Are all serial killers legally insane? Dahmer (spoiler alert!)

xandriarain

So I have been watching the popular new Netflix series (Dahmer), and in one episode, they try to get him off with the insanity plea so he would go to a mental hospital rather than prison. However, he was found to be sane and guilty at the end of the trial. As someone who majored in psychology and still studies it to this day, I had to question how a serial killer could be considered sane. Morality aside, generally, serial killers kill strangers, they aren't getting vengeance, monetary or social gain, and they are risking their freedom and their life if there is a death penalty in their state. Many serial killers had dark pasts and childhood trauma; I am by no means excusing or justifying their behaviors as many of us had rough childhoods and did not go on to kill people, but I do believe you have to be pretty mentally ill to be a serial killer and trauma effects some people much worse than others.

Edit: I am aware that many serial killers have severe Anti-Social Personality disorder and Psychopathy, but why shouldn't these be considered forms of insanity?

What are your thoughts?

pmvines

Most are not the least bit insane , and are even very intelligent and manipulative

CuddleWho

Since when is intelligent and manipulative mutually exclusive with insanity?

xandriarain

@pmvines & @CuddleWho, it is somewhat of a misconception that serial killers are intelligent; most have average intelligence.

Also, if they were just intelligent and manipulative, wouldn't they use their abilities to elevate their wealth, power, and status rather than lower it?

JohnR1972

I didn’t major in psychology but I took classes in it while working on my undergrad degree and I have continued to read a lot on the subject since then.

There are people who have no empathy toward others and view people more as objects than fellow human beings - there to be used, played with, and discarded when they lose their usefulness. This is one of the defining traits of psychopaths and narcissists.

What makes a person this way is complicated. There is likely childhood trauma involved but there are far more people who experienced childhood trauma who do not turn out this way so there appears to be other factors at play as well. I will readily admit this is outside of my area of expertise.

By my sense of Justice, I would not automatically consider a serial killer “insane”. Some can be extremely calculating and get away with their actions for decades such as Dennis Rader (aka the BTK Killer). He lived an otherwise “normal” life when he wasn’t brutally killing women. The same goes for John Wayne Gacy who preyed on children.

I can’t say they are all sane but at the same time, I can’t believe people like Rader and Gacy were insane when they appear to have been able to “turn it off” for months or years at a time and blend in with society so well in between victims.

xandriarain

@JohnR1972 I guess what my question really comes down to is even if someone has a sense of reality, if they have a personality disorder such as psychopathy, Anti Social Personality Disorder, etc. so servere that it clouds their judgment to the point where they would kill people should that be considered a form of insanity? In my mind, no logical, rational, or reasonable person would kill someone just for the thrill or fun of it. Lacking empathy distorts one's view of reality.

danwoodz

Fascinating question. If someone kills for desire and engages in cannibalism, how are they sane? This is my ignorance. And if they are such a danger to society why don’t we rid the world of them…. Thanks to Christopher Scarver for a final act of justice.

JohnR1972

@xandriarain - thank you for clarifying your question. I don’t really have an answer to that.

I will tell you that I have changed my opinion on the death penalty. I used to support it but after reading about the innocence project and the number of convictions that have been overturned because juries made mistakes, I no longer support it. With that said, when a person like Rader or Gacy or Gary Ridgeway (aka The Green River Killer) have the ability to “appear normal” and not kill for years at a time, how can you ever know that they are “cured”.

I think the only approach is to keep them locked away for life to protect society. Whether they are locked away in a prison or psychiatric ward is probably best handled on a case by case basis.

xandriarain

@JohnR1972 I agree that there is probably no safe way to be sure that a serial killer is rehabilitated and can be safely reintroduced into society. Even if they could be, what kind of life would be waiting for them on the outside, considering that serial killers make headlines and everyone would know who they were and what they had done? But I lean more towards them belonging in a specialized facility that deals with mental illness rather than putting them in a general prison population (although most prisoners do suffer from mental illness)

notmymichael

Hello, my major actually landed me in quite a few courses that touched on criminal psych and human personality/development. That said, I’m no more qualified to answer than anyone else here, but it’s very important to me that everyone understands how brilliant I am. Is this helpful?

pmvines

People kill because they have a compulsion to do so. Uncontrollable urge with the ability to not feel remorse so you are able to freely act out your compulsions doesnt really equal insanity. You can have a very clear thought procedure backing your actions, and know exactly what you are doing. Even an impairment in judgment blocking your ability to decipher right from wrong on it's own isn't really insanity . It is like saying someone is blackout drunk so cant be held responsible for killing a pedestrian with their car. Same with the crime of passion argument.

notmymichael

Oh, right. The question. I would say it he answer runs somewhere down the middle, with each case leaning toward one or the other. Mentally ill doesn’t necessarily constitute a plea of insanity— it’s more about “mental competence,” or being able to distinguish right from wrong. Many people with ASPD know, cognitively, what society deems to be immoral or criminal. They just lack the impetus to care, usually due to a divergence in empathy and, well, the drive away from prosocial behavior. So, it’s complicated, but in my opinion the answer is both to varying degrees.

