Groven 1

Carli Groven

Prof. Hunter

LIT 1201.A51

28 February 2019

The Creation of Serial Killers

An innocent little boy witnesses his father physically assaulting his mother in a drunken

rage. Another little boy is told over and again by his mother that he will amount to nothing and

that she wishes he had never been born. A third child suffers sexual abuse from his older

siblings. All three of these children attend school, where their home lives affect them in such a

way that their shyness makes them feel as though they do not fit in. This causes them to

experience bullying from peers. No one says anything. No one does anything. The three of them

grow into adults without ever having had a healthy outlet for the malevolent emotions they have

been forced to endure. What happens next? These three scenarios actually describe the

beginnings of three prolific serial killers. Could their adult behaviors have been prevented? More

professional work needs to be done based on fact that the lack of a nurturing environment is the

ultimate cause for the creation of serial killers (as opposed to a natural cause), so that society can

work to combat these violent criminals from taking a foothold within communities.

What does nature versus nurture mean? As J. Oliver Conroy puts it in an article he wrote

for the Guardian, “One of the oldest questions in criminology – and, for that matter, philosophy,

law, theology – is whether criminals are born or made. Are serial killers a product of nature

(genetics) or nurture (environmental factors)?” (Conroy). There has been a long-standing debate

among scientists, researchers, and the general public over whether violent criminals (specifically
 Groven 2

serial killers) are born with a genetic predisposition to kill (nature), or if they are produced by

extremely unhealthy circumstances in their early lives (nurture). Many people prefer the notion

that serial killers are just born to kill; it is much easier to accept the idea of nature having had

some sort of episodic blooper than believing that a person capable of such heinous behavior is

created by a concoction of unfortunate events, experiences, and abuses visited upon them. That is

because blame cannot be ascribed to any one person or part of society for engineering a serial

killer if those entities can be eliminated. If nature constructs dangerous people, then society if off

the hook. People are reluctant to welcome thoughts that parents and peers may just be

responsible for making serial killers, yet there has always been an interest and need to explain

why such atrocities occur. This need for an explanation has funneled down to the nature versus

nurture dispute.

One institution that has worked rigorously to uncover some of the mystery behind the

origins of serial killers is the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Through efforts to better arm

agents with the ability to both discover and apprehend serial killers, the FBI created its profiling

unit in the late 1970s. It was initially headed by John Douglas, who essentially formulated the

techniques which have led to effective criminal profiling. On his journey with this work, he was

involved in several interviews of serial killers who were caught and detained. “The prison

interviews,” he says, “helped us see and understand the wide variety of motivation and behavior

among serial killers… most of them come from broken or dysfunctional homes. They’re

generally products of some type of abuse, whether it’s physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional

abuse, or a combination” (23). The cases he studied made him notice there were several

similarities shared by serial killers. The criminals who suffered abuses in youth grew up to turn

the effects of those abuses outward onto their victims. Douglas says, “Throughout their lives,
 Groven 3

they believe that they’ve been victims: they’ve been manipulated, they’ve been controlled by

others. But here, in this one situation, fueled by fantasy, this inadequate, ineffectual nobody can

manipulate and dominate a victim of his own; he can be in control…It’s up to him; he’s finally

calling the shots.” (23-24). The serial killers are, in effect, trying – unsuccessfully – over and

again to project their grievances onto their victims. This is a direct result of the influences from

malevolent experiences they endured in their childhoods.

Once John Douglas identified and discovered that these similarities among serial killers

exist, he made it his goal to impress upon others the necessity to continue studying the effects

harmful abuses have on individuals. He told a startled reporter, “Well, we’d better all think about

this if we want to have fewer of them to think about… then maybe we can make a difference”

(6). If factors could be pinpointed and catalogued, many serial killers could be expunged before

they have even had a chance to form. Douglas points out, “recognition of serious behavioral

problems in kids and intervention at an early age are vital… by the time it makes a blip in our

radar, it’s too late; the criminal personality is already well established” (360). The key here is

that personalities are designed and contoured by the way children are raised and by the way they

are treated by their peers. The entire concept of personality is built upon nurture, and it is of

utmost importance that it is shaped into one that is a decent contributing component of society,

not one that will bring enmity upon it. That is why it is so important to convince the public that

nurture, and not nature, is the underlying cause of violent criminal behaviors perpetrated by

serial killers.

