Every day in television, films and literature, there is a constant bombardment of images of the serial killer. One must question the accuracy of these portrayals however, for now the media tends to focus on the stereotypical male serial killer, best described as a psychopathic monster or sexual deviant (Jenkins, 1994). This skewed reporting of sensationalistic stories only serves to reinforce the serial killer myths. It is then placed in the hands of researchers to dispel these myths. Is scholastic inquiry living up to its challenge?

The study of serial murder is relatively new. It was not investigated until the early 1980’s (Keeney and Heide, 1995). Unfortunately, this research may be biased and distorted because the scholastic community has not reached a consensus on the definition of serial murder. This is no easy task in itself, because serial murder is a complex interaction between biological, social and psychological forces (Skrapec, 1996).

Through an investigation of the literature, the vast array of definitions of this phenomenon will be explored. Some definitions are too broad, others too confined. An examination of the shortcomings of the variables in Egger’s (1990) definition reveal this definition is based on speculation from a few cases, not an in-depth analysis of all known cases. He claims that the serial killer is male, the body count is two or more, victim and offender are strangers, no connection between victims, they are highly mobile, crimes are not for material gain and the victims are prestigeless. We will then make note of the FBI’s attempt at classifying serial offenders (Ressler, Burgess and Douglas, 1988). The problems with the typologies proposed by Holmes and DeBurger (1988) and Dietz (1986, as cited in Egger, 1990) will also be reviewed. We will also examine the true prevalence of the sexually sadistic murder.

Through this examination, our goal is to recognize and dispel the myths currently embedded in the research, and to ultimately offer a more encompassing definition of the serial killer. It is hoped that this universal definition will aid in advancing the body of knowledge on these killers. The final objective of this new description is to halt or prevent the growth of this crime in the future by exploring serial murder with 20/20 vision.

According to Holmes and DeBurger (1988), in the 1960’s there was a surge in the publicity of murders, not to be confused with a massive increase of murders, which was then defined under the broader term of multicide. This term included mass, spree and serial murder. A mass murder involves several victims being killed in a rapid succession of moments or hours (Hickey, 1997). While it was commonly assumed to occur in a public venue, the definition now includes families that are killed in their home by a disgruntled member of the clan. Unlike the serial killer, the mass murderer gives little thought to avoiding detection. The majority of these killers commit suicide shortly after the attack, or are killed by the police (Gresswell and Hollin, 1994; Hickey, 1997).

A spree killer involves several victims murdered over a period of hours or days in different geographic locations by someone not avoiding the law (Gresswell and Hollin, 1994). They differ from serial killers in that they do not have a cooling off period. Many spree murderers do not kill again. Like mass murderers, they are frequently killed by the police or themselves shortly after the spree.

The definition of serial murder, according to Hickey (1997), should include all offenders, male or female, who kill three or more victims over days, weeks, months or years. This cooling off period is the critical factor that separates the serial killer from the mass and spree killers. Although this component is important in differentiating the serial killer, it is by no means the only one. Hickey’s definition seems simple enough, but many other scholars have tried to make the identification of serial killers more detailed, and hence too restrictive. It is because of these details that the study of serial killers is faulty because it excludes a large group of offenders from the study sample.

The most detailed definition encountered in the literature comes from Egger (1990). A group of murders is classified as being serial when:

…one or more individuals (males, in most known cases) commits a second

murder and/or subsequent murder; is relationshipless (no prior relationship

between victim and attacker); is at a different time and has no connection to

the initial murder; and is usually committed in a different geographic location.

Further, the motive is not for material gain and is believed to be for the

murderer’s desire to have power of his victim. Victims may have symbolic

value and are perceived to be prestigeless and in most instances are unable to

defend themselves or alert others to their plight, or are perceived as powerless

given their situation in time, place or status within their immediate

surroundings (such as vagrants, prostitutes, migrant workers, homosexuals,

missing children, and single and often elderly women). (Egger, 1990:4).

Egger has made many assumptions about the "typical" serial murderer and the details of his or her crime. In this next section, the most questionable points will be examined in greater detail: the gender of the killer, the number of victims, the relationship between offender and victim, the location of the crime, the offender not gaining materially from the crime, and the prestige of victims.

