Calling all Criminologists! What Theories can you apply to the JTR case?

[AP Criminologist]

Hi everyone,

I'm really keen to hear what particular Criminological theories people can apply to the JTR case? For example, 'Moral Panics' or 'Deviancy Amplification' (Cohen, 1972) with reference to the media hype created by the Star newspaper in 1888, or Bowlby's (1946) 'Maternal Deprivation' theory as an explanation for a particular suspect's actions based on his background, or even a well presented argument in favour of Merton's (1938) 'Strain Theory' when applied to a particular suspect.
These examples are all rather dated but still have applicable relevance, and I would be interested to hear any more recent theoretical applications. Even if you have a very limited understanding of Criminology I am still keen to hear your views, so that we might all broaden our minds to the other possible conceptual, or differential subject based explanations for the case as a whole.

Happy chatting everyone

[Errata]

I'm not really sure how applicable criminology is to serial killers. It's a social science, and serial killers tend to defy the usual social structures. I think psychology is the way to go with them. With this particular case I would bet money on transference being the precipitating factor.

[claire]

Um, psychology is a social science, too (pace the argument it's a medical science--cf. Goffman's 'Asylums') Still, that aside, I think the OP was referring to the sorts of theories that could be used to interrogate the case as a whole, rather than just any particular behavioural pathology that might be applied to the killer himself. Not sure if that's the correct reading of the question, APC?
I know this case has been referred to in the past as an example of how the media constructed a moral panic, but I think that requires a little more analysis. In some ways, the rhetoric limited the moral panic--the focus was on the turpitude of the East End, and to that extent, it protected the more affluent west of the city from panic: there's little evidence that women in, eg., Kensington or Chelsea were worried for their safety. By the same token, though (and this may be read both ways), it allowed the more affluent and/or philanthropic elements of society to focus (justify?) intervention in the East End as it drew the extreme levels of poverty and violence to wider attention. As far as the fears of poor women/prostitutes in the East End went, any fear or panic they may have felt was probably quite legitimate. (And we still see this tactic with the media now, in noting victimology in cases where prostitutes are targeted: it operates to insulate other women from fear.)
To be honest, I think you can probably use any theory as a valid tool for interpretation of the case. Managerialism (eg. Garland, via Foucault) can probably be used to analyse the means by which the East End population became subject to greater management (police intervention, for example).
If you're talking about the psychopathology of the killer, I've no idea. Without much confidence in profiling, I think that's open to all sorts of speculation, none of which we can lay appropriate claim to without any hope of identifying the perpetrator.

[Scorpio]

Hello AP, if geographic profiling covers crime theory, and i think it is a close relation, then maybe you would like to look at my ' bloody tourists ' thread. It discusses the ' marauder ' model, and the ' commuter ' models, applicability and merits. This is the best i can offer at the moment.

[AP Criminologist]

I'm not really sure how applicable criminology is to serial killers. It's a social science, and serial killers tend to defy the usual social structures. I think psychology is the way to go with them. With this particular case I would bet money on transference being the precipitating factor.

