criminal psychology research studies

•   [email protected]

Criminal Justice

Criminal psychology.

Criminal Psychology is the application of psychology to the views, thoughts, intentions and actions of people who engage in criminal behavior. This area of research relies both on core resources in criminal justice and psychology. The included resources below will help you learn more about topics in criminal psychology. To explore additional psychology resources, consider consulting the Psychology Research Guide .

• Society for Police and Criminal Psychology (SPCP) This link opens in a new window
• American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) This link opens in a new window
• Council of Specialties in Police and Public Safety Psychology This link opens in a new window
• American Board of Forensic Psychology This link opens in a new window
• American Board of Professional Psychology: Police and Public Safety This link opens in a new window
• Psychology Today: Law & Crime This link opens in a new window

Psychology Databases

• << Previous: Criminology
• Next: Organized Crime and Gang Violence >>

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Youth Serial Killers: Psychological and Criminological Profiles

Associated data.

Not applicable.

Serial murder is a specific type of violent crime that falls into the crime category of multicide. According to the nomenclature of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Violent Crime Classification Manual and Academic Researchers for the Classification of Violent Crimes, most serial killers are adults. However, serial murder is also committed by young people, although to a lesser extent. Young serial killers are a topic of relevance in areas such as psychology, criminology, and the justice system. Given that the study of the variables that could be the basis of such multicide criminality is not conclusive, the need for further research is evident. The homicides perpetrated by children and young people point to a social panorama that is alarming due to their young age. This issue is prevalent enough to conduct a review. The performed review concludes the importance of psychosocial factors to better understand the process by which children and young people commit crimes as serious as serial murders. The scope of the problem of serial murders perpetrated by minors is controversial because it often depends on how the number of real cases is counted. Although official statistics indicate the low prevalence of juvenile serial killers, childhood is a period in which antisocial behaviour can have its beginning. Some authors consider that it is not uncommon for the first murder of this type to occur in adolescence. It is important to consider psychopathy as an influential factor in the various forms of serial criminal conduct committed by children and young people. The research works consulted provide evidence of the special relevance of psychopathy in the generation of serious juvenile delinquency.

1. Introduction

The phenomenon of serial murders occupies a unique place in the field of Criminology and the criminal justice system, especially when the perpetrators of this and other kinds of violent crimes are underage. In this sense, we use the terms child, juvenile and youth without distinction, as in the Convention on the Rights of the Child [ 1 ], to refer to those under the age of 18 when which they committed homicide.

In addition to the difficulties that this supposes for criminal investigation by the police and judicial systems, serial murder cases attract excessive attention from the media, mental health experts, the academic world, and the general public. This social, media and professional impact is even worse when the serial murders are perpetrated by either young people or women, since reality is greatly softened in the case of these populations, the more unpleasant aspects of the crime tending to be mitigated [ 2 ].

Furthermore, much of the lack of understanding of the phenomenon of serial murders, especially in the case of underage perpetrators, is surrounded by a halo of media sensationalism that usually arises from a question about the mind of serial killers asked and debated across numerous articles and opinion columns: are serial killers born or made? Added to this is another question of a similar nature, which refers to the popular idea of serial killers as predators, monsters, or devils [ 3 ]. In this sense, if this sensationalist question had to be settled, the conclusion would be obvious: serial killers are predators only in the sense that their methods of attack are very similar to those of predatory animals—they stalk, attack, and kill [ 4 ]. On the other hand, labelling them as monsters or devils, however abominable and indescribable the acts of such individuals may be, is only part of the media circus surrounding such cases at both judicial and social levels [ 5 ], and contributes to the media-influenced collective mentality that spares no detail [ 6 ] and which even, inexplicably, makes celebrities of such people [ 7 ].

Nevertheless, the generally badly characterised film image of the typical murderer who creates a plan of action and chooses their victim is ostensibly false in the case of most juvenile homicides. Only in very few cases (mainly serial killers, mass murderers and itinerants) does it respond to reality [ 8 ].

Putting aside the speculations of the media world, only empirical works of research and academic books that deal rigorously with this delicate and singular subject were considered in this review on serial murders perpetrated by children and youths. In this review, the problem of children and youths who commit homicide or murder, but not serially, was first reviewed to differentiate them from those young people who are serial killers.

Secondly, the concept and characterization of serial murders were defined as a form of multicide and as a specific type of violent crime. According to the conceptualization given by both the FBI’s Violent Crime Classification Manual and various researchers, the great majority of serial killers are white males aged between 25 and 35. Nevertheless, serial murder is also committed by youths, although to a much lesser extent.

Thirdly, the analysis of the psychological and criminological profiles of children and youths who had committed serial murders allowed us to characterize them with a series of psychosocial aspects and criminal motivations. In addition, it is also important to stress the need to consider other types of serial criminal conduct in which some young people become involved, and which can be considered as forerunners to the later perpetration of serial murders. Fourthly, the importance and role played by child–juvenile psychopathy in violent, criminal conduct and the perpetration of serial murders was explored.

The acquisition and development of aggressive and violent behaviour patterns, which may increase the risk of minors committing murder, respond to the joint action of multiple etiological factors (psychological, social, biological, environmental, etc.). Given that the study of the variables which might comprise the basis of such multicide criminality is inconclusive, the need for further investigation is evident. This review aims to provide the necessary knowledge to outline the therapeutic needs of serial killer children, and to deal with them through specific interventions.

To achieve a better knowledge of the phenomenon of murder committed by youths, as well as to understand the extent and severity of this phenomenon, we carried out a scoping review of research articles written in various countries.

Similarly, we reviewed and compared research works related to the concept and characterisation of serial killers. In addition, we analysed the said manifestations in youths to be able to understand their psychological and criminological profiles.

The information was obtained from the following databases: ScienceDirect, Scopus and PsycoINFO. For this review, publications were selected using the following descriptors: (serial killers AND youths) AND (juvenile delinquency AND psychosocial OR psychopathy factors).

Concerning exclusion criteria, all those studies in which the said search descriptors were not present were discarded. Similarly, despite the inclusion of research papers related to other serial criminal behaviour patterns often carried out by young people, such as arson, cruelty to animals, or sexual crimes [ 9 ], those studies that referred to non-serial juvenile violence were excluded.

The year of publication of these research papers was not an exclusion criterion, given their scarcity.

3.1. Youth Homicides and Non-Serial Killers: Extent and Severity of the Problem

The extent and severity of the problem of serial murders committed by minors (children and youths) begins with homicide and murder of a non-serial nature, but equally violent. There are numerous cases of this type throughout the world, and they are widely documented.

Despite the terminology frequently used by the media, young delinquents are not monsters or beasts, and often have not committed previous acts of violence [ 10 ]. The analysis and investigation that this author carried out on 80 attempted or consummated homicides, perpetrated by youths, shows that a great number of these crimes occurred because they found it difficult to refuse to participate in something previously planned by a group of peers, so the criminal motivations were only partially due to the minor’s personality. An explanation can often be found in an accumulation of arbitrary circumstances, and in the way an extremely aggressive individual reacts to such circumstances [ 10 ].

In this sense, Lempp [ 10 ] studied the probable motives for homicides committed by young delinquents and situated them in psychic and environmental contexts for each case to contribute to the scientific study of the phenomenon, evaluating the psychological, legal, psychiatric, and social aspects of each case.

Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, if the reality of these cases seems to be twisted, then what is the real extent of the problem? In this sense, the controversy and debate concerning the extreme violence of minors is widespread, since there are a diverse range of opinions and data about criminality in general among minors and young people. Rechea and Fernández [ 11 ] consider that the percentage of young people who commit this type of act is low.

The analysis of the participation of juveniles in homicides is still a serious problem in the USA, since between the mid-1980s and the start of the 1990s, there was an unprecedented growth in homicides perpetrated by youths [ 12 ]. The available data suggest that juveniles currently participate in more homicides than in previous generations [ 13 ].

Independently of the figures, the cases of juvenile homicide and murder cannot be underestimated, since the psychosocial and criminological reality of these cases is as particular as it is fatal for the victims.

Braga, Kennedy, Waring, and Morrison [ 14 ] stress the significance of homicides carried out by youths who belong to street gangs. It must be said that this criminal phenomenon is very particular, as its situational variables are different and should be studied separately from the rest of juvenile crime [ 15 , 16 ].

Due to all of the above, the psychosocial and criminological profile of youths who commit homicide and murder is not comparable to that of the common delinquent. In this sense, Lempp [ 10 ] warns that greater importance is not given to cases of child–juvenile homicide due to the generalized belief that “no-one would have believed them capable of such acts, precisely because they did not fit in any way the general image we have of a murderer”.

3.2. Serial Murders: Conceptual Limits and Main Characteristics

There is much controversy about the operational definition of serial murder [ 17 ]. However, in general, it can be considered a kind of multicide that can be defined as the repeated homicide of two or more persons [ 18 ], and with a cooling-down period between one crime and another [ 4 ].

The term serial killer was first coined to identify individuals who methodically murder a number of people within a period of time, although the motives, the victims and the methods vary from one serial killer to another [ 19 ].

Although the minimum number of victims considered necessary to define murders as serial murders is arbitrary, authors such as Egger [ 20 ] place the said minimum number as at least three victims. Similarly, although there is no single, generally accepted definition, Ferguson, White, Cherry, Lorenz, and Bhimani [ 21 ] coincide in pointing out that the essential element for defining a serial killer is the execution of three or more murders during multiple discreet events. Therefore, traditionally, a serial killer is defined as an individual who has murdered three or more victims [ 18 ].

However, it is important to point out that there are other types of homicide (for instance, terrorists, mass murderers, etc.) in which the perpetrators can murder more than three victims in their first killing spree, but who can then still become serial killers with a cooling-down period between one crime and another [ 22 ].

In any case, the aspect of the number of victims would have to be reconsidered, as there are murderers who only kill one person and are quickly arrested and imprisoned. Then, after studying their criminal behaviour patterns, it can be seen that there is a high probability that they would have killed again if they had not been caught and imprisoned [ 4 ].

The need to have a precise, working definition of a serial killer takes on greater importance when considering the process of generating the psychological and criminological profile of this type of individual, since there are many subtypes of serial killer. This gives rise to a variety of behaviour patterns and criminal motivations that reflect heterogeneous characteristics [ 23 ]. It is thus important to establish the psycho-criminological profile of these multicides on a differential level [ 24 , 25 ].

3.3. The Phenomenon of Serial Murders Committed by Minors

3.3.1. the psycho-criminological profiles of child and youth serial killers: psychosocial aspects and criminal motivations.

Serial murder is a type of multicide predominantly perpetrated by male adults [ 22 ]. The cases of child and youth serial killers are, of course, much less frequent than adult cases [ 9 ]. From the academic and professional sphere of forensic psychiatry, Myers [ 26 ] studied six cases of serial killers who were under 18 years of age throughout the entire series of their crimes, identifying only six in the last 150 years, the majority from the USA. According to this author, at least two of the six serial killers began to commit murder in their adolescence, and most of their successive crimes occurred at somewhat older ages.

According to Myers [ 26 ], each of these six young serial delinquents committed sexually motivated homicides as an expression of their aberrant erotic interest, which they later openly displayed at the crime scenes. The signs of sexual sadism and criminal characteristics reflect the behavioural profile of a more predatory type of violence (proactive or instrumental) than affective or reactive violence. In this sense, Myers [ 26 ] points out that these subjects preferred to use their own hands in the diverse methods and ways used to kill their victims, that is, cutting, stabbing, strangling and/or dismembering. Three of these children had problematic upbringings, yet, according to the reports, only one was physically abused by his father. The great majority of these juvenile serial killers showed signs of sexual sadism, a characteristic generally found in adult sexual serial killers [ 26 ].

Furthermore, this author states that “humans are not physiologically ‘wired’ to have sexual pleasure during the experience of significant anger” [ 26 ]. However, children usually explore their sexuality and the spectrum of pleasure/pain at an early age. Thus, according to this author, the physiological trait that traces the line between pleasure and pain is absent in these young serial killers, and it is this fact that could have given rise to the generalized conclusion that a serial killer’s behaviour is caused by psychological, social, and biological problems [ 26 ].

Some of these serial killers come from broken homes where they could not acquire a stable personality. Thus, they continually look to satisfy their desires through fantasies of domination and control [ 27 ]. Similarly, some of them were physically, sexually, and emotionally abused in childhood, and often such abuses were simultaneous [ 28 ].

Research into the impact of child abuse on violent behaviour has demonstrated that abuse and exposure to violence, in any of its multiple forms, is a very important factor for predicting criminal conduct [ 29 ]. The research of Dutton and Hart [ 30 ], carried out on males condemned for various crimes, suggests that those minors who were physically, sexually, and/or emotionally abused were three times more likely to act violently when adults. Nevertheless, Mitchell and Aamodt [ 31 ] state that, in the serial killer population, neglect experienced in childhood does not have a significant prevalence.

Myers [ 26 ] does not mention the important fact that the phenomenon of sexual pleasure/pain can be a learnt characteristic. In this sense, it had already been pointed out that “the blurring of pain/pleasure lines can occur during abuse, exposure to violence, or as psychological training (more often seen in socially accepted sexual masochism and slave/master social circles)” [ 32 ].

In any case, Myers concludes that “the murderers’ impulses to kill did not in the least decrease as they grew up; serial killers also fit into the category of ‘predator’” [ 26 ]. Due to the limited number of child serial killers, Myers [ 26 ] was unable to extrapolate the results of his study, and the idea of biological traits being the principal influence of serial killers requires more research to either prove or disprove it. In a later study on the psychological motivations of 12 sexual serial killers, this author and his team could only conclude that this type of individual expresses their positive feelings of sexual pleasure, and even euphoria (instead of anger or other unpleasant states of mind), through their criminal acts [ 33 ].

Although serial killings would seem to be a rare event, some authors suggest that it is difficult to determine the incidence and prevalence of this phenomenon [ 34 ]. Given that this form of violence has a strong social impact, and that it can appear to be the result of interacting biological, psychological, and sociological factors, research into this phenomenon should start in infancy [ 28 ].

As the cases of child and youth serial killers are much less frequent than those committed by adults, it is necessary to approach the studies of cases in this area differently to be able to advance our knowledge of such youths. Thus, an initiative to be recommended in this sense consists of more detailed research into other criminal serial behaviour patterns used by these youths. Such behaviour patterns as are set out below.

3.3.2. The Role of Five Categories of Criminal Serial Behaviour Patterns Used by Children and Youths: Criminological History of Adult Serial Murders?

