Genocide isn’t some other plane of murder. It doesn’t go murder -> mass murder -> genocide. Genocide is done expressly for the elimination of a people, ethnic, national, racial, or religious, usually. Accidental civilian war deaths are never genocide. When a B-52’s payload misses a factory and hits an apartment it is not genocide, even if all the victims are of the same ethnicity, for instance. When a village is bulldozed and the denizens executed en masse because the inhabitants are Jews or Kurds or whathaveyou, it’s genocide.
The experts at the FBI agree that serial killers, by definition, have killed three or more people on separate occasions. Between each killing there is, by definition, a cooling off period. Each of these killings, by definition, has some sort of sexual aspect (though the killing need not be overtly sexual in form). The sexual aspect is important–if a person is killing because it’s his job (the Hollywood hitman, for example), he really isn’t a serial killer, at least as the experts define the term. The serial killer’s MO will often evolve over time, but the signature aspects of his crime will not. MO here is the killer’s general methodology. The signature is the thing the killer needs. For example, if the killer gets off on strangling women to death, all his victims will be found strangled to death (unless something goes wrong). However, as the serial killer progresses in his career, his MO may change. For example, the tools he uses to break into his victims’ homes may change over time as he gains experience.
Mass murderers and serial killers are definitely different sorts of animal. As are spree killers. If I kill a sexy co-ed in a certain special way every other full moon, I’m a serial killer. If I kill a bunch of people all at once (I think for purposes of categorization, it is four or more, but I’m uncertain of this), then I’m a mass murderer. If I just snap one day, and take a trip across the country killing everybody in sight (I think this is the way Natural Born Killers worked–yes? no?), then I’m a spree killer.
I would say that for purposes of psychology, and probably law, that the mass killings instigated by political leaders (Hussein, Pol Pot, and so on) exist in a completely different category. The sheer scale of these killings, as well as the motives behind them, make these murders different from those committed by the disgruntled employee with a gun or the sexual predator with a knife (which isn’t to say that Hitler & Co. didn’t have issues with sex and anger). Certainly some political murderers exhibited the behaviors of “regular” serial killers and other kinds of psychological deviant–Saddam Hussein’s two sons come to mind; Vlad Dracula would be a classic example.
But I’m not really posting just to mostly repeat what several other Dopers have more or less said, but to give some cites for the various claims, and sources of further information. I am mainly drawing on the half-dozen or so books of retired FBI special agent, psychologist, and criminal profiler John Douglas, and his literary collaborater Mark Olshaker. Most if not all their work is available in paperback, and I would be surprised if you couldn’t find it at a bookstore near you. The work of Ronald Ressler, another criminal profiler, also informed this post.
By Robert K. Ressler:
Whoever Fights Monsters
The books by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker that I’ve read and that pertain to the subject at hand:
**The Cases That Haunt Us
The Anatomy of Motive
Journey Into Darkness
Obsession **
I believe most of the psychological claims in these books. However, I’m just guy who likes to read and has had a couple pychology and sociology courses. It’s not like I’m a shrink or a serial killer or a cop or anything.
Another aspect of serial killers is they do not shoot their victims (with rare exceptions). They want the “hands on” feeling of control over their victims, and usually strangle them.
What? Sure they use guns, Dave Berkovitch (sp?), the Son of Sam, shot all his victims, but he was of course one of the more cowardly serial killers, admittedly many have more “hands-on” MO’s, knives are very popular.
The definition of a serial killer varies, I believe Albert Fish was just convicted for the murder of Grace Budd (although he claimed to have killed more) but he is very often referred to as a serial killer. His Serial Killer stature may be derived from the fact that he was a very, very ill old man and his monster-like status screams “Serial Killer”.
Richard Speck is almost always referred to as a serial killer although he is, technically, a spree killer.
So, the answer to the OP would be… it varies.
This post may be a lot of things but helpful it ain’t… :wally
Like I said, with rare exceptions: David Berkowitz, Randy Woodhouse & the original Zodiac Killer are listed as exceptions (though there is speculation that Zodiac wanted to kill a specific person and just offed a few more to make it look like a serial killing).
Fish was a serial killer and cannibal who prey on children. While in prison, he wrote letters to several parents about how he killed and ate their children. More information at crime library, if you can stomach it (HUGE TMI WARNING).
I’ve always thought it odd that the term “serial killer” was being used a decade before the concept of “serial rapist.” The two catagories have the same motivations and m.o.'s. The only real difference is after the sex acts, the killer kills, the rapist leaves them alive.
While I think the thread has reached a consensus, what stands in the way of more precise definitions is that these terms are not typically used in precise ways. Mostly, you hear them either in reference to dramatic and horrible events or in reference to movies about dramatic and horrible events. In either situation, most of those speaking about the subject are not going to concern themselves with niceties of definition.
Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter are different. These are crimes with specific legal meanings (albeit ones which might vary in different states). Some time ago I did a run-down of the various levels of homicide in the common law but it doesn’t appear that the search engine reindexing has gotten to it yet. Basically, involuntary manslaughter is usually when the perpetrator has no desire to harm the victim but acts so recklessly that it’s appropriate to punish him for the harm he does cause. Voluntary manslaughter comes in two flavors. Either it’s when the perpetrator meant to harm the victim short of killing him, but does more damage than he’d planned, or when the perpetrator means to kill but is partially justified or excused. The classic example of this flavor is the archetypal crime of passion, when the perpatrator comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and kills one or both of them. His action is not blameless, but society feels that a sudden passionate (and nigh-uncontrollable) reaction in the face of something awful is less blameworthy than a cold, calculating plan to murder someone in cold blood. Manslaughter of either type is a serious crime punishable by many years in jail, but it’s not murder and does not justify the death penalty or, in most cases, even life in prison.
–Cliffy