A time-series study of suicide and homicide rates in Australia and New Zealand from 1950–85 provided limited support for Durkheim's theory of suicide and no support for Henry and Short's theory of the relationship between suicide and homicide. The need for rival theories is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DisleyB.RyanJ. (1994) Personal communication.
2.
DoanT. A. (1990) Regression Analysis of Time Series. Evanston, IL, Var Econometrics.
3.
DouglasJ. D. (1967) The Social Meanings of Suicide-Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
4.
DurkheimE. (1897) Le Suicide. Paris, Felix Alcan.
5.
HassanR. (1990) Personal communication.
6.
HenryA. F.ShortJ. F. (1954) Suicide and Homicide. Glencoe, IL, Free Press.
7.
HolingerP. C.OfferD.OstrovE. (1987) Suicide and homicide in the US. Am. J. Psychiat.144, 215–9.
8.
JohnsonB. D. (1965) Durkheim's one cause of suicide. Am. Sociological Review30, 875–86.
9.
LesterD. (1986) The Murderer and His Murder. New York, AMS Press.
10.
LesterD. (1987) Murders and suicide: Are they polar opposites?Behavioral Sciences and the Law5, 49–60.
11.
StackS. (1978) Suicide. Social Forces57, 644–53.
12.
United NationsDemographic Yearbook. New York, United Nations. (Annual.)
13.
WebsterA. (1992) Applied Statistics for Business and Economics. Homewood, IL, Irwin.
14.
WolfgangM. E.FerracutiF. (1969) The Subculture of Violence. London, Tavistock.
15.
World Health OrganizationStatistics Annual. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization.
