Oxford Univ Study: Lack of Vit & Min = Anti-social behavior

[bhaktajan 0]

The beginning of the cow protection success is forthcoming.

The latest vogue mentality is: making a smaller "ecological footprint" ---that would include the stopping of cow and animal slaughter.

 

Also, such a diet is totally acidic, thus a bodily systems are affected.

Bhaktajan

 

....................................................................................................................

 

The British Journal of Psychiatry (2002) 181: 22-28

© 2002 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Influence of supplementary vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids on the antisocial behaviour of young adult prisoners

Randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Declaration of interest The research was supported by a grant from the research charity Natural Justice (see Acknowledgements) and managed from the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<ST1:PUniversity </ST1:PSurrey</ST1:P</st1:place>. Scotia Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Unigreg Ltd supplied nutritional supplements.

 

Background There is evidence that offenders consume diets lacking in essential nutrients and this could adversely affect their behaviour.

Aims To test empirically if physiologically adequate intakes of vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids cause a reduction in antisocial behaviour.

Method Experimental, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of nutritional supplements on 231 young adult prisoners, comparing disciplinary offences before and during supplementation.

Results Compared with placebos, those receiving the active capsules committed an average of 26.3% (95% CI 8.3-44.33%) fewer offences (P=0.03, two-tailed). Compared to baseline, the effect on those taking active supplements for a minimum of 2 weeks (n=172) was an average 35.1% (95% CI 16.3-53.9%) reduction of offences (P<0.001, two-tailed), whereas placebos remained within standard error.

Conclusions Antisocial behaviour in prisons, including violence, are reduced by vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids with similar implications for those eating poor diets in the community.

INTRODUCTION

Most research into factors involved in antisocial behaviour investigates societal factors. This has produced important correlational evidence but does not demonstrate that such factors have causal relationships with antisocial behaviour, as this requires more rigorous experimental designs (Altman, 1991; Rutter, 1995). Such designs are difficult to achieve in sociological research, which leaves questions of volition, culpability, prevention and rehabilitation open, if cause and effect are more precisely understood. It is noteworthy that a Director of the US National Institute of Mental Health suggested that treatment programmes for offenders tend not to be rigorously evaluated: ‘It's easy to fool yourselves about efficacy if you haven't done a proper clinical trial’ (Marshal, 2000). It has, however, been suggested that deeper knowledge of the biology of antisocial behaviours will help interventions (Stone & Kelner, 2000).

Background

When Sinclair persuaded the wartime British government in 1942 to supplement the diet of all children with cod-liver oil and orange juice, he speculated that among other ills, poor diets could lead to antisocial behaviour. Since that time, evidence has grown to support this link (Moynahan, 1976; Virkkunen & Huttunen, 1982; Benton & Cook, 1991; Stevens et al, 1995, 1996; Hamazaki et al, 1996; Schoenthaler et al, 1997; Walsh et al, 1997; Hibbeln et al, 1998; Bjork et al, 1999; Golomb et al, 2000). If there is a causal relationship between micronutrient deficiencies and antisocial behaviour, then where such deficiencies exist supplementing the diet with appropriate nutrients should improve behaviour. With the approval of the Home Office, this was tested empirically. The study was approved by the University Surrey Ethics Committee</ST1:PlaceName> and conformed to the Declaration of <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Helsinki</st1:place></st1:City>. The findings have been subject to a 10-month Home Office review.

METHOD

Experimental study

Participation

Before recruitment, the purpose of the project was explained carefully to each participant. Participants had to be 18 years of age or over. Each volunteer recruited signed an informed consent form, which was countersigned by a member of the prison staff. The trial had to conform to the normal operations of the institution where participants would leave for reasons such as parole or requirements of cell space. Thus, the analysis allowed for participation to vary from a minimum period of 2 weeks to 9 months in both baseline and supplementation periods. The average time spent on supplementation was 142 days for the placebo group and 142.62 for the active group. No individuals were withdrawn as a result of ill effects from supplementation. Participants were debriefed about their participation by written report.

