Intro - Mylenda Neal is professor PDF

Preview

Summary

Mylenda Neal is professor...

Description

Serial Killers

SERIAL KILLERS Introduction Handout ORIGIN OF THE TERM x

x

x

x

Serial murder is not a new phenomenon. However, until about 40 years ago, no one had ever heard the term. For most of the 20 century, the news media never referred to serial killers – but it isn’t because homicidal psychos didn’t exist in the past. One of the most infamous American serial killers of all time, Albert Fish, committed his atrocities around the time of the Great Depression – his crimes were covered extensively by newspapers, but he was never described as a serial killer – the phrase wasn’t invented yet. Serial killing was simply lumped together with “mass murder.” Credit for coining the phrase “serial killer” is often given to former FBI Special Agent Robert Ressler (one of the founding members of the FBI’s elite Behavioral Science Unit (aka the “Mind Hunters” or the “Psyche Squad”). The term “serial murderer” showed up in Webster’s dictionary in 1961 and overseas it was commonly used (British writer John Brophy used it to describe Jack the Ripper in his 1966 book The Meaning of Murder, but it was Ressler who altered the phrase to “serial killer” and for the past 40 years we have used it often. The topic of serial murder occupies a unique niche within the criminal justice community. In addition to the significant investigative challenges they bring to law enforcement, serial murder cases attract an over-abundance of attention from the media, mental health experts, academia, and the general public. While there has been significant, independent work conducted by a variety of experts to identify and analyze the many issues related to serial murder, there have been few efforts to reach a consensus between law enforcement and other experts, regarding these matters.

DEFINITIONS The definition of “serial killer” is not clear-cut; even the experts cannot agree. In the past 40 years, multiple definitions of serial murder have been used by law enforcement, clinicians, academia, and researchers. While these definitions do share several common themes, they differ on specific requirements, such as the number of murders involved, the types of motivation, and the temporal aspects of the murders. Previous definitions of serial murder specified a certain number of murders, varying from two to ten victims. This quantitative requirement distinguished a serial murder from other categories of murder (i.e. single, double, or triple murder). Most of the definitions also required a period of time between the murders. This break-in-time was necessary to distinguish between a mass murder and a serial murder. Serial murder required a temporal separation between the different murders, which was described as: separate occasions, cooling-off period, and emotional cooling-off period. FBI 1992 FBI definition: Three or more separate events in three or more separate locations with an emotional cooling-off period between homicides. (FBI Crime Classification Manual – 1992). • This definition stresses 3 elements: 1. Quantity – there have to be at least 3 murders 2. Place – the murders have to occur at different locations

3.

1.

2.

3.

Time – there has to be “cooling-off period”, an interval between the murders that can last anywhere from several hours to several years. • The last two differentiate serial murder from mass murder – in which a suicidal, rage filled individual slaughters a bunch of people at once. • Problems with the FBI definition: Too broad – can be applied to homicidal types who are not serial killers: professional hit men, “mad bombers” like Ted Kanczynski (they meet the FBI criteria, but not the common conception of serial killer) - Over narrow specifies that a serial killer must commit his crimes “in three or more separate locations. While some do span far and wide (Ted Bundy), some prefer to stay close to home and in one place (John Wayne Gacy). Main defect is what is missing from the definition – any sense of the specific nature of the crimes. When early writers used the term serial murderer or killer, they were using it to describe killers with a depravity – mostly sexual (Bundy, Gacy, Edmund Kemper, Jack the Ripper. Some experts stress the sexual motivations behind serial murder, defining it as an act of ultraviolent deviants, who get twisted pleasure from inflicting extreme harm on their victims and will continue to do so until stopped. And what of people who match this profile, but can’t be considered a serial killer because they are caught after a single homicide? Ex: James Lawson – he and his cellmate told each other their fantasies, once released from prison they abducted a woman. Lawson watched as the other guy raped her and then Lawson started cutting her with his knife – “I wanted to cut her body so she would not look like a person, and destroy her so she would not exist. I began to cut on her body. I remember cutting her breasts off. After this, all I remember is that I kept cutting on her body.” He was caught and arrested shortly after. No doubt he had the mentality of a serial killer. How many women would he had to have butchered to qualify for the label? 3 or more according to the FBI.

