Category: Criminal Behavior

Essay on Assessing the Sanity of People with Mental Disorders for Criminal Behaviour

Laws and regulations concerning the insanity defense have been under constant change. When is someone deemed legally insane? And how can we determine insanity based on psychology and law? This paper provides an overview of the different laws used to determine insanity over the decades and the implication of psychological input in court.

Criteria of the Insanity Defense in Court

The M’Naghten Rule

The M´Naghten rule, established in the 1840s, entails two criteria to determine whether someone eligible is for the insanity defense. The first criterion is that it has to be proven that they suffered from a mental disease at the time of the crime. Until there is sufficient proof, it is presumed that the defendant is sane. In addition, it has to be established whether the defendant can distinguish between right and wrong and therefore understands the severity of the crime. If the defendant does not understand the nature of his crime and the presence of a mental disease is proven, they cannot be found guilty of their crime and are eligible for the insanity defense based on the M´Naghten rule. The second criterion is heavily criticized as it is seen as overemphasizing the defect and cognition of reason. The rule also does not define when the capacity is deemed enough to be held accountable for the crime.

The Irresistible Impulse Test

The irresistible impulse test was adopted in 1887 and expands the M´Naghten rule. It encompasses whether the defendant could control the impulses that led to the action. It must be proven that a mental disease/illness is present and that this illness must be the cause for the inability to control their actions to use this test for a criminal defense. To establish this, a testimony of a medical professional following a medical examination may be required. The evidence based on the testimony needs to prove the condition and its effect on behavior. It is criticized that the definition of insanity is too broad and therefore fails to establish which acts can be deemed uncontrollable or controllable. The rule also excludes everyone who was able to control their actions, which in turn can be deemed as too narrow.

The Model Penal Code (ALI)

To combine the most important criteria of the M`Naghten rule and the irresistible impulse test, the Model Penal Code was formed by the American Law Institute in 1962. This code states that one cannot be held accountable for a crime when one could not control their action or impulse. The M`Naghten rule was incorporated through the criteria of whether the defendant can understand right from wrong and awareness that their action was against the law.

The Durham Rule/Product Defect Rule

The Durham rule was founded in 1954 by the Circuit Court of Appeals (District of Columbia). The rule serves the purpose of determining criminal responsibility and gives mental illness a definition that can be used in court as an insanity defense. This, in turn, increased the importance of psychiatric testimony in court. The rule states that a person cannot be convicted of a crime if the act committed was due to a mental illness or defect. A mental defect is here defined as a condition that will not get better or worse, while a mental illness/disease can get better or worse. The Durham rule comes into effect when it can be considered that the criminal act committed would not have happened without the existence of a mental illness or defect, and the defendant suffered from it at the time of the crime. It has been criticized that no official medical diagnosis was necessary and that it gave too much power to the decision of the psychiatrist concerning whether the defendant is to be determined sane or insane. Their decision was able to determine the outcome of the court case. In addition, the definition of what is considered a defect is considered too broad. Considering the definition used for the Durham rule, a defect can be the result of a cognitive or physical deficit, such as an injury. Therefore, the Durham rule was abandoned in 1972, but it can be said that it was a forerunner to the current rules used to determine criminal responsibility.

The Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (RCRAS)

The Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale (RCRAS) is a decision model used to asses insanity as well as cognitive impairment at the time of the crime. The test consists of five psychological variables significant to the subject (reliability, organic factors, psychopathology, cognitive control, and behavioral control). These five variables are assessed on a basis of 25 items that the subject has to rate on a 0-6 scale. The assessment scale has good inter-rater reliability and a kappa of approximately 0.73. Additionally, the RCRAS is applicable to persons of different variables such as gender, race, education, prior criminal activity, or clinical diagnosis.

Criteria of Insanity/Criminal Responsibility from a Psychologist’s View

How Do Psychologists Assess Insanity?

For an insanity examination to be valid, three conditions must be met, according to Rogers, Wasyliw, and Cavanaugh (1984). The construct of insanity must be clearly defined. Further, the psychologist or clinician conducting the assessment must comprehend the legal as well as the psychological elements involved in the insanity defense. Lastly, the procedures to assess insanity must be proven reliable and valid in determining insanity.

Psychologists conduct interviews to asses insanity as well as use assessment tools such as the RCAS, which increases the validity and reliability of their initial assessment. These kinds of tests are also capable of detecting malingering, which influences the outcome of the assessment next to other biases.

The psychiatric interview should take into consideration both the statement and history of the subject, as well as outside sources. That way one might reach more dependable information regarding the subject as self-serving biases and malingering can occur. During the course of the interview, the psychologist tries to get an overview of the subject’s mental health. Counting to that is whether delusions or hallucinations are present, their insight and orientation into their surroundings and relation with others, their memory, thought processes, and emotional reactions. It has to be taken into consideration that to fully encompass every aspect of the named areas of a mental examination might take several interviews. The psychologist or clinician conducting the interview might also make a physical examination to identify different causes, such as brain abnormalities.

Despite trying to identify the cause of the behavior, it is important to determine whether the person could control their behavior and whether that behavior is stable. Stability refers to whether the action was temporary or constant. When trying to understand the behavior, the psychologist also tries to differentiate between internal causes, like personality or free choice, and situational or external causes, such as the influence of others.

Psychological Input in Court

Psychological assessment of criminals in court was first conducted by medical practitioners. Only after the Second World War in the 1900s were psychologists allowed to assess criminal insanity and provide input in court. The role of the psychologist in court is to assist the judge and tier of fact in deciding on the ability of the subject to be held accountable for their crime. They do so in determining the mental state and the mental illness, if present, and present those to the court. This assessment helps to determine the applicability of the Modal Penal Code and the other rules, as well as to assess the mental state at the time of the crime. Only psychologists who are specialized and specially trained are allowed to testify in court. This training encompasses specialization in mental state examination, diagnosis of forensically relevant mental illnesses, and assessment of biases and malingering. When assessing the psychologist must be aware of the limits of their competency and must state so when testifying in court.

The Importance of Neuroscience and the Decision-Making Process

The field of neuroscience could prove to be a great help to forensic psychologists in determining whether a defendant can be deemed criminally insane. Test results could prove a mental disorder based on evidence in the form of brain scans and neurological mechanisms. In addition, it enables a deeper understanding of the disorders in a matter of how they influence the decision-making process. A study about schizophrenia found deficits in decision-making linked to the ventromedial and orbitofrontal cortex. Deficits included slower decision-making and making less optimal choices when the participant was provided with guiding information. This shows that neurobiology and tests on decision-making could provide useful insight into the severity of a mental disorder and, therefore, if the defendant is eligible for the insanity defense. Neuroimaging can also prove to be important as disruptions in the brain through tumors and hormonal or neurotransmitter imbalances can lead to criminal behaviors. These disruptions may directly influence aggression and impulse control through the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, respectively. With neuroimaging techniques, these disruptions could be made visible and be used in court to reach the verdict of ‘not guilty because of insanity’.

The three phases of decision-making (generation of options, selection, and initiation) can be influenced depending on the mental disorder. Some disorders influence one of the phases, all three, or bypass the whole process. According to the DSM-V, one can infer what kind of influence a specific mental disorder has on the decision-making process. An example of the influence of a mental disorder might be a psychotic disorder that affects the first phase, the generation of options. Behavioral options might be generated and chosen that are not available or would not appear in a normal thought process. Another example that influences all three and constrains the decision-making process would be Tourette syndrome, which is characterized by involuntary tics. Such information should prove to be relevant in court, as the judge might conclude that the defendant is not guilty since the decision-making process was bypassed or strongly influenced by a mental disorder.

Conclusion

There will always be a debate on when someone can be deemed legally insane. It is difficult to determine when a person cannot be deemed in the right mindset to adhere to their crime. Therefore, the testimony of forensic psychologists plays a detrimental role in assessing this. Until recently, there was no way of proving that someone suffers from a mental illness, and forensic psychologists could only provide their statement to the court. This cannot be considered evidence in court. If the psychological assessment of a defendant would incorporate a neurological assessment using brain screening techniques on the suspicion of a mental disorder, it could provide scientific evidence that could argue in favor or against the defendant. Neuroimaging techniques would therefore provide increased validity and reliability in the process of determining insanity, as well as help determine a threshold for legal and moral insanity. Meynen (2013) suggests the combined work of psychiatrists, lawyers, and neuroscientists in reviewing and interpreting such new techniques.

Relevance

The debate on legal insanity is and will be relevant for the future as the insanity defense is used in many court cases. In those cases, it is important to correctly determine whether someone can be deemed legally insane or not. The verdict influences the further proceedings of the accused. On the one hand, if one suffers from a mental disorder, they would be better helped at a mental hospital where the mental disorder could be cared for, treated, and observed by professionals or a prison that can provide these kinds of services. On the other hand, the insanity defense can be misused as the prison sentence might be less severe or the person is transferred to a mental institution. To avoid this, it is important for forensic psychologists and neuroscientists to revise and elaborate the defense with new scientific evidence to identify insanity with a higher validity and accuracy that would be applicable in court.

References

1. Abrams, N. (1979). Definitions of Mental Illness and the Insanity Defense. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 7(4), pp.441-456. doi:10.1177/009318537900700404.
2. Costanzo, M. L., & Costanzo, M. A. (2013). Teaching Clinical (and Nonclinical) Psychology Through Applications to the Legal System: Violence Risk Assessment and the Insanity Defense. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), pp.252-256.
3. Meynen, G. (2013). A Neurolaw Perspective on Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Decision-Making, Mental Disorder, and the Brain. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(2), pp.93-99.
4. Murray Ferguson & James R. P. Ogloff (2011). Criminal Responsibility Evaluations: Role of Psychologists in Assessment, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18:1, pp.79-94, doi: 10.1080/13218719.2010.482952.
5. Overholser, W. (1962). Criminal Responsibility: A Psychiatrist’s Viewpoint. ABAJ, 48, pp.527-531.
6. Rogers, R., Wasyliw, O. E., & Cavanaugh, J. L. (1984). Evaluating Insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8(3-4), pp.293-303.
7. Wechsler, H. (1954). The Criteria of Criminal Responsibility. U. Chi. L. Rev., 22, pp.367-376.

Serial Killer: Informative Speech

Serial killers are one of the most notorious criminals for the past several decades. They have proven their reputation to the world, killing in the most gruesome way they can think of. While some serial killers like Ted Bundy, Andrei Chikatilo, Jeffrey Dahmer, and many more are already behind bars, there are those who managed to get away with their crimes like the infamous ‘Jack the Ripper.’

The Federal Bureau of Investigation defined a serial killer as someone who has killed more than three people. An article by the Paranormal Guide reported that the 1980s was the golden time for serial killers. It has been recorded that during that decade, there were about 765 serial killers who are out there murdering people. However, many of these serial murderers are not caught. An article by Live Science reported that since 1980, there are at least 2,000 unrecognized series of homicides.

With that, thousands of people around the world have made their own assumptions as to why serial killers prefer to commit murder or other gruesome acts. Fortunately, researchers and psychologists are doing their own studies to further understand their prevalence around the world.

Prevalence of Serial Killers

Why are serial killers terrifyingly more popular than any other criminals? Simply because they cause more deaths than an ordinary murderer or criminals. However, cases like these are also one of the most difficult to solve especially if the serial killer is notorious for its kind.

According to an article by Forbes, serial murders can be difficult to solve for several reasons. First, these killers may have no close connection to the victims, making it difficult for the police to link them to crime. Another is the failure of the police to share information about crimes or what they call ‘linkage blindness.’ This is particularly important to connect one crime to the other especially if they have already different jurisdictions.

It has been recorded that the total figures showed that there have been 3029 male serial killers and only 309 females for the past 11 decades. This is contrary to popular belief that only men can commit serial murders because most of the time, they are portrayed as victims. Although there has been a number of male serial killers than females throughout time, the presence of female serial murders is well documented in the crime data. The Scientific American reported that in the United States alone, 17 percent of all serial homicides are committed by women.

There are several reasons why serial killers murder many people throughout their lifetime. Their primary purpose is sexual satisfaction because they wanted to feel empowered. This is followed by financial gain then gang activity, anger, attention, to avoid arrest, hallucinations, and others. What’s more surprising is that the average IQ of a serial killer is 94.1.

The Difference Between Male and Female Serial Killers

Now that we have established that women have also the capacity to commit serial murders, let’s know the difference between male and female serial killers. In a recent study conducted by researchers from Penn State, they found out that male and female serial killers tend to choose their victims and commit crimes in different ways probably because of thousands of years of psychological evolution.

Male serial killers, they choose their victims who are strangers to them. Meanwhile, females tend to ‘gather’ their victims and target people who they may already know mostly because of financial gain. In an interview, Marissa Harrison, associate professor of psychology at Penn State Harrisburg stated that the results of this study can contribute to the future of murder investigations.

Since murders committed by serial killers are often difficult to solve, police use details of the crime to create a profile of the possible criminal. ‘So if you know that men are more likely to commit a crime in a certain way and women are more likely to do it another, hopefully, it can help investigators go down the correct path,’ Harrison said. She also said that although serial killers are popular in some ways, there has been little research about them because they are rare.

According to an article by Science Daily, the difference between how male and female serial killers choose their victims and they will commit the crime goes back to the ancient roles. Historically, men were tasked to hunt animals for survival while women are those who gather nearby resources such as plants and grains.

The researchers used reliable and reputable news sources such as Reuters, Associated Press, TV networks, and national and local newspapers to gather data about serial killers. They used the information of 55 male serial killers and 55 females from the U.S. The results show that there are six times more male serial killers who are more likely to murder a stranger. Female serial killers, on the other hand, are almost twice as likely to kill a person they already knew.

Additionally, the study also revealed that 65.4% of male serial murderers stalked their victims while females are only 3.6%. ‘In our sample, there were two female serial killers who engaged in stalking-like behavior during their crimes. Interestingly, reports indicate that men were also involved in those crimes,’ Harrison said.

References:

1. http://www.theparanormalguide.com/blog/serial-killer-statistics
2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-myths-about-serial-killers-and-why-they-persist-excerpt/

Nature Vs Nurture: Serial Killers Research

Are hedonistic serial killers born with tendencies to kill?

How is it possible that two men could witness death during their childhood, yet one turned out to be a famous writer and the other became a serial killer? A serial killer is an individual that kills a minimum of three people in separate events over a certain period. Hedonistic serial killers are driven by their need for sexual gratification or financial gain. For this type of serial killer, murder is a form of expression rather than violence; they express their demand for dominance and authority. These serial killers often crave the publicity and fame received for their crimes and they desire to make the top news headlines. The fear other people experience when they hear the murders they committed, reinforces a serial killer’s lust for power and control (1). Jeffrey Dahmer, Ottis Toole, and John Wayne Gacy are examples of notorious serial killers that fantasized extensively about murder. What made these men commit vile and sickening acts? Some would say it is their genetic make-up and others would say the environment is the main influencer- the nature and nurture argument. Nature alludes to the idea that the combination of inherited genes and hereditary aspects determine the makeup of an individual: nature aspects are unavoidable and predetermined. Whereas nurture suggests we are influenced by environmental aspects including childhood events, upbringing, and childhood interactions. Several studies have looked into two genes that supposedly make people more prone to violence. These genes are the monoamine-oxidase-A (MAOA) gene, commonly known as the “warrior gene” and the Cadherin 13 (CDH13) gene. The MAOA gene is responsible for over-exposing people to serotonin and CDH13 is responsible for the development of connections between neurons in the brain, playing a key role in the development of ADHD (2). Jim Fallon clarifies that the key deciding element to determining a serial killer is exposure to extreme cruelty during adolescence. Fallon explains that the only way the MAOA variant gene can be expressed is if a young child has observed or been involved in a stressful and harrowing event. Sasha Reid has analyzed about 70 serial killers and found that many serial killers survived horrific abuse, leading to their belief that the world is full of mistreatment. Serial killers often misinterpret gentle social signals as threats and accuse others of their problems. They feel as though they aren’t understood and as a result, they isolate themselves. Serial killers feel as though the world is full of hatred, and as a consequence, they create their own worlds where they have the ultimate control and authority. Some serial killers’ genetic predisposition may play a large role in their development, while life circumstances may be more critical for others (3).

Are serial killers born with sadistic tendencies?

Professor Jari Tiihonen, Department of Clinical Neurobiology, analyzed the genetic material of 895 Finnish criminals in 2015 and learned that the majority of them carried the genes MAOA and CDH13. Professor Tiihonen and his team at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden looked into these genes and discovered that monoamine oxidase A low-activity gene (MAOA-L) combined with the CDH13 gene are correlated with exceedingly aggressive behavior. They found that MAOA-L contributed to low dopamine levels and CDH13 coded for neuronal membrane proteins, which overall contribute to sadistic acts. However, they found that the MAOA-L gene has no impact on less violent crime. They believed that less violent acts are more likely to be caused by social aspects. Tiihonen’s final report concluded that “roughly 5-10% of all brutal misdemeanor in Finland is attributable to the MAOA and CDH13 genes” (4). Those in possession of both versions of the gene are thirteen times more probable to commit sadistic crimes, compared to those that don’t have any versions of these genes. However, Tiihonen did also mention that adding alcohol andor drugs to an individual who possesses these genes, presents the “perfect recipe” to make a serial killer (2). A study by Han Brunner et al. (1993) discovered that people with the low activity form of MAOA produce a reduced amount of enzyme. This low-activity version has been positively correlated with belligerence. Brunner studied 28 men from a Dutch family who displayed evil behavior such as attempted rape, arson, and impulsive aggression. Brunner had discovered that these men had unusually low levels of MAOA and they behaved violently when enraged, frightened, or irritated (5). The MAOA gene is also thought to affect neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine. Despite this, Brunner suggested that it seems as though the low activity version is only related to hostility when mixed with distressing events that occurred in an individual’s childhood. This indicates that an association of genetics and the environment work together to determine the hostility within a human. MAOA-L is mainly expressed in men as it is sex-linked and exists on the X chromosome, though it is only present in roughly 13 of men in Western populations. Consequently, hostility in women and the other 23 men from Western populations cannot be accounted for, meaning that there must be some other justification for hostility (6). Research into this gene is ongoing and the fact that it has been proven to promote violence supports the hypothesis that serial killers are born not made. Research into this gene can help future scientists to come up with suggestions for ways to reduce the impact the gene can have on an individual and their adult personality.

