The article discusses the complexity of classifying serial killers, highlighting that while typologies seem simple and popular, none have universal acceptance. It details several classification systems proposed over the years, including the well-known categories by Holmes and DeBurger and simpler ones by Philip Jenkins. The discrepancies arise from evolving definitions of a serial killer, shaped in part by the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit's early work. Changing the criteria over decades illustrates the inherent challenges in creating a definitive classification system for understanding serial murder.
People like typologies. They simplify complex subjects and make them easier to discuss. However, there's no universal agreement on how to classify serial killers, leading to various proposed typologies.
Proposed by crime historian Philip Jenkins, a simple typology of serial killers includes predictable types—showing progression from antisocial behavior—and respectable types, showing unexpected turns to murder.
The FBI's Behavioral Science Unit began defining criteria for serial killing in the 1970s, initially focusing on the number of victims and geographical locations involved in the crimes.
The Crime Classification Manual revised criteria for serial murders to involve three or more separate events with an emotional cooling off period, dropping previous requirements for geographical locations.
Collection
[
|
...
]