Serial Killers - Are They Necessary?

[bluecedar]

I'm sure it's occurred to some of you that from nature's perspective serial killers may be like viruses or diseases--they're another way that nature has of controlling the population. So it begs this rather unsettling question ... are they necessary? And as the population continues to grow, will the number of serial killers keep growing as well?

[claire]

No, it hasn't. No. Yes.

[Hellrider]

Interesting thought. Another aspect might be the social changes sometimes triggered by serial killers (in Jack's case better lighting conditions and police surveillance in the East End, raising awareness to the grave situation of many of these people)

[kensei]

Diseases- like natural disasters or wars- kill thousands or even millions. Serial killers, even those with very high body counts, remove infinitesmally low numbers of people from the overall population. In terms of high numbers they do their greatest damage in the anguish and despair they bring to their victims' families and friends, and the fear they generate amongst the general public, who could all be called "victims" I suppose but not ones who die. So I would say the analogy of serial killer as a tool of depopulation is not very strong.

[DarkPassenger]

Since 1888 the UK has had around eighty serial killers, and at worst we've had ten active in a single year. They kill usually between 3 and 20 victims each over a period of maybe a year or two. There are of course exceptions.

A tiny amount, as kensei said. Serial killers are not functional - they are products of errors in society, problems with the social order. They are cancers resulting from the bad diet of society. Damn, that's a good quote!

[Mike Covell]

It is estimated that 50 deaths a year are caused by the simple ladder, which put the whole serial killer thing into perspective.

Your safe to walk the streets at night, but ladders should be treated with suspicion!!

[robhouse]

If you are talking about the entirety of human life (or all life on the planet) as a system - an organism (or super-organism) then yes, serial killers can be thought of sort of abstractly. I have thought of this before.

I agree that they are not population control, and war, disease, famine would fit more in that category. But I do believe serial killers may be thought of as malfunctioning parts of the organism, mutated cells for example that are lacking certain traits common to other humans - empathy compassion, and having others etc. So in this sense, I do think it is interesting to consider serial killers abstractly. They seem to me more like the symptom of some larger problem in society, than like a natural method of population control.

In fact, most parts of the system are "controlled" pretty well... you see a red light you stop, there is a law requiring you wear a seat belt - you do it. You are expected to have a job, get married - you do that. These fall into the realm of super-ego... ways you are controlled by external system factors internalized in your thought processes. Serial killers are largely an abberation from this, because for some reason they are anti-society generally, the most extreme aberration from acceptable behavior.

Its a weird topic.

RH

[bluecedar]

There are some super-intelligent people on this board and you robhouse are one of them. I just throw things out there but others have really thought about them. I remember Sigourney Weaver's comment in Copycat (one of the best serial killer movies ever made) that with serial killers every generation there is some new mutation. Since serial killers are really killing machines, though, like animals, it seems logical to at least propose that they are programmed by nature for this purpose.

[sdreid]

What about serial killers who have more children than kills? They're sort of working at cross purposes. They'd do better at controlling population if they just wore a condom.

Joseph Kallinger had fathered 14 children by the time he was 25 but only killed 3.

[Howard Brown]

One would think that in adverse conditions..particularly the East End of London from 1850-1890(as an example) we'd be inundated with far greater numbers of serial killers considering the effects the Industrial Revolution had on men and women and to me,above all,the effects from an absence of leisure...

But as Dark Passenger just mentioned:

Since 1888 the UK has had around eighty serial killers, and at worst we've had ten active in a single year. ( note: thats 120 years/80 s.k.'s= 1.5 per year in the U.K. over 120 years)

Believe it or not, there were up to very recently...20 or so serial killers present in the American Northwest in ONE calendar year. I have that URL somewhere on the Forums.....

I think that serial killers would be less prolific in a society with less leisure. The more leisure created, the numbers seem to spike. Whether its a direct cause,I don't know...but it certainly seems like it. There are more serial killers in affluent areas too. Name one from Mississippi. You CAN name 20 from California.

[sdreid]

Hi How,

Colin Wilson was a big proponent of the leisure time connection. I don't know if he was the originator.

[Julius]

A friend of mine (who I will be keeping a safe distance from in future) remarked yesterday that it's ages since we've had "a good nutter" in this country. The last we can think of was Fred West and that I think that was over ten years ago. Are we overdue for another one?

I will add that I do believe a good (bloodless) revolution every few hundred years is a good thing. It clears out the fridge and makes those in power consider how vulnerable their power really is. Sic transit gloria mundi.

[Mike Covell]

Yea, Steve Wright, Ian Huntly, and the sad little murderers of "Baby P" were all really nice folk that we would all want to live next door to!!

[DVV]

I think that serial killers would be less prolific in a society with less leisure. The more leisure created, the numbers seem to spike. Whether its a direct cause,I don't know...but it certainly seems like it. There are more serial killers in affluent areas too. Name one from Mississippi. You CAN name 20 from California.

Sadly, that seems a sensible view.
I can't imagine a serial killer at work in Ethiopian country-side, and I've never heard about one.
Maybe, when they will have machines to harvest...

D. the Amish

[sdreid]

That said, Atteridgeville, South Africa has been the serial killer capital of the world since 1956.