U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

Murder in Families
By John M. Dawson
and Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D.
BJS Statisticians
A survey of murder cases disposed
in 1988 in the courts of large urban
counties indicated that 16% of murder
victims were members of the defendant's
family. The remainder were murdered by
friends or acquaintances (64%) or by
strangers (20%). These findings are drawn
from a representative sample survey of
State and county prosecutors' records.
The survey covered disposed charges
against nearly 10,000 murder defendants,
whose murder cases accounted for over
8,000 victims.
Other findings include the following:

w Among murder victims 6.5% were killed
by their spouses, 3.5% by their parents,
1.9% by their own children, 1.5% by their
siblings, and 2.6% by some other family
member.
• A third of family murders involved
a female as the killer. In sibling murders,
females were 15% of killers, and in
murders of parents, 18%. But in spouse
murders, women represented 41% of
killers. In murders of their offspring,
women predominated, accounting for 55%
of killers.
• Among black marital partners, wives
were just about as likely to kill their
husbands as husbands were to kill their
wives: 47% of the victims of a spouse
were husbands and 53% were wives.
Among white victims murdered by their
spouse, wives were much less likely to be
the killers: 38% of the

July 1994
The United States has over 3,000
counties, but more than half of all
murders occur in just 75 of them, the
Nation’s mort populous jurisdictions.
This report taps a rich source of murder
data — prosecutors’ files in a sample of
these large urban places — for detailed
information on the nature and extent of
a particular type of murder: those that
occur within families. In addition, the
report uses these files justice systems
respond to family murder.
This study was possible as a result of
the generous cooperation of urban
prosecutors and their staffs in jurisdictions throughout the Nation. On behalf
of BJS, I want to express my sincere
appreciation.
Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Acting Director
victims were husbands and 62% were
wives.
• Forty-five percent of family murder
victims were female, compared to
18% of nonfamily murder victims.
When a mother killed her own child, the
offspring she killed was more likely to be a
son than a daughter: 64% sons versus
36% daughters. But when a father killed
his own child, the offspring he killed was
about as likely to be a daughter as a son:
52% daughters versus 48% sons.

• When a son killed a parent, his victim
was about as likely to be the mother as the
father: 47% mothers versus 53% fathers.
But when a daughter killed a parent, her
victim was more likely to be the father than
the mother: 81% fathers versus 19%
mothers.
• In murders of persons under age 12, the
victims' parents accounted for 57% of the
murderers.
• Eleven percent of all victims age
60 or older were killed by a son or
daughter.
• No significant difference in the conviction
rate separated family murder defendants
(76%) from nonfamily murder defendants
(72%).
• Convicted family murder defendants
(88%) were as likely to receive a prison
sentence as convicted nonfamily murder
defendants (91%).
• Firearms were used in the killing
of 42% of all family murder victims,
compared to 63% of all nonfamily murder
victims.
• Seventy-four percent of murder defendants had a prior criminal record of arrest
or conviction for a crime. A substantial
percentage of murder victims, 44%, also
had a prior criminal record. However, 19%
of family murder victims had a prior record,
compared to 51% of nonfamily murder
victims. Also, 56% of family murder defendants, compared to 77% of other murder
defendants, had a prior record.

Compared to other murder victims,
family murder victims were —

Compared to other murder defendants, defendants in family murders—

More often

More often

$ female than male:
45% versus 18% (table 2)
$ under age 12:
19% versus 2% (table 2)
$ age 60 or older:
12% versus 6% (table 2)
$ killed during the daytime:
39% versus 25% (table 5)
$ killed in the victim’s own home:
82% versus 22% (table 5)

$ were age 30 or older:
57% versus 32% (table 2)
$ had a history of mental illness:
14% versus 3% (table 3)
$ committed a daytime murder:
38% versus 24% (table 5)
$ committed the murder in the
defendant’s own home:
64% versus 10% (table 5).
Less often

Less often
$ were under age 30:
43% versus 68% (table 2)
$ were identified as alcohol users:
48% versus 68% (table 3)
$ were unemployed:
29% versus 37% (table 3)
$ had a victim of the same sex:
34% versus 80% (table 4)
$ used a firearm:
43% versus 64% (table 5)
$ had a record of arrest or conviction:
56% versus 77% (table 7)
$ were involved in murders in which
both the defendant and the victim had
a prior criminal record:
15% versus 44% (table 8).

$ identified as alcohol users:
33% versus 51% (table 3)
$ unemployed:
7% versus 16% (table 3)
$ killed by a firearm:
42% versus 63% (table 5)
$ armed: 15% versus 20% (page 4)
$ killed by multiple assailants:
9% versus 19% (table 6)
$ identified as having a past record
or arrest or conviction:
$ involved in murders in which both
the defendant and the victim had a
prior criminal record:
14% versus 43% (table 8).

Table 1. Murder victims and defendants in the 75 largest urban counties,
by victim-assailant family relationship, 1988
Relationship of
victim to assailant

Murder victims
Number
Percent

All
Nonfamily
Family

8,063
6,755
1,308

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling
Other

528
285
154
123
218

Note: Spouse includes common-law spouse.
Offspring includes grandchild and step-child.
Parent includes grandparent and step-parent.
Sibling includes step-sibling. Other includes

100.0%
83.8
16.2
6.5
3.5
1.9
1.5
2.6

Murder defendants
Number
Percent
9,576
8,292
1,284
531
258
150
121
224

100.0%
86.8
13.4
5.5
2.7
1.6
1.3
2.3

cousin, in-law, extended family members, and other family
members.
Detail percentages may not add to total because of
rounding.

