Talk:Serial killer

Theories

An observation regarding the so-called "military theory". The article states "The "military theory" can be included as to why serial murderers kill. Looking deeper into some serial murderer's pasts reveals that some have served in the military or other such fields. According to Castle and Hensley, 7% of the serial killers studied had military experience". ONLY 7%? Considering that according to the US Census Bureau 9% of Americans have served in the military it seems that, if anything, serving in the military REDUCES the chances of a serial killer developing.

Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers

Now of course these two terms are used interchangeably and can mean the same thing, but I what I mean by "maintaining a difference between them" is that not all serial murderers are termed "serial killers" by medical professionals/criminologists/etc. The term "serial killer" has a more specific definition, while "serial murder" can include war vets or other such soldiers who have killed countless men, a mob boss who has killed several men, a gang member who has killed several men (as plenty of gang members have), etc., etc. Understand the difference? These examples are not accurately termed "serial killers." They have killed more than two or three people and can be termed "serial murderers," sure, but they are not what experts would define as serial killers in the sense that the lead of this article defines them. The same goes for spree killers such as John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. I touched on this above, in the African American serial killers section. And the recent information added by NK456 on African serial murders doesn't sound much like "true serial killing" either. Anyone with access to the books by Hickey, Holmes, Ressler, and Mouzos, I ask that you check out the accuracy of this information of African murderers -- how the authors are using the term. Frankly, I am starting to be against any source using "serial murderer" instead of "serial killer." We might as well list all of the military if we are going to be defining "serial killer" as anyone who has killed more than two or three people. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a few of those books in hardcopy. I will post a little later once I find were I put them.Legitimus (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Legitimus. I knew you had something about Holmes. And you do understand what I mean about the definitions, right? Spree killers, for example, are not considered true serial killers in the way the term has come to be defined. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok now that I've had a chance to take a closer look at this, I may not be as useful as I had hoped. I used to have a strong interest in the subject (heck I even shook hands with Special Agent John E. Douglas once), but that was many years ago and looking over the book sources in this article, I feel I have gotten a bit rusty on the subject. I do however have copies of a few recent books of note. I have Holmes and Holmes "Profiling Violence Crime" 4th Edition (2009) and the Crime Classification Manual, 2nd Edition (2006), both of which are popular reading for the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit. Holmes titles Chapter 7 as "Profiling Serial Murderers" yet uses the term Serial Killer in the chapter for typologies. I believe he uses the terms interchangeably. The Crime Classification Manual also used the term "Serial Murder." For this reason, I think the popularity of "killer" might just be linguistic: "Killer" is easier to say for English speakers than "Murderer". I have met people who literally cannot pronounce "murderer" out loud without muddling it.

All of the technical definitions I have read so far seem to provide specific rules or reasons that make a serial killer distinct from the examples you provided, in that there is more to it than body count. All definitions seem to indicate that each kill is a single isolated "event," that a definite period of cooling off occurs, where emotions subside and they go about their "normal" lives, and that the motive is psychological gratification of some kind, even if the kill also has some "fringe benefits."Legitimus (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You're still helpful either way. Thank you.

I know that "serial killer" and "serial murderer" are used interchangeably and pretty much mean the same thing, as I stated above, but it seems that some sources (especially news sources) take any type of body count to mean "serial killer." John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo are often touted as serial killers (even in scholarly sources, I think). So much so that I had to tweak the John Allen Muhammad article to state him as a spree killer first and foremost...and then note him as being referred to as a serial killer by the media. I even put a hidden note in the lead of his article, and there is a debate on his talk page about whether to refer to him as a serial killer or a spree killer. I mean, really, if reliable sources are referring to these guys as serial killers, what can we do to combat that? It reminds me of people wrongly referring to individuals as pedophiles. This is why I feel "serial murderer" is often about body count, because almost any time I see it, I see names such as John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo thrown in. In reputable, non-news sources, however, "serial killer" is used more accurately. What you state about the definition is exactly what I mean. It's also why I am skeptical of the new information added about African serial murderers. It just sounds like the sources are talking about body count to me -- that these individuals are referred to as "serial murderers" because they have murdered more than two or three people. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Beltway Sniper's typology is debated even by experts in the very books we're reading. The Crime Classification Manual contains them as a case study, and implies they are both spree and serial. They are mentioned directly under Spree Killer, yet the case study contains this statement:

“ The thirteen victims, ten dead and three wounded, qualify this crime as serial, given the cooling-off period between each of the shootings. It could also be argued that the crime was a group cause given that Malvo has been directly implicated in at least two of the shootings and the actions were committed by two individuals who arguably had similar ideologies. ”

