12The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 Drug PolicyS.docx

12
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 Drug Policy
Student’s Name
Name of Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 Drug Policy
Different laws and policies are enacted to protect and safeguard
Americans from drug misuse and gun use to lead a healthy
lifestyle. America is one of the countries facing the misuse and
addition of drugs and other illicit substances. Not only in
America, but drug and substance abuse have been a relevant
menace globally and require an immediate response. As a result,
different governments have engaged in finding efficient
mechanisms to evaluate and determine the causes and
implement strategic interventions to minimize and control the
use, distribution, and sale of drug and substance abuse across
the globe. Ideally, the United States of America enacted the
Controlled Substance Act (CSA) of 1970, a drug policy
controlling and regulating addictive and illegal drugs such as

narcotics and marijuana. Thus, the Controlled Substance Act
represents the federal American government policy primarily on
drugs. The drug policy is not only a multiplex but an
intersection for a better lifestyle among Americans. The current
drug policy in America prevents and controls the use,
distribution, and sale of stimulants, hallucinogenic substances,
and depressants that people might abuse. Besides, the drug
policy aids in determining if the contents in these drugs possess
any medicinal purpose.
Notably, to remain effective in its goal, the Controlled
Substance Act regulates and classifies drugs based on their
possible abuse, medicinal benefits, and the harm they might
impose on users. Narcotics and drugs are categorized in various
classes and subclasses and scheduled depending on their abuse
potential. Based on this drug classification, the high schedule
implies strict laws in distributing and acquiring drugs. Several
amendments have been made to the drug policy to change
medications and pass laws in all states. Again, the Controlled
Substance Act enhances intensive research to prevent drug
reliance and substance abuse. Multiple procedures and
frameworks for proper treatment and rehabilitation for drug
addicts are well-defined in the act. Apart from the above-
mentioned strengths, several weaknesses are attributable to the
drug policy. For instance, the Controlled Substance Act
restricted the access and sale to controlled substances among
entities legal and registered to manufacture, distribute and sell
the products. While the drug policy limits access to controlled
substances, there is a registration exemption. Reduced findings
on drug use and substance abuse and rehabilitated addicts would
show the effectiveness of the drug policy. The paper will
critically analyze the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 as one
of the paramount drug policies in America. It will also discuss
the implementation of the policy, its implications, significance,
and effects on Americans. For it to be effective, the paper will
also describe how other scholars have addressed the issue and
the data required to evaluate the proposed solution's

effectiveness.
Policy Discussion
Substance and drug abuse have been at the forefront in the
United States and other countries. Ideally, substance abuse is
typically the medicinal term for describing a trend of utilizing a
drug or another substance that leads to significant complications
or distress. It is imperative to understand that substance and
drug abuse is the hazardous or detrimental use of psychoactive
substances such as illicit drugs and alcohol. A drug policy to
address the extensive use of drugs and substance abuse in the
United States will be paramount (Jalal et al., 2018). Indeed, the
drug policy will ensure that most people do not continue using
marijuana and narcotics, which have detrimental effects. The
drug policy will eradicate the abuse of marijuana and narcotics
among teenagers and other minors (Chen et al., 2019). From
statistics, it is evident that marijuana is categorized under the
Controlled Substance Act as a severe hallucinogen. Notably,
marijuana has a strong connection and primary ingredient which
produces psychoactive impacts on the users (Sacco, 2014).
While marijuana is illegal according to Federal law, around 15
states have allowed its recreational usage. It is pivotal to note
that addressing the extensive use of marijuana will reduce drug
use disorder and related addictions.
Additionally, narcotic abuse is another policy issue that needs a
quick response among American residents. Indeed, narcotics or
opioids comprise synthetic versions, opium derivatives, and
derivatives. While the FDA has approved some narcotics, such
as Fentanyl, for anesthetic and pain-relieving purposes, they are
some commonly abused and hazardous substances. Depressants
are mainly prescribed to alleviate anxiety, prevent seizures and
induce sleep (Feinstein et al., 2012). However, some form of
depressants, including Rohypnol, is illegal in the United States
but commonly abused alongside cocaine, primarily by drug
victims of sexual assault. Besides, there is a need to note that
stimulant abuse is common in America (Sacco, 2014).
Stimulants usually come either in legal or illegal forms. Persons

using illegal stimulants have a high chance of becoming drug
addicts, which later leads to their death through overdose.
Again, drug and substance abuse, including stimulants, are
related to increased sex trafficking in the U.S (Hodroff, 2014).
Commonly abused stimulants in the country include Adderall,
Ritalin, and Concerta. Misuse of Adderall among teens, mainly
for non-medicinal purposes, contributes to more than 1,600
emergency room visits yearly and severe side effects such as
stroke and insomnia (Chen et al., 2019). The non-medicinal use
of Ritalin is unlawful; its side effects include loss of appetite
and hallucinations. Besides, the illegal use of Concerta among
teenagers is rampant in America, and the side effects range from
disrupted sleep patterns and stroke to vision disturbances.
Consequently, the drug policy issue has impacts on different
parties. Indeed, the effects might be positive or negative
depending on the parties' roles and ranks. The drug and
substances adversely affect teenagers who commonly abuse
them (Florence et al., 2021). Indeed, many youths have misused
drugs and illicit substances for recreational purposes. While
most of these drugs are meant and legalized for medical
purposes, they are illegalized for non-medical purposes (Sacco,
2014). For instance, the misuse of drugs and substances causes
harmful effects to the users, including hallucinations, suicidal
ideations, and death. Again, drug misuse might cause sleep
disturbances and other fatal effects. Besides, the drugs and
substances earn considerable incomes from dealers and other
trafficking agencies. Even though marijuana is illegal in the
United States, most states have reported huge sales amounting
to billions of dollars (Chen et al., 2019). This implies that,
while many agencies are fighting against drug and substance
abuse, others are firmly against the initiatives.
Typically, failure to address drug and substance abuse in
America and other parts of the world would adversely affect the
users' wellness. Illicit drugs and substances contain chemicals
that adversely affect the brain and body. Indeed, some of these
illegal drugs and substances have long-term and permanent

health effects (Sacco, 2014). Most of these mental and physical
consequences might persist even when the users have stopped
taking them. The extensive misuse of drugs and substances
causes drug or substance abuse disorder leading to their death.
It is imperative to understand that failure to address the drug
policy will lead to more deaths, disabilities, and disorders
associated with drug and substance abuse (Feinstein et al.,
2012). Evidently, individuals who suffer from drug and
substance abuse or addiction have a greater risk of unintentional
accidents, injuries, and domestic vehemence events. Again, drug
and substance users will have weakened immune systems
making them vulnerable to chronic disorders (Florence et al.,
2021). Considering these detrimental and other deadly effects
associated with drugs and substance abuse, there is a need to
address the policy issue effectively and promptly.
Literature Review
Many scholars have discussed drug policy regarding drug and
substance abuse extensively. Based on some of the studies,
many countries have implemented policies to address the issue
successfully. Indeed, countries that have understood the adverse
effects of drug and substance abuse have implemented measures
to tackle them accordingly. Various officials have been meeting
in different forums to discuss drug policy, especially concerning
drug and substance abuse (Jalal et al., 2018). For instance,
based on some of the studies, the President of America, Mexico,
and the Prime Minister of Canada held a meeting. They agreed
to share information regarding drug abuse patterns, intensify
coordination of pertinent drug policies, and implement vital
actions that federal governments will take to protect their
citizens from the sale, distribution, and use of harmful and
illicit drugs, substances, and drug trafficking (Chen et al.,
2019). Notably, most of these meetings mainly focused on
common illicit drugs and substance challenges, including
manufacturing, trading, use, and distribution. During their
forums, the nations addressed the main adverse effects

associated with drugs and substance abuse, such as the opioid
crisis, and measures were set aside to address them (Sacco,
2014). The meetings discovered numerous best practices and
strategies to collect information from various perspectives that
could assist in addressing the drug and substance abuse issues
in America, particularly in North America.
Subsequently, other issues that need further analysis encompass
some states' legalization of drugs that are illegal in others. For
example, California, situated in the Western United States,
legalized marijuana. As a result, the president of Mexico
legalized and commercialized methamphetamine, heroin, and
cocaine (Florence et al., 2021). According to the United States,
the countries legalizing these illicit drugs and substances have
violated international treaties that stand against the use of illicit
drugs and substances. In addressing drug and substance abuse in
America, its criminal justice framework comprises three unique
elements, including law enforcement, adjudication, and
corrections (Chen et al., 2019). Ideally, law enforcement starts
when a crime is detected and entails arresting the criminal and
collecting and preserving evidence. Again, it must establish the
motives linked to the suspect and complete arrest reports by
describing the findings of the investigation (Preuss et al., 2019).
Adjudication encompasses putting the suspects under the court
processes. This strategy involves arraignment, trial, sentencing,
and maybe the death penalty for offenders found guilty. When
looking at correction as the other element, it is pivotal to
understand its mandates (Florence et al., 2021). It comprises
reforms, rehabilitation, and revisions that might entail all
sentences for suspects, excluding those on death row. Thus, the
current criminal justice policy might influence the future of
drug policies in America. The criminal justice framework in
America regarding drugs and substance abuse engages drug
suspects and dealers in treatment via various mechanisms,
including diverting non-violent suspects (Jalal et al., 2018). In
most cases, the treatment encompasses pre-trial release,
probation, incarceration, and summoning drug courts.

