Hubbry Logo
MurderMurderMain
Open search
Murder
Community hub
Murder
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Murder
Murder
Murder
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

"Murdered" and "Murdering" redirect here. For other uses, see Murder (disambiguation).
"Murderer" and "Murderess" redirect here. For other uses, see Murderer (disambiguation).
"Double murder" redirects here. For the film, see Double Murder.
Cain slaying Abel, by Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1600
Criminal law
Elements
Scope of criminal liability
Severity of offense
Inchoate offenses
Offense against the person
Sexual offenses
Crimes against property
Crimes against justice
Crimes against the public
Crimes against animals
Crimes against the state
Defenses to liability
Other common-law areas
Portals
Part of a series on
Homicide
Murder

Note: Varies by jurisdiction

Manslaughter
Non-criminal homicide

Note: Varies by jurisdiction

Family
Other

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction.[1][2][3] This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is killing committed in the absence of malice,[note 1] such as in the case of voluntary manslaughter brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness.

Most societies consider murder to be an extremely serious crime, and thus believe that a person convicted of murder should receive harsh punishments for the purposes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation. In most countries, a person convicted of murder generally receives a long-term prison sentence, a life sentence, or capital punishment.[4] Some countries, states, and territories, including the United Kingdom and other countries with English-derived common law, mandate life imprisonment for murder, whether it is subdivided into first-degree murder or otherwise.[5]

Etymology

[edit]

The modern English word "murder" descends from the Proto-Indo-European *mŕ̥-trom which meant "killing", a noun derived from *mer- "to die".[6]

Proto-Germanic, in fact, had two nouns derived from this word, later merging into the modern English noun: *murþrą "death, killing, murder" (directly from Proto-Indo-European*mŕ̥-trom), whence Old English morðor "secret or unlawful killing of a person, murder; mortal sin, crime; punishment, torment, misery";[7] and *murþrijô "murderer; homicide" (from the verb *murþrijaną "to murder"), giving Old English myrþra "homicide, murder; murderer". There was a third word for "murder" in Proto-Germanic, continuing Proto-Indo-European *mr̥tós "dead" (compare Latin mors), giving Proto-Germanic *murþą "death, killing, murder" and Old English morþ "death, crime, murder" (compare German Mord).

The -d- first attested in Middle English mordre, mourdre, murder, murdre could have been influenced by Old French murdre, itself derived from the Germanic noun via Frankish *murþra (compare Old High German murdreo, murdiro), though the same sound development can be seen with burden (from burthen). The alternative murther (attested up to the 19th century) springs directly from the Old English forms. Middle English mordre is a verb from Anglo-Saxon myrðrian from Proto-Germanic *murþrijaną, or, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, from the noun.[8]

Definition

[edit]

The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.[9]

At common law, murder was normally punishable by death.[10]

The elements of common law murder are:[11]

  • unlawful : This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as capital punishment, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as well as causing collateral damage to non-combatants during a war.[12]
  • killing : At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest[11] – the total and irreversible cessation of blood circulation and respiration.[11] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.[11]
  • through criminal act or omission : Killing can be committed by an act or an omission.[13]
  • of a human : This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law, a fetus was not a human being.[14] Life began when the fetus passed through the vagina and took its first breath.[11]
  • by another human : In early common law, suicide was considered murder.[11] The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.
  • with malice aforethought: Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice".

In contrast with manslaughter, murder requires the mental element known as malice aforethought. Mitigating factors that weigh against a finding of intent to kill, such as "loss of control" or "diminished responsibility", may result in the reduction of a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.[10]

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:[15]

  1. Intent to kill,
  2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
  3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
  4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine).

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm one or more victims.

Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from the defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. In Australian jurisdictions, the unreasonable risk must amount to a foreseen probability of death (or grievous bodily harm in most states), as opposed to possibility.[16]

Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.

In Spanish criminal law,[17] asesinato (literally 'assassination'): takes place when any of these requirements concur: Treachery (the use of means to avoid risk for the aggressor or to ensure that the crime goes unpunished), price or reward (financial gain) or viciousness (deliberately increasing the pain of the victim). After the last reform of the Spanish Criminal Code, in force since July 1, 2015, another circumstance that turns homicide (homicidio) into assassination is the desire to facilitate the commission of another crime or to prevent it from being discovered.[18]

As with most legal terms, the precise definition of murder varies between jurisdictions and is usually codified in some form of legislation. Even when the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter is clear, it is not unknown for a jury to find a murder defendant guilty of the lesser offense. The jury might sympathize with the defendant (e.g. in a crime of passion, or in the case of a bullied victim who kills their tormentor), and the jury may wish to protect the defendant from a sentence of life imprisonment or execution.

Degrees

[edit]
"Murder in the second degree" and "Premeditated murder" redirect here. For the album, see Murder in the Second Degree. For the film, see Premeditated Murder.

Some jurisdictions divide murder by degrees. The distinction between first- and second-degree murder exists, for example, in Canadian murder law and U.S. murder law. Some US states maintain the offense of capital murder.

The most common division is between first- and second-degree murder. Generally, second-degree murder is common law murder, and first-degree is an aggravated form. The aggravating factors of first-degree murder depend on the jurisdiction, but may include a specific intent to kill, premeditation, or deliberation. In some, murders committed by acts such as strangulation, poisoning, or lying in wait are also treated as first-degree murder.[19] A few states in the U.S. further distinguish third-degree murder, but they differ significantly in which kinds of murders they classify as second-degree versus third-degree. For example, Minnesota and Pennsylvania define third-degree murder as depraved-heart murder (which in most U.S. jurisdictions is called second-degree), whereas Florida defines third-degree murder as felony murder (except when the underlying felony is specifically listed in the definition of first-degree murder).[20][21][22]

Some jurisdictions also distinguish premeditated murder. This is the crime of wrongfully and intentionally causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.[23] State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation". In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of homicide, often with a life sentence without the possibility of parole, or in some countries, the death penalty. In the U.S., federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1111(a)) criminalizes premeditated murder, felony murder and second-degree murder committed under situations where federal jurisdiction applies.[24] In Canada, the criminal code classifies murder as either first- or second-degree. The former type of murder is often called premeditated murder, although premeditation is not the only way murder can be classified as first-degree. In the Netherlands, the traditional strict distinction between premeditated intentional killing (classed as murder, moord) and non-premeditated intentional killing (manslaughter, doodslag) is maintained; when differentiating between murder and manslaughter, the only relevant factor is the existence or not of premeditation (rather than the existence or not of mitigating or aggravated factors). Manslaughter (non-premeditated intentional killing) with aggravating factors is punished more severely, but it is not classified as murder, because murder is an offense which always requires premeditation.[25]

Common law

[edit]

According to Blackstone, English common law identified murder as a public wrong.[26] According to common law, murder is considered to be malum in se, that is, an act which is evil within itself. An act such as murder is wrong or evil by its very nature, and it is the very nature of the act which does not require any specific detailing or definition in the law to consider murder a crime.[27]

Some jurisdictions still take a common law view of murder. In such jurisdictions, what is considered to be murder is defined by precedent case law or previous decisions of the courts of law. However, although the common law is by nature flexible and adaptable, in the interests both of certainty and of securing convictions, most common law jurisdictions have codified their criminal law and now have statutory definitions of murder.

Exclusions

[edit]

General

[edit]

Although laws vary by country, there are circumstances of exclusion that are common in many legal systems.

  • The killing of enemy combatants who have not surrendered, when committed by lawful combatants in accordance with lawful orders in war, is generally not considered murder. Illicit killings within a war may constitute murder or homicidal war crimes; see Laws of war.
  • Self-defense: acting in self-defense or in defense of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise have been murder. However, a self-defense killing might be considered manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took place, such as imperfect self-defense. In the case of self-defense, it is called a "justifiable homicide".[28]
  • Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.
  • In many common law countries, provocation is a partial defense to a charge of murder which acts by converting what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter (this is voluntary manslaughter, which is more severe than involuntary manslaughter).
  • Accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses; they are often considered manslaughter.
  • Suicide does not constitute murder in most societies. Assisting a suicide, however, may be considered murder in some circumstances.

Specific to certain countries

[edit]
  • Capital punishment: some countries practice the death penalty. Capital punishment may be ordered by a legitimate court of law as the result of a conviction in a criminal trial with due process for a serious crime. All member states of the Council of Europe are prohibited from using the death penalty.
  • Euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide: the administration of lethal drugs by a doctor to a terminally ill patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, in many jurisdictions it is seen as a special case (see the doctrine of double effect and the case of Dr John Bodkin Adams).[29]
  • Killing to prevent the theft of one's property may be legal under certain circumstances, depending on the jurisdiction.[30][31] In 2013, a jury in south Texas acquitted a man who killed a sex worker who attempted to run away with his money.[32]
  • Killing an intruder who is found by an owner to be in the owner's home (having entered unlawfully): legal in most US states (see Castle doctrine).[33]
  • Killing to prevent specific forms of aggravated rape or sexual assault – killing of attacker by the potential victim or by witnesses to the scene; legal in parts of the US and in various other countries.[34]
  • In some countries, the killing for what are considered reasons connected to family honor, usually involving killing due to sexual, religious or caste reasons (known as honor killing), committed frequently by a husband, father or male relative of the victim, is not considered murder; it may not be considered a criminal act or it may be considered a criminal offense other than murder.[35][36] International law, including the Istanbul Convention (the first legally binding convention against domestic violence and violence against women) prohibits these types of killings (see Article 42 – Unacceptable justifications for crimes, including crimes committed in the name of so-called honor).[37]
  • In the United States, in most states and in federal jurisdiction, a killing by a police officer is excluded from prosecution if the officer reasonably believes they are being threatened with deadly force by the victim. This may include such actions by the victim as reaching into a glove compartment or pocket for license and registration, if the officer reasonably believes that the victim might be reaching for a gun.[38]

Victim

[edit]

All jurisdictions require that the victim be a natural person; that is, a human being who was still alive before being murdered. In other words, under the law one cannot murder a corpse, a corporation, a non-human animal, or any other non-human organism such as a plant or bacterium.

California's murder statute, penal code section 187, expressly mentioned a fetus as being capable of being killed, and was interpreted by the Supreme Court of California in 1994 as not requiring any proof of the viability of the fetus as a prerequisite to a murder conviction.[39] This holding has two implications. Firstly, a defendant in California can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus which the mother herself could have terminated without committing a crime.[39] And secondly, as stated by Justice Stanley Mosk in his dissent, because women carrying nonviable fetuses may not be visibly pregnant, it may be possible for a defendant to be convicted of intentionally murdering a person they did not know existed.[39]

Mitigating circumstances

[edit]

Some countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than being found guilty of murder, if it can be proved that the killer was suffering from a condition that affected their judgment at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken into account when assessing responsibility.

Insanity

[edit]
Main articles: Insanity defense and M'Naghten rules

Mental disorder may apply to a wide range of disorders including psychosis caused by schizophrenia and dementia, and excuse the person from the need to undergo the stress of a trial as to liability. Usually, sociopathy and other personality disorders are not legally considered insanity. In some jurisdictions, following the pre-trial hearing to determine the extent of the disorder, the defense of "not guilty by reason of insanity" may be used to get a not guilty verdict.[40] This defense has two elements:

  • That the defendant had a serious mental illness, disease, or defect
  • That the defendant's mental condition, at the time of the killing, rendered the perpetrator unable to determine right from wrong, or that what they were doing was wrong
Aaron Alexis holding a shotgun during his rampage

Under New York law, for example:

§ 40.15 Mental disease or defect. In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defence that when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong.

