I introduced myself in another thread. Here is my first thread trying to start a debate.

My question is the following: why do you think that United States, the country if which almost all members of this forum were born and live, had so many serial killers and psychopaths in its history, such as Ted Bundy, the Zodiac Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer and many others?

It had much more than other countries. Much more. Wkipedia has an article where it gives detailed lists of serial killers by country, and United States list is the most extense. Argentina has only two (most crime in my country is linked to poverty and income inequality, not to psychopathy).

What do you think are the main reasons for this?

I introduced myself in another thread. Here is my first thread trying to start a debate.

My question is the following: why do you think that United States, the country if which almost all members of this forum were born and live, had so many serial killers and psychopaths in its history, such as Ted Bundy, the Zodiac Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer and many others?

It had much more than other countries. Much more. Wkipedia has an article where it gives detailed lists of serial killers by country, and United States list is the most extense. Argentina has only two (most crime in my country is linked to poverty and income inequality, not to psychopathy).

What do you think are the main reasons for this?
The socio-economic system which is unequal,makes stress overload on the individual more likely,the diversity of the country and its size. One example was the deregulation of transport laws under President Carter which although introduced with the best of intentions became a breeding ground for a small minority of men who had insecurity of employment, endured long working hours and a corresponding loosening of family ties.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5115514/Serial-killers-working-as-lorry-drivers-have-murdered-500-women-across-US.html

1. It's a huge country with a very large population.

2. Said population is not homogenous.

3. Its largest media corporations are not state-owned, and are free to report most everything they wish to--which mainly ends up being stories that will maximize viewership (and thus profit), such as, say, a grisly series of murders committed by a psychopath.

Most crime in the United States is not "linked to psychopathy", either. Serial murders, perhaps. But not most crime. That would be true of any country in the entire world.

[Disclaimer: I'm from Canada.]

Well, there is poverty and income inequality in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, etc. - although perhaps not on the same level as in the U.S. - and these countries do not churn out large numbers of serial killers per capita.

What stands out to me is the overall level of violence in the U.S. It's not nearly as bad as a lot of non-Americans think it is (i.e. that you are bound to get hit by a stray bullet walking down the street if you visit the U.S.) but the prevalence of violence in society does seem to be higher than in other developed, Western democracies. I am always surprised at the amount of violence in American movies and t.v. shows. Sex, on the other hand, is still a more taboo subject. Of course, it is the opposite way around in Europe.

[Another issue all together is the availability of guns/the so-called "gun culture". I have lived in the U.S. on and off for a total of several years, so I have some understanding of the subject, but for most non-Americans, it is perplexing. Perhaps that is the subject of a different thread, though!]

Anyway, I don't have the answers about serial killers, but I think it important to ask why there seems to be much violence in general in American society.

Welcome to the board, btw!

Are there any statistics supporting that? The United Nations published a study on global homicide for 207 countries in 2011; in terms of raw numbers, the U.S. rate isn't particularly high per capita:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Global_study_on_homicide_Key_findings.pdf

Good article about the countries with the highest rates: http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicidal-countries-2011-11?op=1

I think it's more of a perception than reality that the U.S. has more serial killers or homicides in general, simply due to the media saturation that happens whenever these types of crimes occur.

Most crime in the United States is not "linked to psychopathy", either. Serial murders, perhaps. But not most crime. That would be true of any country in the entire world.

Yes, this is an important point. It's not like serial killers and/or psychopathy accounts for 90% of crime in the U.S.! The percentage must actually be very, very small. You could probably link most crime in most countries back to poverty in one way or another.

Welcome to the board, btw!

Are there any statistics supporting that? The United Nations published a study on global homicide for 207 countries in 2011; in terms of raw numbers, the U.S. rate isn't particularly high per capita:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Global_study_on_homicide_Key_findings.pdf

Good article about the countries with the highest rates: http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicidal-countries-2011-11?op=1

I think it's more of a perception than reality that the U.S. has more serial killers or homicides in general, simply due to the media saturation that happens whenever these types of crimes occur.

To me, the pertinent comparison is not the United States vs. Honduras or the United States vs. Ethiopia. Rather, I would ask, why is the level of violence in the U.S. higher than in other western democracies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, western European countries, Japan, and so on.

