Adolescent Parricide and Psychopathy

Abstract

Most cases of juvenile parricide are believed to be the result of child abuse, yet the vast majority of abused children do not kill their parental abusers. This study explored the role of psychopathy in 10 adolescent parricide offenders tried in adult court who were referred for pretrial psychiatric evaluation. In addition, psychopathological findings, crime-related behaviors, and judicial outcomes are described. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnoses, most commonly posttraumatic stress disorder, and chronic, severe child abuse were prevalent. Psychopathic traits were not found to have played a role in the traumatized youths’ parricidal behavior. Killings occurred in the family homes, usually through a surprise attack with parent-owned firearms. There was an average of 1.7 victims per event, with fathers being the most likely victim. Bodies were commonly covered or wrapped and moved postmortem. Confessions were often incredible in quality. One half received sentences of 40+ years, and the modal sanction was a life sentence, despite 90% premorbidly described as good youth. Further studies of adolescent parricide are needed to better understand this unusual population.

Keywords

parricide psychopathy adolescent homicide crime

Introduction

Parricide, the murder of a parent by a child, remains an unusual, poorly understood crime. In 2008, there were a total of 337 parricides, comprising a mere 2.4% of the 14,180 homicides recorded (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009).The majority of parricides are committed by adult male offspring suffering from a psychotic illness, usually schizophrenia, with fathers the most likely victims (Bourget, Gagne, & Labelle, 2007; Hillbrand, Alexandre, Young, & Spitz, 1999). Juveniles who kill parents are rarer than adult parricide offenders. For the 24-year period between 1976 and 1999, there was an average of 50.3 parricides a year committed by youths under age 18 in the United States, accounting for just one fifth of all parricidal events (Heide & Petee, 2007a). Based on data for juvenile homicides from 1984 to 2006 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007), only 2% to 6% of homicides by minors are parricides.

In contrast to their adult counterparts, minors who commit parricide are rarely psychotic and instead are usually the victims of severe, chronic child abuse by one or both parents (Heide, 1992; Malmquist, 2010; Mones, 1991; Tanay, 1976). Parental neglect in those cases involving child abuse is also common, as there generally has been a failure by one or both parents to fulfill the duty to protect their children from harm and to provide them with a safe place to live (Heide, 1992). Moreover, unlike typical juvenile murderers, they are often described as relatively well-adjusted youth (notwithstanding their isolated act of parricidal violence) who do not have disruptive behavior disorders or delinquency histories (Corder, Ball, Haizlip, Rollins, & Beaumont, 1976; Heide, 1992; Marleau, Millaud, & Auclair, 2006; McCully, 1978; Myers, Scott, & Burgess, 1995). Although scholars by and large attribute most cases of juvenile parricide to child abuse, the field has also acknowledged other types of youthful parricidal offenders. Heide (1992) has captured these etiological variations in her three-group typology: the “severely abused” child, the “dangerously antisocial” child, and the “severely mentally ill” child.

Other contributing factors to adolescent parricide beyond child maltreatment have been proposed. These include the sense of inescapability that dependent children face in abusive households, children’s inability to disclose abuse to outside sources due to misguided loyalty to the abuser or fear of retribution, familial insularity, adults’ disregard of pleas for help from abused youth, community denial of the abuse, sadistic parents, parental substance abuse, the presence of guns in the home, and learning disabilities (Heide, 1992; Post, 1982; Tanay, 1976).

The predicament created by attributing juvenile parricide to chronic, severe child abuse is that the vast majority of abused children do not kill their parents. In 2008, 772,000 children were maltreated in the United States: 16% were physically abused (123,000) and 9% (69,000) were sexually abused (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). These figures are in all likelihood an underestimate of the number of abused children, as many acts of abuse are never reported. Given there are 50 or so juvenile parricides each year, one could extrapolate that about 1 in 2,460 physically abused children and 1 in 1,380 sexually abused children would kill an abusive parent annually. Put in more general terms, approximately 1 out of every 2,000 abused children per year will kill a parent. This abuse denominator would be substantially larger if emotional abuse and neglect were included, forms of maltreatment that can also be integral contributors to juvenile parricide (Heide, 1992; Heide & Solomon, 2009).

