by Scott Bonn
Undone by His Egomania
Perhaps it should not be surprising that Rader was finally undone by his own massive ego and malignant narcissism. By 2004, he had not killed for thirteen years and the investigation of his crimes headed by Wichita Police Lieutenant Ken Landwehr had gone completely cold. Then BTK abruptly resurfaced and he began communicating with the police and media after a local news report speculated that he was either dead or in prison. Rader could not resist the temptation to publicly refute the rumors. Over the next eleven months leading up to his arrest, he sent a total of ten taunting messages to authorities, many of them directly to Ken Landwehr with whom Rader thought he had a special rapport. He asked Landwehr whether he could communicate with him via a floppy disk without it being traced to a particular computer. Landwehr naturally lied and said yes. A few weeks later, a floppy disk from BTK addressed to Landwehr arrived at a local television station. The disk was quickly traced to Rader through a computer at his Lutheran church.
In the book Bind, Torture, Kill: The Inside Story of BTK, the Serial Killer Next Door, Ken Landwehr, who passed away on January 13, 2014, said he was quite amused that Rader was indignant over his lying to him about not being able to trace the computer floppy disk.81 The late Detective Landwehr said:
If he had just quit [killing] and kept his mouth shut, we might never have connected the dots . . . He couldn’t get over the fact that I would lie to him. He could not believe that I did not want this to go on forever.82
Rader was very disappointed about the perceived betrayal and he expressed shock during his jailhouse interrogation that the police lieutenant would intentionally deceive him. Speaking directly to Landwehr and using the lieutenant’s first name, Rader said, “I need to ask you, Ken, how come you lied to me?” In a matter-of-fact tone, Landwehr coolly replied, “Because I was trying to catch you.”83 Rader later admitted that the floppy disk “did me in.”
Although it seems inconceivable that Rader would trust Landwehr so completely, it can be attributed to his grandiosity and sense of invulnerability. As noted by Roy Hazelwood, “He apparently believed that Landwehr couldn’t afford to lie to him because he knew if he did, Rader would cut off communications with him.” I have come to believe that Rader felt a strange bond to Ken Landwehr which is suggested by the fact that Rader told him at one point during his interrogation that they were fellow law enforcement officers. Rader had wanted so much to be a real police officer and it exposed a weakness in him. He let down his guard with Landwehr and the savvy detective took advantage of the opening with a knockout punch.
Once Rader realized that he was finally caught, he gave a full confession, recounting every minute detail of the torture and murder of his victims in an unnervingly monotone voice. He basked in the spotlight on his personal stage as he meticulously explained each one of BTK’s murders (or “projects” as he calls them) to his attentive audience. Rader displayed such narcissism during his interview that, according to Ken Landwehr, he seemed to believe that the police were actually his friends. In fact, he got so comfortable during the interview that at one point he told a police officer to “put ‘BTK’ on the lid” of his drinking cup before putting it back into the refrigerator so they would all know which one was his. Yes, the psychopath felt right at home.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have told the gruesome tale of Dennis Rader and shared my reflections on the serial killer known as BTK from my personal correspondence with him. It is clear that he is totally unremorseful and that he relished in the creation of his own criminal celebrity status while taunting his pursuers over a span of thirty years. Although at times he claims to be remorseful, his words are cliché and hollow. In many ways, Rader is the poster boy of malignant narcissism and violent psychopathy. He sees himself as a natural born killer and terrorist of society. Mere serial killer status is not sufficiently grandiose for his immense ego. His only regret is in getting caught which, quite appropriately, resulted from his own egomania and narcissism. He resides in his solitary confinement cell like a venomous spider alone in the dark. Completely unrepentant, he is the master of his little universe.
PART 3
THE SOCIOLOGY OF SERIAL MURDER
CHAPTER 8
THE PROFOUND IMPACT OF SERIAL MURDER ON SOCIETY
We have spent the first seven chapters of this book examining the truth about serial homicide in the US and debunking much of the mythology surrounding it. We have focused on the patterns and characteristics of serial killers and explored the tremendous diversity that exists among them in terms of their psychological profiles, motivations, modus operandi, and rituals. We have examined criminal profiling in some detail and debunked a number of popular myths about the process and its practitioners. We have also examined the compelling stories of two infamous serial killers who are serving multiple life sentences in prison for their crimes.
