How are we best to describe the actions of a serial killer - Essay Example

Applied Criminology – How are we best to describe the actions of a serial killer? The definition of “serial killing” has proved problematic within the confines of narrow legal definitions of murder. Moreover, serial killing adopts multifarious forms brought on by many different states of mind (D, Wilson. 2001). Holmes attempted to define serial murder as consisting of repetitive killings where the relationship between victim and the offender is that of stranger or slight acquaintance, and the motivation to kill and apparent motives are lacking (R, Holmes, & S Holmes 2001). However, it is submitted at the outset that this is not entirely accurate, as motivation and apparent motives although not extrinsically obvious, are nevertheless prevalent and inherently shrouded in backdrop of interlinking of complex causal triggers (A, Alexandrovich. & D, Wilson 1999). For example, criminologist Eric Hickey’s database research on the demographics of serial killing highlights that 88% are male and 85% Caucasian and average age of 28.5 (E, Hickey. 2006). In terms of victim selection, Hickey’s empirical research further demonstrates that 62% target strangers exclusively and another 22% kill at least one stranger (E, Hickey. 2006). Additionally, 71% of the killers operated in a specifically targeted location or area, rather operating in multiple locations. Moreover, Wilson further refers to the “cooling off period” and patterns of similarity in the method of killing (D, Wilson. 2001). Reference is made to serial killer Wayne Gacy who would gag victims with their own underwear in order that they would die in their own vomit (J. Silverman, D. Wilson, 2002). Notwithstanding criminological observations regarding parallel trends in serial killer behaviour, scientific findings regarding physiological causal factors remain inconclusive to describe the motivations behind the actions of a serial killer (Vronsky 2004). Indeed, the attempts of social science, biological and criminological theory to explain differences between male and female violence in context of serial killers further highlights the flawed attempt to propound a conclusive and all encompassing rationale to explain the actions of serial killers (Vronsky 2004). For example, whilst recent reports in science have found discrete locations in intricate systems that serve as a human moral compass which in turn lead to changes in the brain (Vronksy 2004); a physiological explanation for the acts of serial killers within the confines of neurology sits uneasily with concepts of morality and emotion and social profiling entrenched within criminological theorem propounded as explanations for the behavioural triggers motivating serial killing. This is further compounded by the fact that the three central criminological theories of biological trait, organised/disorganised and psychodynamic are difficult to reconcile with neurology. The focus of this analysis is to evaluate how best to describe the conduct of serial killers under applied criminological theorem. However, in doing so it is necessary to undertake a comparative analysis in context of scientific findings to highlight the need for combined considerations in future criminological research. From the criminological perspective, the central theory pertaining to the conduct of serial killers is the background causes crime model (M, Foucott 1977 & D Wilson, 2001). This involves the interdependence of offender history, particularly in adolescence (D, Wilson 2001). Wilson argues that virtually all serial killers come from dysfunctional backgrounds involving sexual or physical abuse, drugs or alcoholism and their related problems (D, Wilson, 2001). Indeed, studies of known serial killers have demonstrated parallel similarities since infancy citing in particular background triggers such the interrelationship between infancy, childhood and relationships with the killer’s mother. (Vronsky 2004). As such, the background causes crime model undermines any notion of neurology or being born evil (T. Mathiesen, 2000). However, the inherent flaw in this theory is that it ignores cogent evidence pointing to the significant role that physiological factors play in influencing behavioural patterns in serial killers (Vronsky 2004). Accordingly, it is submitted that rather than continue to focus on developing polarised justifications for serial killer behaviour, the development of criminological theory should consider its interrelationship with scientific theorem to move towards a clearer explanation of serial killer behaviour. Nevertheless, the “attachment theory” role within infancy is crucial to the personal development of the child. For example, emotionally, infancy is central to the proper development of the adult personality (Vronsky 2004). Indeed, it has been propounded that the first twelve months are critical to the development of emotions such as remorse and affection (A, Alexandrovich & D, Wilson. 1999). Moreover, failure to attach or bond through adequate attention and physical touch during this time period, has demonstrated increased risk of personality disorder development in later life (Canter. 2005). Indeed, Vronsky argues that there may be signs that the child has a psychopathic personality by the age of 2 (Vronsky 2004). However, the nature of diverging explanations begs the question as to whether this can solely be attributed to the background causes crime model within criminological propounded theorem or alternatively neurology, which in turn highlights the need to consider the interrelationship between the two models. It is further argued that an infant develops a sense of only itself and it is the very nature of isolation, which breeds the fantasy world (D, Wilson., 2001). Indeed, Wilson’s research in this area continuously focuses on the role of fantasy as a central parallel trend in serial killing (D.Wilson, 2001). This appears to be further bolstered by findings that serial killers demonstrate a distinct absence of a range of emotions such as sympathy, remorse and affection (Holmes, 2001). Moreover, a key parallel between serial David Berkowitz, Joel Rifki and Kenneth Bianchi was that they were adopted and neglected during the vital attachment period between 0-2 years as identified by Vronsky (2004). Additionally, Wilson argues that the failure to bond in conjunction with other socio-economic factors leads to increased isolation of the killer. The isolation often perpetuates into a cycle of bullying whereby the killer becomes the victim whereby, the role of fantasy develops into “secret aggressive fantasies”. For example, serial killer David Berkowitz asserted that “It was a mysterious force working against me. I felt bothered and tormented, “Die Schmutz [Yiddish for the “dirty one”]” (Vronsky 2004). Another common characteristic is the relationship of the serial killer with their mother. The mothers often tend to breed males that hate females (D Wilson, 2001), which is further evidenced by the Ipswich murders. Moreover, Freud argues that males try to reach a stated of autonomy with their mother, and failure to do so results in the development of inner rage (B, Masters. 