Serial killers capture the imagination of the general public. How could someone be so evil, so destructive? What causes this evil to exist? Who could be capable of committing such heinous crimes? What made them do it? People dedicate their life’s work to understanding serial killers. Psychologists analyze their thoughts, scientists study their brains and evaluate their DNA, FBI agents reverse engineer what their crimes could mean. There are a wide variety of reasons why serial killers commit their crimes, but one common thread is childhood trauma, or any trauma of any sort. This trauma triggers genetics, psychology, and the situation of a serial killer, culminating in a deadly, perfect storm. While it is devastating to know that someone can be so hurt by trauma they resort to the most extreme violence possible, this cannot completely excuse their actions. People must be held accountable for their actions regardless of the trauma they have experienced in their life. This is because people have agency; no one is forced to succumb to their past experiences. Excusing such despicable behavior sets a dangerous precedent where moral responsibility ceases to exist. Within each person is the ability to reframe trauma, and to be able to rise above the harm that has been caused to an individual. People can change their life at any moment, absolutely nothing is stopping them.
The study of serial killers has expanded rapidly in the past few decades. The introduction of the behavioral analysis unit and other similar entities have used psychology to better understand how a person is capable of committing grotesque crimes. Adrian Raine, an expert in neurocriminology explains that “genetics and environment work together to encourage violent behavior.” For example, those with a specific variant of the enzyme monoamine-oxidase-A gene are more prone to displaying violent behavior if they have had an abusive upbringing. A child susceptible to genetically driven violent conduct does not necessarily become a criminal. However, genetics, in tandem with environmental factors such as violent childhood experiences, work together to shape a person” (Raine). A person’s circumstances and genetics can influence violent behavior, and through analyzing various serial killers, a common theme of abuse or trauma arises, and abuse or trauma is linked to other crimes as well. The Nation Institute of Justice explains “childhood abuse increased the risk of adulthood crime by promoting antisocial behavior during childhood and adolescence, followed by the formation of relationships with antisocial romantic partners and peers in adulthood”(NIJ). As well as this, research “also found evidence of a “cycle of violence” among individuals with child maltreatment histories. This pattern of behavior occurs when victims of childhood violence perpetrate violence toward their peers or partners later in the life cycle” (NIJ). This same report found that “individuals with substantiated child maltreatment histories were more likely to perpetrate sexual and physical intimate partner violence in adulthood compared to their non-maltreated peers” (NIJ). This shows that one’s situation has a substantial impact on their behavior. An abused person is more likely to continue the cycle of abuse.
However, the increased likelihood that someone who suffers abuse can be violent, and even specific instances of extreme abuse suffered by perpetrators of heinous crimes does not eliminate responsibility. To be responsible is to be a free agent. While people are restrained by laws, it is up to the individual to follow them. When driving a particular canyon in my hometown, I know that the speed limit is forty miles per hour; however, I rarely go that number; it is an empty canyon. If I were to get pulled over for speeding it would be my fault, regardless of why I was speeding, or if I was genetically predisposed to like speeding. This instance is to a much smaller scale, however it is essentially what serial killers tend to do in interviews. They try to evoke sympathy, to find a reason they acted so viciously. They find an excuse, a scapegoat, to explain their heinous conduct. In an effort to understand evil and the continuation of abuse, people use past traumas, brain chemistry, and abuse as justification.