Many criminologists have primarily focused their research of serial killing solely upon the male offender (Egger, 1984, 1990; Holmes and DeBurger, 1988; Ressler et al., 1988). According to Hickey’s (1997) data, approximately 15% of all known serial cases in the United Sates between 1800 to 1995 involved a female perpetrator. It is ironic that the most notorious serial killer, Jack the Ripper, only had five victims, while Mary Ann Cotton, Amelia Dyer, Lydia Sherman and Amy Archer-Gilligan, to name a few, all had in excess of ten to twenty victims (Jenkins, 1994). The majority of these cases involved wives who murdered their husbands (black widows), nurses or other caregivers of children and the elderly (Hickey, 1997). It is partially our conditioning as a society that prevents us from believing a woman could be capable of murder. Because of this, the actual number of female serial killers is believed to be much greater than is presently known. Few people would feel comfortable questioning a widow or a mother who has just lost a child.

One reason why females are not more widely represented in the study of serial murder and the media is that their methods are not nearly as grisly as those of their male counterparts (Hickey, 1997; Keeney and Heide, 1994). The majority of male serial killers like to inflict bodily harm with some shooting (41%) or stabbing (34%)(Hickey, 1997). Female killers prefer the less detectable methods of some poison (45%), poison only (35%), or suffocation (16%). These methods leave more room for speculation about the true cause of death. Not many people would suspect a woman was responsible for the crime. In comparison, men used poison as their only method a measly 5% of the time (Hickey, 1997).

The case of Aileen Wuornos from the early 1990’s demonstrated the bias of our society’s conceptualization of female serial killers. From an early age, Aileen was subjected to neglect from her unwed teenage parents, rapes, and beatings as she engaged in drug abuse and prostitution, according to Hickey’s (1997) profile. In her defense, she claimed that while she was hustling men on Florida’s State highways, they beat her. The deaths were solely self defense, all seven times. Her chosen method was shooting the johns in the torso, a decidedly uncharacteristic method for a female killer. This location of the wounds was consistent with other female serial killers who used guns. In contrast, men prefer shooting their victims in the head (Hickey, 1997). Wuornos was hailed as the first female serial killer in the media. We must assume that if Aileen had used poison as her chosen method, she would not have received much attention. This gender bias in the media and research on serial killers has to be addressed. Through the exclusion of females in Egger’s definition, we are vastly restricted in fully comprehending this crime.

Another reason for the overall reluctance to include the female serial killer in criminological inquiry is that they do not fit into the male serial killers’ stereotype. The best example of a theory ignoring the female offender is the radical feminist perspective. This theory illustrated it can go beyond blaming the pathology of the individual serial killer and examine the greater ills of society and how it has influenced this crime (Cluff, Hunter and Hinch, 1997). Unfortunately, it disproportionately focuses on the male serial killer, who kills solely females, as a product of a patriarchal society. It is possible, however, to expand our definition and understanding of serial murder as it is known through this macro-level analysis (Cluff et al., 1997).

The main clause in radical feminist theory as it applies to serial murder involves the sexual terrorism of women by men (Cluff et al., 1997). Caputi questions the gender-neutral designation of serial murder in the following:

The system Caputi is referring to is patriarchy, and within this system, radical feminists believe that only men can be serial killers. Man’s lust to kill is the ultimate display of their patriarchal power (Cluff et al., 1997). Women are excluded because it is assumed they do not receive sexual gratification from the killings. Nannie Doss, the "Giggling Grandma," read the magazine True Romance religiously. Upon the discovery that five of her previous spouses were murdered, she declared that she was searching for the perfect mate. Since none of these men measured up, she received more of a thrill from killing them, in love with the romance of death (Hickey, 1997). Consequently, it is complete speculation that none of the female serial killers achieved sexual arousal or fulfillment during their crimes.

Researchers have been unable to reach a consensus on how many victims it takes to define serial murder. Egger (1990) and others contend that the body count must include two or more victims (DeHart and Mahoney, 1994). When the crime of murder has been committed twice, it is likely to expect a third. Unless, of course they are apprehended before they can continue killing. By allowing two victims in the definition, we are allowed to study as many offenders as possible.

The FBI and Hickey (1997) will not consider offenders who have killed less than three victims, which is narrowing their pool of subjects by a significant number (Ressler et al., 1988). Dietz (1986, as cited in Egger, 1990) begins categorizing serial murderers only after the body count has risen to five or more victims. It is impossible to gain a complete understanding of the serial murder phenomenon when so many subjects have been excluded.