The United States of America has been at a crossroads
concerning drug policies for ages. The country tackled the sale,
distribution, and use of illicit drugs and substances by
intensifying border security, extending offenders' sentences,
elevating arrests, and implementing drug tests in the workplace
and learning institutions (O’Donnell et al., 2017). Since Mexico
and California have legalized the sale, distribution, and use of
hard drugs and substances such as marijuana and opioids, other
states in America have a considerable burden to address and
eradicate the use, sale, and distribution of illicit drugs and
substances, among residents. Their actions will affect other
states of America because they cannot implement decisions
about drug and substance legalization and trafficking without
incorporating them (Preuss et al., 2019). It is also difficult for
America to legalize the use and distribution of hard drugs and
substances since it will intensify the number of addicts in
society. While there has been a high number of people using
methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and cocaine, drug users
always hide from the authorities (Sacco, 2014). Considering the
side effects of using these drugs and substances illegally,
legalizing their usage will attract huge devastating effects on
the country. Thus, America should never engage in legalizing,
distributing, and commercializing hard drugs and substances
such as marijuana, cocaine, and opioids.
Furthermore, legalizing and commercializing hard drugs and
substances in the United States will increase the rate of
contagious diseases such as HIV/AIDs. This is because most of
these drugs are injected into the users' bloodstream using
syringes (O’Donnell et al., 2017). The criminal justice system
in America should not support the legalization and
commercialization of hard drugs and substances because of the
adverse effects. Instead, the federal government must be at the
forefront of eradicating drug and substance abuse in the country
to steer economic growth and development in various critical
dimensions (Sacco, 2014). It has also been a suitable action to
help communities affected primarily by corruption exerting

power in commercializing and using drugs, substances, and
justice policies. For instance, corruption has impacted many
individuals since it has been behind the extensive incarceration
past the pre-trials (Preuss et al., 2019). The media has also
depicted incidents of corruption, particularly in drug
trafficking, attributable to government officials and cartels.
Indeed, the officials must be at the forefront of dealing with
illegal drugs and substances in America, including heroin,
marijuana, and cocaine.
Essentially, these policies against hard drug and substance
legalization and commercialization will support my proposed
solution. Indeed, the judicial justice system and other drug
policies have been fighting tirelessly against drug and substance
abuse. In fact, they have provided adequate information and
facts regarding drug and substance abuse in America (Preuss et
al., 2019). The provided information will give a cornerstone for
the implementation of the proposed solution to drug and
substance abuse. For instance, it is evident from the analysis
that America is against the legalization of hard drugs and
substances such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin due to their
adverse effects on the citizens (Sacco, 2014). However, I would
like to know the number of drug policies and their contributions
toward eradicating drugs and substances in the United States.
The additional information on drug and substance abuse will be
retrieved from the National Drug Control Strategy, 2021 and
2022. The aim will be to collect adequate data on American
drug policies and relevant mechanisms to eradicate drug and
substance abuse in the country (O’Donnell et al., 2017). A lot of
inclusive data on how the drug policy will minimize deaths
interrelated to drug overdose and substance abuse, as well as
strategies to educate drug users on prescription, and treatment
or rehabilitation for drug addicts, is provided (Sacco, 2014).
Nonetheless, if the data does not exist, conducting primary
research will entail a survey with relevant questionnaires. The
original research will focus on teenagers and other vulnerable
groups in society who use hard drugs and substances like

marijuana.
Propose a
Solution
It is imperative to address the drug and substance abuse issue
effectively and promptly to eradicate adverse effects on many
users. The extensive use of hard drugs and substances has
contributed to mental and physical complications among users.
The effective application of the Controlled Substance Act will
regulate medical and pharmaceutical practices and prevent drug
overdoses (Lampe & Attorney, 2021). Like in the 19th century,
the comprehensive medical and recreational drug uses in the
United States can only be solved by implementing laws that
regulate their usage, distribution, and sale. In this case, the
Controlled Substance Act will prevent many pharmacists from
prescribing hard drugs such as cocaine, morphine, and
marijuana to patients with pain (Hodroff, 2014). The enactment
of the drug policy by President Nixon aimed to minimize drug
abuse among American citizens. The policy falls under the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA), which enforces the Act (Sacco,
2014). The American Congress will further enforce the
Controlled Substance Act to address the country's widespread
drug and substance abuse. It will act as the legal basis for

fighting against the use of hard drugs such as cocaine and
marijuana for recreational purposes.
In addition, the Controlled Substance Act will enable the
officials to create a system categorizing drugs and substances
into various schedules centered on scientific and medicinal
findings. The elected officials will also prepare an inclusive
document to eradicate the drug menace in America effectively.
There will be a need to design a policy and combine it with the
existing policies on drugs to expand the magnitude of drug
regulations (Jalal et al., 2018). To further curb the increased use
of hard drugs and substances, the officials will pass the anti-
drug abuse act to concentrate on delinquency drug verdicts. The
Controlled Substance Act will facilitate the formation of
compulsory minimum penalties for drug and substance
trafficking in the country (Sacco, 2014). Again, it will
coordinate federal agencies' efforts to mitigate the demand and
supply of hard drugs and illicit substances.
Markedly, the proposed solution to drug and substance abuse
has numerous strengths and weaknesses. The Controlled
Substance Act strongly correlates with checks and balances to
eradicate faults and power decentralization. To address drug and
substance abuse, the Controlled Substance Act coordinates with
checks and balances to control and curb widespread abuse and
addiction (Lampe & Attorney, 2021). Under these principles,
physicians, pharmacists, and the public will be cautious and

keen when prescribing and using drugs. In collaboration with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the
Controlled Substance Act will provide evidence-based
guidelines and directions for prescribing opioids and other
related drugs in pain management (Weedn et al., 2021). Such an
undertaking is crucial to forming clinical standards for
balancing the risks associated with opioid use to manage
chronic pain. As a result, physicians must balance the legality
of the medicinal needs of their patients with possible risks of
abuse and addiction (Chen et al., 2019). Thus, they will
minimize the non-medicinal use of opioids and other
prescription medications.
Through the inclusive classification of drugs, the Controlled
Substance Act has categorized Schedule I drugs, chemicals, and
substances as those without accepted medical usage and having
great potential for abuse. Indeed, Schedule I drugs have been
grouped as the most hazardous drugs and substances with
potentially dangerous physical and psychological dependence
(Sacco, 2014). Primarily, the Controlled Substance Act has
classified all drugs and substances that were somehow regulated
under current federal law into a specific class depending on
their medicinal use, safety, dependence, and potential for abuse
(O’Donnell et al., 2017). Using strict laws on drug and
substance importation, use, distribution, and sale, the
Controlled Substance Act has protected Americans from the

harm these drugs have on their bodies.
Nonetheless, there are several weaknesses attributable to the
Controlled Substance Act and its role in curbing drug and
substance abuse in America. For instance, the policy has put
numerous restrictions on scientific research and analysis, which
entail controlled drugs and substances. Indeed, very few cases
have authorized extensive research on these drugs (Sacco,
2014). Due to such constraints, there has been an impact on
researching Schedule I drugs and substances that might have
medical uses. While some studies argue that marijuana has some
medicinal uses and should be legalized, the Act still holds that
marijuana is an illegal substance and has a high chance of abuse
(Bridgeman & Abazia, 2017). According to the Controlled
Substance Act, marijuana does not have any medical value and
thus cannot be legalized. Such a decision puts a stringent policy
that permits inclusive constraints on medical research of
marijuana (Feinstein et al., 2012). While some scientists and
medical experts argue that wide-ranging research and analysis
on medical marijuana is paramount, the initiative has remained
futile. Conducting such a study will require the specialists to
get approval from the Controlled Substance Act, mainly through
the Drug Enforcement Agency (Lampe & Attorney, 2021).
Unfortunately, the agency has grouped cannabis under Schedule
I and cannot be granted approval to investigate it.
The implementation of the proposed solution should be done

collectively and effectively. Since drug and substance abuse is a
public health concern in the United States, implementing the
Controlled Substance Act will require communal involvement.
Physicians and law enforcement agencies must educate people
on proper drug prescription and use. They must understand
various drug and substance use disorders, which entail illicit,
prescribed medications (Lampe & Attorney, 2021). The public
must focus more on controlling illicit drugs and substances
rather than on prevention and therapy for drug addiction. While
implementing the proposed solution, it is crucial to inform
citizens that they should be considerate when electing
Presidents. In this case, they must vote for leaders who fight
against drug and substance abuse (Sacco, 2014). Consistent
evaluation of the policy is essential. Suppose the proposed
solution to eradicate excessive use of hard drugs and substances
in America is effective. In that case, there will be reduced cases
of drug addicts and few people in the rehabilitation centers
(Hodroff, 2014). The criminal justice system will also report
low drug and substance trafficking cases among American
citizens (Bridgeman & Abazia, 2017). Physicians and
pharmacists prescribing medications to patients will be keen to
avoid drug abuse.
Conclusion
Countries have enacted various laws and policies, especially on
drug and substance abuse, to improve people's wellness and

eradicate potential deaths and disabilities. Drug and substance
abuse has been a primary health concern in the United States;
its detrimental effects are enormous (Weedn et al., 2021).
Ideally, while various laws have been passed to address the
issue, enforcing the Controlled Substance Act will significantly
solve the problem. This is an appropriate drug policy that
controls and regulates addictive and illegal drugs such as
narcotics, cocaine, and marijuana (Sacco, 2014). The Act
regulates and categorizes drugs and substances based on their
possible abuse, medicinal benefits, and the harm they might
impose on users. Enforcing the CSA will be sufficient for my
proposal since the judicial justice system and other drug
policies in America have been fighting determinedly against
drug and substance abuse (O’Donnell et al., 2017). The
concerned parties will pass the anti-drug abuse act to
concentrate on delinquency drug verdicts and to curb further the
increased use of hard drugs and substances in the United States.
References

Bridgeman, M. B., & Abazia, D. T. (2017). Medicinal cannabis:
history, pharmacology, and implications for the acute care
setting.
Pharmacy and therapeutics,
42(3), 180.
Chen, Q., Larochelle, M. R., Weaver, D. T., Lietz, A. P.,
Mueller, P. P., Mercaldo, S., ... & Chhatwal, J. (2019).
Prevention of prescription opioid misuse and projected overdose
deaths in the United States.
JAMA network open,
2(2), e187621-e187621.
Feinstein, E. C., Richter, L., & Foster, S. E. (2012). Addressing
the critical health problem of adolescent substance use through
health care, research, and public policy.
Journal of Adolescent Health,
50(5), 431-436.
Florence, C., Luo, F., & Rice, K. (2021). The economic burden
of opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose in the United
States, 2017.
Drug and alcohol dependence,
218, 108350.

