Introduction
Psychopathy is personality disarray characterized by distinguishing behaviors and secondary personality traits that the society perceives as derogatory. For instance, some serial killers can qualify to be psychopathic serial predators while others do not. In this case, there are no clear criteria of classifying one as psychopath or otherwise. One basis for diagnosing psychopathy is through evidence accumulations of individual traits or behaviors. Therefore, psychopaths are those predators in the society, which manipulate charm and work their manner through life mercilessly. The consequences of their traits are broken hearts, empty wallets and shattered dreams for those affected in the society. In most cases, these individuals are completely heartless and lacking in conscience for others. They affect social norms of a society in a negatively by doing what pleases them at the expense of innocent victims (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Thus, there are many troubling queries over the forces inspiring psychopathy individual and who are they in the society. This article examines the details and behavior of serial killers classified under psychopathic serial predators.
Discussion
A psychopathic individual is similar to narcissist in some extend is a predator. For instance, taking the animal kingdom’s predator verses a prey relationship offers a good example. This explains the notion of psychopath mask of sanity. While an animal predator can devise means in order to hunt their prey, the psychopath will come up with all sorts of sophisticated camouflage made up of words as well as appearances so as to understand their prey (Blackburn & Coid, 1998). Psychopaths are after money or power or material goods. It is always hard to realize what they are after because they faked friendships or love relationships. Therefore, psychopathic serial predators are posing many questions in the society on the type of the evil as well as moral responsibility. Similarly, serial killers appear to be apparently evil in all means. This can be traced through psychopathic evils and disorders. It is possible to diagnose psychopathic disorder by using and understanding basic moral distinctions in the society. The characteristics of psychopathy advocate the declining duty responsibilities of the psychopathic serial killers (Arrigo & Griffin, 2004). Hence, the psychopathic serial predators are reasonably wicked in at least one identifiable sense of the expression, but should not be taken responsible for several evils they perpetuate. The evils are associated with moral responsibilities of individuals in a society.
There are many emerging issues concerning moral responsibility of an individual in society. For example, the implication that one can take both evil and moral responsibility at the same time. Sometimes, an individual can be very evil and not accountable for whatever he or she has committed. Serial killers and Psychopaths are not necessarily similar in one way or another. There are some instances in which they are similar but they are not necessarily the same always. In this case, the term psychopath is categorically a psychiatric individual who is not necessarily participating in serial killing. Indeed, several real world psychopaths are not involved in killing anyone. Instead of killing, most of them would just cause melancholies on people in the society. On the contrary, killing appears to be a harsh obligation for a serial murderer (Carozza, 2008). Therefore, the category of a serial killer is slippery and there should be much emphasis on the same. Hence, the question of the exact cause of serial killing is posing a great challenge. Some established criteria focus on three or more killers over 30 days. This finding was carried out with psychological indulgence as a significant motive.
Expression of psychopathy
Psychopathy is expressed in various ways, but the usual means is through blatant criminal violation of social norms (Turvey, 2008). There are several psychopath criminals. Most of them are able to escape imprisonment. This is because they camouflage their ways to participate in crimes and thereafter escape the blame. This leaves an impact of a ruined society in most cases. The image portrayed here is that of remorseless, self-centered, and callous person who have no empathy. There is also classification of the serial killer in a broader scope to accommodate the psychopaths. In this case, it is evident that, not every psychopath qualifies to be a serial killer. On the other hand, not every serial killer is psychopath. Therefore, the categories are disintegrated. However, there should be an integration of categories in such a manner that there exists a psychopathic serial predator. This will bring in the question of association of responsibility with moral evaluation.
Individuals are usually enthusiastic on placing games on other individual in the society for any horrible issue. This is would always depend on the awfulness of the act. For example, if an individual hear another person make an offensive joke, he or she might get annoyed. However, given the situation of familiar individuals, he or she might not comment anything at all. In both cases, the intensity and strength of the blame forms the basis of the badness of the activity. This portrays serial killing to appear, as very morally bad activity. However, what matters most is whoever is executing the killings. In some instances, young children engage in some activities or even the parents do things that lead to the death of their siblings.
The death due to lack of air (asphyxiation) is conceivably the rampant root of accidental death of children (Burgess, Baker, Nahirny & Rabun, 2002). This is always heartbreaking especially when a young sibling does it to the other. This is because they are innocent of what happens during such terrible incidences. However, no one should deny that the child who caused the death is without blame. Therefore, for one to deserve any blame (for killing inclusive), the offender has to be a mature person. This means that a person who at least understands the disparities between wrong and right is liable for blame. Therefore, because the children are not aware of the significance of what they do, there are no charges for their deeds. Hence, the foundation of blame has to be from the actions of individuals who understand the implication of their actions. In order for any individual to be liable for a blame for bad actions, one has to recognize that the bad action is a bad action. Thus, the psychopathic serial predators should recognize that their actions are morally bad.
