Why Peter Sutcliffe Engaged in Serial Killing - Case Study Example

Peter Sutcliffe Introduction The world is always fascinated by cruelty and horror of killings. Fictional individuals such as Michael Myers have been amusing moviegoers; and while these interesting movies continue to circle and crimes in them far-fetched, it will be absurd to imagine that such criminal activities can be a reality. Anyone who has knowledge about Peter Sutcliffe also knows the tale behind his infamous serial killings. According to Eric W. Hickey in his book, “Se­rial Murderers and Their Victims” Peter Sutcliffe is well explained. Hickey defines Peter Sutcliffe’s behavior as an offender, female or male who decides to kill over time (Dixon, 2011). It is doubtful whether someone will dispute the definition Hickey gives Peter Sutcliffe in as much as some theoreticians and experts may choose to be more descriptive in their representation of Peter Sutcliffe. Due to incidences when Peter Sutcliffe engaged with prostitutes and to the larger extend qualifications of a serial killer, scholars tend to have general consensus that there is a reason why people may commit such atrocious act. These reasons have been embedded on theoretical reasoning as well as available researches. It is from this reason that understanding psychological underpinnings of Peter Sutcliffe’s actions need to be delinked from spree killings. From such contentious but rather important issues, this study critically develops a case description of Peter Sutcliffe so as to understand cause of his behaviours. To conceptulise the thesis statement, this study will use theoretical model statements made by the offender to ascertain such behaviours. That is, by adopting criminological theories and making comparisons to his accounts, this assessment aims to make a comparative look into Peter Sutcliffe’s pathways to crime. Between 1975 and 1980, there was a thick cloud hanging over northern England. The attention was turned to Peter Sutcliffe, the person implicated with atrocities to extend that he earned a name “Yorkshire Ripper” (Bland, 1987). This came as a result of murdering at least thirteen women besides making attempts to kill at least seven others. The public uneasiness was escalated by the fact that such atrocities were committed in different place thus also eliciting reactions from members of public and police fraternity at large. In as much as Peter Sutcliffe was convicted in 1981 of the above mentioned atrocities and currently serving 20 consecutive life sentences and most likely will never be released from prison, his spree killings remains a subject of studies. The first theory that this study relates with behaviours exhibited by Peter Sutcliffe is the social disorganization theory which Kelly and Radford (1987) have used to expound on criminal and serial killing behaviours. According to this theory, individuals tend to act violently and kill for the sake of it depending on social upbringing. For instance, cases where people are brought in violent neighborhood or surrounding grew up becoming violent and engages in violent acts. During the first week of his trial (Tuesday, May 5 1981, Regina v Peter William Sutcliffe) Judge Mr. Justice Boreham and prosecutors Sir Michael Havers (the attorney general) and Harry Ognall heard that; “I wanted to pick up a prostitute with the intention of killing her. I realized this one was a prostitute because she asked me if I wanted business. I may have given her the impression that I wanted to have sex, but this was not so especially with the aspect of killing. This kind of talk was a preamble which would lead to the true purpose of my killing. But again I had been exposed to such situations and it underscored the action. That is, I had to put up with all kinds of language and abuse in case she didn't see the point." (Kelly and Radford, 1987). Looking at the statement as cited above it means that Peter Sutcliffe was never interested in killing Regina but was prompted as a result of environment where he was brought up. It is for this reason that he further says ‘…But again I had been exposed to such situations and it underscored the action.’ This statement conceptualizes the social disorganization theory. When interrogated further the offender said, "It is quite obvious there were occasions when I did not see any prostitutes. After a certain length of time if I didn't see any prostitutes I would go home. It was my intention to get rid of the prostitutes at any cost because this is how I found it in life." (Kelly and Radford, 1987) When Peter said that ‘…this is how I found it in life’ it can be reflected back to his life because at some instance in his upbringing he developed an obsession with prostitutes around his surroundings. Such cruelty was even stretched by hiring prostitutes after marrying Sonia and attempting to eradicate them with Trevor Birdsall, his closest confidant. It is apparent from the analysis of his behaviors as well as words uttered in the courtroom that his environment which apparently may differ from those cited by scholars acted as catalyst to his behavior. Social disorganization theory seems to be the platform from which Peter’s behaviors can be linked to the definition of serial killing but such is not succinct to explain every single action that he engaged in. To find another dimension, there is need to understand why serial killings targeted to women occur. As Kelly and Radford (1987) suggested, this study has already acknowledged that it is difficult to explain why serial killers are committed to doing what they do. In fact, a number of aetiology theses on serial killers attempt to align Peter’s behaviors with biological, psychiatric and sociological explanations (Kulbarsh, 2011; Reznek, 2010; Berry-Dee, 2005). But an interesting research is that of Wilson (2007) that gives a