Why We Love Serial Killers

by Scott Bonn

  The Serial Killer Clarifies Moral Boundaries

  I believe that the serial killer identity represents a collapse of the boundary between human and monster. As a social construction, the serial killer identity involves a merging or integration of man and monster. This serves an unexpected purpose. Most everyone in society has dangerous urges and thoughts lurking in their minds and the person who behaves like a monster helps the public to exorcise them vicariously. The late Gary Gilmore, who was executed for committing multiple murders, once said, “The mind needs monsters. Monsters embody all that is dangerous and horrible in the human imagination.” The late Richard Ramirez famously told a reporter that “we are all evil” when asked if he was evil. David Berkowitz told me that inside everyone lies the “desire to take out one’s anger and frustration upon someone else . . . Man can become violent in a moment’s time . . . Everyone has the potential to do terrible things.”

  Arguably, society needs serial killers because they are like emotional lightning rods that protect people from their own violent tendencies. The socially constructed serial killer identity gives society an outlet to experience the darker side of the human condition that otherwise it cannot or will not consider. As explained in chapter 10, this factor is a key source of the public’s fascination with serial killers. The actions of the serial killer offer society a taste of madness and blood in a controlled environment and, most importantly, they provide a catharsis for the public’s primal urges. The serial killer allows society to act out its darkest fantasies without getting hurt. In a sense, the serial killer allows people to go safely insane. How does this serve society? It provides an escape valve for the public’s pent-up anger and frustration as people observe the carnage perpetrated by the serial killer and participate vicariously in his crimes. From a functionalist perspective, the moral boundaries of society are clarified and reinforced when the serial killer acts on his monstrous impulses while the rest of society sits back and observes the spectacle.

  The Public Identifies With Monsters

  Strangely enough, part of the appeal and functionality of serial killers has to do with empathy. I believe that people are driven by an innate and spontaneous tendency to empathize with everything around them. My research suggests that not only do people blur the line between real and fictional serial killers, they genuinely identify with both serial killers and monsters in Hollywood depictions of them. The public secretly pulls for the misunderstood monster in the 1931 classic horror film Frankenstein, as well as the cunningly brilliant Hannibal Lecter in the more recent classic The Silence of the Lambs.

  Psychologist Heath Matheson contends that empathizing with the monster or killer in a movie makes it more fun to watch and scarier, too.132 Empathy enables us to identify with the monster or killer. Once we grasp their needs and desires, we can then identify with their purpose, no matter how terrifying it may be. According to Dr. Matheson, a really effective movie monster or serial killer is one that we can identify with and believe is goal oriented, and able to achieve those goals.133 A classic example is the fictional movie monster King Kong, the giant gorilla, who struggled valiantly to locate and protect his lost love after he was captured and taken to New York City. King Kong has become a frightening but lovable anti-hero in popular culture.

  From a functionalist perspective, the ability to empathize with a monster or serial killer makes it more predictable and less scary. As discussed in chapter 10, the public needs to understand things that are baffling and scary in order to make them less frightening. I believe that people do this to make sense out of everything foreign they encounter and, thereby, reduce their fear. Simply stated, empathetic understanding reduces fear of the unknown. Therefore, the more one can relate to or humanize a monster or serial killer, the less scary it becomes.

  Although empathizing with a monster helps us to identify with its purpose, it also exposes one of our most primal fears—that is, the fear that we could become monsters ourselves. Commenting on this point, psychologist Dr. Raymond Mar says, “I think that the scariest monsters are those in which we are able to see an aspect of humanity present. Evil is scary enough, but the idea that humanity, and perhaps ourselves, are capable of such evil is even more terrifying. Understanding our own capacity to be or become a monster creates true existential fear.”134

  Applying this logic to the social construction of the serial killer identity, a dual process of humanization and dehumanization seems to be in effect. That is, we try to humanize the serial killer in order to make him less scary but we also try to dehumanize and separate him from the rest of us in order to create a moral boundary between good and evil. Thus, there are contradictory processes of humanization and dehumanization occurring simultaneously in the social construction of celebrity monsters. I believe that this results in further ambiguity regarding serial killers in the minds of many people.