Hodroff, M. B. (2014). The Controlled Substances Act: Time to
Reevaluate Marijuana.
Whittier L. Rev.,
36, 117.
Jalal, H., Buchanich, J. M., Roberts, M. S., Balmert, L. C.,
Zhang, K., & Burke, D. S. (2018). Changing dynamics of the
drug overdose epidemic in the United States from 1979 through
2016.
Science,
361(6408), eaau1184.
Lampe, J. R., & Attorney, L. (2021).
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal
Overview for the 117th Congress. Congressional Research
Service.
O’Donnell, J. K., Gladden, R. M., & Seth, P. (2017). Trends in
deaths involving heroin and synthetic opioids excluding
methadone, and law enforcement drug product reports, by
census region—United States, 2006–2015.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
66(34), 897.
Preuss, C. V., Kalava, A., & King, K. C. (2019). Prescription of

controlled substances: benefits and risks.
Sacco, L. N. (2014).
Drug enforcement in the United States: History, policy,
and trends (Vol. 7). Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service.
Weedn, V. W., Elizabeth Zaney, M., McCord, B., Lurie, I., &
Baker, A. (2021). Fentanyl‐related substance scheduling as an
effective drug control strategy.
Journal of forensic sciences,
66(4), 1186-1200.
10/9/22, 12:35 PM EBSCOhost
https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=8852739e-b077-
4f08-9f4a-
7b8ed5056ac0%40redis&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe
b.s.ebsco… 1/14
Title:

Authors:
Source:
Document Type:
Subject Terms:
Abstract:
Full Text Word Count:
ISSN:
Accession Number:
Database:
Record: 1
Understanding mass murder: A starting point.
Holmes, R.M.
Holmes, S.T.

Federal Probation. Mar92, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p53. 9p. 2 Charts.
Article
*MURDER
Examines the nature and causes of mass murder. Questions as to
what
mass murder is; Differences between mass and serial murder;
Classification of mass murder ; Behavioral background: basic
sources;
Typology of mass murder; The family annihilator; Disgruntled
employees; Set-and-run killers; Conclusion; More.
5824
0014-9128
9205184279
Academic Search Complete
UNDERSTANDING MASS MURDER: A STARTING POINT

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about mass murder.
Often, the terms mass murder, serial murder,
and spree murder are used interchangeably. But there are
fundamental differences in these three forms of
"multicide," the killing of three or more victims. Motivation,
anticipated gains, selection of victims, methods of
murder, and other important elements are unique to each type.
Here, one type of multicide--mass murder--is
examined.
What is Mass Murder?
Obviously, the complexities of mass murder cannot be
explained in a simple definition. However, briefly stated,
mass murder is the killing of a number of persons at one time
and in one place. What constitutes "a number of
persons," however, has been the topic of debate. Although some
authorities have stipulated four as the
minimum number of victims necessary for an incident to be
called a mass murder (Hazelwood & Douglas,
1980), others have set the number at three (Holmes and
DeBurger, 1985, 1988; Hickey, 1991). Dietz also
offers the number three ". . . if we define mass murder as the
wilful injuring of five or more persons of whom
three or more are killed by a single offender in a single
incident" (1986, p. 480).

The concern with numbers becomes complicated when injured
victims are factored into the definition. Of
course, if only two persons are killed and 30 are saved by the
heroic actions of medical personnel, is this not
also a mass murder? One can see the danger of limiting the
definition to the number of victims killed.
Time is another critical element in the basic definition of mass
murder. Typically, mass murder is a single
episodic act of violence, occurring "at one time and in one
place." One such case occurred at a McDonald's
restaurant in San Ysidro, California. The victims, 40 in all (21
died), just happened to be in the "one place," the
restaurant. Many similar situations have occurred. However, one
must recognize that incidents may occur at
slightly different times, say minutes or even a few hours apart,
and also at different locales, perhaps only a few
4f08-9f4a-

b.s.ebsco… 2/14
blocks away, and still constitute mass murder. For example, a
mass murderer may go into a business
establishment and kill several customers and then go across
town and kill another person. This must be
considered a single act of mass murder despite the slightly
varying times and locations.
Thus, a definition of mass murder should take into
consideration 1) the number of victims, 2) the location of the
murders, 3) the time of the killings, and 4) the possibility of
distance between murder sites. These components
become vitally important when differentiating between mass
murder, serial murder, and spree murder. The
determination of the type of homicide holds the key to
understanding the character of the person who would
commit such an act and enables law enforcement to put into
motion the procedures and protocol called for in
such a situation.
No matter how you define it, mass murder is neither an
American nor a modern phenomenon. Cases
spreading across history depict acts of mass murder. In recent

times, however, mass murder seems to be on
the increase--or is it? It may seem that such crimes have
escalated because of the manner in which they are
currently detected and reported. Table 1--which shows the
names, locations, and number of victims of mass
killers in the past 50 years in the United States--gives some idea
of the magnitude of mass murder.
Differences Between Mass and Serial Murder
There are significant differences between mass and serial
killers. One difference is that mass murderers often
die at the scene of the multiple slayings. They either commit
suicide or place themselves in situations where
they "force" the police to take lethal action. Only occasionally
do they turn themselves into the police after the
deed is done. Serial killers, on the other hand, take great pains
to avoid detection and take elaborate measures
to elude apprehension.
Community reaction to the two types of murders is also
different. Typically when a mass murder occurs, the
immediate community, as well as the rest of the nation, is
alerted to the event and shocked by it. The
community's panic is direct and severe but short-lived in that
the mass murder is almost always either

apprehended immediately or winds up dead. Shortly the social
climate returns to what is was before the
incident. Such is not the case with serial murder. The terror
instilled by a serial murderer permeates the
community's consciousness. There is no perceived end to the
situation--it only ends when the killer is
apprehended. Such situation existed in Seattle, which was
terrorized for more than a decade by the Green
River Killer, who murdered 49 women--some prostitutes, some
not--and remained unapprehended. The news
media recently reported that the Green River Killer may have
returned to Seattle. Forty more victims--a
quantity similar to the number originally attributed to this
killer--have been found. The community's fears remain
unassuaged. The mass murderer is often painted as a demented,
mentally ill person. People interviewed on
TV after the fact of a mass murder will make such statements as
the killer had been seeing a mental health
professional, had been on medication, or had been threatening
fellow employees. In other words, the killer was
displaying certain signs that should have made him or her
detectable had society used appropriate expertise
and resources to do so. The serial murderer, on the other hand,
gives no such clues. Ted Bundy, Gerald Stano,
Randy Craft, one and all, were not easily discernable serial

killers. They walked into the lives of many, often
invited, and fatally dispatched them with little concern. Serial
killers generate a social paranoia that mass
murderers do not; people feel a personal vulnerability when a
serial killer is at large.
Surrette (1992) discusses two types of social behavior: front
stage and back stage. Front stage behavior is that
which is public and displayed to others. The mass murderer has
often been judged in an ex post facto manner
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 3/14
as angry, raging with outward-directed hatred, or displaying
other behaviors which those who bother to notice
would see as certainly atypical. Those interviewed after the
recent mass slaying in Killeen, Texas, all saw the
killer as an angry and hostile person. One survivor of the

Wesbecker killings in Louisville, Kentucky, upon
hearing what were simply loud and unusual sounds, remarked,
"I bet that's crazy Joe Wesbecker coming back
to kill us all." Another employee in the plant said Wesbecker
told him of a plan to arm a model airplane and fly
it into the plant,exploding it once it was inside (Yates, 1992).
This is front stage behavior typical of mass
murderers.
The front stage behavior of serial killers is typically a "normal"
picture of societal adjustment: The person
functions as a law student, the owner of a construction
company, a social worker, or an engineer. But the
secret behavior--the back stage behavior--is something only the
victim sees. It is the early detection of the front
stage behavior of the mass killer that may alert to the
catastrophic back stage behavior which may follow.
Classification of Mass Murder
As with many forms of human conduct and behaviors,
sociologists and other social and behavioral scientists
have taken it upon themselves to organize mass murder into
social constructs. Such constructs are often
based upon behavioral dynamics, motivation, victim
characteristics and selection methodologies, loci of

motivations, and anticipated rewards. This methodology was
used by Holmes and DeBurger in their
development of a typology of various types of serial killers
(1988, pp. 46-60). This typology has been widely
cited as an instrument for analysis and discussion and will be
employed here.
Behavioral Background: Basic Sources
The exact etiology of the mass murderer is unclear. As it is true
that mass murderers are different from, serial
killers, it is true that the root causes of such personalities are
also different. It is the unique combination of the
biology, the sociology, and the personal psychology of an
individual which accounts for the personality and thus
the behavior of an individual.
No one factor causes a person to become a mass murderer. The
total personality of multicidal offenders
cannot easily be explained by simple biological inherirance
(Hickey, 1991). Moreover, brain disorders, a blow to
the head (Norris, 1988), or simple chemistry cannot totally
explain behavior (Podolsky, 1964). The same is true
of sociogenic factors. The root causes of delinquency, which
many held dear in the 1960's--poverty, female-
headed families, etc.--do not explain mass murder any more

than they explained delinquency. If these factors
were direct causative factors, then all who experienced poverty
as a child or who were raised in a home with
an absent father or father-figure would become delinquent.
Holmes and DeBurger relate:
"Bad" neighborhoods, economic stress, family instability, and
violence in the culture do not directly produce
serial murderers. Out of a cohort that experiences the worst
possible combinations of social stresses, relatively
few will engage in outright criminal behavior and fewer still
will become homicidal . . . . (1988, p. 48)
Another important distinction regarding mass and serial killers
is that, based on the analysis of more than 400
cases of serial murder, there is overwhelming evidence that
serial murderers do not wish to be apprehended.
They wish to continue their killings for whatever motivation
impels them to do so. Very few surrender
themselves to the police. Edmund Kemper is an exception to the
rule. He said that "the killings had to stop"
(HBO, Murder No Apparent Motive). Kemper killed his mother
in California one day, her friend the next day,
and then drove to Colorado. He turned himself in to the police
after driving back to California. Such behavior is

unlike that of all other known serial killers. As for the mass
murderer, apprehension is not an issue. The mass
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 4/14
murderer has no intent to kill again unless he is a revenge or
mercenary type of mass killer. As mentioned
earlier, most of the time the mass murderer will be willing to
die at the scene of the crime, either committing
suicide or forcing those in authority to kill him.
Victim Characteristics
Victim traits do not appear to be a crucial element in mass
murder. The victim is in the wrong place at the
wrong time. The customers at the McDonald's restaurant had no
role in the Huberty mass murder scene other
than simply being there. The victims of the Tylenol killer
shared no common trait other than buying a particular

brand of medicine at varied and unrelated stores.
Motivation
Another element used to categorize mass murderers is
motivation. What is the motivation for a person to
commit such an act of human atrocity as the murder of a large
number of people? This is not an easy question
to adequately address. A partial answer lies in the location of
motivation, either intrinsic or extrinsic. For
example, is there something deep within the person, something
over which the person has no control? This is
a common theme often heard in interviews with multicidal
offenders, e.g., serial killers. They identify an "entity"
within their personality, an entity which impels them to kill.
This entity is a small part of the serial killer's
personality, but this one percent can take over the other 99
percent (Michaud & Aynesworth, 1983). Such
phenomenon does not appear to be true with mass murderers.
More likely the motivation rests outside the individual,
something which commands to kill. For example,
Charles Manson commanded Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie
Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkel one night
to kill Sharon Tate, Steven Parent, Abigail Folger, Voytek
Frykowski, and Jay Sebring, and Leno and Rosemary

