When I got to work, multiple people weren’t dressed up and I felt even dumber, but I didn’t care that much. At least, that was until one of my coworkers guessed that my costume was a serial killer, and another coworker asked “are you the Unabomber?” Not only was I mortified about having a really sucky costume, but I was mistaken for a guy who killed 3 people and injured 20+ more. Now it’s a running joke between me and a few of my coworkers that “I was the Unabomber” and this story is continuously retold to my utter embarrassment.

However, this whole situation did make me think quite a bit. For years, I’ve heard about people dressing up as killers for Halloween and always thought that it was wrong. The whole thing feels icky. This year I saw a costume that particularly bothered me for many reasons, Dee Dee and Gypsy Rose Blanchard. For those that are unfamiliar with this case, Gypsy conspired with Nicholas Godejohn to kill her mother, Dee Dee, after years of being physically, medically, psychologically, and emotionally abused. Dee Dee convinced doctors that Gypsy had multiple medical conditions and needed to be in a wheelchair, when Gypsy was perfectly healthy and was able to walk. Given the severity of the abuse Gypsy faced, she was able to plead guilty to second degree murder with a 10 year sentence, and only served ~7 years before being released on parole. While Gypsy was both the perpetrator and the victim in this case, the entire situation is incredibly tragic and Gypsy described feeling more freedom in prison than with her mother. So why would anyone think it is okay to dress up as her and her mother for Halloween?

Often Halloween comes with a lot of fake blood, injuries, and gore. This is generally considered pretty socially acceptable, but the lines can very quickly get blurred. The TV show, Dexter, follows a forensic bloodstain analyst who is a serial killer and uses his job to get away with murder. This show is completely fictional, and many find themselves dressing up for Dexter for Halloween. Some may find it a bit controversial, yet not anywhere near as taboo as dressing up a real killer, so where is the line? Regardless of how controversial it may be, many dress up as real killers who have actually murdered others. This feels incredibly gross and wrong, but it doesn’t nearly feel as bad when it is a fictional character. Even when it is a fictional character, these kinds of costumes (including gore of any kind) can very much trigger real victims of violent crime.

At the end of the day, I think dressing up as real killers or their victims for Halloween or any event for that matter is incredibly gross and disrespectful. These aren’t just characters from a horror movie or some fictional story made for our entertainment (which is also incredibly questionable and I plan on diving into this more in the future). These are real people who experienced unimaginable pain, suffering, and trauma. Real people lost their lives, and their families are left dealing with the consequences of those crimes. Turning someone’s worst nightmare into a costume is a mockery of everything they went through. True crime has become a huge part of pop culture, and I am certainly not innocent when it comes to consuming true crime content, but there is a difference between being interested in understanding a case and treating someone’s trauma like a fun costume idea. Just because a case has been turned into a documentary, TV show, or viral TikTok trend doesn’t mean the people involved suddenly become fictional characters. We as a society have become so desensitized to violence that we sometimes forget there are actual human beings behind these stories. Maybe I’m being dramatic, but I genuinely cannot understand how someone can look at a real-life tragedy and think, “that would make a great Halloween costume.” It’s not edgy, it’s not funny, and it’s certainly not clever. It’s just gross.

When people think of serial killers, they often picture men such as H.H. Holmes, Jack the Ripper, or Ted Bundy. These notorious criminals have dominated true crime documentaries, TV shows, and news coverage for decades, if not centuries, shaping the public’s perception of what a serial killer looks like. However, serial murder is not exclusively committed by men. Throughout history, women have also committed multiple murders, sometimes remaining undetected for years. Despite this, female serial killers receive considerably less attention and are often overlooked in discussions of serial homicide. This raises an important question: why are female serial killers so frequently overlooked? The answer lies in the differences in offending patterns, methods of detection, and the influence of gender stereotypes on media portrayals.