  The Public’s Enduring Love Affair with Dr. Hannibal Lecter

  The powerful visceral appeal of serial killers has led to a macabre love affair between them and the American public. Society’s passion for serial killers is well documented by its insatiable appetite for Hollywood films on the subject, which number in the hundreds over the years. The box office returns reveal that Hollywood and the public love stories about serial killers. From the earliest known film on this subject, Alfred Hitchcock’s The Lodger (1927), to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) and its sequels, serial killer films consistently make big profits, attract large audiences, and generate cult followings. The films typically present a gruesome story of serial homicide in the most graphic way possible and yet, ironically, the perpetrator is often portrayed as a sort of anti-hero. According to the findings of my research, movie audiences will generally root for the serial killer to succeed in his mission at some level.

  No serial killer in history has projected the monster as anti-hero image more powerfully or vividly than Dr. Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter. Despite his fictional origins, Hannibal Lecter is perceived by many people to be the quintessential American serial killer. His stature in the popular culture was recently enhanced by the hit NBC television series Hannibal, which focuses on his early life and career. As a larger-than-life popular culture icon, Dr. Hannibal Lecter constitutes a mythical and almost supernatural embodiment of society’s deepest and darkest fears. Society is riveted by the diabolical depiction of Lecter because he enables people to project their fears onto a clearly delineated super villain. He is made even more frightening by the fact that he is an accomplished medical doctor and psychiatrist—that is, a successful, well respected, and seemingly “normal” man. The broad appeal of Dr. Lecter to the public was expressed by criminologist Dr. J. C. Oleson who wrote:

  Hannibal Lecter may be such an attractive character because he is something more than human (or something less): a vampire, a devil, or some infernal combination of the two. Springing from the literary tradition of Milton’s Satan, Goethe’s Mephistopheles, and Stoker’s Count Dracula, the character of Hannibal Lecter may be so successful because he plays upon the public’s primal fascination with monsters.135

  Like many Hollywood monsters and boogey men, Dr. Hannibal Lecter is exciting and magnetic because he is completely goal oriented, devoid of conscience, and almost unstoppable.

  Hannibal Lecter is uniquely different than any other Hollywood movie monster or killer, however. Unlike cartoonish characters such as Godzilla or Freddy Krueger, Dr. Lecter is human. He is also brilliant, witty, and even charming. Similar to the avenging angel serial killer Dexter Morgan, Lecter has a set of strict ethical principles that he lives and kills by, but unlike Dexter, his motives are not altruistic. My research suggests that Dr. Lecter’s enduring popular appeal and the terror he invokes are due to the fact that he is depicted as a mortal man. In many ways, he is like the rest of us. He bleeds and he feels pain. His humanness makes him a much more relatable and identifiable villain to the public than other one-dimensional monster characters in films. At the same time,
his similarity to the public also contributes to his ability to induce fear. Much like Ted Bundy in real life, Hannibal Lecter seems normal—terrifyingly normal. He represents our worst collective fear in the modern world—that is, the fear of the murderous everyman who lives next door. Paradoxically, because Dr. Lecter is depicted as a real person rather than a supernatural monster or boogey man, he elicits greater empathy and greater fear at the same time. He is simultaneously very frightening and fun to watch. That is why we love him.

  Conclusion

  In this final chapter, we have seen that the impact of the serial killer in society can be explained in terms of the functionalist concept of anomie. The serial killer creates an imbalance in the social order that must be eliminated. We have seen that the social construction of the serial killer as evil by law enforcement and the media reduces the anomie created by the killer’s presence in society. The social construction of evil relieves the public of its moral responsibility to comprehend the motivations of the serial killer. Although this can be comforting, it is also dangerous because decisions based on good-versus-evil comparisons are rarely informed and are often misguided. We have seen that the socially constructed serial killer identity serves a purpose by enabling the public to consider its own dark nature in relationship to it. The stereotypical image of the serial killer depicted in the news and entertainment media also helps to clarify the moral boundary that separates human and monster.

