Why were there so many serial killers in the 70s?

why were there so many serial killers in the 70s?
why are there so few today?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twitchell
psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201401/the-dexter-murders
lifedeathprizes.com/real-life-crime/copycat-killers-6909
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

It's easier to track people's thumb prints I think and to collect evidence

but if you aren't in any crime register that wouldn't be a problem, also they could just wear gloves

The media stopped giving them attention

Cctv cameras are more of a thing too

The FBI persuaded the media not to give them attention, since many serial killers are motivated by a desire for infamy. There are in fact more active today than at any time in history, because our population is higher than it's ever been.

Still too much attention

Serial killer are attention whores and/or sick in the head and there should be no publicy towards anything that's related to them and their crimes.
No more "news" channels giving every crispy details
No more tv shows
No more public trials
No more podcasts
No more films inspired by a real psycho serial killer
No more

TELL ME ABOUT TED CRUZ
WHY DOES HE WEAR THE MASK?!

what happened in 80's?

Cocaine-fueled murder rampages, apparently.

>If we pretend the problem doesn't exist, it goes away!

Do you also believe that D&D causes Satanism because it shows demons in it?

The 80's were an extremely optimistic decade with strong economic growth.

When "the problem" is people murdering others for the attention, then yes, not giving them attention makes it less likely they will murder.

That's not why serial killers kill people, though. The idea that the average serial killer is driven by a desire for fame is a massive misunderstanding of the malignant complexes that drive their behavior. Most of them have deep-rooted psychosexual issues that, combined with psychopatic personalities, cause them to ritualistically murder others to receive sexual release. This is one of the reasons why prostitutes were popular targets for serial killers throughout history: their perceived status as sex objects (other reasons include deep-rooted misogynistic fixations being common in serial killers due to abuse by their mothers and the fact that a prostitute, as a member of a fringe class, will be less likely to have people who will care about their death, or even notice they're gone).

How does your theory explain the fact that the vast majority of serial killers go to pain-staking efforts to prevent people from finding out there's been a murder in the first place?

I think the 70s and 80s were just the sweet spot where mass media was enough of a thing to shine a light on serial killers and their wacky antics, but forensic tech and crime scene data sharing was yet to become sophisticated enough to catch them before them became serial.

There were probably loads prior to the 70s they just either got away with it or got caught but went unnoticed by history.

>How does your theory explain the fact that the vast majority of serial killers go to pain-staking efforts to prevent people from finding out there's been a murder in the first place?
So they can kill more, retard.

Wouldn't their motivation be the killing itself then?

WHat the fuck you retards. It has nothing to do with this wishy washy media bullshit or muh culture or whatever. It's because of DNA and trace evidence collection technology. You can't go long periods of time between murders anymore unless you're a trucker or live in the ghetto. Instead we have mass shooters and spree killers. Get it over with all at once.

mass shootings are hip right now and forensic technology has rapidly advanced

Reminder that murderers only get caught if they're stupid enough to leave DNA evidence or if they knew the victim.
Once there's no evidence and no clear suspect, the detectives are fucked and it's another whodunit case.

>stupid enough to leave DNA
bro you leave DNA wherever you go. It's just a matter of being able to collect it. Can you pick up every eye lash that happens to drift off your body?

american psycho

wouldn't matter if the killer has never been in police custody

Not necessarily. If you have a set of suspects, the police can get DNA samples right from them, or from their doctors. You can also use two DNA samples to prove that the same person committed two different crimes.

yes but it's hard to become a suspect if you haven't created some kind off patern around your murders

Your perspective on this is totally backwards. It's never "hard" to become a suspect, it's hard to avoid becoming one. Oftentimes the police will know who did it, they just need to collect the evidence.

>every eye lash that happens to drift off your body

What? Do people just walk around losing eyelashes or something? You're retarded.

The media and FBI made a quiet agreement to stop giving the attention whores attention

>Do people just walk around losing eyelashes or something?
Yes? Are YOU retarded?

>Do people just walk around losing eyelashes or something

yes

This

the police can arrest serial killers after the first murder by today tachnology so they don't became serial

But that doesn't match up with the idea that serial killers are driven by a desire for infamy. If they were, they'd kill a few in horrific ways and then turn themselves in to reap the acclaim.

How can the police "know" who did it if the killer left no trace, has never been known to police and has never been associated with the victim?

I... I guess I am retarded.

Well, I've learned a whole lot of things about the human body in the past 30 minutes. Most of them kinda fuckin' gross.

>pic related eyelash mites, just spent 10 minutes vigorously washing my face and eyes
>chances are most are still there

FUUUUUCCCKKKKK

Same reason Islamic terrorism started in the 80s and school shooters started in the 90s.

Violence is exhibited in culturally sensitive ways. I'm not sure if changing societal conditions actually cause violence, or if they channel latent violent tendencies within a population toward different ends.

