People that murder usually kill someone of their “race”. While “cross racial” killings grab a lot of attention, the typical murder involves two people from the same background.
Now in New Orleans for instance, many black women have been found dead over the last few years. Some were prostitutes,other drug addicts, all were poor and therefore their deaths were not given the same scope of attention that say, the murder of college sorority co-eds or Washington interns would atract from the national media and law enforcement.
No one can say whether the killer or killers are black or not. But, as a rule, a white serial killer would probably not operate in the ghetto. Serial killers usually murder where they feel comfortable.
So there are probably more black serial killers out there than we know about. But since their victims are mostly black, poor, and practically anonymous to the world, they are less likely to be caught. Wayne Williams probably would have never been caught if he hadn’t killed so many children; and if his victims had been white, or at least better off, he would have been executed long ago.
The government would classify an Iranian as a “white”. An Iranian might not be welcome at a KKK rally but I can’t think of what other “race” an Iranian would be classified in. Certainly some Iranians are very white in appearance.
These men are considered “white” by the FBI, even though they are definitely not European in background.
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/fugitive/may2001/mayislam.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/fugitive/march2001/marbrakni.htm
Interestingly, Usama Bin Laden isn’t given a “race”
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
As further food for thought, both of these killers are “Hispanic” yet one is very “black” and the other as “white” as any Anglo offender…
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/fugitive/may2001/maypedrosa.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/felix.htm
So “race” has to be taken with a grain of salt, as many people don’t fit neatly into categories of any kind.
My guess, FG, is that Idi Amin and Hitler and are perceived to be of a different category because they use established authority to order murders and may or may not get their hands dirty.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there are just as many female serial killers as male, but because women tend to kill with less obvious methods like poisoning, their victims may not be noticed by authorities. Who knows how many “black widows” are out there. Jeneane Jones, a nurse working in Texas in the 80s, killed at least 20 children in an attempt to appear a hero by reviving them. Some she managed to revive. Others, she didn’t.
With a name like that, I can see how he went crazy!
The media is partly to blame for the misapprehension.
A white middle class “normal” seeming guy, who kills several people is spooky enough to be labelled with the “serial killer” nomiker.
“He seemed so normal, nobody would have thought…”
It’s easier to assign motives to an inner city black guy, though who does the same thing. It’s called “gang related.”
or they blame environment, or circumstances. (same goes for Asians)
In reality though people of different racial backgrounds are probably just as likely to commit senseless crimes as anybody else.
A psychotic inner city black guy is going to find an outlet in the social context of drugs and gangs. A middle class white guy will not.
The better question is why is it a predominantly male thing?
Part of me wants to say “It is an act of temporary power committed due to a prolongued feeling of powerlessness.” But that way leads to GD territory. 
Most likely, there are far more female serial killers than we hear about or know about. When it looks like a serial killer is active, the police look for someone who fits the stereotypical serial killer profile. They probably don’t seriously consider a woman as a suspect unless the evidence is pretty blatant that she’s the killer. I can easily imagine a female serial killer evading capture much easier than a male serial killer.
Perhaps female serially killers just aren’t as “creative” as their male counterparts, and so don’t get much media attention? You know, creative like making a lamp out of body parts. Just a WAG.
Aileen Wurmos did kill 7 men, but she doesn’t fit the classic “Serial Killer” profile: She didn’t go hunting for people, she didn’t deny her guilt, she didn’t kill with her hands. She fits the “Spree Killer” profile: These people just snap and go out killing till they get caught.
Serial killers usually use their own physical force to kill, and men are simply stronger. The majority of them are picked up for minor offenses and the evidence is later discovered (Ted Bundy was picked up for driving erractically, Joel Rifkin was picked up for a minor traffic violation and a body was discovered in his trunk).
Some people suspect the original Zodiac Killer was in fact targeting one of his victims. He just killed a few other people to make it look like a serial killer. SK’s usually don’t use guns.
The major of Serial Killers are not apprended. They are too good at what they do. Vermont’s Green River Killer is still at large.
I am interested in this question also. It does seem that many serial killers are male, and that they kill women before or after raping and/or torturing them. Or, if they are pedophiles, their victims are children, or if they are homosexual, their victims are males. It seems to be tied to violent sex.
The link provided by the O-man does show some notable exceptions because of sheer numbers these people killed, but my impression is that most serial killing is tied with sex. Could it be because males are more often the sexual aggressors?
IMO, yes… that is a possibility!
[sup] WARNING: I am not a doctor, just a humble BA in literature… but I had a job as a Mental Health Therapist (IE: the muscle when we had to wrestle some psychotic patient to the floor and restrain him…) at a famous mental hospital for a year or two…[/sup]
I have met some severely disturbed people, mostly serial rapists but one or two serial killers, all have been men (it was a male ward!)… the worst cases seemed, even under medication, to be unable to control their sexual impulses even when they KNOW that there will be immediate consequences for their actions.
I have many anecdotes, none of which can be supported…
Well, crime in general seems to be a predominantly male thing. Says in my almanac that in 1993 there were more than 850,000 men in prison and only about 50,000 women. I know there were a lot more arrests of men too–though I can’t seem to lay my hands on the figures at the moment–so it’s not just disproportionate punishment.
Also, I have a book here by anthropologist Melvin Konner pointing out that greater male violence is one of the few gender behaviors that cuts across cultures. I suppose this would be more a subject for a Great Debate, but if you’re going to explain maleness in serial killing, you’re probably going to have to consider the larger question of male violence.
LonesomePolecat writes
Basically, yes, with an amendment: bias against minorities, as well as the relative caseload, local statistics for violent crime, and other similar factors. might cause some law enforcement to overlook patterns that might otherwise suggest an SK. Jaimest and Scylla stated essentially the same thing, except did a better job of it.