What else besides child abuse might explain the parricidal behavior of these statistical outliers? One possibility would be that youthful parricide offenders have an elevated level of psychopathic traits in comparison with abused youth who do not resort to violent behavior. There is a growing recognition of the construct of child and adolescent psychopathy, and research has shown it to be a measurable and fairly stable personality style that is predictive of antisocial behavior, aggression, and recidivism (Brandt, Kennedy, Patrick, & Curtin, 1997; Decoene & Bijttebier, 2008; Forth, Hart, & Hare, 1990; Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004; Gretton, McBride, Hare, O’Shaughnessy, & Kumka, 2001; Lynam, Derefinko, Caspi, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2007; Lynam et al., 2009; Skeem & Cauffman, 2003). Characteristics of juvenile psychopathy include callousness, egocentricity, impulsivity, and lack of remorse (Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003). Of note, the authors at hand were unable to find any studies examining the relationship between psychopathy specifically and adolescent parricide beyond one case report (Evans, McGovern-Kondik, & Peric, 2005). However, literature exists on juvenile parricide offenders with marked antisocial features (Heide, 1995), and Heide and McCurdy (2010) reported four cases of parricide offenders sentenced to death as juveniles (for the period spanning 1973-2005)—all of whom appeared to have a notable degree of psychopathic traits.

One of the most widely used tools to assess psychopathy in research and in clinical practice is the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL-YV), a derivative of the PCL-R modified for use in adolescent populations (aged 12-18), likewise assesses the general domains of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral characteristics associated with psychopathy, and it is believed to reliably measure the same general construct as adult psychopathy measures (Forth et al., 1990; Forth et al., 2003; Vincent, Odgers, McMormick, & Corrado, 2008). Both the PCL-R and PCL-YV are 20-item instruments scored on a 3-point scale (range 0-40) using information gathered through a semistructured interview and review of collateral data. Studies have established mean PCL-YV scores for various subgroups of youth, such as those in the community (3.2), with conduct disorder (17.0), on parole (20.1), and who are institutionalized (24.4; Forth et al., 2003).

The aim of this present study was to explore the role of psychopathy in a sample of 10 adolescent parricide offenders who were seen during forensic psychiatric evaluation. It was hypothesized that those youth who fell within the “abused” and “mentally ill” groups would not have elevated psychopathy scores, in contrast to those in the “antisocial” group. In addition, psychopathology, precrime, crime, postcrime, and judicial findings for the sample are described.

Method

This retrospective study investigated 10 adolescent parricide offenders who had killed one or both parents in a nonaccidental fashion and were subsequently evaluated during pretrial forensic psychiatric examinations. The cases were seen in multiple states over a 15-year period. In total, 6 were referred for evaluation by the defense and 4 by the prosecution. All had been transferred to adult court for prosecution, and thus arrest and trial information was in the public domain. The simultaneous killing of other family members beyond one or both parents was not an exclusion criterion.

The definition of adolescence varies, with developmental experts not uncommonly setting its upper age limit in the early 20s (e.g., Virginia Department of Health, 2010). For the purpose of this study, adolescence was defined as youth aged 13 to 21. Of the 10, only 3 offenders were older than 17 years, and before their inclusion, it was established that each of them was still in the adolescent stage of development (e.g., living at home, and financially and emotionally dependent on their parents) because some late-phase adolescents living independently are arguably in the early stages of adulthood.

The mean age for the sample at the time of the crimes was 17.7 + 2.3 (range = 14-21). Nine were male; eight were White and two were Black. Seven were high school students, two had dropped out of high school, and one was in college. The two youth who had dropped out of high school were employed doing unskilled labor. Mean IQ was 106 + 10.4 (range = 88-116) for eight of the sample. In two instances, IQ testing was not performed but impaired intellect was ruled out: one had a record of high grades and honor classes and the other had been accepted to a competitive college. Thus, none of the sample had mental retardation.

Even after their arrest, seven (70%) of the sample were largely described by family, teachers, friends, or other community figures who knew them as “good,” “well-adjusted,” and/or “nice” youth. Two additional youths also had been described in this fashion until shortly before their arrest (bringing the total that had a premorbid history of being perceived as good youth to 90%); however, one of these two had descended into psychosis in the interim, and the other one’s grades and behavior deteriorated as the child abuse to which he had been chronically subjected intensified.

The results are based on comprehensive assessments of each offender that included one or more clinical interviews, individualized neuropsychiatric and psychological testing (e.g., Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent and Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children, IQ assessment), and a review of all collateral material, such as arrest records, investigative reports, depositions of various persons connected to the offenders’ lives, and evaluations by other professionals. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) diagnoses were made by the authors using all available information, and the case data were discussed to the extent necessary to reach diagnostic consensus for each youth, which as it turned out was straightforward based on the detailed data at hand.

Psychopathy was measured using the PCL-YV (Forth et al., 2003) in six cases and the PCL-R (Hare, 2003) in four cases. Author W.M. has longstanding experience in using the PCL instruments in clinical and research settings (e.g., see Myers, Burket, & Harris, 1995), and author E.V. was trained in their use during her forensic psychiatry fellowship. As with DSM-IV diagnoses, psychopathy scores were determined using all available information and through author consensus; both authors were knowledgeable about the individual case details. The degree of psychopathic personality traits for the youth was based on total PCL score (PCL-YV or PCL-R) and categorized—consistent with youthful norms for controls and offenders at different levels of severity—as follows: none (0-9), low (10-19), moderate (20-29), and high (30-40; Forth et al., 2003; Hare, 2003; Meloy, 1988; Myers, Gooch & Meloy, 2005; Rutherford, Cacciola, & Alterman, 1999).