To me, the pertinent comparison is not the United States vs. Honduras or the United States vs. Ethiopia. Rather, I would ask, why is the level of violence in the U.S. higher than in other western democracies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, western European countries, Japan, and so on.

Likely in part for the same reasons (although in less proportion) as the nations ranked highest: lack of economic and social development in areas of the U.S. where there are higher rates of poverty. It's not news that the U.S. has far more poverty and income inequality than most industrialized nations. The equalizer attitude towards firearms also plays a role.

Regular outbursts of violence in any community hampers efforts to improve the economic and social welfare of the area, which then continues to foster an environment of crime.

I'm from Canada. I think there are two main reasons it seems there are more killings in the USA than other countries. One is the population, and two is because the media goes nuts for that stuff, thus making it seem like it happens more in the USA than other places (an example would be Canada). In Canada our media almost tries to bury things in the media so that the crime and criminal(s) do not become glorified. People are also not allowed to profit off of their crimes, meaning no movie deals, book deals, etc. Jurors are always anonymous, they aren't on Oprah describing how they reached the verdict, etc. Anyway, my point is that the media coverage is much less here.
For crimes of passion, I think any country that allows guns for person protection will have higher rates of crime. When things get heated, in the moment where a person is about to literally lose their mind, it's probably quite easy to pull a trigger in that split second, where if you don't have a gun in your house, it becomes much easier. There is always the arguement that everyone has knives in their houses, but how much more personal and up-close and difficult would it be to stab someone repeatedly.
Anyway, I feel very safe traveling to the USA, and my neighbours have always treated me very well. I think it's a population thing- the more apples in the basket, the more bad-apples there will be.

I'm from Canada. I think there are two main reasons it seems there are more killings in the USA than other countries. One is the population, and two is because the media goes nuts for that stuff, thus making it seem like it happens more in the USA than other places (an example would be Canada). In Canada our media almost tries to bury things in the media so that the crime and criminal(s) do not become glorified. People are also not allowed to profit off of their crimes, meaning no movie deals, book deals, etc. Jurors are always anonymous, they aren't on Oprah describing how they reached the verdict, etc.

Precisely.

For crimes of passion, I think any country that allows guns for person protection will have higher rates of crime. When things get heated, in the moment where a person is about to literally lose their mind, it's probably quite easy to pull a trigger in that split second, where if you don't have a gun in your house, it becomes much easier. There is always the arguement that everyone has knives in their houses, but how much more personal and up-close and difficult would it be to stab someone repeatedly.

I disagree with this statement. Firearms do not provide a temptation to the average individual who would otherwise be disinclined towards violence to "pull a trigger". If one is set to cause injury or death to another person, he or she will do it through whatever means are available to that person. But that's all I want to say.

(I'm hoping to high heaven we'll be able to avoid a gun debate here on the board, because to say I'm tired of hearing nonsense from both sides of this recently invigorated issue would be the understatement of the century.)

My subjective theory on why the U.S. has traditionally had more serial killers than other industrialized nations:

We have a MASSIVELY diverse population compared to places like Japan, Canada, etc. As a result of such diversity we are taught to "mind our own business" and not pay attention to suspicious activity, lest we appear "judgmental," etc. The alienation and isolation brought about by decreasing social ties (ties which would naturally be stronger in countries with more homogenous cultures) makes it easier for "forgotten" populations to develop: transients, homeless, drug users, prostitutes, runaways, and so on. These groups are easy prey for serial killers, since a.) they're kinda off the grid anyway, and b.) serial killers themselves are usually loners who set themselves apart from society.

Basically, I think that in the U.S., it's always been easier for serial killers and their victims to fade into society's underworld, since mainstream society is so fractured to begin with.

I agree Meg, I hope to avoid the "firearms" issue. If a person wants to acquire a gun, I'm sure they can figure out a way no matter where they live. My father had hunting guns when I was growing up and I knew how to use them, and they were always kept in the garage. I've learned over the years that people are people, no matter where you go. Most of us are decent, but some of us are nuts LOL.