new reason why Peter engaged in killing women (prostitutes). In his study, “What Twists a Man so far as Murder?” Wilson (2007) is mainly postulating whether we have the power to thwart Peter’s actions before they are pronounced or occur. Therefore it is evidential to ascertain that Peter’s drive to kill was due to a mission that he intended to complete. This approach, as Wilson (2007) tries to present through “What Twists a Man so far as Murder?” shows that Sutcliffe killed because he had a mission from God and that he heard the voice to do this (kill prostitutes). When Wilson’s hypothesis is considered then it negates the definition of serial killing as already defined above. Further, if Wilson hypothesis has to be taken into consideration then this study will as well negate psychological underpinnings as explained by scholars such as Wier (2011). Wier believe that for a killing to be serial is a factor and doing so for a mission is another. Therefore the fact that Peter committed his crimes in different places confirms the course as argued by Wilson (2007). However, owing to the fact that six of his victims were not prostitutes undermines the fact that Peter had a mission from God to commit the atrocities. In fact, the position held by Wier (2011) was confirmed during hearing when Peter made the bench to know that his killings were grounded on female blaming discourse (in that case he blamed the victims; his wife and mother) to ascertain whether he was a liar or lunatic (Bland, 1987). There is still issues when it came to the explaining why Peter was not only a killer but also engaged in a violent killing spree. Some studies such as Fielder (2010) have even argued that he must have been annoyed by a prostitute who pushed him over the edge. The theoretical model as seen above argues that Peter heard ‘voice of God’. However, is it possible to argue that a person send by God can act in such a cruel manner? While this is what Peter wanted people to believe, such behaviors are attached with newer theories that have attempted to explain such actions. Therefore strain theory fills the gap. Strain theory has been designed to give explanation to criminal acts such as violence and robbery. It is therefore necessary to apply the theory to actions as committed by Peter. This theory is associated with Chicago Sociologist who postulated that the individual characteristic is the cause for the crime. This also supports David Emile Durkheim’s theory that human goals are natural and for that matter criminal activity as committed by Peter is socially acquired. Robert Merton further explains that Peter’s actions are as a result of 2 outcomes of rebellion as expressed by his wife and the mother. At one point Mr. Sutcliffe was asked by the court to explain the 12−month gap between the killing of Irene Richardson and Emily Jackson. In his response he said "The main reason, really, is my state of mind. It seemed OK, apart from having a personal battle with my own mind and people around me, which was in absolute turmoil about whether the right thing was to kill people or not." In as much, from the analysis of the statement as quoted from Peter it is apparent that Robert Merton’s theory and explanation of rebellion can only explains visible serial killing as committed by the poorer community. Basing on his historical background, Peter Sutcliffe was the oldest of six children. Peter spent most of his childhood in Bingley, Yorkshire. According to Mann (2005), Peter Sutcliffe was generally observed as being reserved and always quiet child though faced several instances of bullying in school. Though scholars such as Soothill (1993) have pointed that such bullying might have prompted him to quit his studies at the age of 15, it is believed Peter Sutcliffe was persuaded to take odd jobs such as gravedigger. Additionally, it has been pointed out that Peter dated Sonia Szurma for over eight years before finally marrying her. It is from this life background that scholars have attributed her behaviours. Looking at cases such as being bullied to dropping out of school to being gravedigger it is apparent that Peter’s decisions to kill for ‘fun’ could be attributed to psychological challenges that stemmed from damaging parenting strategies, conflict within his home or poor social structures that he had to endure. While this is one side of argument, England has had increasing number of serial killers in the last two decades therefore affirming that all are caused by poor social structures and or conflict within the family will only give flimsy conclusion. Towards the end of 1981 Peter Dinsdale famous as Bruce Lee was a serial killer who took away over 26 lives and the main reason for doing so was that he was motivated by grudge against his victims (Bagguley and Mann 1992). Then there was Dennis Nilsen who was tried in 1983. He killed a total of 16 gay men and vagrants (The Times, 5th November 1983). The main reason for Dennis’ action was due to the fact that he could not stand seeing gay people around him. Then there was Kenneth Erskine whose trial was in 1988. He did not have recognizable family, fixed address and residence. Before his trial he had killed seven pensioners and his motivation was to gain fame and such killings targeted pensioners since they were not sexual or physical threat to him (Schurman-Kauflin, 2011 p. 67). Looking at these cases, one thing is common; that neither Kenneth Erskine, Peter Dinsdale nor Dennis Nilsen had been bullied, dropped out of school or became gravediggers. It is therefore apparent that instances such as bullying and engaging in odd jobs oriented Peter Sutcliffe and thus made him engage in such killings. However, it might not be true, based on the individuals mentioned that the psychological trauma faced by Peter Sutcliffe was convincing to engage in the atrocities committed. In a