Whats up with Serial Killers?

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

I guess I have sort of a question about serial killers, like what is their deal exactly? Mental illness, evil or a combination of the two? I am a big fan of franchises like "Silence of the Lambs", "Criminal Minds" and "Dexter" among other crime shows. But with the exception of "Silence" most media doesn't seem to offer the most realistic portrayal of serial killers.

Most often they are portrayed as mentally ill, or killing because of some irresistible urge, or desire to placate some invisible spirit or some such. They occasionally even have remorse, and do "apology" killings and body placements.

I decided to do some research on the topic, and I found that more often than not, serial killers usually have a large sexual, angry component to their crimes. The worst serial killers seem to also have been serial rapists as well, targeting both young women, or young men, whatever their preference. Their seems not a shadow of remorse or pity with them, or even an indication that they were killing because of the "voices in their heads."

Also, there haven't been any really bad, elusive serial killers for quite a while now. Maybe the last one was the DC sniper? I wonder why that is, though I think part of it is that when people like Bundy or Dahmer were doing their thing, blood and DNA evidence weren't nearly as advanced as they are now, and it was harder to track them.

If anyone is familiar with Dexter or Criminal Minds, I find it pretty unbelievable that there are any more than 20-25 serial killers operating in the United States at any given time.

[Ormond]

Well, part of this is how one defines "serial killer." This is usually a more restrictive term than "killer with multiple victims", or even "killer with multiple victims in different times and locations." I think many experts would classify the D.C. sniper killings not as done by a "serial killer" but by a "spree killer". Famous murderers like Charles Starkweather and Andrew Cunanan were also "spree killers", not "serial killers."

When one thus restricts the term "serial killer" to people like Ted Bundy, John Gacy, or Joel Rifkin, there is indeed almost always a sexual component to their murders. They are people who combine having an anti-social personality disorder (what used to be called "sociopath" or "psychopath") with a fetish-like interest in violence as part of their sexual fantasies.

You have to have both sides of this equation to create a serial killer. The huge majority of people with anti-social personality disorder do not have the violent sexual interests and so don't have a desire to commit those crimes. Most people who may have violent sexual fantasies are not ASPD people without conscience or empathy, and so would not act out their fantasies with unwilling partners.

And of course one can NOT assume that the killers depicted in purely fictional books, films, or TV such as "The Silence of the Lambs" or "Dexter" are acting like any real life "serial killer" really has. Novelists and screenwriters are going to create interesting stories whether or not there's any correspondence to reality in them.

[Kelli Fury]

Yeah, Dexter and Criminal Minds are absolutely nothing like real life at all.

[Lord Flashheart]

people who combine having an anti-social personality disorder (what used to be called "sociopath" or "psychopath") with a fetish-like interest in violence as part of their sexual fantasies.

Sociopath and psychopath are different types of ASPD's the terms are still used today.

[Tears of Lys]

Weird. I had a dream about Richard Speck last night.

:eek:

[Fez]

Per the FBI, Congress legally defined 'serial killings' in 1998, as:

The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.

However, that isn't a definition that they regularly, and defining what exactly serial murder is has been a source of debate. At a FBI-hosted symposium in 2008, it was decided to define it as:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events

There was also discussion of whether there is a difference between serial murder and spree murder:

The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement

[Ormond]

Sociopath and psychopath are different types of ASPD's the terms are still used today.

There are lots of terms someone is still using today which are no longer official psychiatric diagnoses.

Since I teach abnormal psychology I have several recent American texts in that subject on my self. I just checked several of them. The term "sociopathy" is completely absent from most of them. The one that does include it says that the distinction between "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" was originally one of cause -- psychopaths supposedly had a primarily biological reason for their behavior while sociopaths got that way because of bad parenting.

Today it's not considered good diagnostic practice to use terms where the cause of a problem is assumed in the label itself, which is one reason the modern term is now ASPD. There are many people who don't like the modern DSM definition of ASPD because it focuses a lot on criminal behavior, and so many people who are manipulative, exploitative, and lacking in empathy but who are intelligent enough never to get caught committing a violent act aren't captured by the term, while the classic definition of "psychopath" included them. Most American abnormal psychology textbooks do include some discussion of that controversy and so discuss the term "psychopath." But among American psychologists at least, "sociopath" would now seem to be a very rare term and a distinction that just isn't often made any more.