The survey
Survey data were compiled from State
prosecutors' files and were based on a
representative sample of all murder cases
disposed in large urban counties in 1988.
The murders were committed in 1988 or
earlier. The Nation's 75 largest counties
(as defined by the number of arrests and
population size) formed the population
from which 33 counties were systematically
sampled for the survey.
Within each of the 33 sampled counties, a
criminal case was eligible for sampling if
(a) 1 or more defendants in the case were
charged with murder, and (b) at least 1
murder defendant in the case was
disposed by a court in 1988. The sample
consisted of 2,539 murder cases against
3,119 defendants and involving 2,655
victims. When statistically weighted, the
3,119 defendants in the sampled cases
represented 9,576 murder defendants in
the Nation's 75 largest counties, and the
2,655 victims represented 8,063 victims in
the 75 largest counties. The weighted
estimate of 8,063 victims accounted for
39% of the nationwide total of 20,860
murder victims in 1988.
Murder includes (1) intentionally causing
the death of another person without
extreme provocation or legal justification,
(2) causing the death of another while
committing or attempting to commit
another crime, and (3) nonnegligent or
voluntary manslaughter. Murder excludes
negligent or involuntary manslaughter as
well as attempted murder, which is classified as aggravated assault. Murder also
includes accessory to murder, aiding and
abetting a murder, and facilitating a
murder. When the term murder is used in
this report with-out qualification, it includes
nonnegligent manslaughter. Defendant in
this report refers to a person arrested for
murder and presented by the police for
prosecution.
Victims
Murder cases disposed in the 75 largest
counties in 1988 involved an estimated
8,063 victims (table 1). Sixteen percent of
victims had a family relationship to at least
one defendant in the case. The most
frequent specific relationship was that of
spouse; the least frequent, sibling.
Nonfamily victim-offender relationships

2 Murder in Families

Table 2. Sex, race, and age, by the family relationship
of murder victims and defendants, 1988
Relationship of
victim to assailant

All

Male

Sex

Female

Race
Black

White

Other

Under 12

12-19

20-29

Age

30-59

60 or older

Victims
All

100%

77.8%

22.2%

43.5%

54.2%

2.3%

10.9%

35.6 %

41.8 %

Nonfamily
Family

100
100

82.2
55.5

17.8
44.5

44.4
39.0

53.3
58.6

2.3
2.4

2.1
18.8

12.2
3.9

38.5
20.3

41.1
45.3

6.1
11.6

100
100
100
100
100

40.2
55.8
57.2
73.0
74.9

59.8
44.2
42.8
27.0
25.1

41.2
32.6
54.8
33.5
34.1

56.4
65.6
45.2
64.5
61.0

2.4
1.8
0.0
2.0
4.9

0.0
78.5
0.0
8.7
4.6

0.0
10.9
0.0
2.0
8.2

27.9
7.7
0.9
43.3
19.1

65.0
3.0
56.7
42.6
47.5

7.1
0.0
42.4
3.3
20.6

100%

89.5%

10.5 %

36.2%

61.9%

1.8%

0.1%

21.8%

42.5 %

31.4 %

4.2 %

100
100

93.2
65.5

6.8
34.5

35.7
39.7

62.6
58.0

1.8
2.3

0.1
0.0

23.1
13.0

44.5
29.7

28.4
50.5

3.8
6.8

100
100
100
100
100

59.3
45.4
81.6
84.9
83.5

40.7
54.6
18.4
15.1
16.5

41.8
34.5
49.8
32.2
38.1

56.1
64.5
50.2
65.8
56.1

2.2
1.0
0.0
2.0
5.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.9
17.2
38.2
16.9
18.0

21.9
36.4
30.7
36.7
35.9

66.1
40.3
29.4
46.4
41.3

11.1
6.0
1.7
0.0
4.9

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling
Other

4.8%

7.0 %

Defendants
All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling
Other

Note: See table 1 notes for definitions of the family relationships.

characterized 84% of the victims, who were Family murder defendants and their victims
comprised almost 15% of all victims and
a stranger to, an acquaintance of, or a
friend of the defendant or defendants.
defendants recorded in the murder cases
in 1988. Husbands and wives were the
most likely to be involved in family
Defendants
murders. Spouses were 4 in 10 of all
Murder cases disposed in the 75 largest
defendants and victims involved in a
counties in 1988 involved an estimated
family murder:
Relationship
Family murder victims
9,576 defendants. Thirteen percent had a
of victim to
and defendants
family relationship to at least one of the
Number Percent
assailant
victims in the case. Nonfamily victimAll
2,592
100.0%
offender relationships characterized 87%
Spouse
1,059
40.9
of the defendants who were a stranger to,
Offspring
543
20.9
304
11.7
an acquaintance of, or a friend of the victim Parent
Sibling
244
9.4
or victims.
Other

442

17.1

Table 3. Alcohol use at the time of the murder, history of mental illness, unemployment,
and homelessness, by the family relationship of murder victims and defendants, 1988
Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Alcohol use
at the time
of the murder

History of
mental illness

Unemployed

Homeless

Victims
All

47.4%

0.5%

13.8%

1.1%

Nonfamily
Family

50.9
32.7

0.4
0.9

15.8
7.4

1.3
0.2

Spouse
Offspring

49.6
5.7

1.5
1.3

12.8
0.0

0.5
0.0

Parent
Sibling

25.4
34.9

0.0
0.0

4.4
17.7

0.0
0.0

Defendants
All

64.4%

4.3

35.3%

1.6%

Nonfamily
Family

68.0
47.6

2.7
14.3

36.6
29.1

1.7
1.2

54.4
29.8
28.4
53.9

12.3
15.8
25.1
17.3

25.0
28.9
33.6
34.9

1.6
0.0
2.3
3.3

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family relationships.
“Alcohol” is coded only if present in the person.

The second most frequent type of family
murder, with offspring as victims and
parents as assailants, were 21% of the
total. (See the box on page 6 describing
murders by parents of their children.)
Those cases in which offspring were
assailants and parents were the victims
comprised 12% of all family murder victims.
As among victims, most of the nonfamily
murder defendants (93%) and most of the
family murder defendants (66%) were male
(table 2). Offspring murder was the only
murder category in which females predominated as killers. In offspring murders,
mothers accounted for 55% of the defendants.
Sons, more often than daughters, were the
defendants in the murders of parents: 82%
versus 18%. Compared to defendants in
other types of family murder, offspring
accused of killing their parents were the
youngest of the assailants, two-thirds being
under age 30.
Husbands killed wives more frequently
than wives killed husbands. Overall, husbands comprised about 60% of the assailants in spouse killings. The predominance
of husbands as the defendant, however,
varied by race. In black murders, wives
were about as likely as husbands to be
charged with the murder of their spouse.
Of the 283 black-on-black spouse killings,
53% of the assailants were husbands,
compared to 62% of the 218 white-onwhite spouse killings. In the 11 Asian,

Murder in Families

3

Native American, Pacific Islander, or
Alaska Native spouse murders, the
husband killed the wife.
Drinking, mental illness, and
unemployment
About half of the nonfamily murder victims
and a third of the family murder victims
consumed alcoholic drinks before the
crime (table 3). Compared to victims in
other types of family murder, victims in
spouse murders were the most likely to
have been drinking (50%). Sixty-eight
percent of nonfamily murder defendants
and 48% of family murder defendants
were drinking at about the time of the
murder.
Family murderers were more likely than
nonfamily murderers to have a history of
mental illness (14%). Those who killed
their parents were particularly likely to have
such a history (25%).
Parents who were murdered were, apart
from offspring murder victims,
the least likely to be unemployed.

