What exactly is the difference between serial killer and mass murderer?
And, what qualifies for involuntary and voluntary manslaughter. What is the difference between voluntary manslaughter and murder?
A serial killer kills more than three people, one at a time, seperate incidents, in a relatively short timeframe. A mass murderer kills many victims in one incident.
Involuntary manslaughter is “by accident”, voluntary manslaughter is “heat of passion” or “crime of passion” (defined here.)
Serial killers ususally kill far more than three, and their killing almost always involves rape. They do not want to be discovered, and often live normal lives. Ted Bundy is the prime example.
Malvo and Mohammed were not “serial killers,” but a third catagory, “spree killers.” They want the publicity and to be infamous.
The Crime Library has lots of information.
To give a contemporan example:
Saddam Hussein: serial killer.
GW Bush: mass murderer.
Salaam. A
Most serial killers begin killing at relatively distant times and their frequency increases as the death toll climbs. Some have been sustained by their fantasies for years from one murder to another.
[QUOTE=Dr. SexchangeAnd, what qualifies for involuntary and voluntary manslaughter. What is the difference between voluntary manslaughter and murder?[/QUOTE]
Moderator’s Notes:
Keep the political pot shots out of this forum.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
Yes, I wondered about the definitions I’d found for serial killer. I didn’t look into psychological profiling differences between those and mass murderers.
What I gave were brief definitions between the two. More in-depth ones would require paragraphs.
mass murderer = someone who kills a bunch of people
serial killer = someone who kills many in a way that is similar.
Gacy/Dahmer/et al = serial killers. Same M.O., techniques, motives, etc.
Pol Pot/Stalin/Hitler = mass murderers. Yes, we were warned of politics, but I assume that warning applied to potshots and not fact. Please smote if I was wrong.
ACKTHBBBB! :wally
I meant to add that while the “leaders” mentioned killed many, they used a multitude of different methods, keeping them from serial status. Hope that made sense 
I would have said that those historical figures were guilty of genocide, rather than mass murder, but YMMV.
IceWolf, I was trying to say that it was different from genocide. For instance, Hitler targeted Gypsies, Jews, and Catholics. There was just a heavy number of Jews over Catholics because of Lutheranism. As a Catholic, I still get a sick kick out of people calling me a Nazi. Hope that clears up what I was trying to say.
No worries, duffer. But I do think your examples there are to do with genocide rather than mass murder. The former is a whole level up from the latter.
Just as someone earlier added the category of “spree killer”. There are categories and sub-categories all over the place, when it comes to this stuff.
I wasn’t trying to parse the two categories of the OP. For sure, there are many sub-sets of each.
I don’t think what you’re saying is true, if I’m reading you correctly.
There were (and are) a great many Catholics in Germany. I don’t have a cite for this, but I’d bet a pinkie toe that the Catholic population of prewar Germany was much larger than the Jewish population. Lutheranism is predominant in northern Germany, but southern Germany has large Catholic populations, especially Bavaria.
The Nazis never committed mass genocide against Catholics as a group. They certainly did murder many anti-Nazi dissidents, some of whom were Catholic (and Protestant) religious leaders, and they did murder many Catholic leaders in Poland as part of an attempt to render the Polish people leaderless, but Catholics were not rounded up and executed en masse like the Jews and Gypsies were. The only Christian religious group that was generally targeted for murder were the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and even that was a political matter as opposed to the “race purity” that “justified” the murder of the Jews and Gypsies in the mind of the Nazis.
I would submit that to be defined as a serial killer, that implies that you personally ended the life of someone yourself… I would say that serial killer is defined by people that kill one person at a time, over a period of time, using similar methods…
Mass murderers I would think kill a bunch of people that they have never seen or heard of indescriminately… I would say they kill a bunch of people at once… like a bombing or a shooting rampage in a postal office…
Just my two cents…
D.
Addition -
Also I would say mass murderers kill a bunch of people that they have never met either at once or over a period of time… like bombing / political / racial / religious grounds…
Random thought - at what point does mass murder become genocide? at 10,000 deaths? 100,000? When the population of the oppressed nears zero?
D.
At the most literal level, “serial” killers are people who kill serially–i.e. their murders are a series of individual acts conforming to a similar pattern (or series) over a period of time, while a mass murderer is a murderer who a kills large number (or mass) of victims at one time.
In reality, serial killers (with a few exceptions) are rapists who incorporate the death of their victims in their act.
I always thought what made serial killers different from mass murderers was the psychology of it. A serial killer has a certain modus operandi that sometimes changes slighty, but is usually very similar. And yes, serial killers kill one person at a time over a long period of time. But I don’t think that mass murderers have to kill lots of people at one time. They can kill one person at a time over a long period of time, but without the strict routine like serial killers. And mass murderers can work in pairs or groups, like Malvo and Mohammed or the Manson family, but serial killers are strictly loners. Like the scene in Natural Born Killers where someone calls them serial killers and Mickey says, “technically, mass murderers.”