Materials

It was agreed with the HM Prison Service and the Home Office to use nutritional supplements that were available ‘over the counter.’ Although improvements in dietary intakes of micronutrients could be achieved through diet, nutritional supplements provide a known quantity of micronutrients and allowed for the use of a double-blind, placebo-controlled design to test the hypothesis that supplementary vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids would significantly reduce the rate of disciplinary incidents. An expert advisory group with no commercial interest in the outcome undertook the selection of nutritional supplements, based on formulation. The <st1:place w:st="on"><ST1:PUniversity </ST1:PSurrey</st1:place> conducted assays to check manufacturing tolerance and assessed the match between active and placebo supplements. The vitamin/mineral supplement ‘Forceval’ is licensed for prescription purposes in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region> as a therapeutic adjunct where intake of vitamins and minerals is sub-optimal. It is formulated in line with European Economic Council Directive 90/496/EEC on international labelling for foodstuffs (24 September 1990) and the UK Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom (Department of Health, 1991). Potency is presented in Table 1. A vegetable oil-based placebo with an identical opaque bi-coloured gelatine shell was employed.

Both omega-6 and omega-3 essential fatty acids have been found to be deficient among violent offenders (Corrigan et al, 1994). For this reason, an essential fatty acid supplement was also employed. ‘Efamol Marine’ provides omega-6 and omega-3 essential fatty acids without an obvious after-taste, a factor that could otherwise have compromised the blind. The daily dosage was four capsules providing 1260 mg linoleic acid, 160 mg gamma linolenic acid, 80 mg eicosapentaenoic acid and 44 mg docosahexaenoic acid. A vegetable oil-based placebo of identical colour and clear gelatine shell was used.

Measurements

Antisocial behaviour

Antisocial behaviours resulting in disciplinary action were adjudicated through Governor or minor reports. Governor reports adjudicate more serious incidents such as those involving violence and may involve loss of remission. Minor reports typically adjudicate on a failure to comply with requirements. The construction of the offence and the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ was the same for both types of report. Thus, Governor and minor reports proven in adjudication, over a specified time period, formed the measurement of antisocial behaviour. Before breaking the blind, Governor and minor reports were categorised into those occurring during the baseline or supplementation period for each participant.

Dietary intake

The dietary intake of the participants was assessed using 7-day food diaries. The nutrient content of each prisoner's diet was determined using a database based on McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods (Holland et al, 1996). As all foods consumed by the prisoners originated in the prison, it was possible to devise a diary where the participants indicated which of the available choices they had eaten and how much (a quarter, a half, three-quarters portion, all or a second portion). Portion weights were determined from the serveries. They were asked to report the number of items consumed, including spread on bread and milk and sugar in beverages. A list of food items (e.g. chocolate) that could be purchased from the prison shop was also included to record consumption. The quantity and type of all food consumed was entered into a computer package (‘Superdiet’) for each of the 7 days.

Psychological tests

The following psychological measures were employed: verbal ability and intelligence derived from the General Aptitude Test Battery (USES 1967) (Hammond, 1984); emotional control from the Emotional Control Questionnaire (Roger & Nesshoever, 1987; Roger & Najarian, 1989); measurement of anger and aggression from the Survey Anger Scales (O'Rourke, 1994); self-reported health status from the Malaise Inventory (Rutter et al, 1970); and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Questionnaire (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983). The reliability and validity of these measures have been demonstrated previously (Bramley et al, 1988).