Results

Precrime Findings

Child abuse

Nearly the entire sample (nine; 90%) described having been chronically and severely abused on an emotional and physical basis. “Chronic” abuse was defined as exceeding 1 year in duration and “severe” as encompassing abuse that resulted or could have reasonably resulted in repetitive physical injury or need for medical attention (e.g., being punched in the face, thrown into walls, and hit with metal tools). All nine referred to their abuse as having occurred for years and as severe in nature. In four cases (40%), both parents participated in the abuse; in four cases (40%), it was the father acting alone; and in one case (10%), it was the mother acting alone.

Furthermore, three youths (30%) had been sexually abused. In two cases (20%) the mother was the perpetrator, and in one case (10%), the father and mother were coperpetrators. In another case, a youth shortly before trial recounted heretofore undisclosed parental sexual abuse. In addition, this youth’s reports of emotional and physical abuse had grown steadily as trial approached (even though witnesses unrelated to the family were going to testify about the marked emotional and physical parental child abuse they had seen this youth undergo). For this reason, fabrication of the sexual abuse was considered a reasonable possibility, and it was not coded as having occurred. Nonetheless, it may have. Only one youth (10%) in the sample denied child abuse.

The credibility of the child abuse reports was assessed by reviewing such factors as the quality and consistency of the youths’ reports, child protection services evaluations, medical histories, informant information, and assessment of scar patterns by physical examination done concurrently with the forensic psychiatry assessment as indicated. For instance, a youth’s reported history of floggings was found to be consistent with numerous, well-healed linear scars observed about the torso. In another case, a youth’s report that parental mistreatment had caused a fracture was corroborated by emergency room records.

Assessment of psychopathy

The mean PCL score for the entire sample was 8.0 + 6.6 (range = 2-23). Only 2 of the 10 (20%) youth had elevated PCL scores, that is, a PCL score of 10 or greater: one had a score in the low range (15) and the other had a score in the moderate range (23). When these 2 youths with elevated PCL scores were removed from the pool, the mean PCL score fell to 5.3 + 2.9 (range = 2-9). These 8 youth without psychopathy score elevation, all of whom had been chronically and severely abused (the purely “abused” group), were compared with a community norm sample (PCL-YV mean 4.0 + 3.7) composed of 50 male Ontario adolescents (Forth et al., 2003). This comparison was done to assess whether a “subclinical” elevation in psychopathy might have influenced this group’s parent-directed aggression. Their mean PCL score did not significantly differ from this community sample, t = 0.96, df = 56, two-tailed, consistent with psychopathic traits not having played a role in their parricidal behaviors.

Psychiatric disorders

All but one of the youth (90%) met criteria for one or more DSM-IV-TR psychiatric diagnoses prior to their parricidal acts. The most common diagnosis was posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), present in 6 of the sample (60%). An additional youth had clinically significant PTSD symptoms but did not meet sufficient criteria for the full diagnosis, bringing the number of individuals with PTSD-related psychopathology to 7 of 10 (70%). In each of these cases, the traumatic experience responsible for the development of PTSD symptomatology was chronic, severe child abuse perpetrated by one or both parents. All 6 of the youth who met full criteria for PTSD had normal PCL-YV scores (<10).

Other diagnoses included two youth with depression (one with major depressive disorder and one with dysthymic disorder [both had accompanying PTSD]); two with substance abuse disorders (one with marijuana dependence and one with polysubstance dependence); one with schizophrenia, undifferentiated type; one with autistic disorder; and one with a mixed personality disorder (antisocial, narcissistic, and borderline traits). The only Axis I disorders found in the two youth with elevated psychopathy scores were substance abuse disorders.

Preparricide arrest histories

Not unexpectedly, the one youth with an elevated PCL-R score in the “moderate” range had a history of multiple preexisting arrests. The remaining nine youth (90%) were without prior arrest histories.

Crime-Related Findings

Victimology

Fathers alone were killed in 4 cases (40%), mothers alone in 2 cases (20%), and both parents in the remaining 4 cases (40%). Only 2 of the 14 parents killed were stepparents (14%). An additional three family member victims were killed (two siblings and one grandparent) in two of these cases, bringing the total number of victims to 17 or 1.7 victims per event. All the killings occurred in parental homes. The parent victims covered the socioeconomic spectrum, ranging from the unemployed blue-collar worker to the wealthy executive. Only three (21%) of the deceased parents had substance abuse problems—one had alcohol dependence and two had polysubstance abuse.

