Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Per statistics from the Decade of the 2000's, provided in thread, serial killings dropped by 300%, in the US. Why?
Lead was removed from the environment, higher overall intelligence and less violent tendencies were inevitable, as a result crime of all types have gone down, dramatically. 9%  9%  [ 2 ]
Law Enforcement became much more efficient, in preventing serial killings. 17%  17%  [ 4 ]
The serial killers have gotten better at hiding their crimes. 22%  22%  [ 5 ]
Who needs to engage in actual serial killing, when an unlimited amount of free porn/violence, is available, with a Google search, to satisfy most any vicarious need. 35%  35%  [ 8 ]
Other. Please comment in thread. 17%  17%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 23

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

15 Jan 2012, 3:54 pm

Dox47 wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
It's also not like you can be made into a sociopath rather than being born one either...


this is actually a big point of contention, it's not clear that sociopathy isn't actually environmental in origin.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

15 Jan 2012, 4:41 pm

peebo wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
It's also not like you can be made into a sociopath rather than being born one either...


this is actually a big point of contention, it's not clear that sociopathy isn't actually environmental in origin.


I've heard an unofficial distinction that 'psychopaths' are the ones with genetically wonky amygalae and 'sociopaths' are created. If you meet either, call them a psychopath because it's not like they can defend themselves with 'No, I'm just a sociopath'.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

15 Jan 2012, 5:29 pm

An insane nuclear warlord makes a serial killer look like a boy scout.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

15 Jan 2012, 6:03 pm

Here is an article that suggests that there is only one salient feature that separates a hero from a sociopath, and that is the ability to see past one's own needs. They relate genetics to both and don't differentiate a sociopath from a psychopath,

http://www.science20.com/rogue_neuron/addicted_being_good_psychopathology_heroism-60137

Quote:
Sociopath:
low impulse control
high novelty-seeking (desire to experience new things, take more risks, break convention
no remorse for their actions (lack of conscience)
inability to see beyond their own needs (lack of empathy
willing to break rules
always acts in the interest of himself

X-altruist:
low impulse control
high novelty-seeking
little remorse for their actions (would "do it again in a heartbeat")
inability to see past the needs of others (very high empathy)
willing to break rules
acts in the best interest of others, or for the "common good" (because it is the "right thing to do")


There are many instances in history of good guy gone bad.

It is possible that the genetics between a sociopath and a hero are very similiar, and environmental agents of all kinds, make the difference if one turns their efforts inward or outward.

When the nation is at war the opportunity is there for individuals of all economic backgrounds to strive to be the hero, for the greater cause.

Timothy McVeigh comes to mind, a very troubled individual headed in a bad, bad direction that found a temporary purpose, mission, and success in the military, only to become lost again after the short, first gulf war, and we all know what the result of that was.

Perhaps the most unusual part of the period spanning '75 to 2001, was an extended period without direct conflict with other nations, except for the first gulf war, peaking in the 80's along with the peak of reported serial killings.

For some with troubled childhoods, the military and combat, may be the difference for a few that separates a hero from a serial killer.

Perhaps defense of some type of common enemy is part of the tribal instinct, and when there is none, the tribe must search for another focus, resulting in interesting results.

The last five years of vietnam along with Nixon and Watergate, shattered the illusion of nation for some. 9/11 brought it back in a huge way, until disillusion became the norm again.

The point I'm getting at is Violent Video games, many that focus on war time elements, online or off, allow most anyone to strive to be a hero, in a vicarious way.

The longer we went without war the more popular that genre of video games became, starting in the early nineties, flooding the market by the end of that decade, and by the time the next war started in 2001, the opportunity to be a vicarious hero at home and one abroad, were both available.

Not everyone can be a war time hero, a football star, famous musician, politician, CEO, or movie star, but most anyone can exert those energies into a vicarious reality provided by a video game.

Who knows, perhaps violent video games, change some potential villains, into vicarious heroes.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

15 Jan 2012, 6:20 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
An insane nuclear warlord makes a serial killer look like a boy scout.


What's even scarier, is within their subculture they are neither considered insane, psychopath or sociopath, and likely respected as a hero.

What is villain and what is hero, in this case, depends on the socio-cultural norm.

It is what makes eventual nuclear conflict, almost a certainty; primates whom will always have different socio-cultural norms among different groups, baring their teeth at each other.

And when that socio-cultural norm becomes an illusion beyond the reality of this world, the only limits of destruction, are the limits of the tools available to assist in that destruction.

The most compelling reason to separate church from state, and it's hard enough to keep it separate in a country that insists that it is their ideology.



goddam87
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1

29 Apr 2014, 1:33 am

Why is it so widely accepted that law enforcement is doing a better job in identifying and capturing serial killers? Law enforcements track record has never been great, Gary Ridgeway is a perfect example. There was a rash amount of convictions once new technology was introduced (DNA, etc) however that technology is general knowledge now.
I imagime serial killers of today would be more inclined to stay under the radar, and leave less evidence where as in the past trophies were left.
Law enforcement may simply be more pre occupied with the internet, spree killing, and terroristic crime than in the past when serial killers were public enemy #1.
When the zodiac stopped communication, the case dried up. My point is, serial killers have the huge advantage of playing offense and law enforcement has never been great on defense, it is probably more likely that the new age serial killer has evolved into a more undetectable individual than it is they declined.