Procedures

[bhaktajan 0]

Supplement distribution

Nutritional supplements were packed into blister packs containing one vitamin/mineral capsule and four essential fatty acid capsules. Blister packs contained either all active or all placebo supplements and were stamped with an 11-digit alphanumeric code during manufacture. To facilitate double-blind allocation, research staff were only provided with details of the respective alphanumeric code allocated for each participant. Each day, coded packs were labelled with the participant's name, cell and prison number, and as prison officers routinely locked inmates in their cell at lunchtime they also gave the packs to participants. Compliance was monitored and logged through officers returning the used packs each day and routine cell searches. The log recorded if a participant's supplement packs were returned empty, full or at all. The HM Prison Service gave permission for the trial under the Declaration of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st="on">Helsinki</st1:place></st1:City> on the understanding that we provided active nutritional supplements for 3 months after the trial, so that all participants received benefit.

Randomisation

Participants initially entered the trial enbloc at its commencement in September 1996. They underwent psychometric assessment and their baseline disciplinary records were obtained. A stratified randomisation was conducted on the population of participants in each of the four main wings of the institution, employing a random number generator to allocate to groups. Thus, each wing formed a stratum so that the placebo and active groups were matched in terms of disciplinary incidents and also progress in the prison regime. Participants that were recruited subsequently over the following 8 months were first grouped by their location (wing) and then randomly allocated to treatment conditions using a random number generator.

Statistical analysis

Disciplinary data were analysed using negative binomial (mixed Poisson) regression analysis (Lawless, 1987). This analysis was used because disciplinary incidents constitute a series of discrete events over time and the basic model for this is a Poisson process, which cannot have normal distribution. In a Poisson process, however, it is assumed that the average probability of a person committing an offence remains constant over time and is independent of previous outcomes. Because we knew some individuals were more prone to behaviour resulting in disciplinary incidents than others, we accounted for these variations in the individual rates of disciplinary incidents by modifying the Poisson distribution into to a negative binomial distribution. Goodness-of-fit tests confirmed that the rates of disciplinary incidents were indeed a good match with this predicted negative binomial (mixed Poisson) distribution, so we were able to use this distribution as the basis for our regression analysis. The regression was based on two main parameters, <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 5.25pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" alt="{lambda}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/lambda.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>and <v:shape id=_x0000_i1026 style="WIDTH: 6.75pt; HEIGHT: 8.25pt" alt="{gamma}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image002.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/gamma.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>. The parameters <v:shape id=_x0000_i1027 style="WIDTH: 5.25pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" alt="{lambda}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/lambda.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>P and <v:shape id=_x0000_i1028 style="WIDTH: 5.25pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" alt="{lambda}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/lambda.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>A are the mean underlying rates of disciplinary offences per day in the institution for the placebo and active groups, respectively, and were used to compare baseline rates of offending. The parameter <v:shape id=_x0000_i1029 style="WIDTH: 6.75pt; HEIGHT: 8.25pt" alt="{gamma}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image002.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/gamma.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>is the ratio of the underlying rates of disciplinary offences supplementation to baseline; <v:shape id=_x0000_i1030 style="WIDTH: 6.75pt; HEIGHT: 8.25pt" alt="{gamma}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image002.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/gamma.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>P and <v:shape id=_x0000_i1031 style="WIDTH: 6.75pt; HEIGHT: 8.25pt" alt="{gamma}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image002.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/gamma.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>A being the respective ratios for the placebo and active groups. The analysis controlled for those individuals who had no offences at baseline and took into account how long a person had been in the trial. Statistical power was calculated from a one-dimensional Wald test, where the deviation of the value of <v:shape id=_x0000_i1032 style="WIDTH: 6.75pt; HEIGHT: 8.25pt" alt="{gamma}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image002.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/gamma.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>from its hypothesised value of unity (i.e. <v:shape id=_x0000_i1033 style="WIDTH: 5.25pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" alt="{lambda}" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/lambda.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>remains unchanged) in the null hypothesis is compared to its standard error. The institution's population was typically 220 individuals. We estimated that we would recruit 75% of the population over 9 months. Taking all offences together, we estimated that statistical power for correctly rejecting the null hypothesis, with significance at the 1% level, would be 92%.

