The Intersection of Homicide, Terrorism, and Violent Extremism

• Published date: 01 February 2018
• Date: 01 February 2018
• Author: Jeff Gruenewald,Gary LaFree
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767917737809
• Subject Matter: Editorial

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767917737809

Homicide Studies

2018, Vol. 22(1) 3 –7

© 2017 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1088767917737809

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Editorial

The Intersection of

Homicide, Terrorism,

and Violent Extremism

The main purpose of this special issue of Homicide Studies is to explore the similari-

ties and differences between traditional homicide and a variety of less common homi-

cide forms involving political and other ideological motivations. Scholarly terrorism

research has historically manifested most frequently as the psychological study of

radicalization processes (Horgan, 2005; Kruglanski et al., 2014) and terrorist group

dynamics by political scientists (Abrahms, 2012; Schmid & Jongman, 1988).

Conversely, although there are important exceptions (e.g., Hamm, 1993; Smith, 1994),

most criminological research on terrorism and violent extremism has been conducted

more recently, increasing after the coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The dearth of criminological attention to terrorism in the past, particularly by homi-

cide researchers, is an important gap for several reasons.

First, there are many apparent similarities between terrorism and crime. Sutherland

(1947) famously wrote that criminology includes within its scope “the study of the

making of laws, the breaking laws, and reactions to the breaking of laws” (p. 1)—which

would seem to unambiguously locate terrorism within the field of criminology. Among

our contemporaries, this position has also been made forcefully by Clarke and Newman

(2006), who state simply that “[t]errorism is a form of crime in all essential respects”

(p. i). We concur. Prior research has found that terrorism and crime have limited and

common offender pools (i.e., young males; DeLisi, Neppl, Lohman, Vaughn, & Shook,

2013; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996), have deleterious effects on social trust and

community cohesion (Anderson, 2000; Kirk & Matsuda, 2011), and are social con-

structions which derive meaning from human interactions all the while reproducing

rules and norms (LaFree & Dugan, 2004). But it is important to recognize that there are

also differences between terrorism and ordinary crime. Perhaps most obviously, tradi-

tional criminals are generally driven by personal gain and selfishness, while terrorism

is most often motivated by the furtherance of political causes and even altruism

(Crenshaw & Horowitz, 1983; LaFree, Dugan, & Miller, 2015). And though common

criminals usually try to avoid detection, terrorists commit crimes unabashedly and often

seek the largest audiences possible (Kydd & Walter, 2006; Pape, 2005), ostensibly justi-

fied by their perceived contributions to the greater good (Hoffman, 1998; Jaśko, LaFree,

& Kruglanski, 2016; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2011).

A second reason why we regard the lack of criminological terrorism research as

unfortunate is that homicide researchers actually have a long history of examining rare

forms of lethal violence, and have explicitly noted the importance of considering the

737809HSXXXX10.1177/1088767917737809Homicide Studies

research-article2017