Differences in Offending Patterns

One of the most significant differences between male and female serial killers is how they typically commit their crimes. Male serial killers are more frequently associated with physically violent methods (ex. stabbing, strangulation, shooting, etc.). Their crimes may involve sexual violence, torture, or other forms of brutality that attract considerable public attention. In contrast, research suggests that female serial killers are more likely to use less physically confrontational methods (ex. poisoning).

Additionally, female serial killers tend to have different relationships with their victims, compared to their male counterparts. While male serial killers may target strangers, female offenders are more likely to murder individuals they already know, including spouses, children, elderly patients, or people under their care. These relationships can provide opportunities to commit murder without immediately raising suspicion, at least in some cases. Take Nannie Doss for example. She killed at least 11 family members, including several husbands, primarily through poisoning. Given the time period (1927–1954), her harmless image, caregiver role, and frequently moving around, it took a very long time for anyone to catch on to the pattern of her killing.

While these differences are not universal, they demonstrate how female serial killers may operate in ways that contradict the public’s expectations of serial murder.

Why Female Serial Killers Can Be Difficult To Detect

Another reason female serial killers are overlooked involved the difficulty of identifying their crimes. Unlike murders involving obvious physical violence, poisoning and certain other methods can resemble natural deaths, illnesses, or accidental overdoses. Consequently, investigators may not immediately suspect foul play, especially when victims are elderly, chronically ill, or medically vulnerable.

This issue is particularly relevant in healthcare settings, where some female serial killers have exploited their positions as nurses or caregivers. Individuals working in these environments have access to vulnerable patients, medications, and medical information. When a patient dies unexpectedly, the death may initially be attributed to an existing medical condition rather than intentional harm. One example is Lucy Letby, a former NICU nurse convicted of murdering babies under her care. Her case illustrates how medical environments can complicate the detection of repeated killings.

Gender stereotypes may also influence investigative decisions. Women are traditionally associated with nurturing, caregiving, and compassion, making it difficult for some people to imagine them deliberately committing murder. These assumptions can lead to delayed suspicion, allowing some offenders to continue their crimes before authorities recognize a pattern.

Media Portrayals and Gender Stereotypes

The media plays a powerful role in shaping society’s understanding of serial killers. Male offenders are frequently portrayed as calculating predators, violent monsters, or psychologically disturbed individuals. Their crimes often become the subjects of documentaries, podcasts, films, and books, contributing to their lasting notoriety.

Female serial killers, however, are frequently portrayed through a different lens. Rather than focusing exclusively on their criminal behavior, media coverage may emphasize their appearance, romantic relationships, motherhood, or perceived violations of traditional femininity. Female offenders are sometimes characterized as manipulative seductresses, mentally unstable women, or unnatural mothers. For example, Aileen Wuornos became one of America’s most recognizable female serial killers. Much of the attention surrounding her case focused not only on her murders but also on her traumatic upbringing, relationships, and psychological struggles. While these details provide important context, they can sometimes overshadow broader discussions of female offending patterns.

Additionally, the media’s preference for sensational violence may contribute to the underrepresentation of female serial killers. Crimes involving prolonged physical brutality often receive greater attention than murders committed through less visibly violent methods.

Conclusion

Female serial killers are often overlooked because their crimes challenge traditional assumptions about both gender and serial murder. Differences in offending patterns, subtle methods of killing, and victims’ relationships with offenders can make their crimes more difficult to detect. Meanwhile, gender stereotypes and selective media coverage reinforce the misconception that serial murder is almost exclusively a male phenomenon. Although female serial killers are less common than their male counterparts, their crimes deserve the same level of investigative attention and criminological examination. Recognizing the differences between male and female offending patterns is essential to understanding serial homicide as a whole, rather than relying on the narrow image of serial killers that popular media has created.