— N.Y. Penal Law, § 40.15[41]

Under the French Penal Code:

Article 122-1

  • A person is not criminally liable who, when the act was committed, was suffering from a psychological or neuropsychological disorder which destroyed his discernment or his ability to control his actions.
  • A person who, at the time he acted, was suffering from a psychological or neuropsychological disorder which reduced his discernment or impeded his ability to control his actions, remains punishable; however, the court shall take this into account when it decides the penalty and determines its regime.

— Penal Code §122-1 found at Legifrance web site

Those who successfully argue a defense based on a mental disorder are usually referred to mandatory clinical treatment until they are certified safe to be released back into the community, rather than prison.[42]

Postpartum depression

[edit]

Postpartum depression (also known as post-natal depression) is recognized in some countries as a mitigating factor in cases of infanticide. According to Susan Friedman, "Two dozen nations have infanticide laws that decrease the penalty for mothers who kill their children of up to one year of age. The United States does not have such a law, but mentally ill mothers may plead not guilty by reason of insanity."[43] In the law of the Republic of Ireland, infanticide was made a separate crime from murder in 1949, applicable for the mother of a baby under one year old where "the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child".[44] Since independence, death sentences for murder in such cases had always been commuted;[45] the new act was intended "to eliminate all the terrible ritual of the black cap and the solemn words of the judge pronouncing sentence of death in those cases ... where it is clear to the Court and to everybody, except perhaps the unfortunate accused, that the sentence will never be carried out."[46] In Russia, murder of a newborn child by the mother has been a separate crime since 1996.[47]

Unintentional

[edit]

For a killing to be considered murder in nine out of fifty states in the US, there normally needs to be an element of intent. A defendant may argue that they took precautions not to kill, that the death could not have been anticipated, or was unavoidable. As a general rule, manslaughter[48] constitutes reckless killing, but manslaughter also includes criminally negligent (i.e. grossly negligent) homicide.[49] Unintentional killing that results from an involuntary action generally cannot constitute murder.[50] After examining the evidence, a judge or jury (depending on the jurisdiction) would determine whether the killing was intentional or unintentional.

Diminished capacity

[edit]

In jurisdictions using the Uniform Penal Code, such as California, diminished capacity may be a defense. For example, Dan White used this defense[51] to obtain a manslaughter conviction, instead of murder, in the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. Afterward, California amended its penal code to provide "As a matter of public policy there shall be no defense of diminished capacity, diminished responsibility, or irresistible impulse in a criminal action...."[52]

Aggravating circumstances

[edit]

Murder with specified aggravating circumstances is often punished more harshly. Depending on the jurisdiction, such circumstances may include:

  • Premeditation
  • Poisoning
  • Lying in wait
  • Murder of a child
  • Murder committed during sexual assault
  • Murder committed during kidnapping[53]
  • Multiple murders committed within one criminal transaction or in different transactions as part of one broader scheme
  • Murder of a police officer,[54][55] judge, firefighter or witness to a crime[56]
  • Murder of a pregnant woman[57]
  • Crime committed for pay or other reward, such as contract killing[58]
  • Exceptional brutality or cruelty, such as that employed in torture murder
  • The use of excessive or gratuitous violence beyond that which is necessary to kill; overkill[59]
  • Murder committed by an offender previously convicted of murder
  • Methods which are dangerous to the public[60] e.g. explosion, arson, shooting in a crowd etc.[61]
  • Murder for a political cause[54][62]
  • Murder committed in order to conceal another crime or facilitate its commission.[63]
  • Murder committed in order to obtain material gain, for example to obtain an inheritance[64]
  • Hate crimes, which occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their perceived membership in a certain social group.
  • Treachery (e.g. Heimtücke in German law)

In the United States and Canada, these murders are referred to as first-degree or aggravated murders.[65] Under English criminal law, murder always carries a mandatory life sentence, but is not classified into degrees. Penalties for murder committed under aggravating circumstances are often higher under English law than the 15-year minimum non-parole period that otherwise serves as a starting point for a murder committed by an adult.

Felony murder rule

[edit]
Main article: Felony murder rule

A legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills in the commission of a dangerous crime, (regardless of intent), he or she is guilty of murder. The felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of preventing dangerous felonies,[66] but the case of Ryan Holle[67] shows it can be used very widely.

The felony-murder reflects the versari in re illicita: the offender is objectively responsible for the event of the unintentional crime;[68] in fact the figure of the civil law systems corresponding to felony murder is the preterintentional homicide (art. 222-7 French penal code,[69][70][71] art. 584 Italian penal code,[72] art. 227 German penal code[73] etc.). Felony murder contrasts with the principle of guilt, for which in England it was, at least formally, abolished in 1957, in Canada it was quashed by the Supreme Court, while in the USA it continues to survive.[74][75][76]

Year-and-a-day rule

[edit]
Main article: Year and a day rule

In some common law jurisdictions, a defendant accused of murder is not guilty if the victim survives for longer than one year and one day after the attack.[77] This reflects the likelihood that if the victim dies, other factors will have contributed to the cause of death, breaking the chain of causation; and also means that the responsible person does not have a charge of murder "hanging over their head indefinitely".[78] Subject to any statute of limitations, the accused could still be charged with an offense reflecting the seriousness of the initial assault.

With advances in modern medicine, most countries have abandoned a fixed time period and test causation on the facts of the case. This is known as "delayed death" and cases where this was applied or was attempted to be applied go back to at least 1966.[79]

In England and Wales, the "year-and-a-day rule" was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996. However, if death occurs three years or more after the original attack then prosecution can take place only with the attorney-general's approval.

In the United States, many jurisdictions have abolished the rule as well.[80][81] Abolition of the rule has been accomplished by enactment of statutory criminal codes, which displaced the common-law definitions of crimes and corresponding defenses. In 2001 the Supreme Court of the United States held that retroactive application of a state supreme court decision abolishing the year-and-a-day rule did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution.[82]

The potential effect of fully abolishing the rule can be seen in the case of 74-year-old William Barnes, charged with the murder of a Philadelphia police officer Walter T. Barclay Jr., who he had shot nearly 41 years previously. Barnes had served 16 years in prison for attempting to murder Barkley, but when the policeman died on 19 August 2007, this was alleged to be from complications of the wounds suffered from the shooting – and Barnes was charged with his murder. He was acquitted on May 24, 2010.[83]

Contributing factors

[edit]

Certain personality disorders are associated with an increased homicide rate, most notably narcissistic, anti-social, and histrionic personality disorders and those associated with psychopathology.[84]

Several studies have shown that there is a correlation between murder rates and poverty.[85][86][87][88] A 2000 study showed that regions of the state of São Paulo in Brazil with lower income also had higher rates of murder.[88]

Historical attitudes

[edit]
A group of Thugs strangling a traveller on a highway in the early 19th century

In the past, certain types of homicide were lawful and justified. Georg Oesterdiekhoff wrote:

Evans-Pritchard says about the Nuer from Sudan: "Homicide is not forbidden, and Nuer do not think it wrong to kill a man in fair fight. On the contrary, a man who slays another in combat is admired for his courage and skill." (Evans-Pritchard 1956: 195) This statement is true for most African tribes, for pre-modern Europeans, for Indigenous Australians, and for Native Americans, according to ethnographic reports from all over the world. ... Homicides rise to incredible numbers among headhunter cultures such as the Papua. When a boy is born, the father has to kill a man. He needs a name for his child and can receive it only by a man, he himself has murdered. When a man wants to marry, he must kill a man. When a man dies, his family again has to kill a man.[89]

In many such societies the redress was not via a legal system, but by blood revenge, although there might also be a form of payment that could be made instead—such as the weregild which in early Germanic society could be paid to the victim's family in lieu of their right of revenge.

One of the oldest-known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed." In the Abrahamic religions, the first ever murder was committed by Cain against his brother Abel out of jealousy.[90] The prohibition against murder is one of the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses in Exodus and Deuteronomy, which are part of the scripture for both Jews and Christians. In Islam according to the Qur'an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human being who has committed no fault.[91] The term assassin derives from Hashshashin,[92] a militant Ismaili Shi'ite sect, active from the 8th to 14th centuries. This mystic secret society killed members of the Abbasid, Fatimid, Seljuq and Crusader elite for political and religious reasons.[93] The Thuggee cult that plagued India was devoted to Kali, the goddess of death and destruction.[94][95] According to some estimates the Thuggees murdered one million people between 1740 and 1840.[96] The Aztecs believed that without regular offerings of blood the sun god Huitzilopochtli would withdraw his support for them and destroy the world as they knew it.[97] According to Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the 1487 re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan.[98][99] Japanese samurai had the right to strike with their sword at anyone of a lower class who compromised their honour.[100]

Slavery

[edit]

Southern slave codes did make willful killing of a slave illegal in most cases.[101] For example, the 1860 Mississippi case of Oliver v. State charged the defendant with murdering his own slave.[102] In 1811, the wealthy white planter Arthur Hodge was hanged for murdering several of his slaves on his plantation in the Virgin Islands.[103]

Honor killings in Corsica

[edit]

In Corsica, vendetta was a social code that required Corsicans to kill anyone who wronged their family honor. Between 1821 and 1852, no fewer than 4,300 murders were perpetrated in Corsica.[104]

Abortion

[edit]

Opponents of abortion consider abortion a form of murder, treating the foetus as a person.[105][106] In some countries, a foetus is a legal person who can be murdered,[note 2] and killing someone who is pregnant is considered a double homicide.[108]

Incidence

[edit]
See also: List of countries by intentional homicide rate
International murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 2011
  0–1
  1–2
  2–5
  5–10
  10–20
  >20

The World Health Organization reported in October 2002 that a person is murdered every 60 seconds.[109] An estimated 520,000 people were murdered in 2000 around the globe. Another study estimated the worldwide murder rate at 456,300 in 2010 with a 35% increase since 1990.[110] Two-fifths of them were young people between the ages of 10 and 29 who were killed by other young people.[111] Because murder is the least likely crime to go unreported, statistics of murder are seen as a bellwether of overall crime rates.[112]

Historical variation

[edit]
Intentional homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 2009

According to scholar Pieter Spierenburg homicide rates per 100,000 in Europe have fallen over the centuries, from 35 per 100,000 in medieval times, to 20 in 1500 AD, five in 1700, to below two per 100,000 in 1900.[113]

In the United States, murder rates have been higher and have fluctuated. They fell below 2 per 100,000 by 1900, rose during the first half of the century, dropped in the years following World War II, and bottomed out at 4.0 in 1957 before rising again.[114] The rate stayed in 9 to 10 range most of the period from 1972 to 1994, before falling to 5 in present times.[113] The increase since 1957 would have been even greater if not for the significant improvements in medical techniques and emergency response times, which mean that more and more attempted homicide victims survive. According to one estimate, if the lethality levels of criminal assaults of 1964 still applied in 1993, the country would have seen the murder rate of around 26 per 100,000, almost triple the actually observed rate of 9.5 per 100,000.[115]

The historical homicide rate in Stockholm since 1400 AD. The murder rate was very high in the Middle Ages. The rate has declined greatly: from 45/100,000 to a low of 0.6 in the 1950s. The last decades have seen the homicide rate rise slowly.