RESULTS

Experimental study

Compliance

Based on the daily log, the mean compliance rate for supplementation was 89.83% (95% CI 87.43-92.23%) for the placebo group and 90.67% (95% CI 88.47-92.87%) for the active group. The difference in compliance between groups was not statistically significant (normal deviate z=-0.53).

Adverse effects

The institution's senior medical officer reported no adverse reactions to supplementation.

Dietary intake

Participants (n=112; 57 active, 55 placebo) completed a 7-day food diary. Table 2 shows the average nutrient intake of the active and placebo groups. No differences were considered clinically significant, so the groups were considered equivalent.

Psychometric assessment

There were no statistically significant differences between the active and placebo groups at baseline on any of the measures of intelligence, verbal ability, anger, anxiety, malaise and depression (Table 3).

Placebo effectiveness

At the end of the trial, participants were asked to complete and sign a form recording whether they thought they had received active or placebo supplements; a total of 97 did so (Table 4). The proportions of those that guessed correctly in the active and placebo groups were very similar and did not differ from that expected by chance (<v:shape id=_x0000_i1034 style="WIDTH: 6pt; HEIGHT: 6.75pt" alt="{chi}" type="#_x0000_t75"> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image003.gif" o:href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/math/chi.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>2=1.26; d.f.=1, NS).

DISCUSSION

The experimental, placebo-controlled, double-blind methodology has demonstrated that supplementing prisoners' diets with physiological dosages of vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids caused a reduction in antisocial behaviour to a remarkable degree. It is not advocated that nutrition is the only cause of antisocial behaviour but the difference in outcome between the active and placebo groups could not be explained by ethnic or social factors, as they were controlled for by the randomised design. If these findings are replicated, and they need to be, this nutritional approach to antisocial behaviour has the advantage that deficits in nutrition can be readily identified and remedied.

Limitations

Interpretation

It can be argued that behaviour in institutions is untypical and this will reduce the extent to which these findings can be broadened in their interpretation. As a balance to this argument, the observed effect on behaviour is physiological and unlikely to be limited to prisons as there is no evidence that imprisonment affects the essentiality of these nutrients for human metabolism. Indeed, a greater effect could be predicted where baseline dietary intakes are worse. From experience, baseline dietary intakes among serious young offenders in the community are likely to be worse than in custody where regular meals are provided.

Statistical analysis

The analysis did not take account of the possibility that conducting such a project in a confined setting could influence the findings. It is likely, however, that interactions between the groups in a confined setting would weaken any observed effect because the active group could have influenced the atmosphere for the entire population. Hence, the findings could be an underestimate of the true effect size. With larger institutional studies it would be possible to test the frequencies of disciplinary offences involving two or more individuals for randomness between groups.

Biochemical measures

Further investigations should include assessments of nutritional status from blood before and during supplementation. Although blood analysis would have allowed correlations between behavioural and biochemical changes, we are confident from a considerable body of previous research (e.g. Blonk et al, 1990; Bunout et al, 2000) that the nutritional supplements would have raised the prisoners' vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids by significant amounts. More recent research of violent and non-violent subjects has, for example, found omega-3 plasma essential fatty acids predicted levels of the metabolites of serotonin and dopamine taken from cerebrospinal fluid (Hibbeln et al, 1998). Findings such as these suggest that further improvements in behaviour could be achieved by providing a formulation with proportionally more omega-3 fatty acids.

Clinical implications

Re-assessment of risk factors

If these findings are replicated, a potential implication is that the dietary requirements for good health are also supportive of social behaviour. Indeed, like humans, food has both a physiological and social component. This suggests that food is an additional means to reduce antisocial behaviour but it also may improve our understanding of established risk factors. There is a great deal of research into factors that affect the behaviour of juveniles (Smith, 1995, Rutter et al, 1998), including for instance the breakdown of families (Heiss, 1995). However, one of the social functions of families is to provide food, it would be illuminating to investigate the extent to which diets are affected by such breakdowns.