As described in the preceding paragraph, in two of the cases (20%), family members other than parents were also killed. These victims were blameless in the sense that they had not been abusive toward the offenders and, on the contrary, reportedly had satisfactory relationships with their killers. The two youth responsible for killing these victims each had elevated psychopathy scores. In one case, the youth admitted killing a relative to prevent that person from contacting law enforcement (PCL score of 15). In the second case, the offender evidently killed the additional victims due to a spillover of rageful frustration combined with the need to eliminate witnesses (PCL score of 23).

Weapon use

A firearm was the most common weapon used (six cases; 60%). No trend in firearm type used was observed, as killings were accomplished with shotguns, handguns, and rifles. Other weapons used (n = 4; 40%) were bludgeons in two cases, a large cutting instrument in one case, and personal weapons in one case (strangulation).

Attack method

Attack methods were divided into two general categories: “surprise” attacks and “confrontational” attacks. In the surprise attack cases (n = 7; 70%), the victims were shot, lacerated, or bludgeoned without warning, typically either from behind or while they slept, such that they had no awareness an attack was about to occur. In the confrontational attack cases (n = 3; 30%), the victims and offenders were in the midst of a conflict, and the victims were aware that a serious attack was unfolding (e.g., in the course of an argument, a parent sees the child aim a loaded rifle at him or her). In the event that there was more than one victim, the attack style used for the first victim was coded, as in one or more instances the succeeding victim(s) apparently woke up and witnessed or otherwise sensed that danger was at hand. Although both of the offenders with elevated psychopathy scores used surprise attacks, five others without psychopathic elevation did so as well.

Covering or wrapping of bodies

In five of the cases (50%), the bodies were either covered or wrapped, usually with bedding (e.g., sheet, bedspread, and pillow). Various reasons for doing this were given by the offenders, ranging from feeling remorse and wanting to comfort the victim to preventing a mess from leaking body fluids to not liking the sight of blood. Only one of the youths with an elevated psychopathy score engaged in this behavior.

Postmortem body relocation

In six cases (60%), the bodies were moved postmortem. In half of these postmortem movement cases, the bodies were moved to back rooms in the house, either to remove them from the offenders’ view to help their distress or to decrease the likelihood that they would be discovered by others (e.g., visitors or concerned family members who might peer in the windows). In the other three cases, the bodies were moved with the intent to dispose of them outside of the home. However, in one of these cases, the body removal process was abandoned due to unanticipated difficulties associated with moving dead weight. In the other two cases, the bodies were successfully removed from the home and transported to other locations; although, in just one of these cases was the corpse adequately hidden such that discovery would have been impeded without a confession. The two youth with elevated psychopathy scores were the only ones who actually transported their victim’s bodies away from the family home.

Staging of the crime

A staged crime scene is one in which the evidence has been purposefully altered by the offender to mislead authorities and/or redirect the investigation (Geberth, 2006). In only one of the cases (10%) was staging evident. This youth simulated a burglary by breaking a window from the outside to suggest an unlawful entry and leaving a note from a fabricated intruder (see below). This offender had an elevated psychopathy level (PCL score of 15).

Handwritten notes left at the crime scene

In 2 of 10 cases (20%), a handwritten note was left at the scene by the offenders—both had elevated psychopathy scores. One note provided an alibi by implicating a fictitious burglar who had overpowered the youth. The other was a self-serving note designed to generate sympathy by pointing out the offender’s love for the victims and how personally traumatic these murderous acts had been.

Postcrime Findings

Confession style

In six (60%) of the cases, the confessions to detectives described events that were incredible given the crime scene facts. For example, one offender reported the killing was an accident, yet admitted taking the firearm, loading it, and pointing it toward the parent but then mistakenly pulled the trigger. Two others blamed their acts on mysterious homicidal intruders (e.g., with dark facial hair and dressed in black clothes).

Another, although in a public place with witnesses, pretended to hear the parent being killed during a phone call, thus setting up an alibi. When challenged by detectives, the narrative evolved considerably. The youth and the parent were having an argument, the parent brandished a gun, there was a violent struggle over the weapon during which it inadvertently discharged, and the parent was killed. However, crime scene analysis indicated the victim was likely asleep when shot in the back of the head.

In another case, the youth recalled practicing sports moves and unintentionally bludgeoned the parent to death. When confronted with the improbability of this explanation by detectives, the youth countered that the perpetrator was probably a friend of the parent who had been loitering around shortly before the killing. Five of the six implausible confessions were given by youths with psychopathy scores in the normal range.

Presence of malingering

None of the 10 youth were suspected of malingering mental illness symptoms by clinical interview or psychometric testing.