Dr. Richard Davidson had organized brain scans for people who were more likely to act aggressively and compared them to a group of normal individuals. A total of 500 brain scans were compared and it was discovered that the brain scans of the violent individuals, who had been convicted of homicide or antisocial behavior, showed distinct brain activity compared to the normal people. The brain scans revealed a correlation between the orbitofrontal cortex and the amygdala, which has been found to regulate responses to fears and focus on the “fight or flight” response. They had learned that the amygdala remained at the same level as the normal individuals but for some, the level of activity increased, and the orbitofrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex had reduced, or it was no longer present (7). Jeffrey Dahmer was assessed just before his trial and it was discovered that he had borderline personality disorder. This disorder may explain why serial killers impulsively murder and torture in a state of frenzy without planning or covering up the homicide. Ansevics and Doweiko conducted a study and they seem to exaggerate the responsibility that borderline personality disorder plays among serial killers. Most serial killers are organized in the way they enter and leave the crime scene which contradicts the common traits of a person diagnosed with this disorder e.g., impulsivity (8). Dr. Helen Morrison has done intense research into the brains of 135 serial killers. She found a specific chromosome that is noticeable during puberty, which acted as a trigger for abnormal behavior. Once she had taken brain scans on the serial killers, she discovered that this chromosome had led them to develop the belief that they didn’t belong in the world. As a result, serial killers have a lack of empathy for others, especially their victims. Jim Fallon indicates that different types of killers emerge depending on when the damage to the brain occurred. Of all the murderer and serial killer brains that Fallon looked at, it was apparent that they all had received damage to their orbital cortex and the interior region of the temporal lobe which supports Davidson’s research. MAOA (the “warrior gene”) is related to too much serotonin and this results in your brain becoming insensitive to it, impacting how the individual will behave in the future. Fallon indicates that the only way the MAOA gene could release excess serotonin is if the individual witnessed or was involved in a traumatic event. He suggested that the gene when combined with seeing a lot of violence is a “recipe for disaster” (9).

Dr Adrian Raine, author of the “Anatomy of Violence”, and criminologist, researched the MAOA gene. Raine conducted a PET scan of 41 convicted killers and compared them to a “normal” control group. He conducted this research based on the findings that the MAOA enzyme is low in antisocial individuals. His research led to the discovery that males with a common variant in the MAOA gene had an 8% reduction of amygdala volume and it was overactive (9). Raine came up with a hypothesis that suggests that genetic abnormalities result in abnormal brain structures resulting in cognitive, emotional, and behavioral irregularities, in turn resulting in disruptive behavior. However, Raine also suggested that both social and biological factors contribute to a serial killer’s making. The MAOA gene can have different variants and those with MAOA-L (low activity MAOA) are increasingly likely to display more sadistic behavior. However, he discovered that this occurs in conjunction with an abusive upbringing. Jim Clements, a profiler for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had come up with an analogy that referred to a gun. He had said that genetics load the gun, an individual’s personality and psychology aim it. Then finally, the individual’s experiences pull the trigger (10). Raine supports the idea that serial killers are born with these tendencies however, he also suggests that personality and upbringing play a role in the making of a serial killer- nurture also has an impact on a serial killer.

Are hedonistic serial killers made?

It was learned that serial killers experience similar emotional developmental difficulties. An individual’s connection with their mother is essential for the proper development of their temperament. A serial killer’s personality advances into the belief of self-importance and they become selfish. This is apparent as serial killers lack repentance, compassion, and affection toward others. One of the key elements that a selection of serial killers have in common, is that they were given up for adoption at a young age. This could imply that a lack of attention during their most fundamental period of progression may have caused them to grow up and behave the way they do. Some serial killers experienced bullying from their peers and felt extreme loneliness during their childhood. Sigmund Freud proposes that males want to reach autonomy with their mother and when unsuccessful, the males will be enraged. Feminists argue that the blame that is placed on the mother for the making of serial killers is just another way for men to blame women for their downfalls. This is empirically supported to an extent however, 66% of serial murderers were raised by their mother who was also their dominant parent figure. It has also been noted that during serial killers’ early years of progression, there was the absence of a father figure which they would take out on other women in the future as they were disgusted by their mother image (11). There is evidence to support the idea of serial killers lack an authoritative figure which could have led to deviance and a need for control. However, since some serial killers did have the presence of an influential figure, the mother, the theory is also contradicted.

Guy (2015) assessed trauma experienced during a person’s youth concerning criminal inclinations among prison inmates. He examined 200 prison inmates and data was accumulated through interviews and the use of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and Dissociative Experiences Scale. It was found that psychiatric disease and previous suicide attempts were more common in females compared to males. However, males were younger when they committed their first act of crime, they had higher rates of substance abuse and had previous convictions. It was also discovered that females had an increased number of violent crimes and got overall greater scores on the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. A correlation between the CTQ score and the age of their first offense was established. Overall, the findings show a high occurrence of childhood trauma in a group of imprisoned males and females that committed violent acts (12). An experiment looking into the occurrence of abuse experienced during an individual’s adolescence was conducted by Mitchell and Aamodt (2005). The study involved hedonistic killers who were born in the United States and overall, 50 serial murderers were assessed for the investigation. It was discovered that of the 50 serial killers; 68% experienced some type of maltreatment, 36% experienced physical abuse, 26% were sexually abused, 50% were psychologically abused, 18% were neglected, and 32% experienced no abuse. As emotional abuse had the highest occurrence in serial killers (50%) Mitchell and Aamodt correlated this against the occurrence of emotional abuse in the general population of the United States which was a mere 2%; a 48% difference. In conclusion, child abuse occurs more frequently in serial murderers compared to the U.S. population. Some serial killers may not have informed anyone about the mistreatment they experienced or wanted to admit that they had been abused which may mean the findings are not an accurate representation. But considering this idea, the common occurrence of childhood abuse may be a supporting component to the creation of a serial killer but because not all serial killers were mistreated it may just be one of many factors that contribute to their making.

Narrative Essay about Someone Who Got a DUI

About a year ago I made the biggest mistake of my life, I drove under the influence of marijuana. Since then, my life has changed in immense ways. I have experienced things I shouldn’t ever have experienced as a teen. I have seen the inside of a police car, a ten-week intensive substance abuse program, and the inside of a courtroom. I have lost more than most people my age can say, like my license, my parent’s trust, and my ignorant innocence. I did this to myself when I got behind the wheel, but I am lucky it stopped there. That night, I endangered my own life, my best friend’s life, and others on the road. I was careless, and that mistake will forever hang over my shoulders. The mistake I made was a really big one, but in hindsight, I am really grateful I was pulled over before something much worse happened.

That night, I was hanging out with my best friend, Delaney. I decided to get high and that moment changed my life forever. I was pulled over not too long after for not fully stopping for a right-hand turn during a red light. The feeling in my stomach when I saw the blue and red lights behind me was unlike any other. My stomach turned into a stone and my spine, a soggy noodle. My eyes filled with tears scared of what was to come next.

I then talked to the cops, Delaney was released to her mom and I had to go to the station…in handcuffs. From then my dad picked me up and I was grounded for what felt like forever.

After that, I went to court for the first time. I was given two classes to go to: M.A.D.D, mothers against drunk driving, and a driving course.

I went to M.A.D.D first. They have multiple classes every month, so I chose a day and waited. To be completely honest, that day I was so nervous to attend. I didn’t know what to expect, but when I arrived, I was taken aback in the most horrific way. There was a long line waiting to go into the church, a long line of people who have gotten D.U.I. I mean yes, I wasn’t alone in this, but seeing this was probably worse. Knowing that these many people have gotten D.U.I and there were multiple sessions per month, the math baffled me. I entered the church and took my assigned seat. I waited with my mom for it to start and then the night began.