Defendants in family murder cases were
much less likely to be accused of murdering someone of the same sex (34% of
defendants) than were defendants in
murder cases not involving family
members (80%) (table 4). When the sex of
the victim and offender is considered,
spousal murder, which by definition
includes a man and a woman, provides the
primary source of the difference between
family and nonfamily murder. If spousal
murder is excluded from consideration and
"other" family members are included,
murderers and victims were of the same
sex in 65% of family murders (not shown in
a table).
Table 4. Murder defendants with a victim
of the same sex, by their family
relationship, 1988

All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of defendants with a
victim of the same the same sex
All
Male
Female
73.7%

79.5%

21.9%

79.9
34.3

84.1
40.6

25.9
17.8

0
41.7
48.4
69.3

0
48.1
52.8
736

0
36.3
19.1
45.1

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family
relationships.

4 Murder in Families

Over 60% of nonfamily murders and over
40% of family murders were committed
with a gun (table 5). Compared to victims
in other types of family murder, victims in
spouse murders were the most likely to
have died from a gunshot (53%). Offspring
were the least likely to be shot to death: 1
in 5 offspring murdered by a parent died
from a bullet wound.
Armed victims and
victim-precipitated murders

Sex of offender and victim

Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Female defendants were more likely than
male defendants to have murdered a
person of the opposite sex. When a
mother murdered her own child, the
offspring she killed was more often a son
(64%) than a daughter (36%). Among
fathers who murdered, 48% of their victims
were a son and 52% were a daughter.
When a daughter killed a parent, the victim
was more likely to be a father (81%) than a
mother (19%). Among sons who murdered
a parent, 53% of the victims were a father.
When a sister murdered a sibling, 55% of
the victims were a brother. Among brothers who killed a sibling, 74% of the victims
were a brother.
Guns used as the murder weapon

Nineteen percent of murder victims were
armed with a gun, knife, or other deadly
weapon. A smaller percentage of family
murder victims (15%) than of nonfamily
murder victims (20%) were armed.
Table 5. Murder committed with a firearm,
during daytime, or at home, by victimassailant family relationship, 1988
Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Percent of murder cases
Firearm Time and place
as murder of murder
weapon Daytime Home

Victims
All

59.8%

27.1%

32.0%

Nonfamily
Family

63.3
41.6

24.9
38.5

21.7
81.5

53.3
19.6
34.8
37.1

38.6
43.4
36.4
46.6

86.5
88.0
95.6
71.9

Defendants
All

61.0%

25.6%

17.5%

Nonfamily
Family

63.9
42.6

23.7
37.5

10.0
63.8

52.5
20.6
33.9
38.3

38.8
46.3
33.8
45.3

76.1
75.4
58.8
62.0

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family
relationships.

Relationship
of victim to
assailant
All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Armed

Percent of victims
Precipitated
the incident

19.4%

19.1%

20.4
14.9

19.5
17.1

15.2
7.9
23.0
11.7

22.6
8.1
18.8
20.3

Some armed victims used the deadly
weapon to provoke the defendant. Others
provoked the defendant with a nonlethal
weapon or their fists or by pushing the
defendant. Altogether, 19% of the victims
in some way provoked the defendant. The
provocation did not vary significantly
between family (17%) and nonfamily
murders (20%).
Multiple victims and assailants
Victims in murders of family members were
about half as likely as nonfamily murder
victims to have had multiple assailants
(table 6). However, similar percentages of
defendants in both types of murder (family
murders, 6%, and other murders, 5%) were
charged with killing more than one person.
Compared to defendants in other types of
family murder, defendants accused of
killing their offspring or their parents were
the most likely to have multiple victims.
These murders were also the most likely to
involve multiple assailants.

Table 6. Multiple victims and assailants,
by their family relationship, 1988
Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Percent
Victims with Defendants
multiple
with multiple
assailants
victims

Victims
All

17.5%

5.0%

Nonfamily
Family

19.1
8.7

4.8
6

4.8
13
13.9
8.1

1.7
11.7
12.7
5.7

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family
relationships.

Revised 1/04 th

Criminal history
A little over half of the defendants in family
murders, but over three-quarters of defendants in nonfamily murders, had been
arrested in the past (table 7). Defendants
were more likely than their victims to have
a criminal history. Nevertheless, 44% of
murder victims (51% nonfamily and 19%
family) had a prior history of arrest or
conviction.
Whether or not the victim had a criminal
history, the killer had such a history in most
cases (table 8). The likelihood of the
killer's having a prior record was greater
when the victim also had a record. Victims
with a prior criminal record accounted for
44% of all victims; 83% of these victims
were killed by someone with a prior criminal history. (See Methodology, page 9, for
calculation of the percentage of defendants
with a prior record.) For family murder
victims the percentages were lower: 21%
had a criminal record and 69% of these
victims were killed by someone with a prior
record. Among the murderers of family
victims without a criminal record, 42% had
such a history.
Age of victim and victim-assailant family
relationship
When a person under age 12 is murdered,
a family member is the best suspect,
according to survey results; family
members killed 63% of the child murder
victims.
Table 7. Criminal history of murder
victims and defendants, by their
family relationship, 1988
Relationship
of victim to
assailant
Victims
All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent with any prior
arrest or conviction

51.2
19.3
34.5
2.1
11.7
27.4
73.8%

Nonfamily
Family

76.7
56.0
51.4
45.4
67.2
71.0

Percent of victims and defendants with a criminal history
Victim
Defendant
Neither
Both
only
only

Relationship
victim to assailant
Victims
All

23.2%

38.9%

7.5%

32.2%

Nonfamily
Family
Defendants
All

16.9
45.7

43.4
14.3

7.9
6.4

31.8
33.8

23.1%

38.2%

8.8%

29.9%

Nonfamily
Family

16.3
50.5

43.9
15.0

9.2
7.1

30.5
27.3

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family relationships. Percentages of victims
or defendants with a criminal history differ slightly from table 7 because of missing data.

