research papers on serial killers nature vs nurture

News and Features
Conferences
Clinical Tools
Special Collections

From Abused Child to Serial Killer: Investigating Nature vs Nurture in Methods of Murder

“Childhood trauma does not come in one single package.” â€• Asa Don Brown

Deeply traumatic experiences, especially during childhood, can have an even deeper impact in adult life. They can significantly shape an individual’s personality and life choices, spurring research into the connection between childhood abuse and criminal behavior. In particular, the extent of childhood abuse reported among serial killers has raised the question: Are serial killers born or made?

Nature vs Nurture

Not all abused children become serial killers, and not all serial killers are victims of childhood abuse. However, the connection between the two cannot be dismissed as just coincidence.

According to criminologist Dr Adrian Raine, both biologic and social factors contribute to the making of a murderer. Reviews of more than 100 twin and adoption analyses showed that approximately 50% of variance in antisocial behavior is attributable to genetic influences. 1 In his book, The Anatomy of Violence , Dr Raine explains that “Genetics and environment work together to encourage violent behavior.” For example, those with a specific variant of the enzyme monoamine-oxidase-A gene are more prone to displaying violent behavior if they have had an abusive upbringing. A child susceptible to genetically driven violent conduct does not necessarily become a criminal. However, genetics, in tandem with environmental factors such as violent childhood experiences, work together to shape a person. 2

Personal traumas can affect behavioral choices. Take the example of the murderer Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez from El Paso, Texas. Found guilty of murdering 13 people in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Ramirez had a disturbed childhood, enduring brutal beatings by his father. Serial killer duo Ottis Toole and Henry Lee Lucas, who were believed to have murdered hundreds of people, were both victims of physical and psychological abuse. Specifically, they were made to dress up as young girls and then beaten. 3

The connection between genetics, social environment, and criminal behavior appears to be a reality, although in varying degrees across criminals. As Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) profiler Jim Clemente said, “Genetics loads the gun, their personality and psychology aim it, and their experiences pull the trigger.” 3

Decoding the Criminal Mind

Understanding the factors that may contribute to serial killer behavior facilitates effective criminal profiling significantly. At a recent UK conference, researcher Abbie Marono presented findings from her work with ex-FBI profiler Joe Navarro on how different types of childhood abuse can be used to profile serial killers.

The study involved examining the association among 4 serial killer typologies — lust and rape, anger, power, and financial gain — and 3 categories of child abuse — psychological, sexual, and physical.

The results suggest that sexual abuse was potentially connected to the rape/lust and anger typologies. It was also associated with a tendency for overkill, postmortem sex, and moving the body to a different location from where the murder took place.

Psychological abuse was associated more with rape/lust and financial gain typologies. Acts of crime associated with childhood psychological abuse tended to involve torture.

Similar Rates of Childhood Trauma in Schizophrenia and Substance Use Disorders
Childhood-Onset Bipolar Disorder Associated With Impaired Family Functioning
Brain Volume, ADHD Symptoms May Be Affected by Childhood Stressors

In contrast, physical childhood abuse was found to be associated with the rape/lust typology, as well as behaviors such as carrying out the act quickly, binding the body, and leaving the body at the crime scene. 4

A landmark study of 50 serial killers found that childhood abuse was more prevalent in lust serial killers. One of the authors of this study, Michael G. Aamodt, explained, “Our data showed that a much higher percentage of serial killers were abused as children than the population in general. It certainly makes sense that the type of abuse received as a child — physical, sexual, or psychological — could influence a serial killer’s behavior and choice of victim.” While it is safe to recognize abuse as a factor contributing to the making of a serial killer, most people who face abuse do not become serial killers. In this study, 32% of all serial killers had no history of abuse. 5

In his book Serial Killers , Joel Norris describes the cycles of violence as generational: “Parents who abuse their children, physically as well as psychologically, instill in them an almost instinctive reliance upon violence as a first resort to any challenge.” 6 In another study, serial killers were analyzed to understand the variables of childhood mistreatment and sexual aggression toward victims. The researchers found that serial killers treated badly during childhood tended to sexually assault their victims before murdering them. On the other hand, serial killers who did not experience childhood abuse did not display sexually violent behavior. 7

In a study for the National Institute of Justice, Dr Herrenkohl and his colleagues found that childhood abuse heightened the risk for criminal behavior in adulthood by encouraging antisocial behavior during childhood. There was also evidence of a “cycle of violence” in people with a history of childhood maltreatment, with victims of childhood violence being more likely to demonstrate violence later in life. 8

A Complex Conundrum

Genetics, environment, trauma, and personality — various factors drive serial killer behavior. Generalizing the cause of criminal behavior would be presumptuous and inaccurate, but the link between childhood abuse and serial killing has been apparent in many studies over the decades. Beyond certain common personality traits, serial killers are unique, shaped by their own extraordinary experiences, circumstances, and mindsets. Whether genetic investigations like brains scans or behavioral studies to gauge serial killer tendencies prove to be groundbreaking in criminal profiling and crime prevention remains to be seen. However, with an extensive and ever-growing treasure trove of evidential research in this space, the key to understanding what makes a serial killer may be just around the corner.

Raine A. The biological crime: implications for society and the criminal justice system . Rev psiquiatr Rio Gd Sul . 2008;30:5-8.
Raine A. The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime . New York: Pantheon Books; 2013.
Merryweather C. 15 Serial Killers Who Had the Childhood From Hell. The Talko . www.thetalko.com/15-serial-killers-who-had-the-childhood-from-hell . Updated June 20, 2016. Accessed May 29, 2018.
Marono A, Keatley D. A behaviour sequence analysis of serial killers’ lives: from childhood abuse to methods of murder. Presented at: British Psychological Society Annual Conference; May 2-4, 2018; Nottingham, UK. Presentation 265.
Mitchell H, Aamodt MG. The incidence of child abuse in serial killers . J Police Criminal Psychol . 2005;20(1):40-47.
Norris J. Serial Killers. New York, NY: Doubleday Books; 1989.
De Santiago Herrero FJ, Delgado CT, García-Mateos M. Serial killers: relation between childhood maltreatment and sexual relations with the victims . Eur Psychiatry . 2017;41:S585-S586.
Pathways Between Child Maltreatment and Adult Criminal Involvement. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.gov/topics/crime/children-exposed-to-violence/Pages/pathways-between-child-maltreatment-and-adult-criminal-involvement.aspx . Updated October 12, 2017. Accessed May 29, 2018.

Picked For You

Spotlight Course

Want to read more.

Please login or register first to view this content.

Sign into My Research
Create My Research Account
Company Website
Our Products
About Dissertations
Español (España)
Support Center

Find your institution

Examples: State University, [email protected]

Other access options

More options

Select language

Bahasa Indonesia
Português (Brasil)
Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

Document 1 of 1
More like this
Dissertation or Thesis

research papers on serial killers nature vs nurture

Development of Serial Killers

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

Select results items first to use the cite, email, save, and export options

[[missing key: loading-pdf-error]] [[missing key: loading-pdf-link]]

In society today, we are constantly surprised by the outlandish actions that mankind is capable of. We see it on the news, watch films and series about serial killers, and even read about mysterious killers in novels. Serial killing is a phenomenon that people find both intriguing and scary. This exploratory study will compare a detailed and descriptive analysis of three infamous serial killers in the United States: Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy. This paper will explore their psychopathic traits, analyze individual case studies for each killer, and find similarities and differences between them to identify possible life events and factors biological (nature) or environmental (nurture) leading them to become serial killers. Also, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991) will be used to see if they meet the criteria of a psychopath, this is done by looking at their characteristics, lifestyles, and their behaviors. The aim of this literature review is to determine if nature or nurture is stronger in the upbringing of a serial killer. The debate between nature versus nurture has been going on for decades resulting in new questions constantly arising. The methodology used for this research was primarily through a multiple case study analysis. The majority of the data has been gathered from novels, Netflix documentaries, and articles about serial killers. The result of the study evidently presents that although nature and nurture may both play a role in one becoming a serial killer, the study supports the thesis that nature proves to be prevailing.

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

About ProQuest
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy

Home
University Colleges
Purchase College
Purchase College Student Projects

Campus Communities in SOAR

Are serial killers form from nature or nurture.

Average rating

Cast your vote you can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item. when enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown. star rating, readers/advisors, term and year, date published, collections.

entitlement

Show Statistical Information

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.

DOI: 10.47611/jsr.v13i1.2394
Corpus ID: 271550053

The Role of Epigenetics in the Formation of Serial Killers: Nature vs. Nurture

Joyce Lin , Jayarama Krishnan Bose , Toulouse-Antonin Roy
Published in Journal of student-scientists… 29 February 2024
Biology, Psychology

Tables from this paper

54 References

The signature of maternal rearing in the methylome in rhesus macaque prefrontal cortex and t cells, childhood maltreatment is associated with distinct genomic and epigenetic profiles in posttraumatic stress disorder, effects of the social environment and stress on glucocorticoid receptor gene methylation: a systematic review, pre- and peri-natal environmental risks for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (adhd): the potential role of epigenetic processes in mediating susceptibility..

Highly Influential

Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior

Maoa gene hypomethylation in panic disorder—reversibility of an epigenetic risk pattern by psychotherapy, genome-wide association studies of a broad spectrum of antisocial behavior, epigenetic programming of the stress response in male and female rats by prenatal restraint stress, mechanisms in the cycle of violence., lead exposure disrupts global dna methylation in human embryonic stem cells and alters their neuronal differentiation., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Nurturing Monsters: Exploring the Role of Environment in the Creation of Serial Killers

##article.authors##.

Keya Shah Polygence

Serial killers have long been the subject of fascination and scrutiny within the field of criminology. The nature vs. nurture debate has been a significant point of contention when exploring the origins of their behavior. This case study aims to demonstrate that nurture, encompassing various factors such as: modus operandi, ostracism, and familial ties, plays a larger role in the creation of serial killers than nature. By examining the lives and crimes of Ted Bundy and Randy Steven Kraft, as well as drawing on the diathesis stress model and sociocultural theorie, this paper will provide compelling evidence to support the thesis that nurture contributes significantly to the development of serial killers.

FBI. (2008). Serial Murder: multi-disciplinary perspectives for investigators. Behavioural Analysis Unit: National Centre for the Analysis of Violent Crime

APA PsycNet. (n.d.). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-13007-001

HeinOnline. (2021, March 8). About | HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fbileb61&div=12&id=&page=

Mcleod, S., PhD, & Mcleod, S., PhD. (2023). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html?ezoic_amp=1&fb_comment_id=500779888714_15217241

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). https://dictionary.apa.org/diathesis-stress-model

McDougal, D. (2009). Angel of Darkness: The True Story of Randy Kraft and the Most Heinous Murder Spree. Hachette UK.

Piccotti, T. (2023, August 30). Inside Ted Bundy’s troubled and disturbing childhood. Biography. https://www.biography.com/crime/ted-bundy-childhood

Jenkins, J. P. (2002, September 27). Ted Bundy | Biography, Crimes, death, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ted-Bundy

Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An Update on the “Cycle of Violence.” Research in Brief. U.S. Department of Justice. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED451313

Randy Kraft - One of American most deadly serial killers. (2023, February 5). Randy Kraft. https://randykraft.com/

Sussman, O., & Sussman, O. (2023). Diathesis–Stress model. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/diathesis-stress-model.html

Serial Killer: Nature vs. Nurture How Serial Killers are Born. (n.d.). https://www.aaets.org/traumatic-stress-library/serial-killer-nature-vs-nurture-how-serial-killers-are-born

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

The Research Archive of Rising Scholars is an open-access preprint archive for scholarly articles by the most curious and bright young minds of our generation. It is a repository for articles in any and all academic fields in STEM and the Humanities. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by the Research Archive. The purpose of this archive is to offer an open-access space to house the work of budding scholars as they ready their articles for peer-reviewed publication elsewhere.

