Welfare effects of forming a criminal organization

This paper develops a simple model to examine the economic consequences of two different criminal market structures in the private protection and extortion industry: (1) horizontal (decentralized) governance and market structure and (2) hierarchical (centralized) governance and market structure with a criminal organization. Forming a criminal organization produces positive or negative effects on its members and social efficiency. These results depend on the potential competitiveness among criminals and the ability of a criminal organization’s boss to target more valuable extortion victims.     

Homicide–Suicide in China: an Exploratory Study of Characteristics and Types

This study explores 63 homicide–suicide cases that include two or more homicide victims, in the People’s Republic of China. This is the first study to examine homicide–suicide in the Chinese context, following calls to develop a research strategy outside of the USA and Europe. Data are derived from a content analysis of Chinese news sources from 2000 to 2014. Findings show homicide–suicide offenders are likely to be married males living in rural cities who kill their intimate partners and/or children inside a residence using knives. Intimate partner conflict and extramarital affairs are precipitating factors in almost half of the incidents. Patterns of homicide–suicide in China are comparable to those in high-income countries, except that firearms are not the primary means in China and there is no evidence of “mercy killing” among older persons, as described in western homicide–suicide studies. Findings are related to the social and economic structure of Chinese society. Clinical and policy implications include the need for greater transparency and a nationwide homicide and suicide tracking system in China, stricter domestic violence laws, postmortem studies of the brains of homicide–suicide offenders, and psychological autopsies on homicide–suicide perpetrators.     

Criminology and animality: stupidity and the anthropological machine

Although a relatively small, yet growing group of scholars have been lamenting the exclusion of nonhuman animals from the scope of criminology for over thirty years now, animals have been historically present in criminological theorizing, legal practices, and research. However, this presence has not been of the form advocated for by scholars who variously identify themselves as non-speciesist criminologists, green criminologists, or ecological criminologists, who have been arguing largely for recognition of harms perpetrated against animals, or ‘zoological crime’. Instead, the longer history of animals in criminology is as offenders or as prototypes of criminality. In this article, we are concerned with the production – vis-à-vis the anthropological machine – of the ‘stupid’ animal and subhuman within criminology and criminal justice. Guided by the political philosophy of Giorgio Agamben, we trace the animal through criminological thought from the premodern period to Lombroso to contemporary criminological scholarship illustrating how the animal has been (ab)used to shore up the classifications between humans, between humans and animals, and the intelligent and the stupid. We also examine how historically through criminal trials of animals and the feebleminded, criminal justice has played an active role in buttressing these classifications and acting on these classifications to produce bare life, that is, life without form or value.     

Voles don't take taxis

Johnson's paper advances understanding of sequences of burglaries committed by the same offender. Furthermore, it has heuristic value in suggesting new avenues for applicable research. Each of the current data shortcomings represents an opportunity for novel research approaches, and the optimum forager metaphor holds continuing appeal as an organizing principle helpful to operational policing.