Why We Love Serial Killers

by Scott Bonn

  The definition of the word “monster” still retains its original implications of supernatural or non-human origins to one so defined. Similarly, the word “evil” strips the humanity from anyone unlucky enough to receive the designation. Significantly, when a law enforcement official uses terms such as monster or evil to describe a serial killer, he is characterizing the criminal as a larger-than-life super predator. By so doing, he is also presenting himself as a superhero with the ability to defeat the super villain. Stated differently, and borrowing from author Bram Stoker, the wanted criminal becomes Count Dracula and the obsessed police pursuer becomes the vampire hunter, Dr. Abraham Van Helsing.

  However, not all law enforcement authorities approve of the use of supernatural terminology to describe serial killers. Some find the practice to be counterproductive or even dangerous. For example, former FBI profiler Roy Hazelwood, a colleague of the late Robert Ressler, decries the practice of labeling serial killers using such terminology for reasons that are both logical and pragmatic. Hazelwood told me:

  When I teach “profiling,” I tell my students that, when referring to sexual killers, they are not use the following terms in my class: “Pervert,” “weirdo,” “wacko,” “monster,” “sicko” . . . regardless of the type of crime(s) the serial killer has committed. My reasoning is that when they use those terms to describe the offender, they have begun the process of structuring a mindset as to the type of person they are looking for when in reality he may be a person studying to become a doctor (Craiglist Killer) or a lawyer (Ted Bundy) or a police officer (Gerard Schaefer).

  So no, I don’t believe that “monster” is a descriptor that should be used because the lay person then applies his/her idea of what a “monster” looks or behaves like and consequently, when the offender is identified, the public is shocked at how “normal” he appears.

  Hazelwood’s powerful observations explain how the police often construct a public identity for a serial killer that is nothing like the actual person. Truth be told, a serial killer is much more likely to come across as the mild-mannered Dennis Rader in person than as the socially constructed monster known as BTK. When law enforcement authorities describe a serial killer in one-dimensional and supernatural terms, they perpetuate a stereotype that harms society by distorting the true nature and extent of the threat represented by the criminal.

  Any and all misinformation about serial killers included in the official statements of law enforcement authorities is quickly disseminated to the public via the news media. That is due to a symbiotic relationship that exists between both agencies. Specifically, law enforcement authorities require channels of communication to disseminate their official messages, and the news media need tantalizing or juicy content to attract large public audiences. Journalists must rely on state authorities to provide them with the official explanations, definitions, and details of serial homicide cases. Therefore, the news media generally report whatever they are told by state officials without question. The cooperative, “no questions asked” relationship that exists between law enforcement authorities and the news media means that inaccuracies, stereotypes, and myths about serial killers can be disseminated to the public without anyone even being aware that it is happening.

  The Role of the News Media

  From a moral panic perspective, the news media are the second most important set of actors in the social construction of folk devils, exceeded only by the public in terms of its influence. The news coverage of folk devils is typically stylized and exaggerated in order to entice a wide public audience. Journalistic hyperbole makes them appear to be much more threatening to society than they actually are. Public concern and anxiety are heightened through journalistic exaggeration and, as a result, folk devils are demonized in the minds of the public. It must be remembered that the entertainment news media have a vested interest in tantalizing and even scaring the public. Sensationalized news content attracts a wide audience, and a large audience attracts highly coveted advertising revenue.

  Serial homicide has long occupied a high-ranking position in media perceptions of what constitutes a newsworthy story, and so it should not be surprising that the news media are so instrumental to the social construction of serial killers. This dates back to the London murders of Jack the Ripper in 1888 and it continues to this day in the media attention paid to the likes of the Long Island Serial Killer in New York. The Ripper case was the first serial killer story in history to cause a widespread media frenzy and that was due entirely to the proliferation of inexpensive broadsheet newspapers in Victorian London in the late nineteenth century. By the fall of 1888, at the height of the Ripper’s killing spree, one million newspapers with updated stories on the case were sold each day—an unprecedented circulation of newspapers at the time.

  It’s quite obvious why the Ripper case held tremendous appeal to journalists in the nineteenth century, just as serial killer cases continue to lure the news media today. As noted by Roy Hazelwood, the news media are hungry for stories that will attract a large audience and excite readers. There is an old adage among newspaper reporters that says, “If it bleeds, it leads,” indicating the priority given to stories that contain violence. A serial killer case offers blood—in the extreme—and it also provides the public with a tantalizing melodrama of good versus evil to follow. A serial killer case offers tremendous excitement each day as the news media shares updates on the investigation provided by law enforcement officials. Such cases frequently include graphic sexual activity, and the public nature of the investigation highlights the real possibility of harm befalling additional members of the public until the perpetrator is apprehended. In many ways, a serial killer case offers every juicy element that a journalist might want in a news story.

