Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 73
by therapists, law enforcement officers, and others who speak or write about the
aforementioned activities.
Two distinct problems arise from this usage. Identification of certain activities by reference to
one or another of these terms is often made without defining the term in question. The
connotation is left to the subjective perception or imagination of the listener. Further, many
different and diverse beliefs and practices are grouped into a single category, and referenced
with one or more of these titles. Both tendencies exacerbate and perpetuate the confusion
and debate that necessarily pervade subject matter as controversial as this. The terms used
to describe these various activities possess distinct meanings and should not be used
interchangeably. Additionally, the activities themselves are not inherently related and
reference to them as such makes quantification and analysis impossible.
This ubiquitous ambiguity necessitated of the task force that it define both the subject matter
to which it would devote itself and the terminology to be used in this study. While the term
“ritual crime” is used by many in conflicting fashion, it was adopted for the purposes of this
study with a specific and limited definition. Thus, throughout the course of the study and
within this report, “ritual crime” and “ritualistic crime” have been used to connote the criminal
behavior that is derived from or motivated by a specific spiritual belief system and the
practices or ceremonies with which it is associated. Dangerous activities associated with these
practices that are not presently prohibited by criminal law have been referred to as
“ritualistic” behavior.
In this context, the fact that commission of a crime involves some ritual or rituals does not in
itself make it a “ritual crime.” The use by some individual of a modus operandi in commission
of a criminal act would not cause such act to fall under the purview of this study. Only if these
acts are driven by, or are the result of, a spiritual belief system does “ritual crime” apply as
such term is employed by this task force. In no way is this definition meant to represent
universal application of the phrase. Rather, it provides the reader with a clear notion of the
task force‟s reference point in the study of this subject.
Other terms are applied in their more traditional fashion, unless accompanied by specific
explanation. Where “cult” is used in this report the term assumes the common definition of a
group engaged in an unorthodox system or community of religious worship. The occult may
refer to anything of a supernatural nature. While Satanism is of the occult, it is merely one of
many such supernatural belief systems. The use of this various terminology is not directed at
a specific group or belief system, nor does it necessarily carry with it connotations of criminal
conduct. To avoid undue inferences, occult or cult activity of a criminal nature is explicitly
referenced as such.
Substantive Issues Addressed
The task force assumed a sweeping responsibility in attempting to address this relatively
unexplored area of criminal justice. Concerns relating to ritual crime manifest themselves not
only in law enforcement and in the courts but also in schools and in the mental health
community. In seeking to examine and respond to these concerns the task force endeavored
to determine:
1. The prevalence of ritual crime in the Commonwealth.
2. The prevalence of other dangerous ritualistic activity that may not presently constitute a
crime.
3. The geographic concentration of such activity.
4. The nature of such activity whether it is associated with violent crime, crimes against
property, or other crimes, and to what degree.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 74
5. The nature of other states‟ experiences with ritual crime, both in terms of the extent of
such activity and the means by which such states address it.
6. Whether existing criminal statutes adequately address adverse ritual activity in the
Commonwealth.
7. Whether measures beyond the criminal code need be employed to address adverse effects
of ritual activity in the Commonwealth.
Background Discussion
The topic of ritualistic crime ignites strong sentiment on all sides of the issue. The controversy
is only heightened by the fact that many allegations of pernicious activity involve ideas and
concepts which, for some people, constitute deeply held religious beliefs. As a result, both the
investigation by the task force and the production of this report required carefully crafted
guidelines and objectives. In order to pursue an effective investigation into conduct that may
represent a real danger to the citizens of this Commonwealth, to seek out remedies for
individuals who suffer from participation in or consequences of dangerous ritualistic practices,
and to preserve the rights of all persons, the task force defined and limited its investigation to
practices that legitimately fall within the purview of the state.
In researching this topic the task force was not interested in representing a particular
viewpoint. Rather, the goal was to make a comprehensive but objective determination as to
the prevalence of ritualistic crime in Virginia and assess alternative means for addressing
whatever problem was ultimately found to exist.
While written works dealing with mystical practices, ritualistic abuse, unpopular religions, and
allegations of various related criminal endeavors abound, relatively few credible studies have
been conducted on the nature and prevalence of these phenomena. Statistics regarding the
frequency of ritualistic activities proliferate, yet sound bases for these numbers are rarely
offered. A fundamental, yet common, problem is the failure to sufficiently identify the topic of
discussion.
The occult is an umbrella term for supernatural or mystical beliefs and practices. To the
degree that conventional religions rely upon nonphysical entities and conviction by faith over
reason they share this umbrella. This does not mean that all supernatural belief systems are
equal, or that they represent comparable value systems. In fact “occultism” is generally
referred to in the context of unconventional systems of belief. It is important, however, not to
confuse unconventional beliefs with illegal practices. The latter is the primary focus of this
report.
Those who write or lecture about ritual crime frequently do not make the distinction between
criminal acts and noncriminal practices involving occult or ritualistic elements. Rather, the
discussion focuses on participation in belief systems that are deemed aberrant and viewed as
potentially leading to dangerous or illegal conduct. Consequently, many spiritual belief
systems are grouped together and subsequently treated with a single point of reference.
Though these belief systems often have very disparate goals, values, and practices they are
treated in comparable fashion.
Some belief systems most often cited as falling into this group include witchcraft or wicca,
Satanism, santeria, voodoo, palo mayombe, as well as other neopagan and syncretic
religions. The treatment of believers or practitioners of these faiths as somehow comparable
immediately confuses the discussion of ritual crime. Most do not belong to a major unified
organization and are not represented by a single entity.
Thus belief systems will differ dramatically even among individuals who claim to adhere to a
specific religion. This is particularly true of the more generic titles. The Satanism cloak, for
example, is cast over practices and beliefs that are utterly unrelated. Depending upon one‟s