If I misunderstand the last I apologize but I don’t think anyone is born to kill.

Empathy cannot be confused with the ability to tell right from wrong. I can’t forsee a situation whereby someone can go through most of their life and not have encountered empathy irregardless of having felt it themselves.

IMO what compels serial killers is more akin to addiction, which is a corruption of normal human emotions vs thoughts. We all have compulsions, wish I hadn’t bought that, wish I hadn’t ate that would be some of the most often cited regrets after such compulsions.

When it comes to addiction compulsions, it’s more akin to a war inside your head because whereas a normal person might think about something they want then perhaps try to rationalize it with how they feel, success or fail, that’s how it supposed to work. With an addicts processing it’s more like the reverse, the feeling or emotion comes first then the thought but it’s not even that simple because the gap between those two things may be quite large so even if the thought does bring some reality to the decision, it may already be too late because the emotion or the feeling to carry out the act may have already overwhelmed them.

The key word in all of this for me is ‘compulsion’ which in this context I would explain as – thought’s and emotions back to front and out of sync.

Think of it like a sine wave. Normal thoughts and emotions would follow roughly the same path whereas in terms of an addicts reaction to compulsion the two sine waves of thoughts and emotions can be opposite to each other or one the emotion sine wave runs with greater gain than the thought’s sine wave. Either way – out of sync.

But…

Someone may have all of these ‘faults’ if you will but never become a serial killer. There is one thing that might though – the first kill. If the person is ripe for developing this into a compulsion then that first instance may release them into a world of release or relief. This doesn’t exclude for me though the ability to tell right from wrong. Yes compulsion is a strong thing and it can cloud a person from reality but that doesn’t explain serial killers for me. Not totally. I think they do know the difference but to protect this ‘release’ they concoct some sort of mission or purpose, even if they think it’s BS, to reduce that guilt, or stop the thoughts catching up with the emotions. A form of pathological lying, if not that itself. I also think that they use this self imposed, protective deception as a tool for insanity an defense. There are of course instances where it sounds like that but isn’t used as such because it’s just an account of what they say they believed at the time and some even take it further by adding that they didn’t even really believe it. Sounds like pathological lying to me.

Now…

We do have to come back to empathy. Obviously an over abundance of empathy may severely hamper a serial killer or even prevent them from ever being one but would it? I’m not so sure. Pure empathy in all its understanding perhaps but has that ever existed? Aren’t there cases where people have killed other people because they were deluded into thinking it was ‘best for them’. So in this instance we have a ‘good’ emotion possibly being twisted by a compulsive imbalance.

I guess that’s my thoughts on nature after the horse has bolted or not? I don’t know lol.

Nurture?

OR the should the question be "Is someone or something else to blame?"

No is my opinion. That’s just BS, complete and utter. Even if you were raised by some sicko that taught you to kill people as an extreme example. This would suggest that we have no free will. This is obviously not the case. How often have we heard the phrase "My parents wanted me to be a …." and then they joined the circus. Our life is our own. Yes we are raised by parents and shaped by them and those in our lives but we are our own person and we know that. Could we live any other way? No, it would all have wrapped up by now and we’ve have killed each other or imploded in a disgrace of non-diversity. Nurture involves our whole lives so to suggest that this is at fault is to say that life is wrong as we now and have always lived it.

Is it a combination of these things? Well yes, of course it is, these things are part of everyone’s lives so how could it not be but are either or both the cause? Yes, for the same reason.

But then…why aren’t there more serial killers?

Nature Vs Nurture Vs …..?

EDIT: Just to add. I find the question of Nature vs Nature to be in itself misleading. It implies that we are nothing but animals. That’s BS. Do we not in fact label such perpetrators of the crimes as such, implying, and rightly so, that we aren’t just animals?

ell the Nature vs Nurture question is a question that psychologists and criminologist believe is very relevant in relation to S. Killers. Just to quote one website: "Nature vs. nurture is a hot topic of debate in the psychological community. One of the best targets for study in this area is serial killers."
I tend to agree with you though that it isn’t as simple as that. But, regarding your comments about empathy, i have to disagree.

"I think they do know the difference but to protect this ‘release’ they concoct some sort of mission or purpose, even if they think it’s BS, to reduce that guilt, or stop the thoughts catching up with the emotions. A form of pathological lying, if not that itself. I also think that they use this self imposed, protective deception as a tool for insanity an defense. There are of course instances where it sounds like that but isn’t used as such because it’s just an account of what they say they believed at the time and some even take it further by adding that they didn’t even really believe it. Sounds like pathological lying to me."

