Introduction
Serial killers seem to be one of the most dangerous criminal elements. They are often hard to expose, and their daily behavior rarely could be called abnormal at least to their relatives and friends. It is their dark side that horrifies people once it is revealed. The U.S. police report having a decent crime-solving rate in relation to typical crimes, however, serial killings are on the opposite can be considered a weak spot in the enforcement agency because, in these cases, it is hard for them to identify and bring to justice those responsible (Miller, 2014). Scientists are still undecided as to what pushes a person to commit multiple murders in a similar pattern, but the knowledge of that could prove invaluable to criminology as it will let investigators arrest the murderers earlier and prevent further killings (Miller, 2014). This is why it is paramount to delve into theory around serial killers’ motivations.
Definition of a Serial Killer
In order to theorize on the motivation of serial killers, it is obligatory to define the scope of the study. According to Adjorlolo and Chan (2014), there is a fair amount of controversy among professionals as to the defining characteristics of a serial killer. Since every case is unique, it is hard to generalize a common profile and unite multiple criminal offenders under one linguistic or legal category. The absence of a sound practical definition complicates legal procedures and, most importantly, the decision process over a punitive measure. Presently, even in state agencies, there is no accurate and unified definition of the act of serial killing. Hickey (2012) states that in the recently passed legislation, a serial killer is identified as a person who killed three or more individuals in a similar pattern. This definition poses an issue of periodicity. As such, a person who shoots three people in a shop, for instance, could be called a serial killer as the definition does not specify the time variable.
In the FBI the definition was refined and defined serial killing as two or more cases of murder committed by same individuals in separate events” (Adjorlolo & Chan, 2014). This sounds like a sound definition due to the fact that it includes time separation that is usually observed in serial killers’ behavior and the possibility of having accomplices in crime. It also defines a new minimum for the number of kills sufficient to identify a killer as a serial murderer. However, this definition again puts in a row psychopaths who torture, dismember, or consume their victims with regular mentally sane people who kill out of spite or anger more than two times.
For the sake of this research, the author will include an ambiguous yet necessary component of fantasizing so as to more precisely distinguish the object of this study. This component was seen in the earlier definitions of serial killers but was removed, which according to the author’s view has diminished both the scientific and practical value of the latest FBI definition. Thus in this research, a serial killer will be defined as an individual experiencing dark phantasies who killed two or more people in a similar pattern in separate events.
Motives of Serial Killers
Studying motives for committing a serial murder has the same or even higher degree of complication than defining one. One of the problems that shed light on the elaborated nature of the issue is the limitedness of the sources of information. There seem to be only three ways of defining a motive in a complex case such as serial murder such as questioning the serial killer or killers, questioning their close ones if there are any, and the forensic analysis and interpretation of evidence. The limitedness resides with the fact that none of these sources of information could be regarded as sound and objective.
The interrogation evidence is unreliable as it could be easily altered by the will of the subject and there is no procedure to determine the truth. For instance, the infamous serial killer, John Wayne Gacy during the legal procedures has several times changed the killing reasons he named involving complete denial of his guilt and attribution of the killings to another person, split personality, irresistible inner urges, and many others (Sullivan & Maiken, 2000). Any of these motives could be considered true as the mind of a serial killer is different from a mind of a normal person and the degree to which the latter could comprehend the former is to a certain extent limited. In addition, the killer’s own perception of their crimes may differ from what they are in reality. The intricate design of the brain does not always let its owner perceive the reasons why something has happened. Not every person can understand and, what is more important, convey their understanding to others in a manner that they would comprehend the information to the fullest extent.
The same bias can be attributed to the other sources, as a family usually does not know or fully understand the inner workings of their killer-relative, while forensic experts can only theoretically establish the link or distinguish between the inner compulsive urge, sadistic pleasure, or ritualistic submission to the command a higher power. Practically, the most persistent barrier to the utter understanding of the motivation of a serial killer or any other person is the development of technology and science that establish knowledge about the design and functioning of the brain.
