Sexual Homicide: An Updated Analysis of the Offender, the Victim and the Offence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Partly due to the brutality of the acts involved (e.g., mutilation of genitalia, dismemberment, foreign object insertion) as well as the apparent randomness of victim selection, sexual homicide is a crime that has always attracted attention from scholars, clinicians, and the police. When looking specifically at the empirical research on this type of crime, we can identify three distinct periods. The first period can be traced back to the early work of Krafft-Ebing. This period was mainly characterized by descriptive or case studies from clinical observations. Although interesting and informative, it was difficult – even impossible – to generalize the findings. The second period saw the proliferation of quantitative studies based on small samples. The pioneer study from the FBI marks the beginning of this period which saw the publication of several typologies as well as comparative studies between sexual homicide offenders (SHOs) and nonhomicidal sex offenders (NHSOs). Research from this period allowed to empirically test some of the ideas suggested in older clinical studies, as well as to build a knowledge base on sexual homicide, something that criminology had been reluctant to do (DeLisi & Wright, 2014). However, these studies were based on relatively small samples that were not representative. Recently, we have entered a third period characterized by empirical research based on large and representative samples. From studies based on 36 SHOs, some of the latest research was undertaken based on samples from 350 to almost 800 cases. Beyond the actual number of cases, these studies have allowed to question some of the findings that emerged from the second period. Furthermore, we have observed a desire from researchers in this field to collaborate between them. Such collaboration has culminated in the publication of the Routledge International Handbook of Sexual Homicide Studies (Proulx, Beauregard, Carter, Mokros, Darjee, & James, 2018) as well as the creation of the Sexual Homicide International Database (SHIelD; Chopin & Beauregard, 2019). Considering the evolution of sexual homicide research over the years, it felt necessary to update what is known on the SHO and his offense. We have identified different areas where significant developments were made, more specifically on the following issues: SHO as a unique type of sex offender; Heterogeneity of sexual homicide; Vulnerable victims in sexual homicide; Sadism and psychopathy and how they relate to sexual homicide, and; International comparisons on sexual homicide. Unfortunately, it was not possible to address all the interesting research that has been produced over the past few years. However, we have targeted some of the most important issues related to the SHO and his crime.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».