Why We Love Serial Killers (25 page)

The Functionality of Crime

Durkheim used his work on suicide to support certain functionalist arguments about the presence of crime and deviance in society.
⁹⁶
Specifically, Durkheim argued that crime and deviance are inevitable in any society and that limited amounts of crime and deviance are actually functional for society. Regarding the inevitability of crime, Durkheim stated that because there cannot be a society in which the individuals do not differ to some extent from the collective type or average member, it is also inevitable that among their deviations there will be some individuals with criminal character. As previously stated, Durkheim believed that human desires such as lust and greed are insatiable and omnipresent. He believed that people generally aspire to everything and constantly demand more, so they are never satisfied. Durkheim said
that crime and deviance, including suicide, become inevitable social facts in such an environment.

Durkheim further argued that since crime is found in every society, it must be normal and provide a useful function.
⁹⁷
He developed a functionalist perspective of crime, claiming that it is actually necessary because criminal behavior promotes clarification of the moral boundaries that define society. The moral bonds that unite society are strengthened when boundaries are clarified and reinforced, according to Durkheim. He believed that moral bonds are vital to society’s proper functioning. Durkheim believed that without moral are individuals would be compelled by their passions into a mad search for gratification but each new gratification would lead only to more and stronger desires. According to Durkheim, the one thing that every human will always want is more. He believed that if society does not provide limitations, individuals will become slaves to the pursuit of more. Thus, according to Durkheim, crime helps society to define and delineate its collective consciousness and establish proper limitations.

From a functionalist perspective, Durkheim identified several key social benefits of criminal behavior.
⁹⁸
Arguably, the most important is that the identification, apprehension, and punishment of criminals clarify the limits of acceptable behavior in society. In other words, when a criminal is punished it communicates to the other members of society that such behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. This message, as it reverberates throughout society, illustrates the point that there is a moral boundary which is not to be crossed. In addition, from a functionalist perspective, crimes that are punished most severely by society are generally those which violate the most deeply cherished values of the community. For example, punishment for murder is typically the most punitive punishment administered in any society because of the high value placed on human life. The harshness of punishment for murder helps to clarify and reinforce society’s general attitudes concerning the act of murder. In other words, society adopts and emulates beliefs about which crimes are most reprehensible based on how harshly violations of those crimes are punished.

Although Durkheim saw value in the presence of a limited amount of crime in society, as explained by Dr. Orcutt in
Analyzing Deviance
, he also acknowledged that it is possible for illegal behavior to exceed acceptable limits and for society to spin out of control as a result. More specifically, he believed that criminal behavior should remain
within tolerable limits because a crime rate that is too high suggests that anomie exists in society. In a state of anomie, people fail to establish common bonds with those they live and work with. Such unhealthy conditions often foster a social environment where crime will flourish. As one will recall, Durkheim viewed anomie as being directly related to the collective consciousness of society which is a vital regulating social force. Therefore, if anomie is present in society and the collective consciousness is weak, then a high crime rate is to be expected.

Finally, Durkheim believed that a delicate balance exists between a functional amount and an excessive amount of crime and deviance in society. An excessive amount of crime and deviance are typically symptomatic of an anomic society—that is, a society lacking in functional integration and solidarity. Because he viewed anomie as a catastrophic social condition to be avoided at all costs, Durkheim argued that the rates of crime and deviance are vital for society to monitor and control in order to maintain a well-functioning environment.

Functionalism, Anomie, and Serial Murder

The functionalist theoretical tradition of sociology advanced by Emile Durkheim provides useful insights into the presence of serial killers in modern society. In particular, it offers powerful insights into their actions. Durkheim said that human nature is characterized by limitless passions and appetites. He also said that without clearly defined moral boundaries and proper regulation in society, individuals will engage in a never-ending pursuit of self-centered gratification. This certainly applies to serial killers who are completely driven by their insatiable wants and desires. Although the motivations and needs of the wide array of serial killers are varied and complex, there is one psychological characteristic that is common to them all—an insatiable need to kill other human beings. Stated differently, serial killers commit murder simply because they enjoy it and are unable to control their compulsion to do so.

Consistent with Durkheim’s concept of anomie, serial killers—particularly those who are psychopaths—lack a moral bond to society that restrains individual behavior. Durkheim believed that individual members of society must have a strong moral bond to one another in order to control their impulsive behavior which he called “insatiable
passions.” If insatiable passions lie at the core of every human, as Durkheim said, then the psychological and physical gratification which serial killers gain from the act of murder reinforces and fuels their homicidal behavior. Durkheim would say that because the powerful desires of serial killers are never fully satisfied, they are compelled to commit the act of murder again and again. Similar to drug addicts or alcoholics whose needs increase over time with usage, the need of serial killers for murder increases as their victim count increases. For example, the appetite for blood of prolific serial killers such as Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway, and Jeffrey Dahmer was never fully satisfied, and their need to kill actually increased over time.

Emile Durkheim would say that individuals who commit serial homicide lack the moral restraints that society establishes through its collective consciousness. As such, serial killers can be seen as social misfits or moral outsiders who seek to gratify their selfish and impulsive desires without regard for society’s rules as defined by the collective consciousness. Once again, the collective consciousness refers to the general structure of shared understandings, norms, and beliefs in society. According to Durkheim, the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to all citizens of the same society form a regulatory system that has a life of its own. The collective consciousness can be understood as a shared morality system in society. The collective consciousness exists at the societal level but it regulates behavior at the individual level. More to the point, the collective consciousness of society regulates the behavior of normal individuals. Serial killers are not normal individuals, however.