Age of
victim
All
Under 12
12-19
20-29
30-59
60 or older

Percent of murder victims
With a family
relationship
All
to assailant
100%
5
11
35
42
7

16%
63
6
9
18
27

However, a family member is an unlikely
suspect in murders of persons in their
teens. Among victims age 20 or older, the
likelihood that a family member was the
killer increased as the victim's age
increased.
A family member was involved in the
murder of 27% of the murder victims age
60 or older. Among all murders of persons
in the oldest group, offspring as the killer
accounted for 11%. Among murders of
family members age 60 or older, the most
frequent assailant category was not the
spouse, as for younger adult victims, but
the victim's offspring. The assailant was an
offspring in 42% of family member victims
age 60 or older and a spouse in 24%. The
most frequent family member category
varied by the victim's age:

43.7%

Defendants
All

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Table 8. Criminal history of murder victims and offenders
within the same case, by their family relationship, 1988

Age
of family
victim
All
Under 12
12-19
20-29
30-59
60 or older

If family
murder victim,
most likely
assailant

Percent of family
murder victims
with most likely
assailant

Spouse
Parent
Parent
Spouse
Spouse
Offspring

40%
91
59
55
57
42

Murder weapons used against young
children and elderly parents
When parents killed their offspring under
age 12, they rarely used a firearm or knife.
Firearms or knives were responsible for the
deaths of 7% of offspring victims under 12.
When sons and daughters killed their
parents age 60 or older, in most cases they
did not use a firearm or knife. Firearms or
knives accounted for 44% of family murder
victims age 60 or older.

Victims who were children
under age 12
A parent was the assailant in the
majority (57%) of family murders
involving victims under 12.
For all murder victims under age 12,
death was often preceded by child
abuse. In 57% of cases the assailant
had abused the murder victim under age
12. Among offspring murder victims
who were under age 12, before their
death 79% had suffered abused by the
assailant.
Rape or sexual assault preceded the
death of 6% of murder victims under
age 12. These crimes occurred less
often when the assailant was a parent,
accounting for 1% of offspring murder
victims under age 12.
Among
Circumall
stance
victims
Included
felony
sexual assault 2%
Assailant
had abused
the victim
3%

Offspring victims
Any
Under
age 12
age

All
victims
under 12

1%

1%

6%

62%

79%

57%

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family
relationships.

Murder in Families

5

Strangulation, use of a blunt instrument,
and pounding by fists or feet were among
the more frequent methods of death when
firearms or knives were not used.
Age of
offspring
victim
All
Under 12
12-19
20-29
30-59

Percent of offspring victims
Those killed with
All
firearm or knife
100%
78
11
8
3

26%
7
93
100
100

Age of
parent
victim

Percent of parent victims
Those killed with
All
firearm or knife

All
30-59 years
60 or older

100%
58
42

72%
91
44

Arrested for murder or manslaughter
The family relationship of the defendant to
the murder victim made little difference in
whether the defendant was charged with
first-degree murder or a less serious type
of homicide (table 9). When a family
member was the victim, 73% of the defendants were charged with first degree
murder, compared to 74% of the defendants charged with murdering a stranger or
acquaintance. Compared to defendants in
other types of family murder, defendants in
offspring murders were the most likely
to have had voluntary or nonnegligent
manslaughter as the most serious arrest
charge.

In more than half of the family murder
cases, but in about a third of the cases
of other types of victims, the arrest
occurred on the day of the crime (table 10).
Spouses and siblings were identified as the
murderer more quickly than parents or
offspring. Overall, family murder cases
required less time to disposition than other
types of murder cases: Prosecution was
completed within 6 months for 34% of
family murder defendants versus 29%
of nonfamily murder defendants.

Table 9 Level of murder charges filed
against persons arrested for murder,
by victim-assailant family relationship,
1988

Parental murder of offspring
under age 12
Prosecutors’ files contained information
on reasons why a parent murdered an
offspring under age 12. One or more
reasons were given for 62 of the total
84 offspring murder victims under age
12. the following presents reasons and
the number of victims:
— Unspecified forms of child abuse (18)
— Victim’s behavior, such as crying
or misbehavior (15)
— Parent’s emotional instability
or retardation (9)
— Unwanted newborn baby (8)
— Unintended consequence of the
commission of another crime (lethal
conflict between the parents) (6)
— Neglect (5)
— Difficulty handling the responsibility
of child rearing (3)
— Child held hostage (1).
Examination of the details concerning
the method of killing covered all but 3 of
the victims. By far the most frequent
method of murder was beating: punching with fists, kicking, throwing, pushing,
slapping, hitting (with belts, hammers, or
wooden brushes), and striking body
against furniture (shower head or walls).

With five of the victims counted under
two or three methods of murder, specific
methods and the number of victims were
as follows:
— Beating (35)
— “Shaken baby syndrome” (10)
— Arson (6)
— Newborn disposed of in toilet
or trash can (6)
— Drowning in bathtub (6)
— Firearm (5)
— Suffocation/strangulation (5)
— Neglect (dehydration, starvation, and
failure to use infant heart monitor) (4)
— Stabbing (3)
— Starvation (2)
— Other methods, including poisoning
with carbon monoxide, lethal doses of
drugs, running over with a car, boiling,
and putting in freezer (5).
Of the five victims who were shot to
death, three died because the assailant
accidentally fired a gun while committing another crime; therefore, two
offspring victims under age 12 were
intentionally killed with a firearm.

Relationship
of victim to
assailant
All
Nonfamily
Family

Percent of murder defendants whose
most serious conviction charge was
FirstVoluntary or
degree
Other
nonnegligent
murder
murder
manslaughter
73.5%

24.2%

2.3%

73.7
72.8

24.6
21.5

1.8
5.9

Spouse
69.4
24.2
6.4
Offspring
63.1
22.8
14.1
Parent
75.2
24.8
0.0
Sibling
82.4
15.5
2.0
Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family
relationships. “First-degree murder” refers to
premeditated murder of felony murder; “other
murder” refers to nonpremeditated murder; and
“voluntary or nonnegligent manslaughter” refers
to intentional killing without malice.

Table 10. Time to arrest and disposition
for murder cases, by victim-assailant
family relationship, 1988
Relationship
of victim to
assailant
All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of murder defendants
Whose prosecution
Arrested on
the day of
ended within 6
the crime
months of crime
34.8%

29.1%

31.7
54.2

28.6
33.7

62.3
49.3
37.2
55.3

35.8
23.5
42.1
34.0

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family
relationships.

Time to arrest and disposition
6 Murder in Families

little support for such criticism. In several
important respects, the criminal justice
outcomes of family murder defendants
The criticism is sometimes made that
were about the same overall as those of
police, prosecutors, and judges treat family other murder defendants. Where differviolence less seriously than violence
ences in the overall case outcome existed,
between strangers and other unrelated
the more detailed statistical testing of data
persons.* The urban county data provide
removed the characteristic of nonfamilyfamily as a possible source of those
*Delbert S. Elliott, “Criminal Justice Procedures differences.
Justice system response
to family murder

in Family Violence Crimes,” in Lloyd Ohlin and
Micheal Tonry (eds.), Family Violence (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 428.