Well obviously in your super specific example they wouldn't know who did it. What's your point?

The other user you were arguing with put across that most serial killers target people they don't know, and tend to be careful not to leave a trace. You just continued to assert that the police would just *know*. I thought I'd drive the point home.

And it's not super specific, it's the situation of most serial killers

The media has literally stopped reporting on serial killer happenings because the government told them to. It's a disgrace.

>That's not why serial killers kill people, though.

It's why a sizeable fraction of them kill. Obviously the ones who kill for the sake of it won't be put off by a lack of publicity, but thrill killers like Zodiac are put off by the lack of coverage.

Given that we're talking maybe about a dozen or two individuals in any given decade, out of hundreds of millions, trend charts like this are pretty meaningless. (Nevermind the forensic and communication changes.)

There probably were a lot more serial killers per capita back in the day, it was just a lot harder to get caught.

I shouldn't have to explain to you that not all humans think exactly the same way. Some serial killers are / were motivated by the desire for fame, such killer are dissuaded by the lack of coverage.

"The government" didn't tell them anything, the FBI informed them that giving serial killers sensational coverage actually lead to an increase in serial killing and the media decided to stop glorifying them. Note that it isn't only US media that doesn't run serial killer stories, do you imagine the US govt told the media in Britain, China, Russia, etc etc not to sensationalize serial killers, OR ELSE?

>Given that we're talking maybe about a dozen or two individuals in any given decade

So what you're saying is, you can't read? That chart shows ~200 killers / killer teams active during the 80's, and that's only in America, and only the ones who got caught.

He said collecting DNA evidence "wouldn't matter" if the suspect had never been in police custody before, which is wrong. I still don't know what your point is. Obviously anyone who commits a crime tries not to leave evidence. But nevertheless, the reason why there are fewer serial killers these days is because trace evidence collection technology has gotten way better. Feel free to continue arguing with me about nothing though

All the serial killers we catch are the subject of extreme psychological profiling interest, and fame is rarely, if ever, a motivating factor.

Indeed, most kinda live in their own little world, and are believers in solipsism. There are no other people to gain fame from, there is only Jack.

Oddly, this was a popular theory in the 60's though - folks started blaming the media coverage of serial killers for serial killers.

This *might* have actually been the case back in the 30's and 40's for certain particularly vicious mafia members and was self purportedly the case, even for a few bank robbers, but the classic serial killer tends to be much more about issues with mommy whoring than attention whoring.

Besides, we have Youtube now.

I misread mate, my bad

Those are victims.

Wait, my bad, as you were.

Okay, so a few hundred out of millions then - point still stands, just, somewhat mitigated.

>fame is rarely, if ever, a motivating factor.

You have no clue what you;re talking about. Yes there are plenty of killers who don't care about / don't want fame, but there are also plenty who were motivated by a desire for Herostratic fame. This category has seen a sharp decline since the media stopped glorifying serial killers.

They're rare, sure, but you can still make meaningful analysis of them as a group.

I can only find three known for this by the APA, and only one in the US - and he's a copycat killer.

The most common pattern is lack of father, abusive and lascivious mother, coupled with sociopathy to the degree where they have inability to see anyone but themselves as human, and often, schizophrenia.

Besides, Baits Motel and Hannibal are among the most popular shows on the air right now (can you name a television series about a serial killer in the 80's?), and the all time most acclaimed docu-drama about a real serial killer came out in 2003.

It's also not as if the news doesn't cover them anymore.

Name five cases like The Zodiac in the past hundred years. If these "thrill-killers" (which wouldn't even be the correct term for the behavior you describe: all serial killers are thrill-killers, because they view the act of killing as an end-in-itself. You're describing some kind of fame-killer, in that the murders are a means to the end of getting famous) are a sizable portion of the pool of serial killers, you should be able to do that.
>inb4 "Any serial killer who got press coverage": you need to prove intent.

Also Serial killers are subject to the most intent scrutiny the psychiatric world can muster, and most of them are completely detached from the world psychologically: they wouldn't even understand WHY someone would behave like you describe, because they don't derive gratification from fame or infamy. It mostly comes back to severe psychosexual issues linked to abuse by their mother.

You aren't some genius who's stumbled on a new hot take: we know enough about serial killers that we can build an archetypal profile of their childhood (raised by a single, abusive mother who wanted a girl, tortured animals as a child, plaid with matches, was a bedwetter, was likely forced to wear girl's clothing or was molested, etc.)

The news doesn't cover them any more, but the rise of other media fixating on them has caused a spike in serial killings.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twitchell
psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201401/the-dexter-murders
lifedeathprizes.com/real-life-crime/copycat-killers-6909

You're an idiot.

And tell me, what does FBI stands for and how do they get funding?

Well, maybe if you count terrorists as serial killers - they certainly need fame to spread their message, otherwise...