Judicial outcome and sentencing

All were tried in adult court, and outcomes varied widely. Four of the youth (40%) received a life sentence, the modal sanction, and another youth was sentenced to 40 years, bringing the number of youth with a sentence of 40 or more years in length to 5. Regarding the others, sentences ranged from juvenile sanctions (through the “blended sentence” pathway such that release would occur at or before age 21) to 1 year in jail to a sentence of 20 years. Of the 10, 7 went to trial, 2 plea-bargained, and 1 received a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, which was stipulated to by the prosecutor’s office. In terms of convictions, 6 were convicted of first-degree murder, one of manslaughter, and the remainder of second-degree murder.

Of the four who received a life sentence, only one had an elevated psychopathy score and criminal history. The other three had PTSD, no history of arrests, and fell within the “good kids” group. (Of note, the other youth with an elevated psychopathy score received a short sentence and was released while still a teenager.)

Discussion

This mainly descriptive study explored the role of psychopathy in a sample of 10 adolescent parricide offenders. We hypothesized that the victims of chronic, severe child abuse, the “abused” group, and the “mentally ill” group would not have elevated psychopathy scores, in contrast to those in the “antisocial” group. This hypothesis was supported in two ways. First, all six of the parricidal youth in this study who met full criteria for PTSD from child abuse had PCL scores that fell within the normal range (score < 10). Second, the mean PCL score for eight youth in the purely “abused” group did not differ from adolescent community controls. Thus, a psychopathic disturbance was not found to have contributed to the parricidal behavior of the abused group. The small N of this study limited our ability to examine in more depth the potential variances between the “abused,” “antisocial,” and “mentally ill” groups. Clearly, more research is needed.

As stated earlier, the literature supports the contention that most parricidal youth are not “antisocial” killers. The same outcome was found in this study. Although two of the sample had elevated levels of psychopathic traits, their PCL scores did not fall in the high range, and only one of them reached the moderate range. Worthy of mention also is that this study measured the degree of psychopathy and not just antisocial behavior per se, with antisocial behavior being but one component of the higher order construct of psychopathy (Millon, Simonsen, Birket-Smith, & Davis, 1998). The PCL-YV and PCL-R assess the interpersonal and affective components of psychopathic personality (Factor 1) and the impulsive, unstable, and antisocial lifestyle associated with it (Factor 2).

Because most of the present sample (80%) was free of psychopathic personality traits, what else might account for why they killed? As expected, they were victims of chronic, severe child abuse, and child abuse has been rated by teenagers as the most serious of childhood stressors, followed by divorce and relocation (Hutton, Roberts, Walker, & Zuniga, 1987). Yet only one in thousands of abused children kill a parent each year. Can child abuse then be a sufficient explanation in and of itself, or is there more to the equation?

We believe adolescent parricide is multifactorial in its origins. One of the most important ingredients may not be child abuse in the categorical sense but the cumulative “dose” of child maltreatment meted out—as gauged by type, intensity, frequency, and duration. National organizations surveying child abuse do not quantify child abuse in this manner; instead, they typically gather generic reporting data from districts and agencies across the country, thus preventing a quantitative comparison with the total dose in this sample. Based on in-depth assessments of these abused parricidal youth, it is not only our impression that they had a markedly greater dose of abuse than the typical abused child but also child abuse that was more brutal in nature. This supposition is consistent with the child abuse descriptions found in adolescent parricide literature (Heide, 1992; Mones, 1991).

The contribution of PTSD symptomatology to the mix is likely a critical factor as well. These maltreated youth described a feeling of persistent, imminent danger while living in their household. They dreaded the next episode of abuse, struggled to predict its occurrence, and existed in a state of continual fear. Hypervigilance is believed to be a risk factor for reactive violence, and over time, repeated episodes of abuse may lead to it being hardwired into neural networks (Lee & Hoaken, 2007). In addition, child abuse and PTSD have been found to negatively impact cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functioning, and it has been proposed that a “Developmental Trauma Disorder” diagnosis is needed in our diagnostic nomenclature to capture the far-reaching effects of these conditions in chronically traumatized children (Bauer, Wieck, Lopes, Teixeira, & Grassi-Oliveira, 2010; van der Kolk, 2009).

The concept of resilience is a further possible contributing factor. Youth have varying levels of innate and learned abilities to cope with maltreatment and other adversity (Walsh, Dawson, & Mattingly, 2010). Everyone presumably has a “breaking point” after which they would react violently to sufficiently noxious stimuli, and higher resilience theoretically would delay it in the child at risk for committing a parricide.

