“We Boil at Different Degrees”: Factors Associated With Severity of Attack in Sexual Killing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Degree of injury, as measured by the Homicide Injury Scale (HIS), was examined to advance understanding of the dynamics of sexual killing. A total of 350 nonserial, male sexual killers were included, and the different ways that the sexual element of their offenses and the act of killing were connected was accounted for by determining that cases were either directly sexual (the sexual element and killing were closely bound), or indirectly sexual (killing was not a source of sexual stimulation). The two groups, direct and indirect sexual killers, were each subjected to multiple linear regression analyses to examine the group-specific relationship between level of injury and predictor variables previously found to be associated with increased severity of attack. No differences in the mean total HIS scores between the indirect and the direct cases were found, suggesting a comparable emotional intensity between the groups. However, given that the groups differed in terms of the functional role of fatal violence, severity of attack could not be sufficiently explained as driven by anger. In line with this hypothesis, different predictors appeared to be associated with increased degree of injury sustained by victims of indirect compared with direct sexual killers. As such, situational components appear to play a role in the behavior of indirect sexual killers, whereas the behavior of direct perpetrators tends to be linked with the enactment of existing deviant fantasies. The role of anger in sexual homicide is discussed further, and overall, it is argued that irrespective of whether violence was initially driven by anger, evidence of sexual arousal to severe violence must be scrutinized within sexual homicide research as well as in psycholegal contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".