Criminal profiling is not a terribly new concept. The art of criminal profiling can be traced back to at least the late 1800's and the work done by Dr. Thomas Bond in England. Dr. Bond conducted wound pattern analysis in response to the series of murders in London attributed to "Jack the Ripper" (Turvey, 1998). The science of criminal profiling, however, is extremely new. Not until the 1970's and the opening of the new FBI academy and Behavioral Science Unit did profiling begin to take root as an applied science. Since this time, criminal profiling has undergone much growth and even more change. As with any new and developing field, there has been much debate over which is the "right" way to proceed.

At the heart of this debate in the field of criminal profiling, offender profiling, psychological profiling, etc., is the basic theoretical basis by which it is conducted. This rift exists between those who believe that profiling can and should be conducted inductively and those who feel that profiling can only be useful if done using the deductive process. Inductive criminal profiling can be defined as the process of profiling criminal behavior, crime scenes, and victims from the general known concepts about other criminal behavior, crime scenes, and/or victims (Turvey, 1998). Deductive criminal profiling can be defined as the process of profiling a specific criminal, crime scene, or victim exclusively from evidence relating to the crime scene(s) of that offender (Turvey, 1998). And can be imagined, the debate between these two camps is polarized and can be quite heated. However, in my opinion, this need not be the case due to the fact that, in essence, "good" profiling makes adequate use of both these techniques.

Criminal profiling has been defined as the application of psychological theory and Behavioral Evidence Analysis techniques to the forensic analysis and reconstruction of physical evidence that relates to a particular offender's crime scene characteristics, victimology and behavior patterns (Turvey, 1998). If we accept this definition, we must infer that both techniques are essential to the construction of adequate criminal profiles. The phrase "psychological theory" implies, on it's face, that inductive methods are in use. The generation of psychological theory depends upon the observation of a large number of individual, events, or behaviors which are broken down into their essential parts and used to generate a larger explanation. In the case of criminal profiling, this theory is necessary to generate a larger system of classification or typology that can be used as a comparison base for specific observed events. For example, if we observe a set of behaviors of an offender, and have no system in place by which to classify that offender, what we have in essence, is nothing more than an isolated event. This observation has in no way helped us to theorize what that offender may do in the future. No matter how much information we obtain about this single observation, we will never be able to speak of anything larger than that observation.

This, however, is when some inductive profiling techniques prove quite useful. By generating a theory and classification system, through inductive methods, we have some basis for comparison and explanation for the observed event. This system allows for the generation of hypotheses about how that offender is likely to behave in the future. By comparing to known behaviors/offenders of a similar type we have some frame of reference by which to proceed with an investigation. This comparison can give direction to an investigation where simple observation may not. The stress is upon the fact that the effective use of this strategy depends upon comparison and not simple application. That is to say, inductive models of profiling may not be useful if used alone. The generation of hypothesis such as "the offender has murdered 4 college students. Most offenders who have murdered college students drive VW Bugs. Therefore, this offender must drive a VW Bug" are most likely not going to prove fruitful. A more proper application of a combined model would consist of both specific observations and deductive techniques and comparison to a generated classification system. An example would be, "this offender stabbed the victim 97 times, after breaking in the front door and destroyed most of the furniture in the residence. Most offenders showing this behavior and pattern also have characteristics of mental illness. The person we are looking for may be a recent discharge from a psychiatric institution. Also, may be quite large and powerful due to the extreme force shown at the crime scene. Therefore, we should pay special attention to persons recently discharged from institutions who have evidenced extreme forms of violence". This is not to say that only these persons should be sought, but rather suspects identified who also show these characteristics may be more likely to be the "right" offender than those who do not. In these cases, the inductive comparison is effectively used to reinforce or strengthen the gathered evidence against an identified subject not to identify a suspect itself.

With this being said, I wish to examine what has been generated through inductive profiling to this point. Most of the efforts in this area have been directed at the generation of typologies and the identification of offender characteristics. In recent years, much information has been gained through the study of captured serial killers through crime scene analysis and post incarceration interviews. What we have learned thus far can be used, as discussed above, to identify and apprehend similar individuals in the future. We will now examine the current theories regarding the genesis, characteristics of, and classification of the entity known as the serial killer.