Another contributing factor, previously noted in the literature (e.g., Heide, 1992) and supported by this study, was the presence of guns in the home. All six of the firearm-related cases in this sample were committed by family-owned weapons. Firearms are the most commonly used weapon in juvenile parricides, being used to kill 80% of fathers and 62% of mothers according to U.S. arrest data for the period 1976 to 1999 (Heide & Petee, 2007b). Conversely, a risk factor for parricide not found in this study to a notable degree, but in others, was parental substance abuse. Only 3 of the 10 families in our sample had a parent with a substance-use disorder. Likewise, substance-use disorders were also relatively uncommon in these adolescent offenders, affecting just two of them.

These potential contributors to parricide listed in the preceding paragraphs are not intended to be exhaustive, and many others deserve further consideration. For instance, prenatal vulnerabilities, temperamental and personality characteristics (both normal and abnormal traits), executive functioning (e.g., problem-solving abilities and cognitive flexibility), and level of parental psychopathy are just some of the additional areas deserving exploration. Although sadistic personality disorder is no longer an official disorder in DSM, its qualities were nevertheless evoked by the torturous parental behaviors exhibited in some of these cases (e.g., flagellation, burning the child’s skin with hot objects, and forcing the child to assume and maintain painful body positions).

Several possible differences emerged when looking at the criminal actions of the youth with and without elevations in their psychopathy scores. The two youth with elevated psychopathic traits committed crimes with more explicit criminal qualities. Their acts included witness elimination, self-serving notes left at the scene, and in one instance, staging of the crime scene. Conversely, other crime-related behaviors noted earlier (like weapon selection, surprise attack style, and incredible confessions) did not appear to differentiate them from the rest of the sample. A related area deserving mention—the “sense of relief” that juvenile parricide offenders sometimes express afterward (Heide, 1992; Reinhardt, 1970; Sadoff, 1975)—was described by one half of the present sample. This mind-set should not reflexively be considered a sign of lack of remorse. Instead, a thorough understanding of the youth’s capacity for guilt in general should be undertaken to determine whether this feeling of relief/lack of remorse is situation specific or more consistent with of enduring personality traits.

A caveat, applicable to criminal profiling and reflected in the current findings, is the need to be cautious in interpreting the meaning of crime-related activities. A holistic approach, including a review of investigative reports, autopsy findings, and interviews with the offender and others related to the case, is crucial to reaching a comprehensive understanding of the meaning of any specific offender behavior at the crime scene. For instance, the wrapping or covering of a homicide victim’s body is carried out for different motivations and goals, as was the case in this sample. In general, it may indicate the victim was a family member, the presence of empathy for the victim, guilt, emotional detachment, aversion to the death scene, an attempt to minimize the chances of discovery, or efforts to facilitate body transportation (Geberth, 2006; Hakkanen-Nyholm et al., 2009).

There is some evidence that the prognosis for community reintegration is good for parricidal youth who fall into the abused category and lack a premorbid history of antisocial conduct (Corder et al., 1976; Duncan & Duncan, 1971; Heide, 1992; Post, 1982; Russell, 1984; Tanay, 1976). By these criteria, 80% to 90% of this sample would have a reasonable prognosis. However, as it turned out, there was no apparent relationship between sentencing outcome in this sample and a history of maltreatment, presence or absence of antisocial features, good or poor prearrest functioning, history of arrests, and so on. One half of these youths received lengthy sentences (>40 years), with life in prison as the modal punishment. These long sentences are due to a large extent on the conviction offenses and existing sentencing laws that exist in many states. Still, to help put this in perspective, the mean sentence length for any age offender convicted under the Illinois first-degree murder statute in 2001 was only 34 years (Illinois Department of Corrections, 2002).

A major limitation of this study is its small sample size. It may not be representative of the adolescent, parricide offender population on the whole. For instance, in 4 of these 10 cases more than one parent was killed. In a national study of children arrested over a 29-year period for killing biological parents, Heide and Petee (2007a) found that 92% of offenders killed parents in single-victim, single-offender incidents. There is some evidence to suggest that the dynamics involved in single-victim versus multiple-victim parricidal acts may be different (Heide, & Frei, 2010; Malmquist, 1980). In addition, multiple parricide offenses by youths are likely to be perceived by the criminal justice system as more egregious than those involving one victim, which can impact case processing and dispositional decisions (see, Heide, Boots, Alldredge, Donerly, & White, 2005).

Given the small number of cases, findings are best viewed as tentative and suggest the need for more research. Whether the high rate of incredible confessions in this sample of youths, for example, would remain a conspicuous finding in larger samples is unknown. In addition, our sample size was too small to allow for a statistical assessment of any potential associations between apparently relevant variables (e.g., crime scene behaviors) and degree of psychopathy.