Do you know who’s picture is above? Probably not. Her name is Lynda Ann Healy and she is the first known victim of Jeffrey Dahmer. You probably didn’t know her name before this post unless you are a true crime connoisseur with a particular interest in Dahmer’s case, but now you do. Lynda Ann Healy deserves to be remembered just as much as Dahmer, but realistically she isn’t and it’s pathetic.

When someone mentions Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or H.H. Holmes, most people immediately recognize their names. We know what they looked like, how they committed their crimes, and in some cases, even the smallest details about their personal lives. But what about their victims? Can the average person name even one of the individuals whose lives were taken by these men? Probably not. It is a disturbing reality that society has become so fascinated with serial killers that we have practically turned them into celebrities, while the people who suffered at their hands are often reduced to nothing more than a statistic. Why do we give so much attention to the people responsible for these horrific crimes while seemingly forgetting the people who actually deserve to be remembered?

One of the biggest reasons for this imbalance is the way the media portrays serial killers. True crime documentaries, TV shows, podcasts, and movies frequently focus on the murderer’s childhood, psychological state, motivations, and methods. We spend hours upon hours trying to understand what made these individuals become killers, sometimes to the point where their victims become secondary characters in their own murder stories. While I understand how it happens, it’s fucked up regardless. Take Netflix’s “DAHMER — Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” for example. Although the series attempted to highlight the experiences of victims and their families, much of the public conversation revolved around Dahmer himself. Instead of discussing the lives that were lost, people were talking about the actor portraying Dahmer, his appearance, and the disturbing details of his crimes. At what point does telling someone’s story turn into glorifying the person responsible for their death?

Another contributing factor is society’s fascination with understanding evil. And to be honest, I get it. It’s one of the main reasons why I am so interested in true crime and psychology. Most people cannot comprehend how someone could intentionally murder another human being, let alone multiple people, and for pleasure and enjoyment. As a result, serial killers have become psychological puzzles that people desperately want to solve. We analyze their childhood trauma, relationships, personalities, and possible mental disorders in hopes of finding some explanation for their behavior. Some of us might find ourselves comparing our lives and trauma to a serial killer to try to find what is different, and why we don’t have the desire to murder another. While studying these factors can be valuable from a psychological and criminological perspective, this fascination often overshadows the victims. Their stories are not viewed as mysterious or psychologically intriguing because they were ordinary people living ordinary lives, and just happened to fall victim to a monster. However, that is precisely what makes their deaths so tragic. They had families, friendships, goals, and futures that were stolen from them.

There is also an uncomfortable relationship between true crime and entertainment. Serial killers have become recognizable figures in pop culture, appearing on merchandise, in Halloween costumes, and throughout social media. Some people even romanticize these individuals, treating them as misunderstood or attractive rather than acknowledging the horrific suffering they caused. Frankly, it is disgusting that someone can become famous for murdering innocent people while those same innocent people are forgotten. It becomes even more disgusting knowing that some serial killers killed so they would gain that fame and notoriety. Although consuming true crime content does not automatically mean someone glorifies violence, there is a significant difference between being interested in criminal psychology and treating a murder like a celebrity.

Additionally, the way victims are portrayed can influence whether the public remembers them. News coverage is often biased, only covering “favorable” victims, such as white victims perceived as innocent without prior substance abuse or mental health struggles, and dismissing those who do not fit these idealized standards. This is sometimes known as the Gabby Petito effect. Similarly, news coverage often emphasizes the gruesome circumstances surrounding someone’s death rather than who they were as a person. Victims may be identified primarily by their age, job, or relationship to their killer, stripping away the individuality that made them human. This creates an unfortunate hierarchy in which some victims are considered more worthy of public sympathy and remembrance than others.

Ultimately, remembering serial killers is not inherently wrong. Understanding their behavior, investigating their crimes, and examining failures within the criminal justice system can serve important educational and preventative purposes. However, there needs to be a balance between discussing the perpetrator and honoring the people whose lives were destroyed. The true crime community needs to work harder on this balance. Victims deserve to be remembered for who they were, not simply for how they died or who killed them. Their names, personalities, accomplishments, and relationships should matter just as much, if not more, than the identities of their murderers. Serial killers should not be the only people who become immortalized through the stories of their crimes. After all, the victims are the ones who lost everything, yet somehow, they are the ones society continues to forget.