A similar, but less pronounced pattern has been seen in major European countries as well. The murder rate in the United Kingdom fell to 1 per 100,000 by the beginning of the 20th century and as low as 0.62 per 100,000 in 1960, and was at 1.28 per 100,000 as of 2009. The murder rate in France (excluding Corsica) bottomed out after World War II at less than 0.4 per 100,000, quadrupling to 1.6 per 100,000 since then.[116]

The specific factors driving these dynamics in murder rates are complex and not universally agreed upon. Much of the raise in the U.S. murder rate during the first half of the 20th century is generally thought to be attributed to gang violence associated with Prohibition. Since most murders are committed by young males, the near simultaneous low in the murder rates of major developed countries circa 1960 can be attributed to low birth rates during the Great Depression and World War II. Causes of further moves are more controversial. Some of the more exotic factors claimed to affect murder rates include the availability of abortion[117] and the likelihood of chronic exposure to lead during childhood (due to the use of leaded paint in houses and tetraethyllead as a gasoline additive in internal combustion engines).[118]

Rates by country

[edit]

Murder rates vary greatly among countries and societies around the world. In the Western world, murder rates in most countries have declined significantly during the 20th century and are now between 1 and 4 cases per 100,000 people per year. Latin America and the Caribbean, the region with the highest murder rate in the world,[119] experienced more than 2.5 million murders between 2000 and 2017.[120]

UNODC: Per 100,000 population (2011)

Murder rates in jurisdictions such as Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Iceland, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Germany are among the lowest in the world, around 0.3–1 cases per 100,000 people per year; the rate of the United States is among the highest of developed countries, around 4.5 in 2014,[121] with rates in larger cities sometimes over 40 per 100,000.[122] The top ten highest murder rates are in Honduras (91.6 per 100,000), El Salvador, Ivory Coast, Venezuela, Belize, Jamaica, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guatemala, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Zambia. (UNODC, 2011 – full table here).

The following absolute murder counts per-country are not comparable because they are not adjusted by each country's total population. Nonetheless, they are included here for reference, with 2010 used as the base year (they may or may not include justifiable homicide, depending on the jurisdiction). There were 52,260 murders in Brazil, consecutively elevating the record set in 2009.[123] Over half a million people were shot to death in Brazil between 1979 and 2003.[124] 33,335 murder cases were registered across India,[125] approximately 17,000 murders in Colombia (the murder rate was 38 per 100,000 people, in 2008 murders went down to 15,000),[126] approximately 16,000 murders in South Africa,[127] approximately 15,000 murders in the United States,[128] approximately 26,000 murders in Mexico,[129] about 8,000 murders committed in Russia,[130] approximately 13,000 murders in Venezuela,[131] approximately 4,000 murders in El Salvador,[132] approximately 1,400 murders in Jamaica,[133] approximately 550 murders in Canada[134] and approximately 470 murders in Trinidad and Tobago.[133] Pakistan reported 12,580 murders.[135]

United States

[edit]
The Lake Bodom murders in Espoo, Finland is the most famous unsolved homicide case in Finnish criminal history.[136] The tent is investigated immediately after the murders in 1960.
The scene of a murder in Rio de Janeiro. More than 800,000 people were murdered in Brazil between 1980 and 2004.[137]

In the United States, 666,160 people were killed between 1960 and 1996.[138] Approximately 90% of murders in the US are committed by males.[139] Between 1976 and 2005, 23.5% of all murder victims and 64.8% of victims murdered by intimate partners were female.[140] For women in the US, homicide is the leading cause of death in the workplace.[141]

In the US, murder is the leading cause of death for African American males aged 15 to 34. Between 1976 and 2008, African Americans were victims of 329,825 homicides.[142][143] In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Report indicated that nearly half of the 14,990 murder victims that year were black (7421).[144] In 2007, there were 3,221 black victims and 3,587 white victims of non-negligent homicides. While 2,905 of the black victims were killed by a black offender, 2,918 of the white victims were killed by white offenders. There were 566 white victims of black offenders and 245 black victims of white offenders.[145] The "white" category in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) includes non-black Hispanics.[146] Murder demographics are affected by the improvement of trauma care, which has resulted in reduced lethality of violent assaults – thus the murder rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of social violence.[115]

Workplace homicide, which tripled during the 1980s, is the fastest growing category of murder in America.[141][147][148]

Development of murder rates over time in different countries is often used by both supporters and opponents of capital punishment and gun control. Using properly filtered data, it is possible to make the case for or against either of these issues. For example, one could look at murder rates in the United States from 1950 to 2000,[149] and notice that those rates went up sharply shortly after a moratorium on death sentences was effectively imposed in the late 1960s. This fact has been used to argue that capital punishment serves as a deterrent and, as such, it is morally justified. Capital punishment opponents frequently counter that the United States has much higher murder rates than Canada and most European Union countries, although all those countries have abolished the death penalty. Overall, the global pattern is too complex, and on average, the influence of both these factors may not be significant and could be more social, economic, and cultural.

Despite the immense improvements in forensics in the past few decades, the fraction of murders solved has decreased in the United States, from 90% in 1960 to 61% in 2007.[150] Solved murder rates in major U.S. cities varied in 2007 from 36% in Boston, Massachusetts, to 76% in San Jose, California.[151] Major factors affecting the arrest rate include witness cooperation[150] and the number of people assigned to investigate the case.[151]

Investigation

[edit]

The success rate of criminal investigations into murders (the clearance rate) tends to be relatively high for murder compared to other crimes, due to its seriousness. In the United States, the clearance rate was 62.6% in 2004.[152]

See also

[edit]
[edit]
[edit]

Laws by country

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Murder

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Murder is the of a being with , encompassing acts of deliberate intent or premeditation that distinguish it from lesser forms of such as . This legal threshold, rooted in traditions and codified in statutes worldwide, requires proof of willful action devoid of legal justification, often categorized into degrees based on factors like planning or depravity. Punishments reflect its severity, ranging from to in jurisdictions retaining the latter, underscoring societal prioritization of human life preservation.

Empirical reveal murder as a persistent but variably distributed phenomenon, with approximately 458,000 intentional s recorded globally in , yielding an average rate of about 6 per 100,000 population, though regional disparities persist—highest in and , lowest in and . Long-term historical trends indicate a marked decline in per capita rates over centuries, from dozens per 100,000 in medieval to under 1 in modern developed nations, attributable to state monopolization of force, commerce expansion, and cultural shifts toward rather than feuding. Causally, most murders stem from interpersonal conflicts, , or domestic disputes, frequently exacerbated by substance intoxication impairing rational restraint, though socioeconomic factors like inequality and weak institutions amplify prevalence in high-risk areas. Prevention efforts emphasize deterrence through swift justice, community interventions targeting at-risk youth, and addressing root impulsivity via education and policing, yielding measurable reductions where implemented rigorously. Controversies arise in , such as debates over fetal or thresholds, and in reliability, where underreporting in corrupt regimes skews global estimates.

Etymology and Conceptual Foundations

Linguistic Origins

The English term "" derives from morþor (also spelled morthor), denoting secret or unlawful killing, a usage attested in texts from the Anglo-Saxon period. This noun traces to Proto-Germanic *murþrą, meaning "" or "killing with a ," which itself stems from Proto-Indo-European *mr̥trom, a formation related to the root *mer- signifying "to die" or "to harm by rubbing away." The of distinguished morþor from other Germanic terms for killing, such as open slaying or battle , reflecting early linguistic emphasis on premeditated or concealed intent. Following the in 1066, the word evolved through as murther or murþre, influenced partly by murdrer (itself of Germanic origin), leading to the modern spelling "murder" by the . The verb form, meaning "to kill unlawfully," appears in records as early as circa 1175 in the Ormulum, an early text, indicating its established use in legal and moral contexts by that time. Cognates persist in other , including German Mord, Dutch moord, and morð ("secret slaughter"), underscoring a shared Indo-European heritage focused on rather than justifiable or . Semantically, the term's development highlights a persistent legal-linguistic boundary: in early , "murder" implied not just killing but malice or stealth, contrasting with manslaughter (from man-slaghter, "man-killing"), which denoted impulsive or excusable acts. This distinction, rooted in Germanic , influenced subsequent statutory definitions, where "murder" required proof of intent beyond mere .

Philosophical Underpinnings of

The philosophical foundations of , commonly termed murder, rest on the recognition of human life as possessing intrinsic value, prohibiting its intentional termination without moral or legal justification. In theory, as articulated by , murder violates the imprinted in , which inclines individuals toward and the ; thus, private individuals lack authority to execute death, reserving such power for public authority in cases of . This framework posits that unlawful killing disrupts the divinely ordered hierarchy, equating it to a grave sin against charity and natural inclination. Enlightenment thinkers advanced secular rationales through natural rights and doctrines. contended that in the , individuals possess an inalienable , derived from God's endowment, rendering arbitrary destruction of another's life unjustifiable; no person can consent to or authorize such deprivation, as it exceeds natural powers. Similarly, described the pre-contractual state as one of mutual threat and violence, where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" due to unchecked killings; the transfers the right to enforce peace to a , making private unlawful killings a breach that reverts society to . Deontological ethics, exemplified by Immanuel Kant, grounds the prohibition in the categorical imperative, which forbids treating rational beings as mere means to ends; intentional killing of the innocent fails the universalizability test, as a maxim permitting such acts undermines humanity's autonomy and dignity. Kant allowed exceptions like self-defense or retributive punishment by the state, but emphasized that murder's wrongness inheres in its violation of persons' intrinsic worth, independent of consequences. These traditions collectively underpin the moral consensus that unlawful killing lacks the justifying intent or circumstance—such as defense or societal protection—distinguishing it from permissible homicide, prioritizing causal preservation of life over subjective utilities or relativistic permissions.

Core Elements Across Jurisdictions

Across legal jurisdictions, murder is distinguished from other forms of homicide by the presence of specific core elements: an unlawful act or omission causing the death of a human being, accompanied by a culpable mental state, with the act serving as the factual and proximate cause of the harm. These elements ensure that liability attaches only to killings lacking legal justification, such as self-defense or lawful execution, and require proof that the victim was a living person at the time of the fatal act—typically excluding prenatal deaths unless statute specifies otherwise, as in some U.S. states under fetal homicide laws enacted post-2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The , or guilty act, universally demands a voluntary conduct—affirmative action or culpable omission—that results in , excluding involuntary acts like reflexes or automatism. For instance, in systems derived from English precedent, this includes any corporeal act accelerating , even if the victim was already mortally wounded, provided the defendant's intervention hastens the end. Civil law traditions, prevalent in countries like and , similarly require a causal link via the perpetrator's behavior, but emphasize codified delicts over judge-made expansions, with omissions prosecutable only under duty-to-act statutes, such as parental neglect leading to child . Causation bifurcates into factual ("but-for" the act, would not occur) and legal (no superseding intervening cause breaks the chain), a applied rigorously to avoid overreach, as seen in cases where medical intervention post-assault absolves if it independently causes . The , or guilty mind, forms the crux differentiating murder from or excusable , demanding proof of intent or equivalent culpability. In jurisdictions like the and , "" encapsulates four forms: (1) intent to kill; (2) intent to cause likely to kill; (3) extreme recklessness showing depraved indifference to human life; or (4) intent to commit an inherently dangerous , as codified in U.S. under 18 U.S.C. § 1111, which mandates premeditation for first-degree murder punishable by life or . Civil law systems, by contrast, hinge on dolus (intent), with direct intent (purposeful killing) or indirect intent (certainty or practical certainty of ), but reserve "murder" for aggravated intentional homicides—e.g., German § 211 StGB requires base motives like greed or cruelty, absent which it constitutes lesser Totschlag under § 212. This intent threshold aligns with precedents, where murder within demands knowledge of as a probable outcome, as affirmed in ICTY rulings on willful killing. Concurrence mandates that exist at the moment of , preventing retroactive guilt attribution, while the harm element specifies as the outcome, verified medically—e.g., criteria under U.S. (1981). Jurisdictional variances persist, such as broader felony-murder doctrines in U.S. states versus narrower agency theories in post-R v. Jogee (2016), yet these cores underpin global prohibitions, evidenced by near-universal ratification of ICCPR Article 6 barring arbitrary deprivation of life, with murder prosecutions reflecting empirical deterrence data showing intent-based convictions reduce recidivism by 20-30% in longitudinal studies.

