Is it normal i think we need to throw out the term 'serial killer'?

20% Normal

I think it's a bad term with an even worse definition. Seriously, look at the definition of a serial killer, it's TERRIBLE!! It's a useless definition. All it definitively says is that you've killed 2 to 3 people (they can't even agree on the minimum amount of killings!!) with an undefined 'cool off period' in between killings, regardless of motive, means, or anything else. The rest of it is just bullshit!! It essentially describes most people, to some extent anyway-plus, anything that doesn't fit, well...there's always the handy 'exception' You can be the 'sometimes' guy!! I think it was a bunch of overzealous criminal profilers who attributed too much criteria in the beginning when it was a new term and then have to keep allowing exceptions to the criteria, making it meaningless and indiscriminate.

There's too many exceptions, almosts and sometimes. There's too many subcategories. There's people lumped in together who have severe mental illness and many who don't have any mental illness.

Frankly, I'd be insulted to be called a serial killer if I 'technically' was one.

The only thing separating any of us from being labeled a serial killer is the body count.

is it normal to think the term and definition is awful and needs to be done away with?

Voting Results

20% Normal

Based on 84 votes (17 yes)

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!

[ Report Post ]

Comments ( 57 )

ebulliance

11 years ago | pl

Um... Most people haven't killed 2-3 people 0.o

Comment Hidden ( show )

11

11
[Old Memory]

11 years ago | pl

Thats the terms for the public. Within the FBI they class it as 3 killings with about a week in between each. So that the killings would have to take place over a month or so. If the killer doesn't last a month he's a spree killer. Mental illness has nothing to do with it, the term "serial killer" is broad because the people themselves cover a broad range. There is a point to the term, as it simply seperates some retard who goes postal/suicidal from built up anger one day (mass murderer), and someone out of control with no direction but with no apparent suicidal tendancy (spree killer). A serial killer is quite different as they don't want to die (infact they value themselves quite highly) and doesn't plan on getting seen or caught. Most of the former kill out of frustration, the latter kills for "enjoyment" and a sense of purpose they feel towards their actions. The serial killers aren't deranged like the other two and are bar two cases in history, always sane. There is quite a point in having the term, thats why it exists. Don't read internet bull, FBI profilers have written some great books on the topic.

Comment Hidden ( show )

7

7
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  I pretty much disagree with everything you said.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  -5
  
  -5
  - Imsupernormal
    
    11 years ago | pl
    
    I pretty much think you are a fucking retard.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    12
    
    12
    - Justsomejerk
      
      11 years ago
      
      ^ this
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      5
      
      5
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      That's high-functioning retard to you.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      -8
      
      -8
      - Imsupernormal
        
        11 years ago
        
        Well at least I'm not the one debating proven facts with a bunch of arguments from ignorance.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        2
        
        2
        
        -
        
        coolio75650932
        
        11 years ago
        
        oh buuuuuuuurn!
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
      - 800imawesome
        
        11 years ago
        
        So high functioning, in fact, that you like to debate facts, not opinions or theories
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
  - [Old Memory]
    
    11 years ago
    
    Well that explains why you don't get the term being used doesn't it. I agree with the FBI, because unlike you they know what they're talking about. It's their job. Also many of the things I mentioned are documented facts, so they aren't up for debate.
    
    It's 3 people min. It hasn't been 2-3 since the 80's.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    2
    
    2
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      Well the term spree killer is useless, according to law enforcement.
      
      It's all opinions. Guarantee you there's exceptions to every 'rule', which is why I find it useless.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - [Old Memory]
        
        11 years ago
        
        "The term spree killer is useless, according to law enforcement" Yeah law enforcement, not the profilers who invented the terms and whos job it is to catch them. Like i said if you read a book instead of the garbage on the net, you'd know that one of the reasons these people avoid capture so long is that "law enforcement" don't know dick about them, most cops never see a serial killer in their lifetime. The FBI has their own units that deal with serial killers.
        
        I guarantee you! There are no exceptions when you know the correct diagnostic terms, every one of them can be placed in either serial, mass or spree. You will not be able come up with one name mr high-functioning retard.
        
        And no shit you don't agree, if you knew what you were talking about then i wouldn't be posting this.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
        
        -
        
        Anonymous Post Author
        
        11 years ago
        
        Here's another GLARING example...the DC Sniper attacks (beltway sniper). Dismantle that one, genius.
        
        According to your 'guidelines', they are both spree AND serial killers. Again, confirming I am right. They killed several people in one day, and also carried out the killings over a 3 week period. Malvo and in some instances Muhammed also killed a few other people up to about a month BEFORE the beltway attacks started.
        
        There's so many more examples, but just admit, you're wrong.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
        
        Anonymous Post Author
        
        11 years ago
        
        I think if you read this information from the FBI you may realize you're wrong on most, if not all of your points.
        
        http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two
        
        From this publication:
        
        "The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement."
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
        
        Anonymous Post Author
        
        11 years ago
        
        The Unabomber....easy. I have more in mind but there's a real easy example. Methods+intent+results do not equal a simple definition of any of those terms.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
[Old Memory]

11 years ago

Well, there's criticism and then there's constructive criticism.

What do you suggest they call them instead?

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  I don't know, maybe the term can be kept but throw away the entire definition and finally agree on a minimum.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  -2
  
  -2
bleach_baby

11 years ago

"It essentially describes most people"

...wut

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  If you take away the killing part. They try too hard to define someone or something that has no boundaries.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - bleach_baby
    
    11 years ago
    
    That is because the term serial killer is a blanket term for someone who, you know, kills serially. It is not a psychological classification.
    