I personally am glad people here cannot have a legal hand gun in their home. Not very often do you hear of someone in Canada getting blown away during a conflict or a passionate moment, etc. If someone gets killed with a gun or illegal firearm, it's usually drug or mob related. It doesn't seem to happen in suburbia....because no one has guns!

I also thought of something else since my last post. I don't know a lot about other countries, but in Canada we are almost a socialistic society. We have unemployment, social assistance (aka welfare), disability programs, government funded housing/shelters, assistance for the mentally ill, and free health care...for countries that do not have some or all of those services, it can become desperate. Can you imagine what it must be like to live in a third world country? Where there is NOTHING and no one cares? I think a person's mentality would dramatically change, almost like animal instinct. I don't have children, but I do believe that if I had to rob a bank or kill someone because OTHERWISE my children would starve to death...I'm pretty sure I'd take my chances.

I didn't see this sorry to repeat it if somebody has said it, I think we have Law Enforcement that has gotten very good at identifying these killers and their patterns better albeit after the victims are gone.

And I agree our media likes to sensationalize these stories, and americans love to watch it.

Well, I think there are a lot of facts...(I'm from Chile and I also have questioned it)

*First, US has a lot of population, +200.000.000....so, the number of serial killers is more than other countries with less population. Think about the ex USSR, that also has +200.000.000 people and a lot of serial killers (Andrei Chikatilo, Anatoly Onoprienko, etc)...

*I think the stage to operate as a serial killer is more auspicious in the US than other countries beacause of the size of the country.... If I were a serial killer , I would be happy to be in the US because you have a lot of highways to catch hitchhikers, a lot of lovers lanes to catch people alone, a lot of places to hide the bodies... Things that doesn't occur at my country, for example, where we only have one big highway (Panamericana 5) and some secondary ways that conect the center with the coast and it's very easy to the police to check what's happening in all the country (it was very easy to catch Joran Van der Sloot , Natalee Holloway's probably murder at 68 high road). You have to go to a rural area to bury somebody without witnesses and it's not an easy thing.

*Mass media: in the US you have a lot of TV channels and information about crimes and murders, tv shows like America's most Wanted, Unsolved Misteries, things that we doesn't have... Here in Chile we have tv programs about police cases like robberys, frauds, and some crimes, bot no one like UM. And there are crimes, but they aren't publicized as in the US.

*I think that US has a very competitive society (as Japan, who also has serial killers and very horrible crime cases like Junko Furuta's),more than others from third world. For example, it's common the bullying at highschools where succesfull youngsters bully "nerds" .... etc....at critical age when social skills are developing. A lot of serial killers had suffered bullying at school.... and never developed social skills... It's an interesting point.

But I think we have a lot of similarities and maybe there are a lot of serial killers here, but we don't have tv programs or media dedicated to expose the cases.

* Sorry for my horrible english, I hope I can improve it ;)

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the crime in the US and in other nations. Part of the issue, I think, is that a lot of people don't see the whole story of what happens elsewhere if they live in the US, and if they live outside of the US their view is colored by media attention. Some of these misconceptions are front and center in this thread already:

In Canada our media almost tries to bury things in the media so that the crime and criminal(s) do not become glorified.

I lived in Toronto during the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka trial. That trial was front-page news in every Toronto newspaper for weeks. I had a subscription to The Globe and Mail--a generally fairly staid newspaper--and there were pages on pages of commentary on it just about every day. I thought it was some of the most over-the-top reporting I'd ever seen, to be honest. And when I later lived in the UK nearly every "stranger killing"--serial murder or not--would get acres of press coverage.

In my experience other western nations are no less likely to exalt murder coverage, and the US has no monopoly on sensationalist crime coverage. I think the increased media coverage in the US is actually caused by, not the result of, more serial murders. If Canada or the UK had the same number of serial murder, I think you'd see as much media coverage...in the UK, which has an incredibly sensationalist media presence, probably more.

Likely in part for the same reasons (although in less proportion) as the nations ranked highest: lack of economic and social development in areas of the U.S. where there are higher rates of poverty. It's not news that the U.S. has far more poverty and income inequality than most industrialized nations.

