NCJ Number
76629
Journal
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volume: 347 Dated: (June 20, 1980) Pages: 151-156
Date Published
1980
Length
6 pages
Annotation
Purposes for which hostages are taken and other issues related to hostage taking are examined in a discussion of five papers presented at a 1979 symposium on forensic psychology and psychiatry held by the New York Academy of Sciences.
Abstract
People who take hostages deliberately should be distinguished from those who take them reluctantly. Deliberate hostage takers appear to have much insight regarding the effects of interactions between the hostage taker and the victim, whereas reluctant hostage takers seem to act without insight into those effects. Deliberate hostage taking involves deliberate and planned depersonalization of the victim from the beginning of the hostage event. From the victim's standpoint, the central issue is whether a credible threat to life has been made, regardless of whether or not the hostage taking was deliberate. Different outcomes in hostage situations and the differing responses by victims result from the interactions involved, the extent of conversation or isolation between the hostage taker and the hostage, and perhaps the duration of the hostage situation. Distinguishing between deliberate and reluctant hostage taking permits clearer responses to hostage situations related to international terrorism, which usually begins with maximum initial brutality. Hostage taking and other tactics of international terror are directed against secondary, symbolic targets which are usually defenseless, rather than against the actual foe. These characteristics of terrorism mean that political sympathizers tend to rationalize the brutality of the terrorist acts, while the general public tends to assume that terrorists' apparent desperation results from legitimate grievances which have been ignored. This response to terrorism is what makes it effective. However, many terorists are not desperate but are simply malevolent and manipulative. Even when evidence of training or funding of terrorists by outsiders is present, the view that terrorism results from desperation carries much weight. For example, recent evidence regarding links between the Soviet Union and some insurgent terrorist movements has been ignored. In addition, debate in the United Nations led to the downfall of the proposal to condemn terrorism. The individual psychology of the terrorist and of hostages must be understood in order to negotiate effectively for hostages' release. In addition, understanding society's need to rationalize terrorism is needed if moral and political balance are to be maintained. Six references are listed. For the papers to which this discussion refers, see NCJ 70537-40.