Abstract 

This chapter addresses the problem of violent crime committed by military veterans. Psychological studies have addressed the link between post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) acquired through military service and violent crime. Without disputing this research, I suggest that the problem may be sociological as well: violent crime committed by veterans may be not simply the result of a psychological "disorder" (the D in PTSD) but also an unfortunate extension of the notionally healthy sociological order learned during military service. Thus, I consider the military as an example of what Richard Nisbert and Dov Cohen called a "culture of honor," a culture in which one's reputation is everything and a culture that is marked by a readiness to perceive and violently respond to disrespectful threats to one's reputation. As I argue, the heavy emphasis on honor in the military, while usually a source of ethical action, can in some cases have unpredictable and disastrous consequences. The culture of honor in the military can condition soldiers such that demilitarized veterans feel compelled to seek violent revenge when they think someone has slighted their integrity. This argument has its origin in an unconventional source: William Shakespeare's play Titus Andronicus, which opens with the title character returning from war and ritually slaughtering the eldest son of his enemy's empress. I use this example to theorize the military as a culture of honor; then I use this theory to address some modern cases of violent crime committed by veterans, such as Christopher Dorner's 2013 killing spree, which he waged, he said, to defend his honor. I conclude with a call for criminologists to consider the extent to which violent crime committed by veterans is a psychological or a sociological phenomenon: that is, the extent to which violent crime committed by veterans stems, on the one hand, from stress related to trauma experienced during war or, on the other hand, from the culture of honor in the military itself.

Bibliography

Baker, N. V., Gregware, P. R., & Cassidy, M. A. (1999). Family killing fields: Honor rationales in the murder of women. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 164-84.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). The mass psychology of rape: An introduction. In Against our will: Men, women, and rape(pp.11-15). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Detmer-Goebel, E. (2001). The need for Lavinia's voice: Titus Andronicus and the telling of rape. Shakespeare Studies, 29, 75-92.

Katz, J. (1990). Righteous slaughter. In Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil (pp. 12-51). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Linders, A. (2002). The execution spectacle and state legitimacy: The changing nature of the American execution audience, 1833-1937. Law & Society Review, 36(3), 607-56.

Madigan, L. & Gamble, N. (1991). After the crime. In The second rape: Society's continued betrayal of the victim (pp. 3-10). New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Violence and honor in the Southern United States. In Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the south (pp. 1-12). Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Nosheen, H., & Schellmann, H. (2011, Sept. 28). Refusing to kill daughter, Pakistani family defies tradition, draws anger. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com

Ray, S. (1998). ‘Rape, I fear, was root of thy annoy’: The politics of consent in Titus Andronicus. Shakespeare Quarterly, 49(1), 22-39.

Taylor, A. B. (1996). Lucius, the severely flawed redeemer of Titus Andronicus. Connotations, 6(2), 138-157.

Thompson, A. (2000). The racial body and revenge: Titus Andronicus. Textus, 2(13), 325-46.

White, J. (1997). ‘Is black so base a hue?’ Shakespeare’s Aaron and the politics and poetics of race. College Language Association Journal, 40(3), 336-66.

Willis, D. (2002). The gnawing vulture: Revenge, trauma theory, and Titus Andronicus. Shakespeare Quarterly, 53(1), 21-52.