Degrees and Distinctions

In jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, murder is differentiated into degrees primarily based on the perpetrator's , with first-degree murder requiring premeditation and , signifying a calculated intent to kill. This classification, codified in statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1111, distinguishes first-degree murder as an unlawful killing with involving willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated action, often punishable by death or without parole. Premeditation need not span extended periods; courts have upheld findings of first-degree murder where reflection occurred in seconds, as in cases involving prior threats or procurement of weapons. Second-degree murder encompasses intentional killings lacking premeditation or those demonstrating extreme recklessness akin to implied malice, such as acts showing depraved indifference to human life. Unlike first-degree, it does not necessitate prior planning, focusing instead on the immediate intent or foreseeable deadly outcome during the act, with penalties typically ranging from 15 years to life, depending on . Some states recognize third-degree murder for killings during dangerous felonies not elevating to first-degree or for egregious recklessness without intent, bridging murder and but still requiring malice over mere negligence. The core distinction from hinges on the presence of , absent in manslaughter which involves lesser culpability: arises from sudden provocation negating , like adequate provocation reducing murder to manslaughter if rage prevents cooling off, while involuntary manslaughter stems from or unlawful acts risking death without . Empirical analyses confirm premeditation as a behavioral , with murder cases showing higher indicators than manslaughter, though provocation intensity varies judicially. These gradations reflect causal culpability, as premeditated acts demonstrate greater foresight of harm, justifying harsher sanctions to deter deliberate violence. Jurisdictional variations persist; for instance, not all U.S. states employ degrees, opting instead for broad murder statutes with sentencing discretion, while eschews degrees for murder, imposing mandatory life sentences but allowing manslaughter convictions on provocation or grounds.

Felony Murder and Accessory Rules

The imputes liability for when a results during the commission or attempted commission of an enumerated dangerous , even absent specific intent to kill, provided the underlying was committed with the requisite and the was a of the felonious conduct. This , rooted in , treats the malice inherent in the as transferred to the , elevating what might otherwise be or involuntary killing to first-degree in many jurisdictions. Key elements include: (1) engagement in a statutorily specified such as , , , , or ; (2) a occurring within the (the continuous transaction) of the ; and (3) causation linking the to the , excluding independent intervening acts. For instance, if a co-felon or victim dies from actions foreseeably tied to the —such as a during a —the participants may face charges regardless of who fired the fatal shot. In the United States, the rule applies in 48 states and under federal , with and as the sole exceptions lacking any form of it; some states, like and New York, impose it only for inherently dangerous felonies and require proof of proximate causation to avoid overbreadth. Seven states mandate evidence of recklessness or toward the killing to limit application, reflecting empirical concerns over unintended harshness in cases where minor participants bear full murder liability. Critics, including legal scholars, argue the rule undermines principles by imposing for deaths not directly intended, potentially leading to disproportionate sentences—such as for non-trigger-pulling accomplices—and disparate impacts on racial minorities and due to broader application in urban felony contexts. Proponents counter that it aligns with causal realism, as dangerous felonies create foreseeable risks of lethal outcomes, deterring such crimes through elevated penalties; historical data from jurisdictions reforming the rule show no significant rise in felony-related homicides, though causation is debated. Accessory rules extend murder liability to those who aid, abet, or encourage the principal offender without directly committing the actus reus of the killing. Under and modern statutes, accessories before the fact (who counsel or procure the prior to its execution) and after the fact (who assist in escape or concealment post-) face derivative liability, often punished as principals in the second degree if present or as accessories liable for the full offense in murder cases. In felony murder scenarios, an accessory's intent to facilitate the underlying suffices for murder culpability if a ensues, as the doctrine's malice transfer applies equally; for example, a getaway driver in a burglary-turned-fatal may be convicted of felony murder despite non-involvement in the killing. Jurisdictions distinguish accessories by presence and timing: those aiding during the are often treated as principals, while post-fact accessories typically face lesser charges unless the aid substantially furthers the . This framework ensures accountability for collaborative criminality, grounded in the principle that shared unlawful purpose imputes joint responsibility for reasonably foreseeable lethal results.

Exclusions and Defenses

Justifiable Homicides

constitutes the deliberate killing of another person under conditions explicitly authorized by , thereby exempting the actor from criminal liability for murder or . This category encompasses scenarios where the act prevents greater harm, such as imminent threats to life, and requires elements like reasonable belief in necessity and proportionality of . Jurisdictions vary in precise criteria, but common threads include absence of criminal intent and alignment with statutory defenses. In cases, a qualifies as justifiable when the perpetrator reasonably perceives an immediate danger of or severe , responding with deemed appropriate to the threat. For example, under , such killings occur without the defender provoking the confrontation and under a well-founded fear of lethal harm. Stand-your-ground statutes in states like eliminate the before employing in public spaces where lawfully present, provided the threat is perceived as unavoidable. extends similar protections within one's home, permitting lethal response to unlawful entry without retreat obligation. Law enforcement justifiable homicides arise when officers kill a felon during duty performance, such as resisting arrest or fleeing after a violent crime. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting defines these as killings by peace officers against felons in the line of duty or by private citizens interrupting felonies. Private citizen justifiable homicides, often involving armed resistance to burglary or robbery, must demonstrate the victim was actively committing a felony. These incidents exclude negligence or excessive force, with investigations determining legal validity post-event. Other instances include defense of third parties under analogous reasonable-threat standards or, in limited jurisdictions, protection of property from imminent destruction where statutes permit deadly force. Capital punishment executions, while state-sanctioned killings, typically fall outside justifiable homicide classifications, treated separately as judicial acts rather than defensive responses. Empirical data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate a 13% decline in reported justifiable homicides over the decade preceding 2020, reflecting trends in crime rates and defensive gun uses. Disparities in rulings persist, with studies noting racial variances in justifiable determinations for similar incidents.

Mitigating Factors and Partial Defenses

Partial defenses to murder, recognized in many common law jurisdictions, do not absolve the defendant of homicide liability but reduce the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter by negating elements such as malice aforethought or providing a partial excuse for the killing. These defenses acknowledge the intentional nature of the act while accounting for circumstances that diminish full culpability, such as sudden loss of control or impaired mental functioning, thereby treating the offense as less heinous than premeditated murder. In contrast to complete defenses like self-defense, partial defenses succeed only if the mitigating factors are proven, often requiring the defendant to show both subjective belief and objective reasonableness thresholds adapted to the context. Provocation, or heat of passion, serves as a longstanding partial defense where a kills in response to adequate provocation that causes a sudden and intense loss of , with no sufficient cooling-off period. At , this requires that the provocation be sufficient to excite irresistible passion in a , the acted upon it before regaining composure, and the response be proportionate. In the United States, many states follow variations of this doctrine, often influenced by the Model Penal Code's "extreme mental or emotional disturbance" standard, which broadens provocation to include non-traditional triggers like long-term , provided a in similar circumstances might react similarly. The reformed provocation under the , replacing it with a "loss of " defense triggered by of serious violence or grave wrongdoing, excluding cases of sexual as a sole qualifier and requiring the response to be one a person of the 's character might engage in. Diminished responsibility or capacity constitutes another key partial defense, applicable when an abnormal mental condition substantially impairs the defendant's ability to form the for murder, such as intent to kill or cause . In , section 2 of the defines this as an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognized medical condition that provides an explanation for the killing by substantially impairing judgment, , or understanding of the act's wrongfulness or nature. Successful claims, often supported by psychiatric , reduce murder to without requiring proof of legal . In the United States, diminished capacity defenses vary by state but typically introduce of mental illness or defect to negate specific intent, as in where it can downgrade first-degree murder if the condition prevents premeditation or . Courts scrutinize such claims to prevent , requiring linking the impairment directly to the inability to form murderous intent rather than mere emotional distress. Imperfect self-defense arises when a honestly but unreasonably believes is necessary to repel an imminent , negating malice but not to kill, thus reducing the to . This doctrine applies in jurisdictions like many U.S. states, where the subjective of the excuses full malice even if objectively unreasonable, distinguishing it from perfect which demands both and proportionality. For instance, if the perceives a from a non-deadly but responds lethally due to mistaken , the partial defense may mitigate the charge, reflecting partial justification for the error in under duress. Some systems, including certain Australian states, integrate within broader provocation or excessive frameworks, emphasizing the 's non-reckless state of mind. Empirical reviews indicate these defenses succeed in approximately 20-30% of applicable cases, often hinging on evidentiary burdens placed on the to raise . Other mitigating factors, such as extreme duress or necessity, rarely apply to intentional homicide due to policy limits against excusing deliberate killings, though they may influence sentencing post-conviction. Jurisdictional variations persist; for example, infanticide in the UK serves as a specific partial defense for mothers killing newborns under postpartum mental disturbance, treated akin to manslaughter. Overall, these mechanisms balance retribution with recognition of human frailties, ensuring murder convictions reflect degrees of moral blameworthiness grounded in causal impairments to rational agency.

Aggravating Circumstances

Aggravating circumstances constitute specific factual elements surrounding a that elevate its legal severity, often transforming a base charge into aggravated, first-degree, or , thereby justifying harsher penalties including without or execution. These factors emphasize heightened , such as , method, or victim , and are codified in statutes across jurisdictions to guide prosecutorial charging and sentencing discretion. , for instance, they must typically be proven beyond a in capital proceedings, distinguishing them from mere sentencing enhancements in non-capital cases. Common aggravating factors include premeditation or deliberation, where the offender plans the killing in advance, evidencing rather than sudden passion; this is a cornerstone of aggravated murder definitions in states like , where willful, deliberate, and premeditated killings qualify as Class 1 felonies punishable by death. Commission of the murder during enumerated felonies—such as , , , or —further aggravates the offense under felony-murder doctrines, as seen in and numerous state codes, where the underlying crime's inherent danger compounds the homicide's blameworthiness.
  • Victim-specific vulnerabilities: Homicides targeting protected classes, including law enforcement officers, children under a certain age (often 14), or witnesses to other crimes, trigger aggravation due to the breach of societal safeguards; for example, killing a police officer in the line of duty is a statutory aggravator in over 30 U.S. states.
  • Particularly heinous manner: Acts involving torture, depravity, or unnecessary suffering—termed "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" in Nebraska statutes—warrant escalation, requiring evidence of prolonged pain or mutilation beyond mere killing.
  • Multiple victims or pecuniary motive: Killing more than one person, especially in a single event or to silence witnesses, or for financial gain (e.g., contract killing or inheritance), heightens culpability, as outlined in Utah's aggravated murder provisions.
  • Offender history: Prior convictions for violent felonies, including previous homicides, serve as aggravators by demonstrating recidivism and lack of rehabilitation potential, a factor explicitly listed in federal death penalty considerations.
In practice, these circumstances inform findings during penalty phases, where their presence must outweigh mitigating ; empirical data from sentencing guidelines show they correlate with sentences exceeding baseline terms, though application varies to prevent arbitrariness, as refined post-Furman v. Georgia () to ensure guided discretion. Jurisdictional differences persist—e.g., emphasizes premeditated multiple homicides—reflecting legislative priorities on public safety and retribution over uniform national standards.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Frameworks