More information about the publishing system, Platform and Workflow by OPS/PKP.

Berkeley Scientific Journal

Born to Kill? The story of ‘Serial Killer’ genes

By Anusha Subramanian

All the way back in 2010, an Italian judge made legal history by decreasing the already reduced sentence of a male convict accused of murder, after the convict was found to be a carrier of genetic variants that were thought to be associated with a predisposition for aggression (Forzano et al., 2010) . The convict’s sentence was reduced prior to this intervention because he had schizophrenia and was actively psychotic at the time of the crime. However, at the appeal’s court, the defense was allowed to conduct a ‘genetic susceptibility test’ showing that the convict carried certain variants for the MAOA , COMT, SCL6A4 and DRD4 genes, that have been associated with aggression modulation, which later led to a modified sentencing from 9 years to 8 years.

Behavioral psychology, as a field, has always been intrigued by the etiology (the set of causes and manner of causation of a disease or condition) of violence. The landmark Italian sentencing came at a time when the social landscape was rife with studies linking genetics to a predisposition to violence, aggression, impulsivity, etc. and how such effects were compounded by environmental factors such as substance abuse and childhood malnourishment. Mednick et al. (1984) conducted a classic study showing the significant correlation between biological parents and adoptees for property crimes but not violent crimes. Much of the genes involved in serotonin pathways, such as SCL6A4 , have been studied for their implication in impulsivity and substance abuse. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that has been previously implicated in many functions including mood regulation and firing of the amygdala in the frontal lobe of the brain. For instance, the HTR2B gene encodes one of the several receptors for serotonin. In 2010, Bevilacqua et al found that a codon in the HTR2B mRNA that signaled the termination of translation (also known as the stop codon) was associated with substance abuse and increased risk of committing impulsive crimes like homicide, arson, etc. But a lot of research on this topic is complicated since the researchers were unable to prove whether the functional variant of HTR2B , i.e a form of the gene that alters its function, was associated with substance abuse, or impulsivity. In other words, no conclusions could be drawn about whether the gene caused a predisposition to substance abuse which then led to impulsive, crime-causing behavior or if it caused a predisposition to impulsivity which led to the cascade of substance abuse and criminal behavior — a problem involving what is known as the “direction of causality”.

And then we also have the MAOA gene, our star-player. Commonly known as the ‘warrior’ gene, MAOA has a complicated heritage. The MAOA gene codes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase-A which plays a key role in the breakdown of neurotransmitters such as serotonin. Individuals with defects in the MAOA gene that are associated with a low dopamine turnover rate have been shown to be more prone to aggressive behavior than their counterparts. To study these interactions, scientists often use ‘knockout studies’ that involve mutating a gene of interest so that it’s knocked out (KO) and can’t function anymore. It helps observe what changes are produced when the gene of interest isn’t functioning correctly which might ultimately inform research on the role of that gene and conditions caused by it and subsequent treatments. Knockout studies of the MAOA vs MAOB (monoamine oxidase-B) enzymes in mice show noticeably different behavior based on whether oxidase-A or -B is knocked out. (Shih JC, 1999) . The two enzymes preferentially oxidize different substrates and the consequent build-up of particular compounds when one enzyme is knocked-out is the likely reason for MAOA KO mice demonstrating aggressive behavior while the MAOB KO mice do not. A rare point mutation in the MAOA gene that resulted in a total loss of monoamine oxidase-A was found to be associated with the repeated generational incidence of violent criminal behavior among members in a Dutch family (Brunner HG et al, 1993). Meta-analytical studies have shown significant interactions between the low-functioning variant (causing loss or reduced function) of the MAOA genotype and childhood difficulties on subsequent antisocial outcomes ( Byrd et al, 2014) . However, the biggest study on this matter, which looked at over 4000 participants, was once again struck by the difficulty in determining causal direction (Haberstick BC et al, 2014). It could not establish that MAOA moderated the relationship between abusive childhood and antisocial behavior. Additionally, most research in this field has been conducted on a sample of only males. Thus, research on the MAOA gene has been fraught with controversy.

Around the same time, it had been established that a large proportion of violent crime in developed countries was committed by a relatively small group of antisocial, repeat-offenders. In 2015, Jari Tiilhonen, currently a Professor in the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, and his colleagues, conducted a pioneering Genome-wide association study (GWAS) on the genetic predispositions to violent behaviors and repeat offenders in a cohort of Finnish prisoners. They had two groups – violent, which had at least one violent crime conviction such as homicide or manslaughter, and extremely violent, which had at least 10 violent crime convictions). ‘Extremely violent’ group was a subset of the ‘violent group’. Prisoners from 19 of the largest prisons in Finland, excluding diagnosis of some psychosis and convictions of sexual crime, were involved in the study. It was found that the low-activity MAOA genotype was associated with violent offending. Interestingly, findings did not differ between males and females and more importantly, the risk was not influenced by childhood maltreatment as some previous studies had suggested. The association was even stronger for the extremely violent group. In the extremely violent group, an additional strong association was found in a SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) in the CDH13 gene that codes for neuronal membrane adhesion. CDH13 codes for the t-cadherin protein that has a role in proliferation, migration, and connectivity of neurons. Disturbed neural connectivity and CDH13 have been implied to be associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD, and it’s worth noting that one of the core symptoms of ADHD is often acknowledged as impulsivity.

At this point, it’s important to ruminate over a few key points regarding this Finish Prisoner study. Of the crimes committed by the offenders in the cohort, most were non- premeditated, which means that the crimes weren’t pre-planned. Therefore, in a way, the study almost exclusively focused on a definition of violence whose major attribute was ‘impulsivity’. In theory, there could be different types of violence (for instance, sexual violence, which this study excluded* ) that could be governed by a different genetic recipe. A majority of the crimes in Finland are also committed under the influence of substances such as alcohol, which leads to a short-lived spike in dopamine levels. Another finding from the study suggested that the risk allele (low-activity variant of MAOA gene) could pose a genetic risk of developing alcoholism, but only in situations wherein the individual was exposed to a stressful childhood environment, such as childhood maltreatment, trauma and such. The study eventually concluded that about 9-10% of violent crime in Finland was associated with the low-activity MAOA allele. This is the point where the line between the responsibility of scientific results and their ethical application to the justice system, becomes significantly blurry.

Going back to the age-old Nature vs Nurture debate, a good way to think about it is that genetics provide an individual with a spectrum and the individual’s environment, developmental and otherwise, determines where you lie on it. A predisposition may lie dormant for eternity, but feed it a stressful environment and increased risk factors such as malnourishment and trauma, and it will manifest. Clinical facts must be tempered with ethical concerns when applying science to society. The Italian judge who reduced a sentence based on a genetic susceptibility test that is not grounded solidly in an environmental context may have set a precedent that does more harm than good in the long run. Their decision raises questions, such as whether propensity for violence could be accurately considered a mental illness. These questions require nuanced answers that we may not always be able to provide. Over-emphasizing the role of genetics in criminal behavior might lead to over-punishment or over-justification (Forzano et al, 2010). Genetic susceptibility may also lead to mitigation of responsibility in convicts during trials of offenses, leading to reduced punishments. MAOA and CHD13 are sometimes called “serial killer genes.” If we proceed to label people as “serial killer gene” carriers we risk stigmatization at unprecedented levels. Labels can lead to wide-spread discrimination, genomic-profiling, blurred social-equality norms, and resultant increased punishment without provocation. And the authors of the landmark Finish prisoners study also acknowledge that. In their own words,

‘It is equally important to realize that, according to the basic principles of forensic psychiatry, only the actual mental capability (phenotype) of the offender matters when punishment or legal responsibility is considered, and the putative risk factors per se (such as genotype) have no legal role in the resulting judgment.’

While I don’t know if there is a right answer to the question of how much we should factor genetics into our justice system, that cannot be the reason to stop debating the pros and cons of it. While modern civilization moves forward, facilitating dialogue, discussion and more research into the etiology and complex interactions of human behaviors in the context of our social systems will be vital to our progress as mankind.

FORZANO, F., BORRY, P., CAMBON-THOMSEN, A., HODGSON, S. V., TIBBEN, A., DE VRIES, P., VAN EL, C., & CORNEL, M. (2010). Italian appeal court: a genetic predisposition to commit murder? European Journal of Human Genetics, 5, 519.

Mednick SA, Gabrielli WH, Hutchings B. Genetic influences in crime convictions: evidence from and adoption cohort. Science 1984; 224:

Bevilacqua L, Doly S, Kaprio J, Yuan Q, Tikkanen R, Paunio T et al. A population- specific HTR2B stop codon predisposes to severe impulsivity. Nature 2010;

Shih J, Chen K. MAO-A and -B gene knock-out mice exhibit distinctly different behavior. Neurobiology. 1999;

Brunner HG, Nelen M, Breakefield XO, Ropers HH, van Oost BA. Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 1993;

Byrd AL, Manuck SB. MAOA, childhood maltreatment, and antisocial behavior: meta-analysis of a gene-environment interaction. Biol Psychiatry 2014;

Haberstick BC, Lessema JM, Hewitta JK, Smolena A, Hopferb CJ, Halpernc CT et al. MAOA genotype, childhood maltreatment, and their interaction in the etiology of adult antisocial behaviors. Biol Psychiatry 2014;

Tiihonen, J., Rautiainen, M. R., Ollila, H. M., Repo-Tiihonen, E., Virkkunen, M., Palotie, A., Pietiläinen, O., Kristiansson, K., Joukamaa, M., Lauerma, H., Saarela, J., Tyni, S., Vartiainen, H., Paananen, J., Goldman, D., & Paunio, T. (2015). Genetic background of extreme violent behavior. Molecular psychiatry , 20 (6), 786–792. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.130

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

UC Berkeley's Premier Undergraduate Science Journal

THE ACADEMY IS CELEBRATING ITS 25TH ANNIVERSARY

Serial Killer: Nature vs. Nurture How Serial Killers are Born

www.associatedcontent.com

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form

___________________________

Drilling into the skull of a young man he began to funnel a stream of sulfuric acid into the head of his unconscious victim to create a zombie to fulfill all of his fantasies. Dead within a day, he mummified the head of his victim placing it in the freezer beside the skulls of those who came before. Dismembering the remnants of the body he placed skin, blood, and bone into a fifty-gallon vat of acid dissolving what was left of the young man. This is the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer, he murdered not in anger, revenge, or financial enrichment but on impulse and desire. Like many serial killers before him like Albert DeSalvo, Theodore Bundy, and David Berkowitz, psychologists, criminologists, and scientists searched to answer the question of why serial killers commit these mass killings and how they became such violent humans. What is left are two schools of thought, are serial killers born with predetermined genes that play an integral part in creating their homicidal tendencies or do psychokillers become murderous through their surroundings as children? Though it is important to understand how killers become such vicious individuals it is critical to understand what defines a serial killer and what makes them so incredibly different from other homicidal murderers.

A large distinction that separates serial killers from other murderers are their motives to kill. Normally homicides are committed due to disputes that range from family affairs, gang violence, financial difficulties, and disputes between lovers and between friends. "A psychokiller, I should make clear, is not a regular murderer. A murderer has a vendetta, a nice specific personal thing against his victim" (Corin 188). Unlike that of a normal homicide, serial killers are only driven by instinct and a desire to kill. Due to these sexual desires and the need to fulfill their arousing fantasies it often drives these individual to murder those who are complete strangers. Though serial killers only make up for one percent murderers nearly a dozen account for one hundred to two hundred murders annually (Fox 102).

