law enforcement investigations – some may argue that the framework put forth in the
current study is too broad to be of practical utility. However, this merely highlights the need for
replication on larger, more representative samples and exploration of potential refinements to the
model. As Youngs et al. (2016) note, differentiation of offending styles is one of several important
aspects of determining specialization. Though the overall thematic framework produced herein
was similar to the findings of Youngs et al. (2016), the current study went further in attempting to
fully differentiate offender backgrounds through an examination of whether individual offenders
could be allocated to a single theme, thus providing a basic test of the framework when applied to
a sample of homicide offenders, as opposed to a general sample of criminal offenders. In testing a
thematic model in terms of how individual offenders can be allocated to a single theme,
demonstrative of a dominant offending style, Trojan and Salfati (2008) note that there is a fine line
between using a cut-off criterion that is too broad or too liberal. As they note, the criterion must be
sufficiently stringent to differentiate offenders, while “refraining from being overly restrictive in that
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

only a low proportion of the most extreme cases” could be allocated to a single theme (p. 133).
The fact that the current study could allocate 84 percent of offenders into a single dominant
offending style using a criterion that is much more stringent than that used by others (e.g. Salfati
and Bateman, 2005) demonstrates a robust ability to effectively differentiate the criminal histories
of homicide offenders. Moreover, given the similarities in findings between the current study and
the Youngs et al. (2016) study in both the overall thematic division and somewhat similar
co-occurrences of individual variables within the themes, despite using different types of
offenders derived from samples drawn in two separate countries, suggests at the very least that
the model put forth here is a good foundation upon which futures studies can build and expand. It
is possible that the overall configuration of the violent/instrumental framework and potential
sub-themes discussed above are being influenced by different sub-types of homicide offenders
contained in the larger sample. Given the relatively few studies examining patterns in the prior
offending of homicide offenders, it seemed appropriate to begin such explorations using a broad
sample of offenders without dividing them into sub-groups defined by the motivation for the
offense (i.e. domestic homicide, gang related homicide, etc.) that can be difficult to objectively
determine. Future studies may wish to explore this possibility by examining more narrow groups
of homicide offenders to determine if an entirely different pattern emerges or if the overall model
remains constant.

No study is without limitations and a few deserve specific mention. First, the current study is
based upon a sample of general homicide offenders drawn from a single American city.
Generalizability of the findings, particularly to non-urban settings, is not advisable until replication
studies using expanded samples have been undertaken. In addition, the results of the current
study and identified patterns in criminal history only pertain to previous criminal offenses for which
the offender was caught and convicted and may not fully reflect the totality of their prior offending.
If it were possible to incorporate offenses that are not reflected in an individual’s recorded criminal
history – through qualitative interviews or self-report measures – different patterns in previous
offending may emerge. This would be a particularly important avenue of further exploration given
the fact US clearance rates for violent crimes are slightly under 50 and 20 percent, for violent and
property offenses, respectively (FBI, 2013). Still, this might not be extremely problematic for the
current study. The ultimate aim of this line of research is to eventually empirically link offender
characteristics to objective crime scene behaviors and in the case of criminal history, investigators
would be restricted to official criminal records.

An additional and important limitation from both a theoretical and practical standpoint was the
exclusion of a timeline of prior offending for each homicide offender. This precludes the current
study’s ability to provide significant contribution to the examination of offending escalation as a
criminal career progresses. It is at least theoretically possible that offenders may escalate in either
offending seriousness or frequency leading up to the eventual homicidal event and thus,
important information is lost. A timeline of offending would have also allowed for the identification

PAGE 38 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016

 of thematic variations across different stages of an offender’s career. Such examinations could
more directly assist future examinations with at least the theoretical possibility that thematic
patterns among criminal offenses that are temporally closer to the final fatal encounter may more
closely reflect homicide crime scene behaviors and should be examined in future studies.