Percent of murder defendants, by type of outcome of prosecution
Convicted Pleaded
Insanity
at trial
Diverted Rejected Dismissed Acquitted
guilty
acquittal

Other

All

0.8%

8.4%

7.0%

7.3%

33.9%

38.8%

0.5%

3.2%

Nonfamily
Family

0.7
0.9

8.4
7.9

7.5
3.8

7.6
5.8

33.9
33.5

38.2
42.8

0.2
2.8

3.4
2.4

0.6
1.0
0.8
2.2

6.5
11.3
4.8
10.4

3.5
3.0
5.5
0.0

6.1
5.6
5.9
8.1

37.4
37.4
22.8
21.7

42.1
35.6
47.6
51.9

1.2
3.9
9.0
4.7

2.5
2.3
3.7
1.0

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family
relationships.

*Includes murder defendants who died or whose
individual cases had not been disposed.

Table 12. The most serious conviction offense of murder defendants,
by victim-assailant family relationship, 1988

Relationship
of victim to
assailant
All
Nonfamily
family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of
murder defendants
convicted of
Any
crime
Murder

Percent of convicted defendants, by the
most serious conviction offense
Voluntary/
Firstnonneglidegree Other
gentmanAll murder murder
slaughter

72.6%

62.8%

100% 25.6%

30.9%

29.9%

72.1
76.3

62.4
64.8

100
100

25.9
23.6

32.0
24.3

28.7
37.1

79.5
72.9
70.4
73.7

71.2
52.4
65.4
66.7

100
100
100
100

21.4
16.5
35.6
10.8

25.6
27.8
17.2
28.0

42.6
27.5
40.2
52.0

Other
violent
9.9%

Percent of
convictions
for less than
the most
serious
other arrest charge
3.7%

61.8%

9.4
12.4

3.9
2.6

61.3
64.6

8.0
28.2
4.7
6.5

2.4
0.0
2.3
2.9

62.0
77.7
55.4
77.3

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of the family relationships.

Table 13. Sentences received by murder defendants convicted of murder
or other crime, by victim-assailant family relationship, 1988
Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Percent of convicted murder
defendants sentenced to
Prison
Totala
Life
Jail
Probationb

Mean prison
termc

All

90.7%

15.6%

6.0%

3.3%

14.4years

Nonfamily
Family

91.1
88.4

16.0
12.8

6.2
4.5

2.7
7.1

14.7
12.8

88.9
85.1
95.2
82.0

12.7
8.1
17.8
6.5

1.8
10.8
4.8
5.9

9.3
4.1
0.0
12.1

13.0
12.6
12.9
9.3

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Note: See table 1 note for definitions of
the family relationships.
a
Includes those sentenced to life or death.

$ No more likely to have their cases
diverted, rejected for prosecution, or
to be acquitted (table 11)
$ Less likely to be dismissed by the court
$ As likely to have their cases result in a
conviction for some crime and, specifically,
as likely to be convicted of murder (table
12).

Table 11. Outcome of prosecution of murder defendants,
by victim-assailant family relationship, 1988
Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Compared to other murder defendants,
those in family murder cases were —
$ As likely to be charged with first-degree
murder (table 9)

Compared to other defendants at sentencing, convicted family murder defendants,
including those initially charged with
murder of a family member but convicted of
some other offense, were not significantly
less likely to receive —
$ a prison sentence: 88% versus 91% or
$ a sentence to life imprisonment:
13% versus 16% (table 13).
Compared to nonfamily murder
defendants, however, convicted family
murderers were —
$ more likely to receive a less severe
sentence, probation: 7% versus 3%
$ given shorter prison sentences: 13
years, on average, versus 15 years.
Analyzing differences between
sentences for family murder and
other types of murder
These findings of more probation
sentences and shorter prison terms do not
necessarily reflect greater tolerance of
family violence by justice system officials.
Numerous differences between family
murder and other murder might possibly
account for less severe sentencing for
family murder. To test that possibility,
regression analysis was applied to the
data.

b
Includes straight probation only. Probation
with incarceration is reported as a sentence to
prison or jail.
c
Excludes sentences to life or death.

Murder in Families

7

This analysis accounts for the simultaneous effects on sentencing of the following
factors:

Methodology

offense seriousness (degree of murder)
nature of conviction (trial or guilty plea)
defendant criminal history
age of defendant
number of victims
victim precipitation
county (place-to-place variability in
sentencing can be substantial)
race and sex of both victim and
defendant.

The 33 counties in the sample were
selected to be representative of the
Nation's 75 largest counties. The ranking
of counties in which the 75 largest were
identified was based on a combination of
crime data (1980 and 1984 Uniform Crime
Report Part I arrests) and population data
(1980 population from the Census
Bureau's City County Data Book).
Rankings reflected the size of the prosecutors' offices. The original sample plan
identified 34 counties, 1 of which declined
to participate.

Results showed that sentencing differences are not statistically significant
(.05-level) when differences in case
characteristics are taken into account.
Regression analysis did not confirm differences in sentencing severity between
family and nonfamily murders because
defendants in family murders less often
had characteristics that are associated with
the more severe sentences.
As indicated in the discussion and tables
describing family murders, for example —
— Voluntary or nonvoluntary manslaughter
is the least severely punished category of
murder. A greater percentage of the
family-murder defendants had voluntary or
nonnegligent manslaughter as their most
serious conviction offense.
— Having a prior arrest or conviction is
associated with receiving a prison
sentence and with longer terms of confinement. A smaller percentage of familymurder defendants had such a criminal
history.
— Convicted murder defendants under age
30 were less likely to be sentenced to
probation. A smaller percentage of familymurder defendants were younger than 30.
— Family murder convictions were less
likely than nonfamily murder convictions to
have resulted from a trial. Conviction
based on trial rather than guilty plea
increases the likelihood of any of the more
severe sentences (life or long prison term).