In an effort to bridge the gap between the many views of issues related to serial murder, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hosted a multi-disciplinary Symposium in San Antonio, Texas, on August 29, 2005 through September 2, 2005. The goal of the Symposium was to bring together a group of respected experts on serial murder from a variety of fields and specialties, to identify the commonalities of knowledge regarding serial murder. (See p. 27 in text for San Antonio Symposium details) There hadsbeen at least one attempt to formalize a definition of serial murder through legislation. In 1998, a federal law was passed by the United States Congress, titled: Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998 (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 51, and Section 1111). This law includes a definition of serial killings: 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. Although the federal law provides a definition of serial murder, it is limited in its application. The purpose of this definition was to set forth criteria establishing when the FBI could assist local law enforcement agencies with their investigation of serial murder cases. It was not intended to be a generic definition for serial murder. The Symposium attendees reviewed the previous definitions and extensively discussed the pros and cons of the numerous variations. The consensus of the Symposium attendees was to create a simple but broad definition, designed for use primarily by law enforcement. One discussion topic focused on the determination of the number of murders. One discussion topic focused on the determination of the number of murders that constituted a serial murder. Academicians and researchers were interested in establishing a specific number of murders, to allow clear inclusion criteria for their research on serial killers. However, since the definition was to be utilized by law enforcement, a lower number of victims would allow law enforcement more flexibility in committing resources to a potential serial murder investigation.

Motivation was another central element discussed in various definitions; however, attendees felt motivation did not belong in a general definition, as it would make the definition overly complex. The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included: • one or more offenders • two or more murdered victims • incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times • the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted: Symposium Definition of Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events (FBI, 2008) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE DEFINITION: The flaws with the 1992 FBI definition are rectified in another, more flexible definition formulated by the National Institute of Justice, which many authorities regard as a more accurate description: A series of two or more murder, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone. The crimes may occur over a period of time ranging from hours to years. Quite often the motive if psychological, and the offender’s behavior and the physical evidence observed at the crime scenes will reflect sadistic, sexual overtones. CATEGORIES OF CARNAGE: SERIAL/MASS/SPREE x Though most people use the terms interchangeably, there are important differences between serial murder and the other major types of multiple homicide – mass murder and spree killing. 1.

Serial Murder: For the most part, it is a sex crime – the classic pattern of serial murder is a grotesque travesty of normal sexual functioning. Think of it this way: most people who haven’t had sex for a while begin to crave it more and more, they daydream about it and in vulgar terms, they become increasingly horny. They will eventually seek out a willing partner. Once they’ve gratified their sexual urges, the need subsides for a certain period of time. In a parallel way, the serial killer spends his time fantasizing about dominance, torture and murder. In effect, he grows horny for blood. When his twisted desires get too strong to resist, he goes prowling for unwitting prey. His excitement reaches climax with the suffering and death of the victim. Afterward, he experiences a “cooling -off” period (but then it builds again – it really is a “cooling-off/building up” period). During this time, he may make use of “trophies” h e has taken from a murder scene to relive the crime in his mind, savoring the memory of his victim’s suffering. In short, their unspeakable acts are a source of supreme pleasure to serial killers, who achieve the highest pitch of arousal – even to the point of orgasm – by inflicting savage harm on other human beings.

2.

Mass Murder: (see p. 12 – text) Other than it involves multiple homicide, it has almost nothing in common with serial murder. Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident

(examples: Columbine High School, the 2007 Virginia Tech murders). While the serial killer is often seen as a predator, the mass murderer is stereotypically defined as a “human time bomb.” There have been some female mass murderers, but the preponderance are male. In general, the mass murderer is someone whose life has come unraveled (they have been thrown out by their wife, or fired, or suffered some humiliating blow that pushes them over the edge). Filled with rage at everything he blames for his failure, he explodes in a burst of devastating violence that wipes out everyone within range (going “postal”). If serial murder is, in essence, a sex crime, mass murder is almost always a suicidal one. In blind, apocalyptic fury, the mass murderer has decided to go out with a bang and take as many people with him as possible. Typically, once the bloodbath is over, the mass murderer will either end his own life or provoke a fatal shoot-out with the police (“suicide by cop”). The mass murder almost always uses a firearm, in contrast to serial killers, who (with the exception of David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz and Zodiac) prefer the sadistic “hands -on” thrill of stabbing, strangling, mauling and mutilating. Key element – happens in a single location. It is this factor that often amounts for the devastating nature of the crime. Example: Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, SanBernardino 3.

Spree Killing With one key exception, spree and mass murder are more or less identical phenomena. Like mass murderer, the spree killer is someone who has become so profoundly alienated and embittered that he no longer feels connected to human society. His life has amounted to nothing and his murderous rampage is his way of brining his intolerable existence to an explosive end. Two major motives fuel the spree killer’s final, hate-filled act: revenge against the world and a desire to show that he is a person to be reckoned with. Like the mass murderer, the spree killer sometimes targets specific victims: boss, professor, bully, but the randomness with which he mows down everyone unlucky enough to cross his path shows that his rage is really directed against society itself. The defining difference between mass and spree: motion. Whereas the mass murderer slaughters in one place, the spree killer moves from site to site, killing as he goes (in a sense “mobile mass murder”) Example: John Muhammed and Lee Malvo (DC sniper case – 2002). They terrorized DC after an initial shooting in Alabama – it was thought to be a serial killer (there was an interval between shootings, taunting messages to police, calling card left at one scene), but once caught it was obvious that Muhammed fit the definition of a spree killer: a man with a miserably failed personal life and professional life, venting his rage in a murderous vendetta against the world. Please note: The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length at the 2005 FBI Symposium. 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. (for purposes of this class, however, I would like you to have an understanding of spree murder as a third and separate category).

