Apportioning Culpability in Multiple Perpetrator Acts of Terrorism

Kate Y. O’Malley, James D. Seward, Michael Welner

Abstract


The Depravity Standard instrument was developed to operationalize depraved elements of crimes. It consists of 25items that were derived using multiple sources of data, including case reviews, input from professionals, and over 40,000 survey respondents. This paper presents preliminary data on the use of the Depravity Standard in cases with multiple perpetrators, examining its efficacy in differentiating the culpability of co-conspirators in a terrorist act. The US has been the site of three high-profile terrorist events with dual perpetrators: the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by ex-U.S. Military acquaintances Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols; the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; and the 2015 San Bernardino mass shooting by husband and wife Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. In this pilot project, two independent raters applied the 25 items of the Depravity Standard to each of the six perpetrators to determine which of each pair was the more culpable. Interclass correlation coefficients revealed a high degree of agreement between the raters, attesting to the reliability of the Depravity Standard items. Examination of the total number of Depravity Standard items present reveals McVeigh was more culpable than Nichols. The other four perpetrators were similarly culpable to their partners. These current findings indicate that the Depravity Standard is a promising instrument to determine comparative culpability in terrorist actions with multiple perpetrators. Ongoing analyses of public participation data indicate some items to be more indicative of depravity than others, and future analyses will compare weighted scores.    

Keywords: forensic science, crime severity, the Depravity Standard, terrorism, criminal culpability    


Keywords


forensic science, crime severity, the Depravity Standard, terrorism, criminal culpability

Full Text:

PDF

References


Welner M. The justice and therapeutic promise of science-based research on criminal evil. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2009;37:442-9. PMid:20018993

Reinhard KJ, Welner M, Okoye MI, Marotta M., Plank G., Anderson B, Mastellon T. Applying forensic anthropological data in homicide investigation to the Depravity Standard. J Forensic Leg Med. 2013;20:27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2012.04.018, PMid:23217373

Barton VL. Knowing evil when we see it: an attempt to standardize heinous, atrocious, and cruel. Nova L. Rev. 2009;33:679-702.

Ball WD. Heinous, atrocious, and cruel: apprendi, indeterminate sentencing, and the meaning of punishment. Colum L Rev. 2009;109:893-972.

Welner M. Classifying crimes by severity: from aggravators to depravity. In Douglas J E, Burgess A W, Burgess A G, Ressler R K, editors. Crime classification manual 3rd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2013; 91-107.

Welner M, O’Malley K. The Depravity Standard: using a publicly defined and scientifically developed measure to alleviate prison overcrowding. NYPTI: ESP. 2015; Winter:1-5.

Gill P, Horgan J, Deckert P. Bombing alone: tracing the motivations and antecedent behaviors of lone-actor terrorists. J Forensic Sci. 2014;59(2):425-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12312, PMid:24313297 PMCid:PMC4217375

IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2013.

Dillon N. Oscar López Rivera freed 36 years after string of bombings. New York Daily News [newspaper online]. 2017 May 17 [cited 2017 Oct 13]. Available from: Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/oscar-lopez-rivera-freed-36-years stringbombings-article-1.3173918.

Rogers R, Bagby RM, Dickens S E. Structural interview of reported symptoms (SIRS) and professional manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.

The Depravity Standard [homepage on the Internet]. No date [cited 2017 Oct 13]. Available from: www.depravitystandard.org.

Lanyon RI. Dimensions of self-serving misrepresentation in forensic assessment. J Pers Assess. 2001;76(1):169-79. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7601_10, PMid:11206296

Britt C. Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Q. 2000;17(4):707-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094731

Chiricos TG, Crawford C. Race and imprisonment: A contextual assessment of the evidence. Ethnicity, race, and crime: Perspectives across time and place. 1995;13:281-309.

Johnson BD. Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminol. 2003;41(2):449-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00994.x

Johnson B. Contextual disparities in guideline departures: courtroom social contexts, guideline compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminol. 2005;43(3):761-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00023.x

Kautt PM. Location, location, location: interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug trafficking offenses. Justice Q. 2002;19(4):633-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095381

Ulmer JT, Johnson BD. Sentencing in context: a multilevel analysis. Criminol. 2004;42(1);137-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00516.x

Daly K, Bordt RL. Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature. Justice Q. 1995;12(1):141-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500092601

Bontrager Ryon S, Chiricos T, Siennick SE, Barrick K, Bales W. Sentencing in light of collateral consequences: does age matter? J Crim Justice. 2017;53:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.07.009




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26735/16586794.2017.008

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.