The Sanity of Serial Killers
The media sensationalizes the common misconceptions of serial killers. News projections and media coverage magnify the trepidation of serial killing. Movie and tv productions aid significantly in portraying serial killers as insane and unable to control their actions. We ground the most common misconceptions of serial killers on the mental well-being and the makeup of the person behind the killings. We often hyperbolize the classifications and personality traits of serial killers to intensify dismay and, in return, false dispositions bloom.
The most prominent myth is based on the perception that all serial killers are insane and have a debilitating mental illness that prompts them to commit their crimes. People often trust that serial killers cannot control when they kill. It is easy to brush off a serial killer as insane and unaware in order to provide solace in why someone would execute such a horrific crime. Anyone who would carefully choose victims and dismember bodies appears out of their mind insane, but the shocking verity reveals that these killers are fully cognizant of their crimes.
The media plays a large part in creating the horror that stems from a serial killer’s actions. “Probing the mind of a serial killer,” states “when you hear about a serial killing, and see and hear just part of the actual details of these events from the all-pervasive TV network news, your first reaction is that the killer is insane. You’d have to be ‘crazy’ to even think of the things that were done! But those killings are frightening, horrifying, and, at the same time, somewhat compelling. The media knows this and plays to all these feelings.” The media serves as a constant reminder that a serial killer could be lurking in the dark, waiting for his next victim.
Cornell Law defines criminal insanity as a mental illness that prevents the defendant from understanding that his actions were wrong. To be declared criminally insane, the defendant must prove that they were ignorant of the crime committed by their own hands at the time of the incident. Psychology Today in “Serial Killers: Insane or Super Intelligent” states “in an argument, some debate this issue with, ‘How can a human repetitively kill other humans and not be insane?’ While on the surface, that would seem logical, nonetheless, that is not true. The current requirement for a diagnosis of insanity is that the offender did not understand that the murder was wrong in the legal sense when the murder occurred. Because of this requirement, serial killers very seldom meet the criteria.” By definition, the killer must not be aware during the time of the crime that it was an unlawful act which is very hard to prove based on the number of times a serial killer murders his victims.
Most serial killers know well that killing is criminal and that their actions are immoral and shameful. The acknowledgment of their crime implicates a killer’s guilty verdict due to them being conscious during the crime. We know this because they hide their crimes and struggle to resist them. When a serial killer is in hiding in order to evade detection, he is admitting that he knows the killings he committed are morally wrong and that he will be punished for his actions if the police were to find him. The efforts to continue the series of murder and evade detection is a clear indicator that the killer is in their right mind and does not want to be arrested. Only an insane killer would not make a substantial effort to evade the police due to the definition of insanity that they are unaware of the illegality of the crime. The exhilaration of the kill can cause the killer to lose control over their actions, but just because the killer loses control doesn’t mean he is unaware of what he is doing. Proof of insanity is hard to come across since we cannot simply know whether the person was aware of their crime. Serial killers are notoriously good at hiding the lifestyle they live and often trick the public into believing they are normally law-abiding citizens, so it would be very easy for them to deceive others into believing they were unaware of their crimes.
The scary reality is that serial killers are only declared legally insane 1% of the time. We may find great relief that it is rare for a legally insane killer to be lurking in the shadows, but the terrifying truth is that most serial killers are perfectly lucid when looked at in a legal sense, which allows them to go unsuspected. In fact, many serial killers lead normal lives that deceive others. The only successful case of the legal insanity defense in the case of a serial killer was Ed Gein. The legally insane defense is very hard to prove and not given lightly. Legal insanity is almost never granted because the criteria surrounding it specifically states that if the killer is aware of the wrongdoings of their actions, then they are in a sane mind. I find this ruling on insanity fair on account of the deceitful disposition serial killers portray in their everyday life.
From my research, I have been able to conclude that almost all serial killers are sane and aware of the crimes they have committed. Serial killers often stalk areas and potential victims. They create plans and decide to attack when they believe they can do so without getting caught. Serial killings have a large sense of premeditation that makes it almost impossible for someone to not be aware of their actions before they target and execute their victim. Many serial killers often target a specific victimology type that has similar features which show their consciousness to target and lure a specific victim. Essentially, although their crimes are viewed as insane acts, we cannot declare the killer insane due to the substantial planning and preparation it takes to choose and murder a victim, all while going unsuspected by the public.
Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer is notoriously known for being the most brutal and cruel serial killer. He lured in his victims and slowly dismembered them while performing sexual activities with the bodies and later cannibalizing their body parts. Although Jeffery’s crimes were so sickening, he was fully aware of what he had done and wanted an explanation from a psychiatrist why he committed such awful acts of violence. The acknowledgment of guilt and the attempt at trying not to kill disqualified him from being able to be declared legally insane because he knew what he had done was wrong and that he enjoyed the pleasure from the kills.
There were even many occasions where Jeffrey claims to repress his urges to kill. Dahmer claims to have a disinclination to killing so much that he had to drink in order to gain the courage. After his first kill, Dahmer attempted to not kill again. To resist the urge to kill, Dahmer tried to stop drinking and go to college. After failing out of Ohio State, Jeffery joined the military, where he remained dormant from killing. After being discharged, he was sent to live with his grandmom and that is when the killings began again. The attempt at remaining dormant provides evidence that Dahmer was aware of his actions and knew that they would convict him for them if he did not conceal them.
The thrill of the kill can cause serial killers to lose control over what they are doing. But just because the killer can lose control doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know what he is doing. After returning from a dormant period, serial killings often overkill their victims as a sense of relief from the built-up urges and desires. Overkill is the excessive use of force that goes further than necessary in order to complete a task. The act of overkill demonstrates how the killer loses control during the act of murder. What keeps overkill from being defined as insane is that the killer already killed their victim, but the excitement overtook them, causing them to go overboard. The killer was conscious when they lured their victim and killed them. Repeated blows to the victim’s already dead body constitutes as overkill. Due to the knowledge and awareness of the killer when repressing these feelings and killing again, legal insanity can not be concluded from an instance of overkill.
Serial killers target a specific victimology type in which they kill. It has been found in most cases that all the killer’s victims resemble each other. The behaviors and the nature of the crime can tell investigators a lot about the killer. If each murder was executed the same way or with the same type of victim, it then becomes easy for the court to argue that the killer repeats these actions in all his kills and therefore is consciously aware of the victims he is choosing and how he is choosing to kill them. “Probing the mind of a serial killer” explains “In evaluating a ritualistic serial killer with a compulsive personality a well-trained psychologist or psychiatrist can find enough information to show that the individual was aware of the quality in nature of the act they were committing. This is because the rituals and compulsions of these individuals appear to indicate logical thinking.”
On the other hand, it is very ubiquitous for serial killers to suffer from mental illnesses such as antisocial disorder, conduct disorder, and psychopathy. The effects of these disorders manifest as what seems to look like insanity and can often lead people to believe serial killers are insane. But these illnesses are not the sole reason a person becomes a serial killer. These disorders do not and should not qualify a killer to obtain a not guilty by reason of insanity defense. There are many people who have received these diagnoses but have not gone to the extreme levels that serial killers have. The emission of these mental illnesses does not take away the level of consciousness of the killer. The presence of illnesses may hold a factor in causing serial killings, but plenty of times, the killer is aware of the actions he has committed.
The insanity defense leaves us ambivalent about what the right sentencing should be. The media have convinced us that serial killers are insane maniacs that can’t control their actions, but we do not want serial killers to be excused based on a ramification. The courts agree. Only once has a serial killer successfully been granted the “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea. Serial killers aren’t insane but logical, careful, and well aware of their criminality. They hide their flaws and deceitfulness to gain the trust of the community. Serial killers lack empathy and compassion, but not rationality. If there was a “not guilty by reason of psychoneurotic”, then all serial killers would qualify.
Works Cited
Apsche, J. A. (1993). “Probing the mind of a serial killer” –. Eprintedbooks. http://www.eprintedbooks.com/Samplers/Sampler_Probing_the_Mind_of_a_Serial_Kiler-Dr_Jack_Apsche.pdf
Lampley, S. (n.d.). “Serial killers: Insane or super intelligent?” Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/captivating-crimes/202006/serial-killers-insane-or-super-intelligent
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
I would like overall feedback on if it make a strong rebuttal argument.
I will do that in a moment, but first, a word on robust verbs.
Please notice the weak and passive verbs here, Shxrkbait.
Scan your paragraph for nouns and adjectives that could serve as verbs in other forms: Misconceive. Cover. Project. Portray. Exaggerate.