Grover Godwin who profiles serial killers collected data from one hundred and seven serial killers and their seven hundred and twenty eight victims from sources that came from the FBI, local police departments, newspaper reports, and from the Homicide Investigations and Tracking System (HITS) database in Washington State. From Godwins investigation he found that nearly ninety percent of victims were complete strangers to the killer and that only three percent were friends and one percent were that of family members (Fox 105). This explains why serial killers are able to get away with the massacres for so incredibly long. When detectives go to investigate the disappearances of those missing there is no link between the killer and the victim making it practically impossible solve these mysteries. In an identical study by criminologist Eric Hickey, he assembled a database of nearly four hundred serial killers in which he found that eighty four percent of killers were male, twenty percent were of African American descent, and that the first murder committed by a serial killer was at the average age of twenty seven and a half years old (Fox 106). Even in movies these statistics can be found such as Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, and the Saw series in which Hollywood has repeatedly created characters that fit the description of a white male in their mid twenties to thirties creating this stereotypical image of serial killers.

Publicized in movies, magazines, and on TV serial killers have "Clearly become a fixture in our popular culture" (Fox 102). Unlike in the movie Silence of the Lambs where Dr. Hannibal Lector is a man of intelligence and riddles with an above average IQ, most serial killers do not have an education past that of high school. Grover Godwin found that only sixteen percent of the nearly one hundred and seven serial killers he had studied went to college and of those, only four percent actually graduated (Fox 105). Though most have very little education, successful serial killers must still possess the cleverness and wit to be able to dispose of multiple bodies and outsmart the police by leaving little to no traces of evidence.

"Many of them are exceptionally skillful in their presentation of self, so much so that they are beyond suspicions and thus are difficult to apprehend" (Fox 105). Incorrect is the assumption that serial killers wear hockey masks or walk around in pull ups carrying a chain saw. Movies and TV have put an image into our minds that these are the characteristics of a murderer when in reality they are masters at disguising their emotions and thoughts letting them blend into society. Magicians of death, they reel their victims into a false sense of security by many times tricking them with an offer of sex and drugs. Once they have control of their victims they remove their fake personality killing their victim with any weapon that they can find, fulfilling there wants, desires, and impulses.

Not to say that the aftermath of serial killers is trivial but the real controversy among theorists lies on how and why serial killers take the step from fantasy to reality. We are all made up of tiny individual genes that make up our personality traits defining who and what we are. Many believe that murderers do not grow into the shell of a killer but have predetermined genes that make up the chemical balance of our brain, body, thoughts, ideas, and most importantly actions. "Generally speaking biological factors vis-à-vis the causes of behavior can be defined as those 'processes and conditions that typically are considered as belonging to or characteristic of the organism'" (Jeffrey 78). As Lucy Corin in Everyday Psycho Killers presents, violence and death is apart of whom we are as humans and shows that violence is most prevalent when we are in our youth. Corin relates to the nature of violence in children and desires that we have whether good or bad in our everyday lives. "One girl had grabbed another girl by the front of the shirt through to her bra and flung her against the beam. The girl lay crumpled on the locker room floor, her head bleeding, her eyes saying more and the girl who had flung her stood over the body, hands on hips, with enormous thighs" (Corin 16).

Back in 2000 a report that was published in Science by Dr. Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin at Madison compared brain scans of more then five hundred people between those who were prone to violence and those who were considered to be normal. The study found that the brain images of those who had been convicted of a murder with aggressive or antisocial disorders showed distinct brain activity compared to those who were considered normal. If this study is correct then these murderers must have been born with an entirely different genetic makeup then that of those in the majority of the population who are not violent. These brain scans showed a relationship between the orbital frontal cortex, the anterior cingulated cortex, and the amygdale, which plays a large part in the control of negative and violent emotions. The orbital frontal cortex has been found to control and restrain the impulse of emotional outbursts, the anterior cingulated cortex was found to deal with responses to conflict, and the amygdale is known to control reactions to fear. When Davidson and his colleagues reviewed the brain images they found that brain activity in the orbital frontal cortex and the anterior cingulated cortex had diminished or was non existent compared to the amygdale which controls reactions to fear which stayed at the same activity level or went higher (Ramsland 35). Serial killers may be influenced by the culture that they are surrounded by, but those who can affect their thoughts do not have control over the reactions to ideas that are apart of our DNA. If it is possible to diagnose these genetic defects early, children can be treated and watched to make sure that the increase in emotional tendencies does not become uncontrollable causing them to hurt those around them. "We have accepted as proper for sociological study the environment external to the human person; perhaps we now should consider appropriate the environment internal to the person, not just the social psychological environment" (Jeffrey 88).

In the publication of Beyond the Pleasure Principle in 1920, Freud came up with two theories about the aggression in which humans express. Creating two different and opposing instincts, Freud came up with the death instinct and the life instinct. The death instinct is that of destructive behavior towards the society around them. What Freud had found that led him to the theory of the death instinct was that those he had studied who had experienced unpleasing experiences kept repeating those experiences even though they were still unpleasing. Opposite of that is the life instinct in which Freud believes that people try to maintain a better life and try to achieve bigger goals for themselves. Born with these aggressive and destructive stimuli serial killers go onto commit these horrific crimes even though they know most of the time that it is wrong. (Abel 41) Jeffrey Dahmer for example had always been intoxicated before committing a murder because his conscious knew that what he was doing was wrong. Though Freud hits the nail on the head that those with destructive behavior tend to repeat the same actions over and over again, I believe that serial killers qualify for only a fraction of this theory. Though serial killers repeatedly commit the same acts of destruction and violence it is not a totally unpleasing experience. When Dahmer committed his first murder at the age of eighteen he began drinking heavily because in his conscious he knew that what he did was unacceptable. Though he knew what he did was wrong he still felt pleasure from committing such a horrible act of violence.

Though we are all classified the same as human, we each are unequally different in our genetic makeup. "This concept states that we as humans (as well as other organism), though similar in our biological and biochemical composition, are absolutely unique; and, especially, that each biochemical composition has a pattern and distribution all its own" (Jeffery 90). Compare the fingerprints, moles, or skin tone of any two individual and you will find that each persons genes are pieced together. Genetics does not just go skin deep but affects the whole system including our minds and our thoughts. In 1915 Freud claimed that active stimuli in humans push them into action and that these active stimuli are "emanating within the organism and penetrating to the mind" (Weiner 12). If this is true then man does not have control over their actions and are instinctively born with these internal stimuli that decide when we take action and when we run from a situation in a fight or flight situation. Genes, many argue is the answer to understanding the mind of a serial killer and the only was to stop these murders is to detect these genetic defects early in their childhood.

Naturally we are all born with a different genetic make up but many argue that differences in DNA do not create a psychokiller. The main focus of many criminologists and psychologists are the origins and the surroundings of these killers childhood.

"Modern geneticists have pointed out that a nature-nurture dichotomy is clearly untenable, incorrect, and meaningless. The subject has to be discussed in terms of the continuous and complex interactions between an organism and its environment, and the relevant contributions of both sets of variables in determining the behavior of the organism" (Athens 12).

Taking a look at Jeffrey Dahmers childhood you will find that at an early age he was a fun and active child who his father described as, "Very exuberant, he liked to wrestle, liked to run around, ham it up for the camera and he liked to play with kids and get together with them" (The Monster Within). These are not characteristics of a serial killer who scientists say are born with this gene of aggressiveness. Dahmer had been a normal child until his father received his Ph. D in chemistry the family moved to Ohio relocating three times before settling down in Bath Ohio. When Dahmer had moved his father and mother noticed that he had become shy and anti-social. Jeffrey then began collecting road kill and dissecting it in experiments.

Criminologists and social behavioral psychologists have come to argue that "childhood experiences" and "repeated psychological trauma," during the early stages of growing up can cause a child to seek relief through activities of violence such as killing small animals.” Christine Falling was probably about as retarded as this friend of mine. And violent. At fourteen, she'd already been dropping cats from windows for years. Sometimes she'd squeeze them to death" (Corin 149). Much like Dahmer, when his parents began to fight he felt alone and would escape by himself out into the woods to find comfort in the pile of dead carcasses he had collected. Feeling abandoned by not only his parents but classmates he tried to seek attention by those around him by doing what his classmates called a "Dahmer," which was to act up and do things that were out of the norm and socially unacceptable. Unlike his family and classmates the dead carcasses gave him a feeling of comfort, fulfillment, pleasure and emotional release.

Sociologist Arnold Arluke compared the criminal records of one hundred and fifty three animal abusers with one hundred and fifty three non animal abusers and what he found in his study is that those who were animal abusers were five times more likely to commit acts of violence such as assault, rape, and murder against others. What was understood from this study is that serial killers in their childhood would resort to killing animals because they felt powerless against their parents who had control over them. Since these children did not have control in the household, they resorted to killing small animals in which they could exert their dominance and power over to do anything that pleased them (Fox 113).

In a study of sixty two male serial killers, Eric Hicky a criminologist found that, forty eight percent of them had been rejected as children by a parent or some other important person in their lives (Fox 113). Though this happens to many children, it certainly represents a turning point for those who become serial killers. Once rejected many of these killers begin to dive into their self indulgences and are unable to understand how and who they are when going through puberty. "The social experiences which make people dangerous violent criminals are the significant experiences rather than the trivial ones in their lives" (Athens 19).

Victims of abuse and rejection, serial killers find comfort in their fantasies and dreams that take them into a realm that only they can control. Psychokillers take their fantasies and make them a reality living their dreams. Growing up Jeffrey Dahmer had felt rejected by his parents and in turn kept the violent homosexual thoughts inside of him. Dahmer fantasized of having a male sexual partner but in his thoughts he received pleasure not only by having intercourse but also killing his partner. "Most sex murders demonstrate both the need for, and the terror or, engulfment by a figure onto whom ones primary attachment needs have been projected" (Stein 9). The need to kill fulfils this sexual desire of many killers turning their fantasies into a controllable reality. Without a proper relationship to model after in the household many of these killers do not understand to truly must interact with each other and coexist peacefully. Serial killers are violent humans and the only way to stop their killing sprees many argue is to put a stop to domestic violence in the household.

Understanding how and why serial killers commit such horrific crimes is an important step to stopping the homicidal rampages these psychokillers go on. Scientists searched and found what is believed to be hard evidence, that genetics is the key role in determining who becomes a serial killer unlike criminologists and psychologists who argue that large events such as abuse and abandonment create the setting and foundation in which serial killers grow into sadistic mass murders. Though both arguments are strongly proved and explained through research and statistics neither are individually the answer to why serial killers exist. In reviewing the evidence of both explanations I have found that it is a mix of both genetics and cultural upbringings. Though many humans must deal with violent situations as children and experience horrific events many do not become mass murderers. It is true that many children who are victims of abuse become violent in their adult lives but to cross into the category of a serial killer one must be born with a different biochemical makeup. In my conclusion nature does choose what traits we are born with but at the same time these traits cannot be exposed without a mechanism that triggers these individuals to commit these horrific crimes. Without the alignment of both natural genetic defects and the cultural nurturing in which humans are brought up in, serial killers cannot become vicious killers. If we can curb domestic violence then the chances for a serial killer to become violent will decrease significantly making our world a safer place.

Bibliography Bromberg, Walter. Crime and the Mind; A Psychiatric Analysis of Crime and Punishment. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Print.

Corin, Lucy. Everyday Psycho Killers: A History for Girls. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 2004. Print.

Jeffrey Dahmer: The Monster Within. Videotape. A&E Biography. 2006.

Fox, James Alan and Jack Levin. The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.

Abel, Donald C. Freud on Instinct and Morality. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989. Print.

Ramsland, Katherin M. Inside the Minds of Mass Murderers: Why they Kill. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2005. Print.

Jeffrey, Ray C. Biology and Crime. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979. Print.

Athens, Lonnie H. The Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992. Print.

Stein, Abby. Prologue to Violence: Child Abuse, Dissociation, and Crime. Mahwah, NJ: Analytic Press, 2007. Print.

Weiner, Bernard. Theories of Motivation: from mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1972. Print.

