Disaggregating Terrorist Offenders: Implications for Research and Practice

Abstract

F ar-right-inspired violence in the United States is on the rise (Perliger, 2013), and there is a growing realization within policy circles of the increasing threat from so-called "lone wolf" terrorists of different ideological hues (Simon, 2013). A more in-depth understanding of individual offenders and their behaviors (both antecedent and offense-commission) is therefore of great importance not only to the academic literature but also for practitioners tasked with countering the problem. The need for such research is also driven by the fact that a preponderance of studies have focused on violent Islamist organizations for more than a decade. Given the nature of the threat presented by al-Qaeda, this is understandable, but a side effect is that our understanding of the nature of far-rightinspired homicide lags behind our understanding of the behaviors associated with analogous movements.Recognizing these features of the existing literature and the current security environment, Gruenewald, Chermak, and Freilich (2013, this issue) provide an empirical assessment of the behavioral underpinnings of far-right-inspired homicide offenders and compare group-based offenders with lone offenders. Gruenewald et al. (2013) test 23 hypotheses, each of which is derived from a careful examination of the existing literature. Using inferential statistics, they find several significant differences between lone and group offenders. For example, the bivariate analysis suggests that compared with group offenders, far-right lone offenders are statistically more likely to be unmarried, have experience of the military, live alone, use firearms, select government targets, kill more people, and die in the commission of their offense. The multivariate analysis also suggests that age and mental illness also significantly distinguish lone offenders from group offenders (e.g., lone offenders are typically older and more likely to have a history of mental illness).

Terrorist Use of the Internet by the Numbers

“…A preoccupation with only checking online behaviors may lead an intelligence analyst to miss crucial face-to-face components of a plot's technical development or a perpetrator's motivation. Policy and practice may benefit from adopting insights from emerging research arguing in favor of disaggregating our conception of the "terrorist" into discrete groups (e.g., foreign fighters vs. homegrown fighters, bomb-makers vs. bomb-planters, and group-actors vs. lone-actors;Gill and Corner, 2013;LaFree, 2013) rather than disaggregating the radicalization process into discrete groups (e.g., online radicalization and prison radicalization). We need to understand the drives, needs, and forms of behavior that led to the radicalization and attack planning and why the offender chose that environment rather than purely looking at the affordances the environment produced.…”

Lone‐Actor Terrorist Target Choice

“…Yet others have utilized a range of datasets to outline the profile, or lack thereof, of lone actors accompanied by an analysis of pre‐attack behaviors (COT, ; Eby, ; Gill, Horgan, & Deckert, ; Gill, a; Gruenewald, Chermak, & Freilich, ; Jasparro, ; Meloy & Gill, ; Spaaij, ; Teich, 2013). Finally, comparative analyses with analogous offender types have highlighted similarities and differences between lone actors and school shooters, mass murderers and group terrorists (Gill & Corner, ; Gruenewald et al, ; Malkki, ; McCauley & Moskalenko, ).…”

Lone‐Offender Terrorists

“…They examine 23 claims from the literature on extremist loner violence and, based on their findings, offer suggestions to policymakers for addressing loner violence through nurturing strategic partnerships with law enforcement and the military, innovative uses of surveillance technologies, and the development of threat assessment tools. Gill and Corner (2013, this issue) point out in their policy essay that by concentrating on specific types of terrorists, Gruenewald et al (2013) provide an important next step in the study of terrorism-what I have identified here as a third step in developing valid counts of terrorist attacks. Gill and Corner also note the importance of research that examines extremists from the far right, given the overwhelming preponderance of studies focusing on violent Islamist organizations in recent years.…”

“…Gill and Corner (, this issue) point out in their policy essay that by concentrating on specific types of terrorists, Gruenewald et al () provide an important next step in the study of terrorism—what I have identified here as a third step in developing valid counts of terrorist attacks. Gill and Corner also note the importance of research that examines extremists from the far right, given the overwhelming preponderance of studies focusing on violent Islamist organizations in recent years.…”

“…Borum points out that not all lone actors are driven by extremist ideologies and even fewer of them are radicalized in any traditional sense. Borum, like Gill and Corner (2013), notes that an important contribution of this article is that Gruenewald et al (2013) provide a key counterweight to the common conclusion that terrorists are no more likely than others to have psychological problems.…”