Is A Serial Killer Mentally Ill

[rudog909]

well i have a paper to write and i want to write it about if serial killer are metally ill. i also thought they would be because they have conscience to stop killing. in the other hand they are not metally ill, because they know from right and wrong. for example, jeffrey dahmer would try to hide his evidence. so i need to show both sides. i just dont know witch one i should support more and how should i start it. i need to smoke on this one

[f22a4bandit]

That's a slippery slope. Those that have no emotional response to the killing, and those that experience a positive response to killing, are the ones you should look at.

If this is an argumentative/persuasive paper, argue one side. You'll definitely be able to find some stuff.

I suggest using Google Scholar or any other academic journal search engine to help you in your educational endeavors. They have helped me numerous times, and they're accredible, unlike wikipedia (although I love the wiki).

[Barnaby]

Well, I mean.. I guess you have to argue you it from a perspective stand point. If a person is brought up to believe in killing being morally wrong, yet does it anyways, then yes they probably are. But if they're not, whose to say that's they're doing anything wrong?

I mean, its not an instinct thats in grained to NOT kill in us. Quite the contrary it seems. It is our social ethical code that compels us not to. We are brought up to believe in respecting others lifes. But what if were weren't? Something happens in a persons upbringing, that makes them have that lack of respect, and they treat others accordingly. Granted that's pretty much what a sociopath is, but that's OUR label coming from people have it ingrained by society from birth, that killing is wrong.

So, are they really truly mentally ill, just because they don't hold the same values as the rest of the populace? Or are they mentally ill, because they refuse to accept this conditioning? Or because they do have it, but go against it anyways?

tough call to be sure

[RogueSmoker]

But would you consider the Shinto Buddhist mentally ill? My example of a mentally Ill person would have to have been Charles Manson.

[rudog909]

the thing that i find really difficult is to prove the left right and center. i need like resources but at the end i have to prove wich one is stronger then the other ones.

[Rani]

I saw something the other night that was supposedly based on reality. I think it was on Criminal Minds but I'm not certain. It was based on the theory that the brains of serial killers are organically different. One small portion of the frontal lobe is damaged or non-functioning as I recall. I understand that's a working theory among those who study serial killers, so maybe it's one route to investigate? If a brain is organically different then would this not qualify as mental illness?

'Rani

[tinyj316]

I saw something the other night that was supposedly based on reality. I think it was on Criminal Minds but I'm not certain. It was based on the theory that the brains of serial killers are organically different. One small portion of the frontal lobe is damaged or non-functioning as I recall. I understand that's a working theory among those who study serial killers, so maybe it's one route to investigate? If a brain is organically different then would this not qualify as mental illness?

'Rani

If there is a physical difference in the way the brain forms (misshapen frontal lobe), I would classify this more as a physiological condition (brain damage).

I tend to view mental illness as more of a chemical imbalance within the body/brain (too much testosterone, estrogen, serotonin, dopamine, etc).

As far as the moral dilemma (having the presence of mind to know right from wrong), I don't buy that. Just because someone could be taught that killing is perfectly acceptable, the fact that our society and laws say its illegal, should dictate that there is a problem with killing someone....The point then becomes moot.

[Hippo_Master]

Have you ever seen Taxi Driver? he may have just been really pissed. I would have no problem killing a pimp.

And serial killers - sure, they have to be insane. the Uni Bomber, although he was extremely smart, lived in a shed by himself int he woods and just created traps to murder any person who was kind enough to move it - he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. JWG dressed as a clown and got kids into his house where he raped them and killed them and his the bodies in his floor. Dahmer, I think, maybe not him, sawed the tops of his victim's heads off and poured acid or boiling water onto their brains to make them into zombies to do his bidding - the same guy was trying to build an altar of human skulls, not to mention all of the human body parts found in his fridge and basement.

They all were obvious phsycopaths, and all mentally deranged in some way. Some more than others.

[liquidglass]

I think I'm with Barnaby on this one.


It would honestly depend on "who" we're talking about here. Because there are some killers that are obviously/later proven to be mentallly ill. However, there are serial killers that simply use insanity as a plea and are in fact quite sane.

