Yes, I must say that I struggle with the concept of "lust murders". However, do you see any similarities between and JtR and Jeffrey Dahmer? Of course, Dahmer was clinically diagnosed with paraphilia and several experts testifying at his trial concluded that he was not a sexual sadist. Even Dr Dietz for the prosecution testified: "He [Dahmer ] did not torture and took steps to prevent suffering."
Dahmer, despite his diagnosis, murdered 17 victims over a 13 year period. Therefore, although issues of dominance and control seemed to be prevalent in his thoughts he was still, presumably, able to exercise a high level of self control over his murderous impulses.
However, after conducting further research I have to agree that your criticisms of the criminological approach are well founded. Thus, what exactly is paraphilia? The ICD10, for instance, doesn't even give a definition. The DSM has attempted to define the "disorder", but not without controversy: "Paraphilia as a concept is vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science, and so diagnosis may be grounded more in societal norms than in psychiatric health. Keenan in her criticism suggests the inclusion of "paraphilic disorders" in DSM-5 as redundant, unscientific, and stigmatizing..." ( McManus et al, 2013) see: http://f1000.com/prime/reports/m/5/36/#bib-016
An even more serious difficulty is that picquerism, for example, is categorized as a condition that is NOS (Not otherwise specified). And this as resulted in serious criticisms of the criminological interpretation: "Not otherwise specified disorders are meant to be no more than residual wastepaper baskets provided by DSM- IV to encourage research and for the convenience of clinicians when coding patients who do not fit within one of the specific DSM-1V categories.. The problem is that paraphilia NOS has been widely misapplied in SVP hearings to criminals who have no mental disorder by evaluators who have misinterpreted the DSM- IV...By virtue of their residual and idiosyncratic nature, cases given the label NOS are by definition outside of what is generally accepted by the field as a reliable and valid psychiatric disorder." (Frances and First, 2011) see: http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/555.long
I am therefore beginning to wonder if much of Keppel's report should be confined to the "wastepaper basket"! In fact, to be honest I'm not a huge fan of the DSM either, although I understand the practical need to have a codified approach to mental health. The difficulty is that the biomedical model, which could be regarded as reductionist, underpins much of the DSM, despite the lack of scientific support for such an approach: see Deacon, 2013
By the way, I'm a great admirer of Allen Frances, the chair of the DSM- 1V task force.: here's another of his reports, which gives an objective and unbiased view of the limitations of the DSM: http://psych.colorado.edu/~willcutt/...ances_2012.pdf