Serial Killers And Common Sense

Sometimes I think that the victims of serial killers put themselves in danger. You know the horror movie cliches that we all laughed at in the Scream pictures. Beautiful girl goes into a dark room or park by herself. We look at this and think, "What is she stupid? I would never do that!" Well, wouldn't you? Someone has, or at least they've done something stupid to get themselves killed in real life.

Think about it. In reality, the victims of most killers are prositutes or men and women that have gone "home" with them after getting drunk off their a**es. When was the last time you went home with a complete stranger without telling someone first? Do you walk down the street alone at night without protection, or at least have someone with you? Isn't that just basic common sense? And it's not like the victims were stupid. And I'm not talking about kids here. I'm talking about adults. And I'm not talking about random acts of violence either or hate crimes. I'm talking about grown men and women who are able to understand what is wrong and what is right.

Now I'm NOT saying that the victims deserve to be harmed, it's just that I wonder how we can condemn the killer, but forget about the responsibilty the victims had in the matter.

If you watch an interview with the victims family, this is usually how it goes, "She was such a nice girl, a scholar--an angel." When I hear this I think how sad the family must be, how awful it would be to live through such tragedy, constantly thinking about the last minutes of a loved ones' life. But, I also think in the back of my mind that this "angel" was going home with a complete stranger. This "nice girl" was in a bar probably acting silly, and this "scholar" didn't happen to think twice about getting into a car with a strange man and going with him to God-knows-where.

Also, why make a serial killer a celebrity? Why does the media do this? If you think about it, we as a society make crazy maniacs household names long after they've been put to death. A killer kills--there's no novelty in that.
Yet when a rash of murders begins to spread and people start turning up missing, the media tends to put a slick call sign on the madmen. Names like "The Zodiac" or "The Hillside Strangler" come to mind. Wow how cool! I think that the promise of celebrity is one of the reasons why maniacs continue to thrive today. Also, some of the worlds most notorious serial killers weren't dumb at all. Meaning they weren't retarded or un-intellegent. Yeah, they may have heard voices, but they happened to get away with alot before being captured. And some are still at large!

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

We can condemn the killer precisely because he (or she) is responsible.

This reminds Kong of those people who try to blame rape victims because they were wearing a short skirt, and were therefore "asking for it". Just because someone is a prostitute, or is someone who decides to home with someone else whom they've just met doesn't mean that they are asking to be killed. There actions may have a higher risk-factor than others, but these actions are not responsible for, nor do they in any way condone, murder.

So? Someone "acting silly" doesn't deserve to be murdered do they? Someone getting into a car with a strange man doesn't deserve to be stabbed to death do they? It's true that you can make yourself safer by not participating in certain courses of action, but they are, none-the-less not committing the murder.

Various reasons. The media might have instilled fear in the hearts of an enormous amount of people during the sniper shootings last year, but most people in the VA/DC were glad to know what was going on so that they could take precautionary measures to minimize the danger they were in.

Of course we can't leave $$$ out of the discussion either. Their is some element of the human mind that is fascinated by crime, and newspapers, TV, etc., all know that they can capitalize on this fact.

Furthermore, making a serial killer well known is also likely to lead to a faster arrest in many cases. We can use the example of the sniper shootings again to illustrate this point. A regular citizen spotted their car at a rest stop. Had a vehicle description not been distributed by the media this wouldn't have occured.

There's got to be more to it than that.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

Yeah, the maniac part might have something to do with it.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I obviously agree that all blame is on the killer, but I think r3port3r was more saying that these people's decisions increased the likelihood of tragedy. He has a rather detached view of just how horrible these acts are, but I think the fault was not in his thinking, just more in his addressing of his thoughts. Did these people actively increase their chances of a bad situation? Yes. Should they be blamed for it? Only to the extent that it will not relieve the perpetrator of any blame whatsoever. We shouldn't say it's his own fault, but we should examine freely just what happened leading up the murder, rape, etc. If you walk down a deserted alley at 2 a.m. all alone, intoxicated, you should have the general idea that they are actively increasing the chances of a bad happening.


Well, I would hope r3port3r doesn't disagree with you on any of these points.




Once again, I don't disagree with you here. r3port3r's fault was not in his thinking, just in how he addressed his thoughts.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

The blame is definitely on the killers and even though it may seem like their victims make stupid choices at times, the type of serial killer you are describing, r66, falls into the Mission Orientated category… the majority of the time these killers show no outward psychosis so their victims are completely drawn in… these killers believe they have a mission to rid the world of the people they consider immoral or unworthy of life so they select a certain group of people to target -- prostitutes, gays, young women in bars, runaways, etc…

And the Mission serial killer is only one type… you still have the Visionary killer who is really insane -- they hear voices telling them to kill… The Thrill killer who gets high from killing -- very sadistic in their methods… and then you have the Lust killer who kills because that’s the only way they can get turned on sexually -- the more horrible the torture… the more pleasure they get…

Serial killers normally pick at random but they target people who are vulnerable in some form… sometimes stalking them for weeks fanaticizing about killing them before they actually do..

__________________

Cait' you should write a book someday. I know this sounds wierd, but I'm intrigued by serial killers and how their minds work. "The Zodiac" case is one of the most frightening and disturbing cases I've followed. But the killer is (was) no dummy. It's been estimated that the killer would place his victims in certain locations so that if you were to connect the dots on the map, they would form a large star.


But anyway. Cait' makes a good point (as per usual). I just wonder if the potential victims ignore any common sense. Perhaps many potential victims are unaware of the class of killers known as the "Mission Orientated" type, but they should know deep-down that evil people exist. Armed with that bit of knowledge should make them more aware of the dangers surrounding them in the real world. I mean you just don't go home with just anyone. If you do, you tell someone where you're going first.

It just seems to me that victims are sitting in a bar somewhere, when suddenly they're approached by a man who buys them a drink. After awhile, when she's nice and liquored up, the man invites her back to his place. Now at that point, I, or any of you (barring any hookers) would think twice--even in a drunken stupor--and say no, or go make a phone call to someone, letting them know where you are going to be, and who your with. But no, it seems that most victims say, "Sure let's go!"
I mean really, basic human instinct thrives on survival, that means that any intuitive thoughts of danger are automatically triggered when a stranger approaches you, or asks you to go to a different location alone!