Criminal Psychology: The Genoese Case

It was 1964 when the Genovese case shook public opinion, giving way to a whole series of studies and research in criminal and social psychology. Even today we are wondering about some aspects that were given for certain. Let’s try to analyze the case in the light of new knowledge that has arisen today.

The Genovese case became famous not so much for the fact itself, certainly rough, but thanks to an article signed by Martin Gansberg that appeared on the front page of the prestigious newspaper The New York Times . The reporter does not focus on the victim Kitty Genovese, but on the reaction of the witnesses.

Today the Genovese case is analyzed from two points of view : the reaction of those who witness violent acts against a victim and the way in which the press reconstructs the facts in an untruthful way.

The Genoese case

The Genovese case refers to the crime that saw Catherine Susan Genovese as a victim, perpetrated in New York on March 13, 1964. We are talking about a 29-year-old young woman who lived in an apartment in the Queens neighborhood with her partner, who worked as a manager in a bar in the area.

Kitty, as her colleagues called her, had left work that morning like every day. She got back in her car and parked it about 30 meters from home. As she walked to her home, she was attacked by a man who stabbed her three times. She tried to escape and started screaming to be heard.

Several neighbors heard his call for help. Some looked out the windows. Someone seems to have shouted “leave the girl alone”. Frightened by the calls, the attacker escaped in the car. It is not clear if some neighbors called the police who did not have time to arrive or if no one made the fateful call.

Criminal psychology, the second aggression

After about 10 minutes Kitty managed to drag herself to the entrance of her building, injured and unable to get up. The attacker saw her and returned to the attack, stabbing her while she was still on the ground.

The girl probably tried to defend herself without success. When she was dying, the criminal returned and stole the $49 she was carrying.

A witness who had witnessed part of the events called the police, who arrived within minutes. Poor Catherine Genovese died in an ambulance while being transported to the hospital. Three days later, reporter Martin Gansgberg ran an article entitled ” thirty-eight who saw murder didn’t call the police”,  referring to the witnesses to the crime.

In his article he made a crude reconstruction of the facts focusing on the reaction, or rather the lack of reaction, of the witnesses. 37 men ignored an injured woman’s plea for help. It is even said that one of them turned up the volume on the television so as not to hear the screams.

Criminal Psychology: Indolence and Manipulation

Inspired by the Genovese case, researchers Darley and Latané published their theory on the spread of responsibility in 1968 regarding some principles of social solidarity. The two scholars argue that when there are numerous witnesses to an injustice or a violent act, it is more difficult for someone to feel responsible, therefore being led to intervene.

According to the two investigators, this is done with a view to optimizing their resources. Furthermore, one is led to believe that among the other witnesses there is someone who can better help the victim. But it is also pushed not to want to be associated with the victim in order to “avoid problems”.

However, after 2014 it was discovered that Gansberg’s article contained various inaccuracies. The witnesses were not 37, but 12 at the most. None of them had witnessed the events in full and most had not even noticed that the girl had been stabbed. According to almost all of them, the man was only hitting her (she was not in danger of life). Considering the location of their homes, the version is credible.

This leads us to think that, if on the one hand the big cities dehumanize us, on the other there is a sector of the press that tries to profit from the crime news. The facts are reported in a misleading and more gory way to create a greater impression and reach a higher audience.