different way but related to psychological trauma, Melton in his book ‘To Kill Again’ argues that the best way to understand why Peter Sutcliffe engaged in such acts is to look at his life and connect it with Self Control Theory (Schurman-Kauflin, 2011). What Melton tries to argue out with the theory of self-control is that individuals are likely to engage in ruthless killings when where lives were marked by lack of love and nurturing. This is true when it comes to Peter Sutcliffe. Peter grew up in abusive, neglectful and even violent environment where most of his vital needs were not provided. Therefore when such a trend continues, there is no proper coping mechanisms that can assist them cope with challenges faced in life. This assertion can be confirmed by Peter’s 22nd interview with authorities interrogating him. When as about Anna Rogulskyj and whether she was his first murder he said, "Yes, I'm sure of that. I hit her on the head and I think I intended to kill her. I had this inner complex which I think started back in 1965 when I had a motorbike accident and nobody seemed to care. I ran into a telegraph pole and went into it with my head. Since then I have had severe bouts of morbid depression and hallucinations. My mind goes into a haze and I don't know what was right or wrong, or if I was acting rationally or not." What needs to be established is whether the psychological underpinnings and theory of Self Control worked in the same manner for people who engaged in serial killing but did not have a rough childhood upbringing. To understand this point, it has to be highlighted that Peter’s victims were between 18 and 42 years and these victims did not have resembling characteristics. Additionally, in as much he killed prostitutes, not all victims were prostitutes. In fact, Vito et al. (2007) reports that some of the victims were university students and even bank clerk. What Peter would do was to hit these victims with a hammer and move the body in secluded place before covering them with his clothes. Before leaving Peter could sexually assault them. With this social disorder it is worth comparing other serial killers from the same region where Peter stayed. There was Beverly Allitt, British serial killer who was tried in 1993 but did not have rough upbringing. Beverly Allitt engaged in serial killing though. This was also true with regard to Collin Ireland and Robert Black who were tried in 1993 and 1996 respectively. What Peter did reflect a revenge he took as a result of the upbringing he had. In other words, while Peter Sutcliffe may have been abused it is apparent that not all serial killers had rugged upbringing. Therefore the conclusion that can be made is that Self-Control Theory indeed proves very compatible with serial killers, particularly the kind of neglects and abuses that Peter Sutcliffe was subjected to. In as much, considering Beverly Allitt, Collin Ireland and Robert Black it is worth mentioning that there are some incongruous cases where upbringing has nothing to do with ability to engage in serial killing. Conclusion This study has argued that there is multiplicity of reasons why Peter Sutcliffe engaged in serial killing. However, it will be unwise to accept unconditionally the premise that his behaviours were purely due to the theories and psychological problems mentioned above. As a matter of fact, when theorizing about serial killing, this study finds a paucity of explanations that touches on specific behaviours as seem with Peter Sutcliffe. Another realization is that theoretical models as explained above may be narrow as they are not explicitly explaining the British experience of serial killing in as much as it does to American perspective. What is proposed by this study is for scholars to start viewing Peter Sutcliffe’s behaviours at societal level as the term serial killer introduces a social dynamic which cannot be neglected. References Bagguley, P. and Mann, K. (1992) 'Idle Thieving Bastards? Scholarly Representations of the "Underclass"', Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 6, No. 1, 113-26. Berry-Dee, C (2005). Talking with serial killers 2. Hampshire: The New Criminologist. p1-288. Bland, L. (1987) 'The Case of the Yorkshire Ripper: Mad, Bad, Beast or Male?, in Scraton, P. and Gordon, P. (eds.), Causes for Concern. British Criminal Justice on Trial?. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Dixon, C (2011). The Crossbow Cannibal. London: John Blake Publishing Ltd Fielder, J (2010). The Chamber of Horrors. London: John Blake Publishing Ltd. p1-306. Kelly, L. and Radford, J. (1987) 'The Problem of Men: Feminist Perspectives on Sexual Violence', in Scraton, P. and Gordon, P. (eds.), Causes for Concern. British Criminal Justice on Trial?. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Kulbarsh, P. (2011). Hallucinations: The Ultimate Betrayal of the Mind. Durham Crisis Intervention Team. 1 (9), p1-8. Mann, D. (2005). The BTK Killer: Portrait of a Psychopath. Available: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50579&page=2 Accessed 27/09/124 Reznek, L (2010). Delusions and the Madness of the Masses. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Schurman-Kauflin, D (2011). Disturbed:Terrorist Behavioral Profiles. 2nd ed: Violent Crimes Institute, LLC. Soothill, K. (1993) 'The Serial Killer Industry', Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, Vol. 4, No. 2, 341-54. TheGuardian. (2004). Shipman found hanging in prison. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jan/13/NHS.shipman Accessed 27/09/124 Vito, G Maahs, J Holmes, R (2007). Criminology: Theory, Research, And Policy. London: Jones and Bartlett. Wier, N (2011). British Serial Killers. Bloomington: AuthorHouse. Wilson, D (2007). Serial Killers: Hunting Britons and Their Victims, 1960-2006. Winchester: WATERSIDE PRESS. Read More