8 Murder in Families

Sample selection

The following are the 33 counties whose
prosecutors' offices participated in the
study reported here:
Arizona
Pima
California
Los Angeles
Orange
Kern
San Diego
Riverside
Colorado
Denver
Arapahoe
Connecticut
New Haven
Florida
Dade
Orange
Broward
Illinois
Cook
Louisiana
Orleans
Maryland
Prince Georges
Massachusetts
Middlesex
Michigan
Wayne

Missouri
St. Louis
New Mexico
Bernalillo
New York
Kings
Monroe
New York
Queens
Ohio
Franklin
Montgomery
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
Allegheny
Tennessee
Shelby
Texas
Dallas
Tarrant
Travis
Washington
King

A total of 2,539 murder cases were
sampled. These cases were a sample
of about half of all murder-charge cases
disposed in the sampled 33 counties in
1988. Not eligible for sample selection
were nonmurder defendants or any whose
most serious charge was attempted
murder, negligent or involuntary
manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. In
counties with 200 or fewer disposed
murder cases in 1988, all were selected for
inclusion in the sample. In counties with
more than 200, a systematic sample of 200
was chosen. Only 6 of the 33 counties had
more than 200 murder cases.
Virtually all cases meeting the 1988disposition criterion were disposed for all
defendants in the case. Of the more than
3,100 defendants on whom data were
obtained, only 13 had not yet had their
cases adjudicated at the time the survey
was carried out in 1990. Another 25 defendants had died of suicide or other causes.
Nonavailability of cases
The survey goal to track murder cases
across justice system stages was not met
in nine counties. In one of the nine, legal
restrictions barred access to cases
rejected by the prosecutor. In the remaining eight counties, some of the sampled
cases could not be located.
To an unknown degree, these data
access problems help explain why no
case from the nine was coded as "rejected
by prosecutor." Though there is no reason
for all of the unavailable cases to be rejections in all nine counties, assuming that all
such cases were rejections results in an
estimated rejection rate of 12%, instead of
8%, as shown in table 11. Other outcomes
would have been similarly affected. The
percentage of defendants tried and
convicted would have been 33% instead of
34%; the percentage pleading guilty would
have been 37% instead of 39%; and the
percentage receiving an incarceration
sentence of more than 1 year would have
been 62% instead of 65%.

Computation of estimates
from sample data
Case weights were applied to statistics
on the sampled cases to expand them
to estimates for the universe of the 75
largest counties, the key assumption being
that cases not sampled were similar to the
cases sampled. A case weight was the
inverse of the probability that a case would
be in the survey. That probability was the
product of both the probability that a given
county would be chosen and the probability
of selection of that case in that county.
Case weights were adjusted to compensate for the loss of one nonparticipating
county.
Statistically weighted, the 3,119 defendants
in the sample cases represented 9,576
murder defendants in the Nation's 75
largest counties. The 2,655 victims represented 8,063 victims in the 75 largest
counties.
Coding of circumstances
and victim-killer relationships
Information about a murder case usually
included details about the relationship
between the victim and the defendant as
well as the circumstances that existed at
the time of the murder. The rules for
describing relationships and circumstances
were those used by local police in reporting
murder cases to the FBI. These rules were
developed by the FBI for publication of its
Supplemental Homicide Reports. The
reporting rules include a set of codes to
describe the principal victim-assailant relationship and the circumstances in which
they were involved at the time the murder
occurred.
In the survey reported here, however,
provision was made for coding as many as
three kinds of relationships and three kinds
of circumstances. For example, if the
victim was the assailant's brother and was
also the assailant's drug supplier, both a
family relationship and a drug relationship
would be recorded. Likewise, more than
one type of circumstance might have
existed at the time of the murder. Altogether, 79 separate relationship codes and
85 circumstance codes were available for
coding cases.

Among all pairs of victims and assailants
found in the prosecutors' murder files, a
majority required only a single relationship
or circumstance code. The percentages
requiring more are as follows:
Number of
codes used
2
3 or more

Percent of victim and assailant
pairs in coding of
Relationships Circumstances
8.4%
40.0%
.3
8.6

Response rates
Except as noted below, this report focused
exclusively on characteristics that were
successfully obtained in a high percentage
of sample cases ("response rate").
The case records identified age, race,
sex, and ethnicity for nearly all defendants
(approximately 98%). The same was true
of victims, except that the victim's age was
available in only 16% of cases.
Also obtained in nearly all cases were the
relationships between victims and defendants; the circumstances preceding the
homicide; the arrest or indictment charge;
and whether the defendant was convicted,
and if so, the conviction offense. In incarceration or probation cases, the length of
the term of sentence was usually known.
Defendant criminal history was available in
three-quarters of the cases, but victim
criminal history was obtained in only a third
of the cases. The juvenile portion of the
criminal history information was probably
less complete than the adult portion.
Victim and offender information compiled
on both drug use at the time of the offense
and drug use history were not presented in
the report because of concerns about data
credibility. Drug use, for example, was far
below what previous surveys have
documented. Also, the data show drug use
to have been more common among victims
than defendants, a finding that did not
seem believable. Consequently, survey
data on drug consumption and type of drug
consumed were not used.
Source of percentages of defendants who
had a criminal record and whose victim
also had a criminal record
Overall —
44% of victims had a criminal record
(from table 8: 36.9% + 7.5%).
83% of these victims were killed
by someone with a prior record
(36.9/44.4).

Family murders —
21% of victims had a criminal record
(14.3% + 6.4%).
69% of these victims were killed
by someone with a prior record
(14.3/20.7).
78% of victims had no criminal record
(45.7% + 33.6%).
43% of these victims were killed
by someone with a prior record
(33.6/78.3).
Comparison with other BJS murder data
collections
Selected data reported here can be
compared with other BJS publications that
contain information on murder cases.
Conviction rate
The 73% rate of conviction reported in
table 12 is higher than the 66% reported for
murder defendants in the National Pretrial
Reporting Program (NPRP). See table 13
in Felony Defendants in Large Urban
Counties, 1988, BJS, NCJ-122385, April
1990. The NPRP studied a sample
of felony cases obtained from court records
in 40 of the 75 largest counties in the
Nation. Those cases were followed to
disposition or for up to a maximum of 1
year.
The following two reports give data for
cases accepted by the prosecutor. The
comparable conviction rate in this report
would be 79%, rather than 73%, after
deducting the cases rejected for prosecution (table 11).
The Offender-Based Transaction Statistics
(OBTS) program reported a 76% conviction
rate among murder cases that were prosecuted in 14 States. See table 4 in Tracking
Offenders, 1988, BJS Bulletin, NCJ 29861,
June 1991. The OBTS uses arrest
records, disposition information, and data
from fingerprint cards that are submitted by
local law enforcement agencies to State
criminal information repositories. This 76%
conviction rate is not measurably different
than the 79% estimate in this report.
Conviction rates of murder cases filed
in court are reported for a selection of 10
counties in table 2 in The Prosecution of
Felony Arrests, 1988, BJS, NCJ-130914,
February 1992. The local prosecutors in
those 10 counties provided the data. The
rates in those counties among murder
cases disposed during 1988 ranged from
Murder in Families