Genesis and characteristics of a monster

The actual beginnings of the entity known as the serial killer are still mostly a mystery. No one can say with any degree of certainty the actual combination of events which are necessary to create such an individual. No one knows of any definite predispositions toward serial murder or any particular experiences that will produce serial killers one hundred percent of the time (Genesis, 1997). What is for certain, however, is that serial killers differ significantly from the population while sharing many similar characteristics amongst themselves. This is not to say that all serial killers are the same. Rather, that at their core, lie a set of characteristics, traits, and experiences, that seem to identify them as a group.

As with any other person, the root of development of a serial killer lies in early life, or childhood. While serial killers come from all social classes and geographies, most all come from similarly inadequate families. Virtually all report childhood discipline and punishment as unfair hostile, abusive and/or very inconsistent (Ressler, 1988). Many reports indicate excessive brutality for even the most minor of infractions. It is not a leap to say that brutal, abusive punishment in childhood may be a factor influencing the extreme behavior witnessed in serial killers. Research of parenting styles have consistently shown correlations between authoritative parenting style (which is characterized by strict rule adherence and harsh discipline) with aggression both in childhood and beyond (see research done by Dodge regarding parenting styles and aggression, cerca 1985). Inconsistent punishment has also been shown to lead not only to confusion about what is proper, but also a general feeling of mistrust and a feeling that one is being treated unfairly. An act that may one day elicit no response from a parent or guardian may receive a savage beating the next. This general feeling of mistrust and resentment as a theme is consistently reported by serial killers.

Along with subpar parental discipline during childhood, a common thread seems to be an inadequate parental attachment or nearly complete emotional neglect. It is well regarded by psychologists that the structure and quality of family interaction is crucial to the child's ability to formulate relationships outside of the family throughout life. For children growing up, the quality of their attachments to parents and to other members of the family is most important to how these children as adults relate to and value other members of society (Ressler, 1988). Most serial killers report and early departure of their father (before age 12) (Ressler, 1994). Even of those families remaining in tact the majority have little significant contact and less emotional attachment. Most reports are that there is not a satisfactory relationship with the father and that the relationship with the mother was highly ambivalent in emotional quality (Ressler, 1988). Following from this inadequate parental attachment is the commonly expressed characteristic of the serial killers as a "loner". As stated, poor family relationships result in a decreased ability to form meaningful bonds with peers outside of the family. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that these persons are shown typically to have few friends or even social acquittances.

The parents or caretakers of the future killer are not only harsh, unhelpful, and aloof, but are typically unstable themselves and create an unstable family atmosphere both for themselves and for their children. Families of interviewed serial killers typically moved around a lot, or parents frequently changed occupations. Besides this, substance and alcohol abuse seem to be major problems among family members of serial killers. From a sample of 36 interviewed serial killers, Ressler et al found that nearly seventy percent of the families had histories of alcohol abuse and nearly one-third of the families had histories of drug abuse (Ressler, 1988). Again, following from this and other research which has found that drug and alcohol dependence, in some part, seem to be transmitted through generations, it is not surprising that many serial killers also report having problems with drugs or alcohol (Douglas, 1997). At very least, many serial killers report having been under the influence for at least their initial murders and many report moderate to heavy drinking before the commission of numerous murders (Douglas, 1997).

Family backgrounds also seem to contain high incidences of psychiatric disorders. These problems are often combined with problems involving aggression (Ressler, 1994).

Ressler et al found that over half of the families (22 members total) had histories of psychiatric disorders (Ressler, 1994). Half of the offenders' families had members with criminal histories, some known to the families, others unknown. Of these, over half of their criminal activities involved sexual problems among family members (Ressler, 1994).

This sexual abuse leads to an important distinction among serial killers. Most serial killers have been the victims of sexual abuse during childhood. When questioned by Ressler et al, forty-three percent of those responding, indicated sexual abuse in childhood (ages 1-12), thirty-two percent were abused in adolescence (ages 13-18), and thirty-seven percent as adults (ages 18 and over) (Ressler, 1994). Sexual abuse seems somewhat more common place among this group of individuals.