PlantDaddyPHL

@xandriarain the average person would probably say, yeah, Jeffrey Dahmer is a nut job. But in criminal law being deeply weird and horrible doesn't suffice for an insanity plea. While it varies somewhat by jurisdiction, generally an insanity plea only works if one can show that the defendant was incapable of knowing right from wrong, and/or incapable of understanding or controlling their actions. Serial killers don't pass these tests, usually.

I think you err when you assume that their judgment is clouded simply because they make choices that are repellent to decent people. Just as as other people like to surf, skydive, invest, or cuddle, serial killers like to prey on human beings. They pursue their deviant interests very rationally. That's why so many of them elude justice for so long. @JohnR1972 makes a good point about how they can turn it on and off, suggesting it's not even compulsive.

You are equating sanity with empathy, adherence to prevailing morality and just plain good sense. They're not the same.

DaringSprinter

Serial killers kill human beings. They know they're doing that, yeah? And they know they're not doing it in self-defense, right? So they're sane enough to bear responsibility for that.

Just because you can't see what they're getting out of it doesn't mean they're insane.

Look at altruism. Someone gives time, money, effort—and what do they gain? A "thank you," at best? A tax deduction? If you're not the kind of person who enjoys helping others, altruism looks like insanity.

Altruistic people get a huge internal reward from helping others. Some would even die for another person.

Serial killers must be like that, but backwards.

TheFunCartel

Richard Chase is an example of a serial killer failed by the “health care” system and his mother. He was a rapidly deteriorating schizophrenic with near constant hallucinations.

Ed Gein bordered on feeble mindedness and lacked the social, critical thinking, and coping skills to deal with life after his mother died.

Ted Bundy was just an asshole.

Randy Kraft was an alcoholic and drug addict.

Ted Kaczynski was a borderline genius who was taken over by paranoid delusions.

The point of cataloguing a few past serial killers is to make the point that like anything with people, it is not an an either-or question. It is a depends on the person question. The law only wants to know if the person knew right from wrong at the time of the crime. If they make an attempt to cover-up the crime, prevaricate, or hinder in any way of being detected, the answer is no, they are not “legally” insane. Doesn’t mean they do not have mental illness.

I lived across the street from Missouri’s worst serial killer, Lorenzo Gilyard, for four years. I never suspected any behavior of that magnitude. In hindsight there were clues but nothing that screamed out. He grew up in a criminally abusive household in poverty. I also did not know his brother was in prison for life for murder. Or that he had served time for raping then throwing his pregnant girlfriend off a factory roof. I knew none of this. In fact he was the Mother F’n Theresa of the dead end street. So yes, manipulation, childhood trauma and mental illness can all be factors but none of it really matters in criminal court…only if you knew right from wrong at the time you committed the act.

With that said, I think it is a fool’s mission to apply logic to acts of illogic.

ShaneSchrute

Each case is different and should be handled differently.

TheMidnightOwl

As one who has a degree in criminal justice/criminology and am presently getting a master’s in a mental health field with tons of psychology study and diagnosing mental disorders, I think I can offer insight on this intersection of both domains.

In the US criminal justice system, it’s merely the question of mens rea. Did they have the “criminal mind” to commit the offense? The ones they deem insane and send to institutions instead of prison are decided to have lacked mens rea, or have lost touch with reality/not oriented to time/place/person, when they committed the offense and essentially didn’t understand what they were doing.

But yes, it’s all relative in defining “insanity” in these contexts and whether that means they’re responsible for their behavior. No one who murders other people (and in this case stores and cannibalizes their body parts) is “sane” under any circumstance. This is pathologically abnormal behavior. These people truly all need mental health treatment (because, yes, typically have unresolved trauma which is a major factor in driving these crimes) but also need confinement to prison cells for such violent crimes to keep society safe.

It really shouldn’t be either/or in my opinion.

Also worth noting we have changed the designation of “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “guilty but insane.” And anyone who pretends to have mental illnesses in order to be considered insane thinking they’ll get let off easy are only delaying the inevitable. They will be sent to an institution, held in confinement, subjected to repeated psychological evaluations, and once deemed fit to stand trial, they will. And if not, they’ll be committed to the institution for life which is likely a longer confinement than the prison sentence, depending on the circumstances.

DaringSprinter

We're leaving morality out of it, right? This is purely about sanity? Then I can put it this way:

Even if almost everyone on earth loves chocolate and thinks vanilla is disgusting, it's not insane to pursue vanilla if that's what you like. If vanilla is immoral and pursuing it will land you in jail, but you love it so much that it's worth the risk for you... you're not insane. You just love vanilla.

Can any of us choose what we love? About all we can choose is whether to pursue it or not.

The people who pursue vanilla (metaphorically speaking) because they lack the ability to stop themselves; the people who pursue it because they think it's chocolate; they're insane. They're not of sound mind. They're not responsible for their actions.

But those who just like vanilla? Who could avoid it, but choose to go after it anyway, despite the risks, because they just love vanilla so darn much?

They're sane.