The current scientific discoveries in the field allow classifying serial killers into several categories by their pattern, which can shed light on their motivation. Several classifications were elaborated from the 1970s to the present time. One of the most recent is devised by Sewall, Krupp, and Lalumiere (2013) and features competitively disadvantaged, psychopathic, and sadistic offenders. The first type often experienced child abuse, and related anti-social disorder that triggers the criminal activity and in a significant manner defines the pattern of killing. This group of killers is often incapable of establishing a relationship and frequently resort to a disorganized low-standard life of criminals. Psychopathic serial killers are distinguished for their ability to maintain a good-natured social relationship while having an impaired or absent sense of guilt, remorse, or compassion. Sadistic offenders may represent either socially established and organized or the opposite type of personality while their distinctive feature is a quest for a distorted sense of sexual pleasure.
Miller (2014) adds other types of serial killers such as delusional, custodial, and utilitarian ones. Delusional and custodial killers often have an intricate personal philosophy, while the latter tend to murder those under their care or influence. Utilitarian serial killers are driven mostly by a variety of reasons including material gain, rage, revenge, and so on.
Those types do not easily merge into one, as two general principles seem to be put into their bases: motivation and psychosocial profile. Since this research focuses on motivation, it is thought best to explore in detail the following types of serial killers in accordance with Miller’s (2014, p. 23) classification: “sexual sadists, delusional, custodial, and utilitarian murderers.”
Sexual Sadists
This sub-type of serial killers is generally present in most of the classifications. According to the worldwide statistics on documented cases of serial murders, lust is the most common reason for committing a series of crimes (Aamodt, 2016). Interestingly, lust, thrill, and power are united into one common reason, which both complicates and simplifies the task of researching motivation. On the one hand, it is hard to single out one primary urge that may define a person as a sexual sadist. On the other hand, such measure reveals a certain clue about serial killers and serial sexual offenders. It appears that sexual pleasure is rarely the sole reason for committing a series of crimes. Thus, sexual gratification is rather easily achieved without using violence, which makes violence the catalyst of crime. Apparently, sexual sadists cannot satisfy their desires by simple intercourse, which is the reason for seeking new sensations and ‘ultimate’ pleasure. This conclusion is exemplified by John Gacy, a serial killer who murdered and raped 33 young boys and buried most of them in his basement.
As it becomes evident from his interviews and biographies collected by Sullivan and Maiken (2000), Gacy had a history of tricking young boys into having sex with him. His first murder he described as an accident, which, nonetheless, got him sexually aroused and pushed him to pursue this experience again and explore the depths of his twisted desires. The fact that he took pleasure in mostly children under 20 years old gives a reason to believe that he also liked the sensation of his power and the helplessness of his victims. Interestingly, the exposure to death and resulting pleasure was accidental in nature. The subject did not seem to have any compulsive ideas about killing prior to his first victim, which made him no different from a usual molester. This appears to add a social component to the reasoning of serial killers. The desire to kill was born as a result of an accident with another person.
This assumption can be evidenced by Jeffrey Dahmer, a murderer, rapist, necrophile, and cannibal who ended the lives of 17 young men. In his school years, the killer exhibited signs of detachment from his classmates. This was partly due to his curiosity about dissecting dead animals, which his father understandably attributed to sheer children’s inquisitiveness. ‘Strange’ hobby and inadequate sense of humor recollected by his former classmates diverted most people from him (Masters, 1993). Thoughts about killing started to emerge a few years later when he fantasized about bludgeoning a runner and lying next to his body. Dahmer stated that he wanted his victims to be submissive and when alcohol and sedatives became not enough he resorted to killing, having intercourse with bodies of his lovers, cutting off, storing, and devouring their organs. He explained such acts as a desire to keep them close and the sensation of spiritual unity with a person.
