Abstract
Understanding cooling-off periods is an important step towards conceptualising life course events of serial killers, between their murders. Analysing the behaviours of serial killers between each homicide may give insight into when or if they will kill again, as well as informing definition criteria of what constitutes a serial killer as opposed to mass or spree killing. Research in this area typically analyses aggregate, large-scale data; however, this can often miss the idiosyncratic, specific details that are needed in real-word cases. To provide a more detailed account, an in-depth case study approach was taken to analyse the behaviours of Dennis Rader and Lonnie Franklin Jr., two well-known American serial killers, throughout their criminal career and identify patterns in their dormancy periods between murders. The analysis highlights that trophy-taking, the use of letters to communicate with the public, and offending-orientated fantasy may increase the length of a cooling-off period by suppressing homicidal urges. In contrast, the need for homicidal control may influence the effectiveness of such suppressing factors over time. The present research suggests that life-events can influence intervals between murders, even acting as a catalyst at times, which may help legal decision making.
Highlights
Understanding cooling-off periods is an important step towards conceptualising life course events of serial killers, between their murders
Analysing a serial killer’s cooling-off period may help investigators understand behaviours, activities or rituals that may occur that influ ence the length, beginning or end of a cooling-off period
Within this case study approach, it was found that victim control and offendingorientated fantasy may heavily influence the length of a cooling off period through the suppression of homicidal urges
Summary
Understanding cooling-off periods is an important step towards conceptualising life course events of serial killers, between their murders. Analysing the behaviours of serial killers between each homicide may give insight into when or if they will kill again, as well as informing definition criteria of what constitutes a serial killer as opposed to mass or spree killing Research in this area typically analyses aggregate, large-scale data; this can often miss the idiosyncratic, specific details that are needed in real-word cases. A classic linguistic example is asking people whether the bombing of the World Trade Centre towers was one event, or two events (for each tower) This is more than a semantic debate; it is a core issue about how to classify a serial killer (separate event kills) and a mass murder (sequential murders counted as ‘one event’).. Research needs to take a more focused, applied approach, as the ecological fallacy indicates that we cannot clearly apply aggregate data to individual cases
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