A serial killer in the cases without actual mental illness is a person that views things differently than we do. And going even further into this, they are only a serial killer because of our view on the subject. (did that blow your mind)

Consider the Crusades (back in the day) The Crusaders believed they were fighting in the name of God, the believed that it was their duty to have Jerusalem under Christian rule. Now as a result of this narrow focus they morally, ethically, and legally allowed themselves to kill anyone who said different. They believed the other people were 'bad' simply b/c they didn't believe in the same way and the fact that they wouldn't give up the holy land, gave them the right to die. Back then, it was acceptable. Now a days we see that and see "crazy" written all over it. Were they crazy? Or were they just acting on what they believed was true and the time in which they lived was more supportive of it.

Such are serial killers. Perhaps they are just acting on what they believe is true. And the only reason they are seen as "bad" is because societies view does not align with their own.

Just an idea.

[Hippo_Master]

I think I'm with Barnaby on this one.


It would honestly depend on "who" we're talking about here. Because there are some killers that are obviously/later proven to be mentallly ill. However, there are serial killers that simply use insanity as a plea and are in fact quite sane.

A serial killer in the cases without actual mental illness is a person that views things differently than we do. And going even further into this, they are only a serial killer because of our view on the subject. (did that blow your mind)

Consider the Crusades (back in the day) The Crusaders believed they were fighting in the name of God, the believed that it was their duty to have Jerusalem under Christian rule. Now as a result of this narrow focus they morally, ethically, and legally allowed themselves to kill anyone who said different. They believed the other people were 'bad' simply b/c they didn't believe in the same way and the fact that they wouldn't give up the holy land, gave them the right to die. Back then, it was acceptable. Now a days we see that and see "crazy" written all over it. Were they crazy? Or were they just acting on what they believed was true and the time in which they lived was more supportive of it.

Such are serial killers. Perhaps they are just acting on what they believe is true. And the only reason they are seen as "bad" is because societies view does not align with their own.

Just an idea.

God and Jesus blended their minds into pulp, everyone knows that!

[Rani]

Awww, but here's the "rub" or sore point....... If there are organic differences in the brains of serial killers, and legally those with damaged or incorrectly working frontal lobes are considered mentally ill under the law, do serial killers have an automatic out from the death penalty (for example)? There are differening legal sides. One side argues that organic brain difference entitle or support the mental illness theory. The other side may argue that mental illness does not automatically equate to justification of murder with special circumstances. What about the fact that until recently we had zero documentated connection between organic brain dysfunction and mental illness? When discussing mental illness in the case of a criminal we have to consider not only clinical/medical definitions but legal ones as well.

I have what you might call a gut reaction that the truth lies in what I call the 2-point "law". By that I mean that I consider there must be at least two convergent points to create a personality far outside the range of "normal". One point could be brain dysfunction. Take two children with the exact same brain damage who are raised in different household. In household No. 1 the damaged brain is giving sufficient stimulus, medication, loving care, etc., and eventually emerges in a "not normal" but not dangerous individual. In that child's upbringing there was only 1-point. That of organic brain dysfunstion. In household No. 2, the damaged brain is exposed to abuse, lack of medical attention, etc. In a "normal" child with no brain dysfunction, it might create a personality with issues that might be overcome over a lifetime. However, in the child with brain damage with convergence of the 2 points, you might well create a monster. The danger comes with where and how do we define mental illness? Does it exist without documented changes in brain chemistry or damage as some insist? We as a society have a tendency to call something mental illness when it takes us outside our comfort zone especially when it does so through observation of horrific behavior. I think the only way it will ever be resolved is if we eventually determine whether mental illness can occur strictly in a non-organic, or strictly psychological way. That is still under debate.

My 2-point law works on other issues too, by the way, but the case of the criminally insane is actually one of the primary examples I use to explain it.

'Rani

[judgeposer]

While I understand that you're endeavoring to answer whether serial killers are mentally ill, which seems like a question for the psychological/psychiatric sciences, I wanted to point out that legal definitions of insanity do not necessarily excuse the criminal actions of those otherwise "mentally ill." In other words, the law, for the most part, recognizes that regardless of whether someone is mentally ill, he can still be found guilty for his criminal behavior.

There are variations of this rule throughout the country, but in New York, the "insanity defense" requires a defendant to prove by a standard of preponderance of the evidence (just 51%, less than beyond a reasonable doubt) that "he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either (1) the nature and consequences of such conduct, or (2) that such conduct was wrong." Other jurisdictions have their own rule, but really, they depart very little from this one, which requires a defendant to show that they have such a mental defect that they didn't know what they did was wrong (not necessarily morally, but legally), or that they didn't (couldn't) anticipate their actions having the result they did.