Dietary education

Dietary analyses of the participants' food diaries showed that the diets provided for the prisoners were close to current <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> dietary recommendations. We found, however, that some prisoners did not possess the most basic knowledge to choose a healthy diet; some had not heard of vitamins. Poor food choices by the prisoners typically resulted in lower nutrient intakes, most notably of minerals. Despite availability, a high percentage of our participants consumed on average less than the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> reference nutrient intakes (RNI) of selenium (97%), magnesium (74%), potassium (74%), iodine (73%) and zinc (66%). Although intakes below the RNI are not necessarily evidence of inadequate intake, most micronutrients were raised significantly in the active group by supplementation, suggesting the intervention could be welcomed on health grounds alone. It should come as no surprise therefore that the institution's medical staff observed no adverse reactions to supplementation and no individuals were withdrawn as a result of supplementation. The findings do suggest, however, a need to improve dietary education as well as providing more nourishing diets. Indeed, one early study (Schauss, 1978) conducted in the community claimed that such dietary education proved more effective at reducing recidivism than conventional probation programmes employed at that time.

Current dietary standards

This research strongly suggests that the effect of diet on antisocial behaviour has been underestimated and more attention should be paid to offenders' diets. It should be noted, however, that the current dietary standards by which dietary adequacy are judged barely take behaviour into account. Thus, having demonstrated empirically an effect on antisocial behaviour, we are only at the start of understanding the potential of this intervention.

 

 

 

Clinical Implications and Limitations

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Dietary interventions should be considered when addressing antisocial behaviours.

Without rigorous experimental designs, nutritional effects on antisocial behaviours may be subsumed within effects currently attributed to social risk factors.

Dietary standards should be re-assessed to take account of behavioural effects.

LIMITATIONS

Behavioural effects may be most apparent in those consuming the poorest diets.

Reductions in antisocial behaviours attributed to nutrition may be underestimated due to interactions between groups in prison.

Biochemical measures were not available and will be required in any replication to explore the utilisation of nutrients and also mediating mechanisms.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research was conducted with the permission of the Home Office and HM Prison Service.

[bhaktajan 0]

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm

Homicide trends in the U.S.

Age trends

 

Young adults have the highest homicide victimization and offending rates

 

Homicide victimization rates for teens and young adults increased rapidly in the late 1980's while rates for older age groups declined; after the early 1990's rates declined for all age groups

 

• For children under age 14, homicide victimization rates are the lowest of all age groups. Their homicide victimization rates declined to the lowest level recorded in 2000 and have remained stable since then.
  
• For young teens (14-17 years old), the homicide victimization rate increased almost 150% from 1985 to 1993. Since 1993 the victimization rates for young teens have declined to levels similar to those experienced from 1976-85.
  
• Older teens and young adults (18-24 years old) experienced the highest homicide victimization rates, a change from the late 1970's when 25-34 year-olds had the highest rates. Since 1993 their vtimization rates have declined but still remain higher than the levels of the mid-1980's.
  
• For adults ages 35-49 and 50 and older, homicide victimization rates have remained stable in recent years.
  
• 25-34 year-olds experienced an increase in homicide victimization rates since 1999 when it was the lowest ever recorded.

To view data, click on the chart.

[D]

View an animation of homicide victimization rates by age from 1980 to 2004.

 

<DL><DD>Additional detail is available about homicides of children under age 5, infanticide, and homicides of persons age 65 and older, eldercide.

 

 

<DD>For more information about age patterns in violent victimization see Key Facts at a Glance. </DD></DL>Homicide offending rates followed a similar pattern

 

• Offending rates for teens (14-17 years old) and young adults (18-24 years old) increased dramatically in the late 1980's while rates for older age groups declined.
  
• Offending rates for children under age 14 increased in the late 1980's and early 1990's, but fell to the lowest level recorded in 2003.
  
• Young adults (18-24 years -old) have historically had the highest offending rates and their rates nearly doubled from 1985 to 1993. Since 1993 offending rates for 18-24 year-olds have declined but remain slightly higher than levels prior to the mid 1980's.
  
