Understanding Genocide & Hate Crimes

Presented at LIFE at UCF October 6, 2015Mark Winton

Department of Criminal JusticeUniversity of Central Florida

Research Focus

• The purpose of this presentation is to conduct a comparative analysis of two case studies from the Bosnian genocide: a “willing executioner” and an “unwilling executioner” using Lonnie Athens’ violentization theory.

Violentization Theory

• Developed by Lonnie Athens (1994, 1997, 2010, 2015).

• This is a new approach to hate crimes and genocide.

• Explains the hate process leading to violent actions.

• Can be used to examine individuals, groups, communities & entire societies.

Violentization Theory

• Brutalization• Defiance• Violent Dominance Engagement• Virulency• Extreme Virulency (Violent Predation)

Violentization Theory

• Brutalization- One is taught how to engage in violent behavior through observation and demonstration.

Violentization Theory

• Defiance- A belief system is presented to the individual or group that is supportive of the use of violent behavior.

Violentization Theory

• Violent Dominance Engagement-Engaging in violent acts to test out the results.

Violentization Theory

• Virulency- The individual or group define themselves as violent and dangerous.

Violentization Theory

• Extreme Virulency/Violent Predation-Recently added to the four stages to include extreme violent behavior.

Phantom Communities

• Athens (1994) identified a sounding board (internal dialogue) that people use to make sense of themselves and situations.

• In cases of genocide, the phantom community is the voice that allows, encourages, and supports hatred and violence toward a constructed enemy.

Self-Image Change

• Athens also pointed out that the person’s self-image changes as the phantom others and communities change.

• This explains how nonviolent individuals become dangerous and violent.

Domination

• The key variable?

Data Sources

• Previous studies: Winton (2008) & Winton & Unlu (2008) using the court transcripts from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

The Two Case Studies

• Dusko Tadic claimed he was innocent and did not engage in any violent behavior. He was convicted of crimes related to murder, torture, rape, and slavery. He was in a leadership role.

• Drazen Erdemovic admitted his guilt for the crimes and explained how he got into the situation and how he thought and felt about his violent actions. He was in a follower role.

Tadic

• President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party.

• Convicted of murder, torture or inhumane treatment, and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

• Participated in the collection and transfer of citizens to concentration camps, and tortured, raped, and killed citizens.

• Sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. • He pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.

Tadic

• His family had been victimized during World War II. • During the conflict, he became more nationalized,

displayed communication that indicated hatred toward other groups, and presented symbols of power and control.

• He also displayed characteristics of hypermasculinity.

• It is reported that he became more religious during the conflict.

Tadic

• Witness reports from the Omarska Prison:– The environment had become virulent or a

malignant violent community characterized by chaos and ultra-violent behavior.

– There are reports of beatings with iron bars, covering prisoners with oil, forced sexual violence, forcing prisoners to eat live animals, humiliation, and killings.

– One witness described the group torture as if it was a football game.

Tadic

• The witness then saw that same prisoner being cut by the accused with a knife, “sliced as if once one slices chops”, and having black liquid, probably oil, poured over him. At that point this witness then lost consciousness. (Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a “Dule”, 1997, paragraph 225).

Tadic

• He cut victims with a knife, beat them with batons, discharged a fire extinguisher into the mouth of a victim, participated in group rapes, and sexual mutilation of male prisoners.

Tadic

• TADIC also physically took part or otherwise participated in the torture of more than 12 female detainees, including several gang rapes, which occurred both in the camp and at a white house adjacent to the camp… (Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a “Dule”, 1997, paragraph 452).

Tadic

• He engaged in extreme violence toward the constructed enemy.

• Tadic went through the all stages of the violentization process culminating in extreme virulency.

Erdemovic

• Drazen Erdemovic was a soldier in the Bosnian Serb Army.

• He participated as a member of a firing squad responsible for killing hundreds of Bosnian Muslim citizens.

• He is reported to have killed approximately 70 people.

Erdemovic

• At his initial appearance, he pleaded guilty . • He was then referred for psychiatric and

psychological evaluation. • He was reported to have post-traumatic stress

that precluded him from standing trial.• Later, he continued with his guilty plea

(Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, 1998, paragraph 5).

Erdemovic

• Erdemovic admitted to his crimes and assisted the court with other cases.

• Mitigating factors were addressed by the court. He was described as a pacifist, with no criminal record who joined the military to feed his family.

• He reported that he tried to avoid killing others and there is evidence that he tried to save people from death.

Erdemovic

• He has multi-ethnic friends and did not demonstrate nationalistic beliefs.

