|
Post by Graveyardbride on Feb 1, 2014 14:27:25 GMT -5
Homicidal Triad: Predictor of Violence or Urban Myth?
For a number of years, we have been told of a “triad” of ominous childhood behaviors: cruelty to animals, fire-setting and enuresis (bed-wetting), said to predict future violence. The so-called “Macdonald Triad” (also known as the homicidal triad or the Hellman and Blackman Triad) is taught in criminology and psychology courses, used by forensic practitioners in assessing risk, and has even made its way into Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. It has become a staple among aficionados of the trendy serial killer.
But is the syndrome valid?
Providing the most definitive exploration to date is Kori Ryan, a former criminology student at California State University, Fresno, who delved into the “evolutionary history” of this tantalizing theory for her as-yet unpublished master’s thesis. Her ultimate conclusion: “Even though the literature on violent behavior contains many references to the Macdonald Triad (and its aliases), collectively, these studies do not provide sufficient evidence of its ability to predict violence, nor, in fact, of its existence as a bona fide phenomenon.” Instead, childhood enuresis, fire-setting and animal cruelty more likely represent three, among many, indicators of severe childhood abuse. In other words, the presence of one or more of these elements in the histories of some violent offenders can be explained by the fact that violent offenders are often the products of child abuse. More importantly, relying upon these behaviors as predictors of future violence would lead to many false positives, punishing children who might not be violent in the future.
Roots of the Legend. Forensic psychiatrist John Macdonald, is generally credited with “discovering” the triad. In a 1963 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, entitled “The Threat to Kill,” he gave his clinical impression that “a history of great parental brutality, extreme maternal seduction, or the triad of childhood fire-setting, cruelty to animals and enuresis” can signal those who will eventually threaten homicide.” His article was based on his work with 100 patients at the Colorado Psychopathic Hospital in Denver, who had threatened, but not necessarily committed, violence. Over the next few decades, the idea “attracted a dedicated following” and gradually expanded to encompass various forensic groups, including sexual sadists, recidivist fire-setters and, most salacious, serial killers.
Ryan traces the history of cultural interest in these behaviors all the way back to Greek mythology and early Western fiction, such as Jonathan Swift’s 1726 Gulliver’s Travels, in which Gulliver puts out a fire with his own urine, much to the chagrin of the Imperial Majesty, thereby linking urination to fire and revenge. Early psychoanalytic thinkers also placed heavy emphasis on these behaviors, seeing them as products of arrested psychosexual development and sublimated sexual and sadistic urges. Psychoanalyst Melanie Klein, for example, saw bedwetting as a daughter’s sadistic revenge against her mother.
Empirical Research: Triad goes Bust. Two psychiatrists were the first to empirically evaluate the Macdonald Triad, according to Ryan. Studying 84 incarcerated offenders in 1966, Hellman and Blackman reported a positive association between the triad and future violence. Accordingly, some took to labeling the phenomenon the “Hellman and Blackman Triad.”
But subsequent attempts to replicate Hellman and Blackman’s findings were unsuccessful. Even John Macdonald himself later expressed doubts about the triad’s validity. After attempting to test his own clinical theory, Macdonald reported in his 1968 book, Homicidal Threats, that he could find no statistically significant association between homicide perpetrators and early problems with fire-setting, cruelty to animals, or enuresis. Likewise, in an examination of 206 sex offenders at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, Prentky and Carter (1984) found “no compelling evidence” for the idea that the triad predicted adult criminality. They did, however, note that the individual components of the triad were common among people raised in highly abusive home environments. Some years later, this was also the conclusion of Jonathan Pincus, in his 2001 book on convicted murderers. Pincus described “a forensic assessment protocol in which bed-wetting, firesetting and cruelty to animals (among other behaviors) are considered ‘hallmarks’ of childhood abuse,” notes Ryan. Indeed, it seems far more likely that one of Macdonald’s five original indicators that didn’t become famous is more explanatory as a cause of later violence: parental brutality.