• Offending rates of teens (14-17 years old) increased rapidly after 1985, surpassing the rates of 25-34 year-olds. After 2000, the offending rates for young teens reached the lowest levels recorded and fell below those for 25-34 year-olds.
  
• Offending rates for 25-34 year-olds fell from 1991 through 1999 but have increased since 1999.

To view data, click on the chart.

[D]

View an animation of homicide offending rates by age from 1980 to 2004.

 

<DL><DD>For more information about age patterns in violent offending see Key Facts at a Glance. </DD></DL>After many years of decline, the average age of both victims and offenders has leveled off

 

The average age of --

 

• victims is greater than that of offenders and fell from 35.2 years in 1976 to 31.3 years in 1994
  
• offenders fell from about 30.3 years in 1976 to 26.4 years in 1994
  
• both offenders and victims has increased slightly in recent years yet remains lower than it was prior to the mid-1980's

To view data, click on the chart.

[D]

Young victims were more likely to know the offender than older victims

 

To view data, click on the chart.

[D]

The age distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide

 

For the years 1976-2005 combined -

 

• Almost one-quarter of the victims of gang-related killings were under the age of 18. Juveniles were also unusually involved as victims of family members, sex-related homicides, and homicide by arson or poison.
  
• Felony-murder, workplace murder, arson, and poison homicides claimed a relatively large percentage of older victims (ages 50 and over).

<TABLE title="Homicide Type by Age, 1976-2005" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 summary="Data table on homicides by age of victim and offender by victim/offender relationship, circumstances, weapon, and multiple victims/offenders" border=0><CAPTION>Homicide Type by Age, 1976-2005 </CAPTION><TBODY><TR>.... vAlign=bottom align=left colSpan=2 rowSpan=2>

.....>.... id=victims vAlign=bottom colSpan=4>Victims.....>.... id=offenders vAlign=bottom colSpan=5>Offenders.....>

</TR><TR>.... id=v1 vAlign=bottom align=middle width=54>Under 18.....>.... id=v2 vAlign=bottom align=middle width=57>18-34.....>.... id=v3 vAlign=bottom align=middle width=49>35-49.....>.... id=v4 vAlign=bottom align=middle width=50>50+.....>.... vAlign=bottom width=9> .....>.... id=o1 vAlign=bottom align=middle width=51>Under 18.....>.... id=o2 vAlign=bottom align=middle width=50>18-34.....>.... id=o3 vAlign=bottom align=middle width=52>35-49.....>.... id=o4 vAlign=bottom align=middle width=49>50+.....></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=all align=left headers=type width=121>All homicides.....><TD align=right headers="type all victims v1" width=54>9.8%</TD><TD align=right headers="type all victims v2" width=57>52.7%</TD><TD align=right headers="type all victims v3" width=49>22.8%</TD><TD align=right headers="type all victims v4" width=50>14.7%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type all offenders o1" width=51>10.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type all offenders o2" width=50>65.0%</TD><TD align=right headers="type all offenders o3" width=52>17.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type all offenders o4" width=49>6.8%</TD></TR><TR>.... id=relationship align=left headers=type colSpan=2>Victim/offender

relationship.....>

<TD align=right width=54></TD><TD align=right width=57></TD><TD align=right width=49></TD><TD align=right width=50></TD><TD align=right width=9></TD><TD align=right width=51></TD><TD align=right width=50></TD><TD align=right width=52></TD><TD align=right width=49></TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=intimate align=left headers=relationship width=121>Intimate.....><TD align=right headers="type relationship intimate victims v1" width=54>1.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship intimate victims v2" width=57>46.7%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship intimate victims v3" width=49>34.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship intimate victims v4" width=50>17.5%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship intimate offenders o1" width=51>1.0%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship intimate offenders o2" width=50>46.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship intimate offenders o3" width=52>34.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship intimate offenders o4" width=49>17.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=family align=left headers=relationship width=121>Family.....><TD align=right headers="type relationship family victims v1" width=54>19.6%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship family victims v2" width=57>31.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship family victims v3" width=49>26.4%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship family victims v4" width=50>22.1%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship family offenders o1" width=51>6.0%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship family offenders o2" width=50>49.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship family offenders o3" width=52>28.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship family offenders o4" width=49>16.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=kids align=left headers=relationship width=121>Infanticide.....><TD align=right headers="type relationship kids victims v1" width=54>100.0%</TD><TD align=right width=57>