In ancient , the , promulgated circa 1750 BCE by King of , established retributive penalties for , mandating for intentional killing under the principle of lex talionis, where the punishment mirrored the crime's severity, such as execution for causing through negligence like faulty construction. Accusations of murder required proof, with false accusers facing execution themselves, reflecting a system prioritizing evidentiary rigor to deter frivolous claims. Social hierarchy influenced outcomes, as penalties varied by victim's status, with harsher measures for slaying elites. Ancient Egyptian law, spanning dynasties from circa 3000 BCE, treated premeditated murder as a capital offense punishable by death, often after emphasizing maat—the cosmic order disrupted by unlawful killing. Courts distinguished intentional from , reserving execution for willful acts like grave robbing involving killing, while lesser penalties applied to . Evidence from papyri and stelae indicates family or state , with elements sometimes amplifying to restore balance, underscoring 's threat to societal . Hebrew law in the Torah, codified in texts like Exodus and Numbers circa 1400–1200 BCE, prohibited murder explicitly in the Sixth Commandment ("You shall not murder," Exodus 20:13), mandating capital punishment for premeditated killing while providing cities of refuge for unintentional manslaughter to prevent vigilante blood feuds. Numbers 35 delineates criteria: if a slayer used an iron object, stone, or wood with lethal intent, it constituted murder warranting death by the avenger of blood; accidental cases required exile until the high priest's death. This framework prioritized intent and evidence, such as witnesses, over status, though kin-based vengeance persisted absent refuge. In ancient Greece, Draco's homicide code of 621 BCE classified killings as willful or involuntary, imposing death or exile for deliberate murder tried before the Areopagus council, viewing it as pollution defiling the community and gods. Solon's reforms in 594 BCE retained Draco's homicide provisions but softened others, establishing phratry and ephetai courts to adjudicate intent, with purification rituals for killers and distinctions allowing exile for unpremeditated acts. Athenian law emphasized communal purification over mere retribution, prosecuting even planned but unexecuted killings. Roman law under the of circa 450 BCE prescribed for , initially leaving enforcement to the victim's family, who could opt for death, exile, or no action, reflecting patrician-plebeian tensions in early codification. Later republican statutes, like the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis et Veneficis (81 BCE), expanded to cover poisoning or stabbing with intent, distinguishing —killing kin—with (sewn in a sack and drowned). Unintentional merited fines or sacrifices, such as a ram, prioritizing restoration over absolute retribution. Pre-modern frameworks in medieval , from the 5th to 15th centuries, often relied on Germanic customs like wergild—monetary compensation scaled to the victim's rank—to avert endless blood feuds, as in where slaying a free man required 200 shillings, payable by kin if needed. Refusal invited vendetta, but Christian influence via church courts promoted and royal oversight, evolving toward classification by the under distinguishing . In Anglo-Saxon , wergild for a noble's murder reached 1200 shillings, with theft of the body escalating to full outlawry. Elsewhere, the in ancient (circa 200 BCE–200 CE) imposed caste-based penalties for , requiring death or ritual expiation like donating cows for killing a , with lesser fines for lower castes, embedding dharma's hierarchical causality. Chinese law (221–206 BCE) mandated execution for intentional , categorizing unprovoked killings (zei sha) as capital, with collective family punishment to enforce deterrence amid Legalist absolutism. These systems collectively grounded unlawful killing in intent, status, and communal order, predating modern doctrines while varying by cultural emphasis on retribution, compensation, or purification.

Common Law Evolution

The concept of murder in English emerged as a distinct category of unlawful , distinguished from primarily by the presence of , a element denoting premeditation or wicked recklessness. Early formulations drew from medieval precedents, where killings were initially categorized broadly under felonious punishable by death, but judicial glosses introduced gradations based on intent and circumstances by the 13th century, as reflected in treatises like Henry de Bracton's De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (c. ), which emphasized deliberate versus accidental acts. This evolution reflected a shift from Germanic traditions of secret ("murdrum") versus open slayings to a unified framework post-Norman Conquest, prioritizing the perpetrator's culpable state of mind over mere causation. A pivotal formalization occurred in 1644 with Sir Edward Coke's Third Institute of the Laws of England, defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the King's Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied." Coke's articulation incorporated the "year and a day" rule—requiring death within that period for homicide liability—and limited jurisdiction to killings within English counties, excluding wartime or foreign acts. Malice aforethought, originating in Anglo-Saxon concepts but refined in common law to encompass not just premeditated intent (malice prepensed) but also implied forms like killings during felonies or with extreme recklessness, served to elevate certain homicides above manslaughter, which lacked such culpability. This mens rea standard, while not requiring literal forethought, demanded evidence of a "depraved heart" or intent to inflict grievous harm, as judicially interpreted in subsequent cases. By the 18th century, Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) synthesized and expanded these principles in Book IV, Chapter XIV, classifying homicides as justifiable, excusable, or felonious (murder), with murder requiring malice that could be express (deliberate to kill) or implied (e.g., via the felony-murder , where any death during a dangerous like sufficed). Blackstone emphasized causal realism, noting that accessories shared liability if malice was proven, and critiqued overly broad applications while upholding the 's deterrent role. This framework influenced jurisdictions, including early American colonies, where statutes later introduced degrees of murder (e.g., Pennsylvania's 1794 act distinguishing willful from felony murders), but retained core elements like implied malice absent statutory override. The 's emphasis on individualized assessment persisted, resisting purely objective liability until partial statutory encroachments in the .

20th-Century Reforms and International Influences

In the , the marked a pivotal reform by introducing statutory defenses of —where an abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired the defendant's responsibility—and provocation, allowing reduction of murder to in cases of sudden loss of self-control due to grave provocation. The Act abolished the doctrine of constructive malice, which had deemed killings during felonies as murder irrespective of intent toward death, thereby requiring proof of for classification. It further restricted to enumerated "capital murders," such as those involving firearms in or the killing of police officers during duty, addressing criticisms of mandatory execution for all murders amid evidence of arbitrary application and public opposition. In the United States, the American Law Institute's , completed in 1962, redefined murder under Section 210.2 as criminal homicide committed purposely (conscious to cause ), knowingly (awareness highly probable), with extreme recklessness manifesting indifference to human life, or during specified dangerous felonies like or where was foreseeable. This framework curtailed the expansive felony-murder rule by limiting it to inherently dangerous predicates and emphasizing gradations, influencing over half of state penal codes revised between 1960 and 1980, including New York's 1965 code and Illinois's 1961 code, to prioritize over . International instruments exerted indirect pressure on domestic murder laws, particularly regarding penalties and extraterritorial application. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of obligated signatories to criminalize killings intended to destroy national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups, integrating group-based murder into national penal codes and expanding beyond individual victim . Similarly, the 1949 ' Common Article 3 prohibited murder in non-international armed conflicts, prompting states to amend systems and, in some cases, civilian laws on internal violence to align with humanitarian standards, as seen in post-colonial codifications in and . The 1966 International Covenant on , via Article 6's protections for the , fueled domestic debates and reforms curtailing death penalties for murder, with 35 countries ratifying the Second Optional Protocol by 1990 to abolish it in peacetime. These influences, while not directly altering core murder definitions, promoted evidentiary standards and penalty limitations, countering perceptions of excessive punitiveness in traditions.

Causal Factors and Empirical Insights

Individual-Level Contributors

Individual-level contributors to murder encompass personal traits, behavioral patterns, and biological predispositions that elevate the risk of perpetrating , distinct from broader societal influences. identifies , chronic , extensive prior criminal records, and certain genetic or neurobiological factors as recurrent correlates among offenders, though these do not deterministically cause murder and often interact with situational triggers. Studies emphasize that while some individuals exhibit heightened or low predisposing them to lethal violence, the majority of homicides involve rational amid disputes rather than isolated . Psychopathy, characterized by traits such as callousness, superficial charm, and lack of remorse, shows elevated prevalence among perpetrators compared to the general population's estimated 1% rate. A meta-analytic review found psychopathic features more pronounced in murderers, particularly those committing or serial , with scores on tools like the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) averaging higher in violent offenders. Heterogeneity exists, as not all capital murderers score uniformly high, but pronounced psychopathy correlates with recidivistic and premeditated killings. Substance abuse constitutes a robust , with approximately 80% of offenders reporting alcohol or dependence, often acutely influencing the act. , alcohol alone accounts for about 7,756 attributable homicides annually, frequently in altercations where intoxication impairs judgment. involvement links to 44% of homicides via multiple pathways, including disputes over s or withdrawal-induced , with rates rising alongside illicit epidemics since 2013. Prior criminal history strongly predicts perpetration, with offenders disproportionately possessing records of or crimes. Case-control analyses reveal that adults with criminal records face markedly higher odds of committing than those without, and just under 2% of federal offenders with histories include prior . Among state-level data, 36% of convicts had active involvement at , underscoring escalation from lesser offenses. Severe mental illness plays a limited role, as perpetrators with or similar disorders represent a small —around 5-10% in population-based studies—far below perceptions amplified by media. Absolute violence rates among those with remain low absent substance , and most homicides stem from non-psychotic individuals. Biological underpinnings include genetic variants like low-activity MAOA ("warrior gene") and CDH13, associated with repeat violent offending in Finnish cohorts, interacting with childhood adversity to amplify . Neuroimaging reveals prefrontal cortex and hippocampal deficits in antisocial violent individuals, impairing impulse control and . Heritability estimates for extreme reach 40-50%, though environmental moderation is essential.

Societal and Environmental Drivers

Societal factors such as family disruption have been empirically linked to elevated rates. Counties with higher proportions of -headed households exhibit significantly increased and rates, independent of other socioeconomic controls. Neighborhood-level analyses in cities like confirm that family instability correlates with and , even after accounting for and demographics. This association stems from reduced paternal involvement and weakened social controls, contributing to intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior, as evidenced by longitudinal data showing 90% delinquency rates among children from highly unstable families. Economic , particularly absolute rather than relative inequality alone, drives variations. Cross-national studies indicate that a 1% increase in poverty rates predicts higher homicide, with relative poverty in one year associating with elevated rates the following year in U.S. metropolitan areas. Income inequality shows inconsistent links; while some analyses report a 2.28% homicide rise per 1% Gini increase, others find no independent effect once poverty is controlled, suggesting concentrated disadvantage in urban pockets amplifies risks more than broad inequality. Meta-analyses affirm poverty as a consistent macro-predictor of violence, though causation involves mediating factors like resource scarcity exacerbating interpersonal conflicts. ![Historical homicide rate in Stockholm.svg.png][float-right] Environmental exposures, notably lead, causally contribute to through neurodevelopmental impairment. Childhood lead exposure correlates with aggressive behavior and in adulthood, with aggregate studies across countries attributing 63-95% of violent variations to lead levels. A estimates lead abatement accounted for 7-28% of the U.S. decline since the , via reduced and cognitive deficits. Systematic reviews confirm positive associations between blood lead concentrations and later delinquent acts, including , with effects persisting 20 years post-exposure in cohort data. Gang activity and urban density amplify homicide in disorganized settings. Organized crime groups drive spikes in male-perpetrated killings, accounting for disproportionate shares in high-density cities where 67% of U.S. homicides occur in populations over 100,000. Territorial disputes and conflicts motivate 64% of -related incidents, exacerbated by residential and weak institutions rather than density alone. Rapid without fosters these dynamics, as seen in global patterns where inequality and syndicates, not growth per se, elevate rates. These drivers interact; for instance, breakdown in impoverished urban areas heightens vulnerability, perpetuating cycles of violence.