In this chapter, we take a departure from analyzing the thoughts and motivations of serial killers to pursue a sociological examination of the meaning and significance of serial homicide in modern society. Why employ sociology? I believe that the science of sociology can offer important insights into the effects of serial homicide on the public consciousness and collective sense of well being. The impact of serial murder on society is an important topic that is rarely, if ever, mentioned in public discussions about serial killers. I argue that the functionalist tradition of sociology and a concept known as “anomie” are particularly relevant to our examination of serial killers. The functionalist concept of anomie refers to a chaotic state in society which results from the presence of conflicting or contradictory social norms and behavioral expectations that are not met. According to the functionalist tradition of sociology, the state of norm confusion that occurs in a society characterized by anomie can lead some of its individual members to engage in deviant behavior, including extreme violence and brutality. An example of this is the anarchy that occurred in French society following the fall of the monarchy during the French Revolution in the late 1700s. The massive political protests and rioting in the US during the chaotic and dynamic 1960s provides another example. In this chapter I argue that the actions of serial killers and their impact on the social order can be explained in functionalist sociological terms.
What Is Sociology?
Sociologists analyze and attempt to explain the many forms of human behavior that occur in group settings. They seek to explain how society influences people and how people, in turn, influence society. Sociologists develop theoretical perspectives or paradigms which provide them with an orienting framework—that is, a philosophical position—for understanding how a society operates. Sociologists often ask questions about particular problems that may plague society. They might ask why inequality or racism exists in society, for example. The particular theoretical perspective or paradigm employed by a sociologist greatly influences how he or she answers such questions.
There are three primary theoretical perspectives employed by contemporary sociologists: functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interactionism. Functionalism, which is the focus of this chapter, has been a dominant force in sociology since the emergence of the discipline in Europe during the nineteenth century and is based largely on the work of the French social scientist Emile Durkheim. According to the functionalist theoretical perspective, society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in which members of society agree upon—and work together to achieve—what is best for all of society.84 Functionalism states that the various institutions of society such as families, education, and the labor market are all interdependent and they collectively contribute to society’s operation as a whole.85 For example, the government or state may provide education and in return, families may pay taxes that the state needs to maintain its operations. Families and the state are thus dependent upon one another to meet their respective needs and to function properly as a total, collaborative unit. From a functionalist perspective, families rely on state-provided educa
tion to enable their children to secure good jobs and live happy, productive lives. As they grow up and receive an education, children become law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who, like their parents, support the state. According to functionalism, the interdependent institutions of society produce order, stability, and productivity for all. Conversely, if the institutions of society are out of balance or otherwise in conflict with one another, then crime and deviance are to be expected.
In contrast to functionalism, the conflict perspective (or conflict theory) can be traced to the work of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who believed that society is a dynamic entity that is constantly undergoing change driven by class conflict. Whereas functionalism perceives society as a complex system striving for equilibrium, the conflict perspective views it as constant competition. According to the conflict perspective, society is made up of individuals competing for limited resources such as money, real estate, or sexual partners. From a conflict perspective, competition over scarce resources is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition, rather than consensus, is the key characteristic of human relationships. Broader social structures and organizations such as religion and government reflect the competition for resources and the inherent inequality that competition entails. Thus, some people and organizations have more resources, including social power and influence, and use those resources to maintain their positions of dominance and control in society. Sociologists who operate from the conflict perspective study the distribution of resources, power, and inequality in society.
The third major sociological tradition, symbolic interactionism, is a theoretical approach to understanding the dynamic interaction between human beings and society. The basic premise of symbolic interactionism is that human actions and interactions are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication, language, or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting, as opposed to being acted upon by larger social forces, as they are in functionalism and conflict theory.86 As explained in Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology, the main principles of symbolic interactionism are: 1) human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that things have for them; 2) all meanings arise out of social interaction; and 3) social action results from a fitting together of individual lines of action. According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has no reality for humans. Only subjectively defined objects and symbols have meaning for people. Meanings are not universal entities that are bestowed on humans and they are not learned objectively. Instead, social meanings can be altered through the creative capabilities of humans, and individuals may influence the many meanings that comprise their society. Therefore, according to symbolic interactionism, human society is subjectively defined in a particular context rather than being an objective, universal truth.87
Emile Durkheim and Functionalism
The French social scientist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), a leading developer and proponent of functionalism, is one of the most influential and respected sociologists in the history of the discipline. He is considered by many to be the founding father of modern sociology and, in many ways, criminology as well. Although Durkheim was not the first social scientist to advocate and employ the functionalist approach in his work, he is the figure most often associated with the theory. Durkheim began his academic career in the late 1800s, a time when sociology was not widely accepted in Europe or anywhere else as an independent scientific discipline. Durkheim devoted his life’s work to the advancement of sociology. In his first two major books originally published in the early 1890s, The Division of Labor in Society and The Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim outlined what he perceived to be the distinctive theoretical problems and methodological strategies of sociological inquiry.
In his book on the rules of research methods, he identified the analysis of “social facts” as the unique subject matter for sociological inquiry. Social facts, according to Durkheim, are phenomena that are properties or patterns of society rather than of individual members of society. The rates of divorce, crime and suicide in a society and the nature of a society’s legal system are examples of social facts that Durkheim considered to be definitive of a society and to exist external to its individual members. Durkheim argued that social facts could only be explained sociologically—that is, in reference to other social facts. He said, “The determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual consciousness.”88
French philosopher and social scientist Emile Durkheim.