Another limitation to this study is that both authors were knowledgeable about the hypotheses and case facts, with determination of diagnoses and scoring of psychopathy level by consensus of the authors. This could have affected the reliability of the findings given the cases were not rated by independent, blinded raters to ensure objectivity. Relatedly, the applied psychopathy rating categories of none (0-9), mild (10-19), moderate (20-29), and severe (30-40) are somewhat arbitrary in a clinical sense. For instance, a youth with a PCL score of9, who has “no” psychopathic traits by this system, is not likely to be clinically distinguishable from a youth with a PCL score of 10 but most likely would be clinically distinct from a youth with a PCL score of 19. Yet both these comparison youth, with PCL scores of 10 and 19, would be classified as having a “mild” degree of psychopathy and therefore theoretically similar in their degree of psychopathic attitudes and behavior.

However, it is our understanding that this present sample is the largest study available that has assessed completed adolescent parricides on an individual level. The only other comparably sized study we found, by Corder et al. (1976), looked at 10 adolescents charged with parricide who had been admitted for observation at a forensic psychiatry hospital unit. Although a study by Marleau et al. (2006) included 12 adolescents from a forensic institutional population, one quarter of whom had been judged criminally not responsible, only 7 had actually committed parricide. Completed and attempted juvenile parricides may not equate. In addition, both of these studies gathered their samples from forensic institution populations, possibly leading to selection bias influencing their findings.

Percentages have been used in the present study’s results for comparative purposes only, and they should be viewed with caution in light of the limited sample size. Larger sample sizes, adequately powered, are necessary to further investigate the role of psychopathy, child abuse, neglect, and other factors that differentiate parricide offenders from nonoffenders. In particular, the type, severity, frequency, and duration of abuse could be quantified and compared with control populations. We suspect, consistent with the work of other clinicians and researchers, that an extreme dose of abuse—brutal, even sadistic in nature—will prove to be one of the most important precipitants of adolescent parricide, combined with particular vulnerabilities in the child or family system (e.g., PTSD, sense of inescapability, and social marginalization). Examining protective factors in youths at high risk for parricide who do not kill is another avenue that might prove useful in future studies on this still relatively puzzling population.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author

Bauer

M. E.

Wieck

Lopes

R. P.

Teixeira

A. L.

Grassi-Oliveira

(2010). Interplay between neuroimmunoendocrine systems during post-traumatic stress disorder: A minireview. Neuroimmunomodulation, 17, 192-195.

Bourget

Gagne

Labelle

(2007). Parricide: A comparative study of matricide versus patricide. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35, 306-312.

Brandt

J. R.

Kennedy

W. A.

Patrick

C. J.

Curtin

(1997). Assessment of psychopathy in a population of incarcerated adolescent offenders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 429-435.

Corder

B. F.

Ball

B. C.

Haizlip

T. M.

Rollins

Beaumont

(1976). Adolescent parricide: A comparison with other adolescent murder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 957-961.

Decoene

Bijttebier

(2008). On risking risk assessment of delinquent juveniles: Some questions concerning the role of psychopathy. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 229-235.

Duncan

J. W.

Duncan

G. M.

(1971). Murder in the family. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 74-78.

Evans

T. M.

McGovern-Kondik

Peric

(2005). Juvenile parricide: A predictable offense? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5, 31-50.

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Crime in the United States. (2007).Uniform Crime Reports: Juvenile Arrests for Homicide: 1984-2006. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

10.

Forth

A. E.

Hart

S. D.

Hare

R. D.

(1990). Assessment of psychopathy in male young offenders. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 342-344.

11.

Forth

A. E.

Kosson

Hare

R. D.

(2003). The psychopathy checklist: Youth version. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

12.

Geberth

V. J.

(2006). Practical homicide investigation: Tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

13.

Gretton

H. M.

Hare

R. D.

Catchpole

R. E. H.

(2004). Psychopathy and offending from adolescence to adulthood: A 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 636-645.

14.

Gretton

H. M.

McBride

Hare

R. D.

O’Shaughnessy

Kumka

(2001). Psychopathy and recidivism in adolescent sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 427-449.

15.

Hakkanen-Nyholm

Putkonen

Lindberg

Holi

Rovamo

Weizmann-Henelius

(2009). Gender differences in Finnish homicide offence characteristics. Forensic Science International, 186, 75-80.

16.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

17.

Heide

K. M.

(1992). Why kids kill parents: Child abuse and adolescent homicide. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

18.

Heide

K. M.

(1995). Dangerous antisocial youths who kill their parents. Journal of police and criminal psychology, 10, 10-14.

19.

Heide

K. M.

Boots

D. P.

Alldredge

Donerly

White

J. B.

(2005). Battered child syndrome: An overview of case law and legislation. Criminal Law Bulletin, 41, 219-239.

20.