LaBianca the second night. This instruction to kill rested
outside the personalities of the killers themselves;
Manson served as the motivational locus.
With James Huberty the motivation to kill rested within Huberty
himself. For a myriad of reasons ranging
perhaps from occupational and social class frustrations to other
stresses, he killed--not because someone
commanded him to, but because he believed that society was
operating against him, and he was reacting to
the injustices he perceived in society.
Anticipated Gain
The anticipated gains are also something to consider in any
typology. What is the person to realize from his
personal behavior? Is it revenge at a former supervisor in the
workplace for giving a poor job performance
rating (Wesbecker)? Is it to acquire a monetary reward by
setting a fire in a business building? Clearly, the
anticipated gains here are entirely different. The results,
however, are the same: the deaths of a number of
innocent persons. The gains are either expressive
(psychological) gains or instrumental (material) gains.
Examination of perceived gains is important in the
consideration of the type of mass killer, not only from a law

enforcement point of view, but from a social/behavioral
perspective as well.
Spatial Mobility
Much has been discussed about geographical mobility as a trait
of serial killers. Spatial mobility was a
significant factor in Holmes and DeBurger's development of the
four types of serial killers: Visonary, Mission,
Hedonistic, and Power/Control (Holmes & DeBurger, 1985).
However, spatial mobility as related to victim
selection does not play a critical role in mass murder. Unless
the person is involved in mass murder for pay,
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 5/14
e.g., an arsonist who is compensated by others to set fires for
the personal profit of a business, most mass
murderers are geographically stable.

One exception to spatial mobility is the Disciple Killer. Falling
under the spell of a charismatic leader, these
mass killers are often runaways or castoffs from a family. They
are not necessarily indigenous to the area
where they fall under the spell of their leader. However, the
domicile is often semi-permanent, and the victims
unfortunately live in the same locale as the killers and their
leader.
Typology of Mass Murder
The development of a typology of mass murderers is an arduous
task. The first decision, discussed earlier,
concerns what is the base number of victims for a mass murder
case. Already decided is the baseline number
of three.
The next task is the development of a taxonomy predicated upon
the following elements: basic sources, victim
characteristics, motivation, anticipated gain, and spatial
mobility. There are also other elements to consider,
e.g., type of weapon used, lifestyle of the killer himself,
relational closeness or affinity of the victims, and
personal mental/physical health of the killer. Four raters placed
47 known mass murderers--responsible for a

total of 437 victims--into one of the five theoretical categories
discussed below. The agreement rate among the
raters was 93 percent. Table 2 illustrates the traits of the five
categories of mass murderers.
The Disciple
The Disciple follows the dictates of a charismatic leader. There
are more than a few examples of a disciple
mass killer. Consider Leslie Van Houten. A former high school
cheerleader and beauty queen, this young
woman of 16 fell under the spell of Charles Manson. Of course,
she was not alone. Lynette Fromme, Tex
Watson, Bobbie Beausoleil, and others fell under the spell of
their leader.
What caused these "nice, normal" young people of the peace
generation to become ruthless and merciless
killers? There is no easy answer. But what is known is that in
the case of the disciple mass murderer, selection
of victims is at the discretion of the leader. Manson allegedly
told his followers to kill those who happened to be
at a formerly rented home at 10050 Cielo Drive. The house was
the former residence of Doris Day's son, Terry
Melcher, and actress, Candice Bergen (Bugliosi, 1974, p. 4).

The motivation for mass murder for the Disciple Killer rests
outside the killer. The leader of the group demands
the action. The killer wants acceptance by the leader--this is the
psychological gain, the expressive gain. This
psychological acceptance is paramount in the need hierarchy of
the mass killer; he feels he deserves
psychological approbation only if he carries out the wishes of
the leader. Money, revenge, or sex are not the
motivating factors nor the anticipated gain. The disciple
scenario was also played out by the followers of Jim
Jones at the massacre at Jonestown in Guyana.
Spatial mobility is a consideration here. Typically the acts of
violence associated with the slaughter of
innocents are near the location of the leader. So, a Disciple
Killer would not be a traveler in the same sense as
would a geographically transient serial killer. However, the
mass murderer will follow the leader and is unlikely
to be from the area where the homicide occurred. The types of
weapons used in this form of multicide are
usually restricted to hand weapons, knives, guns, etc. The
Jonestown case, where death was by poison, was
an exception.

4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 6/14
With the Disciple Killer, unlike others, there does not appear to
be a general dislike of the world around the
killer. Neither is the person placed in a situation in which the
only way to remove himself from the situation is to
kill. The Disciple Killer is murdering because of the effect the
leader has upon him. There are no particular
victims (the victim trait is inspecific) to be dispatched. The
victims, typically strangers, are selected by the
leader, and the orders are carried out by the dispatched disciple.
One may compare the case of a soldier in
war who leads prisoners to their certain demise not because of
the soldier's fear for his own life, but because of
his dedication to following the orders of the leader. By the same
token, a certain amount of personal
responsibility is relieved in this scenario. Many defendants at
Nuremburg raised this point as part of their
defense.

The Disciple Killer may have an additional dimension, a trait
more likely found in the serial killer. If a Disciple
Killer's leader demands further action--and since the killer's
"reason to be" centers around the approbation of
the leader--the killer will not be willing to die through suicide
or police interdiction. The Disciple Killer will live to
kill again.
The Family Annihilator
Dietz (1986) has offered another type of mass murderer. The
Family Annihilator is one who kills an entire
family at one time. This killer may even murder the family pet.
The murderer is the senior male in the family,
depressed, often with a history of alcohol. abuse, and exhibits
great periods of depression. The motivation
typically lies within the psyche of the individual. Oftentimes
feeling alone, anomic, and helpless, this killer
launches a campaign of violence against those who share his
home. Because of the despair in his own life, the
killer wishes to change the situation by reacting in the most
bizarre fashion.
Concerning spatial mobility, the Family Annihilator is
indigenous to the area in which the crime occurs. A

lifelong member of the community, he chooses to end the life of
his own family for reasons which may be
unclear not only to the investigators but to the killer as well. In
1988, David Brown in Minnesota axed four
family members to death for no clear reason. George Banks in
1982 shot 13 family members and relatives for
unknown reasons. These killers were well known in their
communities. Ronald Simmons, recently executed in
Arkansas for his crimes, killed 16 members of his family. James
Colbert killed four in his home in New
Hampshire. Spatial mobility plays little role in this type of mass
murder.
Pseudocommandos
Dietz offers yet another type of mass murderer. The
Pseudocommando is preoccupied with weaponry. Often
the killer stockpiles exotic weapons in his home. Assault
weapons, machine guns, even hand grenades are not
unknown to this mass murderer. This killer'shomicide usually
occurs after a long period of deliberation and
careful planning. There is no clear understanding of the etiology
of the Pseudocommando. Certainly there are
social components to the behavior--the killer's world plays an
integral part in his behavior. But the
Pseudocommando lashes out at society in a most grotesque way.

Something in his world is not correct, and he
will "teach the world a lesson" by his behavior.
Victim characteristics play no role in the victim selection
process. Unlike the case of the serial killer with a shoe
fetish (Jerry Brudos) or preoccupation with hair style (as Rule
[1980] arguably claims about Ted Bundy), the
victims here may simply be in the wrong place at the wrong
time. When Huberty walked into McDonald's in
1984, the only relationship he shared with the victims was that
they were all in the same place at the same
time.
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 7/14
Motivation rests within the psyche of the Pseudocommando.
There is something inside him which impels, or
commands, that the massacre occur. There is nothing outside the

personality exacting the killing of innocent
persons, as with the Disciple Killer. Anticipated gain of the
Pseudocommando is twofold. First, the activity of
the mass kill calls attention to the issue which the killer
believes to be important. In Huberty's case, the nation's
economic state--which resulted in his moving to California from
Ohio--was certainly one of the reasons he
committed the act. The second anticipated gain is that the name
of the killer will live in infamy. Most of us
recognize the name of James Huberty; how may know any of the
names of his 40 victims? Most of us recall
the name of Charles Whitman; what is the name of even one of
his more than a score of victims? Such is the
point.
Concerning spatial mobility, there is little evidence to suggest
that it is a significant factor for
Pseudocommandos. Huberty, for example, moved to California
and committed his murders there; Whitman
lived in Texas, the site of his crime.
Disgruntled Employees
Disgruntled Employees are often former employees of a
company who have been dismissed or placed on
some form of medical leave or disability. Many times, as a