Published by the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress - 2020

join the membership

JOIN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ACADEMY ONLINE AND RECEIVE A 35% DISCOUNT IN THE FIRST YEAR ‍

RECEIVE A MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION PACKET

RECEIVE AN INFORMATION PACKET BY EMAIL ‍

TRAUMATIC STRESS SPECIALITIES

• CERTIFICATION IN FORENSIC TRAUMATOLOGY (C.F.T) • CERTIFICATION IN BEREAVEMENT TRAUMA (C.B.T.) • CERTIFICATION IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (C.D.V.) • CERTIFICATION IN MOTOR VEHICLE TRAUMA (C.M.V.T.) • CERTIFICATION IN SEXUAL ABUSE (C.S.A.) • CERTIFICATION IN DISABILITY TRAUMA (C.D.T.) • CERTIFICATION IN RAPE TRAUMA (C.R.T.) • CERTIFICATION IN PAIN MANAGEMENT (C.P.M.) • CERTIFICATION IN STRESS MANAGEMENT (C.S.M.) • CERTIFICATION IN ILLNESS TRAUMA (C.I.T.) • CERTIFIED CRISIS CHAPLAIN (C.C.C.) • CERTIFICATION IN CHILD TRAUMA (C.C.T) • CERTIFICATION IN CRISIS INTERVENTION (C.C.I.) • CERTIFICATION IN WAR TRAUMA (C.W.T.)

crisis management specialities

• CERTIFICATION IN EMERGENCY CRISIS RESPONSE (C.E.C.R.) • CERTIFICATION IN SCHOOL CRISIS RESPONSE (C.S.C.R.) • CERTIFICATION IN UNIVERSITY CRISIS RESPONSE (C.U.C.R) • CERTIFICATION IN CORPORATE CRISIS RESPONSE (C.C.C.R.)

diplomate credential

The Diplomate distinction is a prestigious credential awarded to members that recognizes their experience in working with survivors of traumatic events and/or crisis management, knowledge, training and level of education.

fellowship credential

The Fellowship designation is the highest honor the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress and National Center for Crisis Management can bestow upon a member. This designation is awarded to Diplomates who have made significant contributions to the field and to the Academy or the Center.

127 Echo Avenue Miller Place, NY 11764

631-543-2217 800-810-7550

[email protected]

receive a MEMBERSHIP information packet

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication

Criminology

Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Nature Versus Nurture

Introduction.

Genes and Personality
Genes and Development
Brain Structure
Brain Function
Criticisms of Nature Theories
Social Learning
Parental Attachment
Child Rearing
Family Structure
Family Environment
Criticism of Nurture Theories
Development

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Education Programs in Prison
Juvenile Justice Professionals' Perceptions of Youth
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Nature Versus Nurture by Michelle Coyne , John Paul Wright LAST REVIEWED: 30 September 2013 LAST MODIFIED: 30 September 2013 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0163

The nature/nurture debate has raged for decades, both within and outside of criminology. Early biological theories of crime were strongly influenced by Darwinian views of inheritance and natural selection and tended to ignore or downplay environmental influences. Beginning with the early work of Lombroso’s Criminal Man , biological influences were dominant for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The advent of sociology, however, challenged these dominant explanations. Durkheim, Weber, and Marx, for example, each located the causes of crime not in individual pathologies but in the way societies were organized. Various sociological views of crime became widely accepted among scholars as biological theories fell out of favor. This happened in criminology as well. Sutherland, for example, argued that crime was the result of differential socialization and was not caused by individual, heritable factors. Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, however, argued that the causes of crime were varied and multifaceted—and included biological factors. Sutherland’s view became broadly accepted, which led to the virtual elimination of biological theorizing in criminology from the 1940s until today. Nonetheless, recent advances in the biological sciences have again challenged dominant social views of crime. Unlike early biological theories of crime, the new “biosocial” criminology seeks to understand the various ways biological and environmental variables work together to cause problem behavior. Moreover, much contemporary biological theorizing examines the development of individuals across the life-course as well as issues within the life-course, such as the stability of behavior. Because many scholars now view criminal behavior as the product of nature and nurture, many studies now exist that attempt to account for both processes. Nonetheless, tension between those who view crime as the product of “nature” and those who favor “nurture” remains.

Nature and Development Theories

Nature theories assert that the etiology of criminal behavior is biologically based in genetic inheritance and the structure and functions of people’s brains and other psychological responses. Wilson and Herrnstein 1985 presents the early beginnings and approaches of biosocial theory. Moffitt 1993 presents the author’s classic developmental theory, which is based on a biosocial approach. Modern biosocial approaches of life-course theory and the development of deviant behavior can be found in Wright, et al. 2008 and DeLisi and Beaver 2011 . Fishbein 2004 provides a summation of not only the science but also treatment and prevention practices grounded in nature theories. Anderson 2007 and Walsh and Ellis 2007 present overviews and integrated biosocial approaches in criminology. Pinker 2011 is a controversial text that outlines nature theories and uses them as evidence for declining rates of violence in modern times. See also Lombroso-Ferrero 1972 .

Anderson, Gail. 2007. Biological influences on criminal behavior . Boca Raton, FL: Simon Fraser Univ.

A useful overview of the biosocial perspective of the etiology of criminal behavior focusing on genetic factors as well as the structure and functioning of the brain.

DeLisi, M., and Kevin M. Beaver, eds. 2011. Criminological theory: A life-course approach . Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

An integrated presentation of several perspectives of criminological theories focusing on the development of antisocial behavior from a biosocial life-course perspective.

Fishbein, Diana, ed. 2004. The science, treatment, and prevention of antisocial behavior: Evidence-based practice . 2 vols. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

This text presents the origins of antisocial behavior as well as effective theory-based interventions for prevention and treatment of individuals who display them. First published in 2000 ( The science, treatment, and prevention of antisocial behaviors: Application to the criminal justice system ).

Lombroso-Ferrero, Gina. 1972. Criminal man, according to the classification of Cesare Lombroso . Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

A reprinted version of Cesare Lombroso’s original work, Criminal Man , written by his daughter Gina. This work chronicles Lombroso’s positivistic approach and study of criminality that laid the groundwork for subsequent biological theories of crime.

Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100.4: 674–701.

DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674

A classic theoretical piece classifying offenders into adolescence-limited offenders and life-course-persistent offenders. This suggests that most offenders are delinquent during adolescence and then desist upon entering adulthood, while only a small percentage become lifelong criminals.

Pinker, Steven. 2011. The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined . New York: Viking.

A controversial work that argues violence is declining in society due to advanced genes and evolutionary inheritance. The author capitalizes on human nature and its development over time.

Walsh, Anthony, and Lee Ellis. 2007. Criminology: An interdisciplinary approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

This text presents a compilation of modern criminological theories integrated with biological and psychological explanations of the development of criminality.

Wilson, James Q., and Richard Herrnstein. 1985. Crime & human nature: The definitive study of the causes of crime . New York: Free Press.

An early text on the beginnings of the biosocial theory and approach to causes of criminal behavior. The authors explore patterns of offending, namely who commits crimes and why, focusing on characteristics such as age, gender, race, intelligence, impulsivity, and other constitutional factors.

Wright, John P., Stephen G. Tibbetts, and Leah E. Daigle. 2008. Criminals in the making: Criminality across the life course . Los Angeles: SAGE.

A biosocial approach detailing the structure and genetic makeup of the criminal mind and causes of criminal behavior throughout the life-course.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Criminology »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Active Offender Research
Adler, Freda
Adversarial System of Justice
Adverse Childhood Experiences
Aging Prison Population, The
Airport and Airline Security
Alcohol and Drug Prohibition
Alcohol Use, Policy and Crime
Alt-Right Gangs and White Power Youth Groups
Animals, Crimes Against
Back-End Sentencing and Parole Revocation
Bail and Pretrial Detention
Batterer Intervention Programs
Bentham, Jeremy
Big Data and Communities and Crime
Black's Theory of Law and Social Control
Blumstein, Alfred
Boot Camps and Shock Incarceration Programs
Burglary, Residential
Bystander Intervention
Capital Punishment
Chambliss, William
Chicago School of Criminology, The
Child Maltreatment
Chinese Triad Society
Civil Protection Orders
Collateral Consequences of Felony Conviction and Imprisonm...
Collective Efficacy
Commercial and Bank Robbery
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
Communicating Scientific Findings in the Courtroom
Community Change and Crime
Community Corrections
Community Disadvantage and Crime
Community-Based Justice Systems
Community-Based Substance Use Prevention
Comparative Criminal Justice Systems
CompStat Models of Police Performance Management
Confessions, False and Coerced
Conservation Criminology
Consumer Fraud
Contextual Analysis of Crime
Control Balance Theory
Convict Criminology
Co-Offending and the Role of Accomplices
Corporate Crime
Costs of Crime and Justice
Courts, Drug
Courts, Juvenile
Courts, Mental Health
Courts, Problem-Solving
Crime and Justice in Latin America
Crime, Campus
Crime Control Policy
Crime Control, Politics of
Crime, (In)Security, and Islam
Crime Prevention, Delinquency and
Crime Prevention, Situational
Crime Prevention, Voluntary Organizations and
Crime Trends
Crime Victims' Rights Movement
Criminal Career Research
Criminal Decision Making, Emotions in
Criminal Justice Data Sources
Criminal Justice Ethics
Criminal Justice Fines and Fees
Criminal Justice Reform, Politics of
Criminal Justice System, Discretion in the
Criminal Records
Criminal Retaliation
Criminal Talk
Criminology and Political Science
Criminology of Genocide, The
Critical Criminology
Cross-National Crime
Cross-Sectional Research Designs in Criminology and Crimin...
Cultural Criminology
Cultural Theories
Cybercrime Investigations and Prosecutions
Cycle of Violence
Deadly Force
Defense Counsel
Defining "Success" in Corrections and Reentry
Digital Piracy
Driving and Traffic Offenses
Drug Control
Drug Trafficking, International
Drugs and Crime
Elder Abuse
Electronically Monitored Home Confinement
Employee Theft
Environmental Crime and Justice
Experimental Criminology
Family Violence
Fear of Crime and Perceived Risk
Felon Disenfranchisement
Feminist Theories
Feminist Victimization Theories
Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets
Firearms and Violence
Forensic Science
For-Profit Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice–Indust...
Gangs, Peers, and Co-offending
Gender and Crime
Gendered Crime Pathways
General Opportunity Victimization Theories
Green Criminology
Halfway Houses
Harm Reduction and Risky Behaviors
Hate Crime Legislation
Healthcare Fraud
Hirschi, Travis
History of Crime in the United Kingdom
History of Criminology
Homelessness and Crime
Homicide Victimization
Honor Cultures and Violence
Hot Spots Policing
Human Rights
Human Trafficking
Identity Theft
Immigration, Crime, and Justice
Incarceration, Mass
Incarceration, Public Health Effects of
Income Tax Evasion
Indigenous Criminology
Institutional Anomie Theory
Integrated Theory
Intermediate Sanctions
Interpersonal Violence, Historical Patterns of
Interrogation
Intimate Partner Violence, Criminological Perspectives on
Intimate Partner Violence, Police Responses to
Investigation, Criminal
Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Justice System, The
Juvenile Waivers
Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner
Labeling Theory
Labor Markets and Crime
Land Use and Crime
Lead and Crime
LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence
LGBTQ People in Prison
Life Without Parole Sentencing
Local Institutions and Neighborhood Crime
Lombroso, Cesare
Longitudinal Research in Criminology
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Crime, The
Mass Media, Crime, and Justice
Measuring Crime
Mediation and Dispute Resolution Programs
Mental Health and Crime
Merton, Robert K.
Meta-analysis in Criminology
Middle-Class Crime and Criminality
Migrant Detention and Incarceration
Mixed Methods Research in Criminology
Money Laundering
Motor Vehicle Theft
Multi-Level Marketing Scams
Murder, Serial
Narrative Criminology
National Deviancy Symposia, The
Nature Versus Nurture
Neighborhood Disorder
Neutralization Theory
New Penology, The
Offender Decision-Making and Motivation
Offense Specialization/Expertise
Organized Crime
Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs
Panel Methods in Criminology
Peacemaking Criminology
Peer Networks and Delinquency
Perceptions of Youth, Juvenile Justice Professionals'
Performance Measurement and Accountability Systems
Personality and Trait Theories of Crime
Persons with a Mental Illness, Police Encounters with
Phenomenological Theories of Crime
Plea Bargaining
Police Administration
Police Cooperation, International
Police Discretion
Police Effectiveness
Police History
Police Militarization
Police Misconduct
Police, Race and the
Police Use of Force
Police, Violence against the
Policing and Law Enforcement
Policing, Body-Worn Cameras and
Policing, Broken Windows
Policing, Community and Problem-Oriented
Policing Cybercrime
Policing, Evidence-Based
Policing, Intelligence-Led
Policing, Privatization of
Policing, Proactive
Policing, School
Policing, Stop-and-Frisk
Policing, Third Party
Polyvictimization
Positivist Criminology
Pretrial Detention, Alternatives to
Pretrial Diversion
Prison Administration
Prison Classification
Prison, Disciplinary Segregation in
Prison Education Exchange Programs
Prison Gangs and Subculture
Prison History
Prison Labor
Prison Visitation
Prisoner Reentry
Prisons and Jails
Prisons, HIV in
Private Security
Probation Revocation
Procedural Justice
Property Crime
Prosecution and Courts
Prostitution
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Crime: Historical and Current ...
Psychology and Crime
Public Criminology
Public Opinion, Crime and Justice
Public Order Crimes
Public Social Control and Neighborhood Crime
Punishment Justification and Goals
Qualitative Methods in Criminology
Queer Criminology
Race and Sentencing Research Advancements
Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice
Racial Threat Hypothesis
Racial Profiling
Rape and Sexual Assault
Rape, Fear of
Rational Choice Theories
Rehabilitation
Religion and Crime
Restorative Justice
Risk Assessment
Routine Activity Theories
School Bullying
School Crime and Violence
School Safety, Security, and Discipline
Search Warrants
Seasonality and Crime
Self-Control, The General Theory:
Self-Report Crime Surveys
Sentencing Enhancements
Sentencing, Evidence-Based
Sentencing Guidelines
Sentencing Policy
Sex Offender Policies and Legislation
Sex Trafficking
Sexual Revictimization
Situational Action Theory
Snitching and Use of Criminal Informants
Social and Intellectual Context of Criminology, The
Social Construction of Crime, The
Social Control of Tobacco Use
Social Control Theory
Social Disorganization
Social Ecology of Crime
Social Networks
Social Threat and Social Control
Solitary Confinement
South Africa, Crime and Justice in
Sport Mega-Events Security
Stalking and Harassment
State Crime
State Dependence and Population Heterogeneity in Theories ...
Strain Theories
Street Code
Street Robbery
Substance Use and Abuse
Surveillance, Public and Private
Sutherland, Edwin H.
Technology and the Criminal Justice System
Technology, Criminal Use of
Terrorism and Hate Crime
Terrorism, Criminological Explanations for
Testimony, Eyewitness
Therapeutic Jurisprudence
Trajectory Methods in Criminology
Transnational Crime
Truth-In-Sentencing
Urban Politics and Crime
US War on Terrorism, Legal Perspectives on the
Victim Impact Statements
Victimization, Adolescent
Victimization, Biosocial Theories of
Victimization Patterns and Trends
Victimization, Repeat
Victimization, Vicarious and Related Forms of Secondary Tr...
Victimless Crime
Victim-Offender Overlap, The
Violence Against Women
Violence, Youth
Violent Crime
White-Collar Crime
White-Collar Crime, The Global Financial Crisis and
White-Collar Crime, Women and
Wilson, James Q.
Wolfgang, Marvin
Women, Girls, and Reentry
Wrongful Conviction
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[81.177.182.154]
81.177.182.154

