Youthful parricide: child abuse is not the primary motivator (invited paper)
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-12-2018-0048 |
| Date | 21 November 2019 |
| Published date | 21 November 2019 |
| Pages | 253-263 |
| Author | Sherry A. Thompson,Brooke Thompson |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Youthful parricide: child abuse is not the
primary motivator (invited paper)
Sherry A. Thompson and Brooke Thompson
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to share nascent theory, suggesting there are five types of parricide
offenders. The old theories are not valid: child abuse is not the primary motivator for parricide events.
Design/methodology/approach –This research draws on archival data derived from public sources (i.e.
court records, offender statements, newspapers, etc.).
Findings –Child abuse is not the primary motivator for youthful parricide events. However, it appears to
remain a factor in the parricide equation. The Good Child Postulate romanticizes youthful parricide offenders
and could introduce potentially harmful positive bias into investigations, trials and treatment. The nascent
theory suggests the five fatal personality clusters for youthful parricide offenders.
Research limitations/implications –The identified clusters are still being developed and statistically
validated. More research and analysis is needed to delimit, refine and verify the five fatal personality types of
parricide offenders and to create a clear, cohesive theory.
Practical implications –Murderin general has decreased overthe past decade, parricideshave not. A better
understandingof the phenomena may help to slowthe rate of parricide events. Law enforcement, natal families
and the courts can helpto improve rehabilitative outcomesif children could be recognized as the type of killer
they are and treated differently during the investigative and defense phases of their cases. For example, if
parentsare placed on trial (i.e. are used by defenseto mitigate/excuse themurders), some types of childrenwill
adopt the defensearguments laid out in court andfeel no need for rehabilitation at all.Families of the murdered
parents can come to a better understanding of what has happened –allowing them to grieve without being
forced todefend the murder of their loveone. This research serves asfurther correction for the promulgation of
the notion that all parents who are victims ofyouthful parricide abused the perpetrator, thereby causing their
own deaths. This doesoccur on occasion, but is not a complete picture of the phenomenon.
Social implications –Although murder, in general, has decreased over the past decade, parricides have
not. The standing typology stymies fresh research and researcher’s abilities to explore models that may
help to teach parents, law enforcement and other caring members of society how to prevent parricides in
the future. Additionally, the Good Child Postulate works to create positive bias in the courtroom as
attorneys for well-off, white children can easily build an imperfect defense for a population that is not
actually the abused population. This has many social justice implications.
Originality/value –This information can be utilized by law enforcement, attorneys, the courts, parents and
the prisons/therapeutic settings to better meet the needs of the youthful parricide offender.
Keywords Youthful parricide, Intrafamilial violence, Murder, Parricide motivation
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A 37-year-old woman ismissing and assumed dead. Her intact wallet is still in the house and no
one is using her credit cards. Her husband, who called 911 to report her missing after only two
hours, appears distraught, begging the public and law enforcement agents to help him bring his
loving wife home. Commonsense –built from years of experience –tells thepolice officer that the
murderer is mostlikely the husband. But what if researchers were all sayingit is most likely not the
husband in these cases?
Research utilized to profile or describe different types of killers, if inaccurate, can be prejudicial to
those who read and believe it. That bias can follow defendants (and the dead) into the courtroom
Received 22 December 2018
Revised 11 March 2019
13 March 2019
Accepted 14 March 2019
Sherry A. Thompson and
Brooke Thompson are both
based at Parricide Prevention
Institute, Greenwich,
Connecticut, USA.
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-12-2018-0048 VOL. 5 NO. 4 2019, pp.253-263, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
PAGE253
To continue reading
Request your trial