Overkill, we know it when we see it: examining definitions of excessive injury in homicide research
| Date | 25 April 2019 |
| Published date | 25 April 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-09-2018-0040 |
| Pages | 61-74 |
| Author | Carrie Trojan,C. Gabrielle Salfati,Kimberley Schanz |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Overkill, we know it when we
see it: examining definitions of
excessive injury in homicide research
Carrie Trojan, C. Gabrielle Salfati and Kimberley Schanz
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine how the term “overkill”is used in the homicide literature to
identify definitional issues that may interfere with reliable data coding across studies. This preliminary
examination of the concept can guide future studies seeking to develop a standard definition.
Design/methodology/approach –To identifyissues inherent in the term “overkill,”three definitions–ranging
from broad andunclear to more specific andobjective –were extracted or adaptedfrom the existing literature.
Using closed,homicide case files, nine coderswere tasked with coding for the presenceof overkill accordingto
one of the definitions across two rounds of coding. Definitional componentsthat made the coding of overkill
difficult were identified using a qualitative sorting task to separate items into themes that represented similar
issues; basic inter-rater agreementpatterns were examined using pairwise percent agreement.
Findings –Based on coder feedback, two problems were identified: conceptual issues with the definitions
and logistical issues with coding. However, feedback also suggested that increasing the objectivity of the
overkill definition led coders to feel the intended meaning of the term was lost. Two out of three groups
showed an increase in coder agreement between the two phases of data collection, illustrating how
increased training is useful in certain situations.
Originality/value –This study is the first in-depth methodological and empirical examination of how the term
“overkill”has been operationalized in the literature, raises key questions that may help with more clearly
coding this variable, and outlines issues that may add difficulty to the development of a standard definition.
Keywords Offender profiling, Homicide, Operationalization, Crime scene analysis, Data coding, Overkill
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Studies have utilized the term “overkill”as indicative of offender motivation, as a characteristic of
a particular type or sub-type of homicide, and as suggestive of the nature of the victim–offender
relationship. Douglas et al. (1992, p. 11) state that overkill is one crime scene characteristic that
may “lead the investigator to a specific homicide category and thus a possible motive for the
offense.”Thus, the authors suggest overkill can be directly applied in investigations; however, the
reliability, validity and utility of any variable is naturally correlated with its objectivity, highlighting
the need for a clear definition. Before valid research can be done to back up the hypothesis that
overkill is a salient feature to focus on at the crime scene, or before overkill as key evidence can
be collected and used as part of the crime scene analysis process, a clear, valid and reliable
definition of the concept needs to be agreed on. This will allow both researchers and
practitioners to determine presence as well as utility of the term to investigators.
The term “overkill”has made frequent appearances in classic and contemporary studies of
homicide. However, many of these studies do not use a clear and fully objective definition. The
most common definition to appear in the homicide literature –“theinfliction of more injury than is
necessary to kill a person”(Ressler et al., 1995, p. 55) –seems to be a widely accepted concept
in the homicide vernacular. Due to this, some authors utilize the term without providing a clear, or
Received 14 September 2018
Revised 9 January 2019
Accepted 11 February 2019
The authors would like to express
their gratitude to the FBI’s
Behavioral Analysis Unit for
coordinating access to the data
used in this paper. Authors’
opinions, statements and
conclusions should not be
considered an endorsement by the
FBI for any policy, program or
service.
Carrie Trojan is based
at the Department of
Sociology, Western Kentucky
University, Bowling Green,
Kentucky, USA.
C. Gabrielle Salfati is based
at the Department of
Psychology, John Jay College
of Criminal Justice, City
University of New York,
New York, USA.
Kimberley Schanz is based at
the Department of Criminal
Justice, Stockton University,
Galloway, New Jersey, USA.
DOI 10.1108/JCP-09-2018-0040 VOL. 9 NO. 2 2019, pp. 61-74, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
PAG E 61
To continue reading
Request your trial