On the face of it this seems like a compelling argument. But a little further analysis seems to break down that theory. Firstly, economic inequality has dramatically increased in the US since the 1990s, but by all indicators violent crime has decreased since then--and so too has serial killing. Secondly, the US has historically seen hotspots of serial killing not in areas where poverty was greatest but often in areas where the economy has been booming--think of California in the 1970's and 1980's. If we were to take the economic theory of serial killing we might assume that the vast majority of serial killers are poor or working-class; that doesn't seem to be true, and in cases like the Unabomber or the (suspected) Kingsbury Run Murderer, they may come from very well-to-do backgrounds.

What seems to be more important to the preponderance of serial killers is not economic but societal alienation. Most serial killers are described as "loners", as societal misfits, as people who have a hard time connecting with others. Historically, high levels of serial killing are seen in places where there is political or social breakdown--Europe during the world wars, post-Soviet Eastern Europe, South Africa during apartheid. To some extent, the US has been suffering from societal breakdown over the last 60 years. As people have become more mobile, communities break down, and community involvement is disappearing. I think southern California is a prime example of an area where community is all but non-existent, and perhaps it's no surprise that it was for many years the capital of serial murder.

I live near Niagara Falls, NY, across the river from Niagara Falls, Ontario. The difference in community involvement is night and day. On the Canadian side of the border there are clubs, activities, sports groups, all sorts of things for people to do together. On the US side, there's nothing--there's the occasional community revitalization group, but so much of it is band-aids on an amputated limb. The only places to congregate are bars and casinos. It's no surprise that the teen crime rate in on the US side is sky high--there is nothing to do and no reason to be part of the community.

And alongside of that is a lack of community support for those in trouble. People going through a bad time in the US are pretty much on their own, not just economically but socially. When I was going through a bad time in England, there were so many options for support available: there was a mental health group I joined for free, there was a sports club that I joined for exercise and camaraderie, and there was a community education group which I taught for and met people from all income groups and education levels. Here in the US, there's really nothing like that, even if you have the money for those things. Sure there's continuing education and country clubs and things like that, but it almost seems like they divide people more than they join them. Outsiders certainly don't feel welcome. I've joined a couple of groups here and I haven't lasted more than a week or two--I just did not feel like I was wanted there.

And that, I think, is what accounts for higher levels of serial killing in the US. When there are so many people who fall through the cracks of American society, and who do not feel welcome anywhere--some of them are going to feel like their lives have no value, and a violent few are going to feel like it's others' lives that have no value.

the US is a large country that emphasizes on violence. You see it in our movies and video games constantly. Serial killers are bred because of unresolved psychological issues that are triggered by many things, like abuse (verbal, emotional, physical), violent material, anti-socialism, self-absorption, bullying, etc.

EVERY country around the world has it's fair share of serial killers. The only reason why at times it seems like it's most notorious in America is because of the media's portrayal. Violence is in the nature of humankind and virtually all living things, it always has been. There's no such thing as a perfect society after all.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the crime in the US and in other nations. Part of the issue, I think, is that a lot of people don't see the whole story of what happens elsewhere if they live in the US, and if they live outside of the US their view is colored by media attention. Some of these misconceptions are front and center in this thread already:



I lived in Toronto during the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka trial. That trial was front-page news in every Toronto newspaper for weeks. I had a subscription to The Globe and Mail--a generally fairly staid newspaper--and there were pages on pages of commentary on it just about every day. I thought it was some of the most over-the-top reporting I'd ever seen, to be honest. And when I later lived in the UK nearly every "stranger killing"--serial murder or not--would get acres of press coverage.

In my experience other western nations are no less likely to exalt murder coverage, and the US has no monopoly on sensationalist crime coverage. I think the increased media coverage in the US is actually caused by, not the result of, more serial murders. If Canada or the UK had the same number of serial murder, I think you'd see as much media coverage...in the UK, which has an incredibly sensationalist media presence, probably more.



