Serial Killers: the Modern Frankenstein The phrase serial killer conjures images of individuals who have gone

down in infamy. The multitude of motives behind serial killers actions varies immensely. The central focus of the study is not why these individuals kill, but what transformed them into the monsters they are portrayed to be. Are serial killers natural born killers who are genetically designed to perform the heinous crimes they are notorious for? Or are serial killers normal people that are twisted so badly by the individuals close to them that depravity seems to be the only answer for them? The purpose behind this research is to provide evidence that the controversial nature v. nurture debate fails to be as clear cut when it comes to serial killers. Given the wealth of information surrounding this topic, the conclusion that serial killers are not born into healthy family lives can be drawn. There are numerous external factors that attribute to the actions of serial killers. To further explain, this document will explore the nurture side of the debate and give case studies as examples to support the text. It is said that human beings come into this world with a blank brain, which is only able to be structured through socialization (Voland 197). An easy way to understand this is by using the metaphor that the human brain is a computer with its own complicated hardware and wiring, but no software to run it (Voland 197). The software element can be considered the norms of society and the environment from which the child is brought up. Environmental influences are crucial to the development of the personality through a magnitude of aspects: they characterize how the human personality evolves; they help create a large assortment of skills, values, identities, and attitudes; and they allow for the expression of personality traits (McCrae 175). Throughout his research Doctor Michael H. Stone has discovered multiple traits and characteristics, from the nurture perspective, in which a vast amount of both killers and serial

killers have in common (201-202). The most popular traits are: parental cruelty/physical abuse; severe parental neglect; severe parental verbal abuse; death of a parent; and parental sexual abuse, with subsequent hypersexuality (Stone 202). These traits have occurred during their childhood when the serial killers were still acquiring their basic software1. This loading of corrupted information tends to shape the child into thinking that such traits are normal. The child may not necessary accept that this is normal but nonetheless acts out what is done to them upon others as a way of escape. A quotation from McCrae and Costa speaks about the significance of parental influence upon children: The Influence of parents on their children is surely incalculable: they nourish and protect them, teach them to walk and talk, instill habits, aversions, and values, and provide some of the earliest models for social interaction and emotional regulation. (107) The most appropriate example on the nurture debate and the effect of parental influence on children is the case of Mary Bell, recognized as one of the youngest serial killers on record. Mary Bell was labeled as being a bad seed, and a child born evil, (Ramsland 171). Her mother was a prostitute and professional dominatrix who gave birth to Mary when she was sixteen (Stone 258). Her mothers sadism was not just used on her clients but on Mary as well. She attempted multiple times to kill Mary before she was even one (Stone 258). When Mary got older, she was forced to perform fellatio on her mothers clients among other things (Stone 258). On various occasions, Mary was whipped and nearly drowned by her mother (Stone 258). It was not astonishing when Mary started to act out herself by killing cats and birds (Stone 259). Mary then upgraded her violent acts by throwing her three-year-old cousin over an Referring to previous paragraph in which the human brain was compared to a complicated computer with no software to run it.
1

embankment, which he survived and the situation was written off as a childish prank, and she then later tried to strangle some little girls in a play area (Stone 259). However, in April of 1968 Mary increased her violent acts to actual murder. At the age of ten, Mary strangled a four-year-old, Martin Brown, and disfigured him with a sharp instrument (Ramsland 170). Roughly two months later, Mary with the help of a friend killed a three-year-old, Brian Howes (Ramsland 170). Mary later returned to Brians body and tried to castrate him and carved the letter M onto his belly (Stone 259). Mary was caught because she was seen outside of Brians house on the day of his funeral laughing coldly when his casket was brought out (Ramsland 170). She was brought in for questioning where her cold description of the events was too detailed for anyone to know other than the killer (Ramsland 170). Mary was later convicted of manslaughter. The case of Mary Bell demonstrates nurture because she was raised in a hellish family throughout her young life. She fits four out of the five2 popular characteristics/traits of Michael H. Stones nurture checklist. It is believed that Mary did not understand the concept of death at the times of the murders (Stone 259). She strangled the boys and castrated Brian to act out against the atrocities that were happening to her at home (Stone 259). After Mary was taken out of her mothers sadistic grasp, due to the murders, she eventually became better. It wasnt until Mary was later released, married, and had children of her own that she realized the enormity of her crimes (Stone 260). This is a special case because not only did it demonstrate that living in a nightmarish environment will cause someone to become a monster, but it exhibited that living in a supportive atmosphere can help someone overcome these issues and become a decent member of society. Nature may not be the sole force in creating serial killers, but it does factor into their unusual behaviors. There are numerous individuals who may have a personality/behavioral The only trait Mary did not fit was the death of a parent. It needs to be stated that Mary never knew who her father was as well.
2