Lastly, murders may go undetected or attributed to the wrong killer. This is especially a problem with traveling serial killers, whose victims may not be connected because police forces do not share information. This epidemic will be dealt with later. In conclusion, it is extremely important that our definition of serial murder includes offenders who have two or more victims. This will provide us with the broadest group of subjects to study, hence ensuring our body of knowledge is as accurate as possible.

Egger’s (1990) definition contends that the victim and offender have no prior relationship, however this observation is based on a small sample. Homicide is a relatively easy crime for the police to solve. They run through a list of family, friends and acquaintances and search for possible motives. Serial murder is much more difficult for the officers to solve because in the majority of the cases, the offender often has no ties to the victim. Leyton (1986) states that the lack of relationship makes it easier for the killer to elude the authorities. Seventy-six percent of all serial killers in Hickey’s (1997) group killed at least one stranger in their careers, and 90% of the men since 1975 killed at least one stranger. Furthermore, the anonymity of the victim makes it easier to kill them, for they are only seen as objects, not human beings (Leyton, 1986; Hickey, 1997).

This constraint in the definition further alienates some female serial killers from the scope of study, for they are much more likely to kill family members or friends than strangers. The killing of a family member only is committed by women 34% of the time, compared to a paltry 3% of the men (Hickey, 1997). At least one family member killed for women occurs 50% of the time versus only 10% for men (Hickey, 1997).

In comparison, females killed only strangers 24% of the time and males 70%. (Hickey, 1997). One possible reason women are killing intimates could be that they are the ones most entrusted with their care in a caregiving situation, or from whom they have the most to gain in terms of inheritances. Men are not exempt from killing those known to them. Many began their careers as serial killers by murdering a friend or family member, like Kemper, "who just wondered how it would feel to shoot grandma." (Hickey, 1997). Donald Harvey (1970-1987), otherwise known as "The Angel of Death," first killed his aunt, and then proceeded to kill twelve other patients under his care as a nurse’s aid in Kentucky (Hickey, 1997).

Egger’s definition also claims that there is no known connection between victims (1990). There are, however, instances involving a killer’s victims not being completely random. For example, many female serialialists work their way through their families over time. Nannie Doss killed not only her spouses, but three of her five children as well (Hickey, 1997).

As demonstrated, Egger’s (1990) claim that the victim and offender are strangers is based upon speculation, for there are cases of male and female serial killers being acquainted with their prey. Although men are more inclined to kill strangers and women to kill intimates, the ideal definition of serial murder should exclude the variable of the relationship. Moreover, the stipulation that there is no connection between victims is a conclusion based on a small number of cases.

The media and Egger’s (1990) definition perpetuates the stereotype of the serial killer roaming the country in search of victims. With all of the technological advances in transportation today, it would seem likely. Although Egger’s restriction of having the crime committed in different geographical areas, it is an important aspect of the study of killers. Holmes and DeBurger (1988) also include geographic mobility in their definition of serial killing as either being stable or transient, or, whether they stay in one place or travel while killing.

Hickey further divided the killer’s mobility into three distinct groups (1986, cited in Hickey, 1997). The first is the traveling serial killer, who kills in several states. One third of male serial killers moved from state to state (Hickey, 1997). Ted Bundy is the perfect example. He killed over 20 young women in five states (Hickey, 1997). The second category is the local killer, who never leaves the city, county or state. Approximately 55% of the male sample fit into this category. Wayne Williams preyed on his victims in and around Atlanta, Georgia without straying too far from his home. Finally, the third group is the place specific killer. These people kill their victims solely in their homes or places of employment. Ten percent of males fit into this group. John Wayne Gacy killed 33 men in his own home over a seven year period, burying their corpses in his basement (Hickey, 1997). Two thirds of the female serial killers in Hickey’s (1997) data fit in this category since their positions as nurses or housewives provided them with victims.

The local serial killer is responsible for the highest body counts, probably as a result of the anonymity provided by today’s urban centres and the relative ease of transport within them (Hickey, 1997). This finding is at odds with Egger’s (1990)definition suggesting that the crimes are committed in different geographic locations. Many offenders would be excluded from his study based on this requirement, especially the female serial killer. They are overwhelmingly place specific killers.