To better understand the significance of nature versus nurture, it is necessary to take a

look at the biology of the brain. When the word biology is introduced into discussion, we are

inclined to automatically lean toward the concept of nature. Dr. Jonathan H. Pincus has studied
 Groven 4

the mind and physiological factors of criminals in great detail. According to Pincus, “The

biology of the brain is not shaped only by genetic influences. What the brain registers through its

sensory systems about the surrounding environment is increasingly recognized as a critical factor

that permanently changes the brain by altering its connections” (119). To illustrate this, he shares

a fascinating anecdote about two trees he planted at his home. He tells of how these two trees

originated from virtually genetically identical acorns. Since they were planted in different spots

on his land with differing environmental factors, such as the presence of water, sun, and nutrients

in the soil, their branches and roots grew according to their responses to those factors. The trees

experienced “the effect of environment on the expression of a genetic endowment” (119). When

talking about brain biology in human beings, genetics are definitely part of that discussion, but

only insofar as how they are affected by the environment surrounding them. Thus, the role of

nature depends upon the role of nurture.

There are countless examples throughout the history of serial killers of them having been

exposed to abusive environments as children. In fact, it is nearly impossible to locate an example

where abuse of some kind did not take place. Jack Rosewood’s book, The Big Book of Serial

Killers details the cases of 150 such offenders; every single entry in the book includes at least

one form of abuse or other negative environmental influence in the killers’ backgrounds. “Most

experts say that childhood trauma is an experience shared by them all,” Rosewood writes, and he

adds, “… a study of serial killers behind bars found that childhood problems were the most

influential factors that led serial killers down their particular path of death and destruction”

(397). Several of the atrocities performed by these killers are a manifestation of the abuses

visited upon them. Thierry Paulin, also known as “The Old Lady Killer,” was raised by his

grandmother after his father took off, leaving his mother unable to cope. She did not show him
 Groven 5

much affection or attention. When he reached adolescence, he had a difficult time fitting in, and

he was teased and shunned because of it. This caused him to struggle, both academically and

socially into his adulthood. He went on to brutally murder roughly twenty women, all over the

age of seventy. Another serial killer, David Maust, was raised by an extremely mentally unstable

mother. She continually dropped him off at various institutions because she “just didn’t want him

at home with her” (238). At one such facility, he was repeatedly sexually molested by another

boy. As an adult, Maust killed 5 men and boys. He claimed these incidents were fueled by the

rage he possessed toward the boy who had molested him. It is impossible to ignore the obvious

connections between the barbaric actions these serial killers exacted upon their victims and the

incidents they suffered as children.

The infamous “Co-Ed Killer” Edmond Kemper illustrates the terrifying consequence of

what happens when a perfect cocktail of an abused child grows into a serial killer. His parents

divorced when he was very young, and he very much desired to live with his father, but the kids

stayed solely with their mother. “Kemper’s mother, described as emotionally abusive, started

locking a prepubescent Kemper in the basement, as she seemed convinced he might rape his

sister” (187). Kemper lived with a controlling mother who nagged him incessantly. He wanted

desperately to live with his father, who lived out of state with his new wife and new son, and this

broke young Kemper’s heart. All this culminated in a burning hatred toward his overbearing

mother and feelings of rejection and inadequacy within himself. Edmond Kemper’s number of

victims was ten, and the last two he murdered were his mother and her best friend. Once he

killed his mother, his completed the act by cutting her tongue out and trying to destroy it in the

garbage disposal. As absolutely disturbing as this is, there is a discernable reason behind this act

that seemed logical to him at the time – he needed to symbolically end her nagging and
 Groven 6

controlling voice once and for all. If only something had been done, some considerate

intervening from child or family services, ten people might not have suffered terrible deaths.

The story of Richard Ramirez springs from the same vein. Ramirez’s father “was prone

to bursts of anger and would often physically abuse his wife and [five] children” (289). Ramirez

spent a great deal of his childhood with his older cousin who had served in the US Army in

Vietnam. This cousin shared gruesome details about the numerous women he had violently raped

while in Vietnam, including showing Ramirez a “photo of him posing with a severed head

belonging to a woman he had brutalized” (289). This cousin also taught him stealth tactics and

effective ways to kill. At one point, Ramirez was present when his cousin shot and killed his own

wife following an argument. Needless to say, all this exposure to violence had a profound impact

on young Ramirez, who, as an adult, would rape and mutilate over thirteen women.