Media sources at issue do require investigation though. I would argue that in some cases, news sources should have lower priority than reputable book sources, since forensic psychology is arguably a science that media is notorious for screwing up.Legitimus (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for Muhammad and Malvo, that's why I stated, "...even in scholarly sources, I think." But I am certain that most experts would label them as spree killers when compared to what typically defines a serial killer, which is why they are classified under "Spree Killer" first foremost in the manual you speak of. The "cooling-off period"... What is and what is not a "cooling-off period" is debatable, which is why the spree killer category "has, however, been found to be of no real value to law enforcement, because of definitional problems relating to the concept of a "cooling-off period," as stated in the Spree killer article. But I always figured the "cooling-off period" to usually be "significant" in serial killer cases. At least that's what I've studied. And the Spree killer article says "...the lack of a cooling-off period marking the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder." Notice it says "lack of." I've never come across a serial killer case where the killings happen so often, sometimes within an hour of each other. If you look at the dates of the Beltway sniper attacks, they take place just a day later, on the same day in between hours, or only just a few days later. That is not a true "cooling-off period" to me. And, actually, any killer who has killed more than two or three people could be said to have "a cooling-off period," including murderous gang members. It's not as though any killer murders non-stop. So, given that, and not fitting the typical characteristics, I truly cannot see Muhammad and Malvo as serial killers in the true sense. And by "true sense," I mean how the term has come to be used in research fields. Not fitting the typical characteristics is not a reason to discount them, but I feel that it is when combining that with the style of their attacks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting here late - but i just happen to read a book that talks about this topic.Curt R. Bartol; Anne M. Bartol. 2008 Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Behavior. SAGE. p. 61. ISBN 9781412958318. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help) In a short form I believe it's saying - Serial killers: kills for the fun of it - as in they simply are killing to kill for the enjoyment/thrill of it with no other motivation. A serial murderer: kills for a purpose other then to simply kill - as in there is a an outcome they hope to gain by the killings be it monetary, political, military, social standing etc. But this is not clear as the book mentions - simply hard to class like this. Moxy (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, Moxy. I wasn't aware there would be sources out there actually distinguishing between the terms since, for the most part, they mean the same thing. I was just trying to make a point -- that one can have killed several people and therefore accurately fit the title of a "serial murderer" due to body count...but not fit the correct definition/criteria of a serial killer (the definitions/criteria that have come to be used in research fields). I've never seen the terms distinguished in the way you just stated, especially since some people, specifically women, who are considered serial killers by experts do kill for financial/personal gain. The so-called "black widows." Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

NOTE: POORLY SOURCED INFORMATION, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, AND POV WILL BE REMOVED. PLEASE DISCUSS MAJOR CHANGES ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST. Recent changes dubious. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you mean the recent information added about "African serial murderers," right, Doc? It was toned down at least. There was more than that before. I wouldn't say all significant changes need to be discussed here first, but I understand what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

TY Flyer! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't even have a lead paragraph! Significant changes need to be made, as the article meanders. Not even close to collegiate quality. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read the notes above. I see Flyer you have put a lot of thought and work into this piece. A cold reading by myself immediately put me into prof mode (I am retired). The South Africa stuff had to go. I have no doubt from your remarks that we can fix this article, I will try to leave my instructor hat off ;-) Looking forward to working with you.Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right on the tags, I couldn't find the right templates. I figured you would jump in,help! Thanks ;;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, DocOfSoc. And I understand you removing most of the South African information, per the concerns expressed by me above...and it looks like your own concerns as well. I'm not sure what you mean about this article not having a lead paragraph, though. We clearly start out with the most common definition of a serial killer and then explain the rest/more detailed stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All edits made after 3 am are suspect! I take it back, it was the middle of the night and I was cross eyed. Was looking at.. who knows? LOL It is actually a pretty good lead! Sorry, backing up the truck here :-D — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL!!!! I understand 3AM cross-eyedness all too well. You're forgiven. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

TYTY!! You are a treasure! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked TheCrow200 to weigh in on his or her additions here. I'm not seeing why this South African information is needed in the Characteristics section and why we should give undue weight to one ethnicity. If we are going to keep this South African information (we already left a little in the article), I would prefer we keep this toned down version that DocOfSoc removed. I still feel that they are not speaking of true serial killers, though, per what I stated in the section right above this.

Also, to TheCrow200...changes to the wording already present in the article should not be made unless those changes are backed up by the sources they are attributed to. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If the South Africa section is included, we open the Pandora's box of how may other countries on the planet do we include. Also, the point about South Africa's ban on porno, has not been sufficiently researched. I am willing to bet that many porn magazines could still be found between the mattresses of many young males. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Source

Flyer have you read "Guilty by Reason of Insanity" By Dr. Dorothy Lewis. It has some incredible insights into the minds of killers. Most of them are not truly DX'd.You can get it used, cheap, on Amazon. I would HIGHLY recommend it! For the depth of info, it is an easy read. Will be expanding on it further, after you read it ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it. But I always take into consideration recommendations when it comes to reading. I can't say I have the time to look for and read the book these days. But I'll try to remember to read it in the future. If this discussion continues much further, we should probably transfer it to my talk page, though, before we are thought to be going against WP:NOTAFORUM. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I do recommend the book to anyone working in this genre. The author is highly respected in the US for asssessing

Killers in tandem with a well know neurologist. Her take on Ted Bundy is esp good. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic?/Psychopathy

• Under the heading "Characteristics," the subject of the article changes suddenly from "serial killers" to "psychopaths" (I've marked this exact area with an "off-topic?" template). Why is there no transition here? If a comparison is being made between the two, there should be some kind of segue such as "A variety of scholars believe that a person's being a serial killer correlates with their being a psychopath" with a good deal of reliable sources, examples, and so on presented (perhaps even a percentage that such a scholar estimates of serial killers who are psychopaths...or at least that kind of empirical or widely supported research). This is an article on serial killers, not psychopaths, so if the latter is to be discussed, there must be some logical connection made between the two--hopefully supported by some solid sources. I just don't understand why psychopaths are suddenly being explained in the body of this article, out of the blue, when this is an article on serial killers. A rational relationship between the two terms must be articulated, otherwise the whole "psychopaths" commentary is a non-sequitur. Wolfdog (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Information about psychopaths should definitely be mentioned, as serial killers are largely considered psychopaths, but you are right that there needs to be a better transition into that regarding the text. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

America-centered - possibly?

Autochthony writes: although the section of the article covering the FBI's efforts to aid detection and apprehension [and subsequnt trial] of these malefactors is a welcome dse of reality, it is rather America-specific, I feel. If the advice was generalised - 'in multi-authority areas' rather than quoting the undoubted fact that the US is a multi-authority area - I would be a bit happier - and wouldn't have written this. Should I make the edit?? Autochthony wrote - 2106z 08 July 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.55.253 (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)