A woman walked up and introduced herself, she was with M.A.D.D. She showed us statistics and the logistics, then introduced us to a woman in a hat. She had lost her sister, Amy, to a drunk driver while she was riding her motorcycle. It was a dark night and Amy was just riding her bike, unknowing of what was about to happen. It was a terrible collision that severed her spine, damaged her brain, and left her clinging to life for 111 days. He had more than a dozen drinks before getting into his car and eleven people called 911 suspecting a drunken driver on the road. I was taken completely aback. The man, a man with 17 D.U.I. charges was found guilty of second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, four counts of aggravated driving under the influence, two counts of endangerment, and one count of criminal damage. by a Pima County Superior Court jury. The man will face a maximum of 59 years in prison, a sentence that could be stacked on top of an 11-year sentence he is currently serving in a prior DUI case. This night was just a normal night and it happened on a normal road, Sahuarita Road and Alvernon Way. These factors matter because there is always the possibility of a drunk driver on the road or a high one. This night in particular changed many lives drastically. It changed Amy’s, her family’s, the men, Amy’s biking friends, and ours, who heard her story at M.A.D.D.

The second story we heard was of Kevin. His dad was the speaker and he has also written a book about his experience of losing a child to alcohol poisoning. This one hit even closer to home because I was there with my mom. Kevin had just graduated and wanted to get out of his parent’s house, like any other kid. He had his truck, found an apartment, and told his parents his plan. The day finally came when Kevin would move out, but before he left with his friends he talked to his dad. His friends had planned a housewarming party that night and Kevin was excited. Just before going, Kevin said he’ll come to get his toothbrush tomorrow, and that was the last conversation that Barry had with his son. Later that night, Kevin had drunk a ton, crashed on his bed, and left a few drunk calls to his sister. His friends laid him on his side, but that wasn’t enough. Early the next morning, Kevin died of alcohol poisoning. This news came to Barry by cops at his front door. Even when he opened the door to see them, he didn’t expect to hear what he was about to hear. No one does. No one should automatically think that a loved one has died, it’s too morbid to think about, but it’s real life sometimes. Barry was told that his son had died and of course, it crushed him. So to honor his son, Barry chose an ambitious journey. Barry wanted to walk with Kevin’s ashes from Arizona to Montana, where he and Kevin would go during the summer. Kevin loves it there and said many times that’s where he wanted to live when he was older, but he never got the chance. Barry walked 1400 miles in honor of his son, alone. It was a big task, but it was a way for him to say goodbye. The thing is, he shouldn’t have had to say goodbye. Alcohol poisoning is preventable and the outcomes are horrific. Losing a son is unimaginable to all but the ones who have already lost someone. It hurts my heart knowing that this is the reality for some, showing myself that my actions can come with rippling effects and consequences. I must be sure to think about the risks I am taking before doing something I will regret later.

The second class was a traffic school, but I accidentally took two. The first one was 5 hours in a hotel conference room. I arrived early with paper and pencil in hand, checked in, and picked a seat. For the next five hours, I learned all about the rules of the road. This instructor went into such depth that I catch myself repeatedly saying them just while being a passenger. They taught us these rules for a reason, to help us become better drivers. By knowing these rules, we can be defensive drivers and help others as well. There are people on the road, completely oblivious to the law, and they have the chance of getting in trouble or possibly getting hurt. By taking this class and knowing the rules, it is less likely for me to make the same mistakes. The second class that I took was an eight-hour long class and was all about traffic survival. Here they had us fill out a book with different activities and tests to help us understand the information. We took a test on what driver we are like and we watched informative videos that we dissected after watching them. Later in the class, we talked specifically about DUI and this helped open my eyes even further. Getting deep into the actual law of it all is different than knowing the gist. Getting deep, not just into learning all of this, but retaining the information has helped me become a better driver without getting behind the wheel.

Additionally, on top of all of this, my parents made me go to a substance abuse program. It was 10 weeks long, Nine hours each week. While I didn’t see myself as’The same’ as other students there I realized I was. I needed to be there and I needed to learn. Instead of rejecting the class and fighting it, I instead excepted where I was and that I’d put myself there. I went in with a good attitude and finished the course in a great spot In my life.

After these classes, being in a car hasn’t been the same. I made the mistake to get behind the wheel, but I also made the rippling effects on loved ones and myself. This was a hardship that was 100% my fault. I seem to keep that day on my mind all the time and it seems to follow me around too. I did this to myself and I am where I am. That night and every memory attached to it have impacted me in a new way, but I have a good mindset knowing that my mistakes do not define me unless I let them, so I will not let this mistake take over my life. I will move past this because I am better than this, I know I am. Today, September 30th, 2019 I am 372 days sober and I am proud. Knowing that I have achieved this gives me hope for my future. it will be bright because I learned from my mistake. My DUI impacted my life in immeasurable ways, but it taught me so much, things I will never forget.

What Motivates a Serial Killer: Thesis Statement

The term serial killer was first developed in the 1970s and was attributed to a former FBI agent, Rober Ressler, who moved to England following his retirement from the bureau in 1990. Over the years there have been numerous infamous killers who have all been classified as serial killers and the term slowly lost its meaning in the sense that anyone who killed more than three people was automatically distinguished as one. However, there are in fact many diverse types of murderers that share similar attributes but cannot be placed under the category and there are differentiating types of a serial killers based on motive. On a quite simple basis, according to Newburn (2012), a professor of criminology; a Serial killer is a person who kills more than three people in separate events that have a break in-between incidences and often a strong or direct motive as a reason for the crimes that suggests it was the same person committing the acts, this is also the definition that the FBI and various other law enforcing organizations use to define the category with a few variations and differences within the definition but the gist remains the same.

So, what is a motive and how do serial killers gain one, a motive is a catalyst for the crime and places a reason as to why an individual chooses to commit a crime and perhaps even offers an explanation as to why a person committed a crime a certain way. Dorling (2004) provides a reason why crimes may escalate, and a motive may intensify, he calls his theory the Broken Window Theory in which a person commits a crime and gets away with it, and then maybe the next day they commit a slightly bigger crime and get away with it till eventually they are committing felonies instead of minor misdemeanors. Then once someone is executing felonies, they may start drawing in motives such as a serial killer getting high off killing a homeless person so they continue killing homeless people to reach their high, and much like Dorling suggests they must keep escalating the crime to keep reaching the high.

Christopher Berry Dee (2018 pg. 111), who is also a criminologist, supports Newburn’s definition of a serial killer in his book Talking to female serial killers in which in a chapter about Patricia Wright in which he claims that a serial killer is a series of three or more separate events with a cooling off period in-between events’. No psychologists can accurately explain why serial killers need a cooling off period in-between events rather than killing people continuously like a mass murderer and despite this distinguishment between the two categories there have been various overlaps in the classifications of both. For example, Charles Manson for a long time was called a serial killer after he ran a cult and as a final practice of the cult, he had the people drink poison to kill themselves. However, since then, he has been changed to a mass murderer as there was no cooling off period as they all died the same night, and some of the events that he ordered them to do led up to that night causing sequential events to take place.

The classification that Charles Mason lies within now is either a spree killer or a mass murderer and there is still some debate around him however some argue that he is a hybrid killer as he technically did not kill them but rather influenced him. I will discuss Charles Manson in Brogaard’s (2012) pdf study file later and the different classifications Manson falls into and why perhaps there is a cool-off period after a killing.

Genetics are the building blocks of DNA and have the biological ability to dictate certain features and qualities about a person such as appearance or personality traits. Genetics can alter and change as people get older or certain traits can be damaged by injuries specifically to the head. According to Flanagan et al in the 2020 psychology AQA a level and a level textbook (pg. 114) genes make up chromosomes alongside DNA and form features of an organism, contribute to psychological factors, and genes are transmitted to offspring. Psychopathy is an umbrella term for numerous different antisocial and personality disorders and DNA has been shown to have mutated or dysfunctional genes that can cause this mental disorder or illnesses. These genetics can be inherited or completely naturally developed from different biological factors and can change someone’s life. Psychopathology falls on a long spectrum and it is often only those on the higher end of the spectrum that become killers, they often share traits such as pathological lying and the art of manipulation. There is a lot of evidence that supports the idea that genetics are the key factor in determining whether a person has the potential to become a killer and many psychologists seek to investigate just how much of the disorder is based solely on genetics alone.

So, how useful are genetics in distinguishing who will become a killer? This is based on two concepts what genetic differences do serial killers and murderers have in relation to the public and what genetic adaptations may evolve into psychological problems later in life? Brogaard (2014) investigates the case of Charles Manson and why after so many occasions of being miscategorized as a serial killer, Manson’s case is quite different from how it was originally perceived. Charles Manson was a charismatic cult leader who believed that white people were supreme and that black people were going to rise during the time of the American race war. He convinced the members of his quasi-commune to go on a killing spree to assist an event he dubbed as the ‘Helter Skelter’ from the lyrics in a Beatles song of which he was obsessed with the band to describe an apocalyptic race war. In a planned attack, his members killed nine people over the events of two consecutive nights, and whilst Manson himself did not actually kill anyone he was still eventually charged with murder by proxy due to his influence on the others of his so-called family. Brogaard (2014) also looks at concordance rates for psychopathological disorders as a whole and using the study of the Minnesota Twins (Bouchard Jr et al., 2014) is 60% for identical twins who share 100% of their DNA.

