Sunday, November 8, 2009

Rethinking the Serial Killer

I was thinking today about the average serial killer, and how boring he actually is. Reality far outweighs the image shown in high-octane big screen thrillers featuring indomitable geniuses. There’s always the sense of mystery involving any murder, but the suspects invariably turn out to be your Average Joe who just happens to like killing hookers. The media and academic attention these individuals garner also make serial killers the most predictable people on the planet. Think of all the colleges and universities offering Criminology classes. Think of all those students studying serial killers just for the fascination of it all. Think of all the books, movies, and other paraphanealia involving these people. Serial killers can all be catagorized within moments of their first crime by trained professionals. With enough evidence, you can predict when, where, how, who and why they’re going to strike. You know their methods because serial killers are methodical. The only thing really protecting them is the remoteness, or the density of the population they’re working in. They keep finding victims because there are victims to be found. Kill one hooker and there’ll always be another.
One of the great myths is that all these killers are inherent geniuses. It doesn’t take a genius to get a hooker in a car and drive her some place out of the way. That’s what hookers get paid for. Look at Robert Pickton, and how many he was able to do away with, and he’s borderline retarded.

No comments: