Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 75
point of reference, origins, values, and goals of two so-called satanic religions may contrast
completely. “Satanism” has now been adopted by many as a term of reference for various
individuals or groups espousing beliefs in magic, witchcraft, or any of the other belief systems
mentioned above. Such application is inaccurate and unproductive. Further, the identification
of these groups (or the members thereof) as inherently criminal is a fallacy that will not be
perpetuated here. A sweeping generalization regarding unpopular or unconventional belief
systems is neither an accurate portrayal nor an effective method for assessing perpetration of
ritual crime. Consequently, this report will not examine these many individual belief systems
in-depth (please note, however, that the appended reference list will direct interested parties
to other sources that do so). Rather, focus will be directed toward criminal activity that may
be traceable to particular ritual practices.
A broadly used classification scheme has evolved that places adherents of these belief
systems into one of four distinct categories. The categories are:
1. Dabblers: Those who exhibit superficial, and usually transitory, interest in a belief
system but have neither developed a significant understanding of it nor become
substantially committed to it. Alternatively, the dabbler may exhibit superficial interest in
the occult generally (as opposed to a single belief system).
2. Self-stylists: Those who exhibit a greater degree of interest in one or more belief
systems but have generally not developed a significant knowledge and understanding of
the respective systems. Individuals who fall into this category develop personal belief
systems encompassing elements of multiple religions, embellished with their own ideas
and concepts.
3. Religious Traditionalists: Members of an established church or religion that is legally
recognized and does not formally advocate criminal activities.
4. “Cult” Members: Those who adhere to an established belief system and belong to an
organization that advocates and encourages certain criminal activities. By necessity their
practices are typically covert.
Depending upon the particular advocate the category title may differ, though these are the
most popular. The accompanying characteristics also may deviate somewhat from one
speaker to the next. Again, the definitions provided here approximate those most frequently
offered. Persons being characterized in this manner may not fit exclusively into a single
category or may cross lines from one to another. For example, dabblers, due to their relative
ignorance and lack of commitment, often assume the characteristics of a self-stylist.
Nevertheless, a self-stylist is generally regarded as more involved and more dangerous than a
dabbler. In fact, some authorities contend that the self-stylist is the most dangerous of the
four types because he is wholly unpredictable and may exploit selective elements of various
belief systems as justification for violent or criminal conduct. An extreme example of this
archetype is viewed by some as possessing severe personality problems and mental
instability.
The religious traditionalists are labeled as such by virtue of their reliance upon an established
religion. Members of this group may or may not belong to a recognized church. They will,
however, possess a reasonable level of knowledge about, and commitment to, a given belief
system. In either case, their practices are legitimate insofar as they decline to advocate illegal
activities. Some authorities on ritual crime contend that members of apparently legitimate
religious organizations actually engage in covert criminal conduct contrary to the stated
position, but with the sanction, of their church.
This scheme of categorizing individuals has a number of drawbacks, not least of which is the
implicit delegitimization of any organization placed in the third category (the mere mention of
a given belief system in this context tends to lend to it a negative connotation). The focus is

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 76
not on ritual crime per se, but on the belief system.Still, it is used so pervasively in
discussions of ritual crime that it demands mention and may actually provide a useful means
of differentiating levels of involvement in ritual crime.
Important to note, however, is the tendency by some to brand particular religious beliefs as
inherently unhealthy. Participation, to whatever degree, in unconventional or minority belief
systems is viewed by many as an undesirable event in itself. The mere interest in spiritual
beliefs that are not associated with accepted religious norms, particularly in youth, is
presumed to lead to dangerous or criminal behavior. Frequently evidence of interest in an
unconventional belief system provokes parents or other concerned parties to assert the
existence of a causal relationship between delinquent acts and the belief system itself, where
none has been established.
Various activities that may not even indicate an interest in the occult are also sometimes cited
as engendering unhealthy beliefs or thought patterns. Among these are certain musical
groups and fantasy or role-playing games. Popular music may contain lyrics that mention
occult subjects but which young people enjoy simply for its entertainment value. Likewise,
participation in fantasy games (as with any game) most often represents a form of
entertainment and nothing more. The few credible studies addressed to research of this topic
have failed to point out a causal link between music or games and illegal practices.
Allegations Regarding Ritual Crime
As already noted, substantial controversy surrounds claims of ritual crime. Contentions
concern not only the prevalence of ritual crime but also conceptual frameworks for viewing
the topic. The very nature of ritual crime is at issue, spawning disparate and divergent
viewpoints as to the existence and intentions of movements and organizations implicated in
such activity. It is necessary therefore to identify some of the perspectives that predominate
this debate.
At one end of the spectrum are those who conclude that ritual crime, in essence, does not
exist. Subscribers to this view hold that spiritual motivations generally do not drive criminal
conduct and that only isolated incidents of such crime actually occur. They suggest that
alleged incidents either did not transpire at all or are susceptible to alternative (more viable)
explanations, and that victims of ritual crime are mistaken in their beliefs, misled into false
beliefs, or deliberately fabricate stories for their own purposes.
At the other end of the spectrum are those who recognize the existence of a broad-based
organization, or multiple organizations, engaged in habitual acts of crime (violent or
otherwise) premised on tenets of a given belief system. Adherents of this position point to
statements of numerous persons across the North American continent claiming personal
knowledge of ritual crime. Most often these individuals claim to be victims of powerful cult
groups. The lack of physical evidence of ritual crimes is explained by the effectiveness of
these groups in destroying or concealing such evidence. Cited crimes include fraud,
kidnapping, torture, and murder (often in the form of sacrifice), as well as habitual acts of
physical abuse. The perpetration of such acts would constitute a massive criminal conspiracy
that is pursued not for the sake of money but in the interest of spiritual fulfillment.
Nevertheless, there are some who maintain that the existence of this criminal network is
actually motivated by a quest for power and that the spiritual belief system is a subterfuge
employed to ensure the continued allegiance of participants and the silence of victims. Often
the allegations indicate multigenerational participation in these cults by family members.
The third group might be identified as objective observers, or persons who initiate their
research without a personal position or interest. These are frequently academics whose goal is
to determine the verifiability of claims and the veracity of witnesses, as well as the causes,
effects, and relationships associated with the phenomenon of ritual crime. Sociologists and