PSYCH 424 blog

Born or made: the making of a murderer..

Are criminals born or made? Is this perhaps a matter of nature vs. nurture?

One of the oldest questions in criminology is whether criminals are born or made. Are serial killers a product of nature or nurture? While genetics determine our personality, behavior, and appearance, we are nurtured to behave a certain way, which is determined by how we were raised, our upbringing, environment, and life experiences.

Our behavior reflects a combination of both genetics and environmental conditioning. Although, there is evidence that criminal conduct has deeper roots than social circumstances. The causes of crime lie in a combination of predisposing biological traits that are channeled into criminal behavior by social circumstances. Characteristics alone do not inevitably lead to crime; circumstances do not make everyone a criminal. People are born with predispositions for specific personality traits, though the environment has some effect on bringing out theses inclinations.

Some serial killers had a troubled childhood and upbringing, surrounded by tragedy and darkness. “Many serial killers are survivors of early childhood trauma of some kind – physical or sexual abuse, family dysfunction, emotionally distant, or absent parents. Trauma is the single recurring theme in the biographies of most killers.”(Conroy, 2018) One common explanation is that psychopaths experience some kind of trauma in early childhood.

Many but not all serial killers suffer from psychopathy. Psychopaths have no sense of remorse or empathy, and their decision-making process is faulty. Furthermore, individuals have tendencies for some things and not others. Meanwhile, serial killers choose to act on their compulsions.

While the answer to this question is still unsure, we can all agree that the answer is both.

Tags: #psychology , psychopath , science

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 5th, 2020 at 7:03 am and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment , or trackback from your own site.

Ahh, the good old nature or nurture debate.

This debate to me is not so cut and dry; take Gary Ridgeway, for example; his father was loving albeit very shy and submissive. He often did not defend his sons when their mother was abusive towards them. His mother was not only physically but emotionally abusive. So we could argue that being a murderer was in his nurture.

Now let’s look at Dennis Rader, he grew up in a healthy home environment, yet he killed multiple women. He stopped killing for over a decade, got married, and had two children while he murdered entire families between the years 1974 and 1991. Even his daughter would go on record to say that he was kind and loving, and she would not have ever expected that from him. So, could we argue that murder was in his nature? Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer are two other serial killers that could fall into this category as well.

I enjoyed your post. Serial killers are so fascinating to me, and I don’t know if you could tell, but I know an awful lot about them.

This is a really interesting topic and honestly something that has fascinated me for a long time. I’ve always been interested in figuring out what makes a serial killer the way they are. Obviously, something has to either be there or be triggered, because most people don’t just regularly kill people for fun.

My career goal for a long time has been to get involved in forensic psychology. I have a lot of interest in interviewing serial killers and finding out how their minds work. I think people want to find a “killer gene” but I just don’t think it’s that simple. Like you said, I think theres definitely an aspect of both environmental and biological factors at play. It will never be as simple as a gene that causes it.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Killing with kindness: Nature, nurture, and the Female Serial Killer

August 2010

Indiana University Bloomington

City University of New York - Queens College

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
J MARRIAGE FAM

Randy J. Larsen
Margo Wilson
Martin Daly
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Are Serial Killers Born or Made?

Perhaps they are natural born potential killers..

Posted November 30, 2020 | Reviewed by Lybi Ma

Natural-born killers?

On November 13, 2020, Peter Sutcliffe died unmourned in the University Hospital of North Durham after refusing treatment for Covid-19 . Known as the Yorkshire Ripper, Sutcliffe was convicted of the murder of 13 women and the attempted murder of seven others between 1975-1980. At no time did Sutcliffe appear to show any remorse for what he had done.

What made Sutcliffe and others like him the people they became? Ted Bundy (30 murders confirmed) Pedro Rodrigues Filho (70 murders confirmed) Luis Garavito (138 murders of street children confirmed). Were they natural-born killers all along, or did something change them and make them into serial killers ?

Neuroscientist Jim Fallon had few doubts. Psychopathic killers were born, and he believed he was beginning to find the evidence to prove it.

It wasn’t me; it was my brain.

Lawyers had been sending Fallon brain scans of convicted murderers in the hope that he could show there was something wrong with their brains that would perhaps get them a lighter sentence, or maybe help them escape the death penalty. After several years, Fallon was beginning to see a pattern.

To test his ideas objectively, he set up a blind trial. Colleagues sent him 70 brain scans: some were of people with a diagnosis, such as schizophrenia or depression , some were from people with no diagnosis and some were from convicted killers.

Fallon successfully identified all the ‘killer brains’ in the sample.

‘They all had one thing in common,' says Fallon, 'a loss of function in the orbital cortex, above the eyes, which is the circuit that codes for ethics, morality, conscience and when that’s gone, or doesn’t develop, not only does a person have no sense of morality but also has little control over their impulses.’

But Jim Fallon was in for an unpleasant surprise.

Fallon had arranged PET brain scans for ten members of his own family as controls for a project he was conducting on vulnerability to Alzheimer’s disease. Looking through these scans one October afternoon, he was shocked to find one that looked just like, in his words, ‘the worst serial killer brain’. When he broke the code, he found he was looking at a scan of his own brain.

‘I get the joke,’ smiles Fallon. ‘You know, I'm studying serial killers and I've got a brain that looks just like one. You can't make this stuff up. The real things that happen in your life are often quite strange.’

There was more to come. Fallon had also had his family's DNA examined as part of the Alzheimer's project. When he checked them, he found they had normal, balanced combinations. Except for one.

‘One had all of these markers that were really high risk for violence,’ says Fallon. ‘And, of course, it turned out to be me again. Now, it became a bit more serious, because I had both the brain pattern and the genetics that were very consistent with a really bad news killer, a psychopath really.’

If Fallon’s research was right, and he was sure it was, then how come he wasn't a killer, a Peter Sutcliffe, a Ted Bundy, or a Luis Garavito? It suggested that while brain abnormality and genes linked with aggression and violence were necessary causes of psychopathic aggression, they weren’t sufficient. There had to be something else. And for Fallon, this ‘something else’ may come from childhood .

Fallon’s belief that his happy and secure childhood may have protected him from ‘a bad throw of the genetic dice’ and led him re-think some of his long-held ideas. Maybe neuroscience didn't have all the answers after all?

‘To all my colleagues I was like Mr. Genes,’ says Fallon, ‘genetics control everything. But it was like the joke’s on me. I had to say I was wrong. And so that was really a very enlightening thing. And because I was wrong, I really had to study it more. How was I wrong? And you know I got a fix on that.’

The unholy trinity

For Fallon, there are three necessary ingredients that, when they come together, can produce psychopathic killers.

The first is a loss of function in the orbital cortex which can leave people incapable of ethical decision-making and also makes them less able to control their impulses.

The second is inheriting genes, such as the MAOA gene, that predispose a person to aggression and violence.

And the third, having a childhood devoid of love, affection, and care that fails to protect people from their latent psychopathology. Peter Sutcliffe, Ted Bundy, Pedro Rodrigues Filho, and Luis Garavito all had troubled or abusive childhoods.

We began by asking whether there really are natural-born killers. Well, it seems the answer is yes and no. Better to say that there are natural-born potential killers.

Whether that awful potential is realised would seem to depend on environmental influences and, in particular, the love given, or denied, in early childhood.

Facebook image: DedMityay/Shutterstock

J. Fallon (2013) The Psychopath Inside. Penguin Putnam

Jim Fallon: Natural Born Killer? shortcutstv.com

Steve Taylor, Ph.D., previously taught at the University of London and currently works in educational media with shortcuts tv.

Find Counselling
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United Kingdom
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Life Sci Soc Policy
v.9; 2013 Dec

Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour

Mairi levitt.

Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Lancaster University, County South, Lancaster, LA1 4YL UK

Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive. In practice the nature-nurture model persists as a way of framing discussion on the causes of behaviour in genetic research papers, as well as in the media and lay debate. Social and environmental theories of crime have been dominant in criminology and in public policy while biological theories have been seen as outdated and discredited. Recently, research into genetic variations associated with aggressive and antisocial behaviour has received more attention in the media. This paper explores ideas on the role of nature and nurture in violent and antisocial behaviour through interviews and open-ended questionnaires among lay publics. There was general agreement that everybody’s behaviour is influenced to varying degrees by both genetic and environmental factors but deterministic accounts of causation, except in exceptional circumstances, were rejected. Only an emphasis on nature was seen as dangerous in its consequences, for society and for individuals themselves. Whereas academic researchers approach the debate from their disciplinary perspectives which may or may not engage with practical and policy issues, the key issue for the public was what sort of explanations of behaviour will lead to the best outcomes for all concerned.

Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive. The nature-nurture debate is declared to be officially redundant by social scientists and scientists, ‘outdated, naive and unhelpful’ (Craddock, 2011 , p.637), ‘a false dichotomy’ (Traynor 2010 , p.196). Geneticists argue that nature and nurture interact to affect behaviour through complex and not yet fully understood ways, but, in practice, the debate continues 1 . Research papers by psychologists and geneticists still use the terms nature and nurture, or genes and environment, to consider their relative influences on, for example, temperament and personality, childhood obesity and toddler sleep patterns (McCrae et al., 2000 ; Anderson et al., 2007 ; Brescianini, 2011 ). These papers separate out and quantify the relative influences of nature/genes and nurture/environment. These papers might be taken to indicate how individuals acquire their personality traits or toddlers acquire their sleep patterns; part is innate or there at birth and part is acquired after birth due to environmental influences. The findings actually refer to technical heritability which is, ‘the proportion of phenotypic variation attributable to genetic differences between individuals’ (Keller, 2010 , p.57). In practice, as Keller illustrates, there is ‘slippage’ between heritability, meaning a trait being biologically transmissible, and technical heritability. This is not simply a mistake made by the media or ‘media hype’ but is, she argues, ‘almost impossible to avoid’ (ibid, p.71).

While researchers are aware of the complexity of gene-environment interaction, the ‘nature and nurture’ model persists as a simple way of framing discussion on the causes of behaviours. It is also a site of struggle between (and within) academic disciplines and, through influence on policy, has consequences for those whose behaviours are investigated. There is general agreement between social scientists and geneticists about the past abuses of genetics but disagreement over whether it will be possible for the new behavioural genetics to avoid discrimination and eugenic practices, and about the likely benefits that society will gain from this research (Parens et al. 2006 , xxi). In a special issue of the American Journal of Sociology ‘Exploring genetics and social structure’, Bearman considers the reasons why sociologists are concerned about genetic effects on behaviour; first they see it as legitimating existing societal arrangements, which assumes that ‘genetic’ is unchangeable. Second, if sociologists draw on genetic research it contaminates the sociological enterprise and, third, whatever claims are made to the contrary, it is a eugenicist project (Bearman, 2008 , vi). As we will see all these concerns were expressed by the publics in this study. Policy makers and publics are interested in explaining problem behaviour in order to change/control it, not in respecting disciplinary boundaries, and will expect the role of genetics to be considered alongside social factors. 2

Social and environmental theories of criminal behaviour have been dominant in criminology, and in public policy (Walsh, 2009 , p.7). Genetic disorders and mental illness have provided explanations for a small minority of offenders with specific conditions. A 2007 survey of American criminologists found that ‘criminologists of all ideological persuasions view alleged biosocial causes of crime (hormonal, genetic, and evolutionary factors and possibly low intelligence) as relatively unimportant’ compared with environmental causes (Cooper et al., 2010 ). Sociology textbooks have typically discussed biological theories of criminality only as discredited (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004 , Giddens, 2009 ). Biosocial theories are seen as attractive to ‘agents of social control’ and to be more likely to lead to abusive treatment of offenders. However, with increasing research and public interest in genetics more attention has been paid to biological aspects of crime and to genetic variations within the normal range. Research has focussed on violent and antisocial behaviours which are criminal or may be seen as a precursor to criminal behaviour, for example, antisocial behaviour in young people. Media reports have headlined ‘warrior genes’, ‘the aggressive gene’ and the ‘get out of jail free gene’, all referring to levels of monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) (Lea and Chambers, 2007 ; Levitt and Pieri, 2009 ) 3 . Think tanks and ethics groups have considered the ethics and practicalities of genetic testing for behavioural traits (Campbell and Ross, 2004 ; Dixon, 2005 Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002 ).

An attraction of research into genes and behaviour is the hope that identifying a genetic factor that is correlated with an increased incidence of, say, violent and antisocial behaviour, will point to a way of reducing such behaviour. Fotaki discusses the attraction of biological explanations of inequalities in health based on the assumption that genetic interventions ‘would succeed in addressing the causes of ill health that public health policies cannot.’ (Fotaki, 2011 , p.641). The danger is that biological explanations ‘are once more employed for political purposes to explain away the social roots of health inequalities.’ (ibid). Social scientists, and criminologists, have presented biological/genetic explanations of behaviour as dangerous in terms of their potential effect on the individuals or groups identified as genetically at risk. There are obvious dangers of discrimination against, and the stigmatisation of, already vulnerable groups who would be the first to be tested i.e. ‘problem’ families or minority ethnic groups. Discrimination could affect education, employment and family life. The effect of an individual being told s/he has a risk based on a genetic test has been much discussed in relation to health risks (Claassen et al., 2010 . While such information could be motivating, because it is personalised, it can also induce a fatalistic attitude that discourages the person from taking preventative measures. Claasen et al. conclude that it is important to identify those vulnerable to the fatalistic impact and to tailor health risk information (ibid p.194). Identifying risk for behaviour, rather than for disease, is likely to be more problematic because of the difficulty of finding preventative measures that are within the individuals’ own control.

..using DNA to assess risk, make a diagnosis or tailor treatments, may weaken beliefs in the efficacy of preventive behaviour and reinforce biological ways of reducing risk, resulting in a preference for medication as opposed to behavioural means to control or reduce risk (ibid, xiv).

Claasen et al.’s comment on genetic tests for health conditions could apply equally to parents given a behavioural risk for their young child from a genetic test, perhaps before any problem behaviour was evident. The test result could weaken parents’ belief that they could take action to prevent/reduce the risk of the behaviour developing in their child and pharmaceutical solutions, as posited by Caspi et al. might not be available (Caspi et al., 2002 , xvii). However, it is not necessarily the case that evidence of genetic or biological influence on behaviour leads to more punitive treatment. DeLisi et al. give the example of the use of findings from adolescent brain science in the case of Roper v. Simmons in the US which abolished the death penalty for adolescents. On the basis of the research it was stated that young people under the age of 18 ‘are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures including peer pressure’ (DeLisa et al., 2010 , p.25) When evidence on genetic traits associated with criminal behaviour has been allowed by courts, mainly in the US, it has so far more often been accepted as a mitigating rather than an aggravating factor in the offenders’ behaviour (Denno, 2009 , Farahany and Coleman, 2006 ).

Environmental explanations of behaviour can, of course, also be presented as deterministic, claiming a closed future for those experiencing poverty and disadvantage. However, it is biological explanations that have caused more concern not only because of the history of eugenics but also because they may be seen as more fundamental, being there from birth, and as harder to change. The public in surveys are reported to see the greatest role for genetic factors in physical features, a lesser role in health conditions and a smaller role still in human behaviour (Condit, 2010 , p.619).

Public perceptions

The model of nature/genes and nurture/environment is still used in behavioural genetics, as well as in popular culture, and has implications for public policy, including the treatment of offenders who claim that a genetic trait has influenced their criminal behaviour. The aim of this research was to explore ideas on the causes of behaviour, particularly violent and antisocial behaviour and examine how respondents use the nature/nurture model. This qualitative research looks at the ways in which lay publics in different age groups conceptualise the factors and influences that made them who they are and their explanations for the behaviour of other people; especially violent behaviour. It was hypothesised that the increased research and media emphasis on the role of genetic factors in health and behaviour might result in an increasing interest in ‘nature’, biology and genes as explanations for behaviour particularly among the young, but, when explaining their own behaviour people might prefer to see themselves as agents with control over their lives. By exploring explanations of behaviour with respondents from different generations, age differences should be apparent.

The views of 78 respondents from 3 generations were gathered by individual interview and questionnaires, using the same open ended questions and responses to two real-life criminal court case studies where environmental or genetic factors had been used by the defence team. Respondents were drawn from a group of retired people participating in an informal ‘senior learners’ programme at Lancaster University, a group of their mainly younger relatives and, in order to recruit more third generation respondents, a group of first year students taking a criminology module. The senior learners group had a programme of talks and discussions and could attend undergraduate lectures. They had, by definition, shown an interest in current issues in a range of fields. There were no educational or age requirements for the group but all the volunteers were retired from paid work and were aged from around 65 years to over 80 years.. They had had similar careers to those popular with social science students; social work, probation, teaching and administrative positions. The senior learners were asked to pass on questionnaires to younger relatives to investigate age differences in attitudes. The first 13 senior learners who responded were interviewed but as only 15 questionnaires were received from their relatives ethical approval was obtained to distribute the same questionnaire to Lancaster University students taking the criminology first year module. Most students were enrolled on social science degrees, including psychology and sociology, and age 18 or 19. While the sample of senior learners and relatives had only a few more women than men, 78 per cent of the students were female reflecting the gender balance on the module as a whole. This makes it difficult to comment on any gender differences in responses. No claims to generalisability are made for this exploratory study. Responses were coded and entered on SPSS and also analysed thematically using Atlas-ti.

The introduction to the interviews and questionnaire was ‘I am interested in your views and ideas on what makes us the people we are; what makes people behave the way they do? What is the influence of nature and nurture?’ The terms, nature and nurture were not used again until the final question. Although the terms were not defined all respondents readily used them with consistent meanings. They identified ‘nature’ with biology, ‘what you are born with’ and genes or DNA and nurture with all aspects of the environment including parenting, socio-economic conditions, the food you eat, culture and other people. Their understanding of environment was therefore similar to that used by genetic researchers; environment as everything that is external to the individual, although they tended to refer more to the social than the biological environment.

A general warm-up question asked whether, in their own family, there was anything they thought of as a ‘family trait’. Then respondents were asked; ‘Imagine a baby swapped at birth and brought up in a completely different family– which influences do you think would be most important – the influence of the birth parents or the influences of the new family- and why?’ 4 The rest of the interview schedule, and the subsequent questionnaire, consisted of open-ended questions.

Respondents were asked how they would explain different kinds of behaviour if they came across a child who is kind and considerate; a young person who displays antisocial and aggressive behaviour adult and an adult with criminal convictions for violence. This was to tap into any differences in general explanations of good and bad behaviour in young people and adults. A quotation about the child killers in the Bulger case being ‘unreformable’ was used to ascertain whether they saw some types of violent behavior, and the actors concerned, as immutable. In order to see how respondents conceptualized the influences of nature/biology/genes and environment/people/experiences in their own lives, respondents were asked to write down ‘what or who made you what you are today’ and any explanation of their responses. Comments were gathered on the introduction of an environmental factor (childhood neglect) by the defence in a violent attack by two young boys in England, and on a genetic factor (MAOA levels) introduced by the defence in an criminal court in Italy. Respondents were asked how they thought such evidence should be dealt with; whether it should affect the degree of blame and whether it should affect criminal responsibility. The final question asked if it mattered ‘for individuals or society’ whether nature or nurture was seen as most important in explaining problem behaviour. Those interviewed were asked if they had any further comments and there was a space for any additional comments on the questionnaire.

This paper focuses on the ways in which respondents employed nature/genes and nurture/environment in their responses as a whole and what other concepts they drew on when explaining behaviour.

Respondents’ explanations of what makes people behave the way they do are discussed through three themes.