Even in the case of a mentally ill person, this is quite difficult to prove. Simply providing evidence that their brains are wired differently, or that they do not have similar emotional reactions to killing, for instance, will not suffice. Their mental defect would have to prohibit them from appreciating that their behavior would have the consequence that it did, or that the defect rendered them incapable from understanding that their behavior was wrong. Even the most anti-social of persons, specifically those who resort to serial killing, for the most part, remain capable of understanding the consequences of their actions (e.g., that taking a knife to someone's throat will result in that person's demise), even if they do not think there's anything "wrong" with their actions. Also, those same persons, can, in principle, still understand that their actions are "wrong" with respect to society's expectations and boundaries - even if they don't agree with society's limitations.

For the OP, this might be a poignant position to end your paper with--that serial killers, no matter their potentially different neurological situations, or that they do not share society's primacy of the sanctity of innocent life, the law seems to strive to hold them accountable, not despite their differences, but in spite of their differences.

[Tyler]

If someone knowingly kills another human in a malicious manner then they are mentally ill, they could have temporary insanity which could fade away after the act is done, kind of like how a lot of homosexual men claim all desire for men goes away after ejaculation. But, at the time of the killing, yes, they are mentally ill.

[Link]

I just can't see any reason for killing anyone unless you are missing something in your head. Bottom line. There's a scientific answer for ya.

[blagage]

Okay, this is not much of a debate.

Serial killers typically are diagnosed conduct disorder with antisocial tendancies before age of 15. Criteria for being diagnosed antisocial personality disorder. This is almost always present

Serial killers pretty much always are diagnosed with cluster B personality disorder of antisocial PD and narcissistic PD. The combination in a person would typically label them a "psychopath" but that is not a diagnosis. It would be antisocial and/or narcissistic PD with violent. If you want symptoms and more information i could tell you or you could look it up. But yes serial killers have a disconnect and do have psychological disorder.

[FiveSpeedF150]

I think they certainly are.

Most violent criminals have mental problems of some kind, I'd bet, either from birth or from environment.

I don't see that as any reason why murderers shouldn't be quickly dispatched with a .45 to the brain stem though.

[Canon]

I dont believe they are mentally ill. I believe to be a serial killer you have to have the ability to distance yourself from your victim. if the victim is just some person out there or someone that deserves what came to them then it becomes right in their mind. the main way of doing that is to justify your actions. some ways of justifying your actions may be a little off the wall like aliens, zombies or any other figure you can think of. everyone has their beliefs and I dont believe its in anyone's place to call someone crazy for believing in such thing.

as far as a killers brain being different then normal, i can promise you that there are people out there that have the same brain of a serial killer and live out normal, kill free lives.

[blagage]

[quote name='Canon' date='30 December 2009 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1262171563' post='442493']
I dont believe they are mentally ill. I believe to be a serial killer you have to have the ability to distance yourself from your victim. if the victim is just some person out there or someone that deserves what came to them then it becomes right in their mind. the main way of doing that is to justify your actions. some ways of justifying your actions may be a little off the wall like aliens, zombies or any other figure you can think of. everyone has their beliefs and I dont believe its in anyone's place to call someone crazy for believing in such thing.

as far as a killers brain being different then normal, i can promise you that there are people out there that have the same brain of a serial killer and live out normal, kill free lives.
[/quote]

Idk if you read my post but antisocial PD narcissistic PD does not mean serial killer. There must be the violent aspect. Typically the first kill is in their teenage years.

Individuals who have been diagnosed antisocial narcissistic and not violent often run fortune five hundred companies. This is because they have no concept of other peoples feelings or personal space. It is not that they have the ability to distance themselves. It is that they lack the ability to be close.

just look up cluster B personality disorders and killers. I am an assistant psychoanalyst studying to be a forensic psychologist. I have dealt with antisocial narcissistic killers

[Decapitated Toy]

im a little suprised no one has brought up the sexual aspect to almost all serial killers. its foreplay. and for the record good old charlie isnt crazy... all that rambling was to try to get off for insanity. one of my buddies is a gaurd at folsom and spent some amount of time talking with him during his stay.