result of psychiatric counseling, the person
perceives that he is suffering a great personal injustice beyond
his control. He retaliates by going to the place
where he was once a valued employee and searching for those
who have wronged him. Both Joseph
Wesbecker and Patrick Sherrill played out such scenario. In
1986, Sherrill returned to the post office where he
had been an employee. Looking for supervisors, he started
firing in the rooms and corridors of the post office,
wounding and killing indiscriminately. Even though Sherrill's
primary motive was to kill supervisors, he actually
wounded and killed many coworkers. Joseph Harris also killed
his fellow workers in the post office, partly in
response to his perception that he was unfairly treated there.
The psychological sources of a Disgrunted Employee's
mentality are certainly worthy of consideration. This
type of killer often has severe psychological problems which
interfere with normal day-to-day functioning. The
person either may be on some form of medication or undergoing
counseling or psychotherapy for a condition
which is often diagnosed as paranoia. The anticipated gain is
also psychological. There is no money to be
realized, no social justice issues, nothing outside the world of
work and the imagined injustices which were

committed against him there.
The victim selection process for the Disgruntled Employee is
nonrandom. He seeks a particular group of
persons to kill, those who shared the workplace. However, once
inside the workplace, the killer will then
randomly fire, shooting anyone who happens to be there. The
motivation to kill here--a drive to "right a wrong"-
-rests within the murderer's personality. He is there to call
attention to a wrong directed and carried out against
him.
Spatial mobility with this type of mass murderer is quite
limited. Often this person has been employed with the
same company and has lived in the same community for years.
Wesbecker, for example, worked for Standard
Gravure Company for more than 15 years. Sherrill was a postal
worker for over a decade. Wesbecker was a
native of Louisville, Kentucky, where he committed his
murders; Sherrill had lived in the same community for
more than 20 years. The danger to citizens in the community,
however, is quite limited. This may mollify the
citizens in the community at large but does little to placate the
families of the victims.

Set-and-Run Killers
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 8/14
Another type of mass murderer is the Set-and-Run Killer (Dietz,
1986). Spurred sometimes by a motive for
revenge, sometimes for anonymous infamy, and sometimes
simply for creature comfort reasons, this type of
killer is qualitatively different from the others discussed.
Most mass killers either commit suicide at the scene or force
law enforcement officials to kill them. Such is not
true with the Set-and-Run Killer. This murderer will employ
techniques to allow escape before the act itself
occurs. For example, a Set-and-Run Killer may plant a bomb in
a building, setting a time device so that the
murderer is far removed from the scene when the explosion
occurs. In other cases, this killer tampers with a

food product or a medicine, places the container back upon the
shelf, and leaves. The killer, then, does not
directly observe the consequences of his act. He may be across
town or even in another country when the
results of his actions become evident.
Obviously depending on the motivation of the act itself, victim
selection varies. For example, if a person is
employed to set a building afire for insurance purposes and a
hundred people are inside the building at the
time of the blaze, the characteristics of the victims are of no
significance. The anticipated gain here is
monetary. The owner of the building is paying the killer,
perhaps an arsonist, to do the deed. There is no
psychological motivation; there is no injustice to prove to
society. The motivation lies not within the personality
of the killer but is instrumental gain, money.
In some instances, the victim of the Set-and-Run Killer may be
once removed. Take, for example, someone
who tampers with a food product from Company X. Five people
purchase and ingest the food. All five die. But
in the mind of the killer in this scenario, Company X is truly at
fault and is actually the intended victim.
Therefore, the motivation here is psychological, exacting

revenge on the company for a perceived wrong. The
gain is also psychological. No money is realized. Moreover,
Company X may lose money because customers
will no longer purchase the product for fear that it may be
contaminated.
Because he flees the scene before the killings actually occur,
the Set-and-Run Killer is very difficult to
apprehend. Realizing the motivation, anticipated gain, and
victim characteristics (in this instance, once
removed) is crucial to understanding and apprehending the Set-
and-Run Killer.
Conclusion
Since the authors started this article, at least nine more cases of
mass murder have occurred in the United
States. And there is no indication that incidences of such crimes
will subside. There will always be persons
who will be motivated by personal, economic, or social
pressures to commit multicide. This is not an easy truth
for society to accept, if only because the murder of innocent
victims reminds us of our own personal
vulnerability.
The first step in dealing with a concern as somber as mass

murder is a clear understanding of the nature of the
act itself. A theoretical typology, such as the one outlined in
this article, can aid in this understanding. The
typology offered here, which is unique in the literature, not only
helps to explain the anticipated gains and
behavioral motivations of mass murderers, but also considers
victim selectivity, victim relationship, and
perpetrator mobility. Such information will give a somewhat
clearer picture of what types of persons would
commit such heinous acts.
This is not to give the impression that it is easy to spot potential
mass murderers. What separates mass
murderers from persons with similar traits who do not resort to
such violence is a question that is difficult to
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 9/14

answer. Indeed, there may be no sufficient response. But what is
known is that friends and relatives often
report--unfortunately all too late--"danger signs" which should
have been recognized. For example, the
individual who has verbalized a plan to kill is not taken
seriously, and he later kills eight persons in his
workplace. Such situation is not unique. The person who
exhibits gross signs of depression, an anomalous
interest in exotic weapons, a stated sense of anomie, or other
such behavioral traits may be only a step away
from carrying out an act of multicide.
Mental health professionals and probation/parole officers,
among others, may be in a position to recognize
potentially dangerous individuals who are physically--and more
importantly psychologically--poised for fatal
violence on a large scale. In becoming aware of the behavioral
and psychological traits of mass murderers,
mental health and criminal justice practitioners at least open the
door to the possibility of circumvention. Law
enforcement officers, too, need to be apprised of their unique
position in relation to mass murderers. As
mentioned earlier, mass murderers often place themselves in
situations that force law enforcement officers to
kill them. Other times, the murderers commit suicide. In either

case, the officers are placed in a situation where
their own lives are in jeopardy.
What can society do about mass murder? Unfortunately, little
can be done once an attack commences. As far
as stopping the crime before it happens, some say that effective
gun control legislation is the answer. Certainly,
if gun control could be rigorously enforced, it might deter some
mass murderers, but it is not the answer for
society's protection from the mass killer. Except in the case of
mass murderers who kill for pay, underlying the
actions of most of these killers are problems which stem from
pressure, real or imagined. These pressures
may arise at a societal level or from the individual's own
position in a work situation or family unit. Mass
murderers lack the motivations commonly associated with serial
murderers--a point that must be recognized
and appreciated.
Recognizing that mass murder is fundamentally dissimilar from
other forms of homicide and must be dealt with
differently is important. Certainly, a better understanding of
mass murder will not be the pivotal element in
eradicating this form of violence. What it is, however, is a
recognition of the problem--a first step, a starting

point.
TABLE 1. MODERN MASS MURDERERS
Year State Murderer Death Toll
1949 New Jersey Howard Unruh Shot 13 neighbors
1950 Texas William Cook Shot 5 family members
1955 Colorado John Graham Bomb on a plane, 44
died
1959 Kansas Richard Hickock Stabbed/shot 4
members of Culter
family
1959 Kansas Perry Smith Stabbed/shot 4
members of Culter
family
1966 Illinois Richard Speck Stabbed/strangled 8
student nurses

4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 10/14
1966 Texas Charles Whitman Shot 16, mostly
students
1966 Arizona Robert Smith Shot 5 women in a
beauty salon
1969 California Charles Watson Stabbed 9 persons for
Charles Manson
1969 California Patricia Stabbed 9 persons for
Krenwinkel Charles Manson
1969 California Linda Kasabian Stabbed 7 persons for
Charles Manson
1969 California Susan Adkins Stabbed 9 persons
for Charles Manson
1970 N. Carolina Jeff MacDonald Stabbed 3 members

of his family
1971 New Jersey John List Shot 5 family members
1973 Georgia Carl Isaacs Shot 5 members of a
family
1973 Georgia Billy Isaacs Shot 5 members of a
family
1974 Louisiana Mark Essex Shot 9, mostly police
officers
1974 Long Island Ronald DeFeo Shot 6 family
members
1975 Florida Bill Ziegler Shot 4 adults in a
store
1975 Ohio James Ruppert Shot 11 family
members
1976 California Edward Allaway Shot 7 coworkers
1977 New York Frederick Cowan Shot 6 coworkers

1978 Guyana Jim Jones Poisoned/shot 912
cult members
1982 Pennsylvania George Banks Shot 13 family and
acquaintences
1983 Louisiana Michael Perry Shot 5 family
members
1983 Washington Willie Mak Shot 13 people in
the head
1983 Washington Benjamin Ng Shot 13 people in
the head
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 11/14

1984 California James Huberty Shot 21 at
McDonald's
1985 Pennsylvania Sylvia Seigrist Shot several at a
mall, 2 died
1986 Oklahoma Patrick Sherrill Shot 14 coworkers
1986 Arkansas Ronald Simmons Shot 16 family
members
1987 Florida William Cruse Shot 6 persons at
a mall
1988 California Richard Farley Shot 7 in a computer
company
1988 Illinois Laurie Dann Shot, poisoned many,
1 death
1988 California James Purdy Shot 5 children in
a playground
1988 N. Carolina Michael Hayes Shot 4 neighbors

1989 Kentucky Joseph Wesbecker Shot 8 coworkers
1990 Michigan Lawrence DeLisle Drowned his 4
children
1990 Florida James Pough Shot 13 in an auto
loan company
1990 New York Julio Gonzalez 87 people died in
a night club fire
1991 Michigan Ilene Russell 4 adults and 1 child
in a fire
1991 Arizona Leo Bruce Shot 9 adults in a
Buddhist Temple
1991 Arizona Michael McGraw Shot 9 adults in a
Buddhist Temple
1991 Arizona Mark Nunez Shot 9 adults in a
Buddhist Temple
1991 Arizona Dante Parker Shot 9 adults in a
Buddhist Temple

1991 Ohio Kim Chandler Shot her 3 children
1991 Kentucky Michael Brunner Shot girlfriend, her
2 children
1991 New Jersey Joseph Harris Shot 4 people at
post office
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 12/14
1991 New York Andrew Brooks Shot father and 3
men
1991 Hawaii Orlando Ganal Shot 4 people
including inlaws
1991 Texas George Hennard Shot 22 people in

a restaurant
1991 Iowa Gang Lu Shot 5 college
students and
officials
1991 New Hampshire James Colbert Strangled wife,
suffocated 3
daughters
1991 Kentucky Robert Daigneau Shot wife and three
strangers
1991 Michigan Thomas McIlwane Shot 3 workers in
a post office
TABLE 2. TRAITS OF MASS MURDER TYPES
Legend for Chart:
A - Discipline
B - Family Annihilator
C - Pseudocommando
D - Disgruntled Employee
E - Set & Run

A B C D E
Motivation
Intrinsic -- X X X --
Extrinsic X -- -- -- X
Anticipated Gain
Expressive X X X X --
Instrumental -- -- -- -- X
Victim Selectivity
Random X -- X -- X
Nonrandom -- X -- X --
Victim Relationship
Affiliative -- X -- X --
Strangers X -- X -- X
Spatial Mobility
Stable -- X X X --

Transient X -- -- -- X
Victim Traits
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 13/14
Specific -- -- -- -- --
Nonspecific X X X X X
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bugliosi, V. (1974). Helter skelter. New York: Bantam Books.
Dietz, M. (1983). Killing for profit. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Dietz, P. (1986). Mass, serial and sensational homicides.
Bulletin
of the New York Academy of Medicine. 62(5), 477-491.