  In summary, the public loves serial killers, and there are a number of very good reasons why that is so. First, they are rare in the business of murder with perhaps twenty-five or so operating at any given time in the US. They and their crimes are exotic and tantalizing to people, much like traffic accidents and natural disasters. Serial killers are so extreme in their brutality and so seemingly unnatural in their behavior that people are drawn to them out of intense curiosity. Second, they generally kill randomly, choosing victims based on personal attraction or random opportunities presented to them. This factor makes anyone a potential victim, even if the odds of ever encountering one are about the same as being attacked by a great white shark. Third, serial killers are prolific and insatiable, meaning that they kill many people over a period of years rather than killing one person in a single impulsive act, which is the typical pattern of murder in the US. Fourth, their behavior is seemingly inexplicable and without a coherent motive such as jealousy or rage. They are driven by inner demons that even they may not comprehend. Many people are morbidly drawn to the violence of serial killers because they cannot understand it and feel compelled to. Fifth, they have a visceral appeal for the public similar to monster movies because they provide a euphoric adrenaline rush. Consequently, their atrocity tales in the news and entertainment media are addictive. Finally, they provide a conduit for the public’s most primal feelings such as fear, lust, and anger.

  The serial killer represents a lurid, complex, and compelling presence on the social landscape. There appears to be an innate human tendency to identify or empathize with all things—whether good or bad—including serial killers. I believe that we try to humanize serial killers to make them less scary, but we also try to dehumanize them to create a moral boundary between good and evil. Arguably, the serial killer identity is a mirror reflection of society itself. As such, there is much that the rest of us can learn about ourselves from the serial killer if we look beyond the superficial monster image presented in the mass media. Like it or not, the serial killer is one of us. From a functionalist perspective, they offer a safe and secure outlet for our darkest thoughts, feelings, and urges. They excite and tantalize us. They also remind us that despite all of our faults, the rest of us are just fine. Why do we love serial killers? We love them because, oddly enough, we need them.

  ENDNOTES

  1. Morton, R.J. 2005. Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators. National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice. Retrieved http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder

  2. Uniform Crime Report. 2011. Retrieved http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-US-2011/violent-crime/murder

  3. Hickey, E.W. 1997. Serial Murderers and Their Victims. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

  4. Farrell, A.L., Keppel, R.D. and Titterington, V.B. 2011. “Lethal ladies: Revisiting what we know about female serial murderers,” Homicide Studies, 15 (3), pp. 228–252.

  5. Hargrove, T. 2011. Women account for 70 percent of serial killer victims, FBI reports. KSHB-TV online, March 1. Retrieved www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/special_reports/Women-account-for-70-percent-of-serial-killer-victims-FBI-reports_41998543#ixzz20Mp51J1p

  6. Morton, Serial Murder.

  7. Hargrove, Women account for 70 percent of serial killer victims, FBI reports.

  8. Winerman, L. 2004. “Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth.” Monitor on Psychology, 35 (7), p. 66.

  9. Ibid, p. 67.

  10. Vronsky, Peter. 2004. Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters. New York: Berkley Books.

  11. Pinizzotto, A.J. 1984. “Forensic psychology: Criminal personality profiling.” Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12 (1), pp. 32–40.

  12. Winerman, “Criminal profiling,” p. 67.

  13. Canter, D.V., Alison, L.J., Alison, E. and Wentink, N. 2004. “The organized/disorganized typology of serial murder: Myth or model? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10 (3), pp. 293–320.