  One of the most sensationalized and hyped serial killer stories in US history was that of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was framed as the “Milwaukee Cannibal” by the entertainment news media. Dahmer raped, murdered, dismembered, and ate seventeen men and boys between 1978 and 1991 in Wisconsin. The unrivaled gruesomeness of the case virtually ensured that it would become one of the best-known serial homicide stories of all time. Although the crimes took place in Milwaukee, media interest was nation- and worldwide. The New York Times, for example, ran either a half- or full-page feature article on the case for ten consecutive days following Dahmer’s arrest in July 1991. There were numerous features and interviews on all of the major network television talk shows and news programs such as ABC’s 20/20 and CBS’s 48 Hours. According to news reports in the Milwaukee Journal, an estimated 450 journalists came to Milwaukee to cover the case and the ensuing trial of Dahmer. A common news headline about the killer at the time asked the question, “Jeffrey Dahmer: Man or Monster?”

  Shortly after Dahmer’s capture, the August 12, 1991, cover of People magazine read:

  Horror in Milwaukee: He was a quiet man who worked in a chocolate factory. But at home in apartment 213 a real-life “Silence of the Lambs” was unfolding. Now that Jeffrey Dahmer has confessed to 17 grotesque murders, his troubling history of alcoholism, sex offenses and bizarre behavior raises a haunting question: Why wasn’t he stopped?

  Major news and entertainment news media outlets, including People magazine and many others, focused on the cannibalistic aspect of Dahmer’s case to reinforce a connection with the fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter. The blockbuster film The Silence of the Lambs, which starred Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, was at the very height of its popularity and cultural impact at exactly the right time for this connection. It had been released to US audiences on January 30, 1991, only six months prior to Dahmer’s capture. By linking him to Hannibal Lecter, the news media dehumanized Jeffrey Dahmer and framed him as a stylized super predator and cannibal. The vast impact of this particular case is evidenced by the wide appeal of morbid cannibalism-themed jokes and atrocity tales based on Jeffrey Dahmer that remain popular today, despite the fact that he was killed in prison by a fellow inmate in 1994.

 
Much like law enforcement authorities, the news media frequently refer to serial killers in supernatural terms by using inflammatory words such as “evil,” “monster,” or “devil” to describe them. For example, Jeff Kamen, a veteran journalist who covered the David Berkowitz trial and sat close to him in court, said, “Sitting there near him I felt as if I was in the presence of pure evil.” Twenty-five years following the arrest and incarceration of Berkowitz, the New York Post ran a retrospective story under the headline “A Summer in Fear of the Monster Next Door.” In another example, following the arrest of BTK in 2005, the Washington Post ran a story about Dennis Rader with the headline “The Devil Inside” and Newsweek magazine ran an article about his wife that was titled “Married to a Monster: Paula Rader.” Similarly, after Jeffrey Dahmer was beaten to death in prison by a fellow inmate the cover of People magazine referred to his demise as the “Death of a Madman.”

  Milwaukee policemen carry away the dismembered parts of the victims of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer in 1991. (photo credit: Associated Press)

  Although the Internet makes it relatively easy to find individual examples of news articles that refer to serial killers in supernatural terms, I decided to do my own quantitative analysis of news content to get an idea of how prevalent such references are in major news media outlets. I decided to investigate the New York Times due to its long celebrated history, large circulation, and prominence as a daily news source and agenda setter in US society. I wanted to investigate a major weekly news source, as well, so I decided to investigate Time magazine for the same reasons that I chose the New York Times—that is, history, scope, and prestige. I used Google to query the number of articles in which the words “serial killer” appeared in the two publications between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2013. I then queried the number of articles about serial killers in the two publications that also contained any of the following terms: “monster,” “evil,” or “devil.”

  NYPD officers of the 84th Precinct in Brooklyn read news of the capture of David Berkowitz, August 11, 1977. (photo credit: Associated Press)

  The New York Times published 5,680 articles about serial killers during the eighteen-year time frame I requested. Of those articles, 577 contained the word “monster,” 745 contained the word “evil,” and 661 had the word “devil.” Therefore, a total of 1,983 or 35 percent of the New York Times articles about serial killers contained one or more of the supernatural descriptors. In Time magazine there were 449 serial killer articles published between 1995 and 2013. Of those articles, fifty-seven contained the word “monster,” sixty-seven contained the word “evil,” and thirty-three included the word “devil.” Therefore, a total of 157 or 35 percent (once again!) of the Time magazine articles contained one or more of the supernatural descriptors of serial killers.

  Interestingly, the word “evil” was used more frequently than either “monster” or “devil” to describe serial killers in both of the publications I analyzed. As previously discussed, the use of the word “evil” to label someone is particularly devastating because it strips the bearer of all humanity. It is fascinating to me that the two publications contained the same percentage of articles in which one of the three supernatural words was used to describe serial killers. Although the percentage (35 percent) is significant, I suspect that it would be even higher in more sensationalized types of media such as true crime magazines. The point is that even well-respected journalists employed by two of the leading news publications in the world used supernatural or inhuman terminology to describe serial killers more than one-third of the time over the past twenty years.