Dangerous Ramifications. “The frequency with which discussions of violent offenders (of various types) include mention of the Macdonald Triad suggests its general acceptance as a predictor of violent behavior,” notes Ryan. This continuing prominence owes in large part to the triad’s promotion by prominent FBI profilers in the 1988 book, Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. Like Macdonald’s, the FBI’s study was anecdotal, small-scale and lacking in any statistical analyses or control groups. Studying 36 sex killers, Douglas, Burgess and Ressler found that many manifested one or more elements of the triad. Unfortunately, notes Ryan, the authors did not report which factors were present in which subjects, or how many of these killers evidenced all three components of the triad.
Ryan warns that promotion of the triad has real-world ramifications, in that children who exhibit one or more of these behaviors “might be falsely labeled as potentially dangerous.” For example, police officers exposed to the triad in undergraduate criminology courses may target young offenders who have lit a fire or harmed an animal – both fairly common behaviors among troubled youth – as future sex fiends or serial killers. (Enuresis, with less face validity as an indicator of sadism, has tended to drop from more contemporary renditions of the triad.) Ignoring the minuscule base rate of serial killers, even veterinarians are encouraged to identify those who hurt pet animals as potentially lethal: “Many known serial killers began their careers by hurting pet animals,” warn the authors of a 2004 article in one veterinary journal. “It is well known in the criminology field that people who perpetrate acts of cruelty on animals, frequently escalate to torturing humans, usually the young and helpless.”
Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, Ryan says researchers could do additional research to understand these behaviors in context. For example, might arson be a coping mechanism in children who have experienced severe emotional abuse, rather than a marker for future aggression? Are some elements of the triad indicators for future violence when they occur simultaneously? More fundamentally, is there any set of behaviors that can legitimately be considered a behavioral syndrome predictive of later violence?
Sources: Karen Franklin, Ph.D., Psychology Today, and "Homicidal Triad Revisited," Crime & Punishment.
|
|
|
Post by madeline on Feb 1, 2014 18:04:09 GMT -5
Of course it's all a myth. If every boy that ever wet the bed, set a fire and kicked a dog became a serial killer, there would be so many serial killers that they would have to start killing each other because there wouldn't be enough normal people for them to kill! Also, what about serial killers like Ted Bundy, who never did any of these things? I'll bet if someone did a study of serial killers, they would find that hardly any of them were bed wetters, fire starters or cruel to animals. I think that animal freaks are more likely to injure and kill humans than those who aren't animal crazy because animal freaks usually hate people.
|
|
|
Post by natalie on Feb 6, 2014 15:14:56 GMT -5
I agree. Some kids have bladder issues for example, which can account for bed-wetting. I don't see a connection with lighting fires, bed-wetting and murdering any more than I would think of someone who works as a cook to be a murderer. I would venture to think that violence toward humans has more to do with how much violence and cruelty you were exposed to than bed-wetting, hurting of animals, or starting fires.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Feb 8, 2014 6:29:36 GMT -5
I know some folks that have committed some pretty bad crimes and they never abused animals and so far as I know, they never wet the bed or set fires either. I've also known some guys who did all three of these things that never hurt anybody. The article says that even the doctor who came up with the Triad later had doubts about it. This is one of those things that has been repeated so much that almost everybody believes it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2017 12:24:11 GMT -5
I saw a rerun of a Law & Order episode, I think it was SVU, and they were talking about the homicidal triad as if it was true. You'd think a big production TV show wouldn't make mistakes like that.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 25, 2017 17:23:28 GMT -5
I saw a rerun of a Law & Order episode, I think it was SVU, and they were talking about the homicidal triad as if it was true. You'd think a big production TV show wouldn't make mistakes like that.
Well, Duh! You must have seen the episode of "Law & Order SVU" that's mentioned in the first paragraph of the article.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 17:21:58 GMT -5
How about this Triad?
|
|
|
Post by Joanna on Jan 1, 2018 17:51:12 GMT -5
How about this Triad?
Interesting. Could you elaborate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 18:50:49 GMT -5
Religion everyone knows about. Art has been discussed before with all the serial killer artists. Profiler John Kelly said on TV that "serial killers are artists". I don't think it's all religions or all arts nor is it professional artists or clergy although there are one or two examples of professionals.
