When a serial killer is apprehended the first reaction of most people is to say that he or she must be crazy, not mad, or bad. Is this really true though? As stated in Barbara Kirwin's book, "The Mad, The Bad, and The Innocent," crazy is not a medical term or a term that can be used to describe a serial killer. Crazy is a term used by society. It is this term that misleads the general public when it comes to the sanity of a serial killer. The lines of sanity should be drawn and determined by two factors: psychopathy (bad) and psychosis (mad). But what do these two words really mean? Can you differentiate between the two? Or do they just blend together?
According to Webster's Dictionary a psychopath is defined as someone who has a severe mental disorder with antisocial behavior and a psychotic is someone with a mental disorder in which their personality is seriously disorganized and contact with reality is usually impaired. A better way to understand the relationship between these two words is to look at Kirwin's definitions in chapter one of her book. She refers to psychopathy as a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others. Someone who is a psychopath delights in the pain and cruelty inflicted upon others. They lack a conscience and feel no remorse at all for their actions. However, they do know that what they are doing is wrong. There is no misunderstanding in their mind that their actions are not socially acceptable. These types of killers not only choose not to follow the "normal" standards set by society, they really do not care what society thinks about them for deviating from this social acceptability. They are out for themselves and what makes them happy in their little world of perversion.
Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer are examples of your "typical," if such a thing exists, psychopathic killer. Did they know right from wrong? Yes, they did. Yet they still committed their crimes. Ted Bundy clearly displays his recognition that the crimes he was committing were wrong by fleeing from state to state in order to avoid capture. Once captured Bundy escaped on two different occasions so that he could continue his killing spree. Dahmer would dismember his victims and he even went so far as to eat some of their remains. Dahmer would keep his victims alive long enough so that he could enjoy their company. Sick and demented -yes, insane -no. Unfortunately these two men were not mentally ill, they were just morally challenged as Kirwin states. It would be so much easier to justify their actions in the mind of a rational human being if we could say that both of these men were insane. However, they were not insane; they were just plain evil in human form.
Kirwin refers to psychosis as delusions or hallucinations that represent a major impairment in reality testing. Keep in mind that hallucinations and delusions do not have to be present in order for someone to be psychotic. Many doctors seriously questioned Joel Rifkin's sanity. Kirwin explains that even though Rifkin did not display extremely noticeable characteristics of hallucinations or delusions, they were present. Kirwin diagnosed Rifkin as a paranoid schizophrenic. However, the jury at his trail found him to be sane. Once again this confirms that there is no clear-cut line dividing the sane and the insane.
Son of Sam, David Berkowitz, claimed he heard the devil's voice speaking to him through the next door neighbors dog. Rifkin also claimed to hear voices telling him whether or not to strangle his next victim. A woman named Ameenah Abdus-Salaam had dreams and heard voices' telling her that judgment day was at hand. Dennis Sweeney is another person that lost touch with reality. He suffered from hallucinations, paranoid beliefs, and delusions. Out of the four people I have named only two were acquitted due to reason of insanity. What one jury might consider actions of an insane person, another jury will not.
Someone who is psychotic does not realize the difference between right and wrong. They do not consider their actions to be unusual. An insane person is unable to deal with the realities of normal every day life. Dr. Isaac Ray makes many observations about those he considers to be insane. He states that in most cases signs of irrationality are present in the criminal before they actually commit murder. Their victims tend to be close associates and the murder is usually very brutal and gory. Once the criminal has killed he or she will express no remorse or concern for the victim. The killer will often commit the act in front of witnesses and later will openly discuss his actions. The killer's motive will make sense to himself, but will sound unusual to the sane individual. They act on impulse and are unable to restrain themselves.
There is no line set that will determine whether or not someone is insane or sane. The line that is present is thin and most often very difficult to see. Another obstacle that exists is the differences in opinion from one doctor to another doctor. For every handful of doctors you have that will consider someone insane, you will have just as many in the other hand that will declare the same person sane. For this reason it is difficult to gain agreement on the differences between mad and bad.
I would like to be able to say that every serial killer is psychotic. In my mind anyone who commits these heinous and degrading acts that comprise a serial murderer should be considered insane. I do not see how someone could gain pleasure from this gruesome disregard for human life.
The terms mad and bad seem to be closely related, but they represent two totally different frames of mind and states of being. You have one person who is in touch with reality and one person who is barely holding on to reality. The bad individual is a sick and twisted excuse for a human being, while the mad individual is seriously ill and in need of medical attention (but still a sorry excuse for a human). Is one reality worse than the other- I do not believe so. Both are equally as terrible.