| Abstract: | ![]()
In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of 25 persons recently convicted of homicide in a largely rural, midwestern state. The primary focus of the study was the definition of the situation, particularly the vocabulary of motives, employed by the respondents at the time of their crime. The results showed that the vast majority of the respondents cited motives involving excuses (e.g., it was an accident, judgment impaired by alcohol/drugs, not oneself because of severe stress). These excuses assumed, or appealed to, conventional moral views of violence. Six of the individuals provided motives that they felt justified their actions. However, these justifications tended to be based upon a plea of self-defense and demonstrated a commitment to conventional morality rather than to the norms of a violent subculture. There was no evidence that the respondents viewed their behavior as part of a character contest. In most instances, they were unemployed or underemployed persons, living rather dead-end lives, who in the course of mounting life stress struck out at someone, usually while intoxicated. Frequently they were depressed, and in some cases suicidal, at the time of the act, and the victim was usually a relative or friend. In half of the cases it appeared that the homicide would not have taken place if a handgun has not been present. |