According to Myers and Borg [ 9 ], there are generally six categories of criminal serial behaviour patterns which are normally studied in the case of children and youths: (1) ‘generic’ juvenile delinquency (which provides an explicative framework for other violent or non-violent crimes); (2) crimes of firesetting; (3) crimes of cruelty to animals; (4) crimes of a sexual nature; (5) crimes of sadism; and (6) serial murders. According to these authors, “the first five categories do not represent all the possible forms of serial crimes committed by young people, and neither do they cover the more serious types or all the specific profiles” [ 9 ]. In this sense, they also point out that “a wider treatment of this area could include additional, less serious crimes which, are by nature serial, such as kleptomania” [ 9 ].

Based on a thorough review of the literature concerning the five categories of serial criminal behaviour patterns in children and youths, Myers and Borg [ 9 ] believe that many of them could be the precursors of later serial murders, by which they seem to be ‘testing things out’; for instance, how they feel upon setting fire to objects, houses, and forests, mistreating and killing animals, etc. Thus, the maximum expression of criminal behaviour would reside in the murder of one or more people. Some young people begin with other types of serial criminal behaviour patterns which serve as a ‘preparatory’ step. Does this mean that serial murder can be learned? Considering the application of the theory of social learning to acts of firesetting by children and youths, Singer and Hensley [ 35 ] found that the motivational patterns of the subjects suggested just that.

Although the research estimates that serial killers begin their criminal careers at 20 years of age, what is certain is that it is not uncommon for the first murder of this type of multicide to happen in adolescence. For example, Burgess, Hartman, Ressler, Douglas, and McCormack [ 36 ] found that 10 out of the 36 adult serial killers in their study, imprisoned for sexual homicide, had also previously committed murder when they were young. Similarly, it is important to mention that the behavioural indicators of sexual murder predict the presence of sadistic sexual fantasies in both delinquents and the general population [ 37 ].

Thus, the criminal conduct of serial sexual attacks is also an important factor to be considered when trying to better understand the criminological and psychosocial profile of serial killers [ 38 , 39 ]. This is because many of them perpetrate serial sexual homicides [ 40 ] with diverse patterns and motivations [ 41 , 42 ]. Similarly, crimes of firesetting committed by children and youths are also examples of criminal conduct that should be considered, as they appear in many cases of serial killers [ 43 ]. Juvenile sexual homicides seem, in many cases, to be correlates or criminological antecedents of adult serial killers [ 44 ].

3.4. Psychopathy, Violent Delinquency, and Serial Murder

3.4.1. the role of child–juvenile psychopathy in violence and delinquency.

It is certain that the first five categories of serial criminal conduct in children and youths studied by Myers and Borg [ 9 ] should be considered in research into both serial murders and attempts to understand the motivational psychology and criminal profiling of violent delinquents [ 45 , 46 ]. In addition to these types of serial criminal conduct, variable psychopathy is another relevant factor to be considered in these cases since these youths usually score high in psychopathy [ 47 ].

Psychopathy is a clinical–forensic construct that gives rise to serious problems in the affective, interpersonal, and behavioural domains, so much so that psychopaths can victimize and manipulate others apparently without their conscience being affected [ 48 ]. Psychopathy is characterized by a series of well-defined traits [ 49 ].

Psychopathy may appear in connection with two separate concepts: that which stresses the social factors or childhood experiences are the root of the disorder; and those who defend the view that the biological, psychological, and genetic elements are the biggest contributors to its appearance [ 50 ].

It is necessary to distinguish between subclinical psychopathy (or non-criminal psychopathy) and criminal psychopathy [ 2 ]. While subclinical psychopathy is studied in the general population [ 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ], criminal psychopathy is studied in clinical–forensic contexts such as courts and prisons [ 8 , 50 ].

The study of psychopathy is useful for understanding seriously antisocial behaviour and violence among children and youths [ 57 ]. In this sense, juveniles who experience a variety of antisocial risk factors, such as mental health issues, upbringing problems, a history of substance abuse, or prolonged criminal participation, are characterised by a profound impulsiveness, emotional instability, and a total absence of guilt with respect to the execution of the crime [ 58 ]. The result is the appearance of psychopathic characteristics, which seem to be risk factors for persistent violence among minors [ 59 ].

Although there are numerous myths and unspecified associations surrounding psychopathy in relation to violence and criminality [ 60 , 61 , 62 ], what is certain is that research has found that criminal psychopathy is a risk factor as far as violence and recidivism are concerned [ 63 , 64 , 65 ]. Taking into account the marked antisocial behaviour of criminal psychopathy [ 66 ] and the characteristic of criminal versatility mentioned in the Psychopathy Checklist—revised (PCL-R) [ 50 ], the main difference between subclinical and criminal psychopathy lies in the concrete perpetration of a crime, of whatever kind, as the basic structure of personality and emotions is practically the same in both types of psychopaths, the criminal and subclinical [ 2 ].

Many traits of psychopathy begin to emerge in infancy [ 50 ] and are clearly identifiable and evaluable in childhood, adolescence, and youth [ 67 ]. However, the inclusion of the concept of psychopathy in the child–juvenile population is not without controversy. While Semel [ 68 ] stresses the limitations of the evaluation of juvenile psychopathy in clinical and forensic contexts, Forth, Bergstrøm, and Clark [ 69 ] clarify the necessity and implications of this evaluation of minors. Although professionals and doctors are still reticent about using the term ‘psychopath’ in the cases of children and youths [ 70 ], the scientific evidence in this respect cannot be denied due to its relation to criminal conduct in this population.

In light of the above, Dåderman [ 71 ] studied the personality traits present in adolescents diagnosed with severe behaviour disorders who showed psychopathy-related traits, e.g., searching for intense sensations, high impulsiveness, and low conformity, socialisation, and social desirability.

Glueck and Glueck [ 72 , 73 , 74 ] were the first to focus the subject of psychopathy on chronic and serious delinquents, some of whom were minors. These authors found that psychopathy was a useful variable for differentiating delinquents from non-delinquents. They described psychopathic delinquents as ostensibly destructive, antisocial, asocial, and less susceptible to therapeutic or educational efforts. Other characteristics include insensitivity towards social demands or towards others, a superficial emotionality, egocentrism, and a total lack of empathy [ 49 ], as well as, in many cases together with impulsive behaviour patterns, an absence of stress or anxiety concerning their lack of social adaptation, serious irresponsibility, and emotional poverty [ 48 ]. Young psychopaths seemed not to respond to any attempted treatment or rehabilitation, and they did not seem to be worried by their persistent criminal behaviour [ 72 , 73 ]. These authors observed that a psychopath was almost 20 times more common among their sample of delinquents than in the control group of non-delinquent subjects.

The relationship between child–juvenile psychopathy and chronic violent delinquency is currently still being studied. Salekin [ 75 ] studied a cohort of 130 children and youths to examine the effect of psychopathic personality on legal problems and life opportunities. This author found that psychopathy remained stable over the period the subjects were followed (four years), and the children with the highest scores of psychopathic traits in their early stages of life tended to maintain these scores later in adolescence. In addition, psychopathy is a significant predictor of both delinquency in general and various forms of violent delinquency.

Current theories concerning crime (such as the situational prevention of crime) are based on the study of the circumstances in which these youths commit their crimes, rather than discovering the reasons why they committed them. Some authors have shown that it is possible to reduce the extent of the violence if the probability of detection increases and there is an effective response from the courts to dissuade young delinquents from enacting their violent behaviour patterns [ 14 ].