1985). However, this has created polarised debate with feminist criminological theorem undermining the assertion that maternal bonding assists in the creation of serial killer (Silverman & Wilson 2002). Nevertheless, empirical research does indeed demonstrate a high proportion of serial killers having difficult relationships with their mothers (Vronsky 2004). Moreover, childhood trauma has also been linked to serial killers. For example, empirical research demonstrates that mental and physical trauma has long lasting effects upon an individual (Aynesworth 1999). Furthermore, 42% of convicted serial killers tested by Aynesworth were said to have suffered from psychological abuse and sexual abuse. Scientific theory has indicated that psychopathic behaviour fuelled by abuse is related to the brain’s defence mechanism, which clearly contrasts with criminological theory. The criminological background causes crime model has been developed further into the following three main threads of criminological theorem explaining the acts of serial killers; 1) Biological trait theory; 2) Organised/Disorganised theory; and 3) Psychodynamic theory. The biological trait theory rooted in biological conditions that may control human behaviours, which is the closest criminological research comes towards reaching a compromise with scientific theory. It has uncovered neurological and physical abnormalities that may begin in prenatal stage, which in turn has demonstrated links between impairment of executive brain function and aggression (Canter, 2005). Many serial killers discussed have been labelled with a neurological disorder, with many repetitive killings demonstrating a link with chemical imbalances and movements in the brain (Canter 2005). Another criminological theory is psychodynamic theory. This is based on the evolution of the unconscious personality in early childhood, which will influence behaviour for the rest of one’s life (Vronsky 2004). Indeed, Freud argues that humans develop three aspects of their personality in the early stages of personal development; namely, identity, ego and superego (Vronksy 2004). The identity is primitive, supplying underlying primal needs such as food and sex. The ego is a guide that is aligned to societal norms and the superego develops values and morals (Canter 2005). Under the psychodynamic theory, serial killers are overwhelmed by their id and negative experiences create a weak ego, thereby facilitating negative and aggressive fantasies. Alternatively, another central criminological theory is the organised/disorganised typology of serial killers (Canter 2005). This theory indicates that serial killers will fall into one of two categories; namely organised or disorganised offenders. Through the evaluation of the crime scene, victims and forensic evidence it is possible to conclude personality and behavioural characteristics (Canter 2005). For example, the organised offender’s habits are deciphered from the crime scene as an organised offender. Often, the attack is meticulously planned and no fingerprints or evidence is left (Vronsky 2004). However, it has further been argued that the organised offender is reacting to a stressful trigger event, which in turn would suggest that the organised/disorganised element is linked to extrinsic factors and perhaps intertwined with the biological trait theory. In contrast, the disorganised killer leaves crime scene in disarray often leaves incriminatory evidence. It is further argued that the disorganised offender is socially inadequate and below intelligence and struggles with parallels to the social control theory (D, Wilson 2001). However, it is again submitted that this is inherently intertwined with other complex background factors which facilitate the condition and a predisposition to a certain condition. For example, many universal traits appear to include disorganised thinking, bipolar mode disorders, a feeling of resentment, sexual frustrations and a wild imaginations (D, Wilson 2001). In a chart of serial killers, with a review of childhood development characteristics the three most frequently reported behaviours included daydreaming, compulsive masturbation and isolation (D, Wilson 2001). Accordingly, the above analysis demonstrates that it is impossible to determine conclusively how best to describe the acts of a serial killer. Whilst the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates parallel trends regarding the background of serial killers, it is far too dogmatic to assert the background causes crime model without further examination of its interrelationship with other factors. Indeed, the influence of background factors discussed in the psychodynamic theory would suggest that certain biological traits may predispose an individual to psychopathic tendencies and serial killing when contrasted with others who had suffered the same background triggers yet do not develop the same tendencies. Indeed, the inherent flaw in the criminological theory is the failure to account for why there are a significant proportion of individuals who are not serial killers yet suffered from the same background triggers. Accordingly, whilst background triggers cannot be ignored, it is submitted that the interrelationship between the multiple theories must be considered if we are to ascertain how best to describe the acts of serial killers. BIBLIOGRAPHY A Alexandrovich & D, Wilson (1999). The Longest Injustice. Winchester: Waterside Press. D. Canter (2005). Commentary: Confusing operational predicaments and cognitive explorations. Applied Cognitive Psychology Volume 19. M. Foucoult., (1977). Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth, Penguin E, Hickey (2006). The Myth of a Psychiatric Crime Wave. Carolina Academic Press. R. Holmes, & S. Holmes., (2001). Murder in America.London:Sage B.Masters., (1985), Killing for Company, London: Arrow Barby T.Mathiesen., (2000). Prison on Trial. Winchester: Waterside Press. J, Silverman, & D. Wilson., (2002). Innocence Betrayed: Paedophiles, the Media and Society, Cambridge. Pollity Press. D. Wilson (2001), What Everyone in Britain Should know about Crime and Punishment. Oxford University Press. P. Vronsky (2004). The Method and Madness of Monsters. Penguin Berkley. Read More