Evidence on Prevention and Deterrence

posits that potential offenders weigh the costs and benefits of criminal acts, with the and swiftness of exerting stronger influence on behavior than its severity alone. Empirical studies consistently indicate that increasing the perceived risk of apprehension reduces rates more effectively than harsher penalties. For instance, a summary highlights that research on variations shows no clear link between severity increases and declines, whereas interventions enhancing —such as targeted notifications to high-risk individuals—yield measurable reductions. Regarding capital punishment, a broad survey of leading criminologists found that 88% do not view the death penalty as a proven deterrent to , with many attributing any observed state-level differences in rates to factors like socioeconomic conditions rather than executions. The National Research Council's assessment of prior studies concluded that remains inconclusive due to methodological flaws, such as failure to account for noncapital sentencing alternatives and potential brutalization effects where executions may incite additional murders in 48% of states. Analyses of execution impacts across U.S. states show no consistent deterrent pattern, with rates often equal or higher in death penalty jurisdictions compared to abolitionist ones. Incapacitation through incarceration contributed modestly to the U.S. decline in the , when rates fell 43% from their 1991 peak amid a 47% rise in . Estimates attribute 0-10% of the overall crime drop to expanded incarceration, with higher figures like 35% debated due to diminishing marginal returns as populations swelled; post-2000, further increases showed negligible effects on . This effect stems primarily from removing repeat offenders, who commit disproportionate , rather than general deterrence. Policing innovations provide stronger evidence for prevention. Hot spots policing, concentrating resources on high-crime micro-locations, reduces overall by 8-17% and violent offenses by up to 14%, with no significant displacement to adjacent areas; citywide implementations targeting violence hotspots achieved 11% drops in targeted zones within the first year. Focused deterrence strategies, such as Boston's —which combined swift enforcement with community warnings to members—cut youth by 63% by heightening certainty through direct offender notifications and inter-agency coordination. These approaches outperform broad severity enhancements, aligning with causal mechanisms where visible enforcement disrupts criminal opportunities. Evidence on concealed carry laws remains contested, with early claims of murder reductions challenged by later analyses linking permissive regimes to higher firearm homicide rates, though rigorous controls yield inconclusive net effects on total homicides. Prevention thus hinges more reliably on empirically validated tactics emphasizing apprehension risk over punitive escalation.

Global Incidence and Patterns

Cross-National Rates and Variations

Intentional homicide rates exhibit stark cross-national variations, with a global average of approximately 6 per 100,000 population in recent years, ranging from under 1 in many developed nations to over 40 in certain high-violence countries. The Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) compiles these figures primarily from and records, emphasizing intentional homicides to minimize definitional discrepancies, though underreporting persists in regions with weak institutions. In , an estimated 458,000 homicide victims occurred worldwide, disproportionately concentrated in a subset of nations. Regional disparities underscore these patterns: the recorded the highest subregional rate at around 15-17 per 100,000, driven by , illicit s, and drug trafficking in countries like (36 per 100,000 in latest data) and (recent spikes to over 40). In contrast, Europe maintains rates below 3 per 100,000, with nations like and at 0.5 or lower, attributable to effective , low , and restricted access. shows moderate variation, averaging 2.3, with low rates in (e.g., at 0.2) linked to cultural norms emphasizing restraint and strong social controls, versus higher figures in parts of amid conflict and poverty. averages around 13, influenced by interpersonal violence, resource conflicts, and state fragility, while hovers near 2.8, with outliers like exceeding 10 due to tribal disputes. Empirical analyses identify key drivers beyond mere : prevalence of groups correlates strongly with elevated rates in , where weak enables territorial disputes, accounting for up to 50% of homicides in affected countries. availability amplifies lethality, as evidenced by the ' 70% firearm-related homicides versus under 20% in . Inequality and exacerbate risks in sprawling cities with poor , though cross-national studies caution against overemphasizing socioeconomic factors alone, noting that historical —such as longer traditions of centralized —predicts lower rates independently of GDP. quality, including judicial efficacy and control, emerges as a causal factor, with high-impunity environments sustaining cycles irrespective of levels.
RegionAverage Homicide Rate (per 100,000, latest available)Key Contributing Factors
15-17, firearms, drug markets
~13Interpersonal violence, conflicts, weak states
~2.3Varies by subregion; low in due to social controls
<3Strong institutions, low
~2.8Tribal violence in select areas
These variations highlight that while development aids reduction, targeted interventions against and criminal networks yield more direct impacts, as seen in El Salvador's rate drop from 103 in 2015 to under 3 by 2023 following aggressive anti-gang policies. Data reliability improves with UNODC's harmonization, but biases in self-reported statistics from unstable regimes necessitate caution in interpreting absolute figures. Long-term historical data indicate a substantial decline in rates in from the medieval period, where rates often exceeded 20 to 100 per 100,000 population, to under 1 per 100,000 by the , attributed to factors including the strengthening of state institutions and reduced interpersonal conflicts. In , for instance, rates fell from approximately 10 per 100,000 in the to around 1 by the early , with further drops to 0.5-1 in recent decades. Globally, intentional rates have shown relative stability or modest decline since the early , dropping from an estimated 6.9 per 100,000 in 2010 to 5.8 in 2021, with around 458,000 victims annually in the latter year. This trend masks regional disparities: rates in and continued downward trajectories post-2000, while the Americas experienced stagnation or increases driven by and firearms, with averaging over 20 per 100,000 in high-burden countries. In the United States, rates peaked at about 9-10 per 100,000 in the early before declining sharply to 5.0 in ; a post-2020 surge elevated rates by roughly 30% through 2022 amid disruptions like reduced policing and social unrest, but preliminary data show a 15% drop in in 2024 compared to 2023, with overall down 4.5%. Such fluctuations highlight the influence of transient factors like pandemic-related policy changes over entrenched structural declines observed historically.

Demographic and Geographic Disparities

Globally, intentional exhibits stark demographic disparities, with males comprising approximately 81% of victims in 2021, a pattern consistent across regions where young men aged 15-29 face the highest victimization rates. Perpetrators mirror this profile, as males dominate offending statistics in available data from systems. Age peaks for both victims and offenders typically occur in late and early adulthood, reflecting vulnerabilities tied to interpersonal conflicts, , and risk-taking behaviors. Racial and ethnic disparities are pronounced in countries with detailed reporting, such as the , where Black individuals experience homicide victimization rates over nine times higher than as of 2020. Among murder offenders ed in 2019, 51.3% were and 45.7% , despite representing about 13% of the . Similar overrepresentation appears in nonfatal violent crimes, with Black shares at 33%. Worldwide data on race/ remains limited, but subregional patterns suggest elevated risks in communities affected by activity and socioeconomic stressors. Geographically, homicide rates vary dramatically by region, with the Americas recording the highest global average at around 15-20 per 100,000 population in recent years, driven by organized crime and firearms availability, compared to under 1 per 100,000 in Europe and Asia. Within nations like the United States, urban areas bear disproportionate burdens: central counties in large metropolitan areas average 9.4 homicides per 100,000, far exceeding rural rates. Violent victimization overall stands at 24.5 per 1,000 in urban settings versus 11.2 in rural ones as of 2021, though rural homicide specifically remains lower than urban gun homicides. High-risk locales, such as certain Latin American cities or U.S. urban cores, amplify these divides through concentrated poverty and illicit economies.
RegionApproximate Homicide Rate (per 100,000, recent years)
15-20
10-13
2-3
<1
Europe<1

Investigation, Prosecution, and Prevention

Forensic and Investigative Techniques

Forensic investigation of murders begins with securing the to prevent contamination and preserve . Initial procedures include establishing perimeter security, conducting a preliminary survey to identify hazards and potential , and documenting the scene through , , and sketching before any processing occurs. collection follows a systematic approach, prioritizing biological materials such as , , , and ; like fibers, , or fragments; and physical items including weapons or casings. Autopsies conducted by forensic pathologists determine the cause and , often revealing critical details such as trajectories, time of death via or , and results for substances like drugs or poisons. These findings guide subsequent inquiries, such as identifying the murder weapon through matching. DNA profiling, introduced in criminal cases in 1986 with its first U.S. court use that year, has transformed investigations by linking s to scenes via trace biological evidence. In the 1986-1987 case in the UK, geneticist ' technique exonerated a and identified the perpetrator through semen samples, marking the origins of forensic DNA fingerprinting. Modern applications include rapid DNA analysis and familial searching, though DNA is recovered in fewer than 10% of murders, limiting its universal impact on clearance rates. Ballistics examination compares firearm markings on and cartridge cases using integrated systems like , which digitally stores striation patterns for database matching. Advances in lead isotope analysis enable chemical linking of fragments to specific ammunition batches, as demonstrated in blinded studies confirming source discrimination. analysis, rooted in , involves microscopic and chemical identification of transferred materials, with recent developments enhancing sensitivity through . Digital forensics recovers data from devices like cell phones and computers, reconstructing timelines via location pings, messages, or deleted files. In the BTK Strangler case, metadata from a floppy disk led to the killer's in 2005, illustrating how digital artifacts can betray operational security. Surveillance footage from , as in mass shootings, provides visual corroboration of movements and identities. Behavioral analysis profiles offender actions at scenes, such as staging or , to infer motives or signatures in serial murders. Despite these techniques, challenges persist, including evidence degradation and interpretive biases, underscoring the need for rigorous chain-of-custody protocols.

Judicial Processes and Sentencing

In common law jurisdictions, murder trials typically proceed through an , where the prosecution presents evidence to establish guilt beyond a , opposed by the defense, with a overseeing proceedings and often a determining facts in serious cases. Key stages include (), opening statements, witness testimony and , closing arguments, , and deliberation leading to a of guilty, not guilty, or sometimes lesser included offenses like . Pre-trial processes involve , where the defendant enters a , and potential motions to suppress evidence or dismiss charges, ensuring procedural safeguards such as the and against . Sentencing for murder convictions varies significantly by jurisdiction and is guided by statutory frameworks considering degrees of , aggravating factors (e.g., premeditation, commission, multiple victims), and mitigating circumstances (e.g., provocation, , remorse). In the United States, first-degree murder often carries mandatory without (LWOP) or eligibility for the death penalty in 27 states as of 2023, while second-degree may result in 15–25 years or life with . European nations generally abolish capital punishment, imposing life sentences with review after 15–25 years (e.g., whole-life orders rare but possible), and countries like cap at 21 years regardless of offense severity. In contrast, nations retaining the death penalty, such as (executing thousands annually) and , apply it frequently for intentional , often following expedited trials. Civil law systems, prevalent in and , emphasize judge-led inquiries, with sentencing ranges like Brazil's 12–30 years minimum for , lacking life terms. Empirical analyses reveal sentencing disparities influenced by offender demographics, judicial discretion, and jurisdictional factors; for instance, U.S. federal data from 2023 indicate males receive sentences 19.1% longer than males for similar offenses after controlling for criminal history. Prosecutorial charging decisions and judge characteristics, such as political affiliation, correlate with LWOP imposition in cases, with Republican-leaning counties showing higher rates. Internationally, the U.S. imposes longer terms for relative to countries with higher rates, yet studies find no consistent evidence that sentence severity deters murder beyond the certainty of apprehension, with certainty of punishment proving more efficacious. Outcomes include high risks for released lifers in systems allowing , underscoring debates on rehabilitation versus retribution in judicial outcomes.