• He cooperated with the court and showed remorse for his crimes.

• The “kill or be killed” theme comes up several times in the court transcripts.

Erdemovic

• Erdemovic reported that he committed the killings under threat of death:

• “Your Honour, I had to do this. If I had refused, I would have been killed together with the victims. When I refused, they told me: “If you are sorry for them, stand up, line up with them and we will kill you too”. I am not sorry for myself but for my family my wife and son who then had nine months, and I could not refuse because they would have killed me.” (Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, 1998, paragraph 14).

Erdemovic

• The perpetrator showed remorse for his violent behavior.

• The accused told Trial Chamber I that: “I only wish to say that I feel sorry for all the victims, not only for the ones who were killed then at that farm. I feel sorry for all the victims in the former [sic] Bosnia and Herzegovina regardless of their nationality”(Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, 1998, paragraph 16).

Erdemovic

• Completed the violent dominance engagements stage.

Comparisons

Tadic ErdemovicBrutalization Yes YesDefiance Yes YesViolent Dominance Engagements

Yes Yes

Virulency Yes NoExtreme Virulency

Yes No

Comparisons

Tadic ErdemovicTypes of Interpretations Frustrative-malefic

(hatred & fear combined)Physically defensive (fear based)

Types of generalized others

Unmitigated violent generalized other

Mitigated violent generalized other

Victimization of family Yes Unknown

Age Late 30s Early 20s

Expression of nationalistic beliefs

Yes No

Conflict with other groups

Yes No

Statements of hatred toward other

Yes No

Comparisons

Tadic ErdemovicSupport of ethnic cleansing

Yes No

Hit prisoners Yes NoBeat prisoners Yes NoHumiliated prisoners Yes NoUsed weapons on prisoners

Yes Yes

Tortured prisoners Yes NoSexual violence Yes No

Comparisons

Tadic ErdemovicUse of symbols to create cohesion of group and negative view of other

Yes No

Became more religious Yes No

Use of propaganda to elicit fears and threats

Yes No

Hypermasculinity displays or statements

Yes No

Leadership role Yes No

Comparisons

Tadic ErdemovicReluctance to use violence

No Yes

Dehumanization of victims

Yes No

Constructed threat of violence if violent action not taken

Yes? Yes

Against the killings No YesSegments of violence

Many Few

Comparisons

Tadic ErdemovicTime frame of violence

Long Short

Mental Illness after violence

Unknown Yes

Admitted guilt No YesRemorseful No YesDominant actions Yes NoTried to help others No Yes

Limitations

• Only two cases are compared in this study. • Inability to directly ask the offenders how they

constructed their situations.• May need to further specify indicators of each

stage.• Interpretations are based on their behaviors,

court report presentations, and statements by third parties.

Further Research

• Critique other theories.• Focus on the deviolentization process. • Address early warning signs and procedures to

disrupt the violentization process. • Examine time frames for the violentization

process.

Thank You

• Questions and Comments• Mark Winton, Department of Criminal Justice,

University of Central Florida• Mark.Winton@ucf.edu

• All photographs and maps are courtesy of the ICTY and may be viewed and downloaded from their website. The two slides of textbooks are from the author’s files.

References• Athens, L. (1994). The self as a soliloquy. Sociological Quarterly, 35,

521-532.• Athens, L. (1997). Violent criminal acts and actors revisited. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.• Athens, L. (2003). Violentization in larger social context. In L. Athens

& J. T. Ulmer (Eds.), Violent acts and violentization: Assessing, applying, and developing Lonnie Athens’ theories (pp. 1-41). Boston: Elsevier Science.

• Athens, L. (2010). Naturalistic inquiry in theory and practice. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39, 87-125.

• Athens, L. (2015). Violentization: A relatively singular theory of violent crime. Deviant

• Behavior, 36, 623-639.

References• Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, Sentencing Judgement, 5 March 1998, Case No.

IT-96-• 22. Retrieved from • http://www.un.org/icty/erdemovic/trialc/judgement/erd-tsj980305e.htm.• Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a “Dule”, Opinion and Judgement Case No. • IT-94-1-T (1997). Retrieved from http://

www.un.org/icty/tadic/trialc2/judgement/index.htm• Winton, M. (2008). Dimensions of genocide: The circumplex model meets

violentization theory. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 605-629. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/winton.pdf• Winton, M. A., & Unlu, A. (2008). Micro-macro dimensions of the Bosnian

genocides: the circumplex model and violentization theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 45-59.

• Winton, M.A. (2011). Violentization theory and genocide. Homicide Studies, 15, 363-381.