And others you might have to import: Sensationalize. Deceive. Fearmonger.
And when you have a chance to portray the serial killer, you use “mental well-being,” “personality traits,” and “makeup.”
When we talk about things, we get the verbs right. When we sit down to calmly describe the same things for a paper, we shrink from the obvious and sanitize our language. Why? The robust verbs do it better. The language of our conversations communicates more effectively.
Unmasking the Truth Behind the Sanity of Serial Killers
—Your title it ambiguous. It seems to say there’s a truth hiding behind the Sanity.
—”The Sanity of Serial Killers” says what you mean, right?
The most prominent misconception is based on the idea that all serial killers are insane and have a debilitating mental illness that causes them to commit their crimes. People often believe that serial killers lose control and cannot control when they kill. It is easy to brush off a serial killer as insane and unaware in order to provide comfort as to why someone would commit such a horrific crime.
—This paragraph is almost done.
—Instead of the Rhetorical Question, close it with a clear statement that the common perception is wrong.
New Paragraph: The media play a large role in creating the fear and monster that stems from a serial killer. “Probing the mind of a serial killer” states “When you hear about a serial killing, and see and hear just part of the actual details of these events from the all-pervasive TV network news, your first reaction is that the killer is insane. You’d have to be “crazy” to even think of the things that were done! But, those killings are frightening, horrifying, and, at the same time, somewhat compelling. The media knows this and plays to all these feelings.”
The scary thing is that serial killers are only declared legally insane 1% of the time.
—This is deeply ambiguous.
—We can’t tell whether you agree that only 1% of serial killers are insane.
—What’s scary about that?
—What you mean is, “We might take some solace in believing that only the rare insane criminal could possibly kills people in sequence for pleasure, but the frightening truth is that they’re not insane at all.”
The only successful case of the legal insanity defense in the case of a serial killer was Ed Gein. Although their crimes seem insane the killer is not actually insane. The legally insane defense is very hard to prove and not given lightly.
—Again, is your point that the proof is hard because they’re NOT insane? Or are you disappointed that so few insane criminals can qualify for the defense because it’s flawed or too narrow or too difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
Psychology Today in “Serial Killers: Insane or Super Intelligent” states “In an argument, some debate this issue with, “How can a human repetitively kill other humans and not be insane?” While on the surface, that would seem logical, nonetheless, that is not true.
—All of this is quite abstract and would benefit from specific examples, which you will eventually provide, but too late.
—If you presented the basics in a paragraph or two, 1) Most serial killers are sane; 2) The definition of criminal insanity is the “inability to appreciate that killing is wrong; 3) Killers know quite well that they’re violating the most basic moral codes; 4) Let’s examine some cases . . . .
—We would know then, as you introduce us to Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer, what to look for: your evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong, immoral, criminal, punishable by law.
Cornell Law defines criminal insanity as referring to when a crime is committed and a mental illness or disease prevents the defendant from understanding how their actions were wrong.
—You don’t indicate whether this definition (which is quite vague, by the way) meets with your approval or not.
Many have tried to use the criminal insanity defense in the past but the decision comes down to a judge, jury, and forensic psychologists who work together to determine the mental state of the defendant during the time the crimes were committed.
—OK, but . . .
Those who have been unsuccessful in an insanity plea are capable of knowing the crime they committed and that it is against the law.
—OK, but . . .
When a serial killer is in hiding in order to evade detection, he is admitting that he knows the killings he committed are morally wrong and that he will be punished for his actions.
—Now you’re talking!
—This took so long.
What if your paragraph started:
The thrill of the kill can cause serial killers to lose control over what they are doing. But just because the killer can lose control doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know what he is doing.
—There’s a good example of making your point of view clear, quickly and timely.
When intense feelings of pleasure build up a serial killer can black out and go into overkill. This happens especially when a serial killer takes a break from killing and then returns to kill again. The repression of these built-up urges causes an intense desire that is unleashed as soon as the kill is executed. This instance would not classify a serial killer as insane. This is because the killer was conscious when they lured their victim and killed them. The killer doesn’t begin to go into overkill until the victim is already dead. Repeated blows to the victim’s already dead body constitutes as overkill. Due to the knowledge and awareness of the killer when repressing these feelings and beginning to kill again, legal insanity can not be concluded from an instance of overkill.
—This explanation is hard to follow.
—You lead us to believe it’s an interruption to a series.