Heide

K. M.

Frei

(2010). Matricide: A critique of the literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 11, 3-17.

21.

Heide

K. M.

McCurdy

(2010). Juvenile parricide offenders sentenced to death. Victims and Offenders, 5, 76-99.

22.

Heide

K. M.

Petee

T. A.

(2007a). Parricide: An empirical analysis of 24 years of U.S. data. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1382-1399.

23.

Heide

K. M.

Petee

T. A.

(2007b). Weapons used by juveniles and adult offenders in U.S. parricide cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1400-1414.

24.

Heide

K. M.

Solomon

E. P.

(2009). Female juvenile murderers: Biological and psychological dynamics leading to homicide. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 244-252.

25.

Hillbrand

Alexandre

J. W.

Young

J. L.

Spitz

R. T.

(1999). Parricides: Characteristics of offenders and victims, legal factors, and treatment issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 179-190.

26.

Hutton

Roberts

Walker

Zuniga

(1987). Ratings of severity of life events by ninth grade students. Psychology in the Schools, 24, 63-68.

27.

Illinois Department of Corrections. (2002). Part III: Sentences imposed—Average sentence imposed for selected offenses, Figure 20. Retrieved from http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/reports/statistical_presentation_2001/part3.shtml

28.

Lee

Hoaken

P. N.

(2007). Cognition, emotion, and neurobiological development: Mediating the relation between maltreatment and aggression. Child Maltreatment, 12, 281-298.

29.

Lynam

D. R.

Charnigo

Moffitt

T. E.

Raine

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(2009).The stability of psychopathy across adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1133-1153.

30.

Lynam

D. R.

Derefinko

K. J.

Caspi

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(2007). The content validity of juvenile psychopathy: An empirical examination. Psychological Assessment, 19, 363-367.

31.

Malquist

C.P.

(1980). Psychiatric aspects of familicide. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 13, 221-231.

32.

Malmquist

C. P.

(2010). Adolescent parricide as a clinical and legal problem. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 73-79.

33.

Marleau

J. D.

Millaud

Auclair

(2006). Comparison of factors associated with parricide in adults and adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 321-325.

34.

McCully

R. S.

(1978). The laugh of Satan: A study of familial murder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 81-91.

35.

Meloy

J. R.

(1988). The psychopathic mind: Origins, dynamics, and treatment. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.

36.

Millon

Simonsen

Birket-Smith

Davis

(1998). Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior. New York, NY: Guilford.

37.

Mones

P. A.

(1991). When a child kills: abused children who kill their parents. New York, NY: Pocket Books.

38.

Myers

W. C.

Burket

R. C.

Harris

(1995). Psychopathy, personality disorders, and behavioral disturbances in adolescent inpatients. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 436-440.

39.

Myers

W. C.

Gooch

Meloy

J. R.

(2005). The role of psychopathy and sexuality in a female serial killer. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50, 652-657.

40.

Myers

W. C.

Scott

Burgess

A. W.

(1995). Psychopathology, biopsychosocial factors, crime characteristics, and classification of 25 homicidal youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1483-1489.

41.

Post

(1982). Adolescent parricide in abusive families. Child Welfare, 61, 445-455.

42.

Reinhardt

J. M.

(1970). Nothing left but murder. Lincoln, NE: Johnson Publishing Company.

43.

Russell

D. H.

(1984). A study of juvenile murders of family members. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 28, 177-192.

44.

Rutherford

M. J.

Cacciola

J. S.

Alterman

A. I.

(1999). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 849-856.

45.

Sadoff

R. L.

(1975). Clinical observations on parricide. Psychiatric Quarterly, 45, 65-69.

46.

Skeem

J. L.

Cauffman

(2003). Views of the downward extension: Comparing the youth version of the psychopathy checklist with the youth psychopathic traits inventory. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 737-770.

47.

Tanay

(1976). Reactive parricide. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 21, 76-82.

48.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Child Maltreatment 2008. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/chapter3.htm#types

49.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). Crime in the United States 2008. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html

50.

van der Kolk

B. A.

(2009). Developmental trauma disorder: Towards a rational diagnosis for chronically traumatized children. Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr, 58, 572-586.

51.

Vincent

G. M.

Odgers

C. L.

McMormick

A. V.

Corrado

R. R.

(2008). The PCL: YV and recidivism in male and female juveniles: A follow-up into young adulthood. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 287-296.

52.

Virginia Department of Health. (2010). Adolescent health. Richmond, VA. Retrieved from http://www.vahealth.org/adolescenthealth

53.

Walsh

W. A.

Dawson

Mattingly

M. J.

(2010). How are we measuring resilience following childhood maltreatment? Is the research adequate and consistent? What is the impact on research, practice, and policy? Trauma Violence Abuse, 11, 27-41.