  14. Winerman, “Criminal profiling,” p. 68.

  15. Kocsis, R.N. 2006. Criminal Profiling: Principles and Practice. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

  16. Winerman, “Criminal profiling,” p. 68.

  17. Ibid, p. 68.

  18. Ibid, p. 69.

  19. Ibid, p. 69.

  20. Newton, M. 2012. Joel David Rifkin: New York’s Most Prolific Serial Killer. New York: Turner Entertainment Networks. Retrieved http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/rifkin/1.html

  21. Morton, Serial Murder.

  22. Bouchard, T.J., Jr., Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., Segal, N.L. and Tellegen, A. 1990. “Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart.” Science 250 (4978), pp. 223–228.

  23. Ibid.

  24. Morton, Serial Murder.

  25. Babiak, P., et al. 2012. “Psychopathy: An important forensic concept for the 21st century.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, July. Retrieved http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/july-2012/psychopathy-an-important-forensic-concept-for-the-21st-century

  26. Ibid.

  27. Ibid.

  28. Ibid.

  29. Ibid.

  30. Ibid.

  31. Kantor, M. 2006. The Psychopathy of Everyday Life: How Antisocial Personality Disorder Affects All of Us. Westport, CT: Praeger.

  32. Babiak, et al., “Psychopathy.”

  33. Ibid.

  34. Morton, Serial Murder.

  35. Ibid.

  36. Ibid.

  37. Babiak, et al., “Psychopathy.”

  38. Vronsky, Serial Killers.

  39. Meloy, R.J. 1992. The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

  40. Ibid.

  41. Hare, R.D. and Neumann, C.S. 2008. “Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, pp. 217–246.

  42. Ibid.

  43. Ibid.

  44. Babiak, et al., “Psychopathy.”

  45. American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

  46. Rogers T., Blackwood N., Farnham F., Pickup G., Watts M. 2008. “Fitness to plead and competence to stand trial: A systematic review of the construct and its application.” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 19, pp. 576–596.

  47. Ibid.

  48. Morton, Serial Murder.

  49. Ibid.
/>
  50. Ibid.

  51. Ibid.

  52. Holmes, R.M. and Holmes, S.T. 1998. Serial Murder, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  53. Vronsky, Serial Killers.

  54. Ibid.

  55. MacCormick, A. 2003. The Mammoth Book of Maneaters. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, p. 431.

  56. Morton, Serial Murder.

  57. Douglas, J.E., Burgess, A.W. and Ressler, R.K. 1995. Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. New York: Free Press.

  58. Ibid.

  59. Vronsky, Serial Killers.

  60. Ibid.

  61. Ibid.

  62. Ibid.

  63. Ibid.

  64. Ibid.

  65. Frei, A., Völlm, B., Graf, M. and Dittmann, V. 2006. “Female serial killing: Review and case report.” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 16 (3), pp. 167–176.

  66. Ibid.

  67. Vronsky, Serial Killers.

  68. Frei, et al., “Female serial killing.”

  69. Ibid.

  70. Vronsky, Serial Killers.

  71. Kovaleski, S.F. 2010. “Backers give ‘Son of Sam’ image makeover.” The New York Times, July 12, New York/Region. Retrieved http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/nyregion/13berkowitz.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  72. Ibid.

  73. Ibid.

  74. Dennis Rader—BTK Killer—A Biography. Retrieved http://dennisraderbtk.blogspot.com/?spref=tw

  75. Ibid.

  76. Ibid.

  77. Ibid.

  78. Ibid.

  79. Ibid.

  80. Kocsis, Criminal Profiling, p. 75.

  81. Wenzl, R., Potter, T., Kelly, L. and Hurst, L. 2007. Bind, Torture, Kill: The Inside Story of BTK, the Serial Killer Next Door. New York: HarperCollins.

  82. Hansen, M. 2006. “How the cops caught BTK.” ABA Journal, April 21. Retrieved http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how_the_cops_caught_btk/