Fox, J., & Levin, J. (1989). Satanism and mass murder.
Celebrity
Plus, 49-51.
Graysmith, R. (1976). Zodiac. New York: Berkley Books.
Hazelwood, R., & Douglas, J. (1980). The lust murder. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 49(4), 1-8.
Hickey, E. (1991). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont,
CA: BrooksCole Publishing Co.
Holmes, R., & DeBurger, J. (1985). Profiles in terror: The serial
murderer. Federal Probation, 49(3), 29-34.
Holmes, R., & DeBurger, J. (1988). Serial murder. Beverly
Hills:
Sage Publications.
Howard, C. (1979). Zebra. New York: Berkely Books.
Levin, J., & Fox, J. (1985). Mass murder. New York: Plenum
Press.
Lunde, D. (1976). Murder and madness. San Francisco: San

Francisco
Book Company.
Michaud, S., & Ayneswortb, H. (1983). The only living witness.
New York: Signet Books.
Murder: No apparent motive (1980). HBO Undercover Series.
Norris, J. (1988). Serial killers: The growing menace. New
York:
Dolphin Books.
Podolsky, E. (1964). The chemistry of murder. Pakistan Medical
Journal, 15, 9-14.
Rule, A. (1980). The stranger beside me. New York: Signet.
Surette, R. (1992). Media: Images and realities. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Yates, C. (1992, November 13). Personal interview.
~~~~~~~~
BY RONALD M. HOLMES AND STEPHEN T. HOLMES

Ronald M. Holmes is professor, School of Justice
Administration, University of Louisville. Stephen T. Holmes is
research assistant, University of Cincinnati.
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 14/14
Copyright of Federal Probation is the property of
Superintendent of Documents and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
MASS MURDER

Defining Mass Murder
Mass murder can be defined as the murder of three or more
people at one time
and at one place (Holmes & Holmes, 2003; Holmes &
DeBurger, 1988; Hickey, 1997).
Mass murders take place over a very short period of time, such
as minutes or hours, but
not days. Mass murder killings may occur at different
locations, but these locations are
usually within a very small geographic area. On July 29, 1999,
for example, 44-year-old
stock investor Mark Barton, armed with two semi-automatic
pistols, killed nine and
wounded twelve others at two Atlanta investment offices. Two
days, earlier, killed his
wife Leigh Ann with a hammer and one the eve of his office
shooting he bludgeoned his
son and daughter as they slept in their beds. To ensure that they
were dead, he held each
child face down in the bathtub. He then placed each child into
their beds and left a note
at his home to attempt to explain his actions. The note read, “I
killed Leigh Ann because

she was one of the main reasons for my demise. I killed the
children to exchange them
for five minutes of pain for a lifetime of pain. I forced myself
to do it to keep them from
suffering so much later. No mother, no father, no relatives.”
Mark Barton would be
considered a mass murderer, even though his killings did not
strictly occur at one time or
at one place.
The terms mass murder and serial murder are often used
interchangeably. There
are, however, several fundamental differences between mass
murder and serial murder.
Serial murder can be defined as the killing of three or more
persons over a thirty-day
period. Serial murder often involves a “cooling off period” in
which the killer takes a
“break” between murders. This break may take place over 2 or
3 days or over 2 or 3
weeks. There is no “cooling off period” involved with mass
murder. Mass murders are
usually a one-time event or a single episode of violence,
whereas serial murders involve a
series of murders. A second difference between mass murder

and serial murder is that
most serial murderers take great precautions to avoid being
detected and will usually not
stop killing until they are caught. Mass murders, on the other
hand, are a final act of
violence in which the offender often commits suicide at the
crime scene of places
themselves in a situation where they “force” the police to kill
them (Holmes & Holmes,
2003). A final difference between mass murder and serial
murder has to do with the
offender’s motivation. Serial murders often involve a sexual
component and the victims
are often selected to fulfill a sexual or paraphilic fantasy. The
motivations of most mass
murderers do not include a sexual fantasy.
Most people, when asked to imagine a mass murderer, think of
killers who
suddenly go berserk or run amok (see Westermeyer, 1982). They
may recall James
Huberty, the unemployed security guard who strolled into a
McDonald’s restaurant in
1984 and fatally gunned down 21 random victims, most of
whom were children. Those

old enough to remember may think of Charles Whitman, the
former Marine who opened
fire from atop a tower on the University of Texas campus in
1966, killing 14 people and
wounding 31 others, or Howard Unruh, a World War II hero
who wandered down a street
in Camden, New Jersey, in 1949, killing 13 people in 13
minutes.
Most observers do seem to believe that mass killers suddenly
snap. After all,
many phrases in the English language describe this kind of
rampage, including “running
amok,” “going berserk,” “going off the deep end,” “going
ballistic,” “going bonkers,”
“flipping out,” and “flipping one’s lid.” It is highly unlikely,
however, that an employee
who gets fired by his boss and snaps would happen to have two
AK-47s and 1,200 rounds
of ammunition in the trunk of his car for just such an occasion.
More likely, he would
have made arrangements long beforehand to commit mass
murder.

In actuality, sudden, seemingly episodic and random incidents
of violence are as
unusual as they are extreme. Most mass killers are quite
deliberate, not spontaneous.
They do not just suddenly explode. To the contrary, mass killers
typically plan their
assaults for days, weeks, or months (see, for example, Walkup
& Rubin, 2013). These
preparations include where, when, and who to kill, as well as
with what weapons they
will strike. These assailants are deliberate, determined to kill,
with little regard for what
obstacles are placed in their path.
For example, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the two
adolescents responsible for
the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, purposely chose
Hitler’s birthday for their
attack (out of admiration for the dictator’s power), and spent
long hours in the woods
fine-tuning their marksmanship skills. They even conceived a
grand follow-up plan
should they survive the school shooting: to hijack an airplane
and fly it into the skyline of

New York City (and this was two years before the September
11, 2001, acts of terrorism).
The level of detailed planning may help to explain the calm
demeanor exhibited
by mass murderers, even in the midst of chaos. Witnesses to a
mass shooting often report,
for example, that the gunman appeared relaxed, even smiling,
while killing or injuring
dozens of innocent victims (see Aitken, Oosthuizen, Emsley, &
Seedat, 2008). Mass
murderers have been known to develop and follow a mental
script, one that is rehearsed
over and over again, to the point where they become
comfortable with the mission.
A majority of mass killers target victims who are specially
chosen, not because
they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The
indiscriminate slaughter of strangers
by a crazed killer is the exception to the rule. Instead, mass
murderers typically slaughter
people they know—family members, neighbors, and
coworkers—based on a clear-cut
and calculated motivation. In a study of 30 mass killers, for

example, researchers reported
that half of the rampages were precipitated by problems at work
and nearly one quarter
involved discordant personal relationships.
Many massacres are actually suicidal rampages. Before taking
his own life,
however, the killer intends to get even with everyone he holds
responsible for his
miseries and failures. In an analysis of massacres from 1976 and
1996 researchers found
that 21% of all mass murderers committed suicide and another
3% were gunned down by
the police (possibly suicides by cop). Research conducted from
1997 to 2002 found that
21.4% of mass killers took their own lives and 1.4% were
fatally shot by police,
consistent with earlier findings. This prevalence of suicide
following mass murder is
substantially higher than the figure for murderers generally,
estimates of which generally
range in the single digits in terms of percentage of homicides
leading to suicide (see
Eliason, 2009; Stack, 1997). Lankford examined life or death
outcomes of 185 rampage-

style mass shootings between 1965 and 2010, finding that 48%
of the perpetrators either
committed suicide or were killed by the police at the scene. The
fact that this percentage
is somewhat higher likely surrounds a specific weapon (i.e., a
gun is certainly more easily
turned on oneself than a knife or bomb) and public location of
this particular subset of
mass murder.
Case Study: Vlad the Impaler
Some of the first mass murders were members of royal families.
You already
read about Elizabeth Bathory, however, many people are not
aware that Bram Stroker’s
Dracula, published in 1897, was based on a Romanian noble,
Prince Vlad, or as he was
called in his own time, Dracula, which means “Son of the
Dragon.”

Vlad Dracula was born in 1431 in Transylvania, a principality
of Romania. Vlad
Dracula’s father, Basarab was as a member of the noble Basarab
family, who later
inserted himself as king of Wallachia, a small region of
Romania just south of
Transylvania. During the 15th Century Romania sat on the
border between the Muslim
Ottoman Turkish Empire to its west and the Catholic Roman
Empire to its east. The
country itself was a doorway linking the opposing cultures.
During this time Romanian
royalty found themselves constantly at battle, not only with the
Turks, but also with
German, Hungarian, and Polish armies from the east. Dracula’s
father, Basarab, earned a
reputation as being a fierce warrior. Shortly before the birth of
Vlad, he was inducted into
a Romanian knighthood called the Royal Order of the Dragon.
After he was awarded this
honor, Basarab would thereafter refer to himself as “The
Dragon.” In Romanian, Dragon
is Dracul, and adding an “a” after the name denotes “son of.”
Thus, as his son, Vlad
gained the famous nickname: Dracula.

Growing up, Vald and his two brothers Mircea and Radu learned
the art of war,
learning how to steady a bow, fight with a blade and ride
bareback at an early age. At the
age of 13, however, Vlad and his younger brother Radu were
kidnapped by a Turkish
sultan. During this time it was common for the Turks to capture
young European boys
from noble families to prepare them from admission into the
Ottoman ruling class.
During their captivity boys were trained in Islamic studies, were
taught Persian and
Arabic, and received military training. The boys were not
treated as prisoners, per se.
They were supervised, but were free during the day to wonder
city streets to learn about
Turkish laws and customs, and could even court a girl if they
wished, as long as she came
from an honorable family.
Younger Radu fully accepted his new way of life and “adopted”
his new country.
Vlad Dracula, on the other hand, always demonstrated a
belligerent attitude, quarreling

with his superiors, insulting his bodyguards, and belittling
Muslim customs. The Turks
were forced to take Vlad to the whipping post on more than one
occasion. While in
