"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.
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.
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.
Is it normal I think we need to throw out the term 'Serial Killer'?
← View full post
"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.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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.
--
disthing
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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.