Fortunately Claire has spotted you error here Errata. Criminology is a social science yes, but so is Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology, Economics...etc, and Criminology is a 'Multi-disciplinary' social science, therefore meaning that whenever one applies ANY other theory from ANY other subject, and puts it into the context of crime, you are thus contributing to Criminology. Which is why I encourage people from all backgrounds to contribute to this thread. Also, there are hundreds of theories within Criminology specifically, which analyse and assess the work of serial killers, to reference just a few take a look at: Holmes & Holmes (1998), Hickey (1997), Egger (1990), Kiger (1990), or for good introduction see Coleman & Norris (2002). As for your points on Transference, I'm not to familiar on this, could you expand on your explanation here?
To answer your initial question Claire, either or both is great! People can assess the case as a whole, or particular aspects of it (i.e. the pathology of the killer), so long as they're backed up by theory. As for your discussion, what a fantastic insight you have! A classic Criminology answer, that anything can be applied and be valid And quite right too, which is the beauty of the thread, and indeed the case as a whole.
I agree with you on your interpretation of such a moral panic being centralised to the East End, and also on your points regarding managerialism. To expand on the latter, what are your thoughts on the particular approach to policing in Autumn 1888 for the JTR case (i.e. increasing the numbers of patrols and recruiting the help of vigilante members of the public), given that in recent years Criminology has revealed that police patrols do next to nothing to reduce crime rates in reality, but do serve a role in reducing the 'fear of crime' (to give more recent example of such policing models: 'Reassurance policing' and/or 'Community policing')? And, developing on from this, why do you think that such an approach to policing did so little to appease public concern? Or for that matter, did this approach in fact work, but we are distorted in our views by the concentrated moral panic you referred to and that is so commonly associated with the case?
Lastly, Scorpio thank you for your input, I will look at the thread now! Thanks to all.

Regards,

AP

[lynn cates]

philosophy

Hello APC. I am curious about why you list philosophy with the social sciences. In every institution where I have taught in that field, it was regarded as a humanities discipline.

Cheers.
LC

[AP Criminologist]

Hi Lynn,

Certainly I will explain. As I'm sure you know the Humanities overlap widely with the social sciences, so much so that in some institutions the two are combined to form schools of 'Human Sciences'. In my University we have a school of 'Human and Health Sciences', (which for me goes a bit too far!) and the Criminology department has been chopped and changed throughout the years from this school, to its current location in the 'School of Law'. In addition to this, many of the theoretical influences in Philosophy have informed - and continue to - social research, and thus the basis of social science as a whole, for example those of 'Epistemology' and 'Ontology'. All in all though, I suppose it comes down to differences in academic opinion, so its safe to say that nobody is right or wrong in Philosophy's classification, as long as you can back up your reasons for where you do choose to classify it...I suppose as I have just done ironically!

Regards,

AP

[Errata]

Fortunately Claire has spotted you error here Errata. Criminology is a social science yes, but so is Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology, Economics...etc, and Criminology is a 'Multi-disciplinary' social science, therefore meaning that whenever one applies ANY other theory from ANY other subject, and puts it into the context of crime, you are thus contributing to Criminology.

Yes psychology is a social science. But outside of certain disciplines such as social psychology, family dynamics etc. psychology is an individual assessment. The criminology theories I learned in an admittedly lame intro class were confined to group/societal influences on crime and behavior. Poverty leads to certain crimes, certain attitudes, etc. And all of these things are true. But the creation of a serial killer requires a a biological anomaly, and while certain factors tend to be present in a serial killers life, they are not necessary.

It's somewhat comparable to something like Albinism. It is clearly a biological condition, and most Albinos share similar experiences in their childhood. And certainly the social sciences apply towards a societies reactions towards albinos and vice versa, but it cannot deal with genesis or pathology.

[corey123]

Hello AP,

Send me a PM, I wrote something a while ago which may interest you

[claire]

lol, AP, you flatter me too much. I used to teach criminology at university level; I'd be scared if I was way off the mark

As for the policing--I don't believe there was any understanding that beat officers have next to no chance of ever coming across a crime in commission (what's the crazy stat? If an officer walked around for X number of years they'd have a one in a million chance of intercepting a burglary?). Certainly, it may not have had any impact on the level of fear in the East End--but that's only rational, isn't it? They hadn't caught the bloke; there were increased numbers of police knocking around (and interfering with the good honest pickpockets, hookers and burglars to boot)--so poor East End women had no reason to stop being afraid.

Nice thread. I'm going to resist stepping into the psychology fray, given my cynicism.

[Errata]

Nice thread. I'm going to resist stepping into the psychology fray, given my cynicism.