 

</TD><TD align=right width=49>

 

</TD><TD align=right width=50>

 

</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship kids offenders o1" width=51>7.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship kids offenders o2" width=50>81.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship kids offenders o3" width=52>9.7%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship kids offenders o4" width=49>1.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=elder align=left headers="type relationship" width=121>Eldercide.....><TD align=right width=54>

 

</TD><TD align=right width=57>

 

</TD><TD align=right width=49>

 

</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship elder victims v4" width=50>100.0%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship elder offenders o1" width=51>10.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship elder offenders o2" width=50>49.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship elder offenders o3" width=52>19.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type relationship elder offenders o4" width=49>21.4%</TD></TR><TR>.... id=circumstances align=left headers=type colSpan=2>Circumstances.....><TD align=right width=54></TD><TD align=right width=57></TD><TD align=right width=49></TD><TD align=right width=50></TD><TD align=right width=9></TD><TD align=right width=51></TD><TD align=right width=50></TD><TD align=right width=52></TD><TD align=right width=49></TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=murder align=left headers="type circumstances" width=121>Felony murder.....><TD align=right headers="type circumstances murder victims v1" width=54>7.6%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances murder victims v2" width=57>46.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances murder victims v3" width=49>21.8%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances murder victims v4" width=50>23.8%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances murder offenders o1" width=51>14.8%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances murder offenders o2" width=50>72.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances murder offenders o3" width=52>10.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances murder offenders o4" width=49>2.0%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=sex align=left headers="type circumstances" width=121>Sex related.....><TD align=right headers="type circumstances sex victims v1" width=54>19.6%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances sex victims v2" width=57>45.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances sex victims v3" width=49>16.6%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances sex victims v4" width=50>18.7%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances sex offenders o1" width=51>10.7%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances sex offenders o2" width=50>73.6%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances sex offenders o3" width=52>13.7%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances sex offenders o4" width=49>2.0%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=drug align=left headers="type circumstances" width=121>Drug related.....><TD align=right headers="type circumstances drug victims v1" width=54>5.4%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances drug victims v2" width=57>71.4%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances drug victims v3" width=49>19.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances drug victims v4" width=50>3.3%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances drug offenders o1" width=51>10.6%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances drug offenders o2" width=50>76.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances drug offenders o3" width=52>11.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances drug offenders o4" width=49>1.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=gang align=left headers="type circumstances" width=121>Gang related.....><TD align=right headers="type circumstances gang victims v1" width=54>24.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances gang victims v2" width=57>68.4%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances gang victims v3" width=49>6.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances gang victims v4" width=50>1.3%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances gang offenders o1" width=51>28.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances gang offenders o2" width=50>69.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances gang offenders o3" width=52>1.6%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances gang offenders o4" width=49>.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=argument align=left headers="type circumstances" width=121>Argument.....><TD align=right headers="type circumstances argument victims v1" width=54>5.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances argument victims v2" width=57>56.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances argument victims v3" width=49>26.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances argument victims v4" width=50>12.2%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances argument offenders o1" width=51>6.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances argument offenders o2" width=50>60.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances argument offenders o3" width=52>23.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances argument offenders o4" width=49>9.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=workplace align=left headers="type circumstances" width=121>Workplace.....><TD align=right headers="type circumstances workplace victims v1" width=54>.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances workplace victims v2" width=57>28.0%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances workplace victims v3" width=49>32.0%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances workplace victims v4" width=50>39.5%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances workplace offenders o1" width=51>3.7%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances workplace offenders o2" width=50>53.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances workplace offenders o3" width=52>27.6%</TD><TD align=right headers="type circumstances workplace offenders o4" width=49>15.5%</TD></TR><TR>.... id=weapon align=left headers=type colSpan=2>Weapon.....><TD align=right width=54></TD><TD align=right width=57></TD><TD align=right width=49></TD><TD align=right width=50></TD><TD align=right width=9></TD><TD align=right width=51></TD><TD align=right width=50></TD><TD align=right width=52></TD><TD align=right width=49></TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=gun align=left headers="type weapon" width=121>Gun homicide.....><TD align=right headers="type weapon gun victims v1" width=54>7.4%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon gun victims v2" width=57>59.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon gun victims v3" width=49>22.4%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon gun victims v4" width=50>10.9%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon gun offenders o1" width=51>11.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon gun offenders o2" width=50>64.8%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon gun offenders o3" width=52>15.8%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon gun offenders o4" width=49>7.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=arson align=left headers="type weapon" width=121>Arson.....><TD align=right headers="type weapon arson victims v1" width=54>28.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon arson victims v2" width=57>27.0%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon arson victims v3" width=49>19.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon arson victims v4" width=50>25.5%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon arson offenders o1" width=51>11.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon arson offenders o2" width=50>57.7%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon arson offenders o3" width=52>23.8%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon arson offenders o4" width=49>7.0%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=poison align=left headers="type weapon" width=121>Poison.....><TD align=right headers="type weapon poison victims v1" width=54>28.0%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon poison victims v2" width=57>23.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon poison victims v3" width=49>16.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon poison victims v4" width=50>32.2%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon poison offenders o1" width=51>4.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon poison offenders o2" width=50>50.9%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon poison offenders o3" width=52>26.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type weapon poison offenders o4" width=49>18.5%</TD></TR><TR>.... id=multiple align=left headers=type colSpan=2>Multiple victims