4.

A better term? Since mass and spree murder are essentially two manifestations of the same psychological phenomenon, a new term has recently been proposed that covers both kinds of crime. Rampage killers – a highly expressive phrase that pinpoints the essential difference between these types of offenders and serial killers.

WHO THEY ARE Apart from the obvious characteristics (sick minds, twisted desires, compulsion to kill again and again) it is hard to generalize about serial killers. There are so many exceptions to every rule that talking about the typical traits of serial killers is surprisingly tricky. For example, usually said that most serial killers are white – true in US where majority of population is white, it isn’t the case in South Africa for example, which has a startlingly high number of serial killers, almost all of them black. Even in the US, there have been plenty of African-American serial killers. It’s also part of the received wisdom of criminology that serial killers are almost always male. Again, that’s true – but only if you define “serial murder” as a very specific type of crime, namely, savagely violent sexual homicide of the kind epitomized by Jack the Ripper. The particular brand of mutilation sex-murder is, in fact, only perpetrated by men (there are no female Jack the Rippers). But under the broader definitions formulated by the FBI and NIJ, a considerable number of females qualify as serial killers. If limited to the United States and to those psychopathic sex-killers first associated with the term “serial murder” back in the 1970s and 1980s – Gacy, Bundy, Ramirez – there are certain general statements that hold true. The sort of serial killer most people think of when they hear that term is a white male between the ages of 25 and 35. He is not psychotic but rather psychopathic, suffering from what is often referred to today as “Antisocial Personality Disorder”. He is most probably an extreme loner – a socially maladjusted misfit with few, if any, meaningful relationships. Cut off from the world of normal human connections, he indulges in particularly vivid, highly perverse fantasies of torture, domination and murder. AT some point, he crosses a line and acts out these fantasies on actual victims. Depending on his sexual orientation – whether he is gay or heterosexual serial killer – his victims will either be male or female. Though profoundly disturbed in his emotional and psychological makeup, he is not intellectually deficient. On the contrary, he has an above-average intelligence, combined with a criminal cunning that allows him to escape detection long enough o perpetrate a series of atrocities. Ten Traits of Serial Killers In 1984 Robert Ressler and John Douglas of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, along with Professors Ann W. Burgess and Ralph D’Agostino, delivered a seminal paper on serial murder to the International Association of Forensic Sciences in Oxford, England. It was based on a study of 36 jailed offenders, including Edmund Kemper and Herbert Mullin. In their presentation, they listed the following traits as the “general characteristics” of these killers: 1. Most are single white males (HOWEVER – 1 in 5 US serial killers is black) 2. They tend to be smart, with a mean IQ of “bright normal.” 3. Despite their intelligence, they do poorly in school, have spotty employment records, and generally end up as unskilled workers. 4. They come from deeply troubled families. Typically, they have been abandoned at an early age by their fathers and grow up in broken homes dominated by their mothers. 5. There is a long history of psychiatric problems, criminal behavior, and alcoholism in their families 6. As children, they suffer significant abuse – sometimes psychological, sometimes physical, often sexual. Such brutal mistreatment instills them with profound feelings of humiliation and helplessness. 7. Because of their resentment toward their distant, absent or abusive fathers, they have a great deal of trouble with male authority figures. Because they were dominated by their mothers, they have a powerful hostility toward women.

8. 9.

They manifest psychiatric problems at an early age and often spend time in institutions as children. Because of their extreme social isolation and general hatred of the world and everyone in it (including themselves) they often feel suicidal as teenagers.

It is important to remember, however, that these traits were extrapolated from a small sample of 36 sadistic lust-murderers, all men and most of them white. There are many other serial killers who possess different characteristics. (See text for Myth vs. Fact)

PSYCHOPATH VS. PSYCHOTIC Psychopaths: The Mask of Sanity Serial killers have a dead conscience. No morals, no scruples, no conscience. – Richard “Night Stalker” Ramirez x

x x

x

x

Most serial killers fall into the category of Psychopath (sociopath). They are not legally insane. They know the difference between right and wrong. They are rational, often highly intelligent people. Some are capable of great charm. The scariest thing about them is that they seem so normal. They are consummate chameleons, able through years of practice to conceal their brooding rage behind civilized, even charming façade. Their pleasant personalities, however, are just a show. Underneath their “mask of sanity” (phrase coined by psychologist Hervey Cleckley in 1982) they are profoundly disturbed individuals. The most striking feature of the psychopathic personality is his utter lack of empathy. He is incapable of love, incapable of caring, incapable of feeling sorry for anyone but himself. Other people are simply ...