The mobile serial murderer is the most difficult to catch because they cross police boundaries leading to linkage blindness (Egger, 1984, 1990). This involves police counties finding evidence of puzzling deaths, yet they keep it to themselves. They wish to prevent public paranoia, while at the same time they hope to solve it all on their own. Police forces would revel in their cleverness if the case was solved, however it would be beneficial if they shared what information they had with surrounding precincts. It would be easier to catch similarities in MOs, as well as share evidence to make a more complete profile.

The stereotypical serial murderer is committing a crime that he or she loves to do, they do not desire material rewards as a result. As stated in Stote and Standing (1994), "The killer’s behavioural orientation is expressive rather than instrumental, with the murderer seeking enhancement of a personal psychological state rather than material gain." (31). Egger’s (1990) definition drastically reduces the number of offenders by excluding those who gain money for their crime. For most of the known serial murder cases, males do kill for the thrill of it alone. But money has been a motive for them sometimes (19%) and only (7%) (Hickey, 1997). On the other hand, this restriction in Egger’s (1990) definition overwhelmingly affects the number of female serial killers included in the study pool. They kill for money sometimes 47% of the time, and solely for profit 27%, much more so than males do (Hickey, 1997). These figures are so high as a result of black widows. They seek out life insurance policies or fast cash from their paramours.

Egger’s (1990) definition is not the first to exclude those killers who stand to gain financially from their killing. Keeney’s (1992) definition declares:

Serial murder is the premeditated murder of three or more victims committed

over time, in separate incidents, in a civilian context, with the murder activity

being chosen by the offender (as cited in Keeney & Heide, 1994: 384).

The civilian parameter excludes hit men, armed forces members and political terrorists (Keeney and Heide, 1994). It is wrong that these "employees" are being excluded from the serial murder definitions. How can we be assured that they receive no thrill from killing repeatedly? What happens when their "tour of duty" is completed and they find they cannot stop? By granting immunity of being labeled or prosecuted as a serial killer, are we asking for trouble down the line? Contract killers and assassins aside, we cannot assume serial killers are not working for material gain. For example, Paul John Knowles had many random victims, some were killed in order to rob them (Hickey, 1997). Aileen Wuornos also stole from her male victims, keeping their possessions in a storage locker (Hickey, 1997). Although females are much more likely to kill for money to make better lives for themselves than males, it is premature in the study of serial murder to discount these cases.

Egger’s (1990) stipulation that the serial killer’s victims are prestigeless is speculative. Of course they will not choose victims that are as smart or as strong as them, or they risk being caught. If we assume that only prostitutes, homosexuals, children or the elderly are chosen as prey, then is it not their prestige in question, but their powerlessness to defend themselves from an aggressive and cunning killer. If prostitutes and homosexuals are targeted, it is because they are more apt to hang out in unprotected places. According to Sagarin and Maghan:

The vulnerability of an individual or group to criminal depredations depends

upon an opportunity factor as well as an attractiveness factor. Extreme risks

are run by people who appear at the "right time" and the "right place," from

the offender’s point of view. Hence certain lifestyles expose individuals and

their possessions to greater threat and dangers than others (Sagarin and Maghan

1983: 241).

Police and the media are also biased towards victims of violent crimes. They are more likely to ignore a missing vagrant report than if it was a young college student. The less advantaged victims are treated unfairly by society. We tend to subscribe to the misconception that they received what they deserved.

Those who are least able to defend themselves are most often sought after for the serial killer’s victim. When the victim is a stranger, they are most likely: 1) young women, 2) children, and 3) travelers. When the victim is an acquaintance, they are: 1) friends or neighbours, 2) children and 3) women alone. If it is a family member, they are:1) their own children, 2) husbands or 3) wives (Hickey, 1997). It is noteworthy that of the family members most at risk, husbands are victims more often than wives. This is because the female serial killer is more likely to kill intimates, but would the husband not have more prestige than the wife? This would exclude some females from the serial killer definition once again.

Leyton (1986) argues that serial murder is a result of the offender’s feelings of disappointment with society’s social class structures, otherwise known as conflict theory. Because the killer cannot achieve the socioeconomic status they feel they deserve, they act in a rebellious nature, murder, against the group they feel is in their way. For example, Ted Bundy killed many young college students he thought had blocked his entrance into law school (Hickey, 1997; Leyton, 1986). Leyton believes that serial killers rebel in order to gain fame and fortune since they could not achieve it any other way.