@xandriarain @TheMidnightOwl your answer makes the most sense and clearly you're the most educated on the topic. I just wanted to say if you haven't watched it yet, The Patient, on Hulu, is a really good show. It's just annoying because each episode is less than 30 minutes long and you have to wait to watch once a week. Lol Once all the episodes are out, you could binge it pretty quickly. Steve Carell plays a therapist and his patient (forgot the actor's name) is a serial killer who wants to be cured of the compulsion to kill. I haven't watched the Jeffrey Dahmer series yet but I've been wanting to because I'm a fan of American Horror Story and Evan Peters.

Jubal

Insanity and mental illness are not quite the same thing. I agree that most (if not all) violent criminals are mentally ill. But they generally are quite capable of understanding that their crimes are wrong.

"Insanity" in law has a precise meaning. From the Legal Information Institute: "Criminal insanity refers to a mental illness or disease that makes it impossible for a defendant to know they were committing a crime or to understand that their actions are wrong"

So a sociopathic or psychopathic violent criminal does not need to be "insane" to commit their crimes - they can understand that they're breaking the law, and they can understand that what they're doing is horribly wrong. They just don't care.

TheFunCartel

It also depends on the state. For example, Kansas does not allow an insanity plea but across the state line Missouri does. A defendant can enter in a not guilty plea by reason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. In Kansas, mental defect or illness does not enter into it legally.

The other side of the coin is competency. If one is found incompetent to stand trial it very much depends on the individual’s state laws on competency. This is used more often than the traditional insanity defense, but it is primarily a stalling strategy because at some point the person will be tried. Ed Gein is the classic example of this. He was initially found incompetent, sent to a psychiatric hospital and then was tried several years later where they found him insane and remanded him to a state psychiatric institution for the rest of his life.

PlantDaddyPHL

Gosh I'm only a software engineer with an English degree. So when I recite a simple matter of fact available to anyone with an internet connection, be advised to take it with a grain of salt unless it pertains to the English language or software. Same goes for every other person here who simply recited the predominant legal definition of insanity without credentials for doing so.

TheFunCartel

@PlantDaddyPHL Isn't that stating the obvious when one is on the internet. Besides, the legal definition varies from state to state and some states do not have a legal definition because insanity is not an allowable defense or plea.

PlantDaddyPHL

@FunCartel no it's not obvious. I was being facetious. I don't think credentials matter much to this discussion at all, particularly when the people invoking credentials aren't saying anything different from what others are saying.

Yes, jurisdictions vary, and I said that in my first comment. That some jurisdictions don't have an insanity plea at all doesn't really alter how insanity is defined in places that do. In your first comment, you said, 'The law only wants to know if the person knew right from wrong at the time of the crime.' Now you're all about the nuances and it's awesome.

sdcuddleguy

I read the initial post and voted in favor of them facing criminal trials as a "sane" person. I didn't take the time yet to read all of the other posts so I am sorry if this is redundant in any way, but it's going to be my opinion regardless.

Frankly, I think anyone that kills anyone (outside of self defense or defending another) - multiple victims or just one - likely is not completely sane. BUT, should that afford them the right to be looked at in a manner they could get a sentence lighter than someone considered sane?

I think that attitude in general is very ignorant of the victims' families and loved ones. The recidivism rate among those diagnosed with mental illness is considerably higher than those that are not, so a victim or family member of a victim can also make the very strong argument that going lighter on someone, or less of a sentence in any way, does not in the end serve the public because they're much more inclined to repeat.

Do I believe that once convicted a different rehabilitation path within the same sentencing confines would be appropriate, for example a 20 year sentence is still a 20 year sentence, just a different treatment path and a different qualifying set of circumstances for release? Yes, I believe that. But I also believe that a question like this that the OP poses and many people seem to consider tends to fall more toward the rights of the guilty than it does the innocent victim's rights to justice being served.

My vote would be for a different type of reform - guilty is guilty and a sentence is a sentence. But once behind bars, treatment to rehabilitate the criminal becomes custom to that criminal's needs for proper rehab and assimilation back into society if the sentence allows.

TheFunCartel

@PlantDaddyPHL I think you misunderstood. I was saying isn’t obvious when reading anything on internet forums on any site that one should come to it with a healthy dose of skepticism? And perhaps you are right, maybe it is not so obvious. But I am skeptical of anything posted on the internet.

And I was just out in Philly last week. What is blooming out there that kicked my allergies into overdrive?

PlantDaddyPHL

@FunCartel oh yeah, I completely agree. In the comment you took up, I was just doing an eyeroll at credential-waving in this thread, by reason of caffeine deficiency. My non-facetious revision of my first comment: take everything I say with a grain of salt, but not because I only have an English degree. Take it with a grain of salt because I'm just some guy on a forum. Always verify.

PlantDaddyPHL

@FunCartel i don't have a good guess about your allergies, but weather.com says ragweed pollen is high.

dave31415

Insane is a meaningless word

TheFunCartel

@dave31415 Cypress Hill would beg to differ.

PlantDaddyPHL

@dave31415 I think I mostly agree, although I'm fairly comfortable applying the label to people who don't know right from wrong and tend to hallucinate. Would like to know more about what you mean.