Crisis Negotiations: History, Hostage Taking, and Police Response

Historical Origins of Hostage Taking and Negotiation

The field of hostage negotiation did not develop on the front lines of police work, but rather in the broader political context of large-scale hostage-taking events. In modern times, these events have included major terrorist incidents, such as when terrorists took athletes hostage at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This tragedy helped define the field of hostage negotiation, driven by the belief that appropriate intervention and negotiation could save lives in hostage scenarios.

Hostage taking — and, by extension, hostage negotiation — is not a new phenomenon. When one examines the history of piracy, it becomes clear that pirates frequently took and held hostages in order to demand ransom. Any kidnap-for-ransom scenario is, at its core, a hostage scenario. This practice was so commonplace that by the late 1700s and early 1800s, different ranks of crewmen were assigned different set ransom values (McMains & Mullins, 2014). The practice was so embedded in sea trade that it became standard to pay the equivalent of protection money to prevent such attacks.

Hostages have also been a traditional feature of warfare, with negotiations often hinging on the release of prisoners held by opposing sides. The Munich Olympic crisis mirrored these older hostage scenarios, with one critical distinction: the hostages were third-party non-combatants rather than soldiers or political figures. It is also important to note that hostages were not limited to people — property, too, could be held hostage, meaning that the threat of destruction was always a factor to consider in any negotiation.

Geopolitical vs. Domestic Crisis Scenarios

Geopolitical hostage events differ substantially from the hostage and crisis situations that police departments most frequently encounter. One of the most significant differences lies in the mental state and motivation of the hostage taker. In geopolitical events — including piracy — the motives are often rational, even when the actors are behaving erratically due to heightened emotions. In contrast, domestic crisis scenarios typically require negotiators to engage with individuals who have serious emotional problems or underlying mental health conditions, demanding specialized knowledge of potential pathologies.

Domestic Disputes as the Most Common Crisis Situation

Domestic disputes are arguably the most frequent source of crisis situations in law enforcement. It is not uncommon for one spouse to hold another hostage, particularly when there is a prior history of domestic violence between the partners. Children, suspected romantic partners, other family members, and even pets may also be held as hostages in these situations. This type of scenario is prevalent enough that all patrol officers should receive training on how to initially respond in ways least likely to escalate the situation.

However, not all domestic dispute hostage scenarios are true hostage situations in the traditional sense. In many cases, they amount to little more than victims-in-the-making, because the hostage taker's actual goal is not to achieve a negotiated outcome but to harm or kill those being held. It is essential for negotiators to recognize and understand the difference between a genuine hostage situation and one in which the captives are already targeted victims. This distinction can determine the entire strategic approach to resolution.

References

McMains, M. & Mullins, W. (2014). Crisis Negotiations (5th ed.). Waltham, MA: Anderson Publishing.