Social sciences are very important to most people in today's world. We rely on anthropology to explain to us our origins. We rely on sociology to explain to us how our societies work and such. We rely on psychology to explain why societies do things and kind of more about the mind. This essay is focussed on serial killers through the perspectives of both sociology and psychology. Serial killers are killers with a "minimum of three or four victims with a "cooling off" period in between; The killer is usually a stranger to the victim - the murders appear unconnected or random; the murders reflect a need to sadistically dominate the victim; the murder is rarely "for profit"; the motive is psychological, not material; the victim may have "symbolic" value for the killer; method of killing may reveal this meaning; killer often choose victims who are vulnerable (prostitutes, runaways, etc.)(Scott Monsters?). Sociologists tend to try and figure out if they were born differently or if it was the nurturing they received that made them into serial killers. Psychologists tend to focus on their minds, what made them become what they are today. This essay will include how the experimenters or scientists collected the date, results of this data and how the helped establish their theories an explanation of their theories, contrasting their theories and practitioners in the field (McCormick). By focusing on explaining the human condition of serial killers I hope to demonstrate the importance of the social scientist in our lives.
Serial killers are broken up into two groups: psychopath (also known as sociopath) and psychotic. Psychotics are the kind that is noticeably insane. The sociopaths are the kinds that often are called geniuses. My information on the social side of serial killers is collected from many books and essays focusing on the sociology of serial killers. The results of what was found are that what makes serial killers tick is a problem with when they were young.