Nurture is more influential than nature
Nature and nurture interact
Emphasising nature (but never nurture) can be dangerous

Theme 1: Nurture is more influential than nature

Whether asked about influences on a baby adopted at birth, on their own lives, on an aggressive child or a violent young person, almost all respondents emphasised nurture. Parents and family were seen as the most important influences for babies and young children, moving to peer group and other relationships and experiences for a young person. The explanation for the violent behaviour of an adult had more to do with the individual and the importance of nurture/environment in explaining behaviour weakened. The quotations below explaining behaviour in a child adopted at birth, a young person and an adult illustrate the widening of influences from infancy through childhood and the onus on adults to take responsibility for themselves.

[a child] The environment in which a child grows up in, particularly the influence and role of the parents shapes how a child will grow up and what sort of adult they will be (77 Student). [a young person] I believe that upbringing shapes a person’s personality. Provisions of education, lifestyle opportunities and friendship groups all determine ….outlook. You can see evidence in young people at the school I teach at (20 Relative). Once adult they have to take responsibility for themselves and address whatever has been in their background. An adult can’t turn round and say it’s not my fault (5 Senior Learner).

Participants also saw themselves as shaped by the people surrounding them, starting with their parents, or those who brought them up. Several mentioned the illness and/or death of a parent during their childhood and older respondents talked about separation due to the second world war. Students were especially likely to mention the influence of morals instilled in them by their parents, the core values and discipline that they were taught at home. Educational experiences were important to all. For the senior learners the school leaving age had been age 15, so whether or not they stayed on at school and took public examinations was crucial for their future, and, this decision depended largely on their parents and environment. For the student respondents who had come to university from school, life so far has been ‘kind of set-out’ (41 Student), in the sense that they had progressed through the education system to gain qualifications for university. For their peer group it was normal still to be in education or training at the age of 18.

The lasting effects of early influences were particularly striking among the senior learners, because they were much further removed in years from their childhood. Many related stories about parental influence and also about teachers who taught them at least 50 years ago and had affected them for better or worse. For example a senior learner recalled one of her teachers;

I hated primary school – the teacher in 3rd or 4th year juniors [for ages 9–11] I hated her she was not a nice woman….. I passed to go to the grammar school and it shocked her. She made a derogatory comment – may not have been directed at me but felt it was- about some who should have passed and didn’t and some passing who should not have done…… I always vowed I would never be like that when I was teaching….(11 Senior Learner).

Those who related negative influences presented themselves as active in response, not necessarily at the time but later in their lives. For example a student whose mother had died wrote that ‘it made me more independent’ and another student who was bullied at school wrote that ‘it made me stronger’. The adult had to deal with all the influences (negative or positive) and take control.

Theme 2: Nature and nurture interact

While respondents’ view of themselves and of a child adopted at birth assigned greater influence to environment this did not mean that they held a simplistic model of, for example 60:40 nurture to nature. In this one question when they were asked to choose one or other as the major influence, almost all chose nurture, as many social scientists might do. However, in open questions and comments more complex interactive models were expressed. Environment/nurture can affect genes/nature and vice versa. No one used the term epigenetics but responses referred to the possibility of environmental influences affecting gene expression, for example;

People with certain predispositions (e.g. to violence) are affected by society, and society affects how their genes are expressed (40 Student).

An older respondent reflects on personal experience of child rearing and asks whether nurture is influenced by nature;

I think the nature nurture debate is very interesting. In my family I can see where my children have their own natures that have developed despite being brought up in the same family with the same boundaries etc. However, as a parent did I alter how I nurture them to take into account their nature? (14 Senior Learner).

This quotation illustrates the inseparability of nature and nurture. The child is developing within the family and the parent is developing parenting strategies informed by previous experiences and by other influences including the reactions of the children.

It was obvious to respondents that both genetic and environmental factors impact on everyone (although the role of genes is not yet understood) and it will be harder for some than for others to behave well because of their genes and environment. These people may need different treatment or extra help if they have committed violent and aggressive crimes but that does not excuse their behaviour. Only in exceptional cases, like insanity, can a young person or adult be said to have no choice but to act in a particular way. It is important that people are seen as responsible while also giving them the help they need. In these two comments the treatment for environmental problems and ‘biology’ are similar; the individual can be helped to modify his/her behaviour.

No, [nature and nurture] both play a part, but they can’t be the explanation for everything. Some people grow up in broken homes and get treated appallingly- yet they seem to understand right + wrong and accept responsibility for their actions. There are too many excuses and we never solve any problems, just make them harder to resolve.......I think if you are sane and you know right from wrong you need to suffer the consequences if you’ve committed a crime, but I do appreciate you may need help psychologically if you have anger issues, for example. If we constantly find reasons to diminish blame from people who have committed heinous acts of crime more people will think they can get away with it and it will cause more harm than good (78 Student). Some say you can’t fight your biology, but there are social factors that can stop bad behaviour like learned restraint (72 Student).

The desire to leave a space for individual agency may be linked to the finding that emphasising nature, but never nurture, could be dangerous. It is clear that as children grow up they can exercise more control over their environment, although some have more control and choices than others. On the other hand, whatever the individual is born with (genes and nature) is, or seems to be, less malleable which could lead to different criminal justice policies and different social perceptions of the criminal.

Theme 3: Emphasising nature (but never nurture) can be dangerous for society as a whole as well as for the criminal and victims

The question asked was whether it mattered ‘for individuals or society’ if either nature or nurture was seen as most important in explaining problem behavior. The two most popular answers were that both nature and nurture were needed to explain behaviour, or, that nurture was more important and that there were dangers in emphasising nature. No one in the sample regarded an emphasis on nurture as dangerous or detrimental to the individual or society. On the contrary, emphasising nurture was thought more likely to lead to non-punitive treatment of offenders. There would be attempts to alter future behaviour through improved education and parenting and spreading of knowledge in society about the impact nurture has on young people. Society as a whole would share the blame rather than the individual. As a student put it; ‘society as a whole [would be] open for criticism’ (55 S). An emphasis on nurture was therefore seen as more likely to lead to understanding of problem behaviours and effective treatment, however, the individuals were still to be held responsible for their behaviour.

In contrast there was a mistrust of nature/genetic explanations that again centred on the practical consequences for individuals. It would affect the way criminals were treated by others but could also change their view of themselves. Behaviour would be seen as unchangeable, out of the control of the individual or social action. As a consequence, individual accountability might be removed. The idea that individuals must normally be held responsible for their actions was constantly emphasised (Levitt, 2013 ).

It does [matter] because [if nurture is emphasised] people will care, parent and look after and raise people with more care. However if it’s proven it is nature, then people may lose the will to live (60 Student).

Several SLs referred to the examination at the end of primary education (the ‘eleven plus’) when explaining why they emphasised environment/nurture rather than nature, or, in this case, innate intelligence. The ‘eleven plus’ examination was used to decide which children would be offered a place at an academically selective grammar school and was based on the idea that intelligence, and future academic achievement, could be accurately measured and predicted at the age of 10 or 11.

‘The 11+ was a nature thing. I did the 11+ − it had an effect. Saying children not going to improve or change. Very embedded in the whole idea of nature – it can’t really be true’ (8 Senior Learner).

An emphasis on nature has practical detrimental consequences for individuals. Their status is fixed, for example as ‘not academic’ or ‘born evil’ and suggests, to them and to others, that their ‘nature’ is unchangeable or very difficult to change by individual or social action.

Yes, [it matters] hugely as position of blame is dependent on whether a person chose to do what they did .....nature suggests no control (35 Student).

Those who thought an emphasis on nature meant people were irredeemable either gave that as a reason not to emphasise nature or to suggest that in fact ‘defects’ of nature could be overcome, as in this comment by a student emphasising the power of education;

Yes it is very important because it helps to understand if people are reformable (nurture) or irredeemable (nature). I believe we are determined by our education and thus with the proper help we can change. In the case of people with major biological defects, education is still a way to get over these obstacles and society should be ready to help these people (38 Student).

It might be thought that offenders themselves would embrace a genetic explanation of their behaviour if this was interpreted, as the respondents feared, as meaning they were not responsible for their crimes. However, a small study of juvenile offenders in the Netherlands found that they gave social explanations of their crimes and most rejected the idea that biology might be a factor. They committed a crime for a specific purpose like to get money or to impress others or they gave environmental reasons such as a deprived background or peer pressure or explained their offences were due to psychological conditions brought on by the use of alcohol and soft drugs (Horstkötter et al., 2012 , p.291). Whether they gave goal directed or environmental reasons ‘most of them also state that they had a choice and that it was their choice to commit the crime’ (ibid p.292). As one young offender said in interview;

In the end the person makes the choice himself… The choices I have made also had a share in my past. But in the end I am the one who has made these choices (ibid).

Genes and environment

Respondents were at ease with the language of nature and nurture which was only used in the introduction to the questionnaire or interview. They readily equated genes with nature and nurture with all sorts of environmental influences. There was an acknowledgement that our understanding of environmental factors is greater than our understanding of genetics but that that would change. Older respondents were more likely to be concerned about such a change.

They're going to be doing a lot more with genetics. Influences policy profoundly and people have to be very careful. It worries me that seen to be [more determining]. The complexities don’t get looked at. If you emphasise environment it is safer from a policy point of view because given that most people don’t know what they are talking about it is safer to see the person as redeemable than to come down on the side of genetics and write people off (3 Senior Learner).

This quotation is typical in its view that nature/genes are seen as determining even though the influences on behaviour are, in reality, complex. Like the studies quoted at the beginning of the article respondents often acknowledged the complexities as nature and nurture interact but separated them when explaining the causes of specific behaviours. Students were less likely to be fearful of genetic explanations of behaviour despite their academic interest in social science. However, the hypothesis that young people might be more likely to be interested in genetic explanations for behaviour was not shown in this small study. The senior learners were more likely to refer to reading on genes and display knowledge of genetics. Older respondents and their relatives more often echoed the sociologists’ concerns about behavioural genetics discussed by Bearman earlier (Bearman, 2008 ). For those who feared the practical consequences of genetic explanations, like the respondent quoted above, ‘it is safer’ to keep away from them.

Some respondents in all age groups were prepared for advances in genetics to change their understanding of behaviour and prepared for current views of genes/nature as more basic, fixed and unchanging to change too. One of the youngest relatives, in her 20s, emphasised our incomplete knowledge of genetic influences on behaviour as a reason for focussing on nurture ‘at present’;

It is very tricky as we cannot see genes and I am not sure that I totally trust the idea of blaming genes for violent behaviour- maybe the person has a gene for passive behaviour as well. …….In any case we can change nurture but at present we cannot change nature so let’s do one thing at a time (20 Relative).

As respondents in this small study grappled with explanations for their own and others’ behaviour they focussed on the practical consequences leading to a greater concern over explanations based on nature than the more familiar ones based on a complex web of environmental factors. Whereas academic researchers approach the debate from their disciplinary perspectives which may or may not engage with practical and policy issues, the key issue for the public was what sort of explanations of behaviour will lead to the best outcomes for all concerned.

1 Behavioural epigenetic research has indicated that life experiences can affect gene expression. While controversial the research suggests the possibility of further complications for the nature-nurture relationship as nurture may be said to shape nature (Buchen, 2010 Powledge, 2011 ). 2 Bearman op cit iv. The ESRC Cambridge Network Social Contexts of Pathways into Crime (SCoPiC) promoted multidisciplinary research into the causes of crime and included the E risk longitudinal twin study led by Terri Moffitt which investigated how genetic and environmental factors shape children's disruptive behaviour http://www.scopic.ac.uk Accessed 3 Sep 2013. 3 Violent and antisocial behaviour in this longitudinal study was correlated with a common genetic trait (low expression of MAOA) only where the person was severely maltreated in childhood. Behaviour was measured on 4 outcomes; diagnoses of conduct disorder, psychological tests of aggression and anti-social personality disorder and convictions for violent crime. Caspi et al. 2002 (supplementary material). 4 This initial warm-up question implied that the influences of nature and nurture could be separated and quantified as in common usage both in academic and popular discourses. As discussed respondents were able to express their views more fully (and with more complexity) in the subsequent open questions.