Therefore, Egger’s (1990) description of victims can be viewed not necessarily as prestigeless, but that they are powerless to defend themselves against a cunning serial killer. The victims most sought out by a serial killer are those who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. As well, some serial killers kill upwards in the social ladder as a leveling mechanism. They are dealing with their frustrations the only way they know how.

If it is extremely difficult to define what a serial killer is, it is even more difficult to apprehend one. Hickey (1997) declares the law enforcement definition is "the sexual attack and murder of young women, men and children by a male who follows a pattern, physical or psychological" (p 11). This description is extremely biased in that it only allows certain kinds of victims and the killers can only be male. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also believes that the serial killer is driven by sexual motives, are male, and have killed three or more victims (Ressler et al., 1988). Beyond these important details, the FBI began one of the first research attempts of this phenomenon. They have divided serial killers into two specific types; the organized and disorganized offender. These categories were decided based on four variables: 1) the background of the offender, 2) his victims, 3) methods used and 4) the location of the victim. It is noteworthy that the FBI arrived at these groups as a result of "years of experience" (Ressler et al., 1988:121).

The organized offender is usually the first born son, possessing above average intelligence and works in a skilled occupation. They often report being stressed at the time of the attack, either marital or financially, turning to alcohol as an escape. They usually live with a spouse and are sexually competent. These killers also follow their crimes in the media (Ressler et al., 1988).

Their victims are often strangers and the offense planned well in advance. They are usually described as friendly to their victims before they attack. An example of an organized offender is Ted Bundy, who would lure young women to assist him in tasks made difficult with a fake cast or crutches. He would then lure them into his car and abduct them (Hickey, 1997). The crime scene will have little physical evidence because of their concentrated efforts to avoid detection. There is often evidence of physical restraints being used, like handcuffs, ropes or chemicals. There are usually signs of physical damage committed post-mortem. Finally, the body is hidden or moved from the crime scene, along with the weapon (Ressler et al., 1988).

The unorganized offender is of a low birth order, have a lower IQ than the organized offender, and are socially inept. They are usually without a partner, and are sexually incompetent. They do not suffer from stress prior to the crime, nor do they abuse alcohol. They tend to live or work close to the crime scene since they rely on public transportation (Ressler et al., 1988).

The disorganized offender’s crime scene points towards a spontaneous offense. The victim or location is usually familiar to the offender. There is evidence to support sexual violence after death. The body is usually left in plain sight, along with the weapon or other evidence (Ressler et al., 1988).

These profiles help to apprehend the killer in a small number of cases. The classifications do not allow for many female serialists or killers with only two victims. When an offender has repeated their crime at a different time, we must assume they are serial murderers. It also assumes that the serial killers have sexual motives for their crime, which is presumptuous given the small sample cases they are dealing with.

The media and some researchers perpetuate the myth that all serial killers are

male and sexually sadistic (Liebert, 1988, as cited in Keeney and Heide, 1995; Ressler

et al., 1988; Warren, Hazelwood and Dietz, 1996). Sadism, as defined by Hickey (1997), is the infliction of mental or physical pain on a victim. Skrapec (1996), declares "the ultimate sadistic act is murder" (160). It is important to differentiate between the sexual murderer and the lust murderer. The former kills their victim out of a fear for being caught, to silence them. They are more rapists than murderers based on their motives. The latter kills as a response to deeply rooted fantasies where they receive as much pleasure from sexual contact as they do from taking another person’s life (Hickey, 1997). The reason sex has become so wrapped up in the problem of defining serial murder is because of what rape is really about. Non-consensual sex is a way to show a killer’s complete dominance over a victim (Levin & Fox 1985). Forced sex is another means of receiving money or sexual gratification. It can also be viewed as their expression of frustration and anger (Skrapec, 1996). Skrapec (1996) argues that if the core motivation of serial murder and sexual assault is the wish to debase others sexually, then it is imperative to include it in our studies.

