|
Serial killers
|
| Liflessdead |
Posted on September 11 2012 06:12
|
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 09/04/2012
|
Why were Serial killers more active in the 70s-80s? |
| |
|
|
| Fedorfan |
Posted on September 11 2012 10:02
|
Contributing Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 05/16/2012
|
I would say lack of CODIS and ViCAP programs.
"Only tears of sorrow can wash out the stain of shame; only pangs of suffering can blot out the fires of lust." -Lucian Staniak
|
| |
|
|
| omnivorism |
Posted on September 11 2012 11:55
|
Super Admin
Posts: 271
Joined: 05/23/2012
|
Oh, no. Not this question again.
Simple.
THERE WEREN'T.
At least not other than the fact that forensic science is light years ahead of what it was back then, and that most killers on average are caught sooner and with lower body counts in the modern age, because the police catch up to them sooner. |
| |
|
|
| blackcountryboy |
Posted on September 11 2012 12:06
|
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 05/02/2012
|
I blame it on the boogie. |
| |
|
|
| Fedorfan |
Posted on September 11 2012 13:49
|
Contributing Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 05/16/2012
|
LOL
"Only tears of sorrow can wash out the stain of shame; only pangs of suffering can blot out the fires of lust." -Lucian Staniak
|
| |
|
|
| saucyjack88 |
Posted on September 11 2012 15:45
|
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 09/02/2012
|
I agree with omnivorism. Serial killers are just as common in today's times as they were in the 1960s-1980s. I think that one of the reasons that there appears to be a decline in the number of serial killers in today's day and age is that some of the serial killers have learned what victims are less likely to be missed, and are simply making them "disappear". (i.e. Dumping/burying/submerging them in isolated/inconspicuous locations) Also, the advancements of forensic science have probably been instrumental in decreasing the numbers of serial killers, as well as helping to convict violent offenders and sex offenders who may have been serial killers in the making, as omnivorism stated. That's my thought on the matter, anyways. 
"We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"
-Norman Bates, Psycho (1960)
|
| |
|
|
| Fedorfan |
Posted on September 11 2012 18:01
|
Contributing Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 05/16/2012
|
Yep
"Only tears of sorrow can wash out the stain of shame; only pangs of suffering can blot out the fires of lust." -Lucian Staniak
|
| |
|
|
| Repp Eternal |
Posted on September 11 2012 19:06
|
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 04/18/2012
|
saucyjack88 wrote:
I agree with omnivorism. Serial killers are just as common in today's times as they were in the 1960s-1980s. I think that one of the reasons that there appears to be a decline in the number of serial killers in today's day and age is that some of the serial killers have learned what victims are less likely to be missed, and are simply making them "disappear". (i.e. Dumping/burying/submerging them in isolated/inconspicuous locations) Also, the advancements of forensic science have probably been instrumental in decreasing the numbers of serial killers, as well as helping to convict violent offenders and sex offenders who may have been serial killers in the making, as omnivorism stated. That's my thought on the matter, anyways.
Sounds like wishful thinking. Post some body dump stats to support your thoughts on the matter.
|
| |
|
|
| Fedorfan |
Posted on September 11 2012 19:51
|
Contributing Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 05/16/2012
|
If someone could actually find remotely accurate body dumping stats, I would be highly impressed.
"Only tears of sorrow can wash out the stain of shame; only pangs of suffering can blot out the fires of lust." -Lucian Staniak
|
| |
|
|
| brakeme |
Posted on September 11 2012 20:11
|
Admin
Posts: 1159
Joined: 04/20/2012
|
omni's post is bang on.
however if we look at crime rates in general, most notably in nyc, there was a significant drop-off in violent crimes/murders in the 1990's. i recall reading a paper that addressed these statistics and proposed that it could be directly attributed to wade vs roe; that is, when abortion became more easily available there were far fewer babies born to people who could not/would not provide suitable household conditions in which to bring up children.
hence, 18-20 years later there were far fewer fuck-ups around than there might otherwise have been.
any thoughts?
|
| |
|
|
| Fedorfan |
Posted on September 11 2012 20:27
|
Contributing Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 05/16/2012
|
Well, I do have a thought.
I can't see how Roe V. Wade could be attributed to serial killers. Rapist/Murderers are less active because they think that the surviving rape victim could legally have an abortion?
Have I misread your statement? I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you're going with this...
"Only tears of sorrow can wash out the stain of shame; only pangs of suffering can blot out the fires of lust." -Lucian Staniak
|
| |
|
|
| brakeme |
Posted on September 12 2012 02:47
|
Admin
Posts: 1159
Joined: 04/20/2012
|
Fedorfan wrote:
Well, I do have a thought.