After chronicling all these serial killers, Rosewood seems to fizzle out. On the heels of

listing the endless examples of how nurture has impacted these killers, he leaves us with this:

“But essentially, no matter what their back story…, ‘they’re evil,’ said criminal profiler Pat

Brown. And do we need to know anything more than that?” (430). The answer is a resounding

yes. We do need to know more, and we need to do more, particularly in the areas of mental

health availability, treatment(s) and therapies, and active recognition by children’s and family

services. The indicators are present, but the powers that be are allowing them to slip through the

cracks. If a deeper appreciation for the scenarios at play in family and school atmospheres were

adopted, there would be a dramatic decline in the number of serial killers present in the world.

In 2018 a documentary titled Three Identical Strangers was filmed about triplet men who

were separated at birth via an adoption agency by a mysterious scientific entity. It was a

heinously concocted plan to study the effects that three different parenting styles would have on
 Groven 7

the genetically equivalent brothers. No one in the families we aware of the study. While this is

not an acceptable approach to learning more about nature versus nurture, the results of the

situation cannot be ignored. An investigator in the documentary attempted to discover and

expose the information that was hidden and restricted from the study. “How much of the nature

versus nurture shapes us into the people we become?” he asks (Wardle). A friend of the triplets

declares, “It’s all about nurture” (Wardle). The brothers were shocked to discover the existence

of each other at the age of 19, and they quickly learned that all three of them experienced deep

forms of depression from a very young age. Two of the brothers had been raised in healthy

homes, where their emotional states were dealt with and they were successfully able to surmount

the troubles conjured by their depression. Unfortunately, the third was not. He was raised by a

strict disciplinarian father, and both parents failed to connect with him. He never quite felt like

he fit in. His life came to an end when he succumbed to the depression that plagued him since his

youth. His mother, displaying feelings of guilt, conjectures, “I think nature can overcome nearly

everything” (Wardle). Adding his thoughts, one of the brothers says, “I believe I am here still

today because of the foundation I was given by my parents. It absolutely made a difference in

struggling with whatever demons I struggled with” (Wardle). The triplets were extremely

distraught over the secret experiment they were subjected to, but the two remaining brothers

recognize the importance of having grown up in a supportive, healthy family unit that provided

them with the tools necessary to overcome their mental health incapacities.

It is easy to consider why people prefer the suggestion that nature is the sole architect of

serial killers. There has been much scientific investigation into the genetic factors in individual

people in attempt to find a common link among serial killers. Romanian journalist Ilie

Magdalena Ioana explains the theorized discovery of the what has come to be known as the
 Groven 8

“crime chromosome” (Ioana, 325). She states, “the research has established that the frequency of

the Klinefelter syndrome among criminals is five to ten times higher than among the general

population (325). There is obviously merit in the study of a biological factor that connects

individuals who may become serial killers. However, as with the example of the triplets, it is

how these individuals are treated during their formulative years that matters most. It is not as if

we can eliminate a person who has this genetic trait; they exist and the genetic trait exists, so

they must be dealt with. It comes down to the need for more provisions and efforts pored into

support systems, healthy home and school environments, and sufficient mental health care to

prevent these individuals from turning into dangerous adults.

Another argument against nurture being the responsible root of serial killers’ production

is the fact that the vast majority of children who experience abuses do not wind up murdering

others as adults, let alone multiple people. Several abuse victims turn into upstanding, perfectly

functional human beings. An interesting article, “Nature vs Nurture: The Role of Childhood

Abuse in Making a Murderer” dives into the importance of looking at a biological background in

serial killers. It makes the point, “…it’s important to consider going forward that unfortunately

many children have suffered horrific abuse and did not become serial killers. So, while abuse

seems to be a common thread and somehow related to criminality, it can’t, and shouldn’t be

considered the sole driver for this antisocial behaviour” (“Nature vs. Nurture”). The article then

describes how neglect, isolation, physical, mental, and sexual abuse by one or both parents is a

factor, but must not be the only consideration. The search for genetic abnormalities in serial

killers is a complicated and ongoing one. The simple truth is that we do not know the exact

biological factors present in violent criminals. There has not been a medically conclusive account

of the predisposition for these dangerous criminals to come to be. Conversely, we do know that
 Groven 9

they are derived from broken and abusive environments. It makes the most sense to conquer the

problems we know and see; it is much more effective to deal with the tangible issues, as opposed

to the undetermined.

