Abstract
This paper describes the serial killer Ronald Dominique. Ronald killed at least 23 men in southeast Louisiana between 1997 and 2006. The author of this paper served as a mitigation investigator/expert on his case and has worked in over 300 criminal cases since 1988, most of which were capital murder, but also include second degree murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, and habitual offender hearings. In his capacity as a mitigation investigator he interviewed Ronald multiple times and his friends and family on several occasions. This author examines Ronald’s victims; the acts which killed them; Ronald’s life; and how others saw him. The literature on serial killers is discussed and applied to Ronald crimes and his life. Ronald was gay and his victims were either gay or hustlers who were willing to have sex with gay men for money. Using several theories, the author discusses explanations for serial murder. Implications for police investigators are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Most of Ronald’s victims were not reported as missing. Victims were the ones Ronald could remember. There are some missing persons whose bodies were not found and fit the profile of Ronald’s other victims. The families in these unresolved cases were hoping Ronald could give them closure.
The sociologist as mitigation expert/investigator. Ronald Dominique was indicted for first degree murder; with an intent to seek the death penalty. I was hired to help prepare a mitigation defense in the sentencing part of the trial. The trial of a first degree murder case is divided into two phases. The first phase, is to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. If the defendant is found not guilty or guilty of a lesser offense, the trial ends. If a defendant is found guilty of capital murder and he or she is not legally insane, the jury must decide on a punishment. This represents the second phase and involves another trial, but with the same actors in the same settings. The importance of this phase is that the ultimate punishment of death is possible (Forsyth, 1995, 1996, 1997; Forsyth & Bankston, 1997). Any matter the judge regards as relevant to sentencing may be offered as evidence and must include matters relating to certain legislatively specified aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Both the prosecution and the defense may present arguments on whether or not the death penalty should be used. The jury weighs aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing sentences of death or life in prison without parole. The position is an imposing one because these twelve individuals, in the past 24 h, have just found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed first degree murder. But now the defense is asking that the defendant not be sentenced to death because of the defendant’s admirable qualities or due to a life which predisposed him or her to the crime.
The most consequential ingredients for the defense are mitigating factors. Mitigating circumstances are facts that do not justify or excuse an action but can lower the amount of moral blame, and thus lower the criminal penalty for the action. The prosecution offers aggravating circumstances. Generally, aggravation includes actions or occurrences that lead to an increase in the seriousness of a crime but are not part of the legal definition of that crime.
In essence, arguments focus on two adversarial positions: the circumstances of the crime versus the social psychological qualities of the client (Forsyth, 1998, 2014, 2015; Forsyth & Forsyth, 2007). Sociology is relevant to the questions of sentencing in capital murder cases. Sociology expands and explains the boundaries of mitigating factors. The expert/sociologist will attempt the more difficult job of explaining why structural, cultural and familial factors are at least partially to blame for the circumstances of capital murder. A sentencing hearing takes place in serious felony cases after the jury guilt or innocence. The difference is that the judge decides the sentence and the time between guilt and sentencing is not prescribed.
I believe that all trauma has consequences-that must be resolved thru therapy. The idea that some people are non-the-worse for a traumatic event is a failed idea that has been buried under tons of research.
National Law Enforcement Teletype System Messages (NLETS); Law Enforcement Online (LEO), ViCAPS Alerts (Violent Criminal Apprehension Program), and several FBI systems.
References
Borgeson, K., & Kuehnle, K. (2012). Serial offenders: Theory and practice. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Carlisle, A. (1991). Dissociation and violent criminal behavior. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 7, 273–285.
Carlisle, A. (1993). The divided self: Toward an understanding of the dark side of the serial killer. The American Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 23–36.
Clinard, Marshall, B., & Quinney, R. (1973). Criminal behavioral systems. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 33, 588–608.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner’s and Sons.
Egger, S. A. (1998). The killers among us: An examination of serial murder and its investigation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Felson, M. (2002). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forsyth, C. J. (1995). The Sociologist as mitigation expert in first degree murder cases. Clinical Sociology Review, 13, 134–144.
Forsyth, C. J. (1996). Sociology and capital murder: A question of life or death. In P. Jenkins & S. Kroll-Smith (Eds.), Witnessing for sociology: Sociologists in the courtroom (pp. 57–69). New York: Greenwood Press.
Forsyth, C. J. (1997). Using sociology and establishing sociological turf: The sociologist as expert in capital murder cases. Sociological Spectrum, 17, 375–388.