Conclusion
For the past two decades, a growing body of research has sought to put forth empirically derived
models of offending behavior through collective examinations of groups of co-occurring variables
indicative of an overall offending style (e.g. Almond et al., 2014; Almond and Canter, 2007; Canter,
2000; Godwin, 2000; Hakkanen et al., 2004; Kocsis et al., 2002; Salfati and Bateman, 2005; Santtila
et al., 2003a, b). This approach allows for a richer understanding of complex systems of behavior
than rigid typologies that only provide checklists of behaviors or offender characteristics considered
in isolation to one another (see Canter et al., 2004 for a discussion). This approach may ultimately
prove more useful in developing the A to C equation and its practical application to investigative
efforts. The current study contributes to this body of research through a specific examination of
thematic patterns in homicide offenders’ criminal histories. Yet, it is only the first step in this process.
Extending the framework contained herein to crime scene behaviors is premature given the ample
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

avenues for refining the framework discussed previously. As future studies continue to build a more
comprehensive knowledge base on the thematic patterns in criminal offending preceding a
homicide, the collective findings can then be extended to similar explorations of crime scene
behavior and determine if a homology exists between these two ends of the behavioral equation.

Notes
1. The percentage of offenders with a recorded criminal history in the current study is high compared to
other published studies that have found prevalence rates closer to 50-60 percent in their samples (e.g.
Broidy et al., 2006; DeLisi and Scherer, 2006). This may be a by-product of the city and sample used, but
may also be due to the fact that the current study utilized a purely urban sample. City-level reports
compiled in other US cities have similarly found that a large portion of homicide offenders have an arrest
or conviction record preceding the homicide (e.g. see Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission (2011)
or Chicago Police Department (2011) murder analysis report which found a criminal history in more than
85 percent of homicide offenders in those jurisdictions).

2. The potential relationship between offender age and total number of previous convictions was also
examined using Spearman’s ρ; the result was not significant ( p W0.05).

References
Almond, L. and Canter, D. (2007), “Youths who sexually harm: a multivariate model of behavior”, Journal of
Sexual Aggression, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 217-33.

Almond, L., Canter, D. and Salfati, C.G. (2006), “Youths who sexually harm: a multivariate model of
characteristics”, Journal of Sexual Aggression, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 97-114.

Almond, L., McManus, M.A. and Ward, L. (2014), “Male-on male sexual assaults: an analysis of crime scene
actions”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 1279-96.
Borg, I. and Lingoes, J.C. (1987), Facet Theory: Form and Content, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Britt, C.L. (1994), “Versatility”, in Hirschi, T. and Gottfredson, M.R. (Eds), The Generality of Deviance,
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 173-91.
Broidy, L.M., Daday, J.K., Crandall, C.S., Sklar, D.P. and Jost, P.F. (2006), “Exploring demographic,
structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims”, Homicide Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 155-80.
Canter, D. (1995), “Psychology of offender profiling”, in Bull, R. and Carson, D. (Eds), Handbook of
Psychology in Legal Contexts, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 343-5.

Canter, D. (2000), “Offender profiling and criminal differentiation”, Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 23-46.

VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 39

 Canter, D. and Heritage, R. (1990), “A multivariate model of sex offence behavior: developments in ‘offender
profiling’ ”, Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 185-212.

Canter, D., Alison, L.J., Alison, E. and Wentink, N. (2004), “The organized/disorganized typology of serial
murder: myth or model?”, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 293-320.
Chicago Police Department (2011), “2011 murder analysis report”, Chicago Police Department, Research
and Development Division, Chicago, IL, available at: http://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf (accessed January 2, 2016).
DeLisi, M. and Piquero, A.R. (2011), “New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000-2011: a state-of-the-art
review”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 289-301.
DeLisi, M. and Scherer, A.M. (2006), “Offense characteristics, social correlates, and criminal careers”, Criminal
Justice and Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 367-91.
Farrington, D.P., Snyder, H.N. and Finnegan, T.A. (1988), “Specialization in juvenile court careers”,
Criminology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 461-85.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2013), “Crime in the United States, 2013”, available at: www.fbi.gov/
about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/
clearances/clearancetopic_final (accessed September 20, 2015).
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

Feshbach, S. (1964), “The function of aggression and the regulation of aggressive drive”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 257-72.
Godwin, M. (2000), Hunting Serial Predators: A Multivariate Classification Approach to Profiling Violent
Behavior, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Guttman, R. and Greenbaum, C.W. (1998), “Facet theory: its development and current status”, European
Psychologist, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 13-36.

