Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 141–162

A Comparison of Ideologically-Motivated Homicides from the New Extremist Crime Database and Homicides from the Supplementary Homicide Reports Using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations to Handle Missing Values

Original Paper

Abstract

This study took advantage of the new open-source Extremist Crime Database (ECDB) to overcome obstacles to studying domestic far-right terrorism from a criminological perspective. In the past, exclusive definitions and inclusion criteria have limited available data on violent crimes committed by domestic far-right terrorists, and official data on violent crimes fail to capture offenders’ links to domestic far-right terrorism and ideological motivation (e.g., anti-government, anti-abortion, anti-religion). Therefore, little is known about the nature of far-right terrorist violence and how such violence is similar to and different from routine or more common forms of violence. Focusing on homicides, this study addressed why and how open-source terrorism data and official crime data can be comparatively analyzed. In doing so, we also demonstrate the utility of synthesizing terrorism and official crime data sources. Data on 108 far-right terrorist homicides were taken from the ECDB. Data on 540 common homicides (five comparison homicides for each far-right terrorist homicide) were randomly sampled from the 2000 Supplementary Homicide Reports. Using multiple imputation by chained equations and logistic regression, we imputed missing values and estimated models to compare the two homicide types on 12 different victim, offender, and event characteristics. Relative to common homicides, we found that far-right terrorist homicides were significantly more likely to have white offenders, multiple victims, multiple offenders, and to occur between strangers, and they were significantly less likely to have white victims, to be carried out with a firearm, and to occur in cities with more than 100,000 residents.