Jenkins (1994) explains that since the media and research focuses almost exclusively on the stereotypical sex slayer, it perpetuates the awareness of these killers as the most prevalent in our society. Canadians can scarcely forget the Bernardo/Holmolka sex slayings in St. Catharines, Ontario. In their research, Stote and Standing (1995) declare serial killing "…a remorseless pursuit of sexually based gratification" (317). In reality, Hickey’s (1997) data shows us that men cite sex as a motive for killing sometimes, 46%, and sex only, 9%. Sex is of even lesser importance to the female serial killer (sometimes, 10% and only, never). To equate serial murder with sexual sadism is uninformed and premature.

Typologies serve to divide the serial killers we do know of into smaller, more manageable packages. They are no less subjected to criticism than the definitions of serial murder. After examining the serial killer typology proposed by Holmes and DeBurger (1988), and Dietz’s (1996, as cited in Egger, 1990) classification system, we will see why.

The major typology of serial killers that is encountered in the literature comes from Holmes and DeBurger (1988). Before they are introduced, it is important to realize that their typology makes three assumptions about serial murderers. First of all, the origin of killing is described as psychogenic. This implies that the killer has a complete and utter lack of empathy for human beings. Secondly, there is an "intrinsic locus of motives," meaning that it is not easily visible to the police what the killer was thinking. In contrast, hit men and terrorists are known to have extrinsic motives. They make themselves clear that they wanted their victims dead. These killers were ignored for this typology, which vastly shrinks the pool of possible subjects. Thirdly, they assume there is positive reinforcement being received by the criminal psychologically. It should be noted that the following typologies were created on the merit of only 110 serial killers (Holmes and DeBurger, 1988).

The visionary serial killer is thought to kill in response to intense hallucinations or voices seeking the destruction of a particular person or group. These killers are often suffering from a psychosis (Hickey, 1997). Francis Dolarhyde, the killer in Harris’ (1981) novel Red Dragon, heard a voice from the Dragon in a painting that mesmerized him and ordered him to kill.

The mission-oriented serial killer must eliminate a particularly offensive group to him or her. They do not have visions, and are very much aware of their goal to cleanse society of these people (Holmes and DeBurger, 1988). A popular media portrayal of the mission-oriented killer is that of John Doe, from the movie Se7en (1996). Using Dante’s seven deadly sins: greed, lust, gluttony, envy, sloth, wrath and pride, he sought a victim most representative of each of these appalling groups. For example, lust’s victim was a sleazy prostitute, while gluttony was represented by an extremely overweight man. John Doe reasoned that everyone was glad they were gone anyway, for we would make jokes if we saw any of these people on the street. He is only doing us and them a favour.

The power-control serial killer kills just for that reason. They are aroused by playing God, by having the power of life and death within their hands. Any sexual pleasure is secondary to the real goal of the murder. Any sexual mutilation inflicted is the ultimate display of having their "way" with the victim (Holmes and DeBurger, 1988).

The hedonistic type has pleasure as their ultimate goal. There are four subcategories within this section. The first is the thrill-seeking killer, who kills just for the rush it can provide. The second is the comfort oriented killer, who craves life satisfaction, in terms of money or love. Many female serial killers would fit in this category because of the financial security a deceased partner could provide. The third type of hedonist is the lust killer. They receive sexual gratification from committing murder (Holmes and DeBurger, 1988). Because of the overwhelming misconception that all serial murder is sexual in nature, this aspect needs to be addressed in defining our topic.

Gresswell and Hollin’s (1994) criticisms of these groupings raise some important issues. First of all, these groups are not mutually exclusive. For instance, a serial killer could kill because of voices they heard, but also receive an incredible thrill from the act, either from the power they have or the eroticism of the act, or both. Second of all, these categories are not exhaustive. They do not include killers with extrinsic motives, like hit men. This is because the definition of serial murder was too restricted, once again supporting the argument that a universal description is beneficial to the uniformity of studies.

Another fault in Holmes and DeBurger’s (1988) typology is that they assume the motives for killing will not change over time. A novice serial killer could begin killing out of lust, yet when they avoid being caught, they can mutate into a cockier hedonistic thrill seeking type. Furthermore, there is no real way for us to know a serial killer’s true motive. Many will lie to receive more popularity or evade the death penalty. Even if the killer’s motives do fit into one of these categories, it is important to allow for changes in the psychological and/or environmental circumstances. A case in point is England’s "attempted" serial murderer, Robert Sartin (Gresswell and Hollin, 1988). He was arrested for shooting 18 people, of which only one was actually killed. Finally, these groupings do not all begin on the same level. Case in point is the visionary serial killer, who is categorized according to a psychiatric diagnosis. Other groups in the typology, like the mission, hedonistic and power-control types are categorized on their motivations. It is like comparing apples with oranges. The typology that works will base their system on some sort of common ground.