The effects of psychopathy on serious juvenile delinquency are more stable and persistent than the effects of the other 14 correlates of delinquency, including demographic characteristics, intelligence, previous delinquency and problems at school, parental factors, drug use, and delinquent companions, among others [ 75 ].

3.4.2. The Role of Child–Juvenile Psychopathy in Serial Murder

The role played by psychopathy in the phenomenon of serial murders can be better understood if we look at its aetiology, which is not exempt from controversy. A great part of this controversy comes from the frequent generalization of the results of much research with common delinquents and non-serial but violent delinquents.

The problem concerning psychopathy lies in the fact that many of the results of research into the typical correlates of delinquency in general have been extrapolated to psychopathic delinquents, thus generating distorted images of psychopathy [ 62 ]. Similarly, the frequent and erroneous comparison of equating psychopathy with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) becomes an additional problem because, while ASPD describes the common delinquent in general [ 8 , 49 ], most delinquents are not psychopaths, while not all psychopaths are delinquents [ 48 , 49 ]. Thus, in this respect, it should be stressed that the terms ASPD and psychopathy are often incorrectly used as synonyms [ 76 ]. ASPD is a kind of mental disorder (a personality disorder) included in psychiatric classifications, while psychopathy requires, according to the diagnostic criteria of Cleckley [ 49 ], a complete absence of any manifestation of a psychopathological nature.

The typical correlates of delinquency in general have been widely studied, and the most frequently studied variables or factors are diverse: gender, age, race, temperament, personality, self-control/self-regulation, school records, and family/parental factors [ 77 ]. Many antisocial delinquent youths present these and many other factors that are usually related to criminality. Although there are numerous clinical–psychiatric diagnoses associated with antisocial young people with behavioural problems [ 78 , 79 ], the great majority of young delinquents do not present evident and complete psycho-pathological syndromes, but simply serious problems of aggressivity and violence that respond to other explanations, such as psychosocial and criminological, rather than psychopathological [ 80 , 81 ]. To avoid pathologizing any type of criminal conduct, psychopathology is an area of study that should not adhere exclusively to the sphere of delinquency, as otherwise we could fall into the temptation of wrongly conceptualizing delinquency as a clinical disorder when it is not. Moreover, some delinquents present mental problems of diverse natures.

As for the specific role of child–juvenile psychopathy in serial murder, it is much easier to understand if the psychopathological approach is disregarded and we focus, more adequately, on the personality and motivations of this type of individual. In this sense, it is important to stress that one of the central, defining characteristics of psychopathy is the absence of empathy, reflected in a lack of consideration for and cruelty towards others, as well as a complete absence of remorse and feelings of guilt. Thus, if we pay attention to psychopathic personality and motivations, it is even possible to distinguish between simple homicides and multiple homicides through the presence or absence of psychopathy.

Woodworth and Porter [ 82 ] found that the characteristics of so-called simple homicides carried out in cold blood (instrumental and premeditated aggressors) depend on the psychopathy that characterizes them, emotional insensitivity, and a complete lack of remorse. These authors found that simple psychopathic homicides present a type of aggression that is predominantly instrumental (that is, premeditated, planned, ‘in cold blood’, motivated by an external objective and not preceded by any possible affective reaction), while simple non-psychopathic homicides present a type of aggression that is emotional (that is, not premeditated, reactive, or on the spur of the moment, motivated by an internal objective and preceded by some personal, emotional reaction).

‘Instrumental aggression’ is also present in most serial murders, and psychopathy plays a very important role. Many serial killers, in childhood and adolescence, present the typical traits of psychopathy [ 76 ] included in the serial criminal conduct categories of children and youths studied by Myers and Borg [ 9 ].

According to Morton [ 83 ], there is no generic profile for serial killers, who differ in many aspects, including their motivations for murder and their behaviour at the crime scene. However, certain common traits can be identified for some serial killers, including the desire for thrills, a lack of remorse, impulsiveness, the need for control, and abusive practices. These traits and behaviour patterns are consistent with psychopathy. The relationship between psychopathy and serial murders is particularly interesting. Not all psychopaths become serial killers, though serial killers usually possess some or many of the traits consistent with psychopathy. Psychopaths who commit serial murders put no value on human life and are extremely cruel in their interactions with their victims. This is particularly evident in serial killers with sexual motivations who repeatedly stalk, attack, and kill without remorse [ 83 ].

Nevertheless, it is also important to stress the fact that psychopathy alone does not explain the motivations of all serial killers [ 83 ], and neither does it explain the motivations of simple homicides. So why murder people, with or without psychopathy? This question is answered by Botelho and Gonçalves [ 84 ], who carried out a critical review of the literature on factors associated with homicides. Starting from a constructivist social perspective and ensuring that the factors related to homicides could be organized into four main categories, these authors observed that the acquisition and development of aggressive and violent behaviour patterns, which could provoke such a crime as homicide, had multi-factorial origins and implied multiple interconnections.

However, in the case of serial killers, it is necessary to stress the aspects of criminal motivations since they are specific in this type of multicide. In this sense, the concept of Perpetrator-Motive Research Design (PMRD), proposed by Vecchi, Van Hasselt, and Angleman [ 85 ], is of special relevance, as it deals with an analysis strategy that helps us understand the motivations, values and tactics of such violent delinquents as serial killers, serial rapists, paedophiles, youth murderers, arsonists, and cyber delinquents. This criminal investigation methodology could also help our understanding of the specific roles played by psychopathic traits in the criminal motivations of diverse types of violent delinquent, especially in the case of serial killers.

Although the absence of remorse is a principal characteristic of psychopathy found in adolescent delinquents and which ought to be investigated, along with other variables relevant at a theoretical and forensic level [ 86 ], it is not a characteristic which, of itself, can account for the diverse criminal motivations of the different types of violent delinquent when considering serial killers, who also have many other psychopathic traits. We thus believe that applying the PMRD methodology could help to clarify such questions and evaluate to what extent child–juvenile psychopathy could be an extremely relevant correlate in serial murders.

In short, what we can say so far is that there is no specific profile for serial killers, as they are a heterogeneous group of violent delinquents presenting very varied psychosocial and criminological factors [ 87 ], some of which can be considered risk factors in this type of multicide [ 28 ].

Thus, the aetiology of the psychopathic serial killer is diverse, and its origins are usually evident from numerous serial behaviour patterns in childhood and adolescence [ 9 ]. Although the role of psychopathy in serial murders can help police investigations by create profiles [ 76 ], further research is needed to help clarify the frequency and degree with which psychopathy is present in serial killers. This would help in the creation of more refined criminal profiles aimed at identifying this type of multicide [ 83 ].

4. Conclusions

First of all, this review has tried to distinguish between two particularly controversial phenomena that reflect the current landscape of psychosocial and criminological reality: serial killer children and young people, and non-serial killer children and young people. We have tried to focus on the areas that deserve special attention, and we have focused on the extent and seriousness of the problem. The homicides perpetrated by children and young people point to a social panorama that is alarming due to the young age of these murderers. This problem is important enough to warrant study because it “raises exploratory questions about the social, psychological and biological factors that might explain such a tragic phenomenon” [ 88 ].

