A Test of Competing Hypotheses about Homicide Following Terrorist Attacks: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis of September 11 and Oklahoma City

There is substantial evidence that catastrophic events, including terrorist attacks, lead to increased levels of post-traumatic stress, especially in communities in close proximity to the incident. Some scholars also argue that these events disrupt social organization. On the other hand, many contend that these incidents produce social cohesion as community members coalesce to help each other in time of need. These ideas have resulted in competing hypotheses in the literature. The first is that violence will increase in the wake of catastrophic events due to heightened levels of individual stress and community disorganization. The second is that violence will decline after these events because of increased social cohesion, especially in the face of an outside threat. In order to test these competing hypotheses, we employed autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) techniques to model the impact of the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 attacks on monthly homicide counts at the local, state, and national level. Unlike prior studies that provided evidence of an effect but did not use rigorous time-series techniques, we found no support for either of the competing hypotheses. We conclude that while such catastrophic events may have an effect on individual and collective efficacy well beyond the immediate impact of the incidents, these effects are not strong enough to influence homicide rates. An erratum to this article can be found at     

Predictors of Support of Legislation Banning Juvenile Executions in Oklahoma: An Examination by Race and Sex

The Supreme Court has recently decided to re‐examine the constitutionality of executing individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court’s reliance on public opinion as evidenced through opinion polls and changing laws in the 2002 Atkins decision has suggested that public opinion may play a role in the Court’s decision regarding juvenile executions. There is considerable evidence that the majority of Americans favor a ban on juvenile executions. In the current study, we use Oklahoma data collected in 2003 by the Oklahoma University Public Opinion Learning Laboratory to examine more closely the factors that predict a support of a ban on juvenile executions. Interestingly, only one fourth of Oklahomans oppose such a ban. Earlier research suggested that religious fundamentalism is linked to support of juvenile executions, but we did not find this, suggesting that public opinion may be shifting. We then analyzed the data separately by race and then by sex. Our findings suggest that there may be differences between groups in the predictors of support for a ban on juvenile executions, at least in Oklahoma, indicating the need for further research.