Philosophy and Serial Killing
There are also the virtues of philosophy concerning the psychopathic serial killers. The moral responsibility of psychopaths should bring clear understanding on how the society faces the challenge. In this case, one has to understand the general regulations that elucidate the judgments confidently. There are also cases in the society of individuals who are feeble in their judgment. Nevertheless, people should also be extra careful on how far they execute these processes. People could imagine various ways on how psychopaths can be. Morality ought not to be merely invented story of telling people for social control reasons. It has to be philosophically thought of many aspects in the society. Alternatively, serial killing should have an extra meaning beyond social purposes in the community. It is not enough to have it as a morally wonderful action. In every society, there exist moral concepts. These concepts are present whether they are all what the community expect or not. Therefore, individuals in the society should always think about the moral explanations if they turn against their expectations. They should also emulate on actions where they have a good evidence of bearing fruits in the society. In such a case, there is no tentative evidence that proves the responsibility of psychopaths. It is also clear that science is not helpful in settling the issue of moral responsibility. Thus, philosophy is very important in psychopathic serial predators relative to moral responsibility in the society.
Psychopathy and Moral idiocy
Moral idiocy is another significant issues, in understanding more about psychopathic serial predators. They are perceived to be suffering from moral idiocy. Psychopaths are always having problem maintaining a job or sustaining a relationship. The ‘sociopaths’ and ‘psychopaths’ refer to the same thing, but with different labels. Individuals of this kind together with the awful crimes they commit are easily recognized. In other incidences, these individuals collude in mass killings with their counter parts that are associated with serious mental disorders (Ben-Cherit & Melmed, 1998). Psychopathic killers should perhaps not be classified as mad individuals in the society based on accepted psychiatric and legal standards. Their actions are not because of deranged mind but lack of rationality and unconscious treatments of others, not as human beings. This kind of morally inhuman behavior expressed by seemingly normal individual leaves the society valueless and helpless. However, much of these individuals’ deeds are awful. We should not only dwell on the fact that they always kill. Some psychopaths do not necessarily kill; thus, they should not be demonized at all times.
There are high-profile cases about the long-term effects of psychopathy in the lives of victims and offenders. The documentation of such cases acknowledges the fact that imprisoned serial killers were once part of the society. Some of these people, might be also part of the family members of an individual, others might be co-workers. This gives a good example of case backgrounds of every psychopath. It is surprising and deeply disturbing understand their non-feeling of the suffering and pain experienced by others (Cleckley, 2006). They are completely ruthless in their attitude towards their victims and their families.
Moral Background of Psychopaths
The deficiencies of morality among the psychopaths champion the need to turn to family backgrounds of these individuals. However, this will offer little assistance to the solution (Hare, 1993). It is evident that some psychopaths in their childhoods were affected by emotional and material deprivation and others were physically abused. Nevertheless, there are those from stable families, which everything was provided for, including good caring of siblings. It is evident that most individuals who had terrible childhoods are turning out to be callous killers or psychopaths. The argument that kids subjected to violence and abuse turn out to be violent and abusive is not always the case (Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000). There are in-depth and elaborate explanations concerning the emergence of psychopaths. Psychopathy comprises of a set of behaviors and character traits. Seemingly charming, it is clear that psychopaths appear to create a good first impression towards others. It also usually strikes spectators as remarkably ordinary, yet in the real sense are self-centered, undependable and dishonest. They also engage in immature manners for no good reason apart from the absolute fun of it.
Prevalence rates of Psychopathy
Psychopaths habitually give justifications for their irresponsible and frequently outrageous actions. Instead, they put the blame on other individuals. They hardly ever learn by their errors or benefit from unconstructive feedback. Similarly, psychopaths have trouble inhibiting their desires. It is also true that psychopaths are many in prisons; studies point out that approximately 25 percent of prisoners satisfy indicative standards for psychopathy. Nevertheless, it is also evident that a considerable number of psychopaths are presently unnoticed in the society. Some investigators also reveal that successful psychopaths may be represented more in some occupations, like politics, entertainment and business. However, the scientific confirmation for this captivating assumption is preliminary. It is also evident that the majority psychopaths are of male gender. The reason supporting this assumption is not yet established. In addition, psychopathy appears to exist in both non-Western and Western cultures. It also comprises of those that have had least exposure to media representations of the condition.