For the majority of society, individuals are extremely turned off by violent criminals, however this is not the case for everyone. Originally coined by sexologist, John Money, in 1986, hybristophilia describes the sexual and/or romantic attraction to individuals who have committed serious violent crimes, such as murder, sexual assault, armed robbery, etc. There are killers who have “groupies” for lack of a better term, who become absolutely infatuated with them. I’m not talking about the average everyday true crime consumer, not even the ones that become “obsessed” with a particular case. Typically the average consumer that becomes “obsessed” consumes a lot of media about a particular case and that is relatively normal. The “groupies,” however, cross a line from typical consumer to down right weirdo. They have been known to write love letters, send money, visit, and propose marriage to these incarcerated killers. Frankly, the whole thing seems weird as fuck, but the whole phenomena is so common that it needs to be discussed further.

Even within the hybristophilia “community,” there is a distinction between passive hybristophilia and aggressive hybristophilia. While passive hybristophilia involves an attraction to violent criminals (sending love letters, money, visiting, etc.), aggressive hybristophilia goes a step further, involving not only an attraction to the criminal, but also a desire to participate direct in violent acts or assist with their crimes, escapes, and/or cover-ups (https://urpbehavioralhealth.com/blog/is-attraction-to-crime-a-mental-disorder/).

But why? What exactly makes someone look at an individual who has committed absolutely horrific acts of violence and think, “yup, that’s the one for me”? I mean realistically, you’d think someone’s survival instincts or intuition would kick in, right? But for some reason, it doesn’t? Psychologists don’t have any one explanation for hybristophilia, however several theories attempt to explain why some individuals develop these attractions.

One possible theory is the “I Can Fix Them” complex. Some individuals may believe that despite the horrific crimes their romantic interest has committed, they are somehow different from everyone else and capable of bringing out the “good” in them. This creates a dangerous fantasy in which love is perceived as powerful enough to change someone that has demonstrated extreme violence. Instead of acknowledging the severity of the individual’s actions, they may rationalize, minimize, or completely disregard them. To an extent, I can see how this would develop. There is a common trope where girls are attracted to “bad boys,” and in a way, this is the most extreme version of that. Additionally, I can understand the concept of wanting to save someone and help them. At the same time, I think there is a big difference between wanting to help people as perhaps a psychologist versus thinking that you are equipped to handle severe psychological issues and violence as an average, everyday person with no specific training whatsoever. It’s hard for me to understand the level of delusion that must be present with this theory.

Another possible explanation involves the appeal of power, dominance, and danger — again somewhat aligning with the attraction to bad boys trope. Violent criminals, particularly notorious serial killers, are often portrayed by the media as mysterious, intimidating, and powerful individuals. For some, these characteristics could be considered highly attractive. Additionally, there is a possibility that the notoriety of it all can become appealing. The sense of uniqueness, attention, and importance of being involved with an infamous killer is one that an ordinary relationship would not be able to offer.

Interestingly, the prison environment itself could, in theory, contribute positively to these relationships for certain individuals. If you think about it, someone who becomes infatuated with an infamous killer likely has some level of psychological issues (hybristophilia is not a standalone diagnosis in the DSM 5, however it often is paired with other diagnosable disorders) that would make it hard for them to maintain a traditional relationship. However, by being physically separated from their romantic partner due to the prison environment, with significant emotional distance and limited physical contact, the perfect romantic environment could be created for someone who fears intimacy, abandonment, or vulnerability. This arrangement could make someone feel safer than the traditional, conventional relationship. It would allow them to maintain an idealized version of their romantic partner without confronting many of the everyday realities of being together. Immediately, it sounds ridiculous, but when I think about it, it does kind of make sense.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of this phenomenon is how easily the victims can become completely overshadowed by the perpetrators. When someone becomes infatuated with a killer, the attention shifts away from the individuals whose lies were destroyed and toward romanticizing the person responsible. This is particularly concerning when admirers begin defending, excusing, or glorifying violent behavior.