captivity Vlad also witnessed the executions and torture of
prisoners of war the Turks has
taken during their battles. One form of execution that drew his
interest was impalement,
which involved piercing a body lengthwise with a long
sharpened pole. The pole was
usually stuck through the victim’s rectum and then placed
upright into the ground,
leaving the victim to die an excruciating and slow death atop
the raised pole.
In 1445, a Hungarian noble knows as the White Knight attacked
Vlad’s family’s
castle in Wallachia, killed his father and older brother Mircea,
and took over Wallachia as
his own. When the news of his family’ death reached 17-year-
old Vlad he was furious.
He wanted revenge. Vlad made a deal with the Turkish sultan.
If the sultan would
supply him with a force of retake his family’s land, he promised
that he would keep

Wallachia open to Turkish commerce and pay an annual tribute.
The sultan agreed and
under the cover of night Vlad Dracula destroyed the White
Knight’s army and placed
himself back on the throne.
Vlad’s reign as king of Wallachia last from 1456 to 1462 and
can be characterized
as a “reign of terror”. It is estimated that he murdered between
30,000 and 100,000
people. Most of victims were against his enemies but he also
often killed simply because
he was bored. During one outdoor festival of St. Bartholomew,
for example, Dracula had
20,000 men, women, and children arrested claiming that they
were treacherous
bourgeoisie. The citizens were taken to a nearby forest and
impaled as he had his servant
set up a table of food and wine so that he could enjoy his lunch
while watching the
torture.

Later during his reign are army of 250,000 Turkish soldiers
crossed the Danube to
invade Wallachia. The size of Dracula’s total army was
estimated at only 30,000 men.
Knowing that is was outmanned, Dracula determined to make
the road to his kingdom as
dreadful for the Turks as possible. For years Dracula had been
capturing Turkish soldiers
and spies, keeping them imprisoned in case in need to barter
with the Turks. With his
reign in jeopardy, Dracula decided that he had nothing to lose.
He decided to use
psychological warfare to impede the invading army. When the
Turkish army reached one
of the many villages in their path to Wallachia they came upon
a most appalling sight.
Around the town Dracula impaled 20,000 Turkish prisoners with
large wooded spikes
hammered up from their backsides and protruding from their
mouths. Horrified, the
Turkish soldiers retreated, believing who ever had did this must
be the devil himself.
In an interesting twist of fate, Radu, Vlad Dracula’s little
brother, who had

become fully indoctrinated in the Turkish culture, was one of
the Turkish officers who
was forced to ride back from Romania with retreating Turkish
army. He was angry that
such a trick by his brother worked and stopped his advance.
Radu believed that he had
every right to be king of Wallachia and that with his brother
dead, he could be the
Ottoman Empires first crowned power in Romania. Learning
that Vlad, his wife, and a
small number of body guards were vacation at a castle in
northern Wallachia, Radu and
his men rushed to the city and began a artillery barrage. After
three days of continuous
bombing, a courier brought Vlad a message from Radu warning
that unless he
surrendered, he and everyone in the castle would be impaled
upon capture. Terrified of
facing impalement, Dracula’s wife committed suicide by
jumping from the top of the
castle tower. With his wife dead and facing little alternative,
Vlad escaped from the
castle under the cover of darkness. Radu, however, was able to
take over the as king of
Wallachia.

Over 13 years later, Vlad, with the help of a Christian king in
Hungary was able
to form an army to face is brother in battle. Radu, however, did
not die by the hand of his
brother, but instead died of syphilis in 1475. After a year of
fighting with the Turks Vlad
Dracula regained is throne, but his reign was short lived. A
month later Dracula’s army
faced an overwhelming number of Turks in the Vlasi Forest.
Although out number Vlad
and his men fought fiercely, charging the enemy screaming “no
surrender.” After the
battle, Vlad Dracula’s mutilated body was found in a nearby
swamp. He was decapitated
and the only way the monks from a nearby monastery could tell
who he was from the
royal medallions that he wore. His head was nowhere to be
found.
Trends in Mass Murder
Unlike the case with serial slayings, for which there are no

official data sources
for assessing prevalence or patterns, massacres can be studied
to some extent from police
statistics routinely collected by local law enforcement agencies
and transmitted to the FBI
for publication and analysis. As part of the FBI’s Uniform
Crime Reporting program,
police departments are asked to supply detailed information
about homicide incidents,
victims, and perpetrators for the Supplementary Homicide
Reports (SHR). Although
these data are hardly flawless, the FBI’s SHR provide some
ability to examine the
characteristics and circumstances of massacres and to compare
them with homicide
patterns generally. Compiled in incident-based form, these data
offer detailed information
on location; victim and offender age, race, and sex; victim–
offender relationship; weapon
use; and circumstances for virtually all homicides known to
police for the years 1976
through 2011. The SHR covers approximately 92% of the
murders committed
nationwide, with a few states missing for certain years.

For this analysis, mass murder is defined operationally as a
criminal homicide
claiming three or more victims (not including the perpetrator in
the event of a mass
murder/suicide). These homicides are then compared with
criminal homicides generally,
only a tiny fraction of which are multiple killings. The data set
used here, spanning the
years 1976 through 2011, includes 927 massacres involving
4,330 victims and 1,301
offenders.
Approximately 25 incidents of mass murder occur per year in
the United States,
claiming approximately 125 victims annually. Most incidents,
of course, are not as
widely publicized as the horrific slaughters of 20 children and
six teachers at the Sandy
Hook Elementary School in Newtown or 32 students and faculty
at Virginia Tech in
2007. Still, the massacre phenomenon is perhaps not quite as
rare as many would believe,
although it hardly comes close to reaching epidemic levels.
Moreover, despite the

concerns of many Americans mass murders generally nor mass
shootings in particular are
moving on an upward trajectory. Incidence of mass murder,
despite yearly fluctuations,
has not shown any tendency to increase or decrease since the
mid-1970s. On the other
hand, mass murders have not declined in number since the mid-
1990s, even while murder
generally has dropped significantly over the same period of
years.
Mass murders do not tend to cluster in large cities as much as
does homicide in
general (43.9% vs. 57.5%). Instead, massacres frequently occur
in suburban or rural areas
(45.1%), with a higher proportion than for homicide overall
(30.7%). Some differences in
setting are those associated with region. The South (and the
Deep South in particular) is
known for its high rates of murder (41.0% of homicides), but
this does not hold quite so
much for mass murder (38.7%). In comparison with single-
victim murder, which is
highly concentrated in urban areas populated by poor Blacks
and in the Deep South,

where arguments often are settled through gunfire (see, for
example, Doerner, 1975),
mass murder more or less reflects population distribution.
The findings regarding victim–offender relationship (for the
cases in which it has
been determined) are perhaps as counterintuitive as the weapon-
use results were obvious.
Contrary to popular belief, mass murderers infrequently attack
strangers who just happen
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In fact, 38.2% of
these crimes are committed
against family members, compared to 29.2% for murder overall.
Indeed, it is well known
that murder often involves family members, but this is
especially pronounced among
massacres.
The differences in circumstance (when they are known)
underlying these crimes
are quite dramatic. About half of all homicides occur during an
argument between the

victim and offender, but it is relatively rare for a heated dispute
to escalate into mass
murder (24.5%). As it happens, massacres of strangers often are
committed to facilitate
other felonies—for example, armed robberies. The largest
category of mass murder
circumstance is unspecified (45.4% “other circumstances”),
primarily because of
limitations in the Supplementary Homicide Report data. These
crimes involve a wide
array of motivations, including revenge and hate.
Compared to murderers generally, mass murderers are more
likely to be male
(94.1% vs. 88.4%), are far more likely to be White (59.3% vs.
46.6%), and are some-
what older (43.0% vs. 38.0% are over 30 years old). Typically,
the single-victim offender
is a young male, slightly more often Black than White, whereas
the massacrer is typically
a middle-age White male. This profile comes into sharpest focus
for those mass killers
who are motivated by something other than robbery or similar
felony: The average age of
perpetrators of felony-related mass murder is 26.9 but the

average age rises to 31.3 for
those offenders in other mass murder circumstances, including
grudges of various kinds.
Finally, according to Matt Delisi and Aaron M. Scherer (2006),
multiple murderers are no
more likely than those who have killed just one victim to have a
prior criminal record.
The victim characteristics are, of course, largely a function of
the offender
characteristics discussed above, indicating that mass killers
generally do not select their
victims on a random basis. For example, the victims of mass
murder usually are White
(68.5% compared with 50.5% for all homicides) simply because
the perpetrators to whom
they are related or with whom they associate are White.
Similarly, the youthfulness of
victims (34.6% are under age 20 for mass murders compared
with 16.2% for all killings)
and greater representation of females (43.4%) among the
victims of mass murder, as
compared to all homicides (23.3%), stem from the fact that a
typical mass killing
involves the breadwinner of the household who annihilates the

entire family—his wife
and his children.
Types of Mass Murderers
Throughout the years researchers have attempted to create a
typology of mass
murderers. The construction of typologies, again, is a search
for patterns to the same
ends as described above for inductive profiles. The great
problem with developing a
typology is that it can be difficult to place a person or case in a
black and white category.
When examining the scholarly research on mass murder, two
common themes or
typologies continue occur: love/loyalty mass murder and
revenge mass murder. These
two categories of mass murder are based upon an offender’s
motivation.
Love/Loyalty Mass Murder
The most common type of love/loyalty mass murder occurs
when an murderer is
inspired to kill by a warped sense of desire to save their love
ones from misery and

hardship. Typically, a husband/father is despondent over the
fate of the family unit and
takes not only his own life but also those of his children and
sometimes his wife, in order
to protect them from the pain and suffering in their lives.
