# data[].attributes.body
pink - somewhat to do with gender
green - human needs
blue - regarding emotions and feelings
yellow - genetics
purple - culture and beliefs
white - others

# data[].attributes.body
Hazrat Umar, Abdullah Muhammed, Sidali Mohamed were murdered in the streets of Birmingham by Louai Ali. All three of the victims were robbed and stabbed to death.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Sidali Mohamed left his maths lesson a few minutes early on 13 February last year, he seemed happy. The 16-year-old was going to pick up his younger brother.

It was a journey he didn't get to complete.

Sidali was murdered outside the gates of his college by a boy the same age as him.

He was the first of three Birmingham teenagers who were stabbed within 12 days of each other last February. They died within 10 days of one another.

Our aim was to dig into the detail to understand why homicide had increased in the previous three years.

We discovered a high number of stabbings and the prevalence of young murder victims and perpetrators.

Nearly a quarter of the 100 people we identified as responsible for the killings were teenagers.

The three Birmingham murders led the local police chief to talk of a "national knife crime emergency" and once again highlighted the problem of serious youth violence.

And this week, a report by the Commons Justice Committee said violence-against-the-person offences by children have increased by 10% over the last decade.

Sidali Mohamed had been brought to Britain as a young boy by his family as refugees fleeing violence in Somalia.

Despite the heroic efforts of his teachers and medical staff, he died in a Birmingham hospital two days after he was attacked.

He had been studying to become an accountant and was described by his parents as "a role model to his younger brothers".

Sidali's violent, premature death left a "huge void" in the family.

A trial heard how he blamed Sidali for problems his cousin was having with some students at Joseph Chamberlain College in Highgate, Birmingham.

Wearing a balaclava and gloves and carrying a 10-inch, two-pronged zombie knife he had bought for £50 on Instagram, Ali waited outside the college gates.

CCTV captured what happened next. He punched Sidali, fracturing his jaw.

Following a tussle on the grass, Ali plunged the knife into Sidali's chest.

The attack, witnessed by dozens of students, was over within a minute.

Like the boy whose life he claimed, Ali had also shown great potential.

He represented England as an amateur junior boxer.

Someone who knew him at his local gym but did not want to be identified told the BBC he "could have gone far in the boxing world".

"The young lads and girls looked up to him."

But Ali couldn't contain violence to the ring.

As his life spiralled out of control, he picked up convictions for robbery and battery.

A video circulated on social media showed him assaulting a girl in a fast-food restaurant.

In another he boasted of being the "blood-clot boxer".

At the time of the murder he was on police bail following a serious incident when he almost killed his neighbour, Russ Molloy.

Mr Molloy had challenged the teenager after he saw him and some friends smoking cannabis near young children.

After that, "when our paths crossed he would intimidate me," Mr Molloy told the BBC.

"I was always trying to be the grown-up and defuse it - he was just a kid.

"But he didn't listen. He was uneducated. It's the influences he had around him."

In December 2018, Ali and another man launched a ferocious assault on Mr Molloy, cornering him near his home and slicing his arm with a long knife.

"It could have been me [who was killed], so I count myself lucky," Mr Molloy said. But he is angry that Ali wasn't placed in custody while the case was investigated.

Instead, less than two months later, he killed Sidali Mohamed.

Mr Molloy can forgive Ali for attacking him, but says: "I don't think anyone else can forgive for taking a life. That's a step beyond my forgiveness."

Within five days of Sidali's murder another 16-year-old Birmingham boy was murdered.

Abdullah Muhammad was strolling in a park before attending prayers at his mosque when he was stabbed three times during a robbery.

Three men have since been sentenced for the "horrific" and "unprovoked" attack.

Abdullah's father paid tribute in court to his son, saying: "He was a loving, respectable and hard-working young man who would always look out for and always help his brothers and sisters, who clearly looked up to him in admiration."

The following week, yet another college student, Hazrat Umar, 18, was fatally stabbed in the city.

His life was "extinguished over a petty disagreement", a court was told.

Hazrat was walking to the gym when he was set upon by Adam Muhammed, a fellow student two years younger than him.

The pair had had a row earlier and Muhammed skipped an exam to exact his revenge.

He repeatedly plunged a huge blade into his victim, stamped on him and left him to die in the street.

Muhammad admitted murder and was sentenced to life, with a minimum term of 14 years and three months.

Hazrat's uncle is Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor in the north west of England, who said: "Hazrat was one of those people who quite frankly warmed a room when he walked in. He was cheerful, joyful. He was absolutely adored by his own family and extended family."

"My family's grief is repeated, as your survey has found, dozens and dozens of times every year," said Mr Afzal in reference to the BBC's 100 killings research.

We also discovered the number of teenage homicide suspects has risen to a five-year high.

That's according to figures obtained from freedom of information requests across 22 police force areas.

Whilst the numbers fluctuate over time, recent incidents have led the government to push for longer prison terms for teenage killers.

Despite his grief, Nazir Afzal says this is not the answer.

"Punish them. Yes, try to deter other people. But also at the back of the judge's mind must be the view that this person can still make a contribution to society once they are finally released."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Birmingham violence: The three teenagers killed days apart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Sidali Mohamed left his maths lesson a few minutes early on 13 February last year, he seemed happy. The 16-year-old was going to pick up his younger brother. It was a journey he didn't get to complete. Sidali was murdered outside the gates of his college by a boy the same age as him.

# data[].attributes.body
We kill other creatures, ourselves, one of our kind for revenge, advantage, entertainment. Statistics shows that killing one of their own species are responsible for 0.3 percent. However, the percentage of leading others into suicide or death among Homo sapiens is 7 times larger. Together with our primate ancestors, This for sure shows how even from our primary ancestors, we kill one of our own kind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new study of 1,024 mammal species has determined which animals are the most vicious killers of their own kind. Killer whales perhaps? Pit bulls maybe? For the answer, just look in the mirror.

"Step back and view our species objectively from the outside, the way a zoologist would carefully observe any other animal, or see us the way every other creature perceives human beings. The brutal reality could not be more evident or more horrifying. We are the most relentless yet oblivious killers on Earth.

"Our violence operates far outside the bounds of any other species. Human beings kill anything. Slaughter is a defining behavior of our species. We kill all other creatures, and we kill our own. Read today's paper. Read yesterday's, or read tomorrow's. The enormous industry of print and broadcast journalism serves predominantly to document our killing. Violence exists in the animal world, of course, but on a far different scale. Carnivores kill for food; we kill our family members, our children, our parents, our spouses, our brothers and sisters, our cousins and in-laws. We kill strangers. We kill people who are different from us, in appearance, beliefs, race, and social status. We kill ourselves in suicide. We kill for advantage and for revenge, we kill for entertainment: the Roman Coliseum, drive-by shootings, bullfights, hunting and fishing, animal roadkill in an instantaneous reflex for sport. We kill friends, rivals, coworkers, and classmates. Children kill children, in school and on the playground. Grandparents, parents, fathers, mothers--all kill and all of them are the targets of killing..." - R. Douglas Fields, Why We Snap, p. 286, 2016.

After writing those words in my new book , I have been frequently challenged for being overly harsh on the species that has chosen to christen itself " sapiens," (the wise one). But I was not offering social commentary. I was providing an objective, zoological description of this species.

This week, Maria Gomez and colleagues, zoologists working in Spain, published the results of their in-depth research in a report in the journal on the evolutionary roots of the human propensity to kill their own kind. The researchers compiled data on lethal violence within 1,024 species of mammals, and the results verify my description of us. The analysis shows that deaths caused by other members of the same species is responsible for 0.3 percent of all deaths on average for all mammals, but the rate of lethal violence among Homo sapiens is 7 times higher. Together with our primate ancestors, we stand out as aberrations in our penchant to kill our own kind.

The reasons can be traced back to our primate ancestors, which are exceptionally violent creatures, killing each other at a rate of 2.3 percent like we do. These data indicate that the incessant repetition throughout recorded history and in prehistoric times of murder and war among all cultures of human beings has its roots in our evolutionary stalk.

In part, the reasons for this rampant self-killing appear to relate to our big brains and the conscious awareness and conniving that big brainpower makes possible, but primarily because of two other key aspects of Homo sapiens and other primates: fierce territoriality and living in social groups. Across all mammalian species, conspecific deadly violence is highly correlated with these two factors. A double hit of both factors compounds the violence. Whales and bats are highly social, but not territorial, for example, and they have very low rates of killing their own kind. Human beings are highly social but extremely territorial - "Trespassers will be shot!" "He cut into my lane!"

When researchers examined how different types of social groups of humans affect the rate of killing, they found that lethal violence was common in present-day societies organized into bands or tribes, and severe violence is frequent in chiefdoms because of territorial disputes, population and resource pressures, and competition for political reasons, but violence decreased in state-run societies. Presumably, the authors conclude, this is because socio-political organizations of populations in state-run societies that are designed to suppress violence and respond to it, act to inhibit the innate, genetically-predisposed propensity of people to kill each other. Consider, for example, if there were no police to call, what would you have to do?

Missing from the analysis, but unquestionably the most important factor in violence among humans and other mammals, is sex. Males (boys, men, and the males of other mammalian species) are inherently violent, and they are responsible for the vast majority of violent death. This is a relic of the traditional male role in defending territory and social organization that our human and non-human mammalian ancestors practiced.

We are evolutionarily and genetically predisposed to snap in deadly violence, but in comparison to other animals, biology has indeed endowed our species with extraordinary " sapiens." The problem is that the neural circuits of violence that cause us to explode in rage and violence are deep in the brain beneath the cerebral cortex where consciousness arises. The frontal lobes of the brain can squelch these circuits of rage that we share with other violent mammals, but this "top-down" conscious control of our violent impulses is slower to act than the circuits of explosive violence deep in our brain. Understanding this neurocircuitry is vital. Territoriality and social interactions are the "E" for environment, and "T" for tribe, triggers of sudden aggression in the mnemonic "LIFEMORTS," which is a convenient way to learn to recognize the 9 triggers of rage. Each of these triggers of rage activates different neural circuits in the brain's threat-detection mechanism. Learning about these biologically and genetically embedded triggers of violence can enable us to engage the part of the human brain that distinguishes it from all other mammalian brains--the forebrain. Circuits from the forebrain to the brain's threat detection circuits can squelch sudden aggression and violence if there is even a split second to think, be it on the road, in domestic life, within societies, or nations at war. Everyone should learn the LIFEMORTS; especially in an election year.

The nomenclature, sapiens, seems an Escher-like ambiguity shifting freely between science and sarcasm. Perhaps this species would be more aptly named Homo nudus, the naked ape, not sapiens. So it seems when miles on the road are marked in incidents of rage--clocked at one every 20 minutes on average. One wonders when Orlando is no longer Disney. When sun and glitz cease to be French Nice. When children don't build sand castles on the beach, but wash up lifeless like dead seaweed and broken bottles. When skyscrapers are scraped up, as airplanes are mutated into missiles. When houses of worship become slaughterhouses of hate. When millions flee across the globe from their homes in Syria bombed into a manmade hell on Earth. When a child sits stunned in an ambulance having watched his home and family destroyed by deliberate attack. When a boy trades a handgun for a father and projects his personal pain upon playmates, preferring to become a child murderer. When police in moments of fear fire first and question later, and when they are picked off by a sniper like points in a pointless video game.

Violence is in our genes and in our environment, but so too are territoriality and society. These things we will not change. Genes change at a glacial pace. But territory and society shift constantly and they are molded by man. There is hope through understanding the science of human violence, as we can see. Some men do deliberate and decide to forfeit their life if necessary to rush into a war zone wearing white helmets to dig a broken child out of rubble.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Humans Are Genetically Predisposed to Kill Each Other

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study of 1,024 mammal species has determined which animals are the most vicious killers of their own kind. Killer whales perhaps? Pit bulls maybe? For the answer, just look in the mirror. "Step back and view our species objectively from the outside, the way a zoologist would carefully observe any other animal, or see us the way every other creature perceives human beings.

# data[].attributes.headline
13.3 Motives for Female Killers In a Family

# data[].attributes.subject
13.3 Motives for Female Killers In a Family

# data[].attributes.body
Female killers kill their young children because they believe that death was was the best option for their children due to a misbelief triggered by mental illness, mental illness or by fearing the responsibility to raise a child.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are the reasons given by women for killing someone different from those used by men to justify murders they commit?

In a word, yes.

According to the latest figures, a total of 479 homicide incidents were recorded in Australia between the years 2010 and 2012.

Of the 532 offenders identified from those incidents, 453 (85 per cent) were male and 79 (15 per cent) were female, which are figures typical of what we observe both in Australia and internationally.

Along with this stark imbalance between the sheer numbers of male killers compared with female, their stated motives were starkly different.

Recent research investigated the motives for 149 Australian homicides, looking specifically at the characteristics of the offenders and of the victims.

The seven homicide event motives included revenge, jealousy, thrill, "love", gain, conviction/hate, and concealment (that is, to cover up another crime), with each being typified by their own defining set of offender, victim, and offence characteristics.

So, what is the difference in terms of why men and women kill?

Money a motivator in female homicide

Unsurprisingly, men dominated as offenders for all motives considered in the research.

In particular, homicides driven by concealment and jealousy were all committed by males, followed closely by conviction/hate, revenge, and thrill.

While the prevalence of each of these types of homicide changes (for instance, revenge homicides are far more common than thrill kills), men engage in homicide for the full spectrum of reasons.

So why do women kill?

Although homicide is predominantly male perpetrated, of the cases investigated women most often killed for gain or what they perceived as "love", and for the most part targeted those closest to them.

Gain homicides are those committed for personal benefit, such as money or business and personal advantage. The homicides committed by women for gain in the sample were mostly carried out for insurance payouts, assets, or due to being removed from a will following a divorce, and generally involved the partners of the women.

While it's well known that women are at risk of being killed by an intimate male partner at separation or divorce, this research suggests that some men, too, are at risk of death at the hands of a current or former female partner in certain situations, such as the changing of a will, which might cause financial insecurity.

This goes against how we often view female killers.

Homicide of a male partner is not always motivated by a history of domestic abuse, which again challenges and adds to much of the previous literature.

On the other hand, "love" homicides (as opposed to "lust" homicides) are those committed to remove the victim from a situation perceived by the offender as "worse than death". Assisted suicides fall under this definition.

The women in this sample predominantly killed their young children, for one of two reasons.

The first was because they believed death was in the best interest of the child due to a misbelief stemming from mental illness, or a genuine fear for the welfare of the child; or

The second was when the mother intended to take her own life and couldn't bear the thought of leaving the children behind, believing they could not survive without her.

Men dominate jealousy killings

Given homicide is far more complex than whittling women's motives down to just two - there are cases for which the female offender's motive was revenge, thrill, and conviction/hate, however these were significantly less prevalent.

Perhaps this makes the most sense from an evolutionary standpoint or with traditional gender roles in mind; women seemingly most often act when their security is threatened and they engage in self-preservation (a gain homicide) or when they believe they are committing the ultimate act of kindness and love.

In contrast, the concealment and jealousy homicides involved only male offenders. This may indicate a propensity for men to be more motivated by jealousy of their partner's perceived infidelities than by monetary envy. It may also reflect the tendency of men to engage in more criminal behaviour than women.

Understanding the characteristics of not only homicides in general but also of the individual motives advances our understanding of why homicide occurs.

It adds to the psychological literature that delves into the mind of the offender and helps gives that mind a face.
Belinda Parker is a senior research assistant in criminology at Queensland University of Technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What drives women to murder is very different from men

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are the reasons given by women for killing someone different from those used by men to justify murders they commit? In a word, yes. According to the latest figures, a total of 479 homicide incidents were recorded in Australia between the years 2010 and 2012.

# data[].attributes.body
(1) jealousy  - the most common reason why females commit murders. For example, Sadie Hartley who was found dead with more than 40 stab wounds at her house back in January 14th, and her friends Sarah Williams and Kitt  Walsh were found guilty. Both committed the murder due to jealousy and obsession over the victim's partner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Image: Lancashire Police)

It is a brutal story of jealousy and obsession which ended in the horrific murder of a businesswoman.

Sadie Hartley was found with more than 40 stab wounds lying in a pool of blood in the hallway of her home in Helmshore, Lancashire, on January 14.

Today, Sarah Williams, 35, and her friend Kitt Walsh, 56, were both found guilty of murdering the 60-year-old.

Williams had become "jealous and obsessive" over Ms Hartley's partner Ian Johnston, 57, after having sex with him a number of times when he was previously single.

And it is far from the first case of a brutal death caused by a jealous love rival.

Here, Mirror Online looks at five other horrific murders at the hands of a woman left bitter through love.

1. Swimsuit model who shot 'King of Bling' in Spanish villa

Model Mayka Kukucova was jailed for 15 years after shooting dead her British businessman ex Andrew Bush in his Spanish villa.

Millionaire jeweller Mr Bush, 48, was shot three times in 2014 near Estepona after arriving with new Russian girlfriend Maria Korotaeva, 23.

The court was told Kukucova has been in a "jealous rage" after their two-year affair ended.

The Slovakian 26-year-old could have got 22 years but Judge Ernesto Carlos Manzano told the court in Malaga that he took into account her "heartbroken apology".

Ellie Bush said outside the court: "She's got a little bit of what she deserves."

2. Hairdresser stabbed boyfriend because he spent too much time on Facebook

A hairdresser stabbed her boyfriend to death after a blazing row over him spending too much time on Facebook befriending other women.

A court heard how Terri-Marie Palmer, 23, fatally stabbed Damon Searson in the heart after flying into a jealous rage over his social media activity.

She then dialled 999 and claimed the stabbing happened accidentally when she threw Damon the blade at the caravan park where they were staying.

She said: "It's a carving knife. We literally only got it today. It's really f****** sharp."

But a jury didn't believe Palmer and convicted her of murder.

The court had heard how only moments before the killing, she had posted on Facebook: "He p***** me off sitting on Facebook, completely blanking me when I'm talking to him."

She then stabbed Mr Searson, 24, as he checked his messages at their shared caravan in Heysham, Lancs.

3. Woman jealous of neighbours having sex

A mum killed a family-of-five after getting jealous over the sound of her neighbours having sex.

Melanie Smith was jailed for 30 years for killing Lee Anna Shiers, her partner Liam Timbrell, 23, and three young children.

She was branded "exceptionally wicked" by a judge and a "very sad woman" who had grown insanely jealous over the sound of her upstairs neighbours having sex.

In a twisted act of revenge, partly sparked by her growing anger with the 20-year-old's habit of leaving her baby's pushchair in the communal hallway, she set the first-floor flat ablaze.

The inferno ripped through the building in Prestatyn, north Wales, on October 19, killing Ms Shiers, her nephew Bailey, four, and niece Skye, two, who died at the scene.

Ms Shiers' own 15-month-old son Charlie and partner Liam Timbrell, 23, were rescued by firefighters but died later in hospital.

4. Housewife bludgeoned 'cheating' husband with hammer as he ate his lunch

A suspicious wife bludgeoned her husband to death after she suspected he had been cheating on her.

Georgina Challen, known as Sally, launched a "frenzied" attack on retired businessman Richard, 61, as he ate lunch at the kitchen table of their former marital home in Claygate, Surrey.

The couple had been attempting to patch up their marriage after separating and living apart but Challen became enraged after discovering the former car dealer had phoned another woman.

She told how she kept a diary in which she detailed all his movements as their marriage fell apart.

She attempted to note down when Richard's Viagra tablets appeared to have been used, kept records of his receipts and emails and even jotted down how she once followed him to a brothel in the years leading up to the killing.

Challen was jailed for life with a minimum of 22 years.

5. Head of all-girl biker gang plotted to kill love rival dressed in 'Scream' mask

The vengeful head of an all-female biker gang plotted to kill a love rival disguised in a horrifying "Scream" mask and ghostly robe.

But the plan backfired when Heather Stephenson-Snell's intended victim - her old lover's new girlfriend - refused to open her front door and a neighbour Bob Wilkie stepped outside to deal with the commotion.

The 43-year-old former soldier went to pull off her mask, but she raised the shotgun, balanced on a home-made shoulder sling and hidden under a white sheet covering her body, and shot him dead.

Stevenson-Snell, 46, of York, had advertised for someone to look after her rottweilers on the occasions she was away and one-time male stripper Adrian Sinclair got the job.

They began a short-lived relationship but he ended the affair and moved to Radcliffe where he met Diane Lomax. Hurt and deeply jealous, Stevenson-Snell stalked him for 18-months, and caused misery to the couple.

She sent Ms Lomax a Christmas card showing Mr Sinclair kissing a woman whose face had been scratched from the surface of a photograph

Snell was jailed for 22 years in September, 2004 for the murder of Bob Wilkie and the attempted murder of Diane.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The jealous women who killed their love rivals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is a brutal story of jealousy and obsession which ended in the horrific murder of a businesswoman. Sadie Hartley was found with more than 40 stab wounds lying in a pool of blood in the hallway of her home in Helmshore, Lancashire, on January 14.

# data[].attributes.body
According to US domestic violence statistics 80% of all the murders reported are men

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2019, there were 10,335 murder offenders in the United States who were male, which is more than seven times the number of female murder offenders in the same year. However, there many murder offenders where their gender is unknown.
Homicides in the U.S.
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the United States is defined as the willful killing of another human being. Justifiable homicides, or cases where a felon is killed by an officer in the line of duty or a felon is killed during a felony by a private citizen, are not included in murder counts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The total number of murders varies from state to state in the U.S., with more populous states have higher numbers of murders.
Murder offenders and victims
Most murder offenders in the United States are between the ages of 20 and 39, with the number of offenders declining steadily after age 40. Additionally, the highest rate of death by homicide was found among males between the ages of 15 and 24. The highest rate of death by homicide for females was for girls under the age of one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Murder in the U.S.: number of offenders by gender 2019 | Statista

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2019, there were 10,335 murder offenders in the United States who were male, which is more than seven times the number of female murder offenders in the same year. However, there many murder offenders where their gender is unknown. Homicides in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
One statistic is that approximately one in every five to sic serial killers is a female

# data[].attributes.body
There is a huge gap in violence between girls and boys especially in the rural areas as they are more open to violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Your access to the NCBI website at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov has been temporarily blocked due to a possible misuse/abuse situation involving your site. This is not an indication of a security issue such as a virus or attack. It could be something as simple as a run away script or learning how to better use E-utilities, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25497/, for more efficient work such that your work does not impact the ability of other researchers to also use our site. To restore access and understand how to better interact with our site to avoid this in the future, please have your system administrator contact info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your access to the NCBI website at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov has been temporarily blocked due to a possible misuse/abuse situation involving your site. This is not an indication of a security issue such as a virus or attack.

# data[].attributes.body
Some religions are associated with violent fanaticism. A lot of violent crime happen between religions as some people expect monotheism. Public opinion in the USA rates Islam, Christianity and Hinduism as the most violent religions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Religion continues to be associated with violent fanaticism, as religion-inspired horror occurs with " unceasing regularity. Whether the struggles occur among Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus in India, or between Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem". No major world religion has avoided generating violence extremist movements from within its ranks,. This has been the case "since time immemorial". Religion-inspired violence is the stimulus for some people to call for the abandonment of religion altogether - it's not worth the risk. Monotheism has bred the most violent individuals and cultures due its intolerance of 'other' gods and a general strictness on the specifics of belief but, other forms of religion also breed antisocial and violent individuals. Public opinion (in the ) correctly rates Islam, Christianity and Hinduism as the most violent religions (64%, 9% and 4% said so); Judaism was rated last at 2%. "Even Buddhism", the most peaceful world religion, has stimulated organized violence.

Three factors lead believers into uncivil behaviour. (1) The irrationality of belief and (2) the legitimization given to actions by beliefs in higher authorities, without the teaching of any critical and skeptical way of judging between claims as to what those higher authorities would want. For some people, voices in their heads are all that are required as long as they believe in god(s) which have authority to speak to them. For others, including atheist skeptics, such voices are immediate warning signs of impending mental ill health. Thirdly, (3), an otherworldly idealism and fixation with the corruptness, evilness or immorality of this world often pushes groups into extreme isolation where they cease to consider outsiders to be worthwhile human beings. Both irrational and criminal behaviour are given freer rein within religious systems of thought, as is suicide to escape this world and move on to the 'next'. Mass suicide, shoot-outs, gas attacks and other atrocities have befallen groups whose main thing in common is self-isolation from wider society, and a dread of a generally Christian-themed apocalyptic judgement-day. Many such groups emerged from mainstream religious movements and gradually became more and more sectarian over time. The main causes that allow this slip are insipid supernaturalism, poor education, sectarian schooling and a lack of critical thinking.

1. Violence and Religion

1.1. Religious Wars: Politics and Culture (Example: Nigeria and India)

Many religious wars have a political and cultural component. Often it is not just two groups of people fighting over religion, but, one culture fighting another. Some defend religion in general by saying that societal divisions are the main factor in such conflicts. However, such divisions are themselves worsened by the adhering to religious identities. Religion is not only just another way of separating them, but, it is often intrinsic to the religion that non-believers are less moral or less worthy. It seems that religious texts actively promote sectarianism, and, given that this is the case, even where cultural factors play a role in mass violence it seems that religion often makes it worse and is sometimes the cause of the conflict in the first place.

For example in Nigeria from 1990 to 2007, 20,000 have been killed specifically in the name of religion. The country is divided between Christians and Muslim, and religious identity is highly important, more so than nationalism or any other element of identity. These problems are a feature of the entire region. This data comes from a report by The Economist in 2007, they summarize: "Evangelical Christians, backed by American collection-plate money, are surging northwards, clashing with Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Saudi petrodollars, surging southwards". Although Africa is the front-line, both groups of believers are supported financially and organisationally by their respective Churches around the world. Just as Iran and Israel support armed groups that antagonize each other in various countries of the Middle East, Africa is another front line between Islamic and Christian battles for power.

The them-and-us attitude is not just prevalent in monotheistic religions. India has seen much violence in the name of religion since the 1990s, as Hindu religionists are becoming increasingly anti- Christian and anti- Muslim. Churches have been burned down, Missionaries violently repelled, priests murdered, tens of thousands of Christians have fled their homes and in many states laws exist to make it harder to convert to Christianity, in contradiction to all ideas of equality and freedom of religion. Converts to Christianity are typically very poor, yet, there is an uproar against expanding welfare schemes that cover poor Hindus.. If the instigators and the victims both decided to give up religion, then, there would be one less label for those fellow Indians to use to divide each other.

It is not the case that the "real" problem is with culture or language rather than with religion. National problems with communities that speak different languages are made much more problematic when those differences also coincide with religious differences, such as in Sri Lanka, where Hindu Tamils are opposed to Buddhist Sinhalese. "The former Yugoslavia has broken into so many parts largely because of growing hostility between Muslims (mostly Bosnians) and Christians ( Serbs and Croatians)". The religious difference "often plays a more important role than language", writes anthropologist Christophe Jaffrelot. He continues:

"... language-based multiculturalism is easier to maintain than religious-based multiculturalism, as illustrated by the integration of Quebec into Canada and of the Dravidian states into the Indian Union. This is probably due to the fact that federalism can help to diffuse tensions more effectively between linguistic groups than between religious communities. But it is also due to the emotional power of religion. Devotees are more ready to mobilize in defense of their religion because of its sacred, hence imperative, character."

This page will not, however, concentrate on large-scale cultural-religious conflicts and instead concentrate on the activities of criminal and violent religious folk acting in a more individual role.

1.2. The Role of Strange Beliefs

The promotion of strange beliefs and associated mindsets is a danger of religious thought in general. For example, when Eden Strang attacked worshippers at a Church in South London, , in 1999, he was later found by the courts to be insane. He attacked the congregation because he thought they were demons in human form. But if he didn't believe in demons, then, there is a chance his actions would have been different. He told psychiatrists that God had ordered him to do it. Whilst it is true that most God-believers don't start murdering people; it is also true that they are one step closer to killing in the name of god than atheists who don't believe in gods.

"Once people convince themselves that they have been put on Earth as instruments in some divine plan, there seems to be no limit to the horrors they are willing to commit to carry out that plan."

"Words like "God" and "Allah" must go the way of "Apollo" and "Baal," or they will unmake our world."

Sam Harris ( 2006) argues at length that in today's world, even seemingly innocent beliefs in things like a Paradise-after-death can lead to murder and a lost sense of the value of life in this world. Dawkins makes a similar warning about the irrationality of religion and its effect on morals and actions, in , concentrating on issues such as violence against abortion-clinics and various other activists with bizarre beliefs. In "Fundamentalism" by Malise Ruthven ( 2007) the author warns that by giving things like murder, strife and war a place in God's ultimate (and perfect) plan, almost any action can be seen as endorsed by God - "the horrors and chaos of wars, as described in the Mahabharata and the Book of Joshua, as debated in the Baghavad Gita, as predicted in the Book of Revelation, and as alluded to in the Koran, are subsumed within an order seen to be meaningful and ultimately benign". When such beliefs are institutionalized or given free reign, it can spell disaster for those who disagree with them. Anti-Semitism for the last 2000 years has been fuelled from Christian theology, and many instances of violence against homosexuals stems from the intolerant religious teachings of the Abrahamic religions. If people understood religious myths to be unreal, and if they had a more rational and skeptical outlook, it would be much less common for such religious prejudices to translate into violent actions.

Take Mohammed Merah, a French national originally from Algeria, whose story was told by The Economist (2012)20. His beliefs led him to the wild conclusion that in order to be rewarded by God and thusly to live forever in paradise, he had to conduct a series of terror attacks in France. He did so, killing four adults and three children. He did it because in France, no-one is allowed to wear complete face and body coverings in public. But his victims included members of an Israeli family who were not even French and therefore were completely unrelated to the ban on complete body coverings - Mohammed Merah's excuse was that he also opposed Israel because it was also an enemy of Islam. When they raided his house on 2014 Mar 22, he shot and killed three paratroopers, before being himself killed. Try to imagine, exactly, how it is that this immoral monster can think that God endorses his actions? Because he has very strange beliefs, but not only that, but that he believes he must act on those beliefs no matter what. Only religion can instil such a dramatic sense of ultimate urgency and divine necessity upon murderers.

It is not just the worldwide monotheistic religions that provide motivation for irrational violence, sectarianism and murder. Superstitious beliefs in general can often provide people with the ultimate excuse for acting against those who they simply don't like. Take the example of witchcraft, widely believed in across the world except in the largely secular countries of the developed world. Here's a case from Assam, in north-east India.

"In early 2007 Mrs [Ranjita] Basumatary was driven from her original village after her neighbours accused her of being a dain - a witch. Around 100 villagers surrounded her home and beat her with sticks, leaving her badly bloodied and bruised. After receiving death threats, she fled with her husband and three children. [...] Local jealousy seems to have prompted the accusations of witchcraft. Her family had prospered, leasing livestock to other villagers. It led to resentment. When children in the village fell sick, the ojha accused Mrs Basumatary of casting spells - his own charms and potions having failed. Her case is not an isolated one. At least 17 people were killed in witch-hunts in the area last year."

If only the locals understood the various neurological, physical and subtle causes of superstitious beliefs that mislead us humans into such superstitions. I lay out these causes in Errors in Thinking: Cognitive Errors, Wishful Thinking and Sacred Truths and The False and Conflicting Experiences of Mankind: How Other Peoples' Experience Contradict Our Own Beliefs. If only the locals understood the benefits of opening all beliefs to critical analysis. Their absurd behaviour can be fixed, if only they learn to question their own beliefs and therefore adopt a more rational outlook. But they can't, because religious taboos and the authority of the local spiritual leaders prevent it, just as similar people have done across the world, substituting dogmas for sensible inquiry into the world, and ousting those who dare to think differently.

It seems that in total the general religious mindset permits a kind of irrationalism that can easily lead to violence - although most people (religious or not) are not violent. Harris makes the undeniable argument that in a world where weapons such as nuclear arms and biological weapons are becoming easier to access, we must make up for it by promoting clear-thinking, and if that means discouraging religion, it is probably for the best.

Also read:

1.3. Africa: A Modern Christian/Muslim Front

During the Crusades, Christian and Muslim armies sallied back and forth across Europe and the Middle East. Christianity had plunged the West into the Dark Ages, and Islam was carrying only a dim light of Human progress. It is arguable that such a conflict was as much cultural and political as religious. But religious differences helped define Arabs and Christians as enemies. Today, such a bleak picture is mirrored in religious battles across the continent of Africa. It is a continent where democracies fail as frequently as they rise and where scientific enterprise is retreating from powerful (and armed) religious bodies. Take Nigeria and the summary presented by The Economist:

" Nigeria, evenly distributed between Christians and Muslims, is a country where people identify themselves by their religion first and as Nigerians second. Around 20,000 have been killed in God's name since 1990. [...] This is one of many religious battlefields in this part of Africa. Evangelical Christians, backed by American collection-plate money, are surging northwards, clashing with Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Saudi petrodollars, surging southwards."

Once fired up with a particular set of religious beliefs - especially ones that teach that non-believers need to be converted for their own good - it is easy to see how this adds fuel to the fire in an already violent continent.

1.4. The Divine Endorsements of Violence

Humanity without religion is like a serial killer without a chainsaw.

Social research has found that the greater the perceived authority is, the more its opinions are taken seriously. A soldier will fight for democracy because he is trained to respond to the authority of his seniors and he may understand the values of freedom. A gang leader or a religious leader can both inspire the same aggressive behaviour in their flocks. Sociologists have spent much time researching aggression but there is not much data that specifically focuses on the effects of religious texts on violent behaviour. The National Secular Society reports on one of those few studies:

" SCRIPTURAL VIOLENCE CAN FOSTER AGGRESSION, ESPECIALLY IN BELIEVERS. [...] A study published in this month's Psychological Science looks at the relation between aggression and recent exposure to accounts of biblical violence. Students were asked to read a story about the torture and murder of a man's concubine and his tribe's measured response: they assembled an army and razed several cities, killing every man, woman, child and animal they could find.

Half the students were told that this was based on an ancient scroll recently discovered by archaeologists. The other half were told that it was from the Book of Judges in the Old Testament (which it is). In addition to the scriptural distinction, half of the students from both the Bible and the ancient scroll groups read an adjusted version that included a sentence in which God commanded his followers to take up arms against the others "and chasten them before the LORD." [...]

Higher levels of aggression were measured in [...] in those who were told that the passage was from the Bible and in those who had read that the violence was sanctioned by God. Unsurprisingly, this effect was greater in believers than in atheists."

"Religion is not just a conventional sign of difference (like the contrasting colour shirts of opposing football teams); it is also often deeply embedded in the sense of ethnic or national identity. It provides each side with a justification for seeing itself as superior (we obey God) and the enemy as inferior (they are the infidel)"

If you combine the divine sanctioning of violence found in holy books such as the Christian Bible and the Holy Quran, with the desire for an afterlife attained through worldly actions, the recipe for violence is a potent one. Failed Islamic suicide bombers have, for example, explained that they want to attain Paradise for themselves (and friends of their choosing) by violently martyring themselves in the fight against non-believers. The motivation was great because they truly believe the value of such actions are spelled out in God-given written texts.

#abrahamic_religions #christianity #intolerance #islam #judaism #monotheism #religious_violence

There is a particular inclination towards organized violence in the histories of monotheistic religions (those with just one god). Monotheism is embodied by three world religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

"The God of the Abrahamic religions, so far as it is concerned in The Bible, The Koran, and in history, hates opposing Gods. The Israelites are described as being commanded by God, time and time again, to wage war against and kill nonbelieving pagans because they dare to worship icons, fake gods, and any number of unapproved things. Worshipping wrongly is prohibited in the traditional Ten Commandments, and is consistently one of the most punished crimes in the holy texts of Jews, Christians and Muslims. The emphasis on correctness of individual belief and individual salvation has led monotheism down an intolerant and often violent path in history. The development that "insiders are correct" and " outsiders are wrong" is not a feature of simple tribal religions, but this idea of correctness developed alongside literacy, especially in monotheistic religions, finding particular prominence in Christianity of the first century. It made the new monotheism sectarian, schismatic and aggressive; social and moral laws were deemed inferior to the new emphasis on textual fundamentalism. It heralded a new type of religion, fundamentally hostile to all other religions."

"Religious Extremism" by Vexen Crabtree (2017)

2. High Rates of Imprisonment

2.1. Incarceration, Poverty, Intelligence and Religion

Prison incarceration is linked with low intelligence. Intelligence is inversely linked to faith. Religious parenting causes a reduction in children's average IQs. Evidence for this is that religious types (notably Catholics) are over-represented amongst prison inmates and other nasty classes of human, such as drug addicts, alcoholics, compulsive gamblers and sex industry workers; not to mention the fact that sectarian religious schools promote the social divisions that hundreds of sociological analyses have proven to destroy community cohesion and increase violence and crime. If religion makes a person more likely to fall foul of societies' penal codes and moral judgements, and so does lower intelligence, and also religion causes lack of intelligence, then we have a self-perpetuating cycle. Two ways forward are an increase in non-religious education and the reduction of the authority given to religious ideas.

As crime is also linked to inner city populations, and this is also, again, where religion is found to be strongest, it seems that the religious have always been bound to find themselves over-represented amongst prison populations, such as Muslims and Catholics.

"According to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Christians make up almost 80 percent of the prison population. Atheists make up about 0.2 percent. [...] It is safe to conclude that the godless do not fill prisons. Published studies do indicate that a child's risk of sexual abuse by a family member increases as the family's religious denomination becomes more conservative, that is, when the teachings of scriptures and other doctrines are taken more literally. Similarly, the probability of wife abuse increases with the rigidity of a church's teachings pertaining to gender roles and hierarchy. [...] Even observers from the Christian side have expressed dismay that the current dominance of evangelical Christianity in America has not translated into a strengthening of the nation's moral character or the characters of evangelical Christians themselves. In an article in Christianity Today, theologian Ronald Sider lamented [...]:

"The findings in numerous national polls conducted by highly respected pollsters like The Gallup Organization and The Barna Group are simply shocking. 'Gallup and Barna,' laments evangelical theologian Michael Horton, 'hand us survey after survey demonstrating that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the world in general.' "
"
"God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Prof. Victor J. Stenger ( 2007)

While it is not true to say that this is proof that strict religion causes criminality, it is at last proof that a population's adherence to a religion does not reduce levels of socially unacceptable behaviour.

2.2. Why Are There So Many Catholics in Prison?

The liberal thinker Barbara Smoker remarked on in a () Government discussion group that Catholics have a greater chance of being found in prison than many other social groups:

"I mentioned that the proportion of Roman Catholics in penal institutions is at least twice their representation in the population at large. Though I was under the impression that this was a well-known fact, it caused some derisive laughter. But on checking the statistics, I find that again I erred on the side of caution: RCs comprise 12 to 13 percent of the population of England and Wales, but 25 to 35 per cent of the inmates of borstals, detention centres, prisons and hostels for drug addicts, alcoholics, and the like [...] and similar ratios pertain in all Western countries.

A book entitled "The Church Now" (published in October 1980 by Gill and Macmillan) contains a chapter by a Catholic priest, Fr Terence Tanner, enquiring why this should be so. He points out that the answer generally given in the past - that RCs are unduly represented among the poorer sections of the community - is no longer valid."

Now that poverty no longer excuses Catholic crime, another common answer is that many people convert to a religion during a stint in prison because it is generally thought (by both inmates and those in the world at large) that this increases the chance of an early release. Statistics have indeed shown that there is a strangely high rate of conversion amongst prisoners, and sociologists have also found that it does not generally coincide with genuine belief. But it is beside the point, because of the simple fact that Catholics are over-represented in many walks of life that do not include imprisonment:

" The Times of 3 October, 1980, carried a front page comment by its religious affairs correspondent, Clifford Longley (himself RC) under the heading 'The Dilemma over Roman Catholic Delinquents', the first sentence of which reads: 'Roman Catholics are vastly over-represented among drug addicts, alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, prostitutes, night-club strippers and convicted prisoners, for reasons no one seems to know.'

Catholic children are largely segregated in their own denominational schools. In any case, Cardinal Hume's contention that church schools are morally beneficial is hardly borne out by the facts."

If we accepted that conversion-in-prison explained why there were more Catholics in prison, it wouldn't account for why there were so many Catholics amongst the other categories mentioned by Smoker; drug addicts, alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, prostitutes and night club strippers. The final point she makes is that this prevalence undermines the Catholic idea that Catholic schools tend to produce a better class of moral person.

We are about to see below that one reason for the higher rates of sex crimes may be explained by Christian ideology; their teachings on human sexuality do not mesh with reality and the mental dissonance that results can cause distorted behaviour.

2.3. Discords Between Religious Belief and Law

A more prosaic possible cause of the higher rates of criminal and anti-social activity amongst the religious is an inherent bias within legal systems against such people. Whenever such biases are revealed in court, they will normally fall foul of anti-discrimination laws, but, what if a general and obscure bias permeates the entire legal system? As some Western countries have a strong tradition of historical Christianity, is it possible that such legal systems contain an inherent bias against non-Christian religions? Examples include the Sunday trading laws that have become accepted standards in the West and the definition of marriage which generally conforms to Abrahamic ideals (Judaic, Christian and Muslim) at the exclusion of other ideals.

More enlightening are the historical biases and battles between different Christian denominations themselves. The biggest conflicts were between the Protestant and Catholics; whenever one took power in England, the other became heavily suppressed under law. These intolerant law-making policies of major denominations may have contributed to a general bias in law that makes it likely that some religious adherents are likely to find particular laws difficult. Although specifics of such anachronisms are hard to find in the secular West (as the now-dominant secularist law-making attempts to treat all religions fairly), it does demonstrate the point that religion-specific legislation should be kept out of law as much as possible, but also that it is worth considering making changes to accommodate religious adherents if there is no strong rational argument against it.

3. Sex Crimes

That prostitutes and night-club dancers and other sex trades, and crimes, have a higher incidence of Catholics is an anomaly in the minds of most laypeople. Such behaviours revealed their darkest sides in the 1990s and 2000s when many child abuse scandals centered around the Christian priesthood gain much media coverage.

"The high child abuse and sexual abuse rates within the Christian priesthood highlight a problem that many religions face: We should not attempt to mould human sexuality around otherworldly religious ideals. Sexual dysfunction always results. Psychologists and sociologists have noted the association between extreme religious fervour and psycho-sexual problems (the former causing the latter), and the highly negative stance that many monotheistic religions take towards sexuality in general have contributed to a general malaise amongst their lay adherents, and a serious pandemic of abuse amongst professional religionists. The religious attitude towards religion is to behave like an ostrich and stick its head in the sand, hoping that theology can override biological truth, but merely making its victims unable to cope with adult sexuality. Witness the hateful and confusing statements that Christians and Muslims make about homosexuals, the anti-contraception stance that the Catholic church has in an over-crowded world ridden with disease, the harmful and simplistic rejection of abortion and the patriarchal dominance over women that has gone hand-in-hand with traditional religion on every continent.

Many religious practices are somewhat more positive towards sexuality than Christianity. The scholar Veronique Mottier gives the example of Judaism, which disapproves of abstinence. Karen Armstrong reminds us that " Certain sects in Buddhism and Hinduism have used sex as a mystical activity. Everybody has heard of the Karma Sutra but not everybody is aware that this is not just a sex manual, but a method of achieving transcendence and spiritual enlightenment. Christianity is unique in having hated and outlawed sex and in making people feel guilty because they are sexual beings". But it is not just the subject of sex which is important to a discussion on sexuality - it still must be remembered that all traditional religions have normalized the dominance of men over women, and often obsessed over matters such as female dress.

In the modern world, many modern popular movements provide an alternative to traditional religions, and have enshrined normal sexuality. The secular world merely lets sexuality remain natural, and the New Age movement amongst many others, actively engage sexuality. The results have been much more positive and healthy than those of the classical monotheistic religions. This is one reason why countries that have liberal laws on abortion also have much lower rates of abortion than highly religious countries that restrict abortion heavily. An atmosphere of taboo and restriction serves limits responsible sexual behaviour. Rather than an ostrich, be a peacock!"

"The Peacock vs. the Ostrich - Religious Behaviour and Sexuality: 6. Conclusions: Be a Peacock (Secular Society and New Religious Movements Excepted) " by Vexen Crabtree (2008)

4. Mass Murder and Suicide Cults

4.1. Mass Delusion: 276 Child Murders and Over 600 Adult Suicides: Jim Jones' Peoples Temple

In 1978 over 900 people died when the People's Temple (frequently known as Jonestown) murdered their (276) own children with poison. The rest of the community then followed suit, 200 of them killing themselves and shooting the others. The dead included 383 Americans. They had previously practised the suicide routine. Their leader shot himself. He was American Rev. James (Jim) Warren Jones, an ordained priest in the mainstream Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). He had previously left the Methodist Church because they did not allow African-Americans to be members. Jones preached "an apocalyptic end of the world through race war, genocide and nuclear war. He maintained that he was the manifestation of the Christ principle and that he had the power to heal". The sectarianism and religious extremism of the Christian community brought about its own isolation. Its religious ideals were not compatible with the demands of the practicalities of real life, and the group was fixated by a Bible-based fear of the end of civilisation. Conflicts led Jones to move the community to a remote part of Guyana in 1977, but a Congressman soon followed with two investigators, worried by the concerns of relatives of members of the cult, and the stories of defectors. The community murdered them in 1978, and the same night put their suicide plan into action.

"Jonestown might be better understood as a utopian and millenarian society where suicide and murder were the final strategy when the idealistic goals of the movement failed. The conflicts Jones had with the outside world and the isolation of the experimental commune are key factors [... of] self-destruction."

The truth is a little more complex than saying that religious extremism, led by extremist leaders, leads to such delusion that human life is made second to otherworldly idealism. For in this case, Jim Jones is said to be not only rather unchristian, but a communist atheist (according to some). Whether this is true or not, it is the religious mindset of the community - the susceptibility of his followers to believe him - that led them astray. He put on fake shows of his healing powers, complete with bloody props (rabbit flesh) that he proclaimed to be cancers, and claims to be an embodiment of a principal of Christ. He attracted the poor, the uneducated, Christians and spiritualists. If only people would think more skeptically, and not take claims of resurrection and magical healing seriously, few would have believed such odd claims about reality.

Jim Jones' mental illness, aggravated by his use of drugs.

The group's intense fear of the imminent end of civilization.

The extreme isolation of the Agricultural Project.

Opposition and pressure from anti-cult groups, the media and U.S. government.

The Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance look at sociological, radical and anti-cult studies of the causes of the Jonestown disaster, and offer the following four points as being the main contributing factors:

Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance (2007)
#branch_davidians
4.2. Apocalyptic Survivalism: The Branch Davidian's Shoot-Out and the Sarin Gas Attack

We saw the Jim Jones' Peoples Temple movement progress gradually from mainstream Christianity, through to a fully-fledged survivalist cult. An emphasis on the end times (when in Christian belief, apocalyptic wars and death scourge most of humanity) emerged slowly. Such ideas are present in most mainstream religions so it is hard to tell believers that it is a dangerous belief. Isolationism, extremism, idealism and an intolerance of people without the same beliefs: these are all commonplace across religious communities. Once you believe in some of those principles, it is hard to draw a firm line and stop a community progressing down a slippery slope to a place where they consider their ideals to be more important than human life. Such a slope met the Peoples Temple in the Jonestown disaster where over 900 of them lost their lives in 1978. Another American group, the Branch Davidians, also took on an increasingly them-and-us attitude. They started out with Biblical ideas about the cataclysms of judgement day, and ended up stockpiling weapons. It culminated with the Waco siege where over 80 of the religionists died during a shoot-out with authorities in 1993.

Irrationality and susceptibility to believe some unlikely things about the universe can lead to ideals and sectarianism that separate 'others' from their humanity, and allow despicable acts to be undertaken. Aum Shinrikyo was the religious movement responsible for the 1995 sarin gas attack on Tokyo's subway that killed a dozen people and injured thousands. The movement had also already murdered others in order to protect itself. The leader believed in karma, and preached that murder was justified because it stopped people accumulating bad karma. He had picked up Christian ideas, and preached that such actions were an act of mercy, and started preaching about Armageddon. "Political failure and a feeling of national rejection led to increasing millenarianism"; again, the idea of a cataclysmic end of the world fuels seemingly insane bloodshed. The victims are not only the suggestible adherents of the movement, but the relatives, friends and communities that are affected by the religion's otherworldly aims.

4.3. Rejection of the World and Mass Suicides: Order of the Solar Temple and Heaven's Gate

Mass suicide frequently punctuates the progression of self-isolating religious communities. They are nearly always associated with belief in another world that they can travel to after death - be it heaven or a paradise on Earth. They often do not see themselves as belonging to this world, and consider the whole world evil, and often think that there is about to be a great war, worldwide cataclysm, or, judgement day. These beliefs were strongly apparent in Jonestown, where Jim Jones led the Peoples Temple to murder their own children before mostly committing suicide themselves. They believed in an imminent apocalypse and Jim Jones had previously predicted when it would happen (it didn't). The Branch Davidians had similar, urgent beliefs, which is why they stockpiled weapons. The sources of strong life-denying beliefs have varied sources: one French New Age group, the Solar Temple, was steeped in new age beliefs and practices, complete with Rosicrucian, Knights Templar and other esoteric interests. 74 of them died, mostly by suicide in Switzerland and France, then Quebec, in 1994, 1995 and 1997. They believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was imminent, and that they had to prepare for this. As with all such groups, they had issues with the real world, and in their farewell letters, they spoke of the "hypocrisies and oppression of this world".

Heaven's Gate committed their final act of self-destruction when all 39 members killed themselves in San Diego, , in 1997. The leaders, Herff Applewhite and Bonnie Lu Nettles, believed that "they were the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11", and combined weird New Age beliefs with UFO theories and were committed to detaching themselves from this world through physical training and suppressing all emotions. Over time, they became more and more isolated, and in keeping with other religious groups discussed on this page, also embraced the idea of a final departure from this world and they sold all of their possessions. In the case of Heaven's Gate, when the Hale-Bopp comet approached, they decided it hid a spacecraft that they could enter by committing suicide. They would be reborn, according to New Testament lore, into physically perfect bodies. Clearly the group had little grasp of cosmology or physics and their spiritualist beliefs about travelling souls and an idealistic life overrode their common sense. The Skeptical Inquirer describes it in this entertaining manner:

"[They] committed mass suicide [so] their souls could travel to Heaven, Nirvana, or somewhere else, flying to this indefinable infinity in the company of hypothetical aliens in their physics-proof starship."

Superstitions and an obsession with spiritual ideas of purity, 'karma' and other strange beliefs are at the core of the ability for a leader to convince people that mass suicide is a way forward. It is hard to stop such beliefs from forming. The ability of devout parents to indoctrinate children into the belief system is a main reason why the children are later victims of the group, either through constant miseducation or actual murder (the Peoples' Temple and nearly all other religious suicide groups have first poisoned their own children). It may help to prevent children being removed from public educations systems to be taught at home by extremists, but the methods of measuring who an extremist is, or, of measuring which religious groups are destructive, has proven to be generally impossible.

"The characterization of being called a doomsday cult may actually affect the outcome of violent events related to the group. [...] Canada's Canadian Security Intelligence Service Report on Doomsday Religious Cults [... advises] members of the law enforcement community, noting: "authorities often fail to appreciate the leverage they have over doomsday movements, which depend upon them to fulfill their apocalyptic scenarios." In the conclusion of the Canadian Report, the potential effects of actions by authorities are described:

Sanctions applied by authorities are often interpreted by a movement as hostile to its existence, which reinforces their apocalyptic beliefs and leads to further withdrawal, mobilization and deviant actions, and which in turn elicits heavier sanctions by authorities. This unleashes a spiral of amplification, as each action amplifies each action, and the use of violence is facilitated as the group believes this will ultimately actualize its doomsday scenario."

Eileen Barker has compared these concepts to the notion of a deviancy amplification spiral in the media and its effects on new religious movements, and James Richardson has also discussed this effect. In the case of the Concerned Christians, use of the term "doomsday cult" as a characterization of the group served as a justification for deportation of its members by the Israeli government. In the book The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines, author Loren L. Coleman discusses the affect the media can have on the seemingly innocuous intentions of a French doomsday cult. [...] In Apocalypse Observed, authors Hall, Schuyler and Trinh discuss the affect the media had on the events surrounding the Order of the Solar Temple group. They note that news commentators "could not [help? - Vexen] making a comparison to events in Waco, where the government siege of the Branch Davidians had just begun.""

5. Scriptural Justifications for Murder

People tend to find and learn scriptures from their religions that reinforce what they already believe about morality and ethics. But on top of that, the justifications offered by religions can sometimes be given enough loyalty and prominence in society that a religion's formal texts can support, and then cause, violence and murder. Such scripts obviously exist in warfaring religions such as Christianity and Islam, but also exist in Buddhism and Hinduism. Stories and arguments from all these religions are used to justify killing in circumstances that secular moralists find worrying.

5.1. Hinduism

"At the beginning of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna is contemplating the forthcoming battle between the Pandavas and their cousins the Kauravas. Filled with sadness, he refuses to fight and tells his charioteer, Krishna, of his reason. Krishna replies:

"Great warrior, carry on they fight. If any man thinks he slays, and if another thinks he is slain, neither knows the ways of truth. The Eternal in man cannot kill: the Eternal in man cannot die. He is never born, and he never dies. He is in Eternity: he is for evermore... When a man knows him as never-born, everlasting, never-changing, beyond all destruction, how can that man kill a man, or cause another to kill?...
Think thou also of thy duty and do not waver. There is no greater good for a warrior [ kshatriya] than to fight in a righteous war. There is a war that opens the doors of heaven, Arjuna! Happy the warriors whose fate is to fight such war. But to forgo this fight for righteousness [Dharma] is to forgo thy duty [Dharma] and honour: is to fall into transgression... And to a man who is in honour, dishonour is more than death... Can there be for a warrior a more shameful fate?

In death thy glory in heaven, in victory thy glory on earth.

Bhagavad Gita 2:18-21, 31-4, 37. Quoted in:

"The Phenomenon Of Religion: A Thematic Approach" by Moojan Momen ( 1999) [ Book Review]47

The problem is that this gives divine assent, and ultimate sanction, to war or killing, that a person finds "righteous". Hindus and Muslims have, for example, been fighting throughout the lands of Pakistan and in India, for many decades with both sides attacking communities and religious centers. This is a 'righteous' war based on nothing but differences of religious belief. Any discontent can lead to 'righteous' killing when there are strong feelings, and (some) Hindu texts give people an intellectualized excuse to indulge in murder. People can't really die in Hindu mythology, therefore killing isn't really killing. And righteous killing is better than dishonour. These are dangerous ideas.

" Polytheistic religions such as Hinduism are naturally more inclusive towards others' beliefs and practices and this bears out in international statistics, and is an argument seized upon by Hindus to argue that their religion does not have a problem with extremism. Indeed it tends to get ignored by the Western press and Hindu fundamentalism is simply " less well known than Christian or Muslim fundamentalism". But over the last few decades Hindu revivalism in India has shown fundamentalist tendencies. "Some among India's Hindu nationalist reformers have also insisted on the need to establish a nation-state grounded on Hindutva, or 'Hinduness', presented as the authentic culture of the majority" and "Hindu nationalists have at times taken violent action against Muslims and Christian missionaries, in defiance of official state policies". For example in India an Islamic mosque called Babri Masjid (mosque of Babur) was built in the town of Ayodhya in the 16th century. That town is also said to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, an incarnation of the great god Vishnu. In 1949, Hindu activists sneakily placed an image of Rama inside the Mosque. This caused communal rioting between Hindus and Muslims which resulted in deaths. Various compromises (including allowing Hindus to worship in the mosque once a year) all broke down. Hindu activists campaigned in 1989 to build a new Temple at the site which attracted support and donations from all over India, and in 1992 they forcefully destroyed the mosque. Riots erupted in various cities as Muslims protested. Thousands of Muslims lost their lives in a very one-sided series of mob fights. What was demonstrated wasn't just that one group of activists can be violent, but, that inter-religious struggles are almost automatic flashpoints of general upset and aggression across the country.

"Hinduism ... in recent decades has ... come to be mobilized in ways incompatible with human rights. [...] Hinduism has been mobilized by right-wing nationalists, under the label of Hindutva ( Hinduness), exacerbating the recurrently violent communal struggles between Muslims and Hindus."

One author argues "that Hindu fundamentalists have had more political success than most others because they were able to put their leaders into government in the period 1999 to 2004" and points out particular bodies responsible for encouraging the discord, "the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), and certain key individuals, especially ideologues like M. S. Golwalkar (1906-1973) and Deendayal Upadhyay (1916-1968)". Recent years have seen this trend continue. When a 2007 Indian film was released covering incidences of communal riot, it wasn't shown in one state (Gujarat) for fear of retaliation by Hindu activists. Take, for example, an incident in 2015 that saw a mob of 1,000 Hindus attack a small family of Muslims in India: A rumour had broken out that a cow had been slaughtered. Vigilantes from Save the Cow prompted a mob to appear on site, and proceeded to, amongst themselves, blame a nearby Muslim family (no slaughtered cow was found). They appeared at the house, where the family were sleeping, and beat the husband to death and left his boy in critical condition in hospital. The press got involved and Save the Cow explained their religious duty as Hindus to protect cows, which are sacred. A local politician from the Bharatiya Janata Party, Lakshmikant Bajpayee, defended the mob saying that there had a been a failure of local police to respond to the rumour adequately. The issues are (1) that the slaughter of a cow - even if it had actually happened - is none of the business of local Hindus. It doesn't matter that they consider it sacred - other people do not. And (2), they should not be trying to force others to follow their own superstitions. Likewise, politicians should not be encouraging them - they should be representing all citizens including those with non-Hindu beliefs. Entire communities and cultures are being negatively affected by religious nonsense. Jack Donnelly in "Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice" ( 2013) highlighted that Hindu extremism has become " an impediment to the exercise and enjoyment of internationally recognized human rights""

"Hinduism: Fundamentalism and Violent Extremism" by Vexen Crabtree (2016)

#extremism #fundamentalism #intolerance #israel #judaism #religious_violence #violence

" Modern Judaism does not lend itself to violence or extremism. In history it has proven to be the most peaceable Abrahamic religion. Nonetheless Judaism has still amassed a monstrous catalogue of horrors in its name. If the stories of the Bible can be believed, the founding of Judaism occurred amidst pointlessly murderous battles with the rightful native inhabitants of Canaan and huge numbers of Biblical statements can be used to support violence and aggression in the name of religion. In history, Jewish nations conducted forced conversion en masse. Modern terrorist incidents have also centered on the struggles to control land that has special religious significance for Jews in Israel. Extremist groups in the West Bank have executed violent terrorist campaigns against Palestinians and other campaigns have occurred against the Temple Mount,,,,. Today, mainstream Judaism and the government of Israel speak out consistently and strongly against extremism, but the Haredim (ultra-conservative Orthodox Jews) are still growing in number and can be found aggressively trying to segregate the genders, enforcing strict rules of dress on others and banning free access to secular reading material especially via the Internet."

"Fundamentalist Judaism and Jewish Terrorism" by Vexen Crabtree (2016)

5.3. Buddhism

"The main scriptural justifications for killing may be briefly summarized. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra it is told how the Buddha in one of his former lives killed some Brahmin heretics. This was done to protect the Doctrine, and to save them themselves from the consequences of continued attacks on it. When the Doctrine is in danger the Five Precepts, including the prohibition on taking life, may be ignored..."

The problem is that "threats" to Doctrine can mean almost anything. Science and modernism both threaten religion as a whole, including Buddhist Doctrine. Hardline Buddhists have fought violently against Muslims and Hindus in Asia, expressing fears that Buddhism is dwindling under the other religion's forceful expansionism. The Crusades and the Inquisition were both based on protecting Doctrine against heretics. The idea that ideas are more important than lives is one of the most dangerous ideas in religion, especially when you combine this with a general belief in eternal consequences and afterlives. It is better for stability and peace if we consider Humans to be more valuable alive than dead, no matter what their beliefs are.

Some think that the New Testament is nicer than the OT. They are correct; it was written in much more enlightened times. But the NT still endorses violence and murder. Jesus himself declared "think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" ( Matthew 10:34). But for what ends is this violence to be executed? Luke 14:23 says "Compel people to come in!" for the purpose of "filling" the Church. And henceforth, Christian history contains many unfortunate chapters where Christian groups anathematized one another as heretics, and proceeded to burn, torture and murder those who disagreed. Victims have been anyone who disagreed even on confusing technical points of Christian doctrine, members of other religions such as Muslims and Jews, "witches", homosexuals, and finally, a small number who have genuinely plotted against the Church.

Such attitudes are not merely disasters found in history. Even in the twentieth century, Pope Leo XII argued for violence and murder, based on religion:

"The death sentence is a necessary and efficacious means for the Church to attain its end when rebels act against it and disturbers of the ecclesiastical unity, especially obstinate heretics and heresiarchs, cannot be restrained by any other penalty. [...] If there be no other remedy for saving its people it can and must put these wicked men to death."

Revelation 6:8 (the 4th seal) "I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Revelation 9:15 (the 6th seal) "And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind".

Revelation 4th Seal and 6th Seal. Here's a quick calculation assuming an initial population of 6 000 000 000:
1/4 are killed when the 4th seal is opened: 1/4 of 6.0 billion is 1.5 billion, leaving 4.5 billion survivors.
1/3 are killed then the 6th seal is opened: 1/3 of 4.5 billion is 1.5 billion, leaving 3.0 billion survivors.
Exactly half of Humankind are killed, and this calculation uses only two of the seven seals!

Aside from the New Testament's endorsement of killing in the name of religion, God itself leads by example. The Book of Revelation is the climax of the New Testament. God reverts to his Old Testament ways. The suffering and pain described in the apocalypse is something that a good god could never let happen. Some excerpts:

It is an incredibly difficult task to explain to Christians who decide to kill in god's name that they are in fact going against the Bible, because this is simply not the case.

The section above is taken from "Is the Christian God Evil? Evidence from Scripture and Nature" by Vexen Crabtree (2006), click for a more comprehensive look at the many genocides committed by God, or ordered by God, in the Christian Bible.

Militant Islam is rife in the modern world,. Islamic terrorism is a constant threat to worldwide international stability, and a string of historical (and ongoing) movements have resulted in uncountable deaths, mostly of innocent victims. Religious persecution is very much worse in Muslim-majority countries; sixty-two percent of Muslim-majority countries have moderate to high levels of persecution and of the 14 worst countries for religious persecution and violence, 13 are predominantly Muslim. This cause of this is not ethnic or wealth-related; it stems from Muslim teachings and internal movements towards stricter Islam. Right from the start, " the traditional sources of the Islamic faith - the Koran, the Sunna, the hadiths - provide crystal-clear justification for the entire program of militancy". Of the first four successors to Muhammad, three were assassinated. A 2014 study found 41% of the people in Pakistan supported acts of deadly violence in defense of Islam as did 39% in Lebanon, 15% Indonesia, 13% in Morocco, and 57% in Jordan - "even in Turkey, a member of NATO, 14 percent see some good in terrorism when carried out in the name of Islam"..

Although much of this violence is directed on Muslims by other Muslims, where strong Muslim communities exist alongside others outwards persecution is common, and often very severe. Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 was murdered by a Dutch Muslim for perceived insults against Islam. Hundreds of "honour killings" have seen women murdered by their own families for failing to adhere to Muslim ideas on relationships and behaviour. Pressure is exerted against all of the most vocal critics of Islam almost no matter where they are in the world. Antisemitism is strongly associated with Islam across the world, especially in Muslim countries and places in Europe with Muslim communities.

Many powerful, rich and well-established Islamic organisations support schools of thought that are inherently intolerant. Saudi Arabia pumps " a great deal of money into a variety of radicalizing organizations... as a consequence of their commitment to Wahhabi Islam". " What may truly be needed is a wholesale, indigenous reformation of Islam" but grassroots movements towards strict Islam rise to counter the beginnings of liberalism in the Muslim world and its moderates are feeble and persecuted.There is a long way to go before Islam emerges from its Dark Ages.

5.6. Sikh Sectarianism and Militant Symbols of Violence

Culturally, Sikhism is a peaceful religion, whose traditions emphasize helping others. But all religious traditions have factions who endorse violence, and the symbolism of Sikhism is rife with imagery that would encourage organized military endeavours and personal violence. The Khanda, the primary symbol of Sikhism, is comprised of four weapons: two swords, a double-edged sword in the centre, and a chakram (circular throwing weapon). In many military cultures, downwards-pointing swords represent peace: all three blades on the Sikh symbol point upwards. Of the "Five Ks" - the outwards appears of Sikhism, which all Sikhs must wear, three can be construed as being related to aggression and violence: The steel of the kara bangle represents strength, the Kirpan is a small sword or dagger and the Kacchera (short trousers) "signify readiness to ride into battle".

The Khalistan movement saw 20 years of Sikh violence in an attempt to partition off part of India as a new independent Sikh state; hundreds were killed in fights and Sikh terrorist actions. Under the militant Bhindranwale, hundreds more of innocent Hindus were killed in the 1980s, in attempts to assert Sikh identity in a Hindu nation. 39 Sikhs were also killed, for opposing the sectarian movement. Although most Indians consider Bhindranwale a terrorist, he is still described as a 'martyr' by Akal Takht ( Sikh highest religious authority). Although violence decreased from the 1990s, there is a constant risk that Sikh martial symbolism and strong self-identity refuels violent sectarianism. In history, however, less violence has been conducted in the name of Sikhism than in most other world religions.

6. Prevention

To prevent the sectarianism and isolation that leads religious groups to the most atrocious actions is a difficult task in a free society; people are free to join groups and live with friends (call it a commune if you want), and are also free to believe crazy things. To stop social groups, even just exclusive ones, is a severe reduction in freedom and almost definitely not worth it on the balance. Restricting living arrangements would disrupt ethnic groups, religious groups and all kinds of innocent behaviour. It is impossible and reprehensible to try and police beliefs: that type of behaviour is a symptom of extremism, not a cause of it. Yet these three elements, when taken together, can lead to everything from mass suicide to genocidal attacks on humanity as a whole. The cure cannot be to deal with the errant groups as they emerge, but to stop them emerging in the first place.

Causes of the isolation of these groups stem from their social unacceptability; they feel rejected because others (accurately) judge their ideas as absurd. They reject the world just as it rejects them. This leads to the them-and-us attitude in extremo. The outcries against "cults" in the press, and official investigations, all feed the fire, but the government cannot fail to investigate pseudo-criminal groups, as things like child welfare are at stake.

1. Education should be secular, inclusive and mixed. This means emphasis on difference of belief, without assuming any particular belief system is true, and an abandonment of schools that split people along religious (or ethnic) lines (this applies during home education too).

2. Cult-bashing reactionary news broadcasts that actively attack small, isolated communities always make the situation worse. Engagement should be educational and sympathetic towards followers, not judgemental and aggressive (which makes them isolate themselves more).

3. The presentation of scientific reality in easy-to-understand terms on TV, complete with reality-based interpretations of spiritual-seeming events. Too much TV assumes that many otherworldly ideas about reality are true, and far too little employs any evidence-based skeptical thinking. A more responsible take on what beliefs mass media products encourage should be taken.

4. Beliefs in afterlife, god(s) and spiritual ideas should ideally be tempered with reasonable levels of doubt and common sense. Merely saying that this should be so doesn't help, however, so it is up to the three points above to bring this recommended state closer!

My page on "Anti-Religious Forces: Specific Factors Fuelling Secularisation" by Vexen Crabtree (2011) describes many of the elements of modern life that reduce superstitious and religious beliefs in general. Without beliefs in god(s), afterlife, etc, it is impossible to believe any of the things that the leaders of these groups tend to say. And although most these groups do attract some outstanding individuals and persons of responsibility, in general they are the stay of the under-privileged and under-educated. Education is the main inverse correlate of divisive religious sectarianism. Comparative religion and skeptical thinking both serve to help people evaluate claims about spiritual reality in more reasonable and moral terms. This operates across the scale from the tutorship of individual children at home, to the mass-education of ethnic and religious groups in specially run schools. Most parents who educate their children at home do so for religious reasons. Sectarian religious schools (who base entry criteria on religion) are a major cause of the type of social schism that leads to violent behaviour.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Religion continues to be associated with violent fanaticism, as religion-inspired horror occurs with " unceasing regularity. Whether the struggles occur among Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus in India, or between Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem". No major world religion has avoided generating violence extremist movements from within its ranks,.

# data[].attributes.body
Jealousy, Anger, Fear, Revenge, Anarchism

# data[].attributes.headline
10. Basic Human Needs Are Believing We Have The Talent And Ability To Reach The Desired Outcome

# data[].attributes.subject
10. Basic Human Needs Are Believing We Have The Talent And Ability To Reach The Desired Outcome

# data[].attributes.body
When the attainment has interfered, some people suffer a sense of defeat, feeling incompetent because their desired outcomes appear unobtainable and some fail to find their purpose to live. This causes frustration.

# data[].attributes.body
There are studies that prove how stress can make anyone more sensitive to potential threats and triggers the impulse to kill someone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following the most recent school mass shooting - this time in Santa Fe, Texas, where 10 students and teachers were killed and 10 were wounded Friday - family members, friends and investigators find themselves searching for illusive answers.

Why did this happen? How do you make sense of such a senseless tragedy?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott pointed out that unlike other recent mass shootings, "there were not those types of warning signs. The red-flag warnings were either nonexistent or very imperceptible."

The accused shooter's parents said the media reports of the shooting seemed " incompatible with the boy (they) love," and the 17-year-old boy's best friend said he was " one of the most responsible people I knew. He didn't drink or do drugs, to my knowledge ... he was academically proactive, making all A's."

Given the profile that is emerging, investigators have not yet identified the motive for the shooting.

I, however, know precisely why this latest killer did what he did. And I also know what will motivate the next killer to act in a similar way.

Many years ago, as I began investigating high-profile murders in Los Angeles County, I carefully chronicled the motives for every homicide that occurred in our region. You might think there are a million reasons why someone would commit a murder, but there are only three possibilities.

At least one of these three motives is the driving force behind every homicide, theft, burglary and robbery. In fact, these three motives lie at the heart of every conceivable crime or misdeed.

Human misbehavior is motivated by: financial greed, sexual - or relational - lust, and the pursuit of power.

You might be wondering if there is a fourth category. There isn't. What about jealousy? What about anger? Ask yourself the question: What is causing the jealousy or anger? There are only three answers to this question, and now you know them.

The notorious gang, MS-13, inadvertently confirmed these three motives when leaders chose the motto for their criminal organization: Kill, Steal, Rape, Control.

All murders (kill) are motivated by financial greed (steal), sexual lust (rape) or the pursuit of power (control). Sometimes only one of these motives is the driving force behind a crime. Sometimes two or more are involved.

The latest school shooting is a good example. While there doesn't appear to be any financial motive, the killer does appear to have been driven by the other two motivations I've described:

Sexual Lust - A 16-year-old girl killed in the Santa Fe shooting, Shana Fischer, was apparently pursued by the accused killer in the days and weeks prior to the shooting. Her mother said the accused shooter "kept making advances on her and she repeatedly told him no." According to Shana's father, she "told her mother two weeks ago he was going to come and kill her."

The Pursuit of Power - This form of motivation can be very nuanced and includes one's sense of respect, authority, embarrassment, prestige or control. For example, as the accused killer became "more aggressive" in his advances toward Shana (approximately one week prior to the shooting), Shana eventually "stood up to him" and "embarrassed him in class."

In addition, several news organization have reported that the accused shooter was bullied and "mistreated at school." Episodes of perceived disrespect and embarrassment are often the motive for murder. This would also explain why some of the accused killer's friends said that he recently "started wearing a trench coat" and telling students he was "buying knives off Amazon."

The accused shooter incrementally sought the respect (and fear) of others, a classic example of the pursuit of power. During the attack, the killer even selectively spared students he liked "so he could have his story told." This effort to elevate his fame and prestige after the fact is consistent with the motive I've described.

Since only three motives lie behind school shootings like the ones we've seen recently, I sadly expect to see more shootings in the future.

Unless we, as a nation, are willing to embrace and promote a worldview that helps us understand the proper role of money and financial stewardship, promotes sexual purity and restraint, and helps us place the needs of others ahead of our own desires, we can expect more of the same.

Those restorative values may sound familiar to you; they used to be part of our collective heritage and our common worldview. They are also our last and greatest hope if we ever expect to minimize and contain the only three reasons anyone commits a crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why do people become killers? There are only three reasons -- Here they are

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following the most recent school mass shooting - this time in Santa Fe, Texas, where 10 students and teachers were killed and 10 were wounded Friday - family members, friends and investigators find themselves searching for illusive answers. Why did this happen? How do you make sense of such a senseless tragedy?

# data[].attributes.body
Douglas Fields, a neuroscientist and the author of the book “Why We Snap,” claims we all are capable of violence because of our human needs  to survival.

# data[].attributes.body
We have a strong desire to have what we want and need and the desire to possess the ability to obtain them. And for some people, they go to a far extent and kill others to get what they want.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some people slice throats as easily as you or I butter a warm slice of toast. In 2014, knife wielding assailants hacked 29 people to death and injured 130 more at a train station in China. Others prefer more expeditious means of murderous mayhem. One indiscriminately opened fire on concert attendees at a Las Vegas music festival, leaving 58 innocent people dead and 546 injured. A 16-year-old, self-proclaimed "Angel of Death" went on a premeditated rampage, shooting his grandfather before invading his school and killing nine classmates. These examples of wanton killing are just a few of the many examples of mass violence in the U.S. that happen daily.

The spectrum of human cruelty seemingly has elastic bounds based on the escalating frequency of mass violence. According to the FBI, the murder rate was 5.3 individuals per 100,000 inhabitants in 2016, a 7.9 percent increase when compared with the rate for 2015. Violence frequency is partially offset by U.S. population growth from 267.7 million in 1996 to 323.1 million in 2016, meaning that the likelihood of becoming a victim of violent crime has decreased, but the death toll has not. Regardless of frequency, officials and concerned citizens ponder the motives for violent crime in what is often a futile attempt at limiting the frequency of tragedy.
Opinions, not evidence, reign supreme
Mental health professionals, politicians, and journalists offer a litany of reasons why individuals are motivated to murder. Some of the more commonly reported motives (but not the causes) include anarchism, personal revenge, retaliation for abuse or being " wronged," moral depravity, demonic possession, and even a " lack of a conscience." Many killers have relationships with their victims. Some suggest that killers are fixated on the morbid goal of winning the body count contest, despite no evidence to support this numeric contention.

Most explanations of motive are effective at identifying emerging symptoms that predict murderous behavior, but few explanations indicate why the behavior occurs in the first place. Mental illness is a convenient catch-all explanation for violent crime, but declaring mental illness as the cause of behavior is a label of diagnostic convenience-one that is given to people who display behaviors that deviate from those of the dominant culture. Many of us mutter the words "he's crazy" or "she's nuts" when we hear about an act considered disturbing or absurd.

However, the "experts" fail to accurately diagnose the cause of violence. Typically only the behavior of the culprit is examined, with failure to acknowledge that the same behavior can represent multiple motives (see motivational myths here). Second, the symptoms are often erroneously used to establish false causal conclusions. Like having a cold, it is important to remove the symptoms to feel better, but ultimately the treatment of any disease requires addressing the root cause of the illness. Conclusions such as the killer was "frustrated," "angry," "resentful," or "vengeful" do not address the source of the emotion or why emotional satisfaction is achieved through acts of violence.
Five common roots
Investigating violent behavior from the perspective of motivation science reveals five common themes. Each presents a possible, partial explanation for why some indulge in violence.

Although I make no clinical assessments, motivational science establishes that just like you and me, psychopaths have basic psychological needs to satisfy. When need satisfaction is continually denied during day-to-day work or school interactions and personal relationships, individuals are prone to turn to other less socially acceptable strategies to remove or redirect their frustration. These strategies are described as "self-handicapping" behavior by psychologists and can take many shapes and forms, including self-harm, substance abuse, and even murder.
Goal attainment
One of the most basic human needs is believing we have the talent and ability to reach desired outcomes (Bandura, 1997). When goal attainment is blocked, some people suffer a sense of self-defeat, feeling incompetent because desired outcomes appear unobtainable. Under ideal circumstances we try again or use different approaches to reach our goals. However, if we believe we lack control over our lives or doubt our ability to reach goals, we become frustrated. In turn, frustration-a highly motivating emotion-must be eliminated or we continue to feel badly about our perceived inadequacy. A simple solution is to change goals or pursue an easier target. Murder, while abhorrent, is not physically difficult to commit given the sophistication of weaponry. One trigger-click and the unfulfilled killer has met a sordid goal.
Emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to recognize and evaluate emotions in the self and others and use that knowledge to solve problems and navigate the minefield we call "life." Not bothering someone who is obviously angry is a common example of someone who is perceptive and has elevated EI. Although skepticism surrounds what EI represents and whether it can be measured more effectively in other ways, three aspects of EI are not disputed by motivation research:

(1) Individuals who demonstrate EI have effective strategies to deal with different emotions.

(2) Individuals with elevated EI are more personally and professionally successful than individuals lacking EI.

(3) Emotional regulation strategies can be taught.

Individuals who commit aggression lack strategies to deal with emotional regulation (Davidson, Putnam, & Larson, 2000, Englander, 2017). We also know that emotions continue with a vengeance until the source of the frustration is identified and a response is taken to reduce the emotional distress. You probably know what I mean if you've ever punched a wall when you were angry. In the mind of the killer, murder may be the emotion-reduction strategy of choice.
Gratification
When we invest effort in something we usually do it for a payoff. For example, you might be reading this article to gain knowledge or to relax and temporarily avoid doing some work! You might want to own a fancy car in order to be admired by friends. Regardless of your motives, you expect something tangible in return for the investment of your attention or money. The best payoffs take time and effort, including things like advanced education, wealth, or solid relationships.

However, we are sometimes unwilling to invest the necessary time or effort to get the best payoff because we want to see the results of our actions immediately. The infamous marshmallow test offered kids one treat immediately after completing a task, or two marshmallows after waiting 15 minutes. The experiment was the launching pad for years of research establishing that those who demonstrate self-control and tolerate waiting, accomplish more in life, get better jobs, and are healthier and wealthier than individuals who lack self-control. However, some of us never properly learned that deferral of satisfaction usually results in more beneficial outcomes. When murder is committed there is little delay in gratification. There may be intricate planning, but once the killer commits to action, the results are almost instantaneous and satisfying for those who hate to wait.
Recognition of competence
We strive for competence because it defines who we are and in turn serves as a foundation for accomplishment and recognition (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In absence of appreciation from others, negative self-reflection may develop, creating feelings of inadequacy because the need for competence is denied. Competence doesn't necessarily mean gaining recognition for socially desirable behaviors like being a good parent or a reliable employee. Ironically, recognition from the media, law enforcement, and others is obtained by killers through the commission of the most devious and heinous acts.

Regardless, when we feel competent we are energized by the assessments of our values and abilities. Accounts of many psychopaths, murderers, and serial killers rarely show a pattern of traditional competence and the associated recognition for their achievements. Killers are often described as loners with a lengthy pattern of disrespect and little recognition from others-until of course they've committed unthinkable crimes. Then, almost instantly, the previously anguished killer is globally recognized. Their depraved competence needs are fulfilled through the death of others.
Social reciprocity
"An eye for an eye," "a tooth for a tooth," "kill or be killed," and "don't get mad, get even," are familiar thoughts that dance in the minds of those who feel wronged. The payback motive can be a powerful catalyst of behavior that continues unabated until the maligned individual believes they have corrected any perceived inequity. Psychologists refer to the process of getting even as the principle of reciprocity, whereby individuals feel obligated to respond in kind when they believe others have treated them in a certain way. Usually this means doing a favor for someone that has helped you, or giving a gift to someone who has given you a gift, but in the mind of the criminal it means taking your frustration out on others. Satisfying the reciprocity motive often results in abuse, cruelty, violent behavior, and possibly murder. In the mind of the depraved, when an action goes unreciprocated, tempestuous reactions and vile behavior must follow because most individuals believe in the restoration of social or materialistic inequity (van Doorn, Zeelenberg, & Breugelmans, 2014).
So, what's the difference between you and a killer?
First, you recognize that there are more socially acceptable ways to reach your goals than taking your frustrations out on others. Unlike the "I want it and I want it now" psychopath, you know that achievement and recognition are a function of effort exerted over time. You also realize the maxim of "attracting more bees with honey than with vinegar," and how to channel emotions productively to maintain positive relationships with others. You are different than the killer in part because you likely had a positive role model, one or more mentors such as parents, friends, coworkers, or health professionals who modeled or taught you how to deal with frustration-a luxury that many murderers lack. In absence of a credible friend or relative to teach us socially acceptable ways of dealing with frustration and failure, some people resort to devious strategies to eliminate their psychological pain.

Successful individuals also believe they can control their destiny and determine their success. When you make a mistake or miss a target, you try harder or choose a different approach to reach your goal. However, some who don't know the strategy or perceive that they are likely to fail may think, "Why bother?" So, the next time you read or hear about those who use violence to satisfy their needs, consider that they may never have had the same opportunity that you did to learn some of the most valuable lessons in life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why We Kill, According to Motivational Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some people slice throats as easily as you or I butter a warm slice of toast. In 2014, knife wielding assailants hacked 29 people to death and injured 130 more at a train station in China. Others prefer more expeditious means of murderous mayhem.

# data[].attributes.body
Brutaliaztion defines as the process in which you lose a sense of your own worth as an individual. This is one of the principal factors why people kill as they want the purpose of living back. People start blaming others, especially those that are close to them, and have a negative and rather revengeful view of them. This often leads to murder as the murderers believe if they are gone, they get happy and feel appreciated for their towering ego and power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Assuming we aren't all killers who refrain from causing harm due to social or psychological restrictions, what could create a killer? According to soldiers like retired U.S. Army Lt .Col. Dave Grossman, it's a process involving four strategies: brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning and role modeling [source: Grossman].

Brutalization is the process in which you lose a sense of your own worth as an individual. Within the military, this is a highly regimented process. New recruits undergo difficult and sometimes humiliating training experiences to wear down a sense of individuality. It helps the military chip away at the resistance most people have to the notion of ending someone else's life.

Advertisement

The military also conditions soldiers to become effective. In classical conditioning, the goal is to associate a desired behavior with a reward. Grossman says this isn't used often in American military training because it seems morally reprehensible to associate violence with rewards. In operant conditioning, soldiers train in simulated environments to develop an automatic response to stimuli. An example is firing at human-shaped targets.

The role model in the military is the drill sergeant. It's the drill sergeant's job to demonstrate aggression while maintaining discipline. Assuming the process works the way the military intends it to, soldiers will look to the drill sergeant as the model for behavior. This combined approach, in theory, will create soldiers capable of killing an enemy in combat.

It's possible that killers who were never soldiers -- including most serial killers or mass murderers -- had experiences similar to those of a military recruit. The major difference is that with these killers, the exposure wasn't in a controlled environment. The backgrounds of many killers show a history of brutalization. In several cases, the killers began to enact violence on weaker creatures as a way of asserting control or demonstrating behaviors learned through being brutalized.

Look into the backgrounds of serial killers, and you'll start to notice some common elements. Many people who eventually become serial killers had traumatic childhoods and were themselves victims of abuse. It's a gross oversimplification to suggest a traumatic childhood is the chief contributing factor to a serial killer's behavior, but there does appear to be a strong correlation.

Many killers have expressed feelings of alienation and have shown evidence of harboring violent fantasies before they commit to killing. In some cases, the killer suffers from a mental disorder or brain damage that either inhibits or prevents the social and psychological restrictions humans have toward killing other people.

Whether we're repressing urges that are more than several millennia old or we're naturally averse to ending the life of another person, it's clear that in most cases we need a catalyst to push us to killing. Identifying and understanding the elements that can change a person at risk into a killer may help us treat and prevent tragedy in the future.

Learn more about psychology, crime and related topics by following the links on the next page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Assuming we aren't all killers who refrain from causing harm due to social or psychological restrictions, what could create a killer? According to soldiers like retired U.S. Army Lt .Col. Dave Grossman, it's a process involving four strategies: brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning and role modeling [source: Grossman].

# data[].attributes.body
People with an antisocial personality disorder, don’t feel empathy toward others, this sometimes leads to somewhat we call psychopaths and sociopaths. These people tend to feel no shame or guilt for their wrongdoings. Even if they do, they might not care or not even know what’s wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The content cannot be shown: page content not found or not requested.

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of men kill their family members because they think they are losing control over their masculine dominance. The desire for and sense of entitlement to control the family is a common factor to why such tragedy happens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the country mourns the horrific murders of Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey at the hands of their father, many people are trying to make sense of what happened to them - and perhaps learn something to prevent it from happening again.

Sadly, we know such acts of violence against women and their children are not isolated. On average, one woman is killed in Australia each week by her current or former partner.

Familicides - family murders in which a perpetrator murders their partner and children - are much rarer, but research tells us that how we think, talk and write about these cases matters. It shapespublic attitudes and influences the ways we try to prevent them.

In this context, it is important familicide be understood as a form of gender-based violence, whether in the presence or absence of a history of physical violence.

Clarke's estranged husband, Rowan Baxter, set her and their children on fire in the family car last week, before killing himself. PR Handout Image/Facebook

Common denominators in familicide

Though there is not a great deal of research on familicides, what we do know suggests it is a highly gendered crime.

To call an act of violence gender-based is not merely to suggest it is male violence against women, although it often is. It is violence that is driven in a central way by the social and structural dimensions of gender.

This means gender plays an important role in who perpetrates the violence, who is targeted, how and why.

In the case of familicides, research shows they are almost exclusively committed by men in heterosexual family relationships.

A history of domestic violence is a key risk factor. Individual familicide studies show varying rates, but a recent review of existing studies found a history of domestic violence was identified in 39 per cent to 92 per cent of cases.

Another key risk factor is the adult victim leaving or communicating their intention to leave the relationship - a well-documented precipitator for intimate partner homicide or intensified violence.

Familicide is not always preceded by violence, however. A desire for and sense of entitlement to control - especially over finances and the family "unit" - is a more common denominator. Familicide often occurs in the face of a spiralling loss of control over these areas, especially by a male "head of the household".

A loss of control over "masculine" domains is at the heart of familicides, even where there is no clear history of domestic abuse. S ome perpetrators whose actions may appear "out of the blue" have been described in research studies as having their lives unravelling in ways that are acutely tied to their gender identity.

Given these factors, familicides are usually pre-meditated.

'We are a nation in pain', a friend of Clarke's said at a vigil in Brisbane. Sarah Marshall/AAP

Control as a factor in most killings

Many of these factors were present in recent familicide cases in Australia - financial struggles, imminent separation or custody disputes, and careful planning of the murders.

In 2016, for example, Fernando Manrique killed Maria Lutz and their two children, Elisa and Martin, by pumping carbon monoxide gas into the home while they slept. He also died at the scene from the gas.

The inquest into the killings found although there was no known history of violence in the relationship, Manrique had a "possessive" attitude towards his wife, was in financial stress and planned the crime over several weeks when he realised Maria was leaving him.

Based on what we know so far in the killings of Clarke and her children, she experienced an extreme form of "coercive control", with her dress and movements closely monitored and enforced by her husband.

Clarke also had a domestic violence order against him, had recently left the relationship and had expressed fears her husband may kill her. Control, and the imminent loss of it, was central to Baxter's actions against both Clarke and her children. Children can also be victims of gender-based violence.

How the media covers these cases

News reporting on recent familicide cases has often focused on the personal circumstances of perpetrators, their financial troubles and the "pain" and "heartache" they must have felt.

Too often, when fathers kill their children, the tendency is to frame it as a case of mental illness rather than gender-driven violence.

Mainstream media largely fail to provide domestic violence resources such as 1800Respect in their reporting of these cases.

Even Prime Minister Scott Morrison, in a tweet on the Clarke murders, took care to include mental health support numbers but did not provide contact details for those experiencing domestic or family violence.

Reporting on the Baxter familicide has seen more frequent inclusion of domestic violence resources, in part due to early revelations of a history of domestic violence.

However, there has also been strong criticism levelled at news outlets for using passive, violence-minimising language in reporting on the case and framing Baxter himself as an equal victim.

The research on familicide tells us that whether or not there is a history of violence, we should be looking to gender norms and structures to understand the root causes and how they are linked to gender violence.

Calling violence gendered has fuelled a culture war in recent years - but if we want to address familicide, we need to put this aside and use the knowledge available to tackle underlying causes.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, family or domestic violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000. Denise Buiten is a senior lecturer in social justice and sociology at University of Notre Dame Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why do men kill their families? Here's what the research says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the country mourns the horrific murders of Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey at the hands of their father, many people are trying to make sense of what happened to them - and perhaps learn something to prevent it from happening again.

# data[].attributes.body
In history and in general, our ancestors killed rivals and their offsprings to possess power and to prove their status. This tells us that only the powerful and strong people lived and they proved this by killing the weak ones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some people slice throats as easily as you or I butter a warm slice of toast. In 2014, knife wielding assailants hacked 29 people to death and injured 130 more at a train station in China. Others prefer more expeditious means of murderous mayhem. One indiscriminately opened fire on concert attendees at a Las Vegas music festival, leaving 58 innocent people dead and 546 injured. A 16-year-old, self-proclaimed "Angel of Death" went on a premeditated rampage, shooting his grandfather before invading his school and killing nine classmates. These examples of wanton killing are just a few of the many examples of mass violence in the U.S. that happen daily.

The spectrum of human cruelty seemingly has elastic bounds based on the escalating frequency of mass violence. According to the FBI, the murder rate was 5.3 individuals per 100,000 inhabitants in 2016, a 7.9 percent increase when compared with the rate for 2015. Violence frequency is partially offset by U.S. population growth from 267.7 million in 1996 to 323.1 million in 2016, meaning that the likelihood of becoming a victim of violent crime has decreased, but the death toll has not. Regardless of frequency, officials and concerned citizens ponder the motives for violent crime in what is often a futile attempt at limiting the frequency of tragedy.
Opinions, not evidence, reign supreme
Mental health professionals, politicians, and journalists offer a litany of reasons why individuals are motivated to murder. Some of the more commonly reported motives (but not the causes) include anarchism, personal revenge, retaliation for abuse or being " wronged," moral depravity, demonic possession, and even a " lack of a conscience." Many killers have relationships with their victims. Some suggest that killers are fixated on the morbid goal of winning the body count contest, despite no evidence to support this numeric contention.

Most explanations of motive are effective at identifying emerging symptoms that predict murderous behavior, but few explanations indicate why the behavior occurs in the first place. Mental illness is a convenient catch-all explanation for violent crime, but declaring mental illness as the cause of behavior is a label of diagnostic convenience-one that is given to people who display behaviors that deviate from those of the dominant culture. Many of us mutter the words "he's crazy" or "she's nuts" when we hear about an act considered disturbing or absurd.

However, the "experts" fail to accurately diagnose the cause of violence. Typically only the behavior of the culprit is examined, with failure to acknowledge that the same behavior can represent multiple motives (see motivational myths here). Second, the symptoms are often erroneously used to establish false causal conclusions. Like having a cold, it is important to remove the symptoms to feel better, but ultimately the treatment of any disease requires addressing the root cause of the illness. Conclusions such as the killer was "frustrated," "angry," "resentful," or "vengeful" do not address the source of the emotion or why emotional satisfaction is achieved through acts of violence.
Five common roots
Investigating violent behavior from the perspective of motivation science reveals five common themes. Each presents a possible, partial explanation for why some indulge in violence.

Although I make no clinical assessments, motivational science establishes that just like you and me, psychopaths have basic psychological needs to satisfy. When need satisfaction is continually denied during day-to-day work or school interactions and personal relationships, individuals are prone to turn to other less socially acceptable strategies to remove or redirect their frustration. These strategies are described as "self-handicapping" behavior by psychologists and can take many shapes and forms, including self-harm, substance abuse, and even murder.
Goal attainment
One of the most basic human needs is believing we have the talent and ability to reach desired outcomes (Bandura, 1997). When goal attainment is blocked, some people suffer a sense of self-defeat, feeling incompetent because desired outcomes appear unobtainable. Under ideal circumstances we try again or use different approaches to reach our goals. However, if we believe we lack control over our lives or doubt our ability to reach goals, we become frustrated. In turn, frustration-a highly motivating emotion-must be eliminated or we continue to feel badly about our perceived inadequacy. A simple solution is to change goals or pursue an easier target. Murder, while abhorrent, is not physically difficult to commit given the sophistication of weaponry. One trigger-click and the unfulfilled killer has met a sordid goal.
Emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to recognize and evaluate emotions in the self and others and use that knowledge to solve problems and navigate the minefield we call "life." Not bothering someone who is obviously angry is a common example of someone who is perceptive and has elevated EI. Although skepticism surrounds what EI represents and whether it can be measured more effectively in other ways, three aspects of EI are not disputed by motivation research:

(1) Individuals who demonstrate EI have effective strategies to deal with different emotions.

(2) Individuals with elevated EI are more personally and professionally successful than individuals lacking EI.

(3) Emotional regulation strategies can be taught.

Individuals who commit aggression lack strategies to deal with emotional regulation (Davidson, Putnam, & Larson, 2000, Englander, 2017). We also know that emotions continue with a vengeance until the source of the frustration is identified and a response is taken to reduce the emotional distress. You probably know what I mean if you've ever punched a wall when you were angry. In the mind of the killer, murder may be the emotion-reduction strategy of choice.
Gratification
When we invest effort in something we usually do it for a payoff. For example, you might be reading this article to gain knowledge or to relax and temporarily avoid doing some work! You might want to own a fancy car in order to be admired by friends. Regardless of your motives, you expect something tangible in return for the investment of your attention or money. The best payoffs take time and effort, including things like advanced education, wealth, or solid relationships.

However, we are sometimes unwilling to invest the necessary time or effort to get the best payoff because we want to see the results of our actions immediately. The infamous marshmallow test offered kids one treat immediately after completing a task, or two marshmallows after waiting 15 minutes. The experiment was the launching pad for years of research establishing that those who demonstrate self-control and tolerate waiting, accomplish more in life, get better jobs, and are healthier and wealthier than individuals who lack self-control. However, some of us never properly learned that deferral of satisfaction usually results in more beneficial outcomes. When murder is committed there is little delay in gratification. There may be intricate planning, but once the killer commits to action, the results are almost instantaneous and satisfying for those who hate to wait.
Recognition of competence
We strive for competence because it defines who we are and in turn serves as a foundation for accomplishment and recognition (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In absence of appreciation from others, negative self-reflection may develop, creating feelings of inadequacy because the need for competence is denied. Competence doesn't necessarily mean gaining recognition for socially desirable behaviors like being a good parent or a reliable employee. Ironically, recognition from the media, law enforcement, and others is obtained by killers through the commission of the most devious and heinous acts.

Regardless, when we feel competent we are energized by the assessments of our values and abilities. Accounts of many psychopaths, murderers, and serial killers rarely show a pattern of traditional competence and the associated recognition for their achievements. Killers are often described as loners with a lengthy pattern of disrespect and little recognition from others-until of course they've committed unthinkable crimes. Then, almost instantly, the previously anguished killer is globally recognized. Their depraved competence needs are fulfilled through the death of others.
Social reciprocity
"An eye for an eye," "a tooth for a tooth," "kill or be killed," and "don't get mad, get even," are familiar thoughts that dance in the minds of those who feel wronged. The payback motive can be a powerful catalyst of behavior that continues unabated until the maligned individual believes they have corrected any perceived inequity. Psychologists refer to the process of getting even as the principle of reciprocity, whereby individuals feel obligated to respond in kind when they believe others have treated them in a certain way. Usually this means doing a favor for someone that has helped you, or giving a gift to someone who has given you a gift, but in the mind of the criminal it means taking your frustration out on others. Satisfying the reciprocity motive often results in abuse, cruelty, violent behavior, and possibly murder. In the mind of the depraved, when an action goes unreciprocated, tempestuous reactions and vile behavior must follow because most individuals believe in the restoration of social or materialistic inequity (van Doorn, Zeelenberg, & Breugelmans, 2014).
So, what's the difference between you and a killer?
First, you recognize that there are more socially acceptable ways to reach your goals than taking your frustrations out on others. Unlike the "I want it and I want it now" psychopath, you know that achievement and recognition are a function of effort exerted over time. You also realize the maxim of "attracting more bees with honey than with vinegar," and how to channel emotions productively to maintain positive relationships with others. You are different than the killer in part because you likely had a positive role model, one or more mentors such as parents, friends, coworkers, or health professionals who modeled or taught you how to deal with frustration-a luxury that many murderers lack. In absence of a credible friend or relative to teach us socially acceptable ways of dealing with frustration and failure, some people resort to devious strategies to eliminate their psychological pain.

Successful individuals also believe they can control their destiny and determine their success. When you make a mistake or miss a target, you try harder or choose a different approach to reach your goal. However, some who don't know the strategy or perceive that they are likely to fail may think, "Why bother?" So, the next time you read or hear about those who use violence to satisfy their needs, consider that they may never have had the same opportunity that you did to learn some of the most valuable lessons in life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why We Kill, According to Motivational Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some people slice throats as easily as you or I butter a warm slice of toast. In 2014, knife wielding assailants hacked 29 people to death and injured 130 more at a train station in China. Others prefer more expeditious means of murderous mayhem.

# data[].attributes.headline
1.2 An Example Of Men Killing Their Family

# data[].attributes.subject
1.2 An Example Of Men Killing Their Family

# data[].attributes.body
Chris Watts who killed his two young daughters and his pregnant wife in order for him to be happy with his partner, Nicole.

# data[].attributes.body
Men tend to have a possessive attitude towards his family members and stress caused at work, financial responsibilities, and stress gives them the motivation to get rid of his family members

# data[].attributes.headline
4. Traumatic Past and Inadequate Primary Socialization

# data[].attributes.subject
4. Traumatic Past and Inadequate Primary Socialization

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of serial killers tend to have traumatic childhoods. Childhoods are one of the key factors to a serial killer’s behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the country mourns the horrific murders of Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey at the hands of their father, many people are trying to make sense of what happened to them - and perhaps learn something to prevent it from happening again.

Sadly, we know such acts of violence against women and their children are not isolated. On average, one woman is killed in Australia each week by her current or former partner.

Familicides - family murders in which a perpetrator murders their partner and children - are much rarer, but research tells us that how we think, talk and write about these cases matters. It shapes public attitudes and influences the ways we try to prevent them.

In this context, it is important familicide be understood as a form of gender-based violence, whether in the presence or absence of a history of physical violence.

PR Handout Image/Facebook

Common denominators in familicide

Though there is not a great deal of research on familicides, what we do know suggests it is a highly gendered crime.

To call an act of violence gender-based is not merely to suggest it is male violence against women, although it often is. It is violence that is driven in a central way by the social and structural dimensions of gender.

This means gender plays an important role in who perpetrates the violence, who is targeted, how and why.

In the case of familicides, research shows they are almost exclusively committed by men in heterosexual family relationships.

Read more: When mothers are killed by their partners, children often become 'forgotten' victims. It's time they were given a voice

A history of domestic violence is a key risk factor. Individual familicide studies show varying rates, but a recent review of existing studies found a history of domestic violence was identified in 39% to 92% of cases.

Another key risk factor is the adult victim leaving or communicating their intention to leave the relationship - a well-documented precipitator for intimate partner homicide or intensified violence.

Familicide is not always preceded by violence, however. A desire for and sense of entitlement to control - especially over finances and the family "unit" - is a more common denominator. Familicide often occurs in the face of a spiralling loss of control over these areas, especially by a male "head of the household".

A loss of control over "masculine" domains is at the heart of familicides, even where there is no clear history of domestic abuse. Some perpetrators whose actions may appear "out of the blue" have been described in research studies as having their lives unravelling in ways that are acutely tied to their gender identity.

Given these factors, familicides are usually pre-meditated.

Sarah Marshall/AAP

Control as a factor in most killings

Many of these factors were present in recent familicide cases in Australia - financial struggles, imminent separation or custody disputes, and careful planning of the murders.

In 2016, for example, Fernando Manrique killed Maria Lutz and their two children, Elisa and Martin, by pumping carbon monoxide gas into the home while they slept. He also died at the scene from the gas.

The inquest into the killings found although there was no known history of violence in the relationship, Manrique had a "possessive" attitude towards his wife, was in financial stress and planned the crime over several weeks when he realised Maria was leaving him.

Based on what we know so far in the killings of Clarke and her children, she experienced an extreme form of " coercive control", with her dress and movements closely monitored and enforced by her husband.

Read more: It's time 'coercive control' was made illegal in Australia

Clarke also had a domestic violence order against him, had recently left the relationship and had expressed fears her husband may kill her. Control, and the imminent loss of it, was central to Baxter's actions against both Clarke and her children. Children can also be victims of gender-based violence.

How the media covers these cases

News reporting on recent familicide cases has often focused on the personal circumstances of perpetrators, their financial troubles and the "pain" and "heartache" they must have felt.

Too often, when fathers kill their children, the tendency is to frame it as a case of mental illness rather than gender-driven violence.

Mainstream media largely fail to provide domestic violence resources such as 1800Respect in their reporting of these cases.

Even Prime Minister Scott Morrison, in a tweet on the Clarke murders, took care to include mental health support numbers but did not provide contact details for those experiencing domestic or family violence.

Reporting on the Baxter familicide has seen more frequent inclusion of domestic violence resources, in part due to early revelations of a history of domestic violence.

However, there has also been strong criticism levelled at news outlets for using passive, violence-minimising language in reporting on the case and framing Baxter himself as an equal victim.

The research on familicide tells us that whether or not there is a history of violence, we should be looking to gender norms and structures to understand the root causes and how they are linked to gender violence.

Calling violence gendered has fuelled a culture war in recent years - but if we want to address familicide, we need to put this aside and use the knowledge available to tackle underlying causes.
The National Sexual Assault, Family & Domestic Violence Counselling Line - 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) - is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why do men kill their families? Here's what the research says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the country mourns the horrific murders of Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey at the hands of their father, many people are trying to make sense of what happened to them - and perhaps learn something to prevent it from happening again.

# data[].attributes.body
There are a lot of mentally unstable killers who show psychopathic or sociopathic traits and symptoms. These people tend to have impulses to kill people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For most people, killing another person -- or many other people -- isn't a trivial matter. But there are times when one person ends the life of another that seem to defy reason. What makes that happen?

A person with antisocial personality disorder feels no empathy toward others. This psychological designation includes people we call psychopaths and sociopaths. They feel very little emotion at all and may seek out dangerous or thrilling situations to get an emotional response. They tend to be deceitful and feel no shame or guilt for misleading others. While they may recognize right from wrong, they may not care about the distinction.

Advertisement

Knowing right from wrong is important in the legal world. It separates sane people from the insane. An insane person, by legal definition, is one incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy or isn't able to control his or her own actions [source: Hill and Hill]. Just because a person demonstrates sociopathic tendencies doesn't mean that person is insane.

Whether antisocial personality disorder is chiefly an inherited trait or the result of environmental influences is a matter of debate. It's likely a product of both, and not all individuals who suffer from antisocial personality disorder will display violent tendencies. But the lack of empathy and the drive to seek out thrills can lead to violent confrontations. Many serial killers and mass murderers fall into this designation -- they kill because they lack the inhibitions and empathy the rest of us possess.

What about acts of genocide? How do societies justify wiping out an entire subsection of people? According to a hypothesis posed by Ervin Staub, genocide is a result of a combination of environmental hardships and psychological coping. Staub suggests that when times are hard, people look for an excuse or scapegoat. That can include identifying a subsection of the population as being responsible for the hardship the community experiences. Wiping out that population is a way to cope with the hardship. It's a means to solve a problem, even though the solution and problem aren't necessarily connected in reality. Staub points out this process is complicated and takes time -- it's generally not a spontaneous reaction.

What about the rest of us? What could drive us to kill? Since our decisions are based upon both emotions and reason, we can sometimes favor one over the other. In emotionally charged situations, we may allow ourselves to act impulsively, ignoring rationality. These so-called crimes of passion can happen between people with strong emotional bonds. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 30 percent of all female murder victims were killed by their spouses. Another 18.3 percent were killed by ex-spouses. Only 8.7 percent of all female victims were killed by a stranger [source: Bureau of Justice Statistics].

The different reasons for crimes of passion are numerous. Common motives include jealousy, revenge, fear and anger. These feelings may be conscious or unconscious. The act of killing may be spontaneous or premeditated. Depending upon the circumstances, the killer may be charged with murder or manslaughter -- or could be exonerated if the court finds the killer acted in self-defense. The killer may claim that the crime of passion was an act of temporary insanity -- a condition that's difficult to prove in court.

Humans kill because we're not dispassionate, robotic beings. We have wants and needs and possess the ability to pursue them. We may never know the full explanation of why we behave the way we do, but as we learn more we may find ways to improve ourselves and make murder a thing of the past.

Learn more about violence and psychology by following the links on the next page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no doubt that humans are a violent species. The real question is: Why? Are some people wired differently than others? Is it a matter of survival? Or are we just taking our frustrations out on others in violent ways?