The only original and really controversial addition would be Aviation. The calculations done on people in aviation versus postal workers and also comparing to the ratios for the three homicidal Indicators of the MacDonald Triad show that the ratio of aviation persons in the extreme homicidal category versus in the overall population was 10 times higher than the top MacDonald Indicator.
xtremepsychology.proboards.com/thread/166/problem-acceptance-xtreme-homicidal-triad
|
|
|
Post by natalie on Jan 2, 2018 16:23:19 GMT -5
So based on your triad, a person who is religious is more prone to killing, or is it the opposite, that an atheist is more prone to violence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 18:46:35 GMT -5
So based on your triad, a person who is religious is more prone to killing, or is it the opposite, that an atheist is more prone to violence?
Persons that are in or interested in certain religions or types of religions like ones I used to be attracted to and have identified. They’re one part of the spectrum but it’s simplified as a Triad Indicator to get the idea out there. xtremepsychology.proboards.com/board/50/indicator-1-xtreme-religion
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Jan 2, 2018 19:41:25 GMT -5
OK, Jung Gun says: "Religion is an Indicator and we know exactly why it's an Indicator," but he doesn't explain how he knows that it's an indicator, so could you maybe explain how it's an indicator?
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jan 2, 2018 20:16:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 13:09:10 GMT -5
OK, Jung Gun says: "Religion is an Indicator and we know exactly why it's an Indicator," but he doesn't explain how he knows that it's an indicator, so could you maybe explain how it's an indicator?
What Jung and I were debating there is whether religion is "the source of all evil" as some publicly contend or if it's "just an indicator". HOW or WHY it's an indicator is a different debate. The HOW part is easy. It's an Indicator the same way the MacDonald Indicators are Indicators. They're shared by the subject criminals. That's all that really matters as far as the how part so I don't have a problem so much with the MacDonald Triad. I just don't think they're of much investigatory value because they are infantile and juvenile behaviors and only good for parents and parenting mostly as indicators of abuse or extreme sensitivity to even the small amount of what could be abuse.
It's still not what we call Causative anymore than fire setting or bed wetting. It's mutually inclusive. Like serial killers and motor vehicles. You don't blame the car company. If a religion attracts a certain homicidal crowd, it's not their fault but they should at least know about it. World Wide Church of God was in denial when I tried to talk to them. They're more mainstream now though.
If there weren't so many saying that Religion is Evil, I might not say simply "RELIGION" but be more specific, leaving out mainstream religions, but a lot of them deny even being a RELIGION ("it's a relationship not a religion") or hate the word Religion or Spirituality so they can be left out of the equation without saying.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 3, 2018 13:57:54 GMT -5
What Jung and I were debating there is whether religion is "the source of all evil" as some publicly contend or if it's "just an indicator". HOW or WHY it's an indicator is a different debate.
The HOW part is easy. It's an Indicator the same way the MacDonald Indicators are Indicators. They're shared by the subject criminals. That's all that really matters as far as the how part so I don't have a problem so much with the MacDonald Triad. I just don't think they're of much investigatory value because they are infantile and juvenile behaviors and only good for parents and parenting mostly as indicators of abuse or extreme sensitivity to even the small amount of what could be abuse.
It's still not what we call Causative anymore than fire setting or bed wetting. It's mutually inclusive. Like serial killers and motor vehicles. You don't blame the car company. If a religion attracts a certain homicidal crowd, it's not their fault but they should at least know about it. World Wide Church of God was in denial when I tried to talk to them. They're more mainstream now though.
If there weren't so many saying that Religion is Evil, I might not say simply "RELIGION" but be more specific, leaving out mainstream religions, but a lot of them deny even being a RELIGION ("it's a relationship not a religion") or hate the word Religion or Spirituality so they can be left out of the equation without saying. In my opinion, religion is much too prevalent to be a homicidal indicator. While many religious nuts have killed, a person with the inclination to kill will find a reason. In other words, religion isn't the reason, it's the excuse.
Did you include Charlie Brant, whom Lee dubbed the "Key West Ripper" in her article about him, in your studies? Though he was dead by the time it was discovered that he was a serial killer and very few who study serial killers include him in their studies, his case is very interesting because no one suspected him. whatliesbeyond.boards.net/thread/3953/key-west-ripper
|
|