or offenders.....>

<TD align=right width=54></TD><TD align=right width=57></TD><TD align=right width=49></TD><TD align=right width=50></TD><TD align=right width=9></TD><TD align=right width=51></TD><TD align=right width=50></TD><TD align=right width=52></TD><TD align=right width=49></TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=victim align=left headers="type multiple" width=121>Multiple victims.....><TD align=right headers="type multiple victim victims v1" width=54>18.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple victim victims v2" width=57>46.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple victim victims v3" width=49>19.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple victim victims v4" width=50>16.4%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple victim offenders o1" width=51>9.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple victim offenders o2" width=50>66.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple victim offenders o3" width=52>18.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple victim offenders o4" width=49>5.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left width=26></TD>.... id=offender align=left headers="type multiple" width=121>Multiple offenders.....><TD align=right headers="type multiple offender victims v1" width=54>11.3%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple offender victims v2" width=57>55.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple offender victims v3" width=49>19.7%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple offender victims v4" width=50>13.5%</TD><TD width=9></TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple offender offenders o1" width=51>18.2%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple offender offenders o2" width=50>73.1%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple offender offenders o3" width=52>7.5%</TD><TD align=right headers="type multiple offender offenders o4" width=49>1.2%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

See also Additional Information about the Data.

Note: The victims of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks are not included in this analysis.

Related charts on this site

 

• Percent of homicides committed during a felony by age of victim, 1976-2005 aggregate
  
• Percent of homicides involving multiple offenders by age of offender, 1976-2005
  
• Homicide offending by weapon type and age of offender, 1976-2005
  
• Percent of homicides involving guns by age of victim, 1976-2005 aggregate
  
• Teen homicide offending rates by region, 1976-2005
  
• Percent of homicides cleared by age of victim, 1976-2005 aggregate