Are serial killers born or made?

Are serial killers born or made? The age-old question surrounding perpetrators who occupy a unique place within the criminological sphere and the public imagination. Lecturer in Criminology, Sarah Jones, talks us through the topic.

True Crime narratives

Much of our understanding of serial killers and serial murder comes from fictional accounts and “true crime” materials, where storylines are produced to heighten the interest of audiences, rather than to depict real-life serial murder in a factually accurate manner (Simpson, 2000; Kelly et al, 2022). The nature vs nurture debate, especially concerning serial killers, is intensified through these intriguing, mediated representations of their existence, sparking societal interest and fascination with those who operate outside of our moral universe, who are both frightening and exciting, all at the same time (Wilson, Yardley & Lynes, 2015).

Nature

Biological and neurodevelopmental arguments, the ‘nature’ side of the debate, presume factors such as innate genetic aspects, biochemical imbalances or abnormal brain activity, for example, may predispose individuals to this unique type of violent behaviour. Serial Killer Kenneth Erskine, known as the ‘Stockwell Strangler’, an unemployed drifter who murdered 7 elderly victims, is said to have been suffering from an "abnormality" of the mind. His mental condition was said to be chronic and incurable. The responsibility for his actions were diminished to a "massive degree" and there was unequivocal evidence that his mental responsibility for his actions was substantially impaired (BBC, 2009). This may not mean, however, that genetic predispositions or abnormal brain activity that affect aggression or lack of empathy can definitively classify a serial killer as ‘born to kill’. While a propensity to kill may have some biological or genetic causal components, can this alone explain why an individual becomes a serial killer (Shanafelt and Pino, 2015)? Indeed, many people may also be diagnosed with similar conditions, but do not go on to kill.

Nurture

Environmental factors underpin the ‘nurture’ side of the debate, such as childhood abuse and trauma and societal influences such as family environments and exposure to violence. Exploration surrounding serial killers and childhood abuse is telling, with there being a high prevalence of different types of childhood abuse (physical, sexual, psychological and neglect) within their upbringings (Mitchell and Aamodt, 2005). Serial Killer Richard Ramirez, known as the ‘Night Stalker’, who killed at least 13 victims, was physically abused by his father, exposed to serious violence and introduced to drugs by family members at a young age. Serial killers often exhibit signs of dysfunctional socialisation, typically stemming from abusive family backgrounds, social isolation, or involvement with deviant peer groups. Interestingly, it is argued that the family environment plays a crucial role in influencing whether a child may go on to develop tendencies associated with serial killing (McMillion, 2019). Although environmental factors may contribute to the development of certain serial killers, similar to biological factors, such factors alone cannot definitively support that they are driven to kill by the environment that they are encompassed within.

What drives people to kill?

We consume the dramatised stories of serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy on Netflix and the thrilling film adaptations of Aileen Wuornos and The Zodiac Killer with an insatiable appetite. Society contemplates this unique type of perpetration and solely questions: what drives their impulse to kill? Is it purely biological or purely environmental? What warrants emphasis, however, is exploration into the complex interplay of biological, historical, psychological and sociocultural processes that help us gain a more broad and nuanced understanding of this phenomenon (Shanafelt and Pino, 2015). It is also crucial to broaden the dimensions of this discussion by questioning, what fuels society’s profound curiosity with serial killers, and why.

We should not have to sit on one side of the fence within this debate or even feel the need to categorically answer the question, are serial killers born or made? Arguably, such a complex and multifaceted issue should not be overgeneralised and oversimplified. We should explore far beyond the superficial, deterministic questions and broaden our understanding on the ever evolving conceptual and theoretical interpretations.

Criminology and serial killers

As criminologists, we are often asked whether serial killers are born or made. Increasingly, however, we find ourselves drawn to a different question: why does this question need answering in the first place? If we were to hold a metaphorical mirror up to society, it would be evident that our collective attention may not be fixed on the issues that matter most. Climate change, widening inequality, the rise of techno-feudalism, war returning to Europe, the resurgence of populist politics, and the growing existential threat of AI, all demand urgent scrutiny. Yet perhaps there is a certain comfort in the serial killer question - a way of containing our fears where existential threats can be contained and distanced.

As criminologists, our responsibility is not to remain in the safe confines of a true crime binge, but to begin asking new questions. Questions that force us to confront the real and pressing dangers facing contemporary society.