On the face of it this seems like a compelling argument. But a little further analysis seems to break down that theory. Firstly, economic inequality has dramatically increased in the US since the 1990s, but by all indicators violent crime has decreased since then--and so too has serial killing. Secondly, the US has historically seen hotspots of serial killing not in areas where poverty was greatest but often in areas where the economy has been booming--think of California in the 1970's and 1980's. If we were to take the economic theory of serial killing we might assume that the vast majority of serial killers are poor or working-class; that doesn't seem to be true, and in cases like the Unabomber or the (suspected) Kingsbury Run Murderer, they may come from very well-to-do backgrounds.

What seems to be more important to the preponderance of serial killers is not economic but societal alienation. Most serial killers are described as "loners", as societal misfits, as people who have a hard time connecting with others. Historically, high levels of serial killing are seen in places where there is political or social breakdown--Europe during the world wars, post-Soviet Eastern Europe, South Africa during apartheid. To some extent, the US has been suffering from societal breakdown over the last 60 years. As people have become more mobile, communities break down, and community involvement is disappearing. I think southern California is a prime example of an area where community is all but non-existent, and perhaps it's no surprise that it was for many years the capital of serial murder.

I live near Niagara Falls, NY, across the river from Niagara Falls, Ontario. The difference in community involvement is night and day. On the Canadian side of the border there are clubs, activities, sports groups, all sorts of things for people to do together. On the US side, there's nothing--there's the occasional community revitalization group, but so much of it is band-aids on an amputated limb. The only places to congregate are bars and casinos. It's no surprise that the teen crime rate in on the US side is sky high--there is nothing to do and no reason to be part of the community.

And alongside of that is a lack of community support for those in trouble. People going through a bad time in the US are pretty much on their own, not just economically but socially. When I was going through a bad time in England, there were so many options for support available: there was a mental health group I joined for free, there was a sports club that I joined for exercise and camaraderie, and there was a community education group which I taught for and met people from all income groups and education levels. Here in the US, there's really nothing like that, even if you have the money for those things. Sure there's continuing education and country clubs and things like that, but it almost seems like they divide people more than they join them. Outsiders certainly don't feel welcome. I've joined a couple of groups here and I haven't lasted more than a week or two--I just did not feel like I was wanted there.

And that, I think, is what accounts for higher levels of serial killing in the US. When there are so many people who fall through the cracks of American society, and who do not feel welcome anywhere--some of them are going to feel like their lives have no value, and a violent few are going to feel like it's others' lives that have no value.

Great post.

I am from Canada and I have lived in the U.S. and England, as well. I second much of what you have said. It is simply incorrect that the Canadian media downplays crime. Our media is not as sensationalistic as the media in the U.S. and the U.K., but they certainly do cover crime extensively when it happens. The fact is, we simply don't have as much crime. I think that the blanket, breathless coverage given to crime in the U.S. makes Americans feel less secure, but I'm not sure if it actually causes more crime.

Also, it is true that the U.S. has a large population and an active media, meaning that, in raw numbers, there are more serial killers than in smaller countries and that we hear more about them. But surely where the "rubber hits the road" in this discussion is the per capita numbers of serial killers. Is this number actually significantly higher in the U.S.? I know that it is for crime statistics overall (compared to other western countries), but I don't know much about serial killers.

I completely agree with you regarding the breakdown of communities. In Canada, as you know, we particularly see this significant problem in parts of Toronto. It begins with the breakdown of the family unit. Young people, especially, feel as though they don't belong anywhere and, of course, gangs are there to fill the void. These disaffected young people grow up without respect for the value of life, and then we see the results: street crime, usually involving illegal guns.

Precisely.



I disagree with this statement. Firearms do not provide a temptation to the average individual who would otherwise be disinclined towards violence to "pull a trigger". If one is set to cause injury or death to another person, he or she will do it through whatever means are available to that person. But that's all I want to say.

(I'm hoping to high heaven we'll be able to avoid a gun debate here on the board, because to say I'm tired of hearing nonsense from both sides of this recently invigorated issue would be the understatement of the century.)

I agree. I mean if you were going to be on the anti gun side of the argument, I would think the last thing you'd want to touch is serial killers, since the great majority of them don't use guns in their crimes.

I agree. I mean if you were going to be on the anti gun side of the argument, I would think the last thing you'd want to touch is serial killers, since the great majority of them don't use guns in their crimes.