Collective Consciousness and Social Solidarity
Emile Durkheim identified two concepts that are essential to an understanding of his functionalist theoretical perspective. These two important concepts are collective consciousness and social solidarity—both of which Durkheim used to support his conclusion that crime and deviance are not manifested in the actions of individuals but, rather, in the shared beliefs of the people in society. In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim defined collective consciousness as the totality of beliefs and sentiments that are common to the members of society.89 In other words, collective consciousness represents a shared system of values and beliefs in which the boundaries of right and wrong, legal and illegal, are clearly defined. According to Durkheim, the collective consciousness is a powerful social force that existed before society’s current members were born and it will endure long after they are gone. Therefore, the collective consciousness of society has a life of its own and, most importantly, it provides the basis for social solidarity. According to Durkheim, solidarity refers to the ties that bind people to one another in society. In other words, solidarity is the integration or cohesion manifested by society in its individual members. The collective consciousness leads to social solidarity as certain common values and beliefs are diffused and integrated across society as a whole.
Durkheim applied his general functionalist principles to a specific form of deviance in his third major book, the groundbreaking Suicide, originally published in 1897. He deliberately focused on the seemingly individualistic phenomenon of suicide in order to demonstrate the power and singularity of sociological inquiry. What better or more dramatic phenomenon to build an argument for the importance of sociology as a scientific field than to look beyond the individual to society for the causes of suicidal behavior? Using a tremendous amount of data from official records on suicides in different parts of Europe, Durkheim documented significant variations between countries in their rates of suicide. This evidence, Durkheim argued, shows that “each society has a definite aptitude for suicide” which is a social fact that is external to the individual members of a given society.90 Additional analyses of these data convinced Durkheim that the suicide rate of a given society could not be explained by psychological abnormalities or other individual pathologies and that, “by elimination, it must necessarily depend upon social causes.”91
It is important to understand that Durkheim was preoccupied with discovering and proving the effects of social change throughout his career. He sought to demonstrate/verify that certain conditions or characteristics of the social environment are the underlying causes of different patterns of suicide or other social facts. He believed, for example, that sudden, disruptive change in societal conditions such as a severe economic depression could lead to an increase in suicide. Durkheim identified four distinct environmental conditions that he believed to be responsible for various patterns of high suicide rates: egoism, altruism, anomie, and fatalism. In this chapter, we shall focus only on the best known of these four causes of suicide—anomie—because it relates directly to our discussion of serial homicide and helps to explain the actions of serial killers and their effect on society.
The Concept of Anomie
Durkheim explained anomie as a condition of deregulation and normative breakdown in society.92 Stated differently, anomie is a condition where social norms or expectations of beha
vior are confused, unclear, or simply not present. Anomie occurs in society when the rules on how people ought to behave with each other crumble and, as a result, people do not know what to expect from one another. Durkheim believed that individuals cannot find their place or function properly in society without clear rules to help guide them. In a state of anomie, the members of society no longer have clear social norms to regulate or constrain their goals and desires. A society characterized by anomie fails to exercise adequate control over the actions and behaviors of its individual members. The state of norm confusion or normlessness that occurs in a society characterized by anomie can lead its individual members to engage in deviant behavior such as violence and suicide.
As explained by Dr. James Orcutt in his fine book Analyzing Deviance, Durkheim believed that the condition of anomie could explain at least three kinds of suicidal phenomena.93 First, using historical data on suicide patterns in Europe, Durkheim determined that sharp increases or decreases in the economic wellbeing of a society were associated with an increasing rate of suicide. He further found that suicide rates were lowest during times of economic stability and highest during times of economic instability. Durkheim reasoned that economic crises disrupted society’s regulatory influence on the material desires of its members. Economic booms or depressions undercut the predictable material goals from which individuals would ordinarily derive satisfaction. Second, Durkheim presented evidence that “one sphere of social life—the sphere of trade and industry—is actually in a chronic state” of anomie.94 In commercial segments of society, where far-reaching, aggressive economic goals are continually sought and greed is aroused in people without their knowing where to find an outlet, a lack of moral restraint over material desires becomes a constant plague of the social environment. Durkheim explained high rates of suicide among business people as a result of this chronic state of anomie. Finally, Durkheim analyzed how inadequate regulation of sexual desires could also produce high rates of anomic suicide among certain social groups. Single males, in particular, are in social circumstances where their unrestrained pursuit of physical pleasure is likely to lead to disillusionment and suicide, according to Durkheim. Marriage functions to regulate sexual desire and married males typically have lower rates of suicide than unmarried males. Durkheim documented these patterns and considered them to be important social facts. The concept of anomie was thus used by Durkheim to explain a variety of social facts as they relate to suicide, including occupation, employment status, and marital status.