Keywords

Far-right Homicide Domestic terrorism Multiple imputation by chained equations 

References

  1. Aho JA (1990) The politics of righteousness: Idaho Christian patriotism. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  2. Barkun M (1997) Religion and the racist right: the origins of the Christian Identity movement, 2nd edn. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlet C, Lyons MN (2000) Right-wing populism in America: too close for comfort. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgeson K, Valeri R (eds) (2009) Terrorism in America. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, SadburyGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley-Engen MS, Damphousse KR, Smith BL (2009) Punishing terrorists: a re-examination of US federal sentencing in the postguidelines era. Int Crim Justice Rev 19:433–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brearly HC (1932) Homicide in the United States. North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  7. Breslow N (1982) Design and analysis of case-control studies. Annu Rev Public Health 3:29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chermak SM, Freilich JD, Shemtob Z (2009) Law enforcement training and the domestic far right. Crim Justice Behav 36(12):1305–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Decker SH (1993) Exploring victim-offender relationships in homicide: the role of individual and event characteristics. Justice Q 10:585–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Decker SH, Curry GD (2002) Gangs, gang homicides, and gang loyalty: organized crimes or disorganized criminals. J Crim Justice 30:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deflem M (2004) Terrorism and counter-terrorism: criminological perspectives. Elsevier/JAI Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Emerson S (2002) American jihad: the terrorists living among us. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2004) Crime in the United States, 2004. United States Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of InvestigationGoogle Scholar
  14. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2006) Terrorism in the United States, 2003. United States Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2009) Uniform Crime Report Hate Crime Statistics, 2008. United States Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferber A (1998) White man falling: race, gender, and white supremacy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  17. Flewelling RL (2004) A non-parametric imputation approach for dealing with missing variables in supplementary homicide record (SHR) data. Homicide Stud 8:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flewelling RL, Williams KR (1999) Categorizing homicides. In: Smith MD, Zahn MA (eds) Homicide, a sourcebook of social research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 96–106Google Scholar
  19. Freilich JD (2003) American militias: state-level variations in militia activities. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Freilich JD, Chermak SM (2007) Final DHS summer faculty and student research team grant report: creation of a database of US extremist crime, 1995–2005. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Freilich JD, Chermak SM (2009) Extremist Crime Database (ECDB): 1990–2008: preliminary results. Paper presented at the annual Department of Homeland Security University Network Research and Education Summit, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Freilich JD, Chermak SM, Simone J (2009) Surveying American state police agencies about terrorism threats, terrorism sources, and terrorism definitions. Terror Political Sci 21:450–475Google Scholar
  23. Garofalo J, Martin SE (1993) Bias-motivated crimes: the law enforcement response. Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections, CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  24. Global Terrorism Database (2010) The global terrorism database. Retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
  25. Graham JW, Olchowski AE, Gilreath TD (2007) How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci 8:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gruenewald J (2011) A comparative examination of homicides perpetrated by far-right extremists. Homicide Stud 15(2):177–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gruenewald JA, Pridemore WA (2009) Stability and change in homicide victim, offender, and event characteristics in Chicago, 1900 and 2000. Homicide Studies 13:355–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gruenewald JA, Freilich JD, Chermak SM (2009) A review of the far-right extremism literature. In: Blazak R, Perry B (eds) Hate crime issues and perspectives (1–21). Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  29. Hamm MS (1993) American skinheads: the criminology and control of hate crime. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  30. Hewitt C (2003) Understanding terrorism in America. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoffman FL (1925) The homicide problem. Prudential Press, Newark, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Journal of Quantitative Criminology (1999) Special issue on the “National Incident-Based Reporting System”. J Quant Criminol 15:115–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaplan J (1995) Right wing violence in North America. Terror Political Sci 7:44–95Google Scholar
  34. LaFree G, Dugan L (2004) How does studying terrorism compare to studying crime? Sociol Crime Law Deviance 5:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Last JM (1995) A dictionary of epidemiology, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Legault RL, Hendrickson JC (2009) Weapon choice and American political violence: a comparison of terrorists and other felons in federal custody. Criminol Public Policy 8(3):531–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levin J, McDevitt J (1993) Hate crimes: the rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing data, 2nd edn. Wiley-InterScience, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  39. Maxson CL, Gordon MA, Klein MW (1985) Differences between gang and nongang homicides. Criminology 23:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maxson CL, Klein MW, Sternheimer K (2002) Homicide in Los Angeles: an analysis of the differential character of adolescent and other homicides. Final Report for United States Department of Justice Grant 97-IJ-CX-0018. Available online at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/193812.pdf
  41. Maxwell C, Maxwell SR (1995) Youth participation in hate-motivated crimes: research and policy implications. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  42. McCarthy N, Giesecke J (1999) Case-case comparisons to study causation of common infectious diseases. Int J Epidemiol 28:764–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Messner SF, Deane G, Beaulieu M (2002) A log-multiplicative association model for allocating homicides with unknown victim-offender relationships. Criminology 40:457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Messner S, McHugh S, Felson R (2004) Distinctive characteristics of assaults motivated by bias. Criminology 42:585–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pampel FC, Williams KR (2000) Intimacy and homicide: compensating for missing data in the SHR. Criminology 38:661–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pizarro JM, McGloin JM (2006) Explaining gang homicides in Newark, New Jersey: collective behavior or social disorganization? J Crim Justice 34:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pridemore WA, Eckhardt K (2008) A comparison of victim, offender, and event characteristics of alcohol- and non-alcohol-related homicides. J Res Crime Delinq 45:227–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pridemore WA, Chamlin MB, Trahan A (2008) A test of competing hypotheses about hypotheses about homicide following terrorist attacks: an interrupted time series analysis of September 11 and Oklahoma City. J Quant Criminol 24:381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Regoeczi WC, Riedel M (2003) The application of missing data estimation models to the problem of unknown victim/offender relationships in homicide cases. J Quant Criminol 19:155–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenfeld R, Bray TM, Egley A (1999) Facilitating violence: a comparison of gang- motivated, gang-affiliated, and nongang youth homicides. J Quant Criminol 15:495–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Royston P (2004) Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata J 4:227–241Google Scholar
  52. Royston P (2009) Multiple imputation of missing values: further update of ice, with an emphasis on categorical variables. Stata J 9:466–477Google Scholar
  53. Royston P, Carlin JB, White IR (2009) Multiple imputation of missing values: new features for mim. Stata J 9:252–264Google Scholar
  54. Rubin DB (1987) Multiple imputation for non-response in surveys. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmid AP (2004) Frameworks for conceptualizing terrorism. Terror Political Violence 16:197–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmid AP, Jongman AJ (1988) Political terrorism: a new guide to actors, authors, concepts, databases, theories and literature. North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  57. Shields CA, Damphousse KR, Smith BL (2006) Their day in court: assessing guilty plea rates among terrorists. J Contemp Crim Justice 22:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Silke A (1996) Terrorism and the blind men’s elephant. Terror Political Violence 8:12–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silke A (2001) The devil you know: continuing problems with research on terrorism. Terror Political Violence 13:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith B (1994) Terrorism in America: pipe bombs and pipe dreams. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith BL, Damphousse KR (1996) Punishing political offenders: the effect of political motive on federal sentencing decisions. Criminology 34:289–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith BL, Damphousse KR (1999) American Terrorism Study: patterns of behavior, investigation and prosecution of American Terrorists. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith BL, Damphousse KR, Yang S, Ginther C (2005) Prosecuting politically motivated offenders. The impact of the “terrorist” label on criminal case outcomes. Int J Contemp Sociol 42(2):210–216Google Scholar
  64. Sutherland EH (1924) Murder and the death penalty. J Am Inst Crim Law Criminol 15:522–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. United States Department of Justice (2002) Federal Bureau of investigation. Uniform crime reporting program data [United States]: supplementary homicide reports, 2000 [Computer file]. ICPSR03448-v1. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], Ann Arbor. doi:10.3886/ICPSR03448
  66. Wadsworth T, Roberts JM Jr (2008) When missing data are not missing: a new approach to evaluating supplemental homicide report imputation strategies. Criminology 46:841–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wagner J (2010) The fraction of missing information as a tool for monitoring the quality of survey data. Public Opin Q 74:223–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weinberg L, Pedahzur A, Hirsch-Hoefler S (2004) The challenges of conceptualizing terrorism. Terror Political Violence 16:777–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM (2011) Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 30:377–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminal JusticeIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations