Block, 2013

Homicide Studies
http://hsx.sagepub.com/
Homicide Against or by the Elderly in Chicago 1965-2000

Carolyn Rebecca Block
Homicide Studies 2013 17: 154 originally published online 8 March 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1088767913478596
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/17/2/154
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Homicide Research Working Group
Additional services and information for Homicide Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://hsx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/17/2/154.refs.html
Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

478596
research-article2013
HSX17210.1177/1088767913478596Homicide StudiesBlock
Article
Homicide Studies
17(2) 154–183
Homicide Against or by the © 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Elderly in Chicago 1965-2000 sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1088767913478596
hs.sagepub.com
Carolyn Rebecca Block1
Abstract
Typical circumstances under which the elderly are killed not only differ from typical
circumstances under which children or younger adults are killed, but also vary
depending on the victim’s gender and age group (ages 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79,
80-84, and 85 or older). Similarly, the typical circumstances under which the elderly
commit homicide not only differ from typical circumstances for other offenders, but
vary according to the offender’s gender and age group. In analysis of victim-level and
offender-level versions of the Chicago Homicide Data set, we describe trends over
time and situational patterns in homicides of the elderly or by the elderly.
Keywords
elderly, subtypes, elder abuse, elderly homicide offenders, elderly homicide victims,
workplace homicides, arson, intimate partner homicide
In general, the elderly are at much less risk of dying from homicide than almost any
other age group (Bachman & Meloy, 2008; Copeland, 1986; Fox & Levin, 1991;
James, 1992; Nelsen & Huff-Corzine, 1998; Riedel, Zahn, & Mock, 1985). In 2000,
for example, the victimization rate for homicides known to the police in the United
States was 2.5 per 100,000 population for people age 50 or older, compared to 5.7 for
ages 35 to 49, 10.3 for ages 24 to 34, 15.0 for ages 18 to 24, 4.8 for ages 14 to 17, and
1.4 for ages 13 or younger.1 Furthermore, the rate declined steadily from 1976 (6.8) to
2005 (2.6).2,3 Similarly, data from the 16 states reporting to the National Violent Death
Reporting System (NVDRS) for the combined years 2005 to 2008 show that the U.S.
homicide rate per 100,000 fell steadily with every 5-year increment increase in age,
from ages 20 to 24 (13.3) through ages 75 to 79 (1.79).4
1Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Chicago, IL, USA
Corresponding author:
Carolyn Rebecca Block, Senior Research Analyst (retired), Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority,
2609 West Farwell Ave, Chicago, IL 60202, USA.
Email: crblock@rcn.com

Block 155
Given these comparatively low rates, why should we be concerned about homicides
of the elderly? There are several reasons. First, considerable research indicates that the
risk of death given assault is higher for the elderly than for younger people (see Chu &
Kraus, 2004). In support of the conclusion that violence tends to have a greater impact
on the elderly, elderly people are likely to suffer more serious consequences from rob-
bery, burglary, or assault, compared to younger people (Jordan et al., 2010; Klaus,
2000, 2005; O’Neill et al., 1989).5 For example, elderly robbery victims are more than
three times as likely as younger victims to die in the robbery (Fox & Levin, 1991). Thus
the elderly may be significantly less likely to be victimized (Bachman, Lachs, & Meloy,
2004, p. 1), but when they are victimized, they are more likely to die.6
Second, homicides of the elderly tend to occur under different situations than homi-
cides of younger victims. Research has consistently found, for example, that elders are
at a high risk of becoming a victim of homicide during a robbery or other crime
(Bachman, Block, & Meloy, 2005; Block, 1987; Copeland, 1986; Falzon & Davis,
1998; Fox & Levin 1991; Kennedy & Silverman, 1990; Maxfield, 1989; Nelson &
Huff-Corzine, 1998; Silverman & Kennedy, 1987; Titterington & Reyes, 2010; Weaver,
Martin, & Petee, 2004). In addition, elderly homicide victims compared to younger
victims are more likely to be female (Abrams, Leon, Tardiff, Marzuk, & Sutherland,
2007; Shields, Hunsaker, & Hunsaker, 2004), killed at home (Abrams et al., 2007;
Ahmed & Menzies, 2002; Krienert & Walsh, 2010; Nelsen & Huff, 1998), killed by a
club or blunt instrument (Koehler, Shakir, & Omalu, 2006), and killed by a stranger
(Abrams et al., 2007; Ahmed & Menzies, 2002; Nelsen & Huff, 1998). In specific types
of homicide, such as sexual (Safarik, Jarvis, & Nussbaum, 2002), caretaker (Karch &
Nunn, 2011; Krienert, Walsh, & Turner, 2009; Shields et al., 2004) or intimate partner
(Knight, 1983), circumstances surrounding the incident may differ for elderly versus
younger victims. As Abrams and colleagues (2007, p. 1666) conclude in their analysis
of New York City, “the characteristics of homicide in nonelderly adults do not apply to
elderly adults.” Therefore, homicide prevention and intervention practices that may
succeed for younger potential victims may not apply to older potential victims.
Aside from arrest, sentencing, or imprisonment, it is difficult to find even the most
basic descriptive information about elderly homicide offenders. Research has tended to
focus on either the growing proportion of the prison population who is elderly, or men-
tal health diagnoses of elderly versus younger violent offenders (e.g., Barak, Perry, &
Elizur, 1995; Putkonen et al., 2010; Ticehurst, Ryan, & Hughes, 1992; Yorston, 1999).
Although Chressanthis (1988, p. 187) finds, in an econometric model of criminal homi-
cide arrests of people age 65 and older from 1968 to 1976, that “elderly offenders
respond to incentive and disincentive mechanisms modeled for younger offenders,”
other research has found that the characteristics and situations of homicides committed
by the elderly differ from homicides committed by younger people.
There are substantial gaps in our knowledge of homicide victimization of the elderly
and homicide offending by the elderly. Little information is available about elderly
victimization other than the demographic composition of older victims, the place of
occurrence, and the weapon. Information about homicide offending by the elderly is
even less available than information about eldercide (Bourget, Gagne, & Whitehurst,

156 Homicide Studies 17(2)
2010; Brownstein, Goldstein, & Spunt, 1992; Cohen, Llorente, & Eisdorfer, 1998;
Feldmeyer & Steffensmeier, 2012; Goetting, 1984, 1992; Fazel, Bond, Gulati, &
O’Donnell, 2007; Fazel & Grann, 2002; Kratcoski, 1990; Kratcoski & Walker, 1988;
Lewis, Fields, & Rainey, 2006; Stanback & King-Kallimanis, 2011; Wilbanks &
Murphy, 1984). Even when the relationship between victim and offender, the location,
and the type of homicide are known, the information tends to be very general, such as
intimate, acquaintance and stranger relationship, or instrumental versus other motive,
or robbery versus argument. Only a few analyses include information on offenders who
commit suicide (but see Bourget et al., 2010; Cohen et al., 1998; Salari, 2007) or the
elderly killing an intimate partner (but see Knight, 1983). The risk of being killed in an
arson fire or the risk of being strangled, both of which are common for elderly victims,
or the risk of being killed in one’s own home are seldom available.
This article intends to provide a deeper analysis. Drawing on victim-level and
offender-level data sets collected and maintained by the Chicago Homicide Dataset
Project, I present descriptions of elderly victims and elderly offenders from 1965 to
2000, looking at the variety of circumstances and situations surrounding risk of vic-
timization or offending, and draw conclusions about possible prevention or interven-
tion strategies.7
Data
This analysis is based on the Chicago Homicide Dataset (CHD), and demographic data
provided by the City of Chicago.8 Collected with the close cooperation of the Chicago
Police Department (CPD) over many years, and containing detailed information on
every homicide recorded by the police from 1965 to 2000, the CHD is the largest, most
detailed data set on violence available in the United States. The CHD includes all
homicides known to the police in Chicago from 1965 to 2000, not only those where an
offender was apprehended and convicted but also homicides that never ended in arrest
(e.g., homicide-suicides), homicides that are later determined to have been justifiable
at the prosecutorial or court level, and homicides where the offender was eventually
found not guilty. People killed by police (but not security officers) in the line of duty
are generally not included in the CHD. Because the CHD includes murders known to
the police, it does not contain cases of concealed death unless the death was later dis-
covered. However, when such cases are discovered, even years after the death, they
are added to the CHD. Older cases are more likely to be solved than newer cases
owing to the passage of time and the increased number of hours spent on the older
cases throughout the years.
The CHD from 1965 to 1995 has been archived in the National Archive of Criminal
Justice Data. The archived CHD is available in three “perspectives”: victim level (one
record per victim), offender level (one record per known offender), and case level (one
record per homicide incident). All three data sets are linked by linking ID numbers.
The narrative and all victim identifiers, including the street address, have been removed
from the archived CHD. However, all the data have been geocoded to Census tracts,
and the geocoded information is included. The victim-level CHD includes 27,345

Block 157
homicide victims known to the police, of whom the age is unknown for 37 (0.1%).9
The offender-level CHD includes 28,708 homicide offenders known to the police, of
whom the age is unknown for 1,147 (4.0%). The case-level CHD includes 26,345
homicide incidents, each ranging from one to 23 victims and one to 12 offenders. In
4,274 incidents (16.2%), the number of offenders was not known to the police.
The CHD offender-level file contains information about every known offender.
When CHD data collection began in the sixties, information for up to three offenders
was included in each victim record. This expanded over time to five offenders and then
to an infinite number. (The most that has ever occurred is 12 offenders.) The CHD
Project used all available information to add information for all offenders to the
offender-level CHD back to 1965. In incidents with more than one victim, each
offender appears only once. (Because offenders who were identified as an offender in
more than one separate homicide incident are listed once per separate incident, the
same person may appear more than once.)10
Most previous analyses begin the “elderly” category at age 60 (e.g., Messner &
Tardiff, 1985) although studies begin at age 55 (see Gewerth, 1988) or even at age 50
(see Stanback & King-Kallimanis, 2011). In acknowledgement of the lack of a stan-
dard age range considered “elderly,” and because the field of research into the elderly
increasingly stresses differences between younger and older people within the
“elderly” category (Belsky, 1984; Posner, 1997), this analysis will compare character-
istics of victims and offenders falling within each 5-year age group from age 60 to age
85 and older—60 to 64, 65 to 69, 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and 85 and older. In
addition, while acknowledging the differing characteristics of victimization and
offending that have been generally found for women versus men, this analysis will,
wherever possible, provide separate analyses by gender.
Trends and Patterns in Homicide Victimization and

Homicide Offending in the Chicago Elderly
Trends in Numbers and Rates of Victims Age 60 or Older
In Chicago from 1965 to 2000, as elsewhere, the elderly constituted only a small pro-
portion of homicide victims (Figure 1). Overall, 6.4% of all 25,308 victims were age 60
or older at the time of the incident.11 This proportion varied over time, but was consis-
tently small—the highest was 11.1% in 1976, with 817 total reported victims, and the
lowest was 2.7% in 2000, with 622 reported victims. The number of elderly homicide
victims remained more constant from year to year than the number of younger victims,
though both grew in the 1960s and early 1970s. After a decline to 1988, the number of
victims who were younger than 60 rose from 1989 to the early 1990s and then declined
in the late 1990s, while the number of elderly victims remained steady or declined.
Remember that these trends represent a complex reality. For example, Wilson and Daly
(1997) found a significant relationship between neighborhood-level homicide and life
expectancy, controlling for economic inequality in Chicago neighborhoods.
Like patterns over time of numbers of elderly homicide victims, the population-based
victimization rate shows a rapid increase in the 1960s to the mid-1970s (Figure 2),12

Figure 1. Number of known homicide victims, by age group, Chicago 1965-2000.
which can be seen for women, but especially for men. The rates for both women and
men generally declined through 2000 and did not show the sharp increase and then
decline of the 1990s seen for the rates of younger victims. The high population-based
rates for men in some years may surprise those who expect that the risk of homicide for
the elderly is low—certainly lower than the rates for elderly men in 1973 and 1974,
which both exceeded 40 per 100,000. Looking more closely, about two thirds (64.4%) of
the homicides of the 103 men killed in these years could be classified as instrumental,
homicides in which the offender is motivated by potentially gaining money or property
(see Block & Block, 1991, 1992), compared to 33.8% of men ages 25 to 59 and 16.7%
of young men and boys ages 24 and younger.
In general, these trend patterns hold for victims who are “young old,” “middle old,”
and “older old.” Though the numbers are too small to calculate annual rates, the
decline from the mid-1970s seems to have occurred for all age groups within the
elderly category and for both women and men (Table 1). (Note that the most recent
time period in this table is only 5 years long.)
Trends in Numbers and Rates of Offenders Age 60 or Older

For the elderly, homicide offending is even rarer, relative to younger age groups, than
is homicide victimization (Figure 3). Overall, only 1.7% of all 27,561 offenders known
to the police were age 60 or older at the time of the incident. This proportion varied

Block 159
Figure 2. Homicide victimization rate for people age 60 or older, by gender, 1965-2000.
over time but was consistently small, with the highest, 3.0%, occurring in 1969. The
peak population-based rate occurred in 1973 (6.43 per 10,000) and dropped to a low
of 0.56 in 2000. The annual number of women offenders age 60 or older was consis-
tently low throughout the time period, but the number of men dropped sharply, from
26 in 1973 to only 2 offenders in 2000 (Figure 4). Like the pattern for elderly homicide
victims, there is no indication of a peak in the early 1990s. In fact, by the late 1990s,
there is little difference between the number of older men and the number of older
women committing homicide in Chicago.
In total, 476 homicide offenders ages 60 or older were known to the police in
Chicago from 1965 to 2000, 54 women and 422 men. Thus 11.3% of elderly offenders
were women, compared to 16.0% of offenders ages 25 to 59 and 7.1% of offenders
ages 24 or younger (chi square = 549.6; df = 2; p < .0001). Of elderly offenders, the
proportion of women declines with age group, until women constitute only 7.1% of
offenders ages 80 to 84. There is no woman offender older than 84.
Race/Ethnicity in Elderly Victims and Offenders

Overall, from 1965 to 2000, elderly victims were significantly more likely to be non-
Latino White, compared to younger victims. Of male homicide victims, 34.9% of
those age 60 and older were non-Latino White, versus 14.3% at age 25 to 59 (14.3%)

Table 1. Homicide Victims Age 60 and Older Known to the Police, by Age Group and
Gender, Chicago 1965-2000.
Period
Gender and Age

Group 1965-1974 1975-1984 1985-1994 1995-2000 Total
Men
60-64 171 161 111 29 472
65-69 117 102 69 27 315
70-74 63 72 45 20 200
75-79 28 46 47 19 140
80-84 11 18 21 7 57
85-89 6 7 11 8 32
90-103 5 3 2 2 12
Total 401 409 306 112 1,228
Women
60-64 45 43 30 13 131
65-69 22 35 26 6 89
70-74 23 28 18 8 77
75-79 18 32 27 10 87
80-84 15 24 25 8 72
85-89 9 11 15 2 37
90-103 1 8 7 3 19
Total 133 181 148 50 512
Figure 3. Number of known homicide offenders, by age group, Chicago 1965-2000.

Block 161
Figure 4. Number of homicide offenders age 60 or older known to the police by gender,
Chicago 1965-2000.
and 7.4% at age 24 and younger (chi square 994.0; df = 6; p < .001). Of female homi-
cide victims, 52.5% of those age 60 and older were non-Latino White, versus 18.3%
at age 25 to 59 and 13.9% at age 24 and younger (chi square = 389.7; df = 6; p < .001).
One reason for this could be that the racial/ethnic demographic pattern has changed in
Chicago over time, so that the percentage of the older population who are non-Latino
White is increasingly greater. However, the racial/ethnic difference for elderly versus
younger homicide victims continues to be strong and significant for both men and
women for each decade from 1965/1974 to 1975/1984 to 1985/1994 and for the 5
years from 1995/2000. Elderly victims are more likely to be non-Latino White, and
less likely to be non-Latino Black or Latino. (There are no differences by age in the
small numbers of Asian or other victims.)
Elderly offenders are likewise more likely to be non-Latino White, and less likely
to be Latino, than other offenders. Of men age 60 or older, 19.2% were non-Latino
White, compared to 12.4% of male offenders age 25 to 59 and 6.2% of male offenders
age 24 or younger. Of women age 60 or older, 14.8% were non-Latino White, com-
pared to 7.8% of female offenders age 25 to 59 and 8.0% of female offenders age 24
or younger. These differences hold across the three decade–plus 5-year time periods.
Characteristics of Elderly Homicide Victims and Their Homicides

Aside from race/ethnicity, how do other characteristics of elderly victims, such as the
relationship to the offender (especially matricide, patricide, intimate partner, and

prostitute), victim’s prior record, and number of days from the incident to death,
compare to those of younger victims? What are the circumstances surrounding homi-
cides following elder abuse or mercy killings? What are the victimization patterns for
robbery homicide of the elderly, compared to younger victims? How do characteris-
tics of the case, such as the location, the number of victims or offenders, or the
weapon or cause of death (especially arson or strangulation), differ for elderly versus
younger victims? And for all of these patterns—do they differ by gender and across
elderly age group?
Matricide and patricide. In general, elderly victims are more likely to be killed by a
child or grandchild, compared to younger victims. Of men age 60 and older, 3.7%
were killed by a natural child, 1.1% by a stepchild, and 0.6% by a grandchild, com-
pared to 0.6%, 0.5%, and 0.0% of victims age 25 to 59, respectively. Of women age 60
and older, 8.6% were killed by a natural child, 0.2% by a stepchild, and 2.7% by a
grandchild, compared to 2.0%, 0.1%, and 0.1% of victims age 25 to 59, respectively.
Not all of the homicides of elderly persons by their child are elder abuse.13 Of the
66 men age 60 or older killed by a child or grandchild (44 fathers, 15 stepfathers and
7 grandfathers), 9 (13.6%) had been victims of elder abuse. Five of these nine men
were caretakers of mentally ill children who killed them; in addition, three other men
were killed by their mentally ill children. All three of these sons killed or attempted to
kill at least one other family member in addition to their father. Of the remaining 54
men, 9 had “struck the first blow” against the child who killed them, 2 were killed in
an armed robbery, 4 in an “altercation over money,” and 4 after each asked his son to
leave. In addition, a father was killed by the young daughters he was abusing, a father
who tried to intervene in an attack by his son on the son’s wife was killed by his son,
and a father who tried to intervene when his son was punishing a child was killed by
his son. In a typical case of a father–son altercation that appears to be two-sided and
not elder abuse, a father (age 77) and son (age 42) became involved in a domestic
altercation during which the father was struck with a half-full bottle of liquor and the
son was cut with a knife. The father died 82 days later of his injuries.
Of the 59 women age 60 or older killed by a child or grandchild (44 mothers,
1 stepmother, and 14 grandmothers), 13 (22.0%) had been victims of elder abuse.
Eight of these 13 women were caretakers of the mentally ill child who killed her. In
addition to these eight women, seven other women were killed by their mentally
ill children or grandchildren.14 Of the remaining 38 women, 7 were killed in robberies,
1 in a theft, 6 in an “altercation over money or property,” 2 in an altercation over an
alleged theft, and 2 when the offender was attempting to borrow money. Three women
were killed after she told her son or grandson to leave. Only 1 had “struck the first
blow” against the child who killed her (a 74-year-old mother brandished a knife to
force her 33-year-old son to move out of the house).
Intimate partner homicide. Although intimate partner homicide is less common for
elderly victims, it still occurs. For men age 60 and older, 6.2% were killed by a
female intimate partner and 0.3% by a male intimate partner, compared to 8.8% and

Block 163
0.4% for men age 25 to 59, respectively. For women age 60 and older, 11.1% were
killed by a male intimate partner and 0.2% by a female intimate partner, compared
to 39.1% and 0.5% for women age 25 to 59, respectively. Of the 130 women victims
age 60 to 64, 24.6% died at the hands of an intimate partner, but this proportion
dropped to 12.4% at age 65 to 69 and remained steady thereafter (chi square = 28.1;
df = 6; p < .001). For men victims, however, the proportion killed by their intimate
partner was fairly steady after age 60, with a high of 10.5% for the 89 men age 65 to
69 (chi square = 8.3; df = 6; ns).
In addition to being killed by their own intimate partner, older people (as well as
younger adults) are sometimes killed by the intimate partner of someone the victim is
trying to protect from assault. This occurred for 11 (1.2%) older men and 8 (1.6%)
older women, compared to 0.9% of men and 1.5% of women age 25 to 59. Several
typical cases are the following:
•• The daughter of a 73-year-old man was being held by force by her husband,
who had a gun. The father interceded on behalf of his daughter and was fatally
shot.
•• A 66-year-old mother accompanied her daughter to the daughter’s apartment to
get clothing, as she was leaving her husband. The husband shot and fatally
wounded her.
•• The offender, age 40, shot his parents-in-law, ages 61 and 67, in an argument
over pending divorce of the offender and his wife. The offender also assaulted
his wife (nonfatally).
Prostitute. Though the numbers are very small, men age 60 and older are signifi-
cantly more likely to have been killed by a prostitute (1.1%) than men age 25 to 59
(0.3%; chi square = 45.4; df = 2; p < .001). There is no difference for women.
Although these situations account for only 14 of the victimizations of older men,
they require a different approach to prevention than other types of homicide against
older men.
Several of the 14 victims were killed in what appears to have been staged robberies.
In a typical example, a 70-year-old man had a date with a 19-year-old woman. In his
apartment, she stabbed him to death while a confederate ransacked the apartment.
Other men had long-term relationships with the prostitute who killed them. In a typical
example, a 71-year-old man had been paying the male offender for a period of time
US$500 for each act of anal intercourse. On this date, he demanded a “freebie.” The
offender tied the victim up with a rope, beat him with a hammer, cut him with scissors,
and strangled him.
Days to death. Elderly homicide victims are significantly more likely to suffer a lin-
gering death than younger victims. Though the great majority at every age die the
same day as the fatal incident, beginning at age 65 to 69, the elderly are more likely to
linger a week or more (at least 8 days) than younger victims. This is true for both men
and women (Table 2). Of all men age 60 or older, 12.4% died more than a week after

Table 2. Days from Fatal Incident to Death, by Victim’s Age and Gender.a
Victim’s age
Victim’s gender/day from fatal younger than age 25 to age 60 and

incident to death 25 59 older Total
Male
Days to death
Victim died at scene or 7,305 10,349 940 18,594
same day 83.4% 83.8% 76.7% 83.2%
Victim died after 1 to 7 1,120 1,332 134 2,586
days 12.8% 10.8% 10.9% 11.6%
Victim died 8 or more days 338 674 152 1,164
after incident 3.9% 5.5% 12.4% 5.2%
Total 8,763 12,355 1,226 22,344
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Female
Days to death
Victim died at scene or 1,445 2,350 418 4,213
same day 83.7% 86.8% 81.6% 85.2%
Victim died after 1 to 7 207 236 46 489
days 12.0% 8.7% 9.0% 9.9%
Victim died 8 or more days 74 121 48 243
after incident 4.3% 4.5% 9.4% 4.9%
Total 1,726 2,707 512 4,945
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
aChi square = 178.8; df = 4; p < .001 for males; chi square = 37.1; df = 4; p < .001 for females.
the fatal incident; the percentage increases with older age, from 15.0% at ages 70 to 74
to 25% at ages 95 to 98. Of all women age 60 or older, 9.4% died more than a week
after the fatal incident; the percentage increases with older age, from 9.1% at ages 70
to 74 to 15.8% at ages 95 to 103.
Prior record. Victims age 60 or older were much less likely to have a prior arrest record
(25%) than younger victims (56%; chi square = 637.03; df = 3; p < .001). This is true
for both men (33.3% vs. 61.7%) and women (5.3% vs. 28.4%). There is a difference
by age group, ranging from 34.3% for age group 60 to 64 to 6.5% for age group 90 to
103. Furthermore, elderly male victims with a record were less likely to have a violent
arrest in their record than younger victims (40.2% vs. 52.1%; chi square = 20.23; df =
1; p < .001). For women, there was no significant difference.
Elder abuse. Total figures for elder abuse include all offenders, not only the sons and
daughters discussed above.15 In the Chicago Homicide Dataset, only 1.0% of elderly
men and 3.3% of elderly women homicide victims were killed in elder abuse. Of these
29 people, 22 (76%) were killed by a child or grandchild.

Block 165
Figure 5. Percentage of all male homicide victims killed in a robbery, by age group Chicago
1965-2000.
Mercy killings. In total, 20 CHD victims died in what appears to have been mercy kill-
ings, of whom 11 (2 men and 9 women) were age 60 or older. For example, a nurse had
promised her 77-year-old mother that she would not die in pain and injected her with
morphine when the hospital said that she would not live through the night. Six of the
11 offenders committed suicide. In addition to the 20 mercy killings, an elderly man
died in a suicide pact with his wife.
Robbery and burglary. As research in Chicago and elsewhere has found, the proportion
of homicide victims killed in a robbery homicide increases steadily with the victim’s
age (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Before age 60, for both women and men, other kinds of
homicide predominate. From age 60 on, the proportion of homicides motivated by rob-
bery increases, for women from 36.6% of the 131 homicides at ages 60 to 64 to a peak
of 51.4% of the 72 homicides at ages 80 to 84, and for men from 41.1% of the 472
homicides at ages 60 to 64 to a peak of 62.5% of the 23 homicides at ages 85 to 89.
In general, elderly victims were more likely to be killed in a robbery or attempted
robbery (45.5% of men; 41.6% of women) than were victims age 25 to 59 (18.1% of
men; 9.0% of women; for men, chi square = 516.27; df = 1; p < .001; for women, chi
square = 374.03; df = 1; p < .001). Burglary homicide is much less common than rob-
bery homicide for any age group of victims. By definition, if a burglar surprises and

Figure 6. Percentage of all female homicide victims killed in a robbery, by age group
Chicago 1965-2000.
kills a victim, the crime becomes a “home invasion robbery.” Elderly victims were
more likely to be killed in a burglary (2.1% of men; 7.2% of women) than victims age
25 to 59 (0.4% of men; 0.8% of women; for men, chi square = 53.99; df = 1; p < .001;
for women, chi square = 95.76; df = 1; p < .001). Typical examples of robbery homi-
cide of the elderly are the following:
•• Woman age 60: Daughter admits to killing her mother because she wouldn’t
give her US$500 to pay a drug debt. She stabbed her in the chest, took the
US$200 her mother kept in her bra, and spent it on heroin.
•• Man age 77: The offenders forced their way into his apartment and robbed him
of US$2000. They put a rag in his mouth to keep him quiet and subsequently
strangled him. They said they needed the money for crack.
•• Man age 85: Apparently robbed of his briefcase. He was beaten with a brick
about the head and body while going out the door of his home. He died 154
days later.
•• Woman age 92: Assaulted during the course of a robbery home invasion.
Investigation indicates that she was possibly sexually assaulted. Cause of death:
club or blunt instrument. Suspect serving a life sentence on two other murders.
Sexual assault. Murders motivated by or including sexual assault account for 6.1% of
the murders of elderly women (only two elderly men were sexually assaulted), with
the oldest woman age 88 (17.2% were older than 80).16 The offenders, all male, ranged

Block 167
in age from 16 to 67, and most offenders (71.4%) had a prior record. In 9.1% of the
murders, there were multiple offenders. The preponderance (74.3%) occurred in the
victim’s home; the most common weapons were beating or strangulation (37.1%) or a
knife or sharp instrument (34.3%).
Location. Elderly victims, particularly women, are much more likely to be killed in
their own home, compared to younger victims. The CHD specifies not only whether
the incident took place in a “home,” but whose home it was—the victim’s home, the
offender’s home, the home of both, or someone else’s home. A woman was much more
likely to be killed in her own home at age 60 or older (62.0%) than at age 25 to 59
(21.1%) or age 24 or younger (22.7%); 21.1% of elderly women were killed in the
home she shared with the offender, compared to 28.6% at age 25 to 59 and 24.7% at
age 24 or younger. 17 Combining both categories, the percentage of women killed in
her own home increased from 76.9% at ages 60 to 64 to 77.0% at ages 70 to 74 to
85.7% at ages 80 to 84. A man was much more likely to be killed in his own home at
age 60 or older (36.1%) than at age 25 to 59 (13.2%) or 24 or younger (7.3%); 10.8%
of elderly men were killed in the home he shared with the offender, compared to 11.8%
at age 25 to 59 and 6.8% at age 24 or younger. Combining both categories, the percent-
age of men killed in his own home increased from 38.5% at ages 60 to 64 to 49.2% at
ages 70 to 74 to 75.0% at ages 80 to 84.
The proportion of robbery homicides that occur in the victim’s home (“home inva-
sion robbery”) may be surprising. Of victims 60 and older killed in a robbery homi-
cide, 52.9% were killed in their own home; of the victims age 59 or younger, 23.4%
were killed in their own home. The proportion of elderly robbery victims killed in their
own home increases with greater age—for men, 30.4% at age 60 to 64, 28.9% at age
65 to 69, 39.3% at age 70 to 74, 51.0% at age 75 to 79, 69.6% at age 80 to 84, and
90.5% at 85 or older; for women, 73.2% at age 60 to 64, 92.6% at age 65 to 69, 56.5%
at age 70 to 74, 84.4% at age 75 to 79, 81.3% at age 80 to 84, and 89.5% at 85 or older.
In addition, elderly victims are more likely than younger victims to be killed in their
workplace. The percentage of men killed in their workplace was 11.5% at age 60 or
older, 5.7% at age 25 to 59, and 0.9% at age 24 or younger (chi square = 471.0; df = 2;
p < .001); the percentage of women killed in their workplace was 4.5% at age 60 or
older, 2.2% at age 25 to 59, and 0.9% at age 24 or younger (chi square = 471.0; df = 2;
p < .001). About a third (35.5%) of the 141 men age 60 or older killed in their work-
place were the “proprietors” of a business or store; 10.6% were security guards or
watchmen, 7.8% were the landlords of the offenders, 7.1% were clerks in a store,
hotel, or gas station, and 6.4% were bus drivers. Almost half (47.8%) of the 23 women
age 60 or older killed in their workplace were the landladies of the offenders, and 8.7%
were clerks in a store, hotel, or gas station.18 Several typical workplace homicides of
the elderly are the following:
•• The offender was in court for an alimony hearing. He pulled a gun and shot and
killed the judge (age 63) and his ex-wife’s lawyer (age 34).

•• The victim (age 62) owned the store. The offender, age 22, and the victim had
had prior verbal altercations. The offender kept tormenting the victim, who
ordered him out of the store. The offender then beat the victim and fled.
•• The offender, age 22, had been drinking and was urinating at basement door of
the landlord’s building. When the landlord (age 74) called the offender on this,
the offender attacked and choked the victim to death.
Number of offenders. For male victims, there is no discernible pattern between the age
of the victim and whether or not he was killed by multiple offenders. For women vic-
tims, however, those age 60 or older were more likely to be killed by multiple offend-
ers (20.2%), compared to victims age 25 to 59 (10.7%) or age 24 or younger (17.1%).
The percents remain high for women age 60 to 64 (15.7%), to 65 to 69 (21.4%), to 70
to 74 (24.2%), to 75 to 79 (21.9%), to 80 to 84 (22.4%), and to 85 to 89 (20.0%). Many
of these homicides of elderly women involved home invasion or purse snatchings by
groups of young men or teens. In a typical case, two offenders had been terrorizing a
71-year-old woman. They took up residence in her garage, periodically burglarized her
home, and finally left a message for her to leave them US$100 on the TV. Not finding
the money, they beat her to death with a baseball bat.
Number of victims. Similarly, for male victims, there is no discernible pattern between
the age of the victim and whether or not he was killed alone or with multiple victims.
For women victims, however, those age 60 or older were more likely to be killed
together with at least one other victim (13.5%), compared to victims age 25 to 59
(9.5%), but the percentage was about the same for victims age 24 or younger (14.2%).
Of the 69 women victims age 60 or older who were killed with another victim, the
most common circumstances were armed robbery (23.2%) or a work altercation or
dispute (18.8%). Most of the 16 armed robberies involved two or three people killed
in a home invasion robbery. All of the 13 elderly women killed with multiple victims
in a work altercation or dispute were victims in the same incident—an employee of a
nursing home became disgruntled and set fire to the home in revenge.
Though the numbers are small, elderly victims were significantly more likely than
younger victims to have been killed in familicide—a multiple-victim homicide in
which at least two of the victims are each other’s family members (chi square = 24.9;
df = 4; p < .001 for men; chi square = 15.2; df = 4; p = .004 for women). Ten (0.8%)
men and 20 (3.9%) women victims age 60 or older were killed in a familicide, com-
pared to 0.2% of men age 25 to 59, and 0.5% of men and boys age 24 or younger, 1.9%
of women age 25 to 29, and 3.2% of women and girls age 24 or younger.
Cause of death. The primary cause of death differs significantly for older versus
younger victims (chi square = 1373.6; df = 12; p < .001 for men; chi square = 239.4;
df = 12; p < .001 for women; Table 3). Firearms, whether semiautomatic or not, are
less common causes of death for elderly victims, and knives or sharp instruments,
blunt instruments, arson, and hands, fists, or feet are more common. Below I discuss
in detail two causes of death that are more risky for the elderly strangulation and arson.

Block 169
Table 3. Weapon by Age Group and Gender of Homicide Victim.a
Victim’s age
Victim’s gender/primary cause
of death 24 or younger 25 to 59 60 and older Total
Male
High caliber semiautomatic or 1,784 1,360 51 3,195
automatic firearm 10.4% 11.0% 4.2% 14.3%
Other firearm 5,228 6,838 487 12,553
59.6% 55.3% 39.7% 56.2%
Knife or sharp instrument 991 2,647 291 3,929
11.3% 21.4% 23.7% 17.6%
Club or blunt instrument 255 738 162 1,155
2.9% 6.0% 13.2% 5.2%
Arson 68 79 26 173
0.8% 0.6% 2.1% 0.8%
Other weapon 68 79 26 173
0.8% 0.6% 2.1% 0.8%
Hands, fists, feet 353 571 178 1,105
4.1% 4.6% 14.5% 4.9%
Total 8,766 12,358 1,228 22,352
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Female
High caliber semiautomatic or 154 148 9 311
automatic firearm 8.9% 5.5% 1.8% 6.3%
Other firearm 637 1,051 91 1,779
36.9% 38.8% 17.8% 36.0%
Knife or sharp instrument 303 685 148 1,136
17.6% 25.3% 29.0% 23.0%
Club or blunt instrument 119 208 72 399
6.9% 7.7% 14.1% 8.1%
Arson 39 55 39 133
2.3% 2.0% 7.6% 2.7%
Other weapon 110 107 26 243
6.4% 4.0% 5.1% 4.9%
Hands, fists, feet 364 452 126 942
21.1% 16.7% 24.7% 19.1%
Total 1,726 2,706 511 4,943
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
aWeapon is recoded from the MAR (Murder Analysis Report) variable, “weapcal.” The CHD contains in-
formation on primary and secondary causes of death. This table includes only the primary cause of death.
Strangulation or smothering. Strangulation or smothering (categorized under

“hands, fists, feet” in Table 3) is the cause of death for a considerable number of
elderly women (14.5%), but the percentage is not significantly higher than for

younger women homicide victims. For elderly men, however, although the propor-
tion strangled or smothered may be small (4.1%) it is significantly higher than for
younger men and boys. The proportion increases with advancing age, until strangu-
lation or smothering accounts for 8.8% of the 57 murdered men ages 80 to 84, and
20.9% of the 43 murdered men ages 85 or older. This is comparable to the proportion
for women ages 80 to 84 (8.3%) and 85 or older (21.5%).
Arson. Though numbers are small, elderly homicide victims are significantly more
likely than younger victims to have been killed in an arson fire (chi square = 31.8;
df = 2; p < .001 for men; chi square = 53.3; df = 2; p < .001 for women). Arson is the
primary cause of death when a fire in a building or vehicle caused the person’s death.
For men, this was the case for 2.1% age 60 and older, 0.6% age 25 to 59, and 0.8%
age 24 and younger; for women, this was the case for 7.6% age 60 and older, 2.0% age
25 to 59, and 2.3% age 24 and younger. The proportion increased with age for elderly
women homicide victims—1.5% at 60 to 64, 6.7% at 65 to 69, 3.9% at 70 to 74, 10.3%
at 75 to 79, 13.9% at 80 to 84, and 17.9% at 85 and older—but not for elderly men.19
Death in an arson fire can be lingering and painful. The mean days to death was 33.0
for elderly women killed in arson versus 5.26 for other elderly women (t test = 4.167;
df = 499; p < .001). (For elderly men, the difference was not significant.)
Because prevention methods for arson homicides may differ from prevention meth-
ods for other causes of death, it may be helpful to look at typical situations. One fire,
started by an employee of a nursing home, claimed the lives of 23 of the 65 elderly
victims of arson homicide, and 16 others died as an unintended target of building fires
started by a stranger or a neighbor. In these cases, the ability of the elderly person to
escape from the building probably entered into their death. In a typical case, the
offender had been thrown out of his residence by his sister and was then observed
throwing a Molotov cocktail onto the rear porch of her home, where the three victims
(ages 60, 68, and 69) were roomers. In other situations, the offender specifically tar-
geted the victim. In 7 of these, the motive was retaliation or revenge: for example, after
a domestic altercation, the offender, age 42, poured flammable liquid at the front door
of their apartment and ignited it, causing fatal injuries to his 60-year-old roommate.
Other motives were home invasion robbery, drug business, and racial hatred.
Characteristics of Elderly Homicide Offenders and Their Homicides

Aside from race/ethnicity, how do other characteristics of elderly offenders, such as
relationship to the victim, prior record, and offender suicide, compare to those of
younger offenders? Does the victim’s age differ for elderly versus younger offenders?
Does the offender’s motive differ for elderly versus younger offenders? Do character-
istics of the case, such as time of day or number of offenders differ for elderly versus
younger offenders? Do these patterns differ by gender or by elderly age group?
Relationship. Elderly male offenders were more likely than younger adult (age
25 to 59) male offenders to have killed an intimate partner.20 While only 19.9% of

Block 171
elderly men and 12.5% of men age 25 to 59 killed their intimate partner, the difference
between the two was statistically significant (chi square = 20.396; df = 1; p < .001).21
For women offenders, the majority age 60 or older and age 25 to 59 killed their inti-
mate partner (51.9% and 54.5%, respectively), but the difference between the two was
not statistically significant.
Setting aside intimate partner, the top ten victim relationships of the 338 remain-
ing elderly male offenders were acquaintance (21.9%), friend (16.6%), stranger
(12.1%), son (6.5%), neighbor (4.4%), sexual rival (3.6%),22 roommate (3.0%), son-
in-law (2.7%), customer (2.7%), and landlord (2.4%). Compared to male offenders
age 25 to 59, victims of elderly men were more likely to be a son (6.5% and 0.9%),
customer (2.7% and 0.5%), or roommate (3.0% and 0.8%) and less likely to be a
stranger (12.1% and 17.4%) or a drug dealer (0.3% and 3.4%). Aside from intimate
partner, the top ten victim relationships of the 26 remaining elderly female offenders
were friend (19.2%), acquaintance (11.5%), neighbor (11.5%), neighbor in an apart-
ment building (7.7%), stranger (7.7%), and cousin, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
child being watched, roommate, patient, tenant, landlady, and business partner (each
3.8%). Compared to women offenders age 25 to 59, victims of elderly women were
more likely to be a neighbor (11.5% and 4.4%) or a neighbor in an apartment build-
ing (7.7% and 1.7%), and less likely to be an acquaintance (11.5% and 24.8%), or
son (0% and 6.6%).
Prior record. Elderly male offenders were less likely to have a prior violent offense
record (31.9%) than men age 25 to 59 (58.6%) or 24 or younger (46.1%) but were
somewhat more likely (19.0% vs. 16.0% and 14.8%) to have a nonviolent record (chi
square = 499.6; df = 4; p < .001). For elderly women offenders, the difference was
even greater. Only 7.8% had a violent record, compared to 29.9% age 25 to 59 and
18.0% age 24 or younger. Elderly women and women age 25 to 59 were almost equally
likely to have a nonviolent record (17.6% and 17.1%) and a little more likely than
women age 24 or younger (14.7%; chi square = 69.3; df = 4; p < .001). Of the 128
elderly homicide offenders with a violent record, four were women.
Suicide. Elderly offenders were significantly more likely than adults age 25 to 59 to
commit suicide at the scene (5.9% vs. 1.9%; chi square = 36.43; df = 1; p < .001). This
was true whether the victim was an intimate partner (17.0% vs. 7.5%) or not (2.5% vs.
0.6%). For elderly offenders who did not kill an intimate partner, there was no differ-
ence with older age. For the 112 elderly offenders who did kill an intimate partner,
those age 75 to 79 were the most likely to commit suicide (36.4%; chi square = 14.47;
df = 6; p =.025).
For offenders age 25 to 59, there is a strong and significant relationship between
committing suicide and gender (0.5% of women and 2.2% of men; chi square = 25.54;
df = 1; p < .001). For elderly offenders, the relationship is weaker (3.7% of women and
6.2% of men) and not significant, but the relationship becomes strong (3.6% of women
and 21.4% of men) and significant for those who had killed an intimate partner

(chi square = 4.754; df =1; p = .029). Eighteen of the 84 elderly men and one of the 28
women who killed an intimate partner committed suicide at the scene.
Age of victim. At least one of the victim(s) was elderly for 16.0% of elderly offenders
compared to 4.2% age 25 to 59 and 3.5% age 24 or younger (chi square = 187.5; df =
2; p < .001). At least one of the victim(s) was a juvenile (16 or younger) for 2.7% of
elderly offenders compared to 5.0% age 25 to 59 and 14.0% age 24 or younger (chi
square = 628.5; df = 2; p < .001). Though these patterns hold for both men and
women offenders, elderly women are much more likely than elderly men to kill the
elderly (33.3% vs. 13.7%). Though much of this is explained by the victim being an
intimate partner, still, for elderly offenders who did not kill an intimate partner,
23.1% of the 26 women and 10.4% of the 338 men killed an elderly victim (chi
square = 3.9; df = 1; p = .048).
Offender’s motive. The most frequent motive specified for an elderly offender killing
an intimate partner was “general domestic altercation” (45.2% of the 84 men and
64.3% of the 28 women),23 followed by sexual jealousy with the offender accusing the
victim (10.7% of men; 10.7% of women), altercation over terminating the relationship
(9.5% of men; 3.6% of women), drunken fight or brawl (5.6% of men; 7.1% of
women), altercation over money or disputed property (4.8% of men; no women),
mercy killing (6.0% of men; 3.6% of women), and offender’s mental disorder (4.8%
of men; 7.1% of women).
When the victim was not an intimate partner, “general domestic altercation” was
still the motive for 10.4% of the 338 men and 3.8% of the 26 women; these victims
were children, neighbors, or roommates. Aside from general domestic altercation, the
most frequent motives for killing a nonintimate partner were “other altercation”
(22.2% of men; 26.9% of women), altercation over money or disputed property (9.2 %
of men; 7.7% of women), drunken fight or brawl (7.7% of men; 7.7% of women),
retaliation (2.7% of men; 3.8% of women), altercation over a debt (4.1% of men; no
women), sexual rivalry (3.8% of men; no women), armed robbery (2.7% of men; 3.8%
of women), work altercation or dispute (3.3% of men; 3.8% of women), and offender’s
mental disorder (3.8% of men; 7.7% of women).
In general, instrumental motives such as robbery were much less frequent for the
elderly compared to offenders aged 25 to 59.24 For example, elderly homicide offend-
ers are significantly less likely to have committed the homicide during an armed or
strongarm robbery compared to younger offenders. This is true for both women (1.9%,
compared to 5.2% age 25 to 59 and 15.3% age 24 or younger) and for men (2.1%
compared to 13.1% age 25 to 59 and 23.0% age 24 or younger; chi square for women =
90.4; df = 2; p < .001; chi square for men = 454.7; df = 2; p < .001).
Time of day. Elderly homicide offenders are more likely than younger offenders to
commit the offense in the daylight hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (chi square = 189.1;
df = 8; p < .001). This is true for both men and women.

Block 173
Number of offenders. Elderly offenders are significantly more likely than younger
offenders to commit the homicide alone (chi square = 3253.6; df = 2; p < .001). Fully
96.0% of offenders age 60 or older committed the homicide alone, compared to
76.8% of offenders age 25 to 59 and 43.8% of offenders age 24 or younger. This is
true for both men and women. There is no difference in the number of victims in
homicides committed by older offenders versus homicides committed by younger
offenders.
Clearance. The Chicago victim-level homicide data set provides clearance information
at the victim case level; the Chicago offender-level homicide data set provides clear-
ance information for the individual offender. Cases with multiple offenders are cleared
when at least one offender is arrested or exceptionally cleared. Exceptional clearance
occurs when the offender has not been arrested, but the CPD knows who the person is.
For, example, the offender is dead. At the victim case level, homicides of elderly vic-
tims were less likely than homicides of younger victims to be cleared (75.4% vs.
78.3%; chi square = 11.747; df = 2; p = .003).
Because the offender-level data set consists only of those offenders for whom there
is information, an offender in that file has almost always been arrested or otherwise
cleared. Thus 80.7% of elderly offenders and 85.7% of offenders age 25 to 59 were
cleared by arrest—not a significant difference. There were, however, differences in
investigation—elderly offenders were more likely to be arrested at the scene (26.5%
vs. 15.1% for age 25 to 59 and 6.6% or age 24 or younger) and correspondingly less
likely to have been identified through investigation (22.7% vs. 44.5% and 65.6%,
respectively). In addition, elderly offenders were more likely to be exceptionally
cleared. Of the 476 elderly offenders, 12.2% died, by suicide, by being killed at the
scene, or by natural death, compared to 4.8% age 24 to 59 and 1.7% age 24 or younger
(chi square = 340.49; df = 6; p < .001). An additional 7.5% of elderly offenders, 5.5%
age 25 to 59 and 3.4% age 24 or younger were cleared exceptionally for other reasons,
usually because the States’ Attorney refused to prosecute.25
Summary of Key Findings

Based on analysis of the Chicago Homicide Dataset, this article presented descriptions
of homicides of elderly victims and homicides committed by elderly offenders. A key
finding of this analysis was that, reflecting the widely accepted literature showing the
relatively higher risk of elderly homicide victims to have been killed in a robbery or
other instrumental homicide, elderly victims were significantly more likely to have
been killed in an instrumental homicide such as robbery, and less likely than is com-
monly believed to have been killed in an expressive homicide such as elder abuse
(Table 4). An instrumental offense occurs when the primary motive is to gain money
or property; expressive homicides are those in which the offender’s primary goal is to
hurt the victim, not to gain money or property (Block & Block, 1992). Table 4 sepa-
rates two kinds of expressive homicides: a fight or brawl, in which both the offender

Table 4. Homicide Syndromes of Elderly Victims by Age Group and Gender of Homicide
Victim.a
Victim’s age
Victim’s gender/homicide
syndrome 24 or younger 25 to 59 60 and older Total
Male
Fight or brawl (violence 2,777 4,825 288 7,890
two-sided in this incident) 39.6% 50.4% 27.6% 44.8%
Other expressive (violence 3,077 1,856 152 5,085
one-sided in this incident) 43.9% 19.4% 14.6% 28.9%
Instrumental 1,071 2,772 585 4,428
15.3% 29.0% 56.0% 25.1%
Both expressive and 66 97 17 180
instrumental 0.9% 1.0% 1.6% 1.0%
Sexual Assault 15 14 2 31
0.2% 0.1 0.2 0.2%
Both sexual assault and 5 4 0 9
instrumental 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Total 7,011 9,568 1,044 17,623
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Female
Fight or brawl (violence 338 908 71 1,317
two-sided in this incident) 23.0% 41.4% 16.1% 32.1%
Other expressive (violence 802 971 113 1,706
one-sided in this incident) 54.5% 36.0% 25.6% 41.5%
Instrumental 156 320 222 698
10.6% 14.6% 50.2% 17.0%
Both expressive and 12 18 4 34
instrumental 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8%
Sexual assault 145 140 27 312
9.9% 6.4% 6.1% 7.6%
Both sexual assault and 18 18 5 41
instrumental 1.2% 0.8% 1.1% 1.0%
Total 1,471 2,195 442 4,108
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
aThis table does not include 2,793 victims (20.5%) for whom circumstances are not known, the investiga-
tion found only a “possible” motive, or the investigation found that the death was self-inflicted or the
motive was self-defense or justifiable. There were 2,793 (22.6%) such “missing” cases for male victims
age 25 to 59, 513 (18.9%) for female victims age 25 to 59, 1,755 (20%) for male victims age 24 or younger,
258 (14.0%) for female victims age 24 or younger, 184 (15.0%) for male victims age 60 and older, and 70
(13.7%) for female victims age 60 or older.
and the victim exchange violence in the fatal incident; and other expressive, in which
the victim does not participate in violence in that incident (although there may have
been violence from the victim in prior incidents).

Block 175
Although many think of elderly homicide victims as being primarily victimized in

elder abuse by caretakers, it is much more common for victims age 60 or older to be
killed in a robbery or other instrumental crime. While only 29% of men and 15% of
women victims age 25 to 59 were killed in an instrumental homicide, 56% of elderly
men and 50% of elderly women were killed in an instrumental homicide. On the other
hand, expressive homicides, especially two-sided fights or brawls, accounted for sub-
stantially fewer homicides of elderly men and women, compared to younger victims.
Sexual assault homicide was equally likely for elderly and younger victims, regardless
of gender. Other key findings of this analysis of Chicago from 1965 through 2000
were the following:
•• Trends in numbers and rates of victims or offenders age 60 or older were more
constant over time than trends for younger victims or offenders.
•• Elderly victims or offenders were more likely to be non-Latino White than
younger victims or offenders.
•• Elderly homicide victims were significantly more likely to suffer a lingering
death than younger victims.
•• Although intimate partner homicide is less common for elderly than younger
victims, it is not insignificant. A quarter of women victims age 60 to 64 died at
the hands of an intimate partner.
•• Though the numbers are very small, men age 60 and older are significantly
more likely than younger men to have been killed by a prostitute.
•• Elderly victims, particularly women, were much more likely to be killed in their
own home, compared to younger victims.
•• Elderly victims from age 60 through 74, both men and women, were more
likely than younger victims to be killed in their workplace.
•• The elderly are an exception to the commonly accepted belief that homicide
victims have a prior record. Victims age 60 or older were much less likely than
younger victims to have a prior arrest record, and if they had a record, it was
less likely to include a violent offense.
•• Women victims age 60 or older were more likely than younger women victims
to have been killed by multiple offenders, often in a home invasion or purse
snatching.
•• Though the numbers were small, elderly victims were significantly more likely
than younger victims to have been killed in familicide.
•• Firearms, whether semiautomatic or not, were less common causes of death for
elderly victims, and knives or sharp instruments, blunt instruments, arson, and
hands, fists, or feet were more common.
•• Although the proportion strangled or smothered was small for elderly men, it
was significantly higher than for younger men and boys, and the proportion
increased with advancing age above 60.
•• Strangulation or smothering was the cause of death for a considerable propor-
tion of women homicide victims, whether age 60 or older or age 25 to 59.

•• Though numbers were small, elderly homicide victims were significantly more
likely than younger victims to have been killed in an arson fire.
•• Male offenders age 60 or older were more likely than men age 25 to 59 to have
killed an intimate partner, although only a minority of either age group did so.
•• A majority of women homicide offenders, whether age 60 or older or age 25 to
59, killed an intimate partner.
•• Elderly male offenders were less likely to have a prior violent offense record
than men age 25 to 59 or 24 or younger but more likely to have a nonviolent
record. For elderly women offenders, the difference was even greater.
•• Compared to offenders age 25 to 59, elderly offenders were more likely to com-
mit suicide at the scene. Of offenders who had killed an intimate partner, it was
much more likely for a man than a woman to commit suicide at the scene.
•• Elderly women were much more likely than elderly men to kill the elderly,
whether the victim was an intimate partner or not.
Discussion and Conclusions

This article intended to fill some of the substantial gaps in our knowledge of elderly
homicide victims and offenders and the circumstances under which they became a
victim or offender, looking not only at differences between patterns for elderly versus
younger victims and offenders but also looking at differing patterns for elderly men
and women, and at differences along the spectrum of ages from “young old” to “old
old.” What implications does this analysis of Chicago data from 1965 to 2000 (sum-
marized above) have for possible prevention or intervention strategies for elderly
homicide victimization or offending?
To develop successful interventions that reduce the risk of homicide victimization
of the elderly, we must recognize that different kinds of homicide require different
approaches. Hot lines and other efforts to reduce elder abuse are important, but will
not, by themselves, prevent the great majority of homicides against the elderly, unless
they are linked to other, specific, risky situations, such as the following:
•• Intimate partner homicide killed about a quarter of women victims aged 60 to

64 and a lesser but still not trivial proportion of other elderly men and women
victims. First responders—law enforcement and medical—should be aware of
the potential risk of death to this population, as should other service providers,
such as shelters and the court system. In addition, the elderly are at risk of
dying in a homicide motivated by others’ intimate partner conflict—they are
caught in the crossfire. Efforts to reduce levels of intimate partner violence
may also save the lives of others who may be at risk, such as the partner’s
parents or children.
•• Support services for intimate partner violence would help to reduce much of the
risk of elderly women and men becoming a homicide offender since half of
women and a considerable number of men kill an intimate partner.

Block 177
•• Increased and continuing support services for families caring for mentally ill
children, or for families of drug-dependent children, could help to prevent
homicides of elderly parents at the hands of their children.
•• Arson is not only a largely unrecognized cause of elderly homicide but also
often results in a cruel, lingering death. The elderly victim is not usually the
target of the offender, but an unintended victim. They die at a greater rate than
others because they are less able to escape. The approach to preventing death of
the elderly from arson should, therefore, focus on efforts to increase their
chance of escaping—such as Fire Department inspections of apartment build-
ings and building fire drills.
•• A high proportion of elderly victims are killed in their own home, and the pro-
portion increases with greater age. In addition to arson and threats by intimate
partners or children, many of these homicides are home invasion robberies,
some planned and some that begin as a burglary and turn into a homicide when
the burglar is surprised by the victim being home. The victim is often tied up
and otherwise terrorized, often dying from strangulation. The elderly woman is
sometimes raped. Many are committed by multiple offenders, with one of the
offenders a relative or otherwise known to the victim. Others are committed by
a single offender, perhaps a relative, attempting to extort money from the vic-
tim. Thus home safety considerations for the elderly should include not only
grab bars and ramps but also “target hardening” against robbery and burglary.
•• Although very few elderly men are killed by prostitutes, the risk is much higher
for elderly than for younger male victims. Those who provide medical or other
support services to elderly men, including gay men, should be aware of this.
•• The risk of being killed in the workplace is higher for the elderly than for
younger victims. Why is this? Elderly victims are often a proprietor, manager,
or clerk in a small store, or they hold jobs such as security guard or cab driver.
These jobs are risky in themselves—they involve frequent contact with strang-
ers, available money, and little surveillance—but, in addition, the offender may
perceive the elderly to be an “easy mark.” What can be done? Situational crime
prevention approaches, such as “cocooning” and repeat victimization policing,
would help to reduce risk for workers at small stores; target hardening
approaches would help to reduce the risk of driving a cab.
•• Medical and social support providers for the elderly should be aware of the risk
of homicide/suicide for those, especially men, who have thought about or
attempted suicide. Increased support services for caretakers of disabled or sick
relatives could help to reduce mercy killings.
Though homicides against or by the elderly remain a small proportion of the total,
their prevention is important, first, to prevent harm to some of the most vulnerable in
our society, second, because a by-product will be preventing harm to other members
of society, and third and possibly most important, to prepare for the coming increase
in the elderly population. In the future, we can expect that workplace homicides will

increase as the elderly population increases and as people continue to be gainfully

employed later in their life span. We can expect that “domestic” homicides will
increase, unless support services for elderly families struggling to care for a mentally
ill or drug dependent child, and support services for intimate partner violence increase.
For all of these reasons and more, it behooves us as a society to devote resources to
analyzing and finding ways to reduce our elders’ risk of being killed or of killing.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Notes
1. Note that the low rate for children age 13 and under disguises the very high rate for
newborns and young children, versus the low rate for children age 6 to 9 and 10 to 13.
Source: Homicide Trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Downloaded
8/29/2012.http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov. U.S. violent victimization rates in 2010, the most recent
year available, for violent victimization (robbery, assault, and rape, but not homicide), were
12.7 for people age 50 to 64 and 3.0 for people age 65 and older versus 19.3 for everyone
age 12 or older (Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Rates of violent victimization by age,” gener-
ated using the NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool at www.bjs.gov, October 4, 2012).
2. However, Cohen et al. (1998) found that the rate of elderly homicide-suicides increased in
Florida from 1988 to 1994, and Kunkle and Humphrey (1982) found that the U.S. homicide
rate for persons above age 60 rose 18.7% from 1972 to 1977, the rate for those above age
70 rose 24.7%, and the rate for those above age 75 rose 31.2%.
3. Source: Homicide Trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Downloaded
8/29/2012. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov. For other age groups, population-based homicide vic-
timization rates fluctuated over time, but overall, from 1976 to 2005, they declined for ages
35 to 49 (12.6 to 5.7) and for ages 25 to 34. Rates for age groups 18 to 24 and 14 to 17
increased sharply to about 1995, when they began to decline again. Rates for children age
13 and younger were relatively steady (1.8 in 1976 vs. 1.4 in 2005).
4. At 50 and older, it was 2.74; at 35-49, it was 5.7; at 30-35, it was 9.9; at 25-29, it was 11.0;
at 20-24, it was 13.3; at 15-19, it was 7.8; at 10-14, it was 0.9; at 5-9, it was 0.6; and at new-
born to 4, it was 3.4. Source: online reports generated by inquires to WISQUARS (Web-
based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System), CDC (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention), August 30, 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/. Note that NVDRS
is not yet a national system, and therefore, rates do not indicate national levels.
5. The risk of death data (Chu & Kraus, 2004) are based on NIBRS (National Incident-Based
Reporting System) data from 1992 to 1999, which include a subset of agencies today report-
ing to NIBRS. The violent victimization data (Klaus, 2000, 2005) exclude homicide and are
based on data from the NCVS (National Violent Crime Survey). The injury severity data
(Jordan et al., 2010) are based on a retrospective review of homicides of women in Kentucky.

Block 179
6. Note, however, that victimizations of the elderly may be underreported. See Collins and
Presnell (2006).
7. For an earlier analysis of the victim data, see Block and Repp (2006).
8. Beginning in 1968 with the collection of 1965 data and continuing today, the Crime
Analysis Unit of the Chicago Police Department has assisted and advised Richard Block,
Carolyn Block, and others in the Chicago Homicide Dataset project. The Illinois Criminal
Justice Information Authority has supported and maintained the Dataset since 1979. The
Joyce Foundation supported collection and archiving of 1991-1994 data. Funding for ear-
lier data collection and analysis was provided by the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation,
Loyola University of Chicago, the Ford Foundation, the University of Chicago, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Data from 1965 through
1995 are available, and an updated and expanded 1965-2000 CHD will soon be available,
from the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. For details of the
data set, see Block (1993).
9. These 37 people were all adults, but their specific age was unknown to the police. In addi-
tion, three victims, including one 66-year-old victim, were killed in 1964, though the homi-
cide became known to the police in 1965; these victims were excluded from the analysis.
10. A “connected homicide” variable identifies these offenders.
11. Of the 27,345 victims in the victim-level CHD, 37 (0.1%) were identified as an adult, but
the exact age was unknown. Thus age is known for 27,308 victims.
12. Population data files were provided to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
by the City of Chicago Department of Planning (see Bousfield, 2002). We greatly appreci-
ate the help of demographer Marie V. Bousfield, who created and documented these popu-
lation data files.
13. In the Chicago Homicide Dataset, elder abuse is coded when there has been a pattern of
attacks against, harassment of, neglect of, or financial exploitation of the elderly victim
prior to the incident that ended in the victim’s death. It is not necessary that the offender
be the victim’s caretaker, or even that they live together. Nor does every homicide of an
elderly person by a caretaker qualify as elder abuse.
14. One of the women killed by her mentally ill child after elder abuse was killed together
with the child’s father (the victim’s husband). One of the women killed by a noncaretaking
mentally ill child was killed together with her sister, the child’s aunt.
15. For the definition of elder abuse, see Note 13, above.
16. In most homicides “including” sexual assault, a burglar, who was surprised by the victim,
then robbed and raped her.
17. Note that for women victims, while the total percent killed in their own home is higher for
the elderly, the percent killed in the shared home of victim and offender is somewhat lower.
18. There is a correlation between robbery homicide and workplace homicide—67.1% of
workplace homicides of the elderly were motivated by robbery, compared to 40.5% at age
25 to 59 and 36.5% at age 24 and younger.
19. In addition, the homicides of 6 men and 9 women were followed by secondary arson to
cover up the crime, 7 men and 1 woman were set on fire and died from the burns, and the
bodies of 1 man and 1 woman were burned after the homicide to conceal their identities.
20. Intimate partner victims include current and former heterosexual and same-sex relation-
ships. In the current analysis, “intimate partner” was counted in homicide incidents with
more than one victim, when at least one of the victims was a current or ex-intimate partner.
21. In one case, the partners killed each other, and both deaths were recorded by CPD as a
homicide.

22. The offender perceives that he or she and a “sexual rival” victim are in competition for the
same sexual partner. See Block and Block (2012).
23. To calculate these percents, I combined both causative factors. “General domestic alterca-
tion” was counted only if the other causative factor was blank.
24. An instrumental motive happens when the offender’s primary objective is to gain money
or property, not to hurt the victim. See Block and Block (1992).
25. Two cases are not cleared, and the MAR does not record whether or not the offender died
during or after the incident.
References
Abrams, R. C., Leon, A. C., Tardiff, K., Marzuk, P. M., & Sutherland, K. (2007). “Gray murder”:
Characteristics of elderly compared with nonelderly homicide victims in New York City.
American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1666-1670.
Ahmed, A. G., & Menzies, R. P. (2002). Homicide in the Canadian prairies: Elderly and non-
elderly killings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 47, 875-879.
Bachman, R., Block, C. R., & Meloy, M. (2005, November). Patterns and contextual charac-
teristics of fatal and nonfatal violence against the elderly. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Bachman, R., Lachs, M., & Meloy, M. (2004). Reducing injury through self-protection by
elderly victims of violence: The interaction effects of gender of victim and the victim/
offender relationship. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 16, 1-24.
Bachman, R., & Meloy, M. L. (2008). The epidemiology of violence against the elderly:
Implications for primary and secondary prevention. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 24, 186-197.
Barak, Y., Perry, T., & Elizur, A. (1995). Elderly criminals: A study of first criminal offense in
old age. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10, 511-516.
Belsky, J. (1984). The psychology of aging: Theory, research, and practice. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Block, C. R. (1987). Homicide in Chicago: Aggregate and time series perspectives on vic-
tim, offender and circumstance. Chicago, IL: Center for Urban Policy, Loyola University
Chicago.
Block, C. (1993). Overview of the Chicago Homicide Project. In C. R. Block & R. L. Block
(Eds.), Questions and answers in lethal and non-lethal violence: Proceedings of the First
Annual Workshop of the Homicide Research Working Group (NCJ 142058; pp. 97-122).
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Block, C. R., & Block, R. (1991). Beginning with Wolfgang: An agenda for homicide research.
Journal of Crime and Justice, XIV, 31-70.
Block, R., & Block, C. R. (1992). Homicide syndromes and vulnerability: Violence in Chicago
community areas over 25 years. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 1, 61-87.
Block, C. R., & Block, R. (2012). Margo Wilson’s contributions to the Chicago Homicide
Dataset: Sexual rivalry and sexual jealousy. Homicide Studies, 16, 404-427.
Block, C. R., & Repp, M. (2006, June). When an elderly person is murdered: Circumstances of
homicides against the elderly in Chicago, 1965 to 2000. Paper presented at the Homicide
Research Working Group, 2006 Annual Workshop, Richmond, VA.
Bourget, D., Gagne, P., & Whitehurst, L. (2010). Domestic homicide and homicide-suicide: The
older offender. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 305-311.
Bousfield, M. V. (2002). Population estimation for census tracts using dynamic models.
Chicago, IL: Department of Planning.

Block 181
Brownstein, H. H., Goldstein, P. J., & Spunt, B. J. (1992, November). The senior class: Older
homicide offenders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society
of Criminology New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/
Digitization/146897NCJRS.pdf
Chressanthis, G. A. (1988). Criminal homicide and the elderly offender: A theoretical and
empirical analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4, 187-199
Chu, L. D., & Kraus, J. F. (2004). Predicting fatal assault among the elderly using the National
Incident-Based Reporting System crime data. Homicide Studies, 8, 71-95.
Cohen, D., Llorente, M., & Eisdorfer, C. (1998). Homicide-suicide in older persons. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 390-396.
Collins, K. A., & Presnell, S. E. (2006). Elder homicide: A 20-year study. American Journal of
Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 27, 183-187.
Copeland, A. R. (1986). Homicide among the elderly: The Metro Dade county experience,
1979-1983. Medical Science Law, 26, 259-262.
Falzon, A. L., & Davis, G. G. (1998). A 15 year retrospective review of homicide in the elderly.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43, 371-374.
Fazel, S., Bond, M., Gulait, G., & O’Donnell, I. (2007). Elderly homicide in Chicago: A research
note. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 629-639.
Fazel, S., & Grann, M. (2002). Older criminals: A descriptive study of psychiatrically examined
offenders in Sweden. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 907-913.
Feldmeyer, B., & Steffensmeier, D. (2012). Patterns and trends in elder homicide across race
and ethnicity, 1985-2009. Homicide Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/
1088767912438876
Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (1991). Homicide against the elderly: A research note. Criminology, 29,
317-327.
Gewerth, K. E. (1988). Elderly offenders: A review of previous research. In B. McCarthy &
R. Langworthy (Eds.), Older offenders: Perspectives in criminology and criminal justice
(pp. 14-32). New York, NY: Praeger.
Goetting, A. (1984). The elderly in prison: A profile. Criminal Justice Review, 9, 14-24.
Goetting, A. (1992). Patterns of homicide among the elderly. Violence and Victims, 7,
203-215.
James, M. P. (1992). The elderly as victims of crime, abuse and neglect. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Jordan, C. E., Pritchard, A. J., Duckett, D., Wilcox, P., Corey, T., & Combest, M. (2010).
Relationship and injury trends in the homicide of women across the life span: A research
note. Homicide Studies, 14, 181-192.
Karch, D., & Nunn, K. C. (2011). Characteristics of elderly and other vulnerable adult victims
of homicide by a caregiver: National violent death reporting system—17 U.S. States, 2003-
2007. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 137-157.
Kennedy, L. W., & Silverman, R. A. (1990). The elderly victim of homicide: An application of
the routine activities approach. Sociological Quarterly, 31, 307-319.
Klaus, P. A. (2000). Crimes against persons age 65 or older, 1992-97 (NCJ 176352).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Klaus, P. (2005). Crimes against persons age 65 or older, 1993-2002 (Special Report; NCJ
206154). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Knight, B. (1983). Geriatric homicide—or the Darby and Joan Syndrome. Geriatric Medicine,
13, 297-300.

Koehler, S. A., Shakir, A. M., & Omalu, B. I. (2006). Cause of death among elder homicide
victims: A 10-year medical examiner review. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 2, 199-203.
Kratcoski, P. (1990). Circumstances surrounding homicides by older offenders. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 17, 420-430.
Kratcoski, P. C., & Walker, D. B. (1988). Homicide among the elderly: Analysis of the victim/
assailant relationship. In B. McCarthy & R. Langworthy (Eds.), Older offenders:
Perspectives in criminology and criminal justice (pp. 62-75). New York, NY: Praeger.
Krienert, J. L., & Walsh, J. A. (2010, February). Eldercide: A gendered examination of elderly
homicide in the United States, 2000-2005. Homicide Studies, 14(1), 52-71.
Krienert, J. L., Walsh, J. A., & Turner, M. (2009). Elderly in America: A descriptive study of
elder abuse examining National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data, 2000-
2005. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 21, 325-345.
Kunkle, S., & Humphrey, J. A. (1982). Murder of the elderly: An analysis of increased vulner-
ability. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 13, 27-34.
Lewis, C., Fields, C., & Rainey, E. (2006). A study of geriatric forensic evaluees: Who are
the violent elderly? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34,
324-332.
Maxfield, M. G. (1989). Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and valid-
ity. Criminology, 27, 671-695.
Messner, S. F., & Tardiff, K. (1985). The social ecology of urban homicide: An application of
the “Routine Activities” approach. Criminology, 23, 241-267.
Nelson, C., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1998). Strangers in the night: An application of the life-
style-routine activities approach to elderly homicide victimization. Homicide Studies,
2, 130-159.
O’Neill, D., O’Shea, B., Lawlor, R., McGee, C., Walsh, J. B., & Coakley, D. (1989). Effects of
burglary on elderly people. British Medical Journal, 298, 1618-1619.
Posner, R. A. (1997). Aging and old age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Putkonen, H., Weizmann-Henelius, G., Repo-Tiihonen, E., Lindberg, N., Saarela, T., Eronen,
M., & Häkkänen-Nyholm, H. (2010). Homicide, psychopathy, and aging-A nationwide
register-based case-comparison study of homicide offenders aged 60 years or older.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1552-1556.
Riedel, M., Zahn, M. A., & Mock, L. F. (1985). The nature and patterns of American homicide.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Safarik, M. E., Jarvis, J. P., & Nussbaum, K. E. (2002). Sexual homicide of elderly females:
Linking offender characteristics to victim and crime scene attributes. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 17, 500-525.
Salari, S. (2007). Patterns of intimate partner homicide suicide in later life: Strategies for pre-
vention. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2, 441-452.
Shields, L., Hunsaker, D., & Hunsaker, J. (2004). Abuse and neglect: A ten-year review of
mortality and morbidity in our elderly in a large metropolitan area. Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 49, 1-6.
Silverman, R.A., & Kennedy, L. W. (1987). Relational distance and homicide: The role of the
stranger. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 272-308.
Stanback, B., & King-Kallimanis, K. L. (2011). Older offenders and homicide: What can we
learn from the Chicago Homicide Dataset? Homicide Studies, 15, 32-47.
Ticehurst, S. B., Ryan, M. G., & Hughes, F. (1992). Homicidal behaviour in elderly patients
admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Dementia, 3, 86-90.

Block 183
Titterington, V., & Reyes, N. (2010). Elder homicide in urban America: An exploratory analysis
of Chicago, Houston, and Miami. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 228-249.
Weaver, G. S., Martin, C. D., & Petee, T. A. (2004). Culture, context, and homicide of the
elderly. Sociological Inquiry, 74, 2-19.
Wilbanks, W., & Murphy, D. (1984). The elderly homicide offender. In E. S. Newman,
D. J. Newman & M. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Elderly criminals (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA:
Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1997). Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproduc-
tive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. British Medical Journal, 314, 1271-1274.
Yorston, G. (1999). Aged and dangerous. Old-age forensic psychiatry. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 174, 193-195.
Author Biography
Carolyn Rebecca Block, retired Senior Research Analyst at the Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority, continues to maintain the Chicago Homicide Dataset, as well as the
CWHRS (Chicago Women’s Health Risk Study) dataset, and to help citizens use the data. She
was a co-founder of the Homicide Research Working Group, and maintains networks and work-
ing groups for practitioners and academics, such as the CWHRS Forum, the Working Group on
Criminologists in Non-Academic Careers, and the Working Group on Research Collaboration
between Researchers and Practitioners.

Block, 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homicide Studies

Homicide Against or by the Elderly in Chicago 1965-2000

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Carolyn Rebecca Block1

1Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Chicago, IL, USA

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Trends and Patterns in Homicide Victimization and

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Figure 1. Number of known homicide victims, by age group, Chicago 1965-2000.

Trends in Numbers and Rates of Offenders Age 60 or Older

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Race/Ethnicity in Elderly Victims and Offenders

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Gender and Age

Figure 3. Number of known homicide offenders, by age group, Chicago 1965-2000.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Characteristics of Elderly Homicide Victims and Their Homicides

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Victim’s gender/day from fatal younger than age 25 to age 60 and

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Table 3. Weapon by Age Group and Gender of Homicide Victim.a

Strangulation or smothering. Strangulation or smothering (categorized under

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Characteristics of Elderly Homicide Offenders and Their Homicides

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Summary of Key Findings

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Although many think of elderly homicide victims as being primarily victimized in

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Discussion and Conclusions

•• Intimate partner homicide killed about a quarter of women victims aged 60 to

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

increase as the elderly population increases and as people continue to be gainfully

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

You might also like