These genetic findings then link to Fallon (2009), a professor of neuroscience, who investigates a gene called the MAO-O gene which is a violent gene that works alongside two neighboring genes and is shown to heighten the aggression rates in individuals who have a mutated version of it. In general, there is a variation of this gene in the normal population, and for most people, it will make a minor difference to their lives aside from slightly higher aggression rates. However, the problem lies in the genetics of this genotype, this gene is only found in the X chromosome and therefore when a child is formed, we see a difference in gender. Girls get one X chromosome from their mothers and one from their fathers and this dilutes the gene it balances out the risk to an extent as it removes the gene as a dominant trait whereas in boys, they can only get the X chromosome from their mother and this may explain why so many young boys become aggressive and why most serial killers are men. The Gene itself is passed from mother to son and the gene affects the amount of serotonin during the brain’s development, serotonin is a neurotransmitter that is supposed to regulate mood in the body however the MAO-O gene causes the brain to become bathed in serotonin during the time spent in the womb and therefore makes a person insensitive to the effects of the transmitter. Going back to Fallon’s research (2009) that he mentions in his Ted talk and he explains that by looking at 70 cases of serial killers and doing different brain scans he discovered that there was a trait that a lot of the killers shared aside from cases of brain damage, they shared the MAO-O gene. So, whilst this gene defiantly has contributed to the aggression of individuals it does not define who will kill but highlights the potential for it to happen for the gene to express itself the individual needs to witness an event of violence in their early life to activate the mutated version of the gene.

However, Fallon’s research was based on the findings of a different study by Raine et al (1997) who conducted a study on brain activity in killers to identify any statistical infrequency between the convicted and the normal population. Scanning serval murderers Raine et al found that there was reduced prefrontal cortex activity which as predicted controls emotional impulses using PET scans. The prefrontal cortex plays an executive role in major decision-making and as found helps suppress undesired impulses therefore the lack of activity means that an individual will not be able to resist and will carry out their impulses regardless of others around them. This absence of the needed activity has been linked to various mental disorders such as OCD and antisocial behavior which many killers have been diagnosed with.

Genetics is especially useful as it has shown numerous complications that have helped identify common biological traits that many killers share and who possess the potential of later developing as a killer however there are multiple issues with the genetic explanation alone.

Despite the research, Raine et al (1997) concluded that the PET and CT scans do not prove killings are based solely on these brain abnormalities as many other disorders link to these issues with a lack of activity in the prefrontal cortex and it is dependent on how that expresses in an individual. Along with this the later research by Fallon (2009) showed that this gene is in multiple people and even in the escalated variant a lot of people did not become killers; even Fallon himself had a variation of the gene, so while the gene has relevance to the to a killing trait it cannot be an individual reason to why people become serial killers it just provides a meaning to the aggressive nature a murderer may display.

However, the main argument in this essay against the genetic explanations comes from the concordance rates that Brogaard (2014) found as stated above is only 60% in general between monozygotic twins that share 100% of their DNA explicitly illustrating that there must be other factors influencing whether someone kills.

So, whilst these arguments all do show that genetics do play a key role it cannot be the only factor otherwise doctors and scientists would just check everyone for these three traits and there would be almost no unknown serial killers, and this is not the case. Genetics is a risk factor that could potentially determine who has the genetic build-up to kill others but not the capability to accurately select exactly who will.

Therefore, we must investigate other factors that could also provide an explanation for killers in society. Such as sociology and attachment, according to the A-level sociology textbook (2015 pg. 5), ‘sociology is the study of society and of people and of their behavior’. However, this is an extremely broad subject and so for the sake of my argument I will be focusing on the explanations of family and socialization, and from the Psychology AQA textbook (2020) I will focus on the unit of attachment (pg.72-104). Socialization and attachment give a more physical explanation to why certain people become serial killers in the sense that it focuses on the interactions they have made in their life and how that may have impacted the risks that led to a criminal lifestyle. And so, it is particularly important to consider that genetics as a genetic impact could also influence a social interaction a person may have and therefore alter that person’s experience completely. such as having an antisocial disorder may lead to more confrontation and arguments which will then affect how that individual with the disorder will interact with others.

Family is important to the development of a child as it is between the ages of one and five that children undergo the process of primary socialization which is the development of a child learning morals, norms, and values of society and other societal expectations.

Serial Killer: Persuasive Speech

What Makes A Serial Killer? A serial killer is a person that commits murders in succession from one another. Serial killers have been around for many years, and to this day many still ravage the world. The FBI defines a serial killer as a person that commits three or more murders within a short period of time, within months. Serial killers usually exhibit psychopathic traits, which can be indicative of brain abnormalities. In a Wisconsin study, it shows a direct correlation between people with criminal psychopathy and brain abnormalities.

Experts on Serial Killers Dr. John Mayer is a clinical phycologist that has evaluated many different serial killers and has consulted many cases to try and figure out the phycological makeup of serial killers and their traits. Scott Bonn is a doctor specializing in the motivation and behavior of criminals. He has written some of the bestselling books about public fascination with serial killers. Dr. Steve Van Aperen is a retired police officer and is now a detective that specializes in behavior analysis. He now consults police departments, intelligence agencies, and government services to help with criminal investigations. As Dr. John Mayer said, children in their developmental stages that get treated badly by their parents are likely to succumb to physiological damage. He also states that poor peer relationships can also be a major factor in the making of a serial killer. He has led many different investigations of criminal homicides, making him a credible source.

Dr. Scott Bonn has talked a lot about and helped with many serial killer investigations. He has stated that there must be at least 3 murdered victims for it to be a serial killer. The final doctor is Steve Van Aperen, which also helps with many criminal investigations. Because he specializes in the behavior of criminals, he can tell the state of the person from a physiological standpoint. Knowing how the criminals act is a good way of understanding the make-up of these killers. Some of the Most Famous Killers Born in 1431, Vlad Dracula was a serial killer back in the pre-1800s era. Growing up in Transylvania, where his father was the ruler, he and his brother were captured by the Ottomans and were held there until the rest of their family died. He ended up being responsible for the death of approximately 80,000 people and used a signature style of killing by impaling the victims. Because of him being so infamous, many people in the film industry used Dracula’s story in many famous movies and plays. He also remains to this day, one of the deadliest serial killers that have ever lived.

Jack the Ripper was one of the most famous killers, mainly because he wasn’t and still hasn’t been identified and secured. Because Jack the Ripper was never found, there is no information on when he was born or how he grew up. The nickname was given to this killer because of the way he killed his victims, normally slitting their throats in alleyways as they walked by. There were five known deaths related to the killer, all of which were female prostitutes. There have been many people that were suspected of being the real killer, though nobody has ever confirmed whether it was or not. Born on November 12, 1934, Charles Manson is a pretty well-known serial killer. Manson himself may not have committed very many murders though there were many indirect deaths caused by him. Manson had a rough childhood, like many other serial killers, and committed. his first ever crime at the young age of 12. Though Manson was trying very hard to follow a music career, his diagnosed schizophrenia would end up preventing him from completing it. After getting out of prison he later formed a cult of people with Manson being the main leader. After many attempts at his music career and failing, it threw him over the edge and his followers started to kill celebrities.

Mikhail Popkov was born on September 25, 1985, in Moscow, Russia. He was a Russian serial killer and Rapist in the early 2000s. He started off his career as a security guard, which later helped him cover up his tracks with the murders. There was a nickname given to him called werewolf, because of his brutal way of killing his victims. He sexually assaulted and killed over 77 women that were between the ages of 16 and 40 years old. He did these murders and rapes within 18 years before he was captured by the police. Mikhail was one of Russia’s most prolific killers in the 1900s and 2000’s.

Is Macbeth a Serial killer? Within the story of Macbeth, Macbeth shows a few different factors that could classify him as a serial killer. Because there are also some that could show that he isn’t a serial killer, it’s sometimes hard to classify someone as one or not. The first reason he may be classified as a serial killer is because he killed his victims within 3 months of each other. Another thing that could show that he is a serial killer is the fact that he has killed more than 3 people. Though it could be argued that he killed the people because he never really killed the victims directly. Rather he had another person kill the victims rather than Macbeth himself killing them. Because of the reasons stated, Macbeth is not a serial killer. One of the main reasons he isn’t classified as a serial killer is because he doesn’t show many if any signs of physiological abnormalities. Since most serial killers show those physiological signs and Macbeth does not, this would help to know if he’s classified as one or not. The second major reason he can be considered a serial killer is because he didn’t directly kill the people by himself. An example of this would be Lady Macbeth, which killed Duncan. Finally, to be classified as a serial killer, you must have no motives why your killing the people you are. Macbeth is killed with the motive to become the king.