Policy Interventions and Their Outcomes

Policies aimed at reducing homicide rates have encompassed enhanced policing, incarceration expansions, firearm regulations, , and environmental measures such as lead abatement, with varying empirical outcomes supported by econometric analyses. In the United States, the sharp decline in from 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991 to 5.0 per 100,000 by 2014 coincided with multiple interventions, though causal attribution remains debated due to confounding factors like and demographic shifts. Systematic reviews indicate that focused deterrence strategies, including targeted policing of high-risk individuals, have reduced homicides by 30-60% in specific cities like and through operations like , which combined enforcement with community notifications of gang risks. Incarceration increases during the and , driven by policies like mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws, correlated with substantial reductions; econometric models estimate that the removal of high-rate offenders prevented approximately 10-20% of violent crimes, including murders, via incapacitation effects, as each additional year of averts multiple offenses based on offender patterns. However, post-2010 decarceration trends in some states showed no corresponding spikes until 2020, suggesting limits to further marginal gains and potential once low-level offenders are prioritized over violent ones. Critiques from organizations advocating reduced often emphasize social factors over incapacitation, but analyses affirm a negative association between populations and rates, with a 10% incarceration rise linked to 2-4% drops. Firearm policy outcomes reveal inconsistencies; comprehensive reviews find inconclusive evidence that strict laws, such as assault weapon bans, significantly lower overall rates, though they may reduce fatalities. Conversely, right-to-carry concealed laws, enacted in 40 U.S. states by 2023, are associated with 5-8% reductions in murder rates according to county-level regressions controlling for demographics and economics, as concealed weapons deter impulsive attacks by increasing victim defensive capabilities—effects strongest in high-crime urban areas. Cross-national data challenge blanket restrictions: Switzerland's permissive civilian yields rates below 1 per 100,000, while Mexico's stringent laws coincide with rates exceeding 20 per 100,000 amid violence, underscoring cultural and institutional factors over mere availability. Capital punishment shows negligible deterrent impact on ; surveys of leading criminologists indicate consensus that executions do not measurably reduce murder rates, with time-series analyses finding no significant difference between retentionist and abolitionist states after adjusting for confounders, and some evidence of short-term brutalization effects increasing homicides post-execution publicity. A synthetic control study of ' 2011 moratorium estimated no homicide uptick, implying rarity of executions precludes broad deterrence. Environmental policies phasing out leaded gasoline after the 1970 Clean Air Act contributed substantially to the U.S. homicide decline, with meta-analyses estimating 15-56% attribution via reduced childhood impairing impulse control; blood lead levels fell from 15 μg/dL in to under 1 μg/dL by , temporally preceding drops by 20 years in line with developmental lags. Community-based interventions, such as nonprofit-led violence interruption programs modeled on , have yielded 15-40% reductions in treated neighborhoods through mediator outreach, outperforming traditional policing in resource-constrained settings. Overall, interventions emphasizing swift incapacitation of repeat offenders and environmental risk mitigation demonstrate stronger causal evidence than punitive or restrictive measures alone, though systemic biases in academic sourcing—often favoring rehabilitation over —may understate enforcement efficacy.

Cultural, Ethical, and Controversial Dimensions

Historical Societal Attitudes

In ancient civilizations, murder was generally regarded as a profound violation of , often punishable by death or retaliation under principles of lex talionis. The Roman legal system, for instance, codified as homicidium—intentional killing—distinguishing it from (caedes), with (killing a parent) deemed especially abhorrent and warranting extreme penalties like being sewn into a sack with animals and drowned. This reflected a societal consensus that deliberate murder disrupted familial and communal bonds, though gladiatorial combats and public executions normalized state-sanctioned killing as spectacle. In medieval Europe, attitudes toward murder combined moral condemnation rooted in Christian doctrine—which prohibited unlawful killing while permitting self-defense or just war—with pragmatic tolerance for feuds and honor-based violence in decentralized societies. Homicide rates were at least ten times higher than modern levels, often stemming from disputes over property or insult, yet courts frequently acquitted killers if provocation was claimed, viewing such acts as extensions of personal justice rather than premeditated evil. Coroners' inquests documented hundreds of urban slayings, typically with knives in taverns or streets, indicating murder was commonplace but not celebrated; ecclesiastical and secular laws imposed fines (wergild) or exile as alternatives to execution, prioritizing restitution over vengeance to curb cycles of retaliation. Cultural variations persisted, with some societies exhibiting greater acceptance of killings framed as honor restoration, such as vendettas in tribal or clan-based systems where maintained group equilibrium. In contrast to egalitarian bands, where interpersonal violence accounted for up to half of deaths, agrarian and urbanizing communities increasingly stigmatized private murder as threatening the emerging on legitimate force. During the Enlightenment, thinkers like critiqued retributive attitudes, arguing in (1764) that for murder failed as deterrence and violated human dignity, influencing reforms to limit executions to extreme cases like alongside . This shift toward proportionality reflected growing emphasis on rational over visceral retribution, though public hangings persisted as moral theater to affirm societal revulsion. Over centuries, these evolving views correlated with a marked decline in tolerance: rates in fell from 30-70 per 100,000 in the 1300s to under 1 by the , driven by state centralization, , and fostering interdependence and non-violent . Empirical data from skeletal remains and legal records confirm this trajectory, underscoring causal links between institutional stability and reduced normative acceptance of .

Modern Debates on Borderline Cases

Modern debates on borderline cases of murder center on acts where the presence of , the status of the victim as a , or justifications like challenge traditional classifications. These include fetal killings in non-abortion contexts, voluntary , and excessive force in scenarios, where legal systems grapple with reconciling moral intent, empirical outcomes, and policy consistency. For instance, fetal statutes in 38 U.S. states as of 2023 authorize charges for causing loss by third parties, yet explicitly exempt elective , creating a doctrinal tension rooted in competing views of fetal . This disparity has fueled arguments that such laws implicitly affirm fetal while politically insulating abortion access, as evidenced by cases like the 2004 , which extended federal protections without altering abortion legality. In euthanasia debates, voluntary active —intentionally ending at the patient's request—is classified as in jurisdictions like most Islamic countries, where it violates prohibitions on hastening regardless of , contrasting with permissive regimes in places like the since 2002 and since 2003. Empirical data from legalized settings show low abuse rates under strict safeguards, such as multiple physician approvals and unbearable requirements, yet critics cite cases like the 2014 extension to psychiatric patients in as evidence of , potentially blurring into non-voluntary killings. Proponents argue negates murderous intent, akin to withdrawing , while opponents, drawing on causal analyses of dependency, contend that societal pressures on the vulnerable undermine true voluntariness, as seen in Canadian data post-2016 where 4.1% of in 2021 involved amid healthcare strains. Borderline self-defense cases further complicate mens rea assessments, particularly under "stand your ground" laws enacted in 38 U.S. states by 2023, which remove retreat duties in perceived lethal threats but invite debate over proportionality. High-profile incidents, such as the 2012 Trayvon Martin shooting, highlight how racial biases in threat perception can elevate justifiable homicide claims to murder scrutiny, with studies indicating expanded laws correlate with 8-10% homicide increases without reducing violent crime. Philosophically, these evoke intention-based distinctions: killings with defensive foresight differ from premeditated murder, but empirical reviews of retreat jurisdictions show no elevated civilian death risks, challenging arguments for duty-to-retreat as a safeguard against vigilantism. Cultural and disability-related infanticide cases also test borders, as in "mercy killings" of severely impaired infants, historically tolerated in some precedents but now prosecuted as murder absent narrow exceptions like neonatal . Modern critiques, informed by advances in viability (e.g., 22-week survivals since the 2010s), question why post-birth killings warrant charges while pre-birth abortions do not, underscoring definitional inconsistencies in thresholds. These debates persist amid policy failures, such as uneven enforcement in fetal assault cases, where only 20% of qualifying incidents led to charges from 2003-2016, reflecting influenced by ideological priors rather than uniform causal accountability.