The presence of sexual abuse in childhood has shown to increase the likelihood of sexual problems in later life (for information regarding this topic see work done by Milner cerca 1987). Therefore, it is not surprising that serial killers normally show numerous sexual problems ranging from sexual incompetence and aversion to autoerotic practices and fetishism. For example, Ressler et al found that about half of offenders reported an aversion to sex and sexual concerns. Problems acknowledged predominated in more than three-quarters of offenders (Ressler, 1994). An analysis of the relationship between prior sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence and sexual problems showed that those sexually abused were more likely to report sexual conflicts, sexual dysfunction, and sexual incompetence. Furthermore, those abused in childhood were more likely to engage in bizarre sexual practices such as bestiality, fetishism, and bondage, as shown in Table 1 below.

A final major characteristic evidenced by serial killers is extremely odd and/or violent behaviors in childhood. One well known and highly regarded set of behaviors which seem to consistent among these individuals is the "triad" or "big three". These are fire starting, or arson, bed wetting, and cruelty to animals. A majority of serial killers report having had these experiences in childhood or adolescence. In the sample studied by Ressler et al, forty-six percent reported incidents of cruelty to animals, fifty-two percent report fire setting, and sixty percent report bed wetting (Ressler, 1994). Just why these events seem to occur with such frequency among these individuals is not entirely clear. Certainly cruelty to animals could be seen as an aggressive outlet for a budding sadist. Animals, being abundant in many neighborhoods, are simple to obtain and safer to "experiment" upon than the girl next door. Arson is also an aggressive act possibly stemming from sadistic curiosity and a desire for destruction. These reasons are purely speculative and to my knowledge no study has addressed just 'why' these behaviors occur.

Beside the "triad", there are a myriad of violent and odd behaviors commonly evidenced by future killers. These include chronic masturbation, isolation, chronic lying, nightmares, and stealing among others. Ressler et al found that the top three reported behaviors in childhood in their sample to be day dreaming, compulsive masturbation, and isolation (Ressler, 1994). The complete list of behaviors reported can be seen in Table 2 below.

These findings are consistent with the belief that these individuals rely heavily upon fantasy. The play of the child is orientated around aggression and violence, as are their day dreams (Ressler, 1988). As discussed earlier, many of these individuals have been abused and/or neglected during childhood. The isolation experienced by the child either through actual parental absence or emotional restraint, leaves the child with nothing but himself to give him what he needs. The future killer is essentially using fantasy to escape a poor family life, into a world were the child is in control and can act out the abuse against others, rather than be the target of the abuse (FBI, 1985). The abuse the child is suffering lends strength to their fantasies, making them more aggressive over time. These aggression-orientated fantasies, initially a form of escape for the child, come to serve as a substitute for the child's sense of mastery (Ressler, 1994). Simply stated, the child comes to depend upon these fantasies in order to establish a feeling of control over himself and his world. This process of abuse, trauma and fantasy, becomes cyclical, feeding upon itself and becoming the dominant mechanism of coping for the child. The cyclical nature of the fantasy-abuse relationship can be seen in the model proposed by criminal psychologists below.

 	Predisposition	                                                          Dissociation

	        |                                                                      |
	        |                                                                      |
	        |                                                                      |
|
|
Trauma
|
|
             ----------->------------------>Fantasy--------------------------->Violent
	         /                                                                    Fantasy
	        |                                                                       |
	       /|\	                                                                     |
	        |                                                                      \|/
      Trauma                                                                  Facilitators
  Reinforcement	                                                            (Drugs/Alcohol)
	        |                                                                       |
	       /|\                                                                     \|/
	        |                                                                       |
	         \                                                                     /
           --------<---------------<--------Murder---------<---------------<----	

Taken from "Deadly Minds" The Learning Channel "Real History" 7/15/97

These aggressive fantasies, which are coming to fulfill many of the child's needs, are actually the driving force behind many of the afore-mentioned criminal and sexual activities (Ressler, 1988). The dangerous nature of this fantasy is the tendency, seen in the behavior of the future killer, for fantasy to lead to behavior "try-outs" and eventually to criminal activity (Ressler, 1994). For example, the child, fantasizing about exercising control and dominance over the family dog (being the target of abuse and control himself) may one day kick it. Receiving some pleasure from this act, the child may expand his behavior to beating and finally killing the pet (thanks J. Anderson, see bibliography, for that example).

As can be seen in Table 2, many of these odd behaviors are inter-dependent pr at very least facilitate one another. Excessive isolation may lead to day dreaming or fantasy, coupled with sexual and/or other abuse may lead to chronic masturbation (fantasizing of performing similar sexual acts upon helpless others), rebelliousness, and nightmares. All of these negative events likely lead to increased isolation (now by choice) as the child withdraws from people he either distrusts or finds that he cannot relate meaningfully to, and the cycle continues. The lack of punishment resulting from the future killer's early violent behavior is a type of reinforcement, virtually sanctioning the individual's expression of anger in this form (Ressler, 1994).

The interesting thing about fantasies is that they are by no means static. They are constantly evolving and becoming more detailed (and in this individual's case, more violent) as the individual attempts to perfect them. Furthermore, fantasies, especially violent fantasies or those of dominance and control, have the tendency to lose their power over time. Fantasies quickly become inadequate, failing to satisfy the desires of the individual so that he is forced to continually "go one step further" in order to satisfy his desire.

This isolation-fed anger, experienced by the future serial killer, serves to deal another blow to their interpersonal development (Ressler, 1994). Rejected and abused by parents, ostracized by other children, the future killer never develops the normal, non-violent bases for pleasure that characterize the normal citizen (Ressler, 1994). Some amount of dominance or control is normal and acceptable in human relationships. The problem, however, lies in this individual's inability to differentiate between small forms of normal dominance, as in leading a dance, and larger more extensive forms such as rape (thanks to J. Anderson for that example). For the serial killer, extreme acts of domination and abuse have been accepted as "normal', having witnessed (and been the victim of) them most of his life. Without any 'normal' family life and without any form of social reference the future killer slowly incorporates thee violent behaviors into his working personality.

Furthermore, having few, if any, social relationships, leaves the individual no sexual outlets other than autoerotic activities. The serial killer uses sex as he uses fantasy, for the goals of power and gratification (Geberth, 1989). As fantasy is evolving into the future killer's only coping mechanism, the killer continues to experiment with violence. This violence has a tendency to build, from bullying to cruelty to animals, to killing animals, and even further (Ressler, 1994). In essence, the acts of violence fuel more elaborate violent thoughts and fantasies (Ressler, 1994). Each small violent act moves the killer closer to the expression of sexual frustration and attempted gratification in the form of murder.

The murder itself, normally shows all of the signs of intense fantasies which helped to motivate it. Even the serial killers who had little or no conscious plans of murder, there is still a great deal of evidence in their belief structures for unconscious fantasy (Ressler, 1994). The basic shared characteristic of crime scenes of serial killers is that they are extremely ritualistic. They evidence signs that the behavior fulfills some need outside of the act itself. Crime scenes tend to echo elements of fantasy in such things as the condition of the boy, the body's state of dress and position, and the visibility of the disposal locale (Ressler, 1994).

Serial Killer Typologies

Having discussed the shared characteristics of many known murderers and serial killers it is possible now to look at some of the typologies that have been constructed. Again, these typologies are not intended as perfect categories which can be used to label individuals as "murderers" or 'potential serial killers". Rather, they are useful tools in differentiating among a larger class of individuals who share or seem to share core characteristics. Many of the typologies which will be discussed pertain to serial killers specifically while others encompass killers in general.

Recently, numerous scholars and researchers who have begun to study this phenomenon of serial murder, have each begun to construct their own "taxonomy of killers". Therefore, there are a large number of ways by which to classify these individuals. Most, however, overlap significantly enough to lend themselves to a larger, more consistent classification system as will be seen.

The first typology examined is the dichotimy of the organized/disorganized offender. The terms 'organized" and "disorganized" are excellent descriptions of human behaviors as they relate to the characteristics of sex-related (and other) murders (Geberth, 1989). The crime scene of an organized offender is just as the term implies, organized and in order. There is little to no excessive destruction or chaos. This sense of methodical organization suggests a carefully planned crime that is aimed at deterring detection (Ressler, 1994). This scene reflects the fact that the killer had a plan soas to be in control of the situation (evidenced by the lack of destruction or struggle) and was mostly prepared for contingencies (shown by the lack of left evidence).