9

57% to 84%. Four of ten had rates higher
than the 79% reported here.
Number of murder convictions
Table 12 showed 63% of murder defendants convicted of murder, for a total of
approximately 6,000 convictions. The
comparable number in the National Judicial
Reporting Program (NJRP) for the 75
largest counties in the United States during
1988 is approximately 5,000, which is not
measurably different than the 6,000
estimate reported here. See table 2.1a in
National Judicial Reporting Program, 1988,
BJS, NCJ-135945, December 1992.
However, the 63% of defendants convicted
of murder is higher than the comparable
48% reported by the NPRP.
Sentences to prison, jail, or probation
The NJRP and NPRP reports include the
sentences received by those convicted of
murder, comparable to table 13 of this
report. All three studies show that of such
defendants, more than 90% were
sentenced to a prison term, fewer than
about 5% were sentenced to jail, and about
3% were sentenced to probation without
any incarceration. The OBTS, however,
reported these percentages as 81%, 11%,
and 5% respectively.

John M. Dawson and Patrick A.
Langan, Ph.D., wrote this report.
Dawson monitored the Prosecution of
Felony Arrests project, through which
the report’s data were collected. Peter
Brien verified the data. Tom Hester
edited and produced it, assisted by
Priscilla Middletion. Marilyn Marbrook,
assisted by Jayne Robinson, Jodi
Brown, and Priscilla Middleton, administered the final production.
Abt Associates personnel for the data
collection phase were as follows:
Barbara Boland (survey design), Jan
Chaiken (sampling plan), Wayne
Logan (case classification scheme and
data form design), Lynn Warner
(coordination of field operations),
Marcia Schieck and Mark Searight
(field data collection), and Bill Martin
(database design).
July 1994, NCJ-143498
Standard errors
Data collected in this murder study were
from a sample rather than a complete
enumeration. Because counties and cases
were sampled, a sampling error (standard
error) is associated with each number in
the report. In general, if the difference
between two numbers is greater than twice
the standard error for that difference, we
can say that we are at least 95% confident
that the two numbers are in fact different;
that is, the apparent difference is not
simply the result of surveying a sample
rather than the entire population.
Similarly, if the difference between two
numbers is greater than 1.6 standard
errors, we are at least 90% confident that
the two numbers are different. In this
report the term "statistically significant" was
used to denote a difference in which we
have at least 90% confidence. Except
where explicitly indicated otherwise, all
differences discussed in this report had a
confidence level at or above 90 percent.
Why a standard error may be large relative
to the difference it pertains to includes the
two most typical reasons: (1) the measurements or observations being compared
(such as a sex difference in average prison
sentence length) are highly variable from
one case to another and (2) a small
sample size.
Standard errors for selected key variables
in the report are presented below.

10 Murder in Families

Related reading
Data used in this report were previously
used in the report by John M. Dawson and
Barbara Boland (Murder in Large Urban
Counties, 1988, BJS Special Report,
NCJ-140614, May 1993).
The data presented in this report may
be obtained from the National Archive
of Criminal Justice Data at the University of
Michigan, 1-800-999-0960. The name of
the data set is Murder in Large Urban
Counties, 1988 (ICPSR 9907). The data
are available in either dBASE or SAS
format.

Estimates of 1 standard error for text
table page 3
Relationship of
victim to assailant

Family murder victims
and defendants
Victims
Defendants

All

724.0

880.5

Nonfamily
Family

105.0
634.9

109.4
786.8

66.1
31.2
23.1
21.6
23.8

65.1
26.7
22.6
21.1
24.8

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling
Other

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 2
Relationship of
victim to assailant

Male

Sex
Female

White

Race
Black

Other

Under 12 12-19

Age
20-29

30-59

60 or over

Victims

All

0.7%

0.7%

2.8%

3.0%

0.3 %

0.5%

0.7%

1.0%

1.2%

0.4%

0.8
2.1

0.8
2.1

2.8
3.4

0.3
3.6

0.4
0.6

0.2
2.6

0.8
0.7

1.1
2.1

1.2
2.7

0.4
1.4

3.2
5.2
6.4
6.2
4.3

3.2
5.2
6.4
6.2
4.3

5.3
5.0
5.7
7.7
5.1

------

0.8
1.4
0.0
1.5
2.6

0.0
4.0
0.0
4.4
2.2

0.0
2.1
0.0
1.6
3.0

2.7
2.8
0.4
7.9
4.0

2.6
2.3
6.2
7.5
5.7

1.9
0.0
6.3
2.8
4.2

Defendants
All

0.6%

0.6%

2.6%

2.8%

0.3 %

0.3%

0.9%

0.7%

0.9%

0.3%

Nonfamily
family

0.5
2.1

0.5
2.1

2.7
3.1

2.9
3.2

0.3
0.6

-0.0

1.0
1.7

0.8
1.8

0.9
2.0

0.4
1.0

3.3
3.9
4.7
6.0
3.6

3.3
3.9
4.7
6.0
3.6

5.0
4.9
5.2
7.8
4.8

5.1
5.2
5.2
7.5
4.9

0.8
0.8
0.0
1.6
2.8

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.5
4.0
6.3
5.4
4.0

-4.2
4.7
7.4

3.2
4.5
5.4
7.8
4.7

1.6
3.0
1.4
0.0
1.8

Nonfamily
family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling
Other

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling
Other

--Standard error was not calculated.

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 3
Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Alcohol use
at the time
of the murder

History of
mental illness

Unemployed

Homeless

Victims
All

1.6%

0.1%

--

0.3%

Nonfamily
Family

1.9
2.8

0.1
0.3

---

0.3
0.2

3.2
1.7
7.4
9.4

0.7
0.7
0.0
0.0

7.7
0.0
2.5
1.6

0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0

Defendants
All

1.9%

0.4%

3.0%

0.3%

Nonfamily
Family

1.9
3.5

0.3
1.6

3.2
3.2

0.4
0.5

5.7
7.1
8.9
9.6

2.5
3.7
5.2
5.2

4.1
7.0
9.9
10.4

1.0
0.0
1.7
2.7

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

--Standard error was not calculated.

