Community

This week in ’88: Murder for Hire Charges Dismissed

Murder for Hire Charges Dismissed

James R. Houchin stopped by right after we’d finished last week’s edition. He had with him a copy of Judge R. D. McPhillips’ order releasing him.

Houchin had, along with DeBoar, been busted for ‘conspiracy to commit the offense of Deliberate Homicide’. As McPhillips noted, “the person to be killed was a fictitious person and did not in fact exist.”

The Judge explained that “the attempt statute… provides that impossibility for the accused to commit the defense is not a defense.” and that conspirators must act with “the purpose that an offense be committed.” He ended that paragraph with “It is not possible to kill a person that doesn’t exist, or is already dead when the conspirators make their agreement.”

Judge McPhillips ruled that, since deliberate homicide “requires the causing of adeath of a human being. A human being is defined as a person who has been born and is alive. In this case the person to be killed does not exist. The requirement that a offense be factually possible is built into the statute.

McPhillips decision didn’t rule on guilt or innocense –He determined that, so far as Montana is concerned, you can conspire to kill imaginary people or dead people toyour heart’s content. Since the offense is impossible to commit, there is no crime in the conspiracy.

Houchin expressed intent to sue the county for the inconvenience of his 38 days incarceration over this non-crime.

Want to learn more? It’s actually possible to find details about the State v. Houchin case online.

A Science for Everyone

Mass Shootings and Jumping to Conclusions

I noticed reports of a supermarket shooting in Colorado – at first the perp was a white supremacist, then an ISIS influenced domestic terrorist, and, most recently a Syrian-born immigrant with mental health issues.  There’s a challenge when you need to get a story into print quickly, and the first story often changes.

Mass shootings have been a topic for research, and data is available online.  I’ll refer to  Emma Friden’s study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence – it can be accessed at here.


                        figure

Excerpts show some of the challenges in dealing with the topic.  Friden begins by separating these into 3 categories- familial, public and felony. 

The public area mass shootings are what we tend to think of most frequently, but her chart shows that the most common mass shootings are familial, when someone loses it and murders their family.  Felony mass shootings refer to the shootings that occur during a felony, often to get rid of witnesses.  Her descriptive statistics are below.

Sometimes the interesting part of the statistics is what isn’t there – in this case, there is no category for sex of the offender.  I’m not certain, but I suspect it’s all male in the data set. 

The second set of numbers that set off a mental bell was for immigrant offenders.  It seems disproportionately high – though I’ll need to use Census data to check.  I like seeing data – it makes things much more understandable.

I can’t make a good excerpt of the paragraph that sums up her work, so I’ll ask you to read the whole thing: “These findings are broadly consistent with prior research, as familicides are primarily differentiated by victim characteristics, felony killings by offender characteristics, and public massacres by incident characteristics. Specifically, offender and victim characteristics distinguish family from felony murder; victim and incident characteristics distinguish family from public killings; and offender and incident characteristics distinguish felony from public massacres. However, only a few traits consistently differentiate each type from all others: Family killers target children and other family members of the same race, felony offenders rarely perish after their crimes, and public attackers use guns to injure as many victims as possible. More interesting than these anticipated differences among the three groups are the traits that do not significantly vary, contrary to traditional assumptions. Although previous studies have suggested that family killers are older than their counterparts, suffer from financial stressors, and tend to target more female victims, none of these predictors could significantly differentiate familicide from the other two types when all other variables were accounted for in the model. Similarly, felony killers are no more likely to be Black over White in comparison with family killers, and no more likely to have a violent criminal record than either of the other categories. Far from mentally ill pseudo-commandos, public killers were just as likely to have been treated for mental illness or have military experience as other assailants.”

Usually, criminology isn’t my thing – generally, crime is defined socially and is kind of a moving target.  I’ve watched marijuana go from felony to legal, varying by time and state line.  This study deals with something that is consistently considered a crime, and categories that are definitive.  Her article is definitely worth reading.