Besides extensive planned behavior, Ressler et al found that offenders of an organized type share other characteristics. In line with the theme of order and control shown by these individuals, they are socially adept, charismatic, and show a pleasant, friendly demeanor. In the organized style of attack, aimed at gaining the confidence of the victim, there is first the effort to strike up a conversation and to use verbal means to capture the victim rather than physical force (Ressler, 1994). Furthermore, these individuals are normally well dressed, neat and clean, and make every effort to keep their appearance less than suspicious.

Control over the victim is also noted in the use of restraints (Ressler, 1994). Restraints are an important element of the crime for the organized offender, as they show several motivations and serve multiple purposes. Besides showing the need for control of the killer, the use of restraints also infer that the killer desires and requires time to do his deed. Normally the actions of the killer could be carried out effectively if done quickly. These individuals, however, choose to allow themselves time. Furthermore, the use of restraints may add to the element of planning done by the killer. The bringing of restraints to the scene (such as handcuffs or rope) requires that the killer knew that they would be desired and needed at some point. This, however, may not always be the case since organized use whatever is available at the scene rather than bringing their own materials. Restraints may also server the purposes of not allowing the victim to escape or even fight back.

Although the crime may be planned, the victim is frequently a stranger and is targeted because he or she is in a particular location staked out by the offender (Ressler, 1994). However, not just any victim will suit the needs of the organized offender. Organized offenders have a preferred victim type and spend a lot of time in search for the "right" victim. In this, the victim is personalized, that is to say that the victim is seen as a person and may represent a particular target to the offender. Common characteristics of victims selected by an individual include age, sex, appearance, occupation, hair style, and life-style.

The disorganized offender is much the opposite of the organized offender. Obviously, and most strikingly, the crime scene of this individual is stormy and chaotic. The scene normally displays a violent and brutal struggle. The overall expression given by the disorganized crime scene is that the crime has been committed suddenly and with no set plan of action for deterring detection (Ressler, 1994). The most common form of attack for the disorganized offender is a blitz style. The offender suddenly attacks the victim in a brutal fashion, with all the physical strength at his disposal to subdue the victim as quickly as possible ; he cannot the risk that offender will get the upper hand. The victim may be killed outright or at very least, severely injured, disorientated or rendered unconscious.

The disorganized offender depersonalizes the victim and may target specific areas of the body with extreme brutality. Overkill or excessive assault to the face is often an attempt to dehumanize the victim (Ressler, 1988). This destruction of the face may also indicate that the victim is known to the offender or represents (in the offender's mind) someone who has done him harm. For this individual the victim is nothing more than a representation of someone whom the offender is symbolically doing harm. Depersonalization serves to perpetuate this "symbolic person" by removing any actual identity the victim actually has.

Sexual sadistic acts, if any, are always performed post mortem. Many disorganized offenders have intercourse with the corpse, while others may perform symbolic or autoerotic sexual activities. Offenders have attempted a variety of sexual acts, including ejaculation into an open stab wound. Evidence of masturbation, defecation, and urination in the victim's clothing and home has been found (Ressler, 1994).

The place wherein the victim was killed, the scene of mutilations, and/or sexual activity and the place where the body is ultimately found are often the same for the disorganized offender. The offender makes no attempt to hide the body. He may, however, take the body with him to his home or some other special place of his (if in fact this isn't where the crime took place) and keep it with him. Or he may simply take certain body parts which for him hold special significance. If the offender has mutilated the body, it may be positioned in a certain way that has significance to the offender (Ressler, 1994).

One important thing to keep in mind is that this dichotomy is not a hard classification. That is to say, no offender in the real world fits perfectly into either category. Real human behavior exists on a continuum, and is dynamic (Turvey, 1998). Therefore, offenders are not correctly referred to as one or the other but instead as lying somewhere on a scale between the two. This is not to say that the typologies are not useful. They are quite useful in providing reference points by which to compare. They are more like archetypal abstractions that allow for some basis of defining how a certain observed crime scene relates to known offenders.