It is more comfortable to think evil has a source than to take responsibility for one’s actions. This can be seen through Gary Watson’s article on moral responsibility. In this article, Watson describes the story of Robert Harris, a man who shot two men in cold blood. He was a man that was so vile, other prisoners on death row said he had no soul, and they were relieved when he died. Throughout Harris's life he was aggressive, violent, and cold. His blatant lack of remorse after he killed two innocent youths shocked and terrified. Robert Harris suffered immense abuse as a child, abuse so monstrous his sister and mother pitied him, and understood how he could be so evil. They recalled a little boy who cried at the film Bambi in theaters, and through the chronology of his life, they concluded that “Robert was too young, and the abuse lasted too long […] for him to ever have had the chance to recover” (Watson 136). However, this effort to understand the evil may shift into excusing the evil, the story of Robert Harris should not undermine the fact that he is vicious and evil, rather it serves as a sort of explanation for why he is the way he is (Watson 137). Watson explains “Harris’s history reveals him to be an inevitable product of his formative circumstances. Seeing him as a product is inconsistent with seeing him as a responsible agent” (Watson 138). It is difficult to see someone as a responsible agent when they are solely a product of their environment because if we are a product of our environment, and we cannot control our environment, then our actions are not dependent on our own free will. Watson says it best, “if his cruel attitudes and conduct are the inevitable result of his circumstances, then he is not responsible for them, unless he was responsible for those circumstances”(Watson 138). As a person who looks on this story responds, their responses to an abused child turned murderer “conflict not in the way that fear dispels anger, but in the way that sympathy is opposed to antipathy […] taken together they do not enable us to respond overall in a coherent way” (Watson 138). However, one is able to reconcile the opposition between these two sides when they realize that human beings have agency. Human beings are not just products of their environment.
While there is an increased chance that someone who suffers abuse becomes inclined towards crime, this does not mean that they have to. People have agency over their lives; at their core they know right from wrong. Morality is mystifying. Many people have conflicting views on where we get morality from. Some believe it was bestowed on humanity by god, some believe morals were created in order to existing society. Others would argue that morality does not exist at all, that it is an illusion. I believe morality does exist, and regardless of where it comes from, people generally know right from wrong. Serial killers and murderers who suffered from abuse know right from wrong as well. Famously, Sartre explained that “man is free, man is freedom” (Satre 32). He goes on further, “man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does” (Satre 32). They are condemned because being free, having agency incurs a responsibility over one’s own actions. Someone may suffer immense abuse as a child, or suffer egregious trauma. This trauma, the hurt from abuse, will cause pain, pain that may extend to violence, to the extreme of murder. Yet, this person is still condemned to their freedom. They have the choice to let their past experience define them, or they have the choice to rise above, to reframe their suffering. They are responsible for their actions, and regardless if they choose to acknowledge this fact or not people are also responsible in constructing the fututre of other people as well. If one chooses to let their past define them, excuses their actions on the past, then so will everyone else. Every person will use their pain and suffering as an excuse to cause more pain and suffering. This creates an endless cycle of suffering, a cycle that does not need to exist.
Self realization, stepping into one’s own power could help to stop this vicious cycle. There are many studies on how reframing trauma or abuse leads to healing. Hurt people are more likely to hurt people, but they don’t have to if they make the choice to move on. The problem is this; most people do not have the knowledge that they are free. People are unaware that they can take power over their lives and not be overpowered by the pain of the past. One may argue that someone may not have the capacity to reach self realization, they may not have the tools to do so. While this may be true, it is a dangerous argument to say that people are solely a product of their environment and they don’t have agency over their lives. Self realization, free will, and agency are not as difficult to cultivate as one would think. Throughout a person's life he or she will make millions, even billions of choices. While it is difficult to reframe trauma or abuse, it can be done; people do it all the time, and in doing so they help to stop the cycle of abuse.
Serial killers who suffered from monstrous childhoods should still be held responsible for their actions because the past does not override agency. One’s experiences may influence the way they behave, but trauma and abuse do not have agency, human beings do. Human beings, at their very core, are free. They are defined by their choices, and their choices define the way that they live and the way that they exist in society. Because people are defined by their choices, they must be held responsible for their actions when they hurt others, regardless of the factors that caused them to make that decision.
Pathways Between Child Maltreatment and Adult Criminal Involvement. National Institute of
Updated October 12, 2017. Accessed May 29, 2018.
psiquiatr Rio Gd Sul. 2008;30:5-8.
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1905-1980. Existentialism Is a Humanism = (L'Existentialisme Est Un
Humanisme) ; Including, a Commentary on The Stranger (Explication De L'Étranger).
New Haven :Yale University Press, 2007.
Watson, Gary. "Responsibility and the Limits of Evil: Variations on a Strawsonian Theme."
Agency and Answerability: Selected Essays, Sept. 2010,
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272273.003.0009
Comentarii