The Genovese Case And Criminal Psychology

The Genovese case shocked American public opinion in 1964 and led to different investigations in social psychology. Today, there are some points of this case that do not seem to be as true as was said at the time. Thus, from the present and what we know today, we are going to review this emblematic case.

What really made the Genovese case famous was not the facts as such, which in themselves are lurid, but an article signed by Martin Gansberg that appeared on the front page of the prestigious newspaper The New York Times . In this article, the journalist was not referring so much to what had happened to Kitty Genovese, but to the reaction of the witnesses.

Therefore, the Genovese case is currently analyzed from two points of view. One, the reaction of people to violent acts against a victim. And the other, the way in which the press constructs narratives that fit little or nothing with the facts. Let’s see.

The Genovese case

When talking about the Genovese case, reference is made to the crime of which Catherine Susan Genovese was a victim on March 13, 1964, in New York. We are talking about a 29-year-old girl who lived in an apartment in Queens , New York, with her partner. He worked as a manager of a bar in the same area.

Kitty, as she was called by those close to her, left her work that morning, as usual. He came home in his car and parked it about 30 meters from the building where he lived. On her way home, she was attacked by a man, who stabbed her three times. She tried to run away, and as she did so, she began to scream.

Several neighbors noticed his call for help. Some of them leaned out of the windows. There was even one who yelled to “leave the girl alone.” After that scream, the attacker escaped in a car. It is not clear if some neighbors called the police and they did not come, or if in fact no calls were made.

The second attack

About 10 minutes passed and Kitty managed to crawl into the lobby of her building. She was badly hurt and couldn’t get up. The attacker returned and again stabbed the young woman who was lying on the ground.

Apparently, she tried to defend herself without success. When the girl was dying, the criminal raped her and then stole $49 from her.

A witness who had seen part of the events called the police and they arrived quickly. Unfortunately, Catherine Genovese died while being transported to a medical facility in an ambulance. Days later, journalist Martin Gansberg published an article titled: 38 who saw the crime and none called the police . He was referring to the witnesses to the event.

In the article he made a crude narration of the events, focusing on the reaction, or rather the lack of reaction, of the witnesses. There was a badly injured woman asking for help and many ignored that call. One of them was even said to have turned up the volume on the television so as not to hear the screams.

Indolence and manipulation

Inspired by the Genovese case, researchers Darley and Latané published their theory of diffusion of responsibility in 1968. They put forward some principles about social solidarity. They basically argued that when there were many witnesses to an injustice or a violent act, it was more difficult for one to feel responsible and therefore inclined to intervene.

In general terms, the researchers pointed out that this is because we act to save resources. In addition, many believe that within the witnesses there is always someone who can help better than they. They also want to avoid being identified with the victim and want to “avoid trouble.” The subject would give for another article.

However, after 2014 Gansberg’s article was found to contain several inaccuracies. There were not 38 witnesses, but at most 12. None of them had seen all the events and most had not noticed that the girl was being stabbed. For almost everyone, the man was just beating her (her life was not in danger). Because of the location of their homes, their version is credible.

This leads us to think that large cities dehumanize us, there is also a sector of the press that seeks to take advantage of violent news. They approach them in a deceptive and more bloody way to generate a greater impression and thus get a greater audience.