The typologies of psychotic and psychopathic closely resemble those of organized and disorganized. So much so, in fact, that many researchers consider them interchangeable (Geberth for example). I, however, as will be explained, do not feel that this is a correct practice. The quick definition of a psychotic offender is one who appears and acts as if he is severely detached from reality. Psychotic is a clinical term and carries with it the majority of the characteristics used by the clinician. Psychopathic, though no longer a clinical category, describes a person with antisocial personality characteristics. This person is cunning, deceitful, calculated and controlled, many of the same characteristics as the organized offender. Clinically, the psychotic individual suffers from delusions, hallucinations, and grossly disorganized thoughts and behavior (DSM-IV). This individual's behavior is often extreme, bizarre and seemingly motiveless. Given these factors it is not surprising that many professionals would see fit to interchange the terms. Certainly, many of the behaviors which classify an individual as disorganized, also are included in psychotic characteristics. However, these behaviors need not necessarily co-occur. In real life, it is possible to have a crime scene with psychotic indicators, that was created by a psychopathic individual, or by a person that was not suffering from any kind of mental illness (Turvey, 1998). Furthermore, an individual can act in some ways consistent with a psychotic but also show characteristics of an organized offender (i.e. extreme brutality at the scene yet evidence of planning and attempt to evade detection and capture). Again, this is not to say that these classifications are not useful. They lend credibility in the form of clinical, diagnostic criteria to describe an offender. They are, however, not perfect or mutually exclusive categories and should not be viewed as such.

Others, such as Holmes (1988), have created further typologies in an effort to classify serial killers. Based on interviews and the analysis of more than 400 cases of serial murder, Holmes and DeBurger (1988) identify four types of serial killer: Visionary, mission, hedonistic, and power/control (Holmes, 1994). According to Holmes the visionary serial killer is compelled to murder because he has heard voices or has seen visions demanding that he kill a certain person or category of persons. This type of person would certainly parallel to the psychotic killer and though not stated by Holmes, probably show many disorganized characteristics. Next, the mission serial killer has a conscious goal in his life to eliminate a certain, identifiable group of people (Holmes, 1994). He is not necessarily psychotic, but may be, and is normally very methodical and deliberate. The third type of serial killer identified by Holmes is the hedonistic killer. This individual kills simply for the thrill and because he enjoys it. As a side note, this classification is one of the weakest if measured against the other research in the area. Most serial killers report that they do not, in fact, derive extended pleasure from what they are doing. While many achieve a "high" during the act, they often report severe feelings of guilt and self-loathing after the act and for a long period of time between murders. Douglas makes this point repeatedly in much of his work. Lastly, the power/control serial killer receives gratification from the complete control and domination of the victim. This type of murderer receives pleasure and excitement not from sexual acts carried out on the victim, but from the belief that he has the power to do whatever he wishes to another human being who is completely helpless to stop him (Holmes, 1994). My argument against this classification would be that, given all we have learned and what has been discussed in this paper, we can say that power/control is one of, if not the, driving force behind most serial murders. Most serial killers begin killing due to a need to exert their control over another human being and the taking of another life is the most intense form of expression possible.

Upon comparison of these categories with the rest, one difference is obvious. The later are based purely upon singular perceived (or reported) motivations for the killing while the former describe multiple characteristics stemming from a core of motivations. This is the very reason I have included Holmes classification system in this discussion. This, I believe, underlines the fact that the classification of serial killers can and does differ significantly depending upon the system studied (i.e. motivations vs. actions). No one can say whether one system is superior to any other (at least not yet), only that some lend to better comparisons and analysis.

Conclusion

We have discussed the current theories about the genesis of a serial killer, their common characteristics, and their classification as individuals outside the larger realm of killers. We have seen that while they are significantly different from the rest of the population, they themselves share many core features yet can be different enough to require individual attention. The identification of types of serial killer is by no means simplistic. Furthermore, the process by which an individual comes to be a serial killer is complex and elusive. No one can say with any degree of certainty the actual combination of events which are necessary to create such an individual.

The field of criminal profiling is still very much in it's infancy. While it is rapidly gaining strength and acceptance as an "applied science" it is still far from perfected. There is still much debate over the proper way in which the field should proceed or even whether it should proceed at all. While many believe that there is but a single "right" way to conduct effective investigation in this field we should realize that the best solution to any human problem is one which is flexible and can adapt to a myriad of problems. The best investigation would surely make use of many different techniques which can be applied together toward a common goal. One way in which this can be accomplished is the use of both inductive and deductive strategies in cooperation. As should be evident, inductive models can be quite useful and have lead to a much greater understanding of the entity known as the serial killer.
View the bibliography
Return to my Homepage