The Makings of a Criminal

“We serial killers are your sons, we are your husbands, we are everywhere.”

  – Ted Bundy

The above quotation allows for several equally unsettling interpretations. It is the kind of assertion that stirs the imagination, distorts perception and inhibits rational thought. Imagine hearing it spoken in the street, or at your local supermarket; for most of us that would most definitely lead any semblance of concise thought right out of the open window. At this point, however, we are called to do the unthinkable: we must analyse this claim with uncompromising objectivity.

Bundy’s statement is ludicrous when interpreted literally. When approached with a more flexible mindset, however, it proves provocative. It can be viewed merely as an articulation of our own fears, begot with the sole purpose of inducing paranoia, or it can be seen simply as the raving of a maniac. Alternatively, with only a modicum of critical thought it is not impossible to draw a valid conclusion from the statement. Serial Killers are sons, and husbands, and though they may not be everywhere they can certainly be anywhere. These people fit into society, at least to one degree or another. Would you really recognise one if he (or she) were standing next to you? The evidence would suggest not. Accepting this, you must now ask yourself the question, what is it about these seemingly ordinary people that sets them apart? How do you identify that all-important difference that leads these individuals to commit those atrocities, while you exhibit normal behavioural tendencies, acting devoid of any sort of murderous inclination.

This question has troubled psychologists and philosophers alike over the years. Many theories have arisen concerning the reason why certain people are prone to commit crime (not necessarily murder, but of all sorts), while others are not. And so out of this issue two conflicting schools of thought have emerged. These two theories represent a dichotomy for criminologists, and constitute the foundations of an acrimonious centuries-long debate. This debate is, of course, that of nature versus nurture. The nature argument is that which the question lends itself to; the concept that there is something innate in certain individuals, something genetic or at the very least biological that leads them down the wrong path. The nurture argument contests this claim, asserting that people do not act subject to their physical make up but instead according to their life’s experiences; basing their judgements purely on presupposition and emotional baggage.