Forsyth, C. J. (1998). The use of the subculture of violence as mitigation in a capital murder case. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 13, 67–75.
Forsyth, C. J. (1999). Too terrible to talk about: A case study of the rape and murder of a child. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 29, 97–106.
Forsyth, C. J. (2007). Recurring criminal scripts: The routinization of cases involving the murder of a child. Applied Social Science, 1, 62–68.
Forsyth, C. J. (2008). The game of wardens and poachers. Southern Rural Sociology, 23, 43–53.
Forsyth, C. J. (2014). The work of the sociologist as mitigation expert in cases of violent crime. In S. J. Morewitz & M. L. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of forensic sociology and psychology (pp. 21–27). New York: Springer.
Forsyth, C. J. (2015). The role of the sociologist as mitigation expert in a sentencing hearing. Criminal Justice Studies, 28, (in press).
Forsyth, C. J., & Bankston, C. L., III. (1997). Mitigation in a capital murder case with a Vietnamese defendant: The interpretation of social context. Journal of Applied Sociology, 14, 147–165.
Forsyth, C. J., & Forsyth, O. F. (2007). A story telling of tragedy: Mental illness, molestation, suicide, and the penalty of death. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45, 59–68.
Forsyth, C. J., & Forsyth, Y. A. (2010a). Amateurs and professionals: Analyzing stories and accounts of game wardens about apprehending poachers. The International Journal of Sociological Research, 3, 119–128.
Forsyth, Y. A., & Forsyth, C. J. (2010b). Using a routine activities approach to explain the resurgence of piracy. The International Journal of Crime, Criminal Justice and Law, 5, 23–29.
Forsyth, C. J., & Marckese, T. (1993). Thrills and skills: A sociological analysis of poaching. Deviant Behavior, 14, 157–172.
Fox, J. A., Levin, J., & Quinet, K. (2008). The will to kill: Making sense of senseless murder. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Freeman, L. (1956). Before I kill more. New York: Kangaroo Books.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. (1973). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press.
Hickey, E. W. (2013). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hilgard, E. (1977). Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action. New York: Wiley.
Holmes, R. M., & DeBurger, J. (1985). Profiles in terror: The serial murder. Federal Probation, 39, 29–34.
Holmes, R. M., & DeBurger, J. (1988). Serial murder. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on serial murder. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holmes, S. T., Tewksbury, R., & Holmes, R. M. (1999). Fractured identity syndrome: A new theory of serial murder. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 262–272.
Jenkins, P. (1994). Using murder: The social construction of serial homicide. New York: deGruyter.
Kappeler, V. E., Blumberg, M., & Potter, G. W. (1993). The mythology of crime and justice. Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime. New York: Basic Books.
Lofland, J. (1969). Deviance and identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Martingale, M. (1993). Cannibal killers. New York: Carroll and Graf.
Masters, B. (1985). Killing for company: The case of dennis Nilsen. New York: Stein and Day.
Michaud, S., & Aynesworth, H. (1983). The only living witness. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Michaud, S., & Aynesworth, H. (1989). Ted Bundy: Conversations with a killer. New York: Signet.
Parker, D. B. (1976). Crime by computer. New York: Scribner’s.
Ramsland, K. (2006). Inside the minds of serials killers: Why they kill. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Samenow, S. E. (1984). Inside the criminal mind. New York: Times Books.
Schechter, H., & Everitt, D. (1997). The A to Z encyclopedia of serials killers. New York: Pocket Books.
Schmid, D. (2005). Natural born celebrities: Serial killers in American culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Skrapec, C. A. (2001). Phenomenology and serial murder. Homicide Studies, 5, 46–63.
Stevenson, R. L. (1963). Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. New York: Scholastic Book Service.
Sutherland, E. (1937). The professional thief. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of criminology. Chicago: J.B. Lippiniott.
Vronsky, P. (2004). Serial killers: The method and madness of monsters. New York: Berkley.
Vronsky, P. (2007). Female serial killers: How and why women become monsters. New York: Penguin Group.
Walsh, A. (2005). African Americans and serial killing in the media: The myth and the reality. Homicide Studies, 9, 271–291.
Warren, J., Hazelwood, R., & Dietz, P. E. (1996). The sexually sadistic serial killer. Journal of Forensic Science, 41, 970–974.
Wiest, J. B. (2011). Creating cultural monsters: Serial murder in America. New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forsyth, C.J. Posing: The Sociological Routine of a Serial Killer. Am J Crim Just 40, 861–875 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9287-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9287-x