Social construction theories on serial killers

Criminology researchers usually draw on multiple sociological theories for understanding crime and offenders. Certain elements of serial-killing research continue to be a subject of speculation and exploration, on account of the numerous preconceptions and myths surrounding the crime. The significance of establishing a theoretic basis to explain sociological factors proves crucial to distinguishing between fact and fiction (Hickey, 2013).

This class of theories concentrates on the socioeconomic status of a person and suggests that the poor perpetrate more offenses owing to their struggle to achieve social or monetary success. They are, particularly owing to their subcultural, racial, or ethnic status, restricted in several ways from lawfully attaining the great “American Dream". Thus, they resort to deviant techniques to succeed. Structural theories provide convincing justifications for numerous offenses, with the exception of serial killing. Normally, serial killers lack financial or social motivation, and aren’t members of any specific ethnic/racial minority. The urbanism idea is an example of a structural model which may better explain serial murder. Murder rates are typically the highest in the city of New York, Washington, D.C., Indiana, Miami, Detroit, Alabama, Birmingham, and other heavily-populated urban areas. Urban homicide is largely linked to social disorder, a broken family, alienation, disassociation, fear and destitution. Im-personalization and bumping into strangers frequently is what increases serial-killing likelihood in such highly-populated regions. Consider, for instance, Ted Bundy who was especially comfortable with acting in crowded shopping malls (Hickey, 2013).

Leyton’s 2011 work titled “Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer” delves into serial killers’ status aspirations. In his opinion, serial killers may generally be found somewhere on the fringes of the lower-middle or upper-working classes of society. They experience exclusion from the class they aim for and, on an extended revenge drive, kill strangers whose appearance, place of residence, or behavior are representative of the class he has been excluded from. The author claims the killing is driven by the murderers’ perceptions regarding their victims’ social status. Social class theory ideally fits serial murderers as a majority of them appear to have diverse simultaneous problems (Hickey, 2013).

This class of theories argues that criminality represents a function of socialization, which incorporates an array of socio-psychological exchanges of the criminal with social institutions and organizations. Criminals may perpetrate crime owing to peer pressure, academic failure, family issues, legal entanglements, etc., which slowly but surely drive them to commit offenses. According to process theories, any individual, irrespective of his socioeconomic or racial background, may engage in crime. A key element of both the psychoanalytic and social process theories is familial influence on violent or delinquent youngsters. The ideal example to cite here is John Wayne Gacy, who hailed from an authoritarian Catholic Irish household. His father abused him and John strove hard to gain his approval (Hickey, 2013).

Both major and minor offenders adopt neutralization methods to verbalize their conduct, construct their social identity, and mitigate responsibility. As serial murderers commonly seem to be “normal” whilst committing heinous murders, neutralizations might facilitate their drifting between murder and traditional social attachments. Moreover, such neutralizations serve as a kind of stigma management (for all kinds of criminals), facilitating continued positive self-presentation. This theory, formulated by Matza and Sykes in the year 1957 as a response to the subculture theory by Cohen, maintains that, delinquency is largely and basically grounded in an unrealized extension of criminal defenses, as explanations for deviance deemed to be reasonable by the offender but unacceptable to the overall society and legal system (Coston, 2015). One example is Chicagoan serial killer, John Wayne Gacy, who murdered thirty-three youth, and denied perpetrating the crime, claiming he was incriminated when 27 bodies were found in his house’s crawlspace (Hickey, 2013).

According to traditional control theorists, criminals don’t perpetrate serious crime out of fear of being punished. Though punishment may deter certain criminals, murder is a crime of passion and murderers are usually not daunted by the prospect of long jail sentences or capital punishment; murders usually occur after an altercation. This theory proposed the following 4 social bond components applicable to all classes of society: attachment, belief, commitment, and involvement, which people weaken or strengthen in relation to their community. This theory can offer further insights into the phenomenon of serial killing. Serial killers appear not to have requisite community, friendly or familial ties observed among individuals not criminally inclined. One sound example of a serial murderer fitting this theory is Ted Bundy, as he was greatly offended after discovering his ‘supposed’ elder sister was, in truth, his mother. This negative familial attachment led to him becoming one among the most infamous serial murderers in America (Hickey, 2013).