Serial Killers Research: Literature Review

Introduction

Since Psychology began to emerge as a strong field in the late 19th century, psychologists have been trying to study several aspects and associations between criminality or crimes and the psyche. Since then, thousands of psychologists and researchers have been conducting innumerable amount of research and studies to explore the relationship and understand the dimensions of criminality through a wider, more in-depth perspective. Traditionally delinquency was considered to be the root of paving the way into the world of criminal psychology.

Forensic psychology has its roots embedded in 1879, when the father of psychology, Wilhelm Wundt came up with his first laboratory in Germany.

In the late 19th century, many important figures in the field of medicine such as Havelock Ellis (Ellis 1890) and Richard von Krafft-Ebing (von Krafft-Ebing 1998) have written about criminals and offenders as being different and ‘abnormal’ in some way, in comparison to normal people. According to them, criminality was considered to be some sort of illness and something which indicated that the criminals were not completely humane. One of the greatest influences came from the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin which motivated many people to consider criminality to be a regression to the early stages of human development.

However, this view was very much limited to the clinical or biological perspective or explanation behind criminality, which is still very relevant and often discussed in current research and studies. So, although the extremes of Lomborso’s claims, which include reference to physiognomic features that he thought indicated a lower level of human evolution, have long since been discredited, the view that criminals are different from noncriminals still dominates many psychological considerations. A second, rather different strand grew out of a social science tradition that sees criminals as no different from anyone else except for their circumstances.

Serial crimes in modern society are no longer limited to their explanations through the biological perspective but also are exposed to the scrutiny of the psychological and social perspectives which shed light on the matter portraying a greater picture than what was seen in the earlier times.

Investigations about the purpose or reason behind such serial crimes are one of the greatest challenges for the field of psychology as the criminal behavior of individuals cannot be explained just by what they do, but rather why they do what they do. However, it is indeed a very huge challenge as these psychological or social factors are not evident or visible, but rather are internalized within the minds of the criminals.

There are yet a lot of discrepancies between the definitions of serial killers as proposed by different scholars. In 1988, the FBI defined serial killing to include three or more murders committed separately with a cooling-off period between them (Gerberth & Turco, 1997). Dietz (1986) also included a ‘cooling-off period’ in his definition, although he required five or more killings by a single offender to count as a serial killer. Hickey ( 1997) proposed that the definition of serial murder should embrace anyone who commits multiple murders over a lengthy span of time. Taking the wide array of definitions into consideration, several researchers in the field of psychology have stepped up into conducting research into this sphere of criminal behavior and found its association with the presumed psychological aspects.

Literature review

Since the concept of serial killings and other such violent crimes have risen to prime existence, there have been an innumerable number of research conducted pertaining to this domain. All of these researches have not only helped the development of the Behavioral Science Units of crime departments but also have helped a lot in enhancing the understanding of such acts and yielding solutions to the same, to maintain stability in society.

These researches have also shed light on the importance of Forensic and Criminal Psychology and emphasized its value in modern society. These researches have helped us attempt to understand the mechanisms that characterize these offenders and, through such understanding, aid or enhance procedures for the investigation of serial violent crimes in the future. One such research was conducted by Jack Levin and James Alan Fox (1985) according to whom, Sadistic serial killers have been globally diagnosed as sociopaths who lack empathy and are inordinately concerned with impression management. They proposed instead that many of the behavioral characteristics thought to be distinctive or unique to these serial murderers are actually shared widely with billions of people who never harm anyone. By emphasizing so much on sociopathic characteristics, researchers may have downplayed the significance of the existential processes- compartmentalization and dehumanization—that permit and enable serial killers to rape, torture, and murder with moral impunity.

At the same time, by non-critically agreeing to the sociopathic designation, researchers may have ignored the interaction between sadism and sociopathy that causes empathy to be heightened rather than diminished.

Their research concluded that,

Many people who live conventional lives are able to satisfy their sadistic desires or needs in a socially acceptable manner. Business executives have been known to wheel and deal, hire and fire; few teachers are unnecessarily tough on their students; and parents can be harsh and threatening in their child-rearing practices.

For several reasons, serial killers lack whatever it takes to acquire a position of dominance in the legitimate system. For example, if the world-known serial killer, Theodore Bundy ever completed his law degree, he probably might have been able to destroy them—figuratively, of course—inside the courtroom, rather than on the streets. If Aileen Wuornos had a decent childhood, she might have become an entrepreneur rather than a murderous highway prostitute.

In their ability to commit extreme violence against innocent victims, serial killers obviously differ qualitatively from an average human being. Some members of society would be able to torture and kill multiple victims (although the sadistic impulse is probably much more pervasive than we would like to think). In terms of their underlying psychology, however, serial killers may not differ from normal individuals as much as we have been made to believe.

Another possibility is that the sociopathic designation has not been correctly applied to sadistic serial killers. If they actually do not differ from other people qualitatively in terms of their ability to display a public image of themselves, their ability to compartmentalize and dehumanize, and their empathy for the suffering of victims, they may not be the ruthless sociopaths we believe them to be. This does not mean that the psyche of the serial murderer is like that of normal people, only that we have been looking in the wrong place for the important differences.

As modern research shows, serial murderers do not always consist of the aforementioned traits or behaviors (Fox & Levin, 1999; Hickey, 2015). Levin and Fox (2012) proceeded to point out that warning signs for most serial killers are not evident, and that most serial killers can go undetected. On the other hand, MacDonald (1963) suggested a triad that suggests aspects like cruelty to animals, fire-setting, and recurrent bed-wetting or enuresis during childhood. This triad does not predict criminal or serial killing behavior but significantly offers evident warning signs of a child facing some significant amount of stress (Weatherby et al., 2009).

The maladaptive behaviors comprised in this triad are unhealthy coping strategies resulting from the significant stress faced by children. Hickey (2010) proposed that not all kids who experience stress and indulge in such maladaptive behaviors go on to become serial murderers, but such behaviors have been noted in the childhood of widely recognized serial murderers. Weatherby et al.(2009) suggested that the MacDonald Triad be taken into consideration as cautionary signs to teachers, parents, and other authoritarian figures, indicating a need to help children portray such behaviors.

Another research conducted by Meher Sharma aimed to compare detailed and descriptive accounts from the lives of 3 serial killers without keeping in mind assumptions and hypotheses, in order to find possible similarities or differences between them as a way of identifying possible life events leading to serial killers. Beginning from scratch allowed the data to speak for itself.

The grounded theory method was used to find similarities and differences between the lives of 3 serial killers; Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, and Gary Ridgway, as a way of identifying life events leading to serial killing. Analyses began early on in the data collection process. Unlike processes in quantitative data collection which use established codes and categories, the researcher created codes by defining and giving meanings to data (Charmaz, 2008). Initial line-by-line coding involved the naming of each line of data (Charmaz, 2008; Glaser, 1 978). Taking the smallest statements/lines apart and studying their implicit and/or explicit meanings enabled him to better understand and shape emerging analytic categories. Initial line-by-line coding was followed by focused coding which incorporated significant initial codes, which were then developed into categories to formulate factors.

This research, based on the findings, concluded that many factors have played a role in the development of these three serial killers. There has not been one sole factor or no one major factor leading to such behaviors, but a combination of several factors and the inability to cope with them in a healthy manner.

For the three serial killers, each factor and cause seemed to have developed over the period of time and has been influenced by or connected to other factors. However, Although the factors may be overlapping and interdependent, they do not assure each other’s existence or guarantee that an individual will become a serial killer. Some factors and events may not be experienced by all or can go unnoticed. For example, unlike Bundy and Ridgway, Ramirez did not experience rejection or abandonment in a romantic relationship but did experience limited positive interactions (e.g. his strained and distant relationship with his father and mother) and continuous exposure to and influence of criminal activities.

Likewise, both Ridgway and Ramirez experienced neurological abnormalities -predisposing them to violent and aggressive behaviors; but Bundy did not have obvious neurological abnormalities.

Factors such as the need for belonging, loneliness, power/control, stress/trauma, and low self-esteem seem to be interrelated in a process. As understood, a lack of a sense of belonging to someone or something and not having optimal social support or healthy coping skills to deal with stress or trauma, caused such individuals to suppress their emotions which further led to unresolved stress and anxiety enormous amount of frustrations. Having a past of low self-esteem since school life with a lack of support from friends or family, and being abandoned by significant others in adult life, further led Bundy and Ridgway to doubt themselves.

Continued exposure to facilitators such as substance abuse and sexually sadistic and violent pornography made it significantly easy for Ramirez and Bundy to exercise power and control over their victims. Culture’s or society’s practice of objectifying women and the submissiveness portrayed in pornography has significantly contributed to a lot of violence against women.

Such objectification and submissiveness have permitted society to exert power and control over women, and hence, it is of no surprise that because of such a view of the culture and society, it was easy for the three serial killers to exert their power/control over women. Lack of ability to control and deal with their life situations including stress and loneliness; sexual violence and serial murders were the solution and coping mechanisms used by the three serial killers.

