During the Middle Ages, the gruesome discovery of sporadic mutilated corpses of villagers, and the telltale footprints of a hound on the scene, raised the spectre of a werewolf at large. No-one in the village would ever have suspected that it could have been the cobbler’s son – an as yet unidentified serial killer – and that the footprints were those of the village dogs inspecting and probably tearing at the flesh of the corpse, lending credence to the paranoia regarding the werewolf. The idea that a human being was capable of such atrocity while in a rational state of mind, was unfathomable. It is impossible to determine when the first serial killer would have made his debut in the history of mankind, but the most notorious is probably Jack the Ripper, who certainly put them on centre stage in the late 19th century.
Almost a century later, in the 1970’s profilers of the FBI’s Behavioural Science Laboratory commenced interviewing incarcerated serial killers unofficially, which led to their definition and classification. Since then, many theories have evolved regarding as to what makes a serial killer and why do they kill? The 1970’s to 1990’s can be considered as first-generation theorists on the origin of serial killers.
Socio-cultural theories
The first of the theories on the origin of serial homicide to emerge were the socio-cultural theories, which proposed that serial homicide was the result of a violent culture combined with dysfunctional early relationships during the serial killer’s youth. Cruel and violent parents and exposure to external violence were cited as common reasons.
The trailblazers FBI profilers Robert Ressler and his colleagues at the BSL proposed a comprehensive motivational model, which comprised five stages, namely the ineffective social environment, formative years, patterned responses, action towards others and feedback. This model emphasized the child’s early developmental years in which he was exposed to direct or indirect trauma, leading to distorted thought patterns which he acted out towards others and himself, eventually grading his performance in an attempt to improve on it. Deficiencies in families such as violence, alcohol and drug abuse, as well as mental illnesses and sexual, physical and emotional abuse of the child were highlighted in this theory. Critique of the theory is that it is generalized and not all children in these circumstances become serial killers.
The systemic theories on the origin of serial homicide examined the role that the complete system, comprising the nuclear family, the educational system, social structures like religion and welfare, law enforcement, the judicial system and correctional facilities, played in the development of a serial killer. In most cases these theories illustrated how these substructures failed to recognise, address and rehabilitate deviant behaviour in children. The theories also indicated how the media serves a role in sensationalising and encouraging serial killers.
Dr Ronald Holmes (a coroner and Vice President of the National Center for the Study of Unresolved Homicides) and Dr James de Burger in their 1988-book Serial Murder identify two socio-cultural factors namely the continuous culture of violence and the pattern of early development and interaction within the serial killer’s family to be present in the background of a serial killer, but they admit that “sociogenic theories are also unable to account directly for the appearance of serial homicide.”
FH Leibman in her 1989-article Serial Murders Four Case Histories in Federal Probation found that a cruel and violent childhood, rejection by parents, rejection by a member of the opposite sex, confrontation with the law and admittance to psychiatric hospitals all featured in the case studies of Ted Bundy, Albert de Salvo, Ed Kemper and Jerry Brudos.
Dr Elliott Leyton, a socio-anthropologist, in his 1986-book, Compulsive Killers: The Story of Modern Multiple Murder regarded serial homicide as a sub-cultural political and conservative protest which implies a social gain of revenge, star status, identity and sexual gratification for the killer.
Neurological Causes
J Money in his 1990-article titled Forensic Sexology: Paraphiliac Serial Rape (Biastophilia) and Lust Murder (Erotophonophilia) in American Journal of Psychotherapy attributed serial rape and lust murder to an injury in the brain’s limbic system and sexual sadism to a brain tumour, which causes a change in consciousness and a change in personality!
A genetic link has never been identified among serial killers.
Diagnostic Criteria
Psychologists are unable to define serial killers according to the Diagnostical Statistical Manual, the accepted textbook for classifying all mental illnesses and personality disorders. Serial killers tend to have personality disorder tendencies like anti-social, borderline, schizoid, schizotypical and paranoid personality disorder, but there is no common category that all of them share. The disorganised serial killers tend to be schizophrenic or delusional, but again, not all of them are. Not all serial killers can be diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder (psychopath) and not all so-called psychopaths are serial killers.
Fantasy
In my opinion, MacCulloch, Snowden, Wood and Mills in their 1983-article Sadistic Fantasy, Sadistic Behaviour and Offending in the British Journal of Psychiatry had a breakthrough when they identified fantasy as an important element of sadism. Prentky, Wolbert-Burgess, Rokous, Lee, Hartman, Robert Ressler and John Douglas elaborated on the fantasy element in their 1989-article The Presumptive role of Fantasy in Sexual Homicide in the American Journal of Psychiatry, when they found that an intrusive fantasy life manifested in serial killers. They found that serial killers act out their fantasies on the crime scenes. This is ultimately true. Although they were ultimately on the right track, what they failed to establish is what causes these particular idiosyncratic fantasies and why do serial killers not have an inhibiting factor, such as a conscience, to prevent them from acting out these fantasies in reality. In his 1999-book, Bad Men do what Good Men Dream, author Robert Simon presents a good insight that even ‘good; people sometimes fantasize about killing, but they do not act upon it.
The Devil Made Me Do It
The theory of demonic possession has also been explored in the context of the origin of serial homicide. But, no matter how horrendous their deeds, serial killers are not possessed by the devil. Symptoms of supposed demonic possession are a radical change of personality, loss of self-control, blasphemy, dissociative states, voice changes and auditory or visionary hallucinations of demons. Some serial killers may be blasphemous, some may lose self-control, but not all of them manifest with all the symptoms. “The devil made me do it’ is no excuse.
Serial killers belong to different religious denominations. Norman Avzal Simons converted from Christianity to Islam and then back to Christianity; Mhlengwa Zikode was a Catholic; Nicolas Ncama and Bongani Mfeka both studied to be Methodist ministers. Some serial killers, such as Richard Ramirez may be Satanists, but not all.
Another important difference between Satanists and serial killers is that Satanists will commit murder to ‘honour the devil’, but serial killers commit murder for their own subconscious psychological gain. Satanists operate in cults, enjoy an audience and showmanship, while serial killers mainly work in solitude. They do not recruit others into their activities.
Shortcomings
All the available first generation theories on the origin of serial homicide could not answer my one valid question: If two boys in the same family are both exposed to family abuse, be it emotional, physical or sexual, and both are equally exposed to social external factors such as crime, faction fighting, terrorism, crime illness and poverty, why does one develop into a serial killer and the other not?
I asked myself this question after reading each of the theories. If violence and dysfunctional developmental years causes serial homicide, as the socio-cultural theories would profess, why do we not have many more serial killers? Not every abused or mistreated child turns into a serial killer. Some severely abused children lead very successful and productive lives. Nor could any of the other theories solve my dilemma. Not all serial killers are Satanists, not all have neurological dysfunctions, or any other physical ailment or genetic deviation for that matter, and not all of them suffer from the same mental illnesses or personality disorders.
To my mind, the answer lies within the individual’s idiosyncratic reaction to all these adverse circumstances and not in the external adverse circumstances themselves.
I had to find a tool, a medium, by which I could delve into the soul of the serial killer to try and decipher his particular reaction, and this tool had to be of such a nature that it could generally be applied to all serial killers. Psycho-analysts Sigmund Freud and Melanie Klein provided my answer. My signature theory on the origin of serial killers (1996) will be discussed in the trilogy series of articles to follow.
Top image: The Werewolf or the Cannibal, by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472–1553) Metropolitan Museum of Art
Suggested Books:
Holmes, R. & De Burger, J. 1988. Serial Murder
Leyton, E. 1986. Compulsive Killers: The Story of Modern Multiple Murder
Simon, R.I. 1999. Bad Men do what Good Men Dream