Really? Most I've read used guns on their victims, or at least accosted them with one.

On the face of it this seems like a compelling argument. But a little further analysis seems to break down that theory. Firstly, economic inequality has dramatically increased in the US since the 1990s, but by all indicators violent crime has decreased since then--and so too has serial killing. Secondly, the US has historically seen hotspots of serial killing not in areas where poverty was greatest but often in areas where the economy has been booming--think of California in the 1970's and 1980's. If we were to take the economic theory of serial killing we might assume that the vast majority of serial killers are poor or working-class; that doesn't seem to be true, and in cases like the Unabomber or the (suspected) Kingsbury Run Murderer, they may come from very well-to-do backgrounds.

What seems to be more important to the preponderance of serial killers is not economic but societal alienation. Most serial killers are described as "loners", as societal misfits, as people who have a hard time connecting with others. Historically, high levels of serial killing are seen in places where there is political or social breakdown--Europe during the world wars, post-Soviet Eastern Europe, South Africa during apartheid. To some extent, the US has been suffering from societal breakdown over the last 60 years. As people have become more mobile, communities break down, and community involvement is disappearing. I think southern California is a prime example of an area where community is all but non-existent, and perhaps it's no surprise that it was for many years the capital of serial murder.


Well, I was referring more to all homicides, not specifically focusing on serial murder. I fully agree with the negative impact of social alienation - lack of human development is part of the triad of factors that was mentioned in the UNODC study. There is not one factor that checks all the boxes, but in the regions where there are higher rates of homicide, there is a strong link between economic disadvantage and lack of community outreach and support. I also agree that when you have a transient, mobile, non homogeneous population, there is going to be a decrease in community support and structure, but it's part of a variety of factors that come into play. I don't feel that serial killers who murder for excitement necessarily do so because they feel socially alienated themselves, rather they use societal breakdown to their advantage - people not noticing or reporting suspicious behavior, police in varying jurisdictions not sharing information, and the murders or disappearance of transient victims, such as prostitutes, street people and hitchhikers not being linked.

Crime rates in the U.S. are at their lowest since the early 1960's. Several factors seem to be at play - increased police presence, increased incarceration for offenders, the declining crack cocaine market, and legalized abortion (less child abuse and neglect, which is one of the more significant contributors to future violent behavior). It may be that some states have previously had higher rates of crime, due in part to a rapid influx of population, but even in those states that have higher median incomes, the greatest concentration of homicides are in communities that have had more income disparities and economic disadvantages, such as Oakland, CA.

Per capita murder rates by state for the U.S.:

http://i.imgur.com/mEDZk.png

Was California truly more of a hotbed for serial killing, or is that a perception based on homicide rates in the region overall? The Pacific Northwest is often noted as a hotbed for the notorious serial homicides that have occurred there, but there doesn't seem to be any statistics bolstering that claim. Along with that is the stereotypical definition of a serial homicide - the myth of the dysfunctional loner who operates interstate and kills strangers. Was Ted Kaczynski a 'typical' serial killer? That seems to be doubtful - he was alienated from society in a manner that most serial offenders don't seem to be, obtained higher education than most murderers and killed victims from a distance and by a atypical method. The FBI currently notes that most serial killers, regardless of their motivations, reside in or near the communities where they kill, are gainfully employed and have families. Is the gang member who has killed in multiple incidents a serial killer? How about the perpetrator who murders during the course of a robbery, then later kills a relative in a petty dispute? I think that they both are, and they're more common than the Bundys of the world, but often they're not as notorious or publicized.

Really? Most I've read used guns on their victims, or at least accosted them with one.


I don't know who you have read about, but the most famous ones killed their victims by strangulation or blundgeoning with the aid of things like handcuffs. Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy, Ridgeway, the Boston Strangler. Jack the Ripper and the Toso Slayer used a knife. A couple of them might have used a gun at some point to aid them, but it certainly wasn't the main method of death.

Yeah there are a few excepitions, like the I-70 killer, Berkowitz, and Aileen Wuornos. But all in all, serial killers mostly prefer more personal methods of murder than guns.