Another research conducted by Ilie Magdalena Ioana(2013) suggested that neither the factors such as intelligence, nor the thinking, memory, imagination, or the language of a killer are the psychological causes of his murders, but the deeper or inner factors of his personality: the emotional, motivational, natural factors that were formed not only by hereditary, biological factors, but by the factors associated to education, socialization, culture and, especially the socio-economic environment the individual grows and lives in.

The murderer’s anti-social attitudes and behavior become significantly effective through the availability of appropriate tools, stereotypes, skills, and abilities that will help him or her become efficient in committing his or her crimes. According to this research paper, the conclusion that was arrived at was that, In terms of the criminals’ psychic life, serial killers are characterized by murder. This fact results from the download or cessation of the great mental tension they held onto before the murder. The actual assassination is the last nail in the slate of anti-human acts in which force was applied before, violence being the final result of a continuous moral decomposition. Thus, we can really conclude that the serial killer is indeed the most odious and the most harmful criminal. This person portrays irritability, impulsivity, and increased aggressiveness. The individual is egocentric, domineering, with a low capacity for reasoning, unstable, and superficial in emotional attachment, making them engage in conflicting situations and reacting violently and impulsively.

Being aware of the causes and the psychological characteristics of murders, offenses, and crimes makes it possible and rather easy to explain the criminal behavior and to find ways to prevent, detect, and eradicate it, to find techniques appropriate to rehabilitate and socially reintegrate those who commit crimes.

In conclusion, we think that it is better not to ignore the negative aspects of everyday life, not to imagine them away from us, and be more aware of what surrounds us. Only prevention, as a form of reaction against crimes, through family and school education, through several cultural activities, or even through an individual’s work, would make individuals realize that within the hand’s reach, a different world than the one we know is rising, the dark side of the society, the world of crime.

Limitations of such research

One of the main limitations of these studies is that even though verbatim conversations for all serial killers were found (Meher Sharma, 2018), it was rather impossible to follow up on the questions or to ask for more or extra details.

Owning the freedom to initiate questions would have helped provide better analyses. A second limitation stems from the fact that the sources used were edited and arranged for publication by authors other than the killers.(Ilie Magdalena Ioana, 2013)

Although it is essential for the researchers to be mindful of not adopting various authors’ biases on the etiology of serial killing, the sources used for the process of collection of data inevitably seem to hold their authors’ biases. There may be some presence of events and theories that an author or researcher might have focused on more than others, and some that may not have been significantly incorporated in the books, based on these biases. However, most of the researchers made an attempt to overcome this problem by focusing on the verbatim words of the killers.

The small and restricted size and limited features of the samples in each of the research serve as the third limitation. For example, though the study conducted by Meher Sharma has proven to be thoroughly detailed for two Caucasian serial killers and one Hispanic serial killer if a larger sample or a sample involving female, African American serial killers, then the research would’ve yielded greater depths of the entire picture.

Future directions

The way an individual copes with a stressor or traumatic event may vary from the way another individual might. Also, what constitutes stress, trauma, failure, and other psychosocial factors for one person may be significantly different from another person’s definition of the same. As, something that may be a factor or trigger to kill for one individual, may not be a trigger for another.

Therefore, one of the directions recommended to guide future studies would be to aim at understanding and differentiating what leads people to adopt a healthy form of coping, and others who end up doing things that are self-defeating or that harm others (like killing).

In order to make distinct comparisons, it could also be recommended that other researchers should compare criminals/serial killers to similarly situated others who have not committed similar crimes. It is rather impossible not to notice that most etiological theories, typologies, and research focuses on serial killing as emerging or rising from childhood development.

Basing the upcoming recommendation based on the findings of the previously mentioned research discussing serial killers’ life events in adolescence and adulthood, it would also be a strong recommendation for future research prospects to highlight adolescent and adulthood experiences of serial killers in order to significantly identify risk factors from these periods of development. This indicates approaching typologies and other theories surrounding the serial killing phenomenon as a continuum and not definitive answers.

The factors – their occurrence, frequency, intensity, and effects leading to serial killing-can exist as a continuum. This will help us learn whether certain factors lead to such behaviors or not, discover unique experiences, and similarities and differences among individuals. Acquiring the freedom to study variations in factors and such related components (occurrence, frequency, intensity, and effects), this continuum will continue to serve as a range rather than a definitive yes or no factor for individuals, and will also focus on more than one developmental period of their lives. Such kind of an assessment to be used for assessing serial killers after they have been caught would be highly recommended.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it would be best to say that on studying the several aforementioned research papers on Serial Murders and other violent crimes, a significant association between the psychological, social as well as biological factors would be established with such crimes. Yet, serial murders will keep on making psychologists baffled about its functioning and there will be more to know about it, as each day passes by.

References

1. Sharma, Meher, ‘The Development of Serial Killers: A Grounded Theory Study’ (2018). Masters Theses. 3720. Ilie Magdalena Ioana / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 ( 2013 ) 324 – 328
2. Levin, J., & Fox, J. A. (1985). Mass Murder: America’s Growing Menace. New York: Plenum Press.
3. Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (1994). Overkill: Serial and Mass Exposed. New York: Plenum Press.
4. Haggerty, Kevin. (2009). Modern serial killers. Crime Media Culture – CRIME MEDIA CULT. 5. 10.1177/1741659009335714.
5. Hare, R. D. (1993). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. New York: Pocket Books.

Hate Crime Essay

A hate crime is when one or more than one person goes against one person or a group, most times including violence, that is motivated by prejudice on race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.

On November 7 (2019) two Mississippi men were sentenced for cross-burning in predominantly african american residential areas.

Graham Williamson and Louie Revette committed this crime because of racial motives. Louis Revette convinces Graham Williamson to do it. It was not the first time that they did things like that. Two years ago, both men built a cross to set up a lit on fire near an African-American resident in the Keys Hill area of Seminary (Mississippi). One of the reasons why they did that was because they knew that burning crosses were used before to threaten, frighten and intimidate African Americans so they used it because they were trying to make all the community members in the neighborhood be afraid.

They use this symbol to represent the Ku Klux Klan also called KKK, this Klan is an American white supremacist hate group, that first of all is against all African Americans. One of the principal symbols that they use is putting on fire a cross made of wood. Being a member of this Klan is secret, only each other can know who is in that Klan.

A federal judge sentenced Graham Williamson when he was 38 years old and 3 years in prison, he pleaded guilty. Instead, Revette was sentenced to serve 11 years in prison.

In my opinion, hate crime is one of the worst crimes that could happen because there are a lot of crimes that are bad but for example, not always, but stealing sometimes people do that because they need the money, but for me hurt somebody because of their skin, their beliefs or orientation sexual is a really serious crime. Now, we have the right to freedom and everybody can express their opinion, so everybody should respect this right and instead of taking care of other people’s lives, they should think about why do they need to commit this crime. This is one example of hate crime, unfortunately, in our society we still have people doing this kind of crime.

I think that now they should teach in all the schools, high schools, and universities how to respect each other, for example, they would make think all their students will think over about committing this crime and what they will do if they were born with another color in their skin, they will ask themselves if they would like other people to go against them only because of that.

I believe that now there are fewer people that commit these kinds of crimes but is not only this crime, sometimes there are some comments that people do that hurts the feeling of a lot of the people that in the end they are part of our society and they have the same rights and freedom as any other person

I completely agree with the sentence that the judge put both men, they will have all this time in prison to think about what they did and see that it was wrong and they have this time to get better and improve as a person.

For me, they should talk with the people that they were trying to scare them and apologize, but they do not have to do it because a sentence says that they have to do it, if not because they feel sorry for what they need and they will never do it again.

Surveillance Essay

‘Our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance” by Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 1974

In Discipline and Punish, 1974, Foucault pointed out there are three types of punishment from classical age to modern age. In the classical age, there are many countries of feudalism, like France, China, Korea, etc., that countries adopt the constitutional monarchy system. The King of those countries used to show the view of punishing prisoner to the citizen, which benefits the King to control his citizen through the visible pain of the body. In the late 18th century, the humanist carry out the punishment of imprisonment to substitute for the torture and cruel treatment of body and establish the mandated standards as law. In the Modern age, the ruling party redefined the manifestation of disciplinary power and prison supervision scientifically, universally, exquisitely and abstractly.

The role of the surveillance in the culture of cities is to assist the disciplinary institutions to control over the others through the power discipline. We can realise how the government party control over the citizen through the gaze and surveillance through the panopticon prison. The panopticon[1] is an efficient prison building, which is designed by Bentham. In this prison, every prisoner is imprisoned in a small room and is constantly being watched by guards in the central tower. In addition to the watch tower, that prison is transparent and bright so that the monitor is easily watch over the prisoner. Therefore, the prisoners only know there are be watched but they don’t know what time they are be watched, so the prisoner will control their every action themselves at any moment. In this way, each of the prisoners will be self-disciplined, because they all feel that they are being watched anytime and anywhere. This external gaze gradually transforms into an individual’s inner daily surveillance during this high-efficiency discipline (Discipline 195- 230). It is a universal functional mode of operation, a way of determining power relations from the perspective of people’s daily lives.