Secondly, the conceptualization of serial murders is still controversial in the sense that it depends on the number of victims that each author stipulates as necessary to be considered as such. In any case, the characterization of this phenomenon is clear, as it is reflected in the criminal profiles of this type of serial killer and what distinguishes them from other forms of multicide (such as mass murder or spree killing). An additional controversy is the enormous media attention surrounding serial murder [ 89 ], an effect that is even greater when the perpetrators of the serial murders are minors.

Thirdly, as for the phenomenon of serial murders perpetrated by minors, the extent of the problem is controversial because it often depends on how the number of real cases is counted, while, additionally, the official statistics are difficult to find [ 90 ].

It can be established that, despite the low prevalence of juvenile serial killers, childhood is a period in which antisocial behaviour begins to flourish. Similarly, the low incidence of serial killers who are minors may be due to the early imprisonment of minors and adolescents who commit a single murder, but who were quite likely to have turned into serial killers [ 4 ].

On the other hand, although there would seem to be a greater number of adult serial killers, some authors believe it not infrequent for the first murder of this kind to occur in adolescence [ 36 ].

In any case, the profiles of children and youths who commit murder are clearly established [ 91 ] and, however inconceivable their crimes may seem to us [ 92 ], the criminological reality of these minors as murderers is evident, with serious social and legal repercussions [ 93 ].

Fourthly, it is also important to consider the psychopathy variable as an influential factor in the diverse modalities of serial criminal conduct committed by children and youths which could be the first ‘steps’ in their criminal career as serial killers later on [ 9 ]. In addition to this reason, the importance of the psychopathy variable has also been stressed as a determinant in the process of psychological–criminal profiling of the diverse types of violent serial delinquents, in particular, those who commit sexually aggressive crimes and murder [ 94 ].

This current review article is not exempt from limitations. The low prevalence of juvenile serial killers, as well as the presence of juvenile murderers that are not serial killers, makes the generalization of the study more difficult, so the analysis should extend its scope to other serial criminal activities committed by juveniles. Likewise, with respect to the review carried out, it is necessary to comment that a systematic review would have been more valuable.

Despite these limitations, the present review underlines the importance of psychosocial factors for the better understanding of the process by which under-eighteens end up committing such serious crimes as serial murders. We have seen that, on numerous occasions, such crimes are accompanied by other equally serious criminal behaviour patterns (arson, sexual assault, animal abuse, etc.). The research works consulted provide evidence of the special relevance of psychopathy in the generation of serious juvenile delinquency [ 75 ].

In this sense, the need to design intervention plans focused on the above-described therapeutic needs is evident. This is because different serial criminal manifestations re-quire specific focuses [ 94 ], highlighting the need to deal with these problems with extreme caution in future research.

Funding Statement

Financed jointly by FEDER & Junta de Extremadura funds (Exp. GR21024).

Author Contributions

All authors conceived the paper and participated actively in the study. Conceptualization, J.M.M.-M., M.E.G.-B., E.G.-B. and M.B.-A.; data curation, J.M.M.-M., M.E.G.-B., M.B.-A. and M.G.-M.; formal analysis, J.M.M.-M., M.B.-A. and M.G.-M.; methodology, J.M.M.-M., M.E.G.-B., E.G.-B. and M.B.-A.; supervision, J.M.M.-M., M.E.G.-B. and E.G.-B.; writing—original draft, J.M.M.-M., M.E.G.-B. and M.B.-A.; writing—review and editing, J.M.M.-M., M.E.G.-B., E.G.-B., M.B.-A. and M.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Department of Psychology

Advancing forensic psychiatry – lindsey gilling mcintosh ba’14.

Posted by larsonj on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 in Stories: Alumni .

Lindsey Gilling McIntosh focused on clinical psychology during her undergraduate studies at Vanderbilt. Lindsey worked with Sohee Park, Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Professor of Psychology, and then went on to earn a Ph.D. in forensic psychiatry from the University of Edinburgh where she is currently a postdoctoral research fellow. In 2023, she was awarded the Christopher Webster Early Career Award , which recognizes significant contributions in the forensic mental health field at early stages of a career. She was the first Vanderbilt undergraduate Psychology student to give a talk at the International Congress on Schizophrenia Research. Her talk was on her honors thesis about social traits perception.

In her current work, Lindsey is inspecting prisons all over Scotland, working toward improving the mental healthcare in the Scottish prison population. In addition to research and publications, she is the assistant editor of the International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services Newsletter, and is an editorial board member of the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology.

Comments are closed

Prosecutorial Language, Moral Disengagement, and Sentencing Outcomes in Real Capital Murder Cases

• Open access
• Published: 12 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Kethera A. J. Fogler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2204-674X 1 ,
• Casey Imperio 1 ,
• JoAnne Brewster 1 ,
• Megan Parker Skolnick 1 &
• Amanda Powell 1  

Language reflecting moral disengagement has been shown to influence juries in mock juror studies; however, little to no research has examined this in actual murder cases. Prosecutors play an influential role in capital murder cases during both the guilt phase and sentencing phase of the trial. If a defendant is found guilty, jurors must then decide the appropriate sentence, which can be difficult when the penalties include death versus life without parole. Self-report and mock trial studies suggest that jurors may engage in moral disengagement methods (e.g., moral justification, dehumanizing language) that allow them to distance themselves from the decision. Capital murder trial transcripts were analyzed to investigate the influence of moral disengagement variables on sentencing (“death” versus “life without the possibility of parole”). Results indicate that arguments for future dangerousness were positively correlated with death penalty verdicts, although other types of moral disengagement language strategies were not. An additional linguistic strategy was included, which investigated language that might garner empathy for the victim. This was also positively correlated with a death penalty verdict. This analysis of capital murder trial transcripts reveals differences in influential moral displacement strategies than mock juror studies suggest.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Capital murder cases are composed of two phases: the guilt phase and the sentencing phase. During the guilt phase, the defense attorney and the prosecutor present their sides of the case, and the jury determines whether or not the defendant is guilty. During this initial phase, a prosecutor’s goal is to provide sufficient evidence to convince the jury to find the defendant guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, the trial moves to the sentencing phase. During this phase, a prosecutor’s goal is to provide sufficient evidence to lead the jury to impose the requested sentence (Barkan and Bryjak 2014 ). The prosecutor accomplishes these goals through interactions with the jury, specifically through carefully chosen language.

In capital murder cases where the defendant has already been found guilty, during the sentencing phase, the prosecutor often asks the jury to impose the death penalty. Even though jurors in these cases will have already been “death penalty qualified,” meaning that they have asserted that they will be able to impose the death penalty if appropriate, this can still be a very difficult decision for most jurors, who may have significant moral or ethical reservations about actually sentencing someone to death. As an extension to social cognitive theory, Bandura ( 1989 ; 1999 ) described several cognitive mechanisms that he proposed were used by individuals to rationalize or distance themselves from the moral implications of actions such as sentencing someone to death or actually administering an execution. Haney ( 1997 ) talked about similar mechanisms and suggested that capital punishment, as a system, would not be feasible if people did not employ cognitive mechanisms to distance themselves from the consequences of these decisions. Haney suggested that prosecutors may influence jurors to use these types of mechanisms through the strategy of carefully wording their statements to jurors during the sentencing phase, thus focusing on information that would make it easier for jurors to impose a death sentence.