Ultimately, hybristophilia demonstrates just how complicated human attraction can be. While psychological theories may help explain why these attractions develop, understanding the behavior does not mean excusing it. There is a significant difference between studying violent criminals out of curiosity and romanticizing them to the point of disregarding their victims. Personally, I can understand being fascinated by the psychology of a killer, but wanting to date one? That’s where you lose me.

On April 20, 1999, 2 students — Eric Harris (18) and Dylan Klebold (17) — carried out a mass shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. They killed 12 students and 1 teacher, injuring several others, before taking their own lives. School shootings are not uncommon in the US, but this one was different. The tragedy shocked the nation and became one of the most heavily publicized school shootings in American history. Columbine’s influence extended far beyond the immediate aftermath. Despite occurring before I was born, the Columbine tragedy is one I have grown up hearing about, demonstrating how deeply its impact continues to resonate across generations. In the decades that followed, the perpetrators became infamous figures, inspiring fascination, obsession, and in some cases, imitation. This phenomenon, often referred to as the “Columbine Effect,” highlights the troubling relationship between media attention, notoriety, and copycat violence. It raises an important question: can the way society discusses and publicizes mass murder, or any murder for that matter, unintentionally encourage future tragedies?

The Role of Media Attention

Mass shootings generate enormous media attention, particularly when they occur in schools or other places that would normally be considered safe. This was especially true after Columbine, as school shootings were nowhere near as common as they are today. Following Columbine, news outlets repeatedly broadcast images of the perpetrators, examined their personal lives, and attempted to uncover their motivations. Their names and faces became recognizable across the country, transforming 2 previously unknown teenagers into infamous figures.

While extensive coverage can help the public understand and cope with a tragedy, it can also have unintended consequences. When perpetrators receive more attention than their victims, the media may unintentionally turn them into a celebrity-like figure. Their actions become permanently associated with their identities, allowing them to achieve recognition through violence.

For individuals who feel isolated, rejected, or desperate for attention, this notoriety can be particularly appealing. The possibility of becoming widely recognized, even for something horrific, may reinforce the belief that violence is a way to gain significance or make a lasting impact.

The Psychology Behind Copycat Killings

The Columbine Effect can be partly understood through social learning theory (developed by Albert Bandura), which suggests that people can learn behaviors by observing others, particularly when those behaviors appear to produce desirable outcomes.

In the context of mass shootings, individuals who feel isolated, rejected, or desperate for attention may observe the attention previous killers receive and interpret their notoriety as a form of reward. While on the surface, this may be hard to understand, psychologically speaking, it makes sense on how potential offenders can get from Point A to Point B. Although perpetrators are publicly condemned and face legal consequences (if they are still alive to do so), their names, pictures, and life stories may continue circulating for decades, if not longer. For some seeking recognition or revenge, this attention can make violence appear to be a path toward achieving these goals.

Notoriety in the Digital Age

Although traditional news coverage played a significant role in Columbine’s notoriety, social media has introduced additional concerns. Online communities allow information about killers to spread rapidly, often without editorial oversight associated with traditional journalism. This allows for a significant amount of misinformation to spread, without ever being fact checked.

Some online spaces romanticize perpetrators, create fan edits (absolutely disgusting!), share photos, or portray killers as misunderstood individuals rather than people responsible for devastating violence. This type of content can distort the reality of mass murder by shifting attention away from victims and toward the personalities of those responsible.