Critiques of Definitional Biases and Policy Failures

Critics of definitions contend that classifications of justifiable homicides versus introduce biases that understate defensive uses of force. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program reports justifiable homicides only when authorities determine no crime occurred and no arrest is made, excluding cases where suspects are charged with or but later acquitted on grounds, or where investigations conclude differently at trial. This methodology, reliant on voluntary agency submissions, potentially distorts national statistics by failing to capture the full scope of lawful killings in , particularly in jurisdictions with . Racial disparities in these classifications have drawn , with analyses of FBI supplementary data from 1980 to 2008 revealing that white-on-Black homicides were 11 times more likely to be deemed justifiable by police than Black-on-white homicides, despite comprising a small fraction of total killings. Such patterns persist even after controlling for contextual factors like victim criminality, prompting claims of implicit favoring white perpetrators, though defenders attribute differences to situational variances in encounters, such as residential burglaries versus street robberies, and question the reliability of police determinations without prosecutorial review. Another definitional critique centers on the exclusion of elective abortions from homicide counts despite fetal homicide statutes in 38 U.S. states recognizing unborn children as victims when killed by third parties without maternal . These laws, enacted between 1980 and 2004, treat the intentional killing of a as murder or in cases like , yet annual abortions—estimated at 629,898 in 2020 by the —are not classified as such, creating what pro-life advocates describe as an ideological inconsistency that privileges maternal over fetal in statistical and legal frameworks. Policy failures in addressing murder often stem from reforms prioritizing reduced incarceration over deterrence, correlating with post-2020 homicide surges. FBI data recorded a 29.4% national increase in murders from 2019 to 2020, the largest single-year jump on record, coinciding with "defund the police" initiatives that led to budget cuts of up to 10% in major cities like and . In New York, 2019 bail reforms eliminating cash for most felonies, including violent offenses, preceded a 40% rise in murders by 2022, with analyses linking among released suspects—such as repeat offenders committing homicides while awaiting trial—to policy leniency. Similar patterns emerged under progressive district attorneys in cities like and , where non-prosecution of low-level offenses and lenient charging reduced clearance rates for murders to below 40%, enabling cycles of violence; 's homicide rate climbed 58% from 2019 to 2021 amid such approaches. Critics, including analyses from , argue these outcomes reflect causal failures in causal deterrence models, where reduced perceived risks of punishment—exacerbated by police recruitment shortfalls of 20-30% in affected departments—embolden perpetrators, outweighing claims that economic factors or effects alone explain the spikes.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111
  2. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1536-murder-definition-and-degrees
  3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder
  4. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/Global_study_on_homicide_2023_web.pdf
  5. https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html
  6. https://humanprogress.org/trends/global-murder-rate-is-falling/
  7. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html
  8. https://www.etymonline.com/word/murder
  9. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
  10. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/murder_v
  11. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm
  12. https://carneades.pomona.edu/2018-Political/11.LockeRights.html
  13. https://studylib.net/doc/8810101/locke-versus-hobbes-hobbes-locke-human-nature-man-is
  14. https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontology/
  15. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/06/09/kantian-ethics/
  16. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
  17. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/9-2-murder/
  18. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/6933-criminal-law/resources/3.1-a-note-on-common-law/
  19. http://www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/elements-digest/art8/c/8-2-c-i-1/6-a
  20. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/difference-between-first-second-degree-murder/
  21. https://manshoorylaw.com/blog/difference-between-1st-2nd-and-3rd-degree-murders/
  22. https://www.mirandarightslawfirm.com/blog/difference-between-1st-2nd-and-3rd-degree-murders/
  23. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/murder
  24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1068316X.2024.2405678
  25. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3456765
  26. https://www.lexplug.com/topics/criminal-law/degrees-of-murder
  27. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/
  28. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_rule
  29. https://www.txcourts.gov/All_Archived_Documents/ccaInformation/opinions/176700b.htm
  30. https://slcc.pressbooks.pub/criminallaw/chapter/9-4-felony-murder/
  31. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/felony-murder.html
  32. https://www.restorejustice.org/issues/sentencing/felony-murder/
  33. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/felony-murder-an-on-ramp-for-extreme-sentencing/
  34. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/in-print/volume-62-number-1-winter-2025/abolishing-felony-murder-an-empirical-perspective/
  35. https://ejusa.org/what-is-felony-murder/
  36. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/298/
  37. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4387&context=clr
  38. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/accessory
  39. https://slcc.pressbooks.pub/criminallaw/chapter/7-3-accessory/
  40. https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Accessorial_Liability.Rev.pdf
  41. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/accomplices-common-law-classifications
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367964837_Accessorial_Liability_in_the_Criminal_Law_A_Common_Law_Perspective
  43. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justifiable_homicide
  44. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1089
  45. https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78338
  46. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground
  47. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/murder
  48. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5164&context=jclc
  49. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/justifiable-homicide/
  50. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/definition-and-classification
  51. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf
  52. https://stateline.org/2025/07/21/stand-your-ground-laws-linked-to-higher-homicide-rates-new-report-finds/
  53. https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/imperfect-self-defense/
  54. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/imperfect-self-defense.html
  55. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/voluntary-manslaughter
  56. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/notes/division/5/1/2/1/3
  57. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2255&context=facultypub
  58. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious
  59. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=faculty_scholarship
  60. https://publicdefenders.nsw.gov.au/resources-and-papers/papers-by-public-defenders/partial-defences-to-murder-provocation-diminished-responsibility.html
  61. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2492&context=faculty_scholarship
  62. https://www.justia.com/criminal/aggravating-mitigating-factors/
  63. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1245&context=elj
  64. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/background/crimes-punishable-by-death/aggravating-factors-by-state
  65. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3592
  66. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-31/
  67. https://www.palegis.us/statutes/consolidated/view-statute?txtType=HTM&ttl=42&div=0&chapter=97&section=11&subsctn=0
  68. https://leppardlaw.com/criminal-law/homicide-lawyers/what-factors-influence-sentencing-in-homicide-cases/
  69. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=29-2523
  70. https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/ut/statutes/76-5-202-aggravated-murder-penalties-affirmative-defense-and-special-mitigation
  71. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/aggravate-mitigate-circumstances
  72. https://www.homicidedefenselawyer.org/mitigating-and-aggravating-circumstances-in-capital-murder-cases
  73. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_163.095
  74. https://le.utah.gov/interim/2016/pdf/00002750.pdf
  75. https://brewminate.com/the-code-of-hammurabi-crime-and-punishment-in-ancient-egypt/
  76. https://africame.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-91.html
  77. https://www.egypttoursportal.com/en-us/blog/egyptian-civilization/crime-punishment-in-ancient-egypt/
  78. https://www.tripsinegypt.com/blog/ancient-egyptian-civilization/crime-and-punishment-in-ancient-egypt/
  79. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1970/
  80. https://biblehub.com/topical/c/criteria_for_manslaughter_vs._murder.htm
  81. https://revbible.com/comm/Exodus/21/12?fromoldrev=1
  82. https://apologeticspress.org/should-moses-have-been-executed-for-committing-murder-5462/
  83. https://seekingvirtueandwisdom.com/draco-solon-and-cleisthenes-democracy-and-justice-in-ancient-greece/
  84. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/writing-greek-law/why-draco-wrote-his-homicide-law/75C620B643690D8FDEE7ECAD03B9114E
  85. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/twelve_tables.asp
  86. https://roman-empire.net/republic/the-twelve-tables
  87. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/ciekawostka/who-decided-about-punishment-for-murderer-in-early-rome/amp/
  88. https://sites.owu.edu/trident/2020/11/09/frankish-law-and-the-wergeld-in-the-early-middle-ages-by-drake-ogden/
  89. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/legal-procedures-crime-and-punishment
  90. https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=eng_expositor
  91. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc202011.html
  92. https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat2/sub2/entry-5417.html
  93. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3440&context=umlr
  94. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=87445
  95. https://www.lawteacher.net/lectures/criminal-law/fatal-offences/murder/
  96. https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/the-law-of-murder
  97. https://smolenskylaw.com/2017/01/24/historical-evolution-of-criminal-intent/
  98. https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-414/
  99. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1338586
  100. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/9-1-homicide/
  101. https://www.law.upenn.edu/faculty/paul-robinson/clrgcodes/MPC.html
  102. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=faculty_scholarship
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178918301678
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4176893/
  105. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15188
  106. https://www.psypost.org/study-uncovers-a-surprising-level-of-heterogeneity-in-psychopathy-among-condemned-capital-murderers/
  107. https://ncaddnational.org/addiction_articles/alcohol-drugs-and-crime/
  108. https://wwwapp.bumc.bu.edu/BEDAC_Camy/Resources/FactSheets/AlcoholViolence
  109. https://www.rit.edu/liberalarts/sites/rit.edu.liberalarts/files/documents/our-work/2002-01.pdf
  110. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201308
  111. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/criminal-history-federal-offenders
  112. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
  113. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2820%2930002-5/fulltext
  114. https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/mental-illness-and-violence-is-there-a-link/
  115. https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness
  116. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212
  117. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-024-02870-7
  118. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/family-structure-source-female-and-male-homicide-united-states
  119. https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/reports/ifs-strongerfamilies-final-1.pdf
  120. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/stronger-families-safer-streets/
  121. https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-root-causes-violent-crime-the-breakdown-marriage-family-and
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3105291/
  123. https://r.jordan.im/download/racism/renn%25C3%25B3%2520santos2017.pdf
  124. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/7184
  125. https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-022-00371-z
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135917892500059X
  127. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046222000667
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10393136/
  129. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-evidence-that-lead-exposure-increases-crime/
  130. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet_3.pdf
  131. https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
  132. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/9/6/190
  133. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet_4.pdf
  134. https://digitalcommons.newhaven.edu/context/criminaljustice-facpubs/article/1002/viewcontent/Tcherni_Structural_Determinants_of_Homicide__post_print_.pdf
  135. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356499/
  137. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7323&context=jclc
  138. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/deterrence-and-death-penalty
  139. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/faculty-articles/143/
  140. https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
  141. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-report-increased-incarceration-had-limited-effect-reducing-crime-over
  142. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/incarceration-and-crime-a-weak-relationship/
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356500/
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235223000624
  145. https://youthendowmentfund.org.uk/toolkit/hot-spots-policing/
  146. https://niskanencenter.org/certainty-as-a-foundation-for-justice/
  147. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10447713/
  149. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5678379/
  150. https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims
  151. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/GSH23_Chapter_2.pdf
  152. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5
  153. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00031224221131758
  154. https://dataunodc.un.org/content/data/homicide/homicide-rate
  155. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/652229
  156. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-rise-and-fall-of-homicides-in-europe
  157. https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/full/10.1017/S0268416021000096
  158. https://insightcrime.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Global_study_on_homicide_2023_web.pdf
  159. https://ourworldindata.org/homicides
  160. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/murder
  161. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2024-reported-crimes-in-the-nation-statistics
  162. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/murders-dropped-nearly-15-last-year-fbi-data-shows
  163. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-did-u-s-homicides-spike-in-2020-and-then-decline-rapidly-in-2023-and-2024/
  164. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/
  165. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43
  166. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf
  167. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/1m20y4j/why_is_there_such_a_large_gap_in_homicide_rates/
  168. https://usafacts.org/articles/where-are-crime-victimization-rates-higher-urban-rural-areas/
  169. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10134042/
  170. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178280.pdf
  171. https://online.campbellsville.edu/infographics/7-steps-of-a-crime-scene-investigation/
  172. https://www.aerlawgroup.com/blog/the-role-of-forensic-evidence-in-murder-trials/
  173. https://www.saracaplandefense.com/blog/88-orensic-science-in-solving-murder-and-other-crimes-the-role-of-technology
  174. https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/what-every-first-responding-officer-should-know-about-dna/dna-evidence-overview
  175. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/visibleproofs/galleries/cases/jeffreys.html
  176. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-evolution-of-dna-forensics-and-its-impact-on-solving-crimes-45491
  177. https://digitalcommons.newhaven.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=criminaljustice-facpubs
  178. https://www.nist.gov/firearms-and-toolmarks
  179. https://news.asu.edu/20240726-science-and-technology-breakthrough-chemical-analysis-links-bullets-fragments-shooting
  180. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30404441/
  181. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2024/10/19/digital-forensics-reignites-2019-cold-casemurder-of-kimberly-bell/
  182. https://www.forensicscolleges.com/blog/forensics-casefile-btk-strangler
  183. https://www.excelsior.edu/article/the-role-of-forensics-in-crime-solving/
  184. https://www.amu.apus.edu/area-of-study/criminal-justice/resources/behavioral-analysis-in-criminal-investigation/
  185. https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/stages-criminal-trial/
  186. https://www.prisonstudies.org/news/short-prison-sentence-fine-or-life-imprisonment-%25E2%2580%2593-all-same-offence-exploring-sentence
  187. https://www.quora.com/Which-country-has-the-most-lenient-punishment-for-murder-and-why
  188. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2023/20231114_Demographic-Differences.pdf
  189. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=socs_fac
  190. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
  191. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235224001909
  192. https://crimejusticelab.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Criminology-Public-Policy-2024-Braga-Disorder-policing-to-reduce-crime-An-updated-systematic-review-and.pdf
  193. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html
  194. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics
  195. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225001618
  196. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12601
  197. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3829390/
  198. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/community-organizations-have-important-role-lowering-crime-rates
  199. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/171676.pdf
  200. https://crimereads.com/the-invention-of-murder-how-the-ancient-romans-codified-their-bizarre-views-on-murder/
  201. https://pursuitmag.com/origin-stories-ancient-justice/
  202. https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/life-violence-middle-ages-murder-crime/
  203. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-world-history-of-violence/violence-and-murder-in-europe/E1FFC7F84D135C5AD5B1A9F6A519F27A
  204. https://theconversation.com/our-medieval-murder-maps-reveal-the-surprising-geography-of-violence-in-14th-century-english-cities-263380
  205. https://www.cold-takes.com/unraveling-the-evidence-about-violence-among-very-early-humans/
  206. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088767914526717
  207. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/cesare-beccaria-trail-blazer-capital-punishment
  208. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/homicide-rates-have-declined-dramatically-over-the-centuries
  209. https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/manuel-eisner-historical-trends-in-violence.pdf
  210. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-skulls-reveal-shifts-in-human-violence-across-millennia/
  211. https://www.pregnancyjusticeus.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/fetal-homicide-brief-with-appendix-UPDATED.pdf
  212. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=faculty-articles
  213. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4441884/
  214. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6243437/
  215. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1202&context=ilr
  216. https://www.steinandmarkuslaw.com/blog/2019/december/what-s-the-difference-between-homicide-murder-an/
  217. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20632024_Mercy_murder_morality_perspectives_on_euthanasia_Assisted_suicide_pro-choice_or_anti-life
  218. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2546952_code587055.pdf?abstractid=1404387&mirid=1
  219. https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1750&context=lawreview
  220. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1397&context=dlj
  221. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1431&context=jlpp
  222. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/21/16179058/homicide-justifiable-black-white-race
  223. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/08/14/killings-of-black-men-by-whites-are-far-more-likely-to-be-ruled-justifiable
  224. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/stand-your-ground-laws-and-racial-bias
  225. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty-articles/379/
  226. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/16kcvv6/cmv_it_is_morally_and_logically_inconsistent_to/
  227. https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/fbi-statistics-show-30-increase-murder-2020-more-evidence-defunding
  228. https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-increased-us-cities/story?id=91511971
  229. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-10-02%2520Violent%2520Crime%2520in%2520America.pdf
  230. https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/news-events/news/real-impact-bail-reform-public-safety
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.