Many love/loyalty mass murderers are often called family
annihilators. As the
name infers, the family annihilator is a person who kills his
entire family. According to
Holmes & Holmes (2001), this is the most common type of mass
murders. The majority
of family annihilators are the head of the household (fathers).
This killers are often white
males in their 30s or 40s who are often described as very
controlling and believe that they
are the only ones who can fulfill the family’s needs. Many
family annihilators have
recently had some type of stress in their life that they feel is
beyond their control; such as
loss of a job, a loss of financial security, or a loss of a
relationship Feeling powerless
and unable to cope with the stress in their lives’ they often turn

to murder (Ewing, 1997).
Robert Lynch, for example owned a business that went in to
decline a left him in debt.
He later found out that his wife was pregnant with their fourth
child. Unable to cope with
these building stresses, he shot his entire family and then killed
himself. Another
example is Bruce Sweazy, who had been laid off from work in
1994, and then came
home one day to kill his wife and three sons with an ax before
shooting himself in the
chest.
Revenge-Oriented Mass Murder
A second type of mass murder is the revenge-oriented mass
murderer. Many
multiple murders, especially mass killings, are motivated by
revenge, either against
specific individuals, particular categories or groups of
individuals, or society at large.
Most commonly, the murderer seeks to get even with people he
knows—with his
estranged wife and all her children or the boss and all his

employees. There are two
subtypes of revenge-oriented mass murderers: (1) workplace
killers and (3) school
shooters.
The overall profile of the typical workplace murderer is a
middle-aged white,
male, who feels that his employment problems signal the end of
the world as he knows it.
Despite changing gender roles, men – much more than women –
still tend to judge their
self-worth by what they do, rather than who they are. If they
aren’t doing anything , then
what good are they? Further more, men tend to regard violence
as a means for
establishing control, as an offensive move, whereas women see
it as a last resort, as a
defensive move.
Some workplace murders involve youthful perpetrators, but
most do not. To a
younger employee, a job is often just a job, certainly not a
career, and there is always
another opportunity down the road. The middle-aged employee,
however, views
termination or the threat of termination as truly the end of the

road. He sees few
opportunities for alternative employment at the same wage,
benefits, or status level to
which he has grown accustomed. At this juncture, the middle-
aged man expects to be at
the tope of his career, not hitting rock-bottom.
For the lonely employee termination from a job means not just a
loss of his self-
esteem, and not just the loss of income. It also means the loss
of his only source of
companionship- his co-workers. Therefore, job loss carries a
double burden: frustration
and anger, on the one hand, and a severance of important social
anchors, on the other.
Here too there is a trend in society that places more and more
middle-aged men at risk.
An increased rate of divorce, greater residential mobility, and a
general lack of
community and neighborliness mean that, for many Americans,
work is their only source
of stability and companionships.

School Shooters
A second subtype of revenge-oriented mass murderers is the
school shooter. A
school shooting is an incident of attempted mass murder,
involving at least one actual
death that occurs at a school. Unlike other forms of school
violence, there is usually no
single target; the perpetrator's objective is to kill as many
people as possible. Sometimes
these events are perpetrated by students; in other cases,
expelled students, alumni, or even
total outsiders commit them.
Rates of adolescent violence have decreased since 1993.
However, in the last two
decades there has been a dramatic increase in the number of
school shootings. In the
United States, school violence, especially of the gang-related
sort, is more common in
poor, inner-city schools, but student-perpetrated school
massacres most often occur in
affluent suburbs where they receive the most media attention
due to severity in a brief
period of time.

Like terrorist attacks, school massacres are very rare but
traumatic. They receive
extensive media coverage and often result in nationwide
changes of school discipline and
security policies.
One of the first school shooting occurred in 1998 in Jonesboro,
Arkansas. Four
middle school girls and a teacher were killed and 11 people
were wounded Tuesday when
two heavily armed boys in full camouflage gear opened fire on
their classmates and
teachers during a false fire alarm. Police did not offer a motive,
but a classmate said one
of the suspects had recently broken up with his girlfriend. The
suspects, who are cousins,
ages 11 and 13, were caught by police near Westside Middle
School shortly after the
shooting. A third boy who allegedly pulled the fire alarm was
still being sought.
When Johnson was 13, he and his friend, Andrew Golden, then
11, stole rifles
from Golden's grandfather on March 24, 1998. The boys,

dressed in camouflage, hid in
the woods behind the school until lunchtime, when Golden ran
inside to pull the fire
alarm. They opened fire as classmates and teachers filed out of
the buildings, killing four
students and one teacher. The state had no way to hold Johnson
past his 18th birthday
because of a since-closed loophole in Arkansas' juvenile justice
system. Federal
prosecutors have used weapons laws to keep Johnson and
Andrew Golden locked up until
age 21.
The Columbine School Shooting
The most widely publicized school massacre in the United
States was the student
perpetrated Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. The
Columbine High School
massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at Columbine
High School in
unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, near Denver and
Littleton. Two teenage
students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, carried out a shooting
rampage, killing twelve

fellow students and a teacher, as well as wounding twenty-four
others, before committing
suicide. It is considered to be the deadliest school shooting, and
the second deadliest
attack on a school in US History.
At 11:10 AM Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at
Columbine High School in
separate cars. Harris parked in the Junior parking lot and
Klebold in the Senior parking
lot at spaces not assigned to them. From these spots, both of
them had excellent views of
the first floor cafeteria and each one was covering a main exit
of the school. Shortly
before arriving at Columbine, Harris and Klebold had set up a
small fire bomb in a field
half a mile away from the school. The bomb was set to detonate
at 11:14 AM, and is
thought to have been placed there as a diversion for emergency
personnel. The bomb did
detonate, and caused a small fire that was extinguished by the
fire department. This event

was not tied to the attacks until after the official investigation
began in May 1999.
At Columbine, the pair entered the cafeteria a few minutes
before the "A" lunch
shift began and placed two duffel bags with 20 lb (9 kg)
propane bombs inside set to
explode at 11:17 AM. At the moment they entered the cafeteria,
a custodian removed the
security camera video tape and rewound it, so the act of placing
the bombs was not
recorded. However, once it was restarted the bags could be seen
clearly. The bombs had
enough explosive power to destroy the entire cafeteria and bring
the library above
crashing down. Each shooter returned to his car to wait until the
bombs exploded. As
they did so, Harris encountered Brooks Brown in the parking
lot. Having recently
patched up their friendship, Brown approached Harris and
scolded him for having missed
a test. Harris replied to him by saying "Um, Brooks, I like you,
I like you. Now go home,
get out of here", before continuing on his way. Several minutes
later, students departing

Columbine for lunch noticed Brooks Brown heading down South
Pierce Street away from
the school. Meanwhile, Harris and Klebold armed themselves by
their cars and waited for
the bombs to explode. They intended to kill at least 500 people.
At 11:19 AM, a witness heard Eric Harris yell "Go! Go!" At
that moment the
gunmen pulled out their shotguns and began shooting at Rachel
Scott and Richard
Castaldo, who were sitting on a grassy knoll to their left (next
to the West Entrance of the
school), eating lunch. Both were hit and critically injured. After
the initial shots, one of
the shooters shot Scott again, killing her. It is unclear who shot
first and who killed Scott.
Next, Harris took off his trenchcoat and took out his 9 mm
semi-automatic carbine,
aiming it down the West Staircase. Daniel Rohrbough and his
two friends, Sean Graves
and Lance Kirklin, were walking up the staircase directly below
the shooters. Lance
reported seeing them standing at the top, when suddenly they
began shooting at him. Shot
in the chest, Rohrbough fell back onto Graves; a bullet pierced

Graves' foot. The shooters
then turned their guns on Kirklin, standing across from them.
All three fell wounded.
Harris and Klebold then turned and began shooting south (away
from the school) at five
students sitting on the grassy knoll adjacent to the steps,
opposite the West Entrance of
the school. Michael Johnson was hit but kept running and
escaped. Mark Taylor fell to
the ground, crippled, and played dead. The other three escaped
uninjured.
As the shooting continued, Sean Graves stood up and limped
down the staircase
into the cafeteria's side entrance, where he collapsed in front of
the door. Klebold began
walking down the steps heading toward the cafeteria. As he
descended, he shot Lance
Kirklin once more in the face, wounding him critically. Daniel
Rohrbough began to
struggle down the steps towards the bottom of the staircase.
Seeing this, Klebold walked
up to him and shot him in the back of the head at close range,
killing him. He then
continued down the staircase and stepped inside the cafeteria,

walking over the injured
Sean Graves, who lay at the cafeteria entrance. It is speculated
that Klebold did this
because he was checking to see why the propane bombs had
failed to explode. As
Klebold stepped into the cafeteria, Harris began to shoot down
the steps at several
students sitting near the cafeteria's entrance, wounding Anne-
Marie Hochhalter as she
attempted to flee. After a few seconds, Klebold returned back
up the staircase to meet
with Harris at the top.
Next, the two attempted to shoot at students standing near the
soccer field a few
yards away, but did not succeed in hitting anyone. They then
threw pipe bombs at the
parking lot, roof, and hillside to the east; none of which
detonated
Meanwhile, a police deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and
began shooting at

12The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 Drug PolicyS.docx

12The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 Drug PolicyS.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from durantheseldine

More from durantheseldine (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

12The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 Drug PolicyS.docx