The internet also allows individuals who admire violent offenders to find others with similar interests. In certain communities, repeated exposure to extremist or violence-glorifying content may normalize harmful attitudes and reinforce existing grievances. Consequently, the Columbine Effect is no longer limited to TV broadcasts or newspaper headlines. It can also emerge through digital communities that preserve and circulate the identities of perpetrators.

Breaking the Cycle of Imitation

Preventing copycat violence does not require eliminating media coverage of mass shootings. Journalists have a responsibility to inform the public, investigate failures in public safety, and hold institutions accountable. Just like the public has the right to know this information and make personal safety decisions based on it. However, the way these events are reported matters. One approach involved reducing unnecessary repetition of perpetrators’ names, pictures, and personal manifestos. Responsible reporting should focus on warning signs, prevention strategies, and the broader circumstances surrounding violence without sensationalizing the offenders.

Ultimately, the Columbine Effect demonstrates how media attention can shape the legacy of a mass murderer. Although publicity does not automatically produce copycat killers, the glorification and continued recognition of perpetrators may influence vulnerable individuals seeking notoriety. By shifting attention away from killers and toward victims, prevention, and accountability, society can reduce the risk of turning horrific acts of violence into models for future offtenders.

Most people think of children as the most innocent humans on earth, and in many cases, this is true. However, sometimes children are the most depraved individuals and are able to commit unthinkable actions. Why? If children are typically so innocent, what has to go wrong in order for them to think and act in such a violent way that another child loses their life?

When typically thinking about adult serial killers, there are typically many things in common. Often adult serial killers have extreme forms of childhood trauma/abuse/neglect mixed with poor parenting, as well as a deep sense of not belonging. Additionally, they develop violent and deviant sexual fantasies, however these typically develop after the onset of puberty. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer had extreme feelings of loneliness and desperately wanted a sense of control over his victims. As he was so afraid of his victims abandoning and rejecting him like so many did throughout his life, he killed them so that they could not abandon him. At just 18 years old, Dahmer killed his first victim, Steven Mark Hicks.

Many would argue that at 18 years old, Dahmer was still very young, as he just barely reached adulthood. While this is true, 18 years old is nothing compared to some of the youngest killers who are still children. I am not talking about teenagers who are still considered minors under the law. Teenagers killing others is still extremely alarming, however that is a topic for another blog. I am talking about young children who take the life of another. Sure, you could say that in many cases, a kid who killed another must’ve done so by accident and that there is no way they were capable of doing so intentionally. Sadly however, this is not the case.

The world’s youngest serial killer was just 7 years old when he committed his first kill, from a poverty stricken town called Mushahar in India. His name is Amarjeet Sada. Most people in Mushahar were related from the Sada family, however those who were not biologically related still felt like family to each other, given how small this town truly was. A 6 year old girl from the Sada family went missing, however due to the village’s social norms, everyone that was not directly in the family just assumed that the family was going through a loss and did not want to pry. Later, another woman in the Sada family gave birth and her baby went missing while it was still only a newborn. Once the baby went missing, the baby was never spoken of again. Individuals in the Sada family likely knew what was going on, however the rest of the community was completely in the dark and started to question things. Why did 2 young children from the same family go missing?

In 2007, another infant named Khushboo went missing, however she was not a part of the Sada family and she was only 6 months old. Khushboo went missing from a daycare and obviously couldn’t leave on her own due to her young age. Once her mother became aware of her disappearance, she obviously freaked out and desperately started searching for her around the village, and ultimately found a member of the Sada family who helped her call the police as they had an idea of who might be responsible. The family member informed the police that Amarjeet may know what happened to her and to the police’s surprise, Amarjeet immediately confessed to killing her and showed them where he put her body. Amarjeet exclaimed that strangling her wasn’t satisfying enough because she didn’t look scared enough, so we beat her in the head with a rock at just 8 years old. When the police asked Amarjeet why he killed her, he kept repeating that he didn’t know but was smiling the entire time.