Hakkanen, H., Puolakka, P. and Santtila, P. (2004), “Crime scene actions and offender characteristics in
arsons”, Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 197-214.

Klein, M.W. (1984), “Offence specialization and versatility among juveniles”, British Journal of Criminology,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 185-94.
Kocsis, R.N., Cooksey, R.W. and Irwin, H.J. (2002), “Psychological profiling of sexual murders: an empirical
model”, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 532-54.

Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission (2011), “2011 homicides and nonfatal shootings”, report,
Milwaukee, WI, available at: http://city.milwaukee.gov/hrc/publications#.VohfkVK0ft4 (accessed January 2, 2016).

Nieuwbeerta, P., Blokland, A.A.J., Piquero, A.R. and Sweeten, G. (2011), “A life-course analysis of offense
specialization across age: introducing a new method for studying individual specialization over the life course”,
Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 3-28.
Parkinson, P.N., Shrimpton, S., Oates, R.K., Swanston, H.Y. and O’Toole, B.I. (2004), “Nonsex offenses
committed by child-molesters: findings from a longitudinal study”, International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 28-39.

Salfati, C.G. (2000), “The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide: implications for offender
profiling”, Homicide Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 265-93.

Salfati, C.G. (2005), “Homicide profiling index© (HPI) – a tool for measurements of crime scene behaviors,
victim characteristics, and offender characteristics”, Homicide Research: Past, Present and Future:
Proceedings of the 2005 Meeting of the Homicide Research Working Group, Chicago, IL, pp. 151-9.

Salfati, C.G. (2009), “Serial crime: the psychology of behavioral consistency & applications to criminal careers
and linking”, in DeLisi, M. and Beaver, K.M. (Eds), The Life-Course of Antisocial Behavior: Aggression to
Delinquency to Crime, Jones & Bartlett, Boston, MA, pp. 201-10.
Salfati, C.G. and Bateman, A.L. (2005), “Serial homicide: an investigation of behavioral consistency”, Journal
of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-44.

Salfati, C.G. and Canter, D.V. (1999), “Differentiating stranger murders: profiling offender characteristics from
behavioral styles”, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 391-406.
Salfati, C.G. and Haratsis, H. (2001), “A behavioral analysis of Greek homicide”, Homicide Studies, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 335-62.

PAGE 40 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016

 Salfati, C.G. and Taylor, P. (2006), “Differentiating sexual violence: a comparison of sexual homicide and
rape”, Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107-25.
Santtila, P., Hakkanen, H. and Fritzon, K. (2003a), “Inferring the characteristics of an arsonist from crime
scene actions: a case study in offender profiling”, International Journal of Police Science and Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Santtila, P., Canter, D., Elfgren, T. and Hakkanen, H. (2003b), “The structure of crime-scene actions in finnish
homicides”, Homicide Studies, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 363-87.
Simon, L. (1997), “Do criminal offenders specialize in crime types?”, Applied and Preventive Psychology,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 35-53.
Soothill, K., Francis, B., Ackerley, E. and Fligelstone, R. (2002), “Murder and serious sexual assault: what
criminal histories can reveal about future serious offending”, Paper No. 144, Police Research Series, London
Home Office, London.
Sullivan, C.J., McGloin, J.M., Ray, J.V. and Caudy, M.S. (2009), “Detecting specialization in offending:
comparing analytic approaches”, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 419-41.
Trojan, C. and Salfati, C.G. (2008), “Methodological considerations of determining dominance in
multidimensional analyses of crime scene behaviors and offender characteristics”, Journal of Investigative
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 08:38 24 March 2016 (PT)

Psychology and Offender Profiling, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 125-45.

Wolfgang, M.E. (1958), Patterns in Criminal Homicide, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Youngs, D., Canter, D. and Cooper, J. (2004), “The facets of criminality: a cross-modal and cross-gender
validation”, Behaviormetrika, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Youngs, D., Ioannou, M. and Eagles, J. (2016), “Expressive and instrumental offending: reconciling the
paradox of specialization and versatility”, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 397-422.

Corresponding author
Carrie Trojan can be contacted at: carrie.trojan@wku.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 6 NO. 1 2016 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 41