The Macdonald Triad

In today’s world, murderers aren’t a surprising thing, as long as they are fictional. Plenty of TV shows and movies have plot lines around murder, but what about real life? As Scott Bonn states in his writing, of the approximate 15,000 murders in the United States, only 1 percent are serial killings, amounting to about 150 victims per year, with between 25 and 50 serial killers active at any given time. There are plenty of statistics on serial killers. 1 in 20 had the same three characteristics as a child: bedwetting, fire setting, and torturing animals. Animal torture is a common indicator that the child will be violent in the future. Also, over 30 percent of murderers use killing as a way for their sexual arousal (Stone). A murderer

Serial killers, we have all heard of them and most of us are petrified of them. They commit horrendous crimes that many people cannot even begin to wrap their head around. Unfortunately, for those of us who are afraid of them it is likely we have encountered at least one if not multiple in our lifetime. That last sentence really puts the “be nice to everyone” quote into perspective, doesn’t it? It is not known how many serial killers are actually walking around among us however most studies conducted reviled we may not want the answer. Chances are the number is higher than we would have thought and definitely higher than we had hoped. Although I highly doubt we will ever get an actual number. It is not likely that a survey will be given to see how many serial killers are actually walking free. Even if this hypothetical survey was given I do not think an actual serial killer is going to put a checkmark in the are you a serial killer box. Although if they did mark the box they would save a lot of lives. Answering yes to such a question would land them in a psych ward. We may not know how to identify a serial killer simply by looking them up and down but we do have theories that help predict why they choose to commit unspeakable crimes. One of these theories that will be discussed is the biosocial theory. Throughout the report, the biosocial theory of crime will be thoroughly explained and applied to this topic to better understand serial killers. Anyone who has some time to

Serial murder is one of the most baffling crimes that occur in the U.S. and all over the world. Knight (2006) defines serial murder as the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant cooling-off period. The cooling off period may be weeks, months or even years long. Researchers have proposed various psychological, biological and sociological theories that offer a partial understanding of the nature of serial murder. Some propose that the basis for criminal behavior is a predisposition to violence as well as a mix between environment, personality traits and biological factors. Serial killers are predominantly male. Only 3 percent of serial murders are committed by women (U.S. News and World Report,

The triad includes fire-setting, animal cruelty, and enuresis (bed-wetting). A highly debate issue around serial killers is the reason behind their actions. Although many theories exist about the reason why serial killers act the way they do, the most common theory is that they are searching for some type of psychological satisfaction. A very common theory behind the reason of the actions of serial killers is the social control theory. This theory states that serial killers behave the way they do due to their inability to cope and adapt to society. Another well-known theory is the neutralization theory. This theory states that murderers sometimes move from an invisible “baseline” and commit illegal actions while sometimes moving back and acting in a conventional way. The last theory is the labeling theory. This theory, created by Erving Goffman, states that people act the way they do due to the labels that society has created for them. Therefore, if a kid is labeled as a troublemaker at a very young age, it is more likely that he will continue with this behavior through adulthood.

There are many theories as to why people become serial killers. Almost all of these concepts are associated with the Nature vs. Nurture theory. Are serial killers born with the need to kill, or is it something that they learn to long for as they grew up? Many believe that the nurture theory is the likely concept to believe; that serial killers are created from bad childhood experiences including being abused by their parents, or molested at an early age. Psychologist and sociologist have interviewed serial killers and picked apart their minds, to find out what it is that makes them feel the need to perform these heinous crimes. It is the nature theory that they are looking for when

Serial killers are the byproduct of many different things: trauma, death of loved ones, abuse, neglect, adoption, and even witnessing abuse (Are Serial). Serial killers have had to endure a massive amount of something such as trauma or abuse to an unimaginable extent to become what they are; the extent of the abuse, the trauma, the psychological damage they endure is incomprehensible to many. The destruction of one’s innocence can occur at any given time in his or her life, but he or she is more impressionable in his or her youth by the negativism of someone else’s actions (Scott, Shirley L. What Makes Serial Killers Tick ~ Childhood Event). People are susceptible to what they endure in their adolescence, and cruel upbringings, such as

Several serial killers have a definitive and common personality profile. Almost every major social, biological, psychological behavioural influence that has been seriously suggested as playing a role in causing crime has been thoroughly thought as potentially