Murder in Families

11

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 4
Relationship
of victim to
assailant
All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of murder defendants
with a victim of the same sex
Male
Female
0.8%

1.9

0.8
2.2

2.5
3.5

0.0
6.3
7.5
6.1

0.0
7.7
8.0
21.3

Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Percent
Victims with Defendants
multiple
with multiple
assailants
victims

All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 5
Percent of murder defendants whose
Relationship Firearm
Time and place
of victim to as murder
of murder
assailant
weapon
Daytime
Home
All

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 6

Age of
victim

0.8%

1.6
3.0

1.3
2.4

0.8
1.6

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

4.3%
3.7
6.2
7.3

3.1%
5.2
5.7
8.6

2.1%
2.9
1.5
6.4

Defendants
All

1.5%

1.2%

0.7%

Nonfamily
Family

1.5
3.0

1.4
2.4

0.5
1.7

Relationship of
victim to assailant

4.4%
3.6
5.9
7.3

2.8%
5.6
5.2
8.5

2.1
4.0
5.7
6.7

Victims
All

Estimates of 1 standard error for text
table column 3 page 4
Relationship
of victim to
assailant
All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of victims
Precipitated
Armed
the incident
0.7%

0.8%

0.8
1.8

0.8
1.9

2.7
1.5
5.7
4.8

3.0
1.5
5.9
6.9

12 Murder in Families

0.9
1.3

0.4
1.0

1.4
3.3
4.6
4.7

0.6
3.1
3.4
2.4

All
Under 12
12-19
20-29
30-59
60 or older

Percent with any prior
arrest or conviction

Victims
All

2.4%

Nonfamily
Family

2.7
2.4

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of murder
Victim with a family
relationship to assailant

1.2%

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

0.4%

Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Estimates of 1 standard error for text
table column 2 page 5

1.6%

Nonfamily
Family

0.8%

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 7

5.2
1.2
7.2
10.8

Defendants
All

1.0%

Nonfamily
Family

1.1
2.5

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

0.7%
4.6
1.1
1.0
1.0
2.8

3.3
4.5
6.6
7.7

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 8
Percent of victims and defendants with a criminal history
Victim
Defendant
Neither
Both
only
only
2.0%

2.2%

0.8%

2.2%

Nonfamily
Family
Defendants
All

2.1
3.6

2.5
2.2

0.9
1.6

2.6
3.8

1.9%

2.2%

0.9%

2.0%

Nonfamily
Family

1.9
3.6

2.4
2.3

1.0
1.8

2.3
3.4

Estimates of 1 standard error for text
table column 2 page 5
Age
of family
victim
All
Under 12
12-19
20-29
30-59
60 or older

If family
murder victims,
most likely
assailant
Spouse
Parent
Parent
Spouse
Spouse
Offspring

Percent of family
murder victims
with most likely
assailant
3.3%
3.1
9.7
6.0
3.4
7.0

Estimates of 1 standard error for text
table column 3 page 5
Offspring victims
Circumstance

All
murder
victim

Any
age

Under
age
12

All
murder
victims
under
12

Included
felony
sexual assault

0.2%

0.8%

1.0%

1.7%

Assailant
had abused
the victim

0.4%

4.8%

5.2%

5.4%

Estimates of 1 standard error for text
table page 6
Age of
offspring
victim
All
Under 12
12-19
29,029
30-59
Age of
parent
victim
All
30-59
60 or older

Percent of offspring victims
Those killed with
All
firearm or knife
0.0
4.0
2.1
2.8
2.3

4.1%
2.6
4.7
0.0
0.0

Relationship
of victim to
assailant
Diverted
All
Nonfamily
family

Percent of parent victims
Those killed with
All
firearm or knife
0.0
6.2
6.3

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 11

6.8%
4.0
10.9

Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of murder defendants whose
most serious conviction charge was
Voluntary or
Relationship
Firstof victim to
degree
Other
nonnegligent
assailant
murder
murder manslaughter

Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Other

0.2%

2.2%

0.6%

0.6%

1.9%

2.4%

0.1%

0.4%

0.2
0.4

2.1
2.6

0.6
1

0.6
1.1

1.9
2.7

2.4
3.5

0.1
0.8

0.3
1.5

0.4
0.8
0.3
1.7

3.3
3.7
2.1
5.4

1.2
1.3
3.5
0

1.6
2
2.2
3.3

3.9
4.4
4.9
5.8

4.5
5.3
7.0
8

0.6
2.3
3.0
2.1

1.6
1.7
3.1
0.4

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 12

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 9

All

Percent of murder defendants by type of outcome of prosecution
Convicted
Pleaded
Insanity
Rejected Dismissed Acquitted at trial
guilty
acquittal

4.5%

4.4%

0.3%

4.6
3.9

4.6
3.6

0.3
1.1

3.6
6.5
6.6
6.2

3.8
5.3
6.6
6.1

1.8
3.9
0.0
1.6

Relationship
of victim to
assailant

Percent of convicted defendants
by the most serious
conviction offense
Voluntary/
Firstnonneglidegree
Other
gent manmurder
murder
slaughter

Percent of murder
defendants
convicted of
Any
crime
Murder

All
Nonfamily
family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of
convictions
for less than
the most
serious arrest
charge

72.6%

62.8%

25.6%

30.9%

29.9%

61.8%

72.1
76.3

62.4
64.8

25.9
23.6

32.0
24.3

28.7
37.1

61.3
64.6

79.5
72.9
70.4
73.7

71.2
52.4
65.4
66.7

21.4
16.5
35.6
10.8

25.6
27.8
17.2
28.0

42.6
27.5
40.2
52.0

62.0
77.7
55.4
77.3

Estimates of 1 standard error for table 13
Estimates of 1 standard error for table 10
Relationship
of victim to
assailant
All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of murder defendants
Arrested on Whose prosecution
the day of
ended within 6
the crime
months of crime
1.1%

2.3%

1.0
2.1

2.3
3.1

2.8
6.0
6.4
7.3

4.2
4.7
5.3
7.6

Relationship of
victim to assailant
All
Nonfamily
Family
Spouse
Offspring
Parent
Sibling

Percent of convicted murder
defendants sentenced to:
Prison
Total
Life
Probation

Mean prison
term

0.7%

0.7%

0.4%

0.5years

0.6
1.4

0.6
1.4

0.4
1.2

0.5
0.9

2.0
2.9
2.5
6.4

1.7
3.5
1.1
6.4

1.8
1.4
0.0
5.9

1.3
1.8
1.1
1.3

Murder in Families

13