Patterns of Necrophilic Behaviors in Sexual Homicide: A Criminological Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to empirically explore the patterns of necrophilic behaviors in sexual homicide. More specifically, the study investigates offender, victim, and crime characteristics of sexual homicides where necrophilic acts were perpetrated, to determine whether the primary motivation to kill is associated with the attainment of corpses or whether the post-mortem sexual acts were secondary deviant behaviors. The sample used in this study consists of 109 cases of extrafamilial sexual homicides where post-mortem sexual acts were committed by offenders. Latent class analysis was used to examine each step of the crime-commission process of sexual homicide offenders involved in necrophilic behaviors. Our findings suggest that there are four different patterns of necrophilia in sexual homicide: Opportunistic, experimental, preferential, and sadistic. Preferential offenders are the only ones who specifically kill their victims in order to have sex with their corpses, while for sadistic, experimental, and opportunistic offenders post-mortem sexual acts were part of a secondary deviant process. Practical implications in terms of criminal investigations and offenders' treatment are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".