Dietz’s (1986, as cited in Egger, 1990) typology of serial killers applies to those who killed five or more victims over time. She argues that offenders who kill fewer victims fit more readily into a more heterogeneous group that she does not define. The typology includes:

1. Psychopathic sexual sadists include male serial killers who are inflicted with sexual sadism and antisocial personality disorders. These disorders include theft, excessive lying, drug and alcohol abuse, impulsiveness and disregard of the safety of others (Hickey, 1997).
1. Crime spree killers seek victims in a series while searching for money and excitement. There is no cooling off period between murders.
1. Functionaries of organized crime operations like the Mafia, gangs, contract killers and political terrorists.
1. Custodial poisoners and asphyxiators take the lives of their patients in hospitals, or the lives of their children in their care.
1. Supposed psychotics maintain that they are acting under the power of commanding delusions or hallucinations (Dietz, 1986, as cited in Egger, 1990:28).

These categories perform the function of dividing the advanced serial killer. There is acknowledgment of female serial killers who only use poison or suffocation as methods. These are by no means the only methods females use however, so perhaps a category for killers gaining materialistically through intrinsic motives would be worthwhile. This typology includes extrinsically motivated killers, which benefits the study of all serial killers. Her restriction on five or more victims is very high given the few killers who have actually exceeded this number and not been apprehended. Furthermore, her groups are not mutually exclusive. For instance, a psychopathic sexual sadist could be working for an organized crime group. Or a custodial poisoner could be reacting to psychotic hallucinations.

In conclusion, serial murderers do not fit into cut and dry groups. Each offender is a psychological phenomenon in their own right. Typologies are useful for sorting out already known offenders in a small sample, but they do not help the future studies of the serial killer in a broader sense. Once again, the importance of a universal definition of serial murder is established.

To summarize, the media and previous research have extensively biased the study of serial murder by perpetuating myths. By including too many variables in the definition, like Egger (1990) did, we are left with a smaller group of possible subjects. The assumption that serial killers are always male is false, we know that females are responsible for a small, yet significant minority of offenders (Hickey, 1997). How many victims we choose to include in defining serial murder is also very important. Each number more we decide upon, the fewer subjects we will have to study. The victim and offender are not always strangers, especially in the case of female serialists who kill those closest to them. Moreover, it is presumptuous to assume the victims are not connected. Many serialists kill their family or friends. The serial killer is not as transient as Egger (1990) would have us believe either. Many kill within their state or city, even more kill only within their homes or places of employment (Hickey, 1997). The notion that serial killers do not gain from their victims is also highly speculative. Females often receive insurance policies from their spouses, or hit men make a living at killing. It is wrong to prematurely exclude these killers so soon in the study of this phenomenon. Finally, victims may or may not have prestige, but they all share the common trait of powerlessness to defend themselves. They are chosen as victims because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In addition, some killers seek victims who are higher on the social ladder than they are as a form of retaliation against that class.

Law enforcement agencies are also guilty of using myths in their definitions of serial murder. The FBI has a tendency towards searching for only male sexual predators with three or more victims, and is hence carried over into their classification system (Ressler et al., 1988). This perpetuates the myth that all serialists have sexual motives. Similarly, the major typologies proposed by Holmes and DeBurger (1988) and Dietz (1986, as cited in Egger, 1990) are also very restrictive in terms of considering all types of offenders.

It is beneficial to end the confusion over what constitutes serial murder, and our definition we propose is as follows: any offender who kills two or more victims over a period of days, weeks, months or years. There are no qualifications in terms of gender, relationship between the victim and offender, the location of the crime, the motivations or methods. We set the number of victims at two because some killers who were apprehended after this body count would have continued killing if they were not incapacitated.