P.S. And in regard to Fez's valuable post -- this points out that terms used by law enforcement and those used by psychologists or psychiatrists also are often not defined in the same ways. Many people don't realize that the term "insanity" is a legal concept, not a psychiatric one. There is no specific psychiatric diagnosis which will automatically get one labeled "insane" by a court -- there are specific legal definitions of the term (varying somewhat from state to state in the USA) which don't correspond to any specific diagnosis.

[1918me]

Today it's not considered good diagnostic practice to use terms where the cause of a problem is assumed in the label itself, which is one reason the modern term is now ASPD. There are many people who don't like the modern DSM definition of ASPD because it focuses a lot on criminal behavior, and so many people who are manipulative, exploitative, and lacking in empathy but who are intelligent enough never to get caught committing a violent act aren't captured by the term, while the classic definition of "psychopath" included them.

From what I've understood, there are still many people doing research on psychopathy, given that it describes a meaningful construct separate from the clinical diagnosis of ASPD. So, while not technically an acceptable diagnosis, it still seems like a valuable distinction to make, and from what I can tell is still a relevant issue in the current literature, and consequently an appropriate term to use in the context of a discussion like this. Of course, I do agree with the rational of leaving it out of the DSM, but I think there's still a lot to be gained from researching it further, while discouraging its clinical diagnosis in favor of something more descriptive.

I obviously yield to your much greater experience with the subject, of course.

[Ormond]

From what I've understood, there are still many people doing research on psychopathy, given that it describes a meaningful construct separate from the clinical diagnosis of ASPD. So, while not technically an acceptable diagnosis, it still seems like a valuable distinction to make, and from what I can tell is still a relevant issue in the current literature, and consequently an appropriate term to use in the context of a discussion like this. Of course, I do agree with the rational of leaving it out of the DSM, but I think there's still a lot to be gained from researching it further, while discouraging its clinical diagnosis in favor of something more descriptive.

I obviously yield to your much greater experience with the subject, of course.

I don't disagree with any of the above. This is precisely what the controversy discussed in the abnormal psychology textbooks is about. :)

Sorry, I have tried several times to get rid of the double quote and can only erase what's inside one of the boxes. The boxes themselves won't stay deleted.

[1918me]

I don't disagree with any of the above. This is precisely what the controversy discussed in the abnormal psychology textbooks is about. :)

Sorry, I have tried several times to get rid of the double quote and can only erase what's inside one of the boxes. The boxes themselves won't stay deleted.

Ah, good to know that I'm not just confused :P

Also, I've had my fair share of issues with the quoting feature, so I feel your pain.

[Theda Baratheon]

Whats up with the men and women who love serial killers??

[A True Kaniggit]

You also get a couple people like Amelia Dyer, who did it for the money.

[Hutch]

Whats up with the men and women who love serial killers??

I think the shows that the op talk about aren't so popular because people love serial killers. I think it's more of a fascination with how, and why, these people are so much different from the rest of "normal" society.

[Theda Baratheon]

I think the shows that the op talk about aren't so popular because people love serial killers. I think it's more of a fascination with how, and why, these people are so much different from the rest of "normal" society.

I'm just genuinely asking - like the women that obsess over ted bundy and shit - i don't get it.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm just genuinely asking - like the women that obsess over ted bundy and shit - i don't get it.

A woman just married Charles Manson. I don't get it either.

[Hutch]

I'm just genuinely asking - like the women that obsess over ted bundy and shit - i don't get it.

That I couldn't tell you. Every time I read about things like Manson's recent marriage, all I can picture is Natural Born Killers. People are strange.

[Sci-2]

I'm just genuinely asking - like the women that obsess over ted bundy and shit - i don't get it.

Maybe some intertwining of sex, sacred, suffering, and death?

Like how some people seem to be really into Jesus/Allah sending folks to Hell. Same kind of weird S&M horniness there IMO.

[Gertrude]

The woman who is marrying Mason is doing it because she wants to work on his case and can get more info if they are married or something. There is a specific reason. I *think* she believes he's innocent or something and is trying to help. Whatever. This then creates the question - why does she believe in him and then you kinda get the original question again. What is up with these people?

[Larry of the Lawn]

DeLillo has some good reads on why people are fascinated by serial killers. In Underground there's the Texas highway serial killer, might obliquely talk about them in White Noise too, or it could have been an essay or article... Will dig around for it because it was boss times, yo.

[DreamSongs]

I'm currently reading a book called 'Don't Fear the Reaper'. Its a review of killings in the 19th century in the USA. The premise of the book is that murders and serial killers aren't anything new in our society.