Previous research has found that language can affect decision-making (e.g., Tversky and Kahneman 1981 ), but only a few studies have investigated the effect of language on jury decisions in the courtroom setting. Schmid and Fielder ( 1998 ) explored the use of subtle language strategies in attorney’s closing statements in simulated court cases. They videotaped simulated trials conducted by student lawyers and coded the language used. The videos were then shown to mock jurors who were instructed to determine a verdict and a sentence for guilty defendants. The results suggested that the language strategies used by the lawyers did affect the jurors’ attributions of blame and guilt. A second study conducted by Schmid and Fiedler ( 1998 ) investigated prosecutorial language strategies in a real-life scenario, using transcripts from the Nuremberg trials. Prosecutors made references to the defendants’ in-group (i.e., the Nazi party) and undesirable characteristics of the defendants.

Other investigations of juror decision-making have focused on decision-making in mock juries or post-trial interviews with actual jurors to investigate the causal determinants of a juror’s decision (Kerr and Bray  2007 ; Sandys et al  2009 ). Both methodologies tend to agree: what mock jurors say that they focused on is similar to what actual jurors (after the fact) say that they focused on, which are often the types of cognitive strategies suggested by authors such as Bandura ( 1989 ,  1999 ) and Haney ( 1997 ).

Haney ( 1997 ) identified five psychological mechanisms, which he called “mechanisms of moral disengagement,” that may equip capital jurors to overcome their inhibitions about imposing the death penalty. Through the use of these mechanisms, jurors may be able to reduce their cognitive dissonance and distress over the decision to sentence a person to death and may be able to believe that they made a correct and ethical decision. These mechanisms are similar to the work on moral reasoning by Bandura ( 1989 ,  1999 ) and include dehumanization, viewing the defendant as defective/different/deviant, using the death penalty as a form of self-defense, minimization of personal consequences of the decision, and instructional authorization of the death penalty.

Dehumanization of the defendant involves portraying him/her as less than human, perhaps more akin to animals or even monsters. If the prosecutor uses language in describing the defendant that depicts him/her as lacking in human qualities, perhaps by describing the heinous acts that led to the trial, the jurors may be more able to justify a death sentence. Conversely, defense lawyers should use the opposite strategy of attempting to humanize the defendant for the jury, by providing information on mitigating circumstances that might allow the jury to identify and empathize with the defendant as a fellow human being.

The second mechanism is related to dehumanization but is less extreme. It may be an expression of our species’ natural tendency to categorize people in terms of their similarity to ourselves. It may not be necessary to completely dehumanize a defendant to allow us to decide to sentence them to death; it may be sufficient to simply see them as possessing qualities that make them fundamentally different from ourselves, or defective in some way. Prosecutorial language that highlights or exaggerates any such existing or presumed differences may facilitate the jury’s decision to impose the death penalty.

The third mechanism of moral disengagement that Haney proposed is the tendency to view imposition of the death penalty as vicarious self-defense against a demonstrably dangerous defendant. The trial process itself exposes the often horrifying details of the murder and may lead jurors to fear the defendant’s capacity for violence. It is an accepted tenet of our legal system that an individual is allowed and expected to engage in self-defense behaviors when threatened by a violent individual. Jurors may be able to rationalize a death sentence as a way of protecting themselves and the community from seemingly inevitable future violence perpetrated by a dangerous defendant. Jurors may even reason that defendants sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole will still have the opportunity to commit violence against others, and they may not view life imprisonment as an appropriate option (Sorenson and Pilgrim  2000 ). Prosecutorial language that emphasizes the defendant’s potential for future dangerousness may activate this mechanism. There is evidence showing that jurors are not particularly accurate when it comes to predicting future dangerousness, but they are still heavily influenced by future dangerousness arguments by prosecutors in states that allow such arguments (Marquart et al.  1989 ).

A fourth potential mechanism involves minimizing the personal consequences of imposing the death penalty. In other words, jurors may be more likely to impose this punishment when the consequences to themselves seem insignificant or distant. There are several ways to distance oneself from the consequences of the decision. At the outset, they share with the other jurors the responsibility for the decision to impose the death penalty. This in and of itself diffuses the responsibility. The fact that jurors do not need to carry out the execution themselves also provides a measure of distance; the sentence is carried out by others, sometime in the future. Many jurors may even believe that the death sentence will never be carried out because of numerous appeals or other delays, thus mentally shifting the ultimate responsibility for the decision to appellate judges. All of these possibilities can result in a diffusion of the individual juror’s responsibility for the decision.

The final mechanism described by Haney ( 1997 ) is instructional authorization for capital violence, or a displacement of responsibility, which occurs when jurors might feel relieved of responsibility for a death penalty decision because they are following what they perceive to be official authorization or even an expectation to do so. This is illustrated by the classic Milgram obedience studies (see Milgram 1965 ), in which participants delivered dangerous electric shocks to other participants because they had been ordered to do so by the researcher, an authority figure in that situation. In the capital murder trial, the initial process of “death qualifying” each juror could have the effect of conveying to the jurors that the legal system expects them or even requires them to impose the death penalty (Barkan and Bryjack  2014 ). Judicial or prosecutorial statements about following the law may have the same effect.

Osofsky et al. ( 2005 ) investigated whether the use of moral disengagement mechanisms enabled prison personnel to carry out the death penalty. One might surmise that actually carrying out an execution might be much harder psychologically than casting a vote to impose the death penalty. The authors demonstrated that the use of moral disengagement mechanisms varied among prison personnel, depending on their level of involvement in the execution process. The execution team (personnel who carry out the execution) exhibited the highest level of justifications, dehumanization of the inmate, and disavowal of personal responsibility, compared with support teams (personnel who provide supportive services to the inmate and his/her family), and prison guards who had no involvement in the execution process. The mechanisms used by the execution staff overlapped with those identified by Haney ( 1997 ) and Bandura ( 1999 ).

To our knowledge, no prior research has examined whether prosecutorial language used in actual capital murder cases influences the sentencing decisions of jurors. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether the extent to which prosecutors’ use of specific language strategies in their closing statements might encourage moral disengagement by jurors and thus might influence their sentencing decisions. The types of language that were examined were similar to and based on mechanisms discussed by Haney ( 1997 ), Bandura ( 1999 ), and Osofsky et al. ( 2005 ). We looked for prosecutorial language that dehumanized the defendant, portrayed the defendant as dangerous, invoked moral justification, and provided displacement of responsibility on the part of the jurors. We predicted that prosecutorial use of these types of language would be associated with increased imposition of the death penalty versus life without parole. We also looked for the presence of any empathetic language toward the victim of the defendant, which might lead jurors to feel sorry for the victim or for the family or friends of the victim. Given that Shelton and Rogers ( 1981 ) have demonstrated that empathy can lead to attitude change, we predicted that empathetic language toward the victim by prosecutors might also increase a jury’s tendency to impose the death penalty.

Transcripts from 25 actual capital cases were selected (13 received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole and 12 received the death penalty). All cases involved male defendants to control for potential differences in sentencing of males and females. Only cases from states that allow future dangerousness arguments were included. The age of the defendant ranged from 20 to 66 years old ( M  = 37.36 years; SD  = 14.46 years). The number and age of the victims were similar across most cases; only two cases involved non-adult victims (one age 2, and one age 15). Thirteen of the defendants were White, seven were Black, and one was Hispanic. Four cases did not specify the race of the defendant. See Table  1 for the demographic details per case.

