Friends of the Forensic Science Club, this week we present the paper “Similar cimes, similar behaviors? Comparing lone-actor terrorists and public mass murderers” by Gill, P.; Silver, J.; Horgan, J.; Corner, E. and Bouhana, N. (2021), in which authors wonder whether enough similarities between lone terrorists and mass murderers exist so we can consider them as similar criminals.
The study of public mass murders and lone terrorists has emerged independently as two distinct research fields in the past few years.
Previous studies about solitary terrorists (or lone wolves, as they have been called many times) suggested that they needed some kind of political, religious or social objective. Similar studies of mass murderers focused on their mental health history and precipitating events, or triggers.
But, after these studies, some experts wondered if the dividing line between the two types of criminals is so clear.
An example of this is a work cited in the article, in which it is suggested that personal grievances and stressors often play a key role in radicalizing the individual and planning the terrorist attack (which is something typical of the mass murderers, according to the existing literature). On the other hand, it is found that the presence of political impulses and social factors is also becoming a determining motivation in school shootings recently (this would be a typical factor for lone terrorists).
That is why some experts have concluded that it would be more useful to discuss mass murderer violence and terrorist attacks under a common framework of demonstrative violence than to assign them to such exclusive classes of violence.
Given the possibility of being able to consider both types of crime as one, or as very similar crimes, authors decided to carry out a study. In it, they collect information from open sources on the internet, limiting themselves to events after 1990 to be as actual as possible.
The obtained results provide us with interesting information. For example, men largely dominate both types of crime. There was also little difference in marital status at the time of the crime: most of them were single (37% and 43%).
Lone terrorists were significantly more educated than mass murderers. Two-thirds of terrorists, compared to only 24% of mass murderers, received some kind of college education.
Lone terrorists were much more likely to have military experience, criminal convictions, change addresses before their attack, live alone, be socially isolated, show increased anger, and possess weapons.
Mass murderers were more likely to have a history of substance abuse, to experience degradation or abuse by others on a regular basis or in the previous moments to the attack, to have relationship problems with other people, to experience specific and chronic stress, and to have some type of relationship or history with the place of the event.
Regarding mental disorders, there were no significant differences (39% and 41%). Nor were there any in relation to warning about the attack before it happened (26% and 19%).
Overall, authors consider the idea that lone terrorists and mass murderers are not that different from each other. There are more things that unite them than things that separate them.
More than 180 variables were studied, and in none of them significant differences were observed. For the most part, they are similar people, with similar mobilization pathways, who commit violent acts that do not differ too much, but with slightly different motivational structures.
Experts argue that, instead of focusing on criminal typologies to talk about these people, it could be more useful to see the degree of loneliness they exhibited, the external directives that the offender received and the depth of the political motivations of him/her, if any.
This finding may have important implications for professionals in this field. For example, after a public mass murder, not claimed by any terrorist organization, investigators should not rule out the possibility that the offender was politically or religiously motivated.
Where authors see consistent differences between the two types of criminals is in the flights. Authors believe that this has to do with the support that offenders receive. Ideologies naturally have more followers than personal grievances. In other words, where there is a large presence of people who share the same ideology, there is a greater probability that some form of flight will occur.
In conclusion, results demonstrate that many of the major potential risk factors are equally common among lone terrorists and mass murderers. This is especially important for crime prevention policies and protocols, and therefore for criminology, which could consider these findings from now on for the study of these crime typologies.
If you want to know more about criminology, the criminal mind, criminal profiling, and forensic science, don’t miss our Certificate in Criminal Profiling, a 100% online program certified by Heritage University (USA), with special grants for the Forensic Science Club readers.