Here is an interesting fact to consider when thinking of nature versus nurture: serial

killers in American society seem to be on the decline! If serial killers murder because of some

genetic predisposition, this would not be the case. We as a society have gotten better at catching

them or stopping them. Why is this? Over the past couple of decades, we have seen a rise in the

acceptance and treatment of mental health in individuals. It is possible that people who may have

become violent criminals have been more able to adequately discover outlets for their negative

emotions. It is also a great deal less acceptable to subscribe to harsh punishments in a household

than in years past, so childhood traumas have been cut down as well. It appears that as we

increase a nurturing environment in our society as a whole, criminal behaviors decrease; this is

probably the biggest and most obvious argument for nurture in this great debate.

A recognition must be made that nurture is the more important factor at play. Once there

is agreement from all sides on this, the appropriate measures can be taken to protect children and

prevent serial killers from forming in the first place. As Scott Bon explains in his fascinating

book, Why We Love Serial Killers, “The relationship between psychopathy and serial homicide is

complicated and not absolute” (72). We can all agree that abuse is bad, and that is something that

is identifiable in many instances. If every one of the above-mentioned serial killers (as well as

the plethora of unnamed ones) experienced abuse, imagine how dramatically things would have

turned out if these abuses had been addressed early on. We owe it to the victims and their family

members to act on the aspect that we know for sure exists, that of a non-nurturing environment.

Going back to FBI profiler John Douglas, he offers, “We can try to rehabilitate, we can isolate
 Groven 10

them as long as we have to, but what about this goal?” (361). Douglas fears that once offenders

reach the point of serial killing, it is too late to correct them enough to ever release them back

into society.

The three scenarios painted at the beginning might or might not have had a genetic

predisposition that compelled them toward a violent future. Unfortunately for society and the

victims, the brain biology is hidden. Abuses and outward behavioral problems can be detected,

though. Common sense dictates that the problems we can see are the ones we should manage the

most. We are obligated to work within the confines of what we can put our hands on. If a baby

with the supposed “crime chromosome” is born to a family with loving parents and siblings and

is socially accepted by peers, rest assured that child will function as a contributing member of

adult society much more successfully than if that same baby was born to a family rife with the

abuses outlined herein. When put in these terms, the concept of nature versus nurture in the

creation of serial killers becomes unquestionably clear.

 Groven 11

Nature (biology) versus nurture (loving environment) – which devices would you want your

loved ones left to?

Image from Ferierra, Jose Luis. “Economics and the debate on nature vs. nurture.” Mapping

Ignorance, 20 December 2013, https://mappingignorance.org/2013/12/20/economics-and-the-

debate-on-nature-vs-nurture/.
 Groven 12

Works Cited

Bonn, Scott. Why We Love Serial Killers. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc, 2014.

Conroy, J. Oliver. “What Makes a Serial Killer?” The Guardian, 10 August 2018,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/10/what-makes-a-serial-killer. Accessed

30 January2019.

Douglas, John and Olshaker, Mark. Journey Into Darkness. Pocket Books, 1997.

Ferierra, Jose Luis. “Economics and the debate on nature vs. nurture.” Mapping Ignorance, 20

December 2013, https://mappingignorance.org/2013/12/20/economics-and-the-debate-on-

nature-vs-nurture/. Accessed 15 February 2019.

Ioana, Ilie Magdalena. “No One is Born a Serial Killer!” Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, vol. 81, 2013, pp. 324-328.

“Nature Vs. Nurture: The Role of Childhood Abuse in Making a Murderer.” Forensic Outreach,

10 June 2016, https://forensicoutreach.com/library/nature-vs-nurture-the-role-of-

childhood-abuse-in-making-a-murderer/. Accessed 31 January 2019.

Pincus, Jonathan H., M.D. Base Instincts; What Makes Killers Kill?. W. W. Norton & Company,

Inc., 2001.

Rosewood, Jack. The Big book of Serial Killers: 150 Serial Killer Files of the World’s Worst

Murderes (An Encyclopedia of Serial Killers 1). LAK Publishing, 2017.

Three Identical Strangers. Directed by Tim Wardle, Neon, CNN Films, 2018.