Transcript Coding

A coding system designed by the authors was used to identify the presence of four types of prosecutorial language that might be designed to invoke moral disengagement mechanisms in the jurors: dehumanization, future dangerousness, moral justification, and displacement of responsibility. Additionally, language that may increase empathy toward the victim was also coded. More detailed descriptions of the definitions of the variables as used in this study and the coding instructions are contained in Appendix. During coding, it was determined that the diffusion of responsibility category should be omitted due to the difficulty of determining whether the prosecutors’ use of the word “you” referred to the individual juror, or the jury collectively.

All identifying information was redacted from the transcripts before they were coded. The actual sentencing decision of the jury was available for each of the cases, but was not known by the coders. Only the closing statements from the prosecution were coded; all of the transcripts were independently coded by two of the authors. Any coding discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Each instance of the presence of one of the variables during the closing statement was tallied.

Inter-rater Reliability

To determine inter-rater reliability, the percentage of agreements by the two coders for each variable, for each transcript, was calculated. The percentage of agreements for the four variables was averaged for each transcript, creating the overall inter-rater reliability for that transcript. Finally, the overall averages for all of the transcripts were averaged together to establish the overall inter-rater reliability, which was 99%.

Language Strategy Analysis

The first goal of this experiment was to determine if four moral disengagement variables ((1) Dehumanizing language, (2) Future dangerousness, (3) Moral justification, and (4) Displacement of responsibility) were correlated with verdict (i.e., receiving the death penalty or life in prison) in 25 capital murder cases. A point-biserial correlational analyses (see Table  2 ) between the four moral disengagement variables and verdict were conducted. In this case, a positive correlation would indicate that increased instances of moral disengagement language are associated with the death penalty verdict. A negative correlation would indicate that fewer instances of moral disengagement language are associated with the life in prison verdict. The analysis showed that only future dangerousness shared a significant positive relationship with verdict ( r  = 0.40, p  = 0.045). This means that the increased use of future dangerousness language increases the likelihood that the defendant will receive the death penalty. Dehumanizing language ( r  = 0.34), moral justification language ( r  = 0.02), and displacement of responsibility language ( r  =  − 0.13) were not significantly correlated to verdict (all p s > 0.05), showing that these language types did not relate to the likelihood of receiving the death penalty.

The researchers had some concerns that variables other than the four moral disengagement variables could be impacting the aforementioned correlations; thus, four control variables that could impact verdict were identified: (1) race of defendant, (2) number of victims in crime, (3) whether or not the crime involved a child (i.e., under 18 years of age), and (4) whether or not an officer was killed in the line of duty during the crime. A partial correlation on the four moral disengagement variables and verdict was conducted, controlling for the four control variables (see Table  2 ). The results of the partial correlation were similar to the aforementioned point-biserial correlation analysis assessing the relationship between the moral disengagement variables and verdict. Again, the number of future dangerousness language uses had a significant positive relationship with verdict ( r  = 0.52, p  = 0.017), such that as this language type increased in the closing argument, so did the likelihood of receiving the death penalty. However, dehumanizing language ( r  = 0.22), moral justification language ( r  = 0.03), and displacement of responsibility language ( r  =  − 0.12) were not significantly related to verdict (all p s > 0.05). This again shows that these three language types did not relate to the likelihood of receiving the death penalty.

The next goal of this experiment was to determine if the four moral disengagement variables could predict verdict. A binomial logistic regression was conducted with verdict as the criterion variable and number of times each of the following language types was used in the prosecutor’s closing argument during the sentencing phase: dehumanizing language, future dangerousness, moral justification language, and displacement of responsibility language. The results showed that the model was not statistically significant χ 2 (4) = 7.13, p  = 0.129 and could only explain 33% (Nagelkerke R 2 ) of the variability in jury verdict, with 72% of cases correctly classified. This indicates that there may be some other variables that impact the verdict that the jury delivers other than the four moral disengagement variables.

Finally, the researchers wanted to explore the relationship between how empathy toward the victim is related to jury verdict. Prosecutors will often use empathizing language in regard to the victim, which may garner empathy from the jury. We cannot state with any certainty that the jury does feel empathy when hearing this language, only that garnering empathy seems to be the prosecutors’ intent. A correlation between the number of empathy toward the victim language uses and verdict showed a significant positive correlation ( r  = 0.40, p  < 0.05). This suggests that the more the prosecutor attempts to garner empathy for the victim, the more often the jury gives the death penalty sentence. A binomial logistic regression also showed that empathy toward the victim language is a significant predictor of verdict, χ 2 (1) = 5.55, p  = 0.018, that can explain 27% of the variability in jury verdict (Nagelkerke R 2 ), with 76% of cases correctly classified. Although empathy toward victim language does seem to have some impact on the jury ruling, it is unclear what emotions this garners (e.g., it could be anger toward the defendant); thus, this result should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should attempt to not only determine what impact this language has on a juror’s verdict decision, but also what emotion it elicits from jurors.

Language has previously been found to significantly impact decision-making (Haney 1997 ; Schmid and Fielder  1998 ). During trials, both defense and prosecution attorneys use language to persuade jurors to believe their arguments. Determining what types of language are the most persuasive would allow attorneys to produce the most effective arguments. The current study analyzed prosecutorial closing arguments in capital murder cases. Not only does the current study confirm that language can influence decision-making, but it also sheds light on how everyday citizens (i.e., jurors) might be able to make the decision to sentence another human being to death. Some of the moral disengagement strategies previously identified by other authors (Haney 1997 ; Bandura 1999 ) were not correlated with a death penalty sentence. However, language that emphasized future dangerousness and empathetic language toward the victim were significantly correlated with a death penalty sentence, as opposed to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Previous studies (Marquart et al. 1989 ) found that jurors do not accurately predict a defendant’s future dangerousness, yet the current study found that assertions about future dangerousness significantly impact the jury’s willingness to sentence a defendant to death. Because arguments about future dangerousness do not necessarily correspond to actual future dangerousness, many states have banned these types of arguments from the courtroom; mentioning future dangerousness in these states is grounds for a mistrial (Marquart et al. 1989 ). The current study shows that in states that allow these arguments, assertions about future dangerousness do impact the juries’ decision to sentence a defendant to the death penalty.

The current study is unique in two ways. Firstly, to our knowledge, it is the only study that has analyzed language strategies used by prosecutors in real capital murder cases rather than simulated cases. Secondly, this study incorporated empathy for the victim as a linguistic variable that may influence jurors’ decisions. To our knowledge, empathy has not been previously studied in research investigating moral disengagement and juror decisions. The results of this study indicate that language that may evoke empathy for the victim may be an important means by which jurors rationalize sentencing a defendant to death. This should be a variable of interest in future studies on moral disengagement in juror decision-making.

While this study has contributed to moral disengagement research, it is not without its limitations. A significant limitation is the small number of cases (25) that we were able to include. It was also challenging to control for all possible variables. In the current study, we were able to hold constant the gender of the defendant (male) and the type of state in which the trial took place (a state that allowed future dangerousness arguments); however, controlling for other possibly mitigating variables was difficult. Some variables that were specified in some transcripts were not specified in others (e.g., race of defendant and/or victims). Two of the cases involved non-adult victims. When those cases were omitted from the analyses, the variables future dangerousness and empathy for the victim were only marginally significant. This could mean that these variables are especially influential for non-adult victims; however, one of the cases, which involved a 2-year-old child, resulted in a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, so that change in significance can simply be due to a loss of power.