—But then the “until the victim is already dead” sentence sounds like blackout and overkill occur during a single instance.
—The blows to a dead body is clearly one victim, but back in the second sentence we thought overkill was too many killings leading to a break . . . .
—Still not sure I know which is the case.
Serial killers largely have a certain targeted audience in which they kill. A serial killer will often have a typology in which he kills and it will be found that all of his victims resemble each other in one way or another. The behaviors and the nature of the crime can tell investigators a lot about the killer. If each murder was executed the same way or with the same type of victim, it then becomes easy for the court to argue that the killer repeats these actions in all his kills and therefore is consciously aware of the victims he is choosing and how he is choosing to kill them. “Probing the mind of a serial killer” explains “In evaluating a ritualistic serial killer with a compulsive personality a well-trained psychologist or psychiatrist can find enough information to show that the individual was aware of the quality in nature of the act they were committing. This is because the rituals and compulsions of these individuals appear to indicate logical thinking.”
—I’ve crudely reorganized this paragraph for clarity. We have no idea what it’s meant to prove until the hints at the end, so I moved them up.
—This is a pattern in your writing, Shxrk. You introduce a topic, make general claims, introduce some evidence, then point back to “JUST PASSED SCENIC VIEWS.”
[Personally, I suspect that a killer could be BOTH criminally insane and also logical, thoughtful, thorough, scrupulous, attentive to ritual, and completely aware of the horrific nature of his actions. His insanity lies in his understanding that society will condemn the killings, but he believes the laws do not apply to him.]
On the other hand, it is very common for serial killers to suffer from mental illnesses such as antisocial disorder, conduct disorder, and psychopathy.
—So . . . follow this up with a clear statement either way.
—Those illnesses DO or DO NOT qualify the killer for a “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense?
—And are you good with that, or are you here to argue that there’s something wrong with the definition?
The effects of these disorders manifest as what seems to look like insanity and can often lead people to believe serial killers are insane. Those who suffer from these illnesses are typically loners who have inept social skills. They lack the essential feelings of empathy and remorse for others. Violent and homicidal tendencies are also often associated with these disorders. The emission of these mental illnesses does not however take away the consciousness of the killer. The presence of illnesses may hold a factor in causing serial killings but plenty of times the killer is aware of the actions he has committed.
—All the way to the end of the paragraph, readers still don’t know the answers to the questions I asked above.
Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was notorious for being the most brutal and cruel serial killer alive. He lured in his victims and slowly dismembered them while performing sexual activities with the bodies and later cannibalizing their body parts. Although Jeffery’s crimes were so sickening, he was fully aware of what he had done. There were numerous occasions where he even tried to keep himself from murdering several times. The acknowledgment of guilt disqualified him from being able to be declared legally insane because he knew what he had done was wrong and that he was sick-minded.
—This is deeply intriguing, but not satisfying, Shxrk.
—What I want most is examples of when and how Dahmer “tried to keep himself from murdering.”
—I also want you to explain that he was charming and persuasive, that he masked his intentions with flattery, with lies he knew to be untrue.
—We’re not convinced by your general statements.
The common misconception of serial killers is insane leads to harsh criticism by the public during the trial.
—What’s your point about the public? Why mention them here?
Only one serial killer who has pleaded insanity was actually granted this complex sentencing.
—And that’s because the definition is too restrictive?
—Or that’s because almost all serial killers are sane?
The coverage by the media has construed people’s opinions and has made others believe that serial killers are insane and cannot control their actions. When in fact, serial killers are the opposite. They are able to hide their flaws very well and present as charming and caring individuals. The ability to mask the truth of their inability to feel empathy and compassion is one that is methodically planned out in order the hide the frightening truth of the capability of their sanity.
—You eventually make your claims clear, but I’m going to revise this paragraph to remove ambiguity.
Provisionally graded.
This post is always eligible for Revisions and a Regrade.
I have revised my verbiage and made improvements. I would like feedback on how strong my rebuttal argument is and if I state my opinion strongly.
WordPress broke up all your revisions into tiny increments (often just a one word change got its own version), so tracking your changes was overly tedious. To be honest, many of the word swaps were not improvements. So I abandoned that fruitless system and just read the essay from top to bottom and regraded it on the basis of its overall strength.
And I changed you title since you ignored my good advice. 😉
Thank you for your feedback!