The above deals with being able to tell the difference between right and wrong and how serial killer may go about dealing with their own emotions about killing. Your suggestion implies that serial killers will justify their actions (to themselves) by maing up a fictictious reason or purpose for having did what they did, and that in turn allowed them to reduce any guilt and emotion they may feel, while also knowing that this reason or purpose is complete B.S?? That sounds completely contradictory. If they are aware on any level that this purpose they use to justify their crime is total rubbish they invented, then they must know why they invented it and for what reason, ie, to justify what they are doing. I agree with you that they will use any justification after capture, but thats to try and justify their actions to others, not themselves.

Knowing the difference between right and wrong has nothing to do with the ability to empathise, I wasn’t suggesting it did. The Serial Killers, in my opinion, know the difference and know what they do is wrong (I agree with you on that). But it’s what allows them to operate without seemingly being able to see their victim as another human being with feeling and emotions that many question. You also commented,

"We do have to come back to empathy. Obviously an over abundance of empathy may severely hamper a serial killer or even prevent them from ever being one but would it? I’m not so sure."

Well in my opinion, yes it would. To suggest that someone like Ted Bundy has the ability to empathise, but yet can strangle the life out of teenage girl after teenage girl, then smash their heads in almost beyond recognition, abduct, sexually assault, then murder a 12 year old littld child, and he does this without feeling any emotion or conscience by telling himself it because of A, B and C to jutify it, even though he knows that just B.S, is something I can’t believe.

"Pure empathy in all its understanding perhaps but has that ever existed? Aren’t there cases where people have killed other people because they were deluded into thinking it was ‘best for them’

Well you said it yourself, these people truely were delusional and, to use the mother who killed her children for example, really did believe that by killing them she was helping them and sending them to heaven. Psychotic belief and delusional thinking are the symptoms of mental illness in which someone will truely believe that by commtting the act of murder, they are helping the victim on too a better place. This person doesn’t try & convince themselves they have done the correct thing, while knowing deep down the reality of it, they really do believe they have done what was best for the children because of their delusional, and probable psychotic, thought pattern. To use that as an example to question whether pure empathy has ever even existed is futile because it’s flawed.

And I know serial killers have that ‘Compulsion’ (BTK described it best calling it Factor X), but again, having a compulsion to murder is not really relevant. That may be the reason the end up killing at a certain time and on a certain day, but the question here is how they are able to go home like nothing has happened (BTK killed during one of his lunch breaks, washed and went back to work like it was nothing….And this man has empathy?).

Ted Bundy is the classic example to use to show that Serial Killers don’t have, nor do they recognise, empathy and compassion for others. Ted Bundy, as with almost all S.K’s was an extreme egotist and narcissist, who decided to conduct his own defense in Court. When it came time for Ted to cross examine the States witness, the responding officer who was first on scene, he asked the Officer to describe exactly what he saw, in detail, when entering the room where the girls bodies lay brutalised and dead. The Jury later said that was the moment many of them decided he was guilty and deserved death because it was clear to them he was re-living the entire murders and loved every minute of hearing the Officer describe the carnage he discovered when entering the building. Ted Bundy had destroyed so many lives at that point allready, the evidence against him was overwhelming, if he had an Oz of decency, compassion and empathy in him, he’d have spared the victims families having to hear every gruesome detail of their loved ones murder, as well as photographs be shown of them dead. But Ted decided not only to plead not guilty, but do so while representing himself.

Why is it an either/or scenario? It seems obvious that it is usually both.

There are some killers who are so psychologically off balance that they are completely delusional and almost nothing in their personal life is going to influence them. These types are rare and are usually not the serial killer type, which is more like trav said, the compulsive killer.

There are other people who are purely conditioned to kill, like child soldiers, who can kill without mercy or empathy, but again they have a different motivation for killing. They are like the first type in delusion. They are emotionally detached and get no pleasure out of the act.

The compulsive killer is motivated entirely by power. They are psychologically predisposed to lack empathy for other humans, but it takes some form of real or perceived dehumanization against themselves to motivate them to seek power over others. There are many people like this who are not killers because their condition is not primarily violent. As behaviorists say, they are not out of control of their emotions and actions. It’s when they are subjected to violence that they become much more likely to use violence against others.

This is the cycle of abuse. People who are abused rationalize the violence as normal as a way to cope with the situation, especially if they cannot change it. They are much more likely to act out violently towards others because of this. Combine this with a predisposition toward apathy and you increase the chances of a compulsive violent personality.

Good points. But I think the question of ‘why does it have to be an either/or scanerio’ comes from the basic question: Are some people simply born to kill? Irregardless of what happens in their upbringing, where they live, who their family and friends are etc. In this argument it simply won’t matter what happenes in the early life or what their circmstances are, it’s inevitable that they will start feeling that compulsion, the need to feel superior and hold power over life and death, and commit murder.

Are people just born to kill? I have no idea. But thoes arguing in favor of this theory do have one very good point. That being, one serial killer will have a wonderful upbringing, the other terribe. One serial Killer may be popular with other people, the other a loner. One will be motivated by sexual desires, the other simply power. There never is a ‘Set’ of circumstances or criteria that they that you can recognize as a pattern. I mean any suggestion that Serial Killer A killed because he was pre-disposed to violence after feeling wronged and abandoned by his mother for example, can be argued against by simply finding 100 people who have been adopted, feel abandoned by their mother, have been exposed to domestic violence and themselves been bullied, who are now Lawyers, GP’s, Business owners etc etc. I think thats one strong point that the ‘born to kill’ argument has on it’s side.

I see what you are saying and why it’s difficult to accurately study that phenomenon through anecdotal evidence.

You might be getting into a larger philosophical discussion than one that just pertains to the actions of serial killers.

I’ll just say that I think some people are "born to kill" in the sense that they have the potential to become killers in a way that other people do not, but potential doesn’t mean inevitable.

I see what you are saying and why it’s difficult to accurately study that phenomenon through anecdotal evidence.

You might be getting into a larger philosophical discussion than one that just pertains to the actions of serial killers.

I’ll just say that I think some people are "born to kill" in the sense that they have the potential to become killers in a way that other people do not, but potential doesn’t mean inevitable.

Yeah I see what you mean, there are many born who may be ‘High Risk’ of commiting murder (this could be DNA makeup, Genetic factors, or Brain function), but it’s not inevitable that all will go on to kill, only a percentage? Is that a fair interpretation?

Monsters are made, not born. Look closely enough at each one of them, and you’ll always find something in their upbringing that shaped them into the killers they are.

Nacht-

That’s a good point that I agree with. Look at animals. One doesn’t ever find that out of a single litter of kittens, or puppies, one of them (on their own) becomes a ‘killer’ or particularly aggressive. It just does not happen.

I don’t believe in "born killers." Never have, never will. Tabula rasa.

-glurk

glurk – I’ve had the opposite experience, with dogs. But then dogs ain’t people. Mostly.

glurk – I’ve had the opposite experience, with dogs. But then dogs ain’t people. Mostly.

Care to expand on that pithy bit, smithy? I’m all ears.

-glurk

glurk, pointless to expand on it really, but in my experience some dogs are born to bite. Scars to prove it. *shrug*

I see what you are saying and why it’s difficult to accurately study that phenomenon through anecdotal evidence.

You might be getting into a larger philosophical discussion than one that just pertains to the actions of serial killers.

I’ll just say that I think some people are "born to kill" in the sense that they have the potential to become killers in a way that other people do not, but potential doesn’t mean inevitable.

We agree. One person becomes a serial killer, another becomes a hit man, and yet another a military sniper.

Food for thought: what are the differences?

I see what you are saying and why it’s difficult to accurately study that phenomenon through anecdotal evidence.

You might be getting into a larger philosophical discussion than one that just pertains to the actions of serial killers.

I’ll just say that I think some people are "born to kill" in the sense that they have the potential to become killers in a way that other people do not, but potential doesn’t mean inevitable.

We agree. One person becomes a serial killer, another becomes a hit man, and yet another a military sniper.

Food for thought: what are the differences?

Well I read something the other day that I found interesting and even though isn’t a direct answer to your question, it’s in the general area, so to speak.

I was reading about Psychopathy, Namely Dissociative Identity Disorder. But I came across an article which explained something that had been bugging me for a while…. What is the difference between a Sociopath and a Psychopath? Both lack empathy, or capacity to feel empathy. Both care nothing about others and Both are incapable of remorse. The main difference is this (according to one source). Sociopath: see’s others as objects and if a sociopath took another person’s life,,they would wonder what all the big fuss is about but would feel no sense of elation or euphoria, nor would they get any ‘kicks’.
Psychopath: Also view’s others as objects and although are incapable of empathy, remorse or guilt, they learn from other people and know how to ‘act’ appropriate in certain situations. They also use cunning and deceptive tactics to exploit others for their own gain and will get saticfaction from this. Ted Bundy is the classic example of a Psychopath.

PLEASE READ THIS: "Baby Animals Which Kills Its Own Siblings for Survival"

http://www.mediadump.com/hosted-id137-b … vival.html

Look at the keywords: "For survival".

The killing is still situational in nature. If food was plentiful, and living conditions not the least bit harsh, would any of these baby animals cannibalise their siblings?