Future studies could account for the prosecutor’s attitudes toward the death penalty to see how it impacts sentencing outcomes because they could subtly lean toward a sentencing outcome in their arguments by employing (or not employing) moral disengagement strategies. The authors obtained anecdotal information from criminal attorneys to the effect that prosecutors are typically not explicitly trained in the use of language strategies that might evoke moral disengagement in capital juries, although they are trained in argumentative tactics, such as adjusting one’s tone of voice. The current study adds to the existing body of knowledge regarding moral disengagement strategies and jury decision-making by providing further evidence for the influential nature of future dangerousness arguments and by introducing a new moral disengagement strategy (empathy for the victim) that may influence jury sentencing decisions.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Kethera Fogler, upon reasonable request.

Bandura A (1999) Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 3(3):193–209

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bandura A (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol 44(9):1175

Barkan S, Bryjak G (2014) Myths and realities of crime and justice: what every American should know. Massachusettes: Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC

Haney C (1997) Violence and the capital jury: mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Rev 49(6):1447–1486

Article   Google Scholar  

Kerr NL, Bray RM (2007) Simulation, realism, and the study of the jury. In: Brewer N, Williams KD (eds) Psychol Law Empirical Perspect. Guilford Press, New York, pp 322–364

Google Scholar  

Marquart J, Ekland-Olson S, Sorensen J (1989) Gazing into the crystal ball: can jurors accurately predict dangerousness in capital cases? Law Soc Rev 23(3):449–469

Milgram S (1965) Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations 18(1):57–76

Osofsky M, Bandura A, Zimbardo P (2005) The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law Hum Behav 29(4):371–393

Sandys Marla, Pruss HC, Walsh SM (2009) Aggravation and mitigation: findings and implications. J Psychiatry Law 37(2):189–236

Schmid J, Fiedler K (1998) The backbone of closing speeches: the impact of prosecution versus defense language on judicial attributions. J Appl Soc Psychol 28(13):1140–1172

Shelton M, Rogers R (1981) Fear-arousing and empathy-arousing appeals to help: the pathos of persuasion. J Appl Soc Psychol 11(4):366–378

Sorensen J, Pilgrim R (2000) Criminology: an actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. J Crim Law Criminol 90(4):1251–1269

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458

Download references

No funding was obtained for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

James Madison University, 91 E. Grace Street, MSC 7704, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

Kethera A. J. Fogler, Casey Imperio, JoAnne Brewster, Megan Parker Skolnick & Amanda Powell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kethera A. J. Fogler .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and informed consent.

This study uses archival data. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors; therefore, informed consent was not needed.

Competing Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

All authors were  affiliated with James  Madison University when data was collected. Casey Imperio is now affiliated with The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY. Megan Parker Skolnick is now affiliated with Marymount University, Arlington, VA. Amanda Powell resides in Harrisonburg, VA.

Appendix. Coding Instructions

Dehumanizing Language is defined as the process of assigning non-human characteristics to an individual in order to make the individual’s life seem less valuable (Bandura 1999 ). Use of this language includes referring to the defendant as an “animal” or a “monster.” Phrases included in this category must literally reference the defendant as an “animal,” “barbarian,” or anything of that nature. References to the act itself are included in this type of language, as a subcategory, if the act is made to seem inhumane. Examples of dehumanizing language are as follows:

“Only a monster would commit such a crime.” “Murderers who receive the death penalty have forfeited the right to be considered full human beings” (Osofsky et al.  2005 , p.380). “He killed his prey.”

The following are not examples of dehumanizing language:

“He is a rapist, murderer, burglar, etc.” “He is a horrible person for what he did.” “He brutally raped and murdered his victims.”

Note: The coding for this type of language included two subcategories: (1) dehumanizing language toward the defendant and (2) dehumanizing language toward the defendant’s actions (i.e., the crime(s) the defendant committed).

Future Dangerousness is defined as “the probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society” (Marquart et al.  1989 , p. 450). It refers to whether the defendant may be dangerous in prison or in society. References to the likelihood that the defendant will commit another murder are included in this category. Hypothetical situations of what the defendant may do in the future if incarcerated or released from prison are included in this category. Examples of language that refers to future dangerousness include:

“If the defendant were to be incarcerated, it is likely he will commit more crimes.” “The defendant is a threat to society’s safety.” “The defendant has a high likelihood of violence.” “The defendant will kill again…rape again…harm again.”

Note: References regarding the protection of society are counted as both future dangerousness and moral justification.

Moral Justification is defined as engaging in immoral actions but justifying the actions to oneself through the thinking one employs (Bandura 1999 ). References by the prosecutor to revenge for the actions that the defendant has committed are included within moral justification language. Also, any reference to deterring other members of society from committing crimes similar to the ones committed by the defendant are included in this category. Any mention of what the defendant deserves is included in this category. Examples of moral justification include:

“The punishment must fit the crime.” “We execute people to show others that murder is wrong.” “The defendant deserves the death penalty due to the crime he committed.”

The following is not an example of moral justification:

“The State recommends the death penalty as an appropriate sentence”

Displacement of Responsibility is defined as a reduction of one’s personal responsibility for an action (Bandura 1999 ). Prosecutors use this type of language to lessen the guilt jurors may feel for sentencing a defendant. References to sentencing requirements and carrying out the wishes of the law are included in this type of language. With this type of language, jurors are made to feel that they are just following orders and carrying out the wishes of the judge and of society as a whole. This category of language must be related to the decision that the jurors must make regarding sentencing, whether to sentence the defendant to the death penalty or to a life without the possibility of parole. References to the defendant’s decisions that caused him/her to be on trial are included in this category. It should be noted that this does not include phrases such as “He murdered her, you didn’t,” but instead should include phrases such as “Because of the decisions the defendant, you (the jury) must impose a decision.” It removes the responsibility for the sentence from the jury and places it on the defendant, because his actions created the necessity for a jury to impose a sentence. Examples of displacement of responsibility include:

“Those who carry out state executions should be not criticized for following society’s wishes” (Osofsky et al.  2005 , p. 379).

“Your job (as jurors) is to uphold the law.” “Follow the law.” “Do your duty.” “The defendant made the decision(s) that brought him here today. Not you.”

Empathetic Language Toward the Victim is defined as language that elicits sympathy for the victim(s). Included in this category are references to the harm or trauma experienced by the victim or by anyone who may have a direct connection to the victim, such as friends and family. Phrases in this category may also directly mention how the victim was feeling at the time of the incident or how family and friends left behind are currently feeling. This type of language frequently uses words such as “innocent” and “victim.” Examples of empathetic language toward the victim include:

“Because of the defendant’s actions, the victim will never be able to see her children graduate.” “The victim was a mother, daughter, and wife.” “He spent many sleepless nights wondering what happened to his daughter.” “They won’t be going to the library anytime soon.”

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fogler, K.A.J., Imperio, C., Brewster, J. et al. Prosecutorial Language, Moral Disengagement, and Sentencing Outcomes in Real Capital Murder Cases. J Police Crim Psych (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-024-09669-8

Download citation

Accepted : 29 March 2024

Published : 12 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-024-09669-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Juror decision-making
• Moral disengagement
• Moral justification
• Future dangerousness
• Criminal justice
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research