disorder, which hinders their capability to fit in society, however, this one condition, does not make them serial killers. The most common method that nature contributes to the serial killer population is through personality disorders, more specifically psychopathy. In the biographic records of Michael H. Stone, eighty-seven percent of the 145 serial killers were psychopathic (209). Serial killers with the psychopathic disorder make them even more dangerous because they go above and beyond to show the traits of being callous, remorseless, deceitful, and narcissistic (Stone 210). Their most important characteristic is their lack of compassion for their victims. Even those who lead double lives, such as Juan Corona and Gary Ridgway, hold compassion for their families and show absolutely none for their victims (Stone 210). The case of the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway, shows how a true psychopathic serial killer can hold no compassion for his victims but still appear otherwise. Garys mother was very attractive but also cruel (Stone 239). Gary would be forced to walk around naked in front of his two brothers while being mocked whenever he wet his bed; also, his mother would also force him to stand in a cold bathtub naked while she, herself half-naked, would stare at his genitals (Stone 239). His mothers constant cruelty caused Gary to start dreaming about killing her and other women with a knife (Stone 239). Gary began his serial killing career after he considered his wife a whore because she cheated on him (Stone 239). Between the years 1982 and 1984, forty-nine young women (mainly prostitutes) were either strangled or stabbed to death, and their bodies were left at various wooded areas (Schechter 367). Even though Gary Ridgway was a psychopathic serial killer who was later captured in 2001 when DNA forensic technology improved (Schechter 367), Gary was thought to be a friendly and helpful neighbor (Stone 239). Gary went to church, read the bible, and encouraged friends and

neighbors to take God into their lives (Stone 239). Even when being questioned by the FBI, he was calm and friendly until they brought up why he dumped the women; in which, he suddenly switched his moods becoming angry and declared, The women were garbage! (Stone 239-240). On any account Gary seemed to be truly in love with his third wife Judith. On a 2007 episode of the Montel Williams TV show Judith stated, during the years we were together, the frequency of his killings declined, as though he was finally happy enough, once he was with a good woman, that the destructive urge was no longer so strong (Stone 239). She of course did not know her husband was the Green River Killer at the time of their marriage. Gary was convicted of forty-eight murders, but he was suspected of over seventy. The case of Gary Ridgway demonstrates how nature may have an impact on an individuals personality, but it is nurture which is the true reason why a serial killer becomes what they are. Gary may have had the psychopathic disorder; however, Garys troubled childhood, due to his mothers abuse, is what shaped him. Gary killed women as a way to get back at his mother. The reason why an individual with the psychopathic disorder can still not be a serial killer is because of the instrument questionnaire developed by Robert Hare (Stone 116). The psychopathy checklist is divided into two main factors: one for personality/emotion, the other for behavior (Stone 116). The checklist was created from interviews and records from thousands of people in prisons and forensic hospitals (Stone 116). If a person has every trait of the personality/emotion side of the checklist they still would not be considered a psychopath. Even though the personality traits on the checklist are not likely to change throughout ones life, nevertheless, the behavior traits are likely to change over time (Stone 118). Those who only have the personality traits are considered the white-collar psychopaths (Stone 118). These white-collar psychopaths are an ideal example of how nurture is the only way

an individual becomes a serial killer. The white-collar psychopaths are given the natural personality which many serial killers are notorious for, but without a horrible environment to mold and shape them, they become corrupted politicians and businessman for example. They may be bad people but they are not killers. In brief, the phrase bad seed refers to the concept that a psychopathic child can grown up in a normal, stable, and loving environment (Schechter 255). This term is incorrect. There have been no records of serial killers growing up in the best families, and by best families it is meant: a caring, loving household, where values are instilled, and there is a sense of security (Schechter 256). Even though there is still an ongoing debate onto what degree a bad family contributes to the creation of a serial killer, and the types of mistreatment that serial killers have received in childhood vary from case to case. There is one thing that is sure, that there are no serial killers from wholesome family backgrounds all of them are products of dysfunction (Schechter 256).

Works Cited McCrae, Robert R., et al. "Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78.1 (2000): 173-186. PsycARTICLES. Web. 16 July 2010. McCrae, Robert R., and P.T. Jr. Costa. "The paradox of parental influence: Understanding retrospective studies of parent-child relations and adult personality." Parenting and psychopathology. (1994): 107. Print. Ramsland, Katherine. The Human Predator: A Historical Chronicle of Serial Murder and Forensic Investigation. New York, NY: the Penguin Group, 2007. 162-229. Print. Schechter, Harold. The Serial Killer Files. New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group, 2003. 255-366. Print. Stone, Michael. The Anatomy of Evil. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2009. 116-283. Print. Voland, Eckart. "Nature or nurture?--the debate of the century, a category error, and the illuminating impact of evolutionary psychology." European Psychologist 5.3 (2000): 196-199. PsycARTICLES. Web. 16 July 2010.