Durkheim fully recognized that some individuals are not connected to the collective consciousness and, as a result, may display behavior that is dangerous to society as a whole. According to Durkheim, people who commit terrible crimes—which would include serial murder—are lacking an awareness of the collective consciousness of society. Due to a lack of awareness of the collective consciousness, the moral bonds to society of such individuals are either weak or nonexistent. Durkheim would have said that extreme deviants and criminals such as serial killers are disconnected from society and its key institutions such as religion and family. Durkheim noted that individuals who are prone to criminal behavior typically do not belong to any group through which they might experience social solidarity or come to know the collective consciousness.

The Dysfunctional Integration and Regulation of Serial Killers

In his study of suicide Durkheim identified two concepts that he called “social facts”—
integration
and
regulation
—which offer powerful insights into the meaning of serial homicide in the modern world.
⁹⁹
More specifically, a lack of functional integration at the individual level and regulation at the societal level can help to explain the actions of serial killers. It must be remembered that Durkheim did not attribute social problems such as suicide or serial homicide to personal- or individual-level pathologies. On the contrary, he attributed such phenomena to problematic conditions in society. Let’s explore the importance of integration and regulation to our understanding of serial homicide.

Integration, simply stated, is the strength of the individual’s attachment to society. Many institutions provide for the development and strength of integration, including religion, marriage, family, military service, and other organizations that give an individual a sense of purpose and belonging. Social clubs, charities, and professional associations provide other opportunities for meaningful connections. These important institutions and organizations increase integration, strengthen attachment to society and, thereby, help to prevent unwanted, disruptive behavior by individuals. Durkheim also said that certain galvanizing moments in the history of a civilization can lead to powerful social integration. He used the term “collective effervescence” to describe a society’s highly emotional reaction to key historical events. Powerful examples of collective effervescence in the US were manifested in the patriotic fervor of the public during World War II and in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Durkheim believed that individuals who are not properly integrated into society or its key institutions such as religion, work, and family are particularly at risk of engaging in deviant or criminal behavior. He said that individuals who lack functional integration are not protected from the temptations or strains of society that lead to deviance and crime. I believe that Durkheim’s perspective offers important insights into the actions of serial killers in the modern world because such criminals typically feel disconnected both emotionally and psychologically to society. For example, Richard Ramirez, David Berkowitz, Aileen Wuornos, and Joel Rifkin, who were serial killers as well as dysfunctional loners and misfits, all demonstrated a lack of social integration. Even serial killers who outwardly appear to be properly integrated, such as Ted
Bundy or Dennis Rader, generally shun society and its major institutions. They may mimic normalcy and appear to be well adjusted but are really obsessed with murder. Thus, a lack of social integration is an important characteristic of modern-day serial homicide.

In contrast to a lack of integration, Durkheim stated that excessive social integration can result in obsessive attachments that can also lead a person to carry out antisocial or even criminal behavior. Excessive integration can foster a belief that certain criminal activity is in the best interests of society as a whole. Unnatural and misguided attachments are evident in the actions of terrorists and suicide bombers, for example, and the perpetrators of hate crimes against homosexuals. Excessive integration can be seen in the actions of certain serial killers, too. For example, mission-oriented serial killers who seek to improve the world by killing specific types of people they abhor often demonstrate excessive attachment to twisted or misguided social norms. A mission-oriented killer will justify his murders as being necessary to rid the world of a group of people he believes to be undesirable or evil. Such groups may include prostitutes, the homeless, or those who are different from the killer in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. For example, a disturbed Iraq War veteran named “Izzy” Ocampo stabbed and murdered four homeless men in Los Angeles prior to his capture in 2012.

The second social fact identified by Durkheim in his study of suicide, i.e., regulation, or the degree of external constraints on people, is also crucial to an understanding of deviant behavior. Antisocial and criminal activity including serial murder can occur when societal regulation is either too low or too high. It must be remembered that serial killers are cunning and opportunistic. They are predators in every sense of the word. Serial killers will strike when they perceive law enforcement presence and regulation to be weakest because those conditions dramatically increase the chance of successfully committing murder and evading capture. As previously stated, highly organized serial killers such as Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgway plan their murders meticulously in advance and consider the likelihood of success before launching an attack. Such serial killers will often make multiple contingency plans in the event of unforeseen problems and have several predetermined escape routes. They may also delay an attack until they believe that the circumstances and timing are just right for murder.

Durkheim also noted that excessive regulation and oppressive authority can actually serve as a stimulus for crime in certain individuals
and circumstances. Among arrogant and psychopathic serial killers, for example, excessive and highly visible regulation can provide an attractive challenge. As explained in chapter 4, psychopathic killers are generally grandiose, narcissistic, and reject the laws of society. For example, Dennis Rader (BTK) was a psychopathic predator who believed that he was intellectually superior to his police pursuers. A malignant narcissist such as BTK will strike regardless of the level of police regulation pitted against him because he believes that he is invulnerable. BTK was so convinced of his superiority to law enforcement authorities in Wichita that he amused himself by sending letters to them boasting of his exploits and offering clues to his unsolved crimes.