On the other hand, there is pretty good evidence at the moment of existence of a discrete population, which incorrectly overlaid with the present class of anti-social character disorder. The vital thing here is that there are some outstanding features to this category. For example, they are likely to assume very bad desire regulation. This appears to be interrelated with some significant variations in the brain. At the same time, psychopaths appear to be unable to overcome guilt and shame. They also do not react to illustrations of damage in the manner one does. In addition, psychopaths have great trouble identifying and coming up with the distinctions between arbitrary rules and less arbitrary or moral rules.
Lastly, there is no recognized effective cure for psychopathy. This implies that there is no method of curing brain defects and the general behavioral habits responsible for psychopathic behavior. This is vital because some parts that require correction in psychopaths comprises of failure to recognize vital emotions to control moral lives. Therefore, this has contributed a lot towards serial killings together with other psychopathic evils. The term evil is commonly utilized in various ways. Sometimes individuals utilize it as an overbearing replacement for morally bad. At times, it is used when distinguishing the enemies in order to mobilize political or social support. This is common when fighting with opponents in society. Nevertheless, there is a good judgment of evil that selects out a unique sort of psychology, unlike the run-of-the-mill badness of morals.
Psychopathic serial killer is fun of the thought of dissecting a human being. He fails to observe any protests of doing so past the threat of being caught. Without the threat he or she will always continue killing and torturing individuals in the society (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2006). This is a form of evil. This means that, it is not always necessary that the evil individual is accountable for doing evil. That is to say the evil psychopathic serial killer is not necessarily accountable for being a psychopath. It also applies to all other actions he or she partakes. Therefore, evil should not be a requisite for responsibility in any aspect.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are enough grounds for us to strongly react negatively against the evil perpetrators and their deeds. These individuals have ambitions, which are distinctively odd from the critical terms of harmonious living in the society. Therefore, people in the society are forced to destroy, expel, or expunge these individual out of the society. This happens when members of the society are convinced that they are living with them. Thus, this explains why the non-accountability of psychopathic serial killers ought to leave the society at least unhappy. However, dwelling on irresponsibility of such predators appears to mean that individuals should abandon their moralized responses to them. This includes indignation and resentment. Any description that terminates this response to psychopathic serial murderers should be mistaken. The explanation of the term evil is important to understand that the reaction is so fast. Whereas psychopathic serial murderers might not be morally accountable for hurting others, they may well add up as indisputably evil.
There is nothing concerning their non-accountability that would influence the possibility of being evil or not. Therefore, the society is justified in experiencing these responses towards psychopaths to the level at which they are acceptable in being angry, threatened, or revolted by evil. This occurs despite the fact that they are or not accountable for their actions. Matters are intricate, in part since individuals’ attitudes towards evil in most case are covered with the hypothesis that the evil perpetrator is also accountable for his or her actions. Nevertheless, this should not be so. At times, evil replicates what it does, and that might be enough.
References
Arrigo, B.A. & Griffin, A. (2004). Serial Murder and the Case of Aileen Wuornos: Attachment theory, Psychopathy, and Predatory Aggression. Behavioral Science and the Law, 22, 375-393.
Baumeister, R.J., Bushman, B.J., & Campbell, W.K. (2000). Self-esteem, Narcissism, and Aggression: Does Violence Result From Low Self-Esteem Or From Threatened Egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 26-29.
Ben-Cherit, E. & Melmed, R.N. (1998). Recurrent Hypoglycemia Multiple Myeloma: A Case of Munchausen by Proxy in an Elderly Parent. Journal of Internal Medicine, 24(2), 175-178.
Blackburn, R., & Coid, J.W. (1998). Psychopathy and the Dimensions of Personality Disorder in Violent Offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 129-145.
Burgess, A.W., Baker, T., Nahirny, C., & Rabun, J.B. (2002). Newborn Kidnapping By Cesarean Section. Journal of Forensic Science, 47(4), 1-4.
Bushman, B.J. & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Threatened Egoism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Direct And Displaced Aggression: Does Self-Love Or Self-Hate Lead To Violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 219-229.
Cale, E. & Lilienfeld, S. (2006). Psychopathy Factors and Risks For Aggressive Behavior: A Test of the “Threatened Egotism” Hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 30(1), 51-74.
Carozza, D. (2008). These Men Know Snakes in Suits. Fraud Magazine, 22(4), 36-43.
Cleckley, H. (2006). The Mask of Sanity. St Louis: Mosby.
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths among Us. New York: Guilford Press.
Turvey, B. E. (2008). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.