Serial killers are a relatively rare, yet commonly publicized, part of our society. The media portrayal of serial killers skews the opinions and creates a stereotype of murderers for the public. James Knoll, MD states in his article, “Serial Murder: A Forensic Psychiatric Perspective”, that no evidence supports the idea that serial murder is a “growing epidemic” as people believe it is (qtd. in Johnson-Sheehan & Paine, “Writing Today”, pg 332). This misperception of serial killing was exhibited in the way the media portrayed the “Hillside Strangler”, a murderer who was killing women in the Los Angeles area by strangling them and leaving them nude in the hilly areas in 1977. The articles reporting the

This literature review focuses on serial killers from a psychological viewpoint while trying to answer the question, “Are serial killers born to kill or are they bred to kill?” Firstly, this review will define a serial killer and the different kinds of killers, then it will take a look at different case studies of children who fantasized about mass killing and identify similarities between the cases attempt to find a way to possibly prevent their fantasies from becoming reality. The debate of nature vs. nurture is also discussed as psychologists and researchers come to the conclusion that environmental factors play a bigger role in the developmental character of a person than genetics, but there is still no definite answer as to why some individuals grow up with the urge to murder other people and/or animals.

Through the use of secondary research, Lubaszka and Shon compare and contrast offense characteristics and offender behaviors of serial killers to those of healthcare murderers. Their purpose is to bring attention to the fact that the two types of serial killers are not as comparable as previously believed. Therefore, asserting the necessity for future scholars to study the offenders separately(Lubaszka & Shon, 2013). In order to support their claims, Lubaszka and Shon focus on three limitations traditional serial homicide theories possess as they attempt to explain healthcare serial killers. Those three limitations are as follows: applicability of current typologies, stalking rituals, and geographical mobility (Lubaszka & Shon, 2013, p. 5).

Serial killers have always fascinated society because no one knows how they come to be. People tend to think that being a psychopath is the same as being a serial killer. The acts committed by serial killers are too heinous and horrifying for a normal person to understand. Which is where one of the theories of how serial killers came to be came from. Nature vs. Nurture has been a topic of debate when it comes to serial killers for centuries. The debate is about whether genetics or environment factors determine the behavior and personality of a person. Just like hair color is determined by genetics, Those who argue genetics are the main factor in behaviour believe that genetic determines a person’s ability to take life without guilt or remorse. Those who are the believers of nurture side disagrees by stating that environmental factors like family, faith, and society regulate one’s capability to take life without remorse. Society needs to refrain from thinking that serial killers are born because they are made through psychological trauma caused by abuse at an early age or brain damage.

The stereotype that exists for individuals who commit serial murder is one that mainly includes males of a specific race. However, it is now known that white males are not the only individuals who commit serial murder. Men and women from all racial and ethnic backgrounds and socio-economic statuses have been found to be serial murderers. Although this information has been presented to society, the cultural schema of the white male serial killer is still prevalent. The assumptions that involve serial murderers often include two aspects, the serial murderer is male and the serial murder is a type of “lust murder”, often involving sexual crimes by a sadist (Keeney and Heide, 1995). Keeney and Heide (1994) define serial murder to be the

The idea of serial killers and the role they play in our lives has fascinated people since the cases of Jack the Ripper and H.H. Holmes, although serial murderers existed before them. The infamous and mysterious complexities of these cases have puzzled and terrified people for over a century. Perhaps due to the deviant and taboo nature of serial killings, people in our society and others have tried to attribute many reasons for why they occur. In this search for answers, one major scope has been widely left out of the research: the sociological imagination. It is through this method of understanding that I will attempt to explain the development of serial killers and apply theories that explain the frequency of serial killings in our society.

Though serial killer may have a fairly specific definition, there is no single precise profile for the serial killer. Each has a unique identity, set of motives and methods, and a unique psychopathology that would attempt to explain the mens rea, that is, the purpose or intent of the murder. “Psychological profiling is an investigative tool used strictly to answer the how of the crime, not the why” (Severence et al, 1992; Lanier and Henry, 1998). By examining the psychological make-up of the serial killer, it is often possible to explain the behavior, which might make it a useful tool in solving crimes.

They usually hate their parents. Almost every serial killer is abused as a child, whether it is sexually, emotionally, physically, or psychologically. This abuse may come from a stranger or a family member, but many serial killers try to lie about this history of abuse. Most serial killers have records of early psychiatric problems and often spent time in institutions as children (i.e.: mental hospitals or psychological rehabilitation centers). They have an intense interest in voyeurism, fetishism, and sadomasochistic porn at a very early age, and they also have a very high rate of suicide attempts. Future serial killers share three other traits in their childhoods. More than sixty precent of serial killers wet their beds past the age of twelve. They also have a fascination with fire, which may be an early manifestation of their fondness for mass destruction. In addition, almost every serial killer starts his abuse and sadistic torture on animal victims (Fisher and Fisher, 2003).