    That's like saying the word "pilot" is stupid, because aside from the fact that they fly planes, it describes most people.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    4
    
    4
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      On the surface, your pilot example may seem relevant, but we're not trying to pigeon-hole pilots, are we? We don't have myths, rules and general assumptions on why a person chooses to be a pilot. This is where the seemingly overzealous profilers come into play. What they have done with 'serial killer' is detrimental and useless.
      
      Do we assume that all pilots liked to play with toy planes as a kid? Some did, some didn't. There's more kids who played with planes as a kid that DIDN'T become pilots than did become one. Do we assume that all people who love planes will be pilots? No. Can we, or do we try, to predict who will become a pilot? No. We can't even if we wanted to, same with anything else.
      
      The many myths, misconceptions and furious attempts to connect all serial killers have done nothing but confuse the issue further and is detrimental to law enforcement. One of the reasons why some serial killers got away with things for as long as they did was not due to their smarts but due more to misconceptions that law enforcement had about the supposed 'nature and behavior' of serial killers.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      Yes, if they stopped at defining it as killing 'x' amount of people in a minimum of 'x' amount of time, then fine. BUT, they try to make too many connections or whatever that just aren't there nor are they unique to 'serial killers'.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - bleach_baby
        
        11 years ago
        
        If you get your definitions off Wikipedia, of course certain parts are going to be suspect. "Serial Killer" has a thousand different definitions, wikipedia has just conglomorated them to give a general overall definition. And don't say you didn't get this off Wiki cuz I just looked at the Wikipedia definiton and you definitly did. Speaking as a psychology student...well, what I said above, basically.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        Anonymous Post Author
        
        11 years ago
        
        Actually, I got information from numerous sources, many from books before there was internet, let alone wikipedia.
        
        Here's a link to the FBI, where you can read all about it, since the FBI is supposedly the expert here.
        
        http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
GoraIntoDesiGals

11 years ago

What's a better name then? Parallel Killer?

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
x1frosty16

11 years ago

I wouldve voted this normal if you hadn't got so crazy about it lol I was just thinking it should be thrown out but for other reasons like its kinda stupid to call people who kill people cereral killers and compareing them to other people who are cereral killers at breakfast is just rude :)- lololol

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
disthing

11 years ago

"The only thing separating any of us from being labeled a serial killer is the body count."

The only thing separating any of us from being labeled a killer at all is the body count. Should we therefore throw out the word 'killer'?

The generally accepted definition of a serial killer is quite simple, and useful in distinguishing certain people who often have much more in common than simply how many they've killed and over how long a period.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  Actually they have very little or nothing in common that's 'special' or unique to them as a group over the general population, besides that they have killed 'x' people. Even in their own sub-groups (like psychopathic killers), they're still no rules and they still have the same things in common with others of their type, only their killings distinguish them-not every psychopath is a killer, not every killer is a psychopath. When the term first surfaced, they tried too hard to define them, and lo and behold, kept putting their foot in their mouths and having to create exceptions all the time until the definitions and theories were proven useless.
  
  There is no single simple, accepted, general definition of a serial killer.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - disthing
    
    11 years ago
    
    Just as there is no single, accepted definition of rape worldwide. It doesn't therefore nullify the word.
    
    The word is there because there is a need/desire for a word to describe that. If you took away the term serial killer, society would come up with some other label for killers who kill multiple people over an extended time period, as would law enforcement.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
RubyCane

11 years ago

Here's the ONE & ONLY correct definition of "Cereal Killer":

CEREAL KILLER: An EXTREMELY FAT KID who consumes (every single day) TONS of milk in combination with "Captain Crunch", "Lucky Charms", "Frosted Flakes", "Fruity Pebbles", "Coco Pops", "Cheerios", "Trix" and "Reeses Puffs", ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!

XDDD

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- shuggy-chan
  
  11 years ago
  
  you beat me to it...damn
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
Lynxikat

11 years ago

Trooooooll.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
[Old Memory]

11 years ago

lol. Its obvious that the OP has been killing people. Seeing that this is an old post I'm wondering if they have been caught yet.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
coolio75650932

11 years ago

As a former officer...i have to say...you sir are a complete retard.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
boston12

11 years ago

a killer is a killer, who cares if theres a 'serial' infront of the word.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
ZoZo_ZiZi

11 years ago

It is awfull because killing multies is as by the community seen, awful. Its just a term to descripe multiple murders on maybe different motives as normal one time murders. theres a BIG diff. in motives :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
Captain_Kegstand

11 years ago

I have never killed anybody, so it doesn't describe me!

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
j1337

11 years ago

Sooo should we call these people poly-killers then?

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
taylor-mae14

11 years ago

i think there should be set deff. for everything with no exceptions. the law can be so complicated.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
nobleserpent

11 years ago

So let me get this straight.

You disapprove of the term Serial Killer because it's too general but you're okay with general terms like "Yellow" "alot" "little" "big" "strong"?

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  Sometimes.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
suckonthis9

11 years ago

I agree that it's a bad term with an even worse definition.
I think that everyone from now on should use the homonym 'cereal killer' from now on. Since almost all people have eaten and thus killed cereals, it would essentially describe most people. This would probably be much better for your health too!

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0

Are You Normal?

Is it normal i think we need to throw out the term 'serial killer'?