ABSTRACT

The Federal Bureau of Investigation coined the term ‘emotional cool-off period’ in relation to serial homicide defining it as any amount of time between kills where the perpetrator returns to their everyday life (Douglas et al., 1986). Since the term’s conception, cool-off periods have become a fundamental aspect of defining serial versus non-serial homicide cases in academia. Despite its usage frequency, it has been neither firmly defined nor empirically investigated. The present study aims to investigate the specific underpinnings of emotional cool-off periods in sexual homicide by utilising experts’ opinion in relation to distinguishing between serial and non-serial homicide cases. Twenty-eight experts took part in the study and they each scored 10 sexual homicide scenarios for emotional cool-off presence as well as influential factors they relied on when making their decision. The results indicated that inter-rater agreement was ‘poor’ across experts. When experts believed an emotional cool-off period was present, they relied on cognitive state indicators whereas when they believed an emotional cool-off period was absent they relied on evidence of arousal. The time was second most frequent factor. This suggests that experts prefer to base their judgement on the presence (rather than absence) of forensic evidence available to them.

摘要

联邦调查局创造了与连环杀人案相关的“情绪冷静期”一词，将其定义为犯罪者返回日常生活的任何时间间隔（Douglas et al., 1986）。自该术语的概念以来，冷静期已成为学术界定义连环杀人案与非连环杀人案的基本方面。尽管它的使用频率很高，但它既没有被明确定义，也没有经过实证研究。本研究旨在利用专家在区分连环杀人案和非连环杀人案方面的意见，调查性杀人案中情绪冷静期的具体基础。28 位专家参与了这项研究，他们每人对 10 种性杀人场景进行了评分，以了解情绪冷静的存在以及他们在做出决定时所依赖的影响因素。结果表明，专家之间的评估者间一致性“很差”。当专家认为存在情绪冷静期时，他们依赖于认知状态指标，而当他们认为不存在情绪冷静期时，他们依赖于觉醒的证据。时间是第二个最常见的因素。这表明专家更愿意根据他们可用的法医证据的存在（而不是不存在）做出判断。他们依赖于认知状态指标，而当他们认为没有情绪冷静期时，他们依赖于唤醒的证据。时间是第二个最常见的因素。这表明专家更愿意根据他们可用的法医证据的存在（而不是不存在）做出判断。他们依赖于认知状态指标，而当他们认为没有情绪冷静期时，他们依赖于唤醒的证据。时间是第二个最常见的因素。这表明专家更愿意根据他们可用的法医证据的存在（而不是不存在）做出判断。