There have been numerous studies comparing the brains of serial killers and control subjects who have not committed murder. Technology today allows researchers to see deep within the brain, enabling contrast and comparison studies of control subjects and killers. This has allowed researchers to discover how the effects of a killer’s background, upbringing, and interactions with society have impacted the killer’s behavior. Most research is focused on adults. Researchers have gone out of their way not to classify a child as a psychopath or sociopath for fear of creating an unwanted stigma towards the child. But, with a working knowledge of how genetics and environment impact a serial killer, what programs can be developed to help protect children and educate parents and/or educators to prevent the future tragic loss of life? How can we as a society harness this information and develop programs to encourage the troubled teen or young adult to navigate real-world problems and interactions with society? Research and science are developing an understanding of how the brain works and how genetics and environment play an integral role in the development of socio and psychopaths. Is there a genetically developmental issue in the brain of a killer? With the invention of the internet and social media, the world has become a smaller place. News cycles are 24 hours a day, stories about serial killers and crimes top the news cycle on any given day. The overload of information at times seems to feed the potential sociopaths ideas of grandeur and fame. How can we as a society harness this information and develop programs to help the troubled teen or young adult navigate real-world problems and interactions with society? Is there a correlation with the development of a brain and environment that leads to a person becoming a killer? What are the causes and what can be done to prevent future serial killers from crossing the line and begin to kill? Data and studies have already proven that some people are born with deviancies that result in underdeveloped parts of the brain. Dr. James Fallon is a leading neuroscientist whose research has shown that “PET Scans” of serial killers and some normal functioning adults have the same brain functions. His blind studies done in 2005 showed patterns in psychopaths, the limbic system was turned off. He enhanced this study with “normal scans or controls” (Fallon). One normal scan, however, matched the psychopaths. It turned out it was his scan; he had two of the biological traits of a psychopath. His theory progressed from looking at only genetics to genetics and environment. (Fallon) By blending hard science with the psychology or social sciences, programs can be developed to enhance the importance of early childhood development at the forefront, helping educators, parents, families to raise healthy productive children. Also by giving tools to families, educators, and sociologists preemptive interaction can guide and keep the children in a safe loving environment.
Nature: Only serial killers have certain markers in the brain that cause them to lack empathy and kill. Nature refers to all the genes and hereditary factors that influence who we are – from our physical appearance to our personality characteristics (Cherry). Social science nativists and philosophers from the past such as Plato and Descartes have preached on the topic that certain things are inborn or occur naturally, regardless of environmental influences. Those who believe that nature is the most important impact on a behavior, follow the premise that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the results of inheritance, advocating the point of view that man is a product of evolution and that some behaviors are ingrained in man’s genetics (Cherry). Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation, the biological clock that switches on or off types of behaviors in a pre-programmed way (McLeod). Nativists argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy, language acquisition, and cognitive development. This last belief is the basis of the argument for environment, language, and cognitive development don’t just happen, and there are influences from social interactions and environment that come into play. Those who believe that nurture is a vital role argue that nature cannot do it alone, and that nurture plays a greater role in creating the person. One example of an empiricist(nature) theory within psychology is Albert Bandura’s social learning theory. According to the theory, people learn by observing the behaviors of others (Cherry).
Nurture: The environment or culture created the serial killer. Nurture refers to all environmental variables that impact that we are, including our early childhood experiences, how we are raised, our social relationships, and our surrounding culture (Cherry). For example, a child will learn through praise and reinforcement, both positive and negative. Young children are sponges, soaking up everything they see or hear. Education is now focusing on children between two and five years of age with preschool programs. Experts have realized that if children are given instruction, formal and informal at early stages, the child will be more prepared for school and social interactions (Jensen). Those who believe or follow the nurture philosophy are the environmentalists or empiricists. Their basic assumption is that at birth the human mind is a blank slate and this is gradually filled as a result of experience or behaviorism (McLeod). Examples of an extreme nature position include Bowlby’s theory of attachment, which view the bond between a mother and child as being an innate process that ensures survival. Another example of nature is Freud’s theory of aggression as being an innate drive called Thanatos (McLeod). Which takes one back to Bandura’s social learning theory where aggression is a learned trait from the environment through observation and imitation. The nature vs. nurture argument will continue, but in practice, scientists and researchers do not accept the extremist view of one extreme or the other, but a combination of both. It is widely accepted now that heredity and the environment do not act independently. Both nature and nurture are essential for any behavior, and it cannot be said that a particular behavior is genetic and another is environmental. It is impossible to separate the two influences as well as illogical as nature and nurture do not operate in a separate way but interact in a complex manner (McLeod).
Arguments have been made that a killer kills because their brains do not function as the same as a normal person. They can’t help themselves; they have no empathy or feelings. Either the frontal lobe is underdeveloped, or the inner parts of the brain that secretes enzymes that control empathy don’t exist. The sociopath or psychopathic killer instincts and behaviors are a result of genetics. (