Theories of the Compulsive Murderer
There is no shortage of theories or explanations to account for individuals who have committed compulsive, repetitive, and sexually motivated homicides. In general, theories can be divided into three groups: social, psychological, and biological. Although all the theories are heuristic, none has yet gained anything close to general acceptance.
Social Theories
Most practitioners and researchers favor a psychological etiology to account for the compulsive murderer’s behavior; however, some authors have commented on social factors as well. Since all behavior takes place within a social context, social determinants always exert some degree of influence on behavior, particularly criminal behavior. Holmes and DeBurger (1985), for example, believe social and cultural elements in American society have a causal impact on serial murder. They cite media violence, the use of aggression as a way of dealing with problems, increased anonymity in an increasingly urban society, and even the mobility of Americans as factors that in some way contribute to such crimes. Newton (1992) claims that serial murder is a recent phenomenon in the U.S., presumably because various social factors have now become widespread. This position is echoed by Norris (1998), who argues that 75% of the world’s serial murderers are from the U.S. and fears that “as the influence of American culture spreads to the less developed countries,... the disease of serial murder will spread as well” (p. 19).
Even Ressler et al. (1988) and Ressler and Schachtman (1997), who primarily support a psychogenic explanation of the sexual murderer, believe that social factors play a large role. Compulsive, repetitive sexual murder “is connected to the increasing complexity of our society, to our interconnectedness via the media, and to the alienation many of us feel.
... Wherever people become alienated from society, wherever neighbors hardly know one another, wherever families do not keep in very close touch, wherever runaway teenagers roam dangerous streets, wherever violence is made to seem a viable response to troubles, an upsurge in serial murder would be one troubling response” (Ressler and Schachtman, 1997, pp. 51-52). And Hazelwood and Michaud (2001) also refer to various social and cultural changes (the relaxed behavior code, increased mobility, and overt hostility to women and technology) that can affect an increase in such crimes.
However, Meloy (2000) offers two cogent criticisms of Ressler et al.’s (1988) discussion of the social antecedents of sexual homicide, particularly the authors’ emphasis on the offenders’ troubled family backgrounds, including the high prevalence of alcoholism, psychiatric illness, and abuse. First, no comparison group was used; therefore, these background characteristics do not necessarily predict sexual murder. For instance, it is highly likely that the backgrounds of most nonsexual murderers would also include many of these negative social experiences. Second, and perhaps more important, Meloy notes that most of Ressler et al.’s sample did not experience such negative social problems. And socially deviant backgrounds were also conspicuously absent in the sexual sadists studied by Dietz, Hazelwood, and Warren (1990), a finding supported by Gratzer and Bradford (1995).
More recently, Chan, Heide, and Beauregard (2011) proposed a theory of sexual murder integrating social learning and routine activities theory. However, a strictly social theory—even when adding on routine activities theory—of the compulsive murderer leaves more questions unanswered than answered. Often cited sociogenic causes of crime— poverty, overcrowding, and broken homes—do not differentiate sexual murderers from other types of criminals. Neither does examination of their routine behavior and travel patterns. Because social factors play a role in just about all behavior, they probably play some role in compulsive murder too, but a specific etiological contribution has not yet been demonstrated.