This is a universal functional mode of operation, a way of determining power relations from the people’s daily lives. The panopticon prison – surveillance reduce the number of people gaining power and increase the number of people who are be controlled. The surveillance enables the political party in power to intervene at any time before a fault, mistake, or crime occurs. The power of surveillance is not intervening but automatically applied, which forms a knock-on effect.

In 2014, British artists Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin created an artwork Spirit is a bone[2] which idea is inspired by a facial recognition system of public security surveillance software in Moscow. This software is using on the public area such as subway station, train station, stadium and concert hall, etc., which can capture people’s face from four different angle so that build up a complete three dimensional personal facial image on computer. Therefore, in Broomberg and Chanarin’s work, the subject characters always looking forward and show stony-faced because they are monitored. This work is showing the view of the monitor to us and how the monitor gazing us.

This work is refer to the German photographer August Sander’s Pastry Cook, 1928[3] in the showing form. Sander has take over 300 pieces portrait which is including baker, philosopher and the revolutionist who stand in the centre of the photograph and look at us bravely through the camera. Broomberg said that he was influenced by the contemporary artist Helmar Lerski’s work[4] who is insist of no one can read anyone’s mind from their face.

This work is showing to us that we are surveillance by the gazing of the camera of the government, which also expressing the issue of the power relationship between the governing party and the citizen. On one side, this software are protecting us from the crime through the deterrence, which restrain someone from committing or preparing to commit a crime in the public place, which assure that the security of public place. It also assures that the police will know the feature of the criminal even if somebody commit a crime. On the other side, this work is showing to us the discipline power is ubiquitously infiltrated into the entire social life even the ordinary people are also placed under the supervision of power and doing self-discipline. The citizen’s behaviour, identity and position are also monitored and reported to the government. The government party are judging and making potential criminals of all the citizen. There are the other question were be mentioned that If we want to be free should we scarifies our a part of freedom?

Critical Essay on Behaviour of Serial Killer Arthur Shawcross

Psychopathology is a personality disease, that can incorporate various attributes. This may include antisocial or disruptive behavior (PowerPoint). They are individuals who have the potential to harm or manipulate others to get through life guaranteeing their demands are fitted (Hare) Psychopaths lack conscience in compassion and tend to possess selfish tendencies and take their desires (Hare). They won’t alter their actions based on community expectations. They disrupt civilization’s expectations without guilt (Hare).

In regards to Arthur, his case raised attention in regards to his intense disturbance and hostility. There were questions in regard to his morality and whether he was corrupt.

According to Hare, Psychopathy can strike everyone, and we’re all exposed. Nearly all people face a psychopath and can be seen in the community and the criminal justice system. According to Hare, various psychopaths are criminals. However, some can embody charismatic qualities within our civilization. This has an impact on their chances to be sentenced to time in prison. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all psychopaths kill. Some personally impact everyone’s daily lives. As Hare had mentioned, we have an increased chance to lose everything to a ‘regular’ person, than a criminal.

In society, Arthur seemed like a regular male. He had a nice place, a stable job, and a wife. No one suspected him. At least not when he moved away from Watertown. Even during the undercover work, cops would “confide” in him in the local office shop and discuss the case he was associated with. He was amused that the police were so clueless as to who they were sharing case details.

According to Hare, there is a minimum of two million psychopaths in North America. In New York, psychopaths represent at least 100,000 citizens. In general, there are likely 2 percent of psychopaths.

Arthur Shawcross resembled an average guy. He had a wife, a stable job, and a decent home. However, he lived a double life. He had a mistress, slept with a prostitute, and was a serial killer.

In my opinion, psychopaths are bad and not mad. Their actions are an outcome of their incapability to sympathize or consider feelings other than their own. Their actions arise from a demented brain (Hare) Psychopaths don’t experience hallucinations. They are lucid and entirely conscious of their actions. They are competent to manage their actions. Psychopaths’ behaviors are based on their choices. (Hare) They are conscious of perceived civil morality. Within the judicial and psychiatric standards, they deem psychopaths as sane. If psychopaths are convicted, they are sent to prison rather than a psychic hospital.

Shawcross was fully aware of his crimes. He wasn’t considerate of the victim’s loss, or emotions. He had no remorse for his actions. When Shawcross was agitated, he became frightful. He transformed into another person and often made people feel scared. Shawcross would often visit the spots where he would dump his victims. In Watertown, he was seen eating ice cream and gazing at the bridge. Later on, he would park near another dumping spot of a prostitute. He admired his work and would stick around.

Psychopaths should be sent to Correctional facilities. They are fully knowledgeable of their actions and their outcomes. Psychopaths fit the standards of the psychiatric and legal standards for sanity (Hare) Psychopaths cannot be treated because they are unable to be emotional. However, they are manipulative. If they were placed in a treatment facility, they could potentially manipulate others (Hare)

Shawcross attempted to plead for an insanity defense. However, the prosecutor believed that he was fully aware of his actions. First, Shawcross was sent to prison for the crimes of those two children for 25 years. However, based on his good behavior, he was given parole based on good behavior in prison. Rather than spending 25 years, he only served 15 years (video)

Psychopaths are usually clever and can express enthusiasm and narrate unrealistic stories. In these stories, they seem above others, and overall charismatic. Psychopaths are often perceived as narcissistic and only consider their worth. Psychopaths are driven by their self-esteem and don’t abide by any jurisdiction. They aren’t bothered by others’ emotions and can perceive themselves as the true victims. They perceive others as targets for their amusement to inquire about pleasure. They will lie and manipulate and are often extremely sensitive to insults or slights (Hare) They are knowledgeable of their purposes and can be perceived as aggression as a valid response.

Arthur Shawcross would come up with stories about cannibalism, and his encounters in war. He would tell stories about the heinous acts against an enemy during the Vietnam War. He would go into detail about skinning and chopping their heads from the body. Shawcross wasn’t lying about his time in the war. However, his positions were nothing more than checking supplies. He was never in the war zone, nor does anyone who was with him remember that specific encounter. (Video) While Shawcross was under hypnosis, he would come up with characters that each played into his acts.

Hare uses the term “verbal” vomit, which I interpreted as a person who will continually talk, and not consider the words that are coming out. They want to get their point across and are so driven by their needs. Psychopaths cannot distinguish the meaning of words and how they can impact others. They are more concerned with their ego, and the ability to have their needs met. As Hare mentions in his book, the quote that he provided was focused on the “I” language. Rather than worrying about the other person’s needs, they are focused on their needs.

In regards to Hare using the term “strange flat eye”, he is describing an individual’s depiction of a person’s lack of emotions. My interpretation of this term is the ability to describe a person’s inability to represent emotions through their eyes. Whether that be eye contact or the lack of luster in their pupils. They are strange because regular people display emotions in their eyes.

According to Hare, psychopaths follow their rules and don’t consider societal. A psychopath receives words without any emotional depth. They don’t have moral concerns that guide them. They are fully aware of the rules but follow their own set of rules. Psychopaths are willing to sacrifice anything to satisfy their wants and needs. Will ignore anything that does not spark their interest. They are unable to consider the consequences of their egoistic behavior.

Psychopathic tendencies are a result of nature and nurture. Neither side of the brain of a psychopath is unable to process emotions. Psychopaths are off the track from the very start. Their inadequate social setting has an impact on the development of a psychopath. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all adolescence that encounters poor social conditions will end up psychopathic. According to Hare, psychopath results from early brain damage or dysfunction. For example, if a child is abused, neglected, or deprived this could result in damage to the brain that can result in violent crimes. Psychopaths have hereditary circumstances that contribute to the functions of the brain. This can affect the basics of building personality. These influences can also impact responses, life experiences, and social conditions. Social circumstances and parenting can affect psychopath development and are exemplified through behavior.

Neurologists believed that brain damage can likely cause damage to a person’s perspective. They linked brain damage and extremely violent behaviors (video) According to the video, neurologists believed that Shawcross resembled the same patterns in his brain scan. Shawcross suffered a toxic combination of physical, mental, and brain damage.

At a young age, many psychopaths express behavioral problems. Some of these include lying, stealing, disruptiveness, destruction, and bullying. Some psychopaths are characterized by loss of sentimental, material, and likely abuse with a troubled past. However, most people who have troubled childhoods, don’t become psychopaths. Other children come from healthy, nurturing family dynamics. You can distinguish a psychopath who comes from a good family when they begin to act out and begin sexual experiences at a young age (Hare) At a young age, many parents of psychopaths, recall their child’s off behaviors.

Shawcross had mentioned that both his mother and his father had molested him. She had been inappropriately touching him for years. It drew the line when his father raped him. That’s when he ran away from home. Both his mother and sister denied the allegations. It’s unclear if all the details are true. Psychopaths are typically good liars, and there was no clear indication that he had any medical records during that time frame.