The urge to feel powerful, the will to live driven by lust and sexual fulfillment together with social problems seems to make sexual sadists commit their horrible crimes. Genetic or psychological impairments make them susceptible to drastic and radical decisions in choosing the way for the realization of their dark dreams and become the catalyst for having them in the first place.
Delusional and Custodial Killers
These two groups can be united in one, as they seem to be driven by a personal philosophy that motivates and justifies their murders. Having a mission does not necessarily exclude the pleasure or thrill of the killing process. Here, the fulfillment of the mission and the thrill of ending the life intertwine into a deadly combination. An example of such behavior is Melvin Davis Rees. According to Wilson (1995), Rees was obsessed with Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. The idea of defining the true self through the choice of actions and behaviors exhibited by an individual became Reese’s ideal. His friends reported that he wanted to experience everything and killing was not as taboo as everyone thinks it is (Wilson, 1995). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for seven gunshot murders and sexual assaults.
As there is not much reliable information as to his childhood and social connections, it is hard to assume that society affected him in a vile way. He and people like him seem to be rather susceptible to strong ideas, and the vividness of mind creates a twisted, evil version of the philosophy or belief they are initially inspired by. However, these two criteria seem to be enough to motivate a person to commit murder, but it is the innate redundancy of guilt and remorse sensations that enables them to commit one murder after another.
Utilitarian Serial Killers
The utilitarian drives such as money are stated as the second most common reason for committing a series of murders (Aamodt, 2016). This type of serial killer is quite different from the three described above due to the often-absent component of taking pleasure in the process of killing. Here the motive is rather the result than the process. For instance, Blanche Taylor Moore killed three husbands by poisoning their food with arsenic in order to claim their possessions. Mixing other motives could also be possible here. Resentment or anger could be possible elements of the motivation that drove the woman to commit murder. As the resulting surplus in material wealth is the ultimate goal of these serial killers, the methods of achieving it are rather non-pain inflicting, except for the cases when the victim does not want to part with their possessions.
This group seems to be the most straightforward and understandable in terms of motivation as the materialistic world around us urges people to be resourceful and cunning in order to attain high financial and social standing. People who lack such skills and demonstrate low social responsibility and regard for human life tend to become captive of such a parasitic lifestyle. Obtaining money by killing eventually drives to kill more, as other sources of income are either unacceptable or unachievable due to the lack of skill.
Conclusion
Baseline serial killer motivators such as sexual pleasure, empowerment, spiritual accomplishment, or money could be understood by ordinary people as they face the same desires in everyday non-extreme forms. What still eludes perception is what are other components that distort and amplify the serial killers’ desires so much that they kill dozens of people in order to satisfy themselves not stopping until dead or imprisoned. Currently, science has only confirmed the fact that some people suffer from brain deficiency in certain regions that numb their reaction to immoral actions (Moreira, Almeida, Pinto, & Fávero, 2014). The mechanisms of early detection, prevention, and treatment are yet to be discovered.
References
Aamodt, M. G. (2016). Serial killer statistics. Web.
Adjorlolo, S., & Chan, H. C. O. (2014). The controversy of defining serial murder: Revisited. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 486-491.
Hickey, E. W. (2012). Serial murderers and their victims (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth
Masters, B. (1993). The shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer. New York, NY: Hodder & Stoughton.
Miller, L. (2014). Serial killers: I. Subtypes, patterns, and motives. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(1), 1-11.
Moreira, D., Almeida, F., Pinto, M., & Fávero, M. (2014). Psychopathy: A comprehensive review of its assessment and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(3), 191-195.
Sewall, L.A., Krupp, D.B. & Lalumiere, M.L. (2013). A test of two typologies of sexual homicide. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 82-100.
Sullivan, T., & Maiken, P. (2000). Killer clown: The John Wayne Gacy murders. New York, NY: Pinnacle.
Wilson, C. (1995). The killers among us: Sex, madness, and mass murder. New York, NY: Warner.