Currently, it is impossible to complete any sort of cross cultural analysis of serial murder for several reasons. A disparity in definitions is the prime suspect. What constitutes serial murder in one country may not be relevant in another. As well, there is no uniform method worldwide of reporting and collecting information on serial offenders (Hepburn and Hinch, 1997). Egger’s (1984) notion of linkage blindness is also of the utmost importance. Police forces in neighbouring districts need to open the lines of communication in murder cases that are unsolved. Finally, it is extremely difficult to gain access to offenders in custody. It is Hickey’s (1997) recommendation that programs be implemented to allow academic programs and researchers access to these offenders without all the red tape that is currently involved.

Generally, what we see, read and hear regarding serial murderers affects our perceptions of these criminals. Unfortunately, this misinformation has been entwined in the literature. As Dietz (1996) proposed, it would be in our best interest to deny serial killers the fame from media coverage they receive and allow unbiased research from a universal definition to begin. It is only then that we can hope to abolish serial murder once and for all.

Caputi, J. (1989). The sexual politics of murder. Gender and Society, 3, 437-456.

Caputi, J. (1990). The new founding fathers: The lore and lure of the serial killer in

contemporary culture. Journal of American Culture, 13, 1-12.

Cluff, J., Hunter, A., & Hinch, R. (1997). Feminist perspectives on serial murder, A

critical analysis. Homicide Studies, 1, (3), 291-308.

DeHart, D.D., & Mahoney, J.M. (1994). The serial murderer’s motivations: An

interdisciplinary review. Omega, 29, 29-45.

Dietz, M.L. (1996). Killing sequentially: Expanding the parameters of the

conceptualization of serial and mass killers, in Thomas O’Reilly-Fleming

(Ed.) The study of serial murder: Theory, research and policy.

Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press: 109-122.

Egger, S.A. (1984). A working definition of serial murder and the reduction of

linkage blindness. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12 (3),

348-357.

Egger, S.A. (1990). Serial murder: A synthesis of literature and research, in Steven A.

Egger (Ed.) Serial murder: An elusive phenomenon. New York: Praeger

Publishers: 3-34.

Fincher, D. (Director). (1996). Se7en (Film). Alliance Home Video.

Gresswell, D.M., & Hollin, C.R. (1994). Multiple murder: A review. The British

Journal of Criminology, 34, 1-13.

Harris, T. (1987). Red dragon. New York: Bantam Publishing.

Hepburn, C., & Hinch, R. (!997). Researching serial murder: Methodological and

definitional problems. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 3, 2.

Hickey, E.W. (1986). The female serial murderer. Journal of Police and Criminal

Psychology, 2 (2), 72-81. As cited in Eric W. Hickey (1997). Serial murderers and their victims (2^nd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing: 26.

Hickey, E.W. (1997). Serial murderers and their victims (2^nd Ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing.

Holmes, R., & DeBurger, J. (1988). Serial murder. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jenkins, P. (1994). Using murder: The social construction of serial homicide. New

York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Keeney, B.T., & Heide, K.M. (1994). Gender differences in serial murderers: A

preliminary analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 383-398.

Keeney, B.T., & Heide, K.M. (1995). Serial murder: A more accurate and inclusive

definition. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology, 39 (4), 299-306

Levin, J., & Fox, J.A. (1985). Mass murder: America’s growing menace. New York:

Plenum.

Leyton, E. (1986). Hunting humans: The rise of multiple murder. Toronto:

McClelland and Stewart.

Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W., & Douglas, J.E. (1988). Sexual homicide. Lexington,

Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

Rossmo, D.K. (1996). Targeting victims: Serial killers and the urban environment,

in Thomas O’Reilly-Fleming (Ed.) The study of serial murder: Theory,

research and policy. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press: 133-153.

Sagarin, E., & Maghan, J. (1983). Deviants: Victims or victimizers. Beverly Hills,

California: Sage.

Scott, H. (1992). Female serial killer: A well kept secret of the "gentler sex." M.A.

Thesis: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph.

Skrapec, C. (1996). The sexual component of serial murder, in Thomas O’Reilly-

Fleming (Ed.) The study of serial murder: Theory, research and policy.

Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press: 154-175.

Stote, R., & Standing, L. (1995). Serial and multiple homicide: Is there an epidemic?

Social behavior and Personality, 23, 313-318.

Warren, J., Hazelwood, R.R., & Dietz, P. (1996). The sexually sadistic serial killer.

In Thomas O’Reilly-Fleming (Ed.) The study of serial murder: Theory,

Research and Policy. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press: 77-91.