There's certainly a lot to be cynical about. One man's transference is another man's mommy issues. (Transference btw is applying emotions about a single person onto anyone of that person's "type". So if you hate your mother for abusing you, and she was a stunning blond, it would mean you hate blonds for example)

It's a really soft science in the grander scheme of things. Even if you can think of 100 ways for someone to genuinely hate or want to kill prostitutes, a: there's no guarantee it has any bearing on the act and b: there's still always an x factor between a man who hates and fears women and a man who kills them.

I in no way meant to insinuate that criminology is a useless science. It certainly is not. And I have no doubt that it is extremely useful in current cases. I think that in an academic investigation with very little hope of confirmation, that criminology becomes less useful than psychology. There is no way to adequately compare any suspect with any profile, any statistics, any probability.

Now clearly no suspect can be retroactively diagnosed by psychology either. But if for example we can rule out out and out psychosis, and can point out reasons why transference would fit, or psychopathy, or what have you, that gives us clues about the killer's daily life. If there is no important woman in a man's life who hurt him, transference becomes incredibly unlikely. But if transference still fits the crimes, then perhaps that excludes the man as a suspect.

Of course any method other than psychology could be used towards the same end, but the crimes are just so damned odd. They are not especially true to type. I think it is entirely possible that the key to the killer's identity lies in those differences, and to me, that says the key lies in the killer's head.

[Wickerman]

...Of course any method other than psychology could be used towards the same end, but the crimes are just so damned odd. They are not especially true to type. I think it is entirely possible that the key to the killer's identity lies in those differences, and to me, that says the key lies in the killer's head.

What type of analysis would you suggest for a series of killings where we cannot even be certain precisely how many victims were killed by the same hand?

Regards, Jon S.

[corey123]

I would say in the end psychology is a good tool that quite frankly, many are afraid to use in this case, indeed many will oppose this but it is true, people are afraid to use psychology. Though I think Errata is right, the key to this mystery lies in the killers head.

[Errata]

What type of analysis would you suggest for a series of killings where we cannot even be certain precisely how many victims were killed by the same hand?

Regards, Jon S.

I know right? Personally, I still use psychology because I know it and know how to use it. Sort of an if all you have is a hammer kinda situation.

For me, figuring out how many victims there are is based exclusively in psychology. If you can figure out what the killer gets out of the murder, you can narrow down the victims. Basic stuff. If he's in it to kill, that doesn't help much. But if he's in it for the organs, any victim without an effort to take organs is probably out. If he's a sadist, a quick clean kill probably isn't his.

And victim selection is psychological, so even that narrows it down. Say you think transference makes sense. The killer is punishing a group based on the actions of one. Then the victims have to have something in common. Transference tends to be based on appearance or profession, so someone who has neither in common with the others is probably not in this victim grouping.

Personally, against popular opinion, I don't think these are lust murders, or that they have anything to do with sex. To me they are pretty impersonal. It's an interpretation, one of many, but I imagine as valid as any other. For me, that means Mary Kelly was not killed by the same man as Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes. Just my take, but based on psychology.

[corey123]

Errata,

If you know psychology then you know these are lust murders, because if you knew psychology you would know lust murder has nothing to do with motive. Obviously nobody is willing to listen to the word of a 17 year old so if you don't want to buy my word, then buy the words of FBI special agent John E. Douglas:

These homicides are referred to as Lust Murders, Roy Hazelwood and I wrote an article several years ago which appeared in the FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin.The word "lust" does nor mean love or have any sexual meaning, other than the fact that the subject attacks the genital areas of his victims

Or perhaps that of Kraft Ebbing:

the presumption of murder out of lust is always given when injuries of the genitals are found, and goes on to say this is usually followed with the body being opened, and parts(intestines, genitals) are torn out, and are wanting.

If no one is willing to believe or listen to me then listen to them. The number of men who played a hand in these killings is also irrelevant to the fact that the killer(s) was a lust murderer.

In all due respect,
Corey