Search

Background: Homicide followed by suicide is rare, devastating and perpetrated worldwide. It is commonly assumed that the perpetrator had a mental disorder, raising concomitant questions about prevention. Though events have been reported, there has been no previous systematic review of the mental health of perpetrators. Aims: Our aims were twofold. First, to identify whether there are recognisable subgroups of homicide–suicides in published literature and, secondly, to investigate the relationship between perpetrator mental state and aspects of the incident. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published literature on studies of homicide followed within 24 h by suicide or serious suicide attempt that included measures of perpetrator mental state. Results: Sixty studies were identified, most from North America or Europe. Methodologically, studies were too heterogeneous for meta‐analysis. They fell into three main groups: family, mass shooter, and terrorist with an additional small mixed group. There was evidence of mental illness in a minority of perpetrators; its absence in the remainder was only partially evidenced. There was no clear association between any specific mental illness and homicide–suicide type, although depression was most cited. Social role disjunction, motive, substance misuse and relevant risk or threat behaviours were themes identified across all groups. Pre‐established ideology was relevant in the mass shooter and terrorism groups. Prior trauma history was notable in the terrorist group. Conclusion: Research data were necessarily collected post‐incident and in most cases without a standardised approach, so findings must be interpreted cautiously. Nevertheless, they suggest at least some preventive role for mental health professionals. Those presenting to services with depression, suicidal ideation, relationship difficulties and actual, or perceived, changes in social position or role would merit detailed, supportive assessment over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A survey concerning intrusive/aggressive behaviours towards MPs was administered at Westminster, and in Queensland, New Zealand and Norway. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a sample at Westminster. This paper examines the experiences and associations of the 239 Westminster responders, of whom 81% had experienced intrusive/aggressive behaviours, 18% been subject to attack/attempted attack, and 53% stalked or harassed. Being stalked and subject to certain types of intrusive/aggressive behaviour were associated with younger age and being in the Commons five years or less, but serious incidents were more common in those who had been MPs for longer. There were no associations with brief periods of harassment. Some differences with party and constituency type emerged. Mental illness was prominent amongst perpetrators. Motives predominantly concerned personal grievances. Significant proportions of MPs suffered psychological ill-effects, necessitating inconvenient behaviour changes. Internal consistencies in these results and similarities to other sites are explored, and their implications discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Politicians suffer intrusive and aggressive behaviours from members of the public, often lone actors fixated on personal grievances. Few explorations of intrusive behaviours towards politicians have been published; their results are not directly comparable. We surveyed intrusive/aggressive behaviours towards UK members of parliament (MPs); our survey instrument was then administered to MPs at three other parliaments (Queensland, New Zealand, and Norway), providing a cross-national, four-site comparison. 239 MPs completed the UK survey. This 38% response rate produced prevalence rates remarkably similar to the other sites, New Zealand having an 84% response rate. 81% of UK MPs had experienced one or more of the 12 behaviours specified, the mean being five. 18% had been subject to attack/attempted attack, 42% to threats to harm and 22% to property damage. In 53% of respondents, experiences met definitions of stalking or harassment. This has implications for the provision of risk assessment and management. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]