I can't see how Roe V. Wade could be attributed to serial killers. Rapist/Murderers are less active because they think that the surviving rape victim could legally have an abortion?
Have I misread your statement? I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you're going with this...
my comment had no particular relevance to serial killers, which is why i referred to "(violent) crime rates in general".
where am i going with this? nowhere in particular, im simply refering to a paper i read some years ago that detailed an interesting theory that has a tenuous link to this thread. i'll attempt to explain the guts of it more clearly....
in the 1990's there was a significant drop in violent crime and murders in new york city. mayor rudi giuliani was credited with initiating policies and practices that led to this reduction, but the paper contested this view and proposed instead that the drop could be attributed to a flow-on effect of roe vs wade.
how? well....
* roe vs wade enabled women from low socio-economic backgrounds to get abortions more readily
* without roe vs wade many of these women would likely have gone through with unwanted pregnancies
* children from unstable and low-socioeconomic backgrounds are over-represented in violent crime statistics
* as a result of roe vs wade many children who would otherwise have grown up to be criminals were not born in the first place.
* the drop in violent crimes/murders in the nyc area began 18-20 years after roe vs wade - right about when these children would have settled into their criminal careers.
i'm not saying i agree or disagree with this theory, but i am interested to know if others think it's plausible.
|
| |
|
|
| omnivorism |
Posted on September 12 2012 06:26
|
Super Admin
Posts: 271
Joined: 05/23/2012
|
Also, another factor in this perception that there were more killers in the past, is the differences between the modern media, and the media of the past.
I think the media today seems to latch onto more scandalous cases of crimes, like family related, spouses, celebrities etc.
It seems to me that basically none of the worst cases in the past 15 years got anything comparable to the amount of press that Casey Anthony received.
So some are flying more under the radar. At least in terms of becoming iconic, like more in the past did. For example ... who was that guy who in Louisiana who killed like 30 men? I can't even remember his name.
There was the Unabomber of course, back in the late 1990s, and BTK and Ridgway both received a fair amount of press in more recent years, but neither are or will ever be the pop culture icons like Dahmer is. (Although, I admit, he was more of a stand out either way).
Hell, even Octomom got more press than Rodney Alcala.
So point being, I think we live in a different media age also. This isn't really about the numbers, so much as what cases really make it into the minds of mainstream America (or wherever) and stay there like some of the killers of the eras you spoke of.
Edited by omnivorism on September 12 2012 06:35
|
| |
|
|
| saucyjack88 |
Posted on September 12 2012 11:20
|
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 09/02/2012
|
That is an interesting theory, brakeme. So essentially, because women of lower socioeconomic status were more readily able to get abortions, the children that may have been born to what may have been dysfunctional households were not born. So, the children that would have become criminals because of a combination genetic predisposition/dysfunctional childhood, simply don't exist. That is actually really fascinating, partly because it makes sense lol. 
"We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"
-Norman Bates, Psycho (1960)
|
| |
|
|
| jeffc |
Posted on September 12 2012 20:32
|
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 06/27/2012
|
Gasoline was much cheaper.
I always imagined Kraft, Bittaker, Bonin, and Clark discussing mileage rates during their daily bridge games. |
| |
|
|
| jeffc |
Posted on September 12 2012 20:39
|
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 06/27/2012
|
brakeme, that is an intriguing theory.
IIRC, it is in the book Freakonomics ?
There is also an interesting economic analysis of why so many street-level dug dealers live with their mothers. |
| |
|
|
| brakeme |
Posted on September 12 2012 21:47
|
Admin
Posts: 1159
Joined: 04/20/2012
|
jeffc wrote:
brakeme, that is an intriguing theory.
IIRC, it is in the book Freakonomics ?
There is also an interesting economic analysis of why so many street-level dug dealers live with their mothers.
yup, it is in freakonomics, among other places. great book, isn't it?
|
| |
|
|
| Repp Eternal |
Posted on September 13 2012 05:54
|
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 04/18/2012
|
The short answer? Hairier pussies.
|
| |
|
|
| Fedorfan |
Posted on September 13 2012 16:01
|
Contributing Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 05/16/2012
|
LOL
I get it now, brake. Didn't look at it that way. Thanks for breaking it down.
"Only tears of sorrow can wash out the stain of shame; only pangs of suffering can blot out the fires of lust." -Lucian Staniak
|
| |
|
|
| The Bay Harbour Butcher |
Posted on September 24 2012 05:15
|
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 09/22/2012
|
I've just done a book on serial killers. In the UK, the number of killers active in any given twenty-year stretch is higher than the previous one. 1990 - 2012 had plenty more SKs than 1950 - 1970 for example. They just kill less people and get less media coverage, whereas in the earlier years they killed more people and got tons of coverage.
|
| |
|