Acknowledgement

The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. This work was part of the Research Programme of the ESRC Genomics Network at Cesagen (ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics).

Competing interests

The author declares that she has no competing interests.

Anderson P, Butcher KF, Schanzenbach DW. Childhood obesity and disadvantage: is nature trumping nurture? NBER working paper No. 13479. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
Bearman P. Exploring genetics and social structure. American Journal of Sociology. 2008; 114 (Suppl;S1):v–x. doi: 10.1086/596596. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brescianini S, Volzone A, Fagnani C, Patriarca V, Grimaldi V, Lanni R, Serino L, Mastroiacovo P, Stazi MA. Genetic and environmental factors shape infant sleep patterns: a study of 18-month-old twins. Pediatrics. 2011; 127 (5):1296–1302. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0858. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Buchen L. In their nurture – can epigenetics underlie the enduring effects for a mother’s love. Nature. 2010; 467 :146–148. doi: 10.1038/467146a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Campbell E, Ross LF. Attitudes of healthcare professionals and parents regarding genetic testing for violent traits in childhood. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004; 30 :580–586. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.005389. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Caspi A, et al. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science. 2002; 2 (5582):851–854. doi: 10.1126/science.1072290. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Claassen L, Henneman L, De Vet R, Knol D, Marteau T, Timmermans D. Fatalistic responses to different types of genetic risk information: Exploring the role of Self-Malleability. Psychology and Health. 2010; 25 (2):183–196. doi: 10.1080/08870440802460434. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Condit CM. When do people deploy genetic determinism? A review pointing to te need for multi-Factorial theories of public utilization of scientific discourses. Sociology Compass. 2010; 5 (7):618–635. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00385.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cooper JA, Walsh A, Ellis L. Is criminology moving toward a paradigm shift? Evidence from a Survey of the American Society of Criminology Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2010; 21 (3):332–347. [ Google Scholar ]
Craddock N. Horses for courses: the need for pragmatism and realism as well as balance and caution. A commentary on Angel. Social Science and Medicine. 2011; 73 :636–638. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.049. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
DeLisa M, Wright JP, Vaughn MG, Beaver KM. Nature and nurture by definition means both: a response to males. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2010; 25 (1):24–30. doi: 10.1177/0743558409353063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Denno DW. Behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: 1994–2007. In: Farahany NA, editor. The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 317–354. [ Google Scholar ]
Dixon M. Brave new choices: behavioural genetics and public policy. London: IPPR; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
Farahany NA, Coleman JE., Jr Genetics and responsibility: to know the criminal from the Crime. Law and Contemporary Problems. 2006; 69 :115–162. [ Google Scholar ]
Fotaki M. Agency versus structure or nature versus nurture: when the new twist on an old debate is not that new after all: a commentary on Angel. Social Science & Medicine. 2011; 73 (5):639–642. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.044. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Giddens A. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Haralambos M, Holborn M. Sociology themes and perspectives. London: Collins Educational; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Horstkötter D, Berghmans R, de Ruiter C, Krumeich A, de Wert G. “We are also normal human beings, you know”. Views and attitudes of juvenile delinquents on antisocial behaviour, neurobiology and prevention. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2012; 35 :289–297. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.04.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Keller EF. The mirage of a space between nature and nurture. Durham & London: Duke University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
Lea R, Chambers G. Monamine oxidase, addiction and the ‘warrior’ gene hypothesis. The New Zealand Medical Journal. 2007; 120 :1250. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Levitt M. Genes, environment and responsibility for violent behaviour: ‘Whatever genes one has it is preferable that you are prevented from going around stabbing people’ New Genetics and Society. 2013; 32 (1):4–17. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2012.699352. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Levitt M, Pieri E. “It could just be an additional test couldn’t it?” Genetic testing for susceptibility to aggression and violence. New Genetics and Society. 2009; 28 (2):189–200. doi: 10.1080/14636770902901629. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCrae RR, Costa PT, Jr, Ostendorf F, Angleitner A, Hřebíčková M, Avia MD, Sanz J, Sánchez-Bernardos ML, Kusdil ME, Woodfield R, Saunders PR, Smith PB. Nature over nurture: temperament, personality and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 78 (1):173–86. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nuffield Council on Bioethics . Genetics and human behaviour: the ethical context. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Parens E, Chapman ER, N. Press N, editors. Wrestling with behavioural genetics. Science, ethics and public conversation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
Powledge TM. Behavioral Epigenetics: How nurture shapes nature. Biosciences. 2011; 61 :588–592. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Traynor BJ, Singleton AB. Nature versus nurture: death of a dogma, and the road ahead. Neuron. 2010; 68 :196–200. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.10.002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Walsh A. Biology and criminality. The biosocial synthesis. Oxon: Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Javed Iqbal a Pakistani Serial killer: Nature vs Nurture accroding to Criminilogy

2022, Shimul

Related Papers

nathalia parra

Bucks New University

Brittani J Oldham

Although serial killing was only defined in 1988, there is still more research to be conducted into the causes of this phenomena. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to look into potential causes of serial killing, with emphasis on social, biological and cognitive psychology. A plethora of literature and various case studies of incarcerated serial killers have been used to support or debunk the theories explored. Serial murderer is classified as the murder of 3 or more victims by the same offender, over multiple locations with the presence of a cooling off period (Ressler et al, 1988). Definitional problems with defining serial murder has led to confusion when classifying murder and therefore its causes. Social psychology explores the nurture side of the ‘nature vs nurture’ debate, with emphasis on childhood trauma, re-enactment and self-evaluation. Biological psychology explores the nature side of the debate, with emphasis on chromosomal abnormalities, a biological predisposition for crime and other biological functions. Cognitive psychology explores how brain dysfunctions can lead to serial murder, with emphasis on head injury causing frontal lobe damage. Lastly, personality disorders are explored in relation to social, biological and cognitive psychology and how they link to serial killing. After reviewing the evidence, it is reasonable to suggest that there is not one singular cause of serial killing, rather a variety of social, biological and cognitive factors and that can cause someone to be susceptible or expedite the process of becoming a serial killer.

OMEGA--Journal of Death and Dying

Anupuma Raina

Serial killers have always fascinated society. A serial killer is typically defined as a perpetrator who murders three or more people over a period of time. Most reported cases of serial killers come from the United States and Canada. In India, there are few reported cases. We present, to the best of our knowledge, the first Indian case in the literature. The present case is of a 28-year-old man, Surinder Koli. The Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delphi handled the forensic study. We present a most unique psychological investigation into the mind of a serial killer.

Vincenzo Mastronardi

The present work embraces multiple aspects related to the theme of serial murder, which is essentially addressed by a criminological and personological perspective. Attention will be focused first on the serial killer figure, which will analyze both the intrapsychic peculiarities and the most intrinsic motivations behind the homicidal action as well as the more technical and specific aspects of the modus operandi and the signature that convey this kind of offenders. At the same time, a victimological overview will be developed, focusing on the preferential victims in this delinquent mode. The article will also highlight a categorization of serial killings based on the motive, as well as different classifications of the major types of serial killers identified by multiple authors. Finally, criminal profiling will be analyzed, deepening the role of the profiler in investigations and outlining the presumed personality of the offender, thus circumscribing the field of potential investig...

Andreas Wilmes

Since the publication of Philip Jenkins’s essay The Social Construction of Serial Homicide (1994), it is now widely acknowledged that serial murder shall be considered as an ill-founded criminological category mainly maintained by statistical errors, political strategies and ideological interests. Moreover, recent critiques of the FBI profiling methods (Muller 2000; Canter & Youngs, 2009) put into question the idea of tailored investigation techniques with respect to serial homicide. Last but not least, psychiatrists disagree on whether or not serial killers shall be qualified as a homogeneous group from a psychopathological or psychodynamic perspective. The aim of this contribution is to introduce a philosophical critique of this commonly accepted constructivist approach of serial homicide. Our study will start with some epistemological considerations on criminological classifications and investigation techniques. This will not only help us to clarify the methodological flaws in social constructionism essays (Caputi, 1987; Cameron & Frazer, 1987; Seltzer, 1998; Tithecott, 1998), but also enable us to refine our domain of inquiry with more specific guidelines. Secondly, aided by the works of Ian Hacking (1998; 2000; 2002), we will question the philosophical implications of the social construction of serial murder. Eventually, we will vindicate an anthropological approach for prospective researches on serial murder. In brief, we would like to establish two claims: (1) in the United States, serial murder was experienced as a nightmarish episode of the sexual revolution; (2) on a cross historical and cultural level, serial murder has to be described as a sacrificial practice—that is as a type of crime tying violence to the sacred.

Djordje Ignjatović

Serial murderers as criminological issue SUMMARY The paper focuses on, for the public most intrasting form of multiple murders (multicid) which, in the same time represents the challenge for justice and Criminology-serial killings. Following the phenomenological analysis, it is pointed on the causality and stages of those crimes. Hereon, investigative techniques that are used to capture the perpetrators have bee presented, and at the end instructions on how to prevent and suppress the serial killings have been given. As measure that could act prophylactically are mentioned:-a need that society explicitly proclaims and implements the strategy of rejecting any use of violence in relationships between human;-tightening substance traffic control, and-the need for community informal mechanisms engagement to help all people who are suffering, especially those of younger age. When it comes to institutions of formal social control, the basic premise of solving serial murders efficient is to collect the necessary information from the relevant authorities and the exchange of data they have gained, both on the national and international level. In addition, the use of special investigative techniques, particularly DNA and profiling, are giveing hope that the majority of serial killers be brought to face justice.

Emmanuel Caliwan, J.D.

The Malaysian journal of pathology

Geshina Mat Saat

Murder is the most notorious crime that violates religious, social and cultural norms. Examining the types and number of different killing methods that used are pivotal in a murder case. However, the psychological traits underlying specific and multiple killing methods are still understudied. The present study attempts to fill this gap in knowledge by identifying the underlying psychological traits of different killing methods among Malaysian murderers. The study adapted an observational cross-sectional methodology using a guided self-administered questionnaire for data collection. The sampling frame consisted of 71 Malaysian male murderers from 11 Malaysian prisons who were selected using purposive sampling method. The participants were also asked to provide the types and number of different killing methods used to kill their respective victims. An independent sample t-test was performed to establish the mean score difference of psychological traits between the murderers who used s...

Serial Murder and the Psychology of Violent Crimes

Although there have been significant advances in the knowledge and understanding of serial murder, its exact etiology remains unknown. In particular, the effect of environmental influences is unclear. While some researchers stress the impossibility of predicting multiple murders from an understanding of early childhood events, others posit the importance of traumatic event(s) on the development of serial killers. However, even among those who have stressed on traumatic event(s), there are clear inconsistencies regarding the timing and types of such incident(s). This study investigates the childhood environments of 52 serial killers to see if there are any patterns that appear repeatedly among their environmental backgrounds and if so, when such factors have more damaging effects on the subjects. This preliminary research intentionally uses lay literature and Internet-based information that are normally overlooked by academic researchers. Keywords: etiology of serial murder, development of serial killer, family environment, childhood background, environmental factors, pattern __________________________________________________________________________________________

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Criminal …

Christopher Ferguson

Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology

Gérard Labuschagne

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Giuseppe Sartori

Russian Law Journal

Ayesha Inam

The British Criminology Conferences: …

Chris Grover

Crime, Media, Culture

Kevin Haggerty

nelson andreu

Tilamsik: The Southern Luzon Journal of Arts and Sciences

Amela Jakubovic

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Natalia Canter

Law and Behaviour Linkage

Prof.(Dr.) Priya Sepaha

Khaidzir Ismail

Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

European Journal of Women's Studies

Louise Wattis

Patrick Webb

Siniša Franjić

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

Arthur Garrison

American Journal of Criminal Justice