I think the Internet allows psychopaths to get their kicks in a safe manner. All the stalking, kidnapping, gore, torture, death, and begging for mercy they want without leaving home.

Like how rapists and pedophiles have access to porn & loli/shota.

>HURR

So you DO think the US govt somehow demanded that Russia, China, India etc etc stop glorifying serial killers?

>All that evidence
You sure showed me.

Prove to me you even exist and I'll consider tackling your impossible demands, moron.

I don't really call mass shooters serial killers per say - but if you were to lump them in the same category, then yeah, there are certainly a lot of mass shooters seeking to send a message. I'd probably include the Columbine kids in that.

The media certainly gives them endless attention.

But the classic serial killer who has a specific MO, repeatedly hunts down and kills whores in the dead of the night, and covers his tracks, keeping it up for several years... The matching MO suggests a certain desire to be stopped, but I doubt fame is the core motivator.

...

Mass shooters are usually angry loners lashing out at a society they see as abhorrent.

>impossible demands

I asked you to produce five other serial killers who were clearly and primarily motivated by a desire to become famous who were active in the last century. You know what? I'll be more generous, last TWO centuries. That gives you a freebie in the form of Jack the Ripper (which I would argue against, but since you insist fame was the motivator for Zodiac as well, and the two are often compared, I'll give you that as well). If, like you insisted previously, these killers make up a sizable fraction of the population of serial killers, and you are CLEARLY an expert on the matter (or at least have read a lot), this should be trivial, not "impossible".

Yeah, but they are certainly trying to make some noise and send a message - that's fame seeking of a sort. Granted, they usually end their lives in the process, so I dunno if that really qualifies - they usually don't intend to live to enjoy this "fame".

I suppose, since serial killer technically means anyone who murders more than two people, we should clarify with "Ritualistic murders by an individual".

I also suppose any such serial murderer who sees his name constantly appear in the papers maybe egged on by it - though I doubt how often it is the reason his spree began.

Serial killers fall into a few categories

>Thrill killers
They're the sort who enjoy the attention of being an infamous monster. They're usually arrogant and see themselves as evil geniuses outsmarting the law. This type will often keep trophies of their "hunts" and never forget the peculiarities of each victim. For them murder is just good sport, and their victims just happen to be prey.

>Mission killers
Usually the least "crazy" per se of killers. They typically target certain groups they see as "degenerates". Be it a certain race, religion, orientation, political affiliation, career, etc. Relatively easy to catch because you just need to follow the trail of dead stamp enthusiasts.

>Visionary killers
Hands-down the craziest on average. These motherfuckers are balls-to-the-walls insane. They hear voices telling them to kill, hallucinate religious and historical figures, believe they're someone else, etc. They're the easiest type to catch because their utter madness makes them utterly sloppy as well.

>Power killers
These guys can be summarized as edgelords and control freaks. Most likely to torture and rape their victims over a prolonged period. Very sadistic. You can expect this sort to have been abused as kids and now they're "taking back" their power by wielding the ultimate power of life & death over someone. Often the stereotypical "wimpy accountant with a torture dungeon" type.

There's more types as well like black widows, cult murderers, and as of relatively recently: hitmen. It's funny because the FBI began classifying them as true serial killers when their psychiatrists realized: somebody who can kill anyone at will for a bit of money is actually very fucked in the head.

I wonder how they classify Charles Manson... Given that he has elements of all the above, yet has never actually killed anyone himself.

Personally, I'd slot him as a visionary. All his wigging about the Race War being telegraphed by secret messages in the Beetles albums and carving shit into his head is classic completely-fucked-in-the-head killer behavior.

The Manson family killings were technically a case of spree killing, not serial killings. By the FBI's definition, serial killers require an "emotional cooldown period", this series of murders was planned out and executed all at once.

He's an interesting case though... But I guess anyone can gather a bunch of kids who are an acid and put them up to anything.

Have you ever tried making 1 guy on acid do something, anything? No? Because it's not fucking easy at all.

Actually, I did when I was younger... Babysat a dozen kids on acid with my GF at the time. Managed to corral them together for awhile to discuss the "sekratz of the universe" or some shit for awhile. (The deep resulting conclusion: "circles".) Friend of mine came by and manage to keep them all enthralled with his tails of Harvey for awhile.

Is a bit like herding cats most of the time though - but more so with individuals than with groups.

Everything had lead which made people crazy

Why waste time stalking victims when you can just mass murder dozens of people in a public place? Nobody got time for that bullshit any more.

We stopped locking up people somewhere in the 60s or so, and crime exploded. Then Nixon (Peace Be Upon Him) started the War on Drugs and violent crime turned around.

It's the thrill of it, the sensation that these people get. Also, they don't want to go to jail or die.

Leaded petrol.

Kids these days... No attention span to enjoy the finer things in life.

I watched a national geographic documentary on jeffrey dahmer last night: the post

The most reasonable post in the thread