What is incredibly concerning is the fact that his family had an inkling that he was responsible for Khushboo’s murder because they were well aware of the fact that he was responsible for his 2 family members (the young girls) going missing. How could a family possibly cover this up? This is a question I wrack my brain around and still can’t seem to find a fitting answer. I understand loving someone and wanting to protect them, but I can’t fathom wanting to protect someone who is actively putting other loved ones in danger. He was given a slap on the wrist punishment and his crimes were not dealt with seriously. The most baffling part of this case is that Amarjeet was released under a new identity and no one knows who he is, where he is, or what he is up to. Is that not terrifying?

Immediately, I would hope that everyone’s gut reaction would be absolutely. When we hear about serial killers and the horrific crimes they committed, it can be easy to label them as simply evil. How could we possibly not blame an individual for willfully choosing to murder another in a preplanned, violent, sexually devious way? At face value, serial killers can be viewed as monsters that were born evil. But what if the path toward becoming a serial killer is more complicated than that? Many notorious serial killers experienced severe child abuse, neglect, rejection, isolation, and other forms of trauma. Often, violent fantasies and unusual patterns of behavior develop long before a murder is actually committed and as a response to the trauma they experienced. This raises the uncomfortable question: can we really blame serial killers for becoming serial killers?

For example, the case of Jeffrey Dahmer truly complicates this question. Dahmer is a serial killer who murdered 17 boys and men between 1978 and 1991. His crimes involved murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, and attempting to control his victims even after death. These crimes are obviously horrific and the weight of these crimes should never be diminished. At the same time, however, Dahmer was repeatedly rejected and abandoned throughout his youth, with a turbulent household dynamic from his parents. He was extremely lonely and yearned for an intimate closeness and connection, which resulted in him having violent and devious sexual fantasies, which allowed him to experience that closeness with another. Dahmer ultimately killed and cannibalized his victims out of fear that they would reject and abandon him too. Understanding the motivations behind his crimes does not make Dahmer any less guilty, however it demonstrates that his behavior did not appear out of nowhere.

A similar question can be raised with Aileen Wuornos, who killed 7 men in Florida between 1989 and 1990. Wuornos experienced an extremely unstable and traumatic childhood. She reported childhood sexual abuse, became pregnant at a young age, experienced homelessness, and engaged in sex work. Wuornos later claid that the men she killed had attacked her or attempted to sexually assault her, although prosecutors disputed her accounts in several cases. Her life experience raises an important concern. If someone’s understanding of relationships, safety, and violence is developed through an environment filled with abuse, violence, and instability, how much does that environment influence the person that they eventually become? Can an individual truly be held accountable for their actions when they were set up for failure from the start?

The distinction between explanation and excuse is crucial.

Serial killers are rarely produced by any 1 single factor, or at least not any 1 factor that is currently known to researchers (ex. a serial killer gene). Childhood trauma and abuse is one of the most common factors shared amongst serial killers, however that alone cannot explain serial murder. Countless people survive severe abuse and never become violent individuals, let alone murderers. Similarly, experiencing loneliness, rejection, abandonment, or violent fantasies does not automatically lead someone to commit murder. Instead, serial killers may emerge from a complicated interaction between individual psychology, developmental experiences, social environment, and opportunities to offend, as well as potential unknown factors.

So, can we blame serial killers for becoming serial killers? Perhaps the better question is what exactly are we blaming them for? They might not have chosen their childhood environments, trauma, psychological vulnerabilities, or experiences that shaped their development. However, those circumstances do NOT erase the suffering of their victims and their victims’ families or automatically eliminate responsibility for deliberately harming others.

Ultimately, serial killers can be both shaped by circumstances beyond their control and are still responsible for the choices they make. Those 2 ideas do not necessarily contradict each other. The uncomfortable reality may be that understanding their terrible behavior requires examining the person behind it, without forgetting the people who suffered because of it.