Murder is so rare, so incredibly rare, that even if you could find an answer, and could document that “Wal-Mart cashiers commit more murders than people in any other profession,” you wouldn’t find that a majority or even a sizable minority of murders were committed by any one profession.
My guess is, even the “winning” profession would cover far less than one percent of all murders. Which would tell us practically nothing about the people in those professions.
Butlers?
It’s probably “itinerant laborer.” Think about it. Itinerant laborers are poor and mostly uneducated, two conditions which tend to make people more likely to commit crime. They also have no roots in the area where they live, so they can move away at the drop of a hat if something goes wrong. Most people wouldn’t even notice that they’d disappeared.
As for police officers, I’ve heard that cops who commit murder are usually laughably easy to catch. The reason is that police officers are used to people taking their word on things, so their attempts to cover up their crimes are usually pretty basic and ineffective.
Actually, regardless of people killed “on the job”, as it were, soldiers seem particularly prone to killing their own families at a later time. Would’nt be surprised if they ranked high on the list.
Since just about this entire threat is unsupported speculation unworthy of GQ, it doesn’t seem fair to call out one particular poster for a cite, but I’m going to do so anyway. Any evidence to back up this assertion?
There are factors. They’re comfortable with weapons and violence, they’re in a highly traditional, authoritarian, male-dominant environment, and they have to face stress (even just training for combat, never mind in combat).
Well, I included the word “seems” and was thinking of some news reports last year, of some soldiers coming home from active duty with traumas, and taking out their families and themselves. A google search for “soldier kills family” rendered a handfull of newspaper articles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/30/nvet30.xml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20050805/ai_n14852022
(The middle ones are PDF’s)
If anyone wants to see the Hitchcock version (whose title is “Shopping for Death”, it can be viewed here. The story was also dramatized (under the original title, “Touched by Fire”) on Ray Bradbury Theatre.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Well, it is evidence, just useless evidence for the purposes of determining if members of a given occupation are more inclined to murder their families than any other. This entire thread is pretty pointless, in fact, unless anyone can turn up some statistical studies of murderers and their occupations beyond Erie County. My usual authorities for these matters are DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics or the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Unfortunately, occupation is not a factor that is recorded in the statistical databases maintained by these agencies.
Many years ago, when I worked in data processing for a County government, the most common entry under occupation for murder arrestees was “NVMOS” – No Visible Means Of Support. Which was the police abbreviation used for someone who was not on public assistance and who was not employed at any legal job.
Of course, many of them were ‘employed’, but not in a legal job. They were often known pimps, drug dealers, thieves, etc., but these were not legal, reported occupations.
I don’t know if it counts as a ‘profession’, but according the friends & relatives in law enforcement, the most likely description of a murderer is “spouse”.
I’ve been told that when someone is murdered (other than a public crime like a teller shot in a bank robbery, etc.), if you just arrest the husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend, you will have arrested the murderer about 2/3rds of the time. But I presume that was based on their own experiences, rather than on any specific statistics.
I doubt that police or soldiers rank very high in murders. But when it does happen it gets reported more because they are in jobs ment to protect us.
No. In spite of the popularity of the term, it’s incorrect. In fact, Postal employees rank lower than the national average for being at risk of death on the job by murder.
My SO, a USPS employee was quite relieved to read this when she got hired two years ago.
I recently met with a child welfare service person who said that before she went into her profession, she used to feel glad whenever a ship returned to San Diego after a long deployment. Now she dreads it.
There are definitely stats to back up their observations, at least in the case of women being murdered by a current or ex spouse or boyfriend (not to ignore woman-on-man domestic abuse, but I believe man-on-man violence outweighs it as far as stats go).
From ‘Risk Factors for Domestic Violence’ and ‘Abuse in America’ (US Department of Health and Human Services)
As for profession… ‘unemployed’ (or employed under the table) is my best guess for violent crime, because have the fewest ties to society and less to lose. It is interesting to learn about who can kill and get away with it (doctors, cops, etc.)