  It has been empirically demonstrated that a direct, positive relationship exists between the number of stories in the news media about serial killers and the size of the readership or viewership.107 Stated differently, more serial killer stories lead to larger audiences for news media outlets. In a study of news articles published in the New York Times about three different serial killers from different time periods—the Boston Strangler (1960s), Son of Sam (1970s) and the Night Stalker (1980s)—it was determined that journalists did not report news so much as “create a market for a relatively minor series of incidents compared to all of the other carnage and violence taking place on the planet at the same time.”108 It was not only other violence that was supplanted in the media by the serial killer stories. Dr. Jeffrey Kottler, the psychologist who conducted the research, concluded from his study that the serial killers he examined were elevated to criminal rock star status and enjoyed fame and notoriety that exceeded that of scientists, authors, politicians, and other professionals who were doing groundbreaking work in their fields and helping mankind instead of killing people.

  At least one veteran journalist deplores the tendency of crime reporters to hype serial killers in their news stories because it transforms them into celebrity monsters. Despite the fact that he himself uses inflammatory language to describe serial predators, Jeff Kamen told me he believes that the glorification of killers by journalists is self-serving, unethical, and does great harm to the families of victims. Kamen said:

  It is outrageous when reporters fan the flames of public hysteria and glorify these lowlifes. It may entice readers but it’s wrong. Psychopaths like Bundy and BTK love media attention so don’t give it to them. Just present the facts without embellishment. Think of the victims’ families. They’ve already suffered so much. They don’t deserve to see these creatures take a bow.

  Jeff Kamen’s admonishment of the news media is powerful and poignant. Journalists who rely on hyperbole and exaggeration to present serial killers as supernatural monsters are doing so for their own selfish purposes—that is, to entice their audience—and they are demonstrating no regard for the consequences of their actions. Similar to law enforcement authorities who perpetuate serial killer myths and stereotypes, journalists who do the same thing are acting unethically. The news media blur the distinction between reality and fiction and obscure the truth about serial homicide when they turn the killers into stylized and cartoonish super predators. By engaging in such unethical behavior, journalists are doing a gross injustice to society, and they also provide an undeserved public forum for cold-blooded murderers who crave the limelight and public attention. In other words, exaggerated journalistic rhetoric may be good for the financial bottom line of the media but it desensitizes society to the terrible reality of serial murder. Moreover, it gives psychopathic serial killers exactly what they desire—a bright spotlight on the public stage.

  The Role of Serial Killers

  What is the role of serial killers themselves in the social construction of their public identity? This is an important question that is rarely, if ever, addressed by criminologists or the media in their discussions of serial killers. I contend that the killers are central actors in the process. Unlike folk devils in a moral panic drama that recoil from public attention such as school bullies or youth gangs, many serial killers seek out public acclaim and actively engage in the creation of their own public image. Among this ilk, the Son of Sam, BTK, the Zodiac Killer, and the Boston Strangler come immediately to mind. Such criminals are well-established celebrity folk devils in the popular culture. Our analysis of the social construction of serial killers must consider the significant contributions of the criminals themselves. Therefore, I analyze the actual words and actions of notorious serial killers who were unabashed self-promoters in the following pages.

  Richard Ramirez displays a pentagram symbol on his hand in court. (photo credit: Associated Press)

  One of the most gruesome but enduringly popular serial killers among true crime fans is the late Richard Ramirez, dubbed the “Night Stalker” by the press. He was convicted of killing thirteen people (and suspected of killing six others) during a home invasion crime spree in Los Angeles during 1984 and 1985. Men were shot or strangled and women were brutally raped and mutilated. At the crime scenes, the Night Stalker left occult symbols such as an inverted pentagram drawn on a wall with a vi
ctim’s lipstick as his personal signature. Ramirez, who was an avowed Satanist, never expressed any remorse for his crimes after his capture. Instead, he gloated about his brutal crimes to reporters and mugged for the news cameras.

  Ramirez contributed greatly to his satanic public image by wearing all black in the courtroom and donning sunglasses throughout his trial. At one point he said that he aspired to be “100 percent evil.” He loved the news media attention and played up to the crowd. At his sentencing, Ramirez praised Lucifer and told the judge, jurors, and a packed courtroom, which included some of his victims’ relatives, the following:

  You don’t understand me. You are not expected to. You are not capable of it. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil . . . I don’t believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society. . . . You maggots make me sick! Hypocrites one and all . . . I don’t need to hear all of society’s rationalizations. I’ve heard them all before . . . Legions of the night—night breed—repeat not the errors of the Night Stalker and show no mercy. I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells within all of us . . . See you in Disneyland. That’s it.

  Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan, who upheld the death sentence imposed by the jury, remarked that Ramirez’s deeds exhibited “cruelty, callousness, and viciousness beyond any human understanding.” Following his sentencing, Ramirez remained defiant in prison where he wore a perpetual sneer and enjoyed the attention of his female groupies who sent him a steady stream of love letters through the mail. When asked about his appeal to women, Ramirez said:

  I think the girls are attracted to me because they can relate to me. The girls are nice when you’re in my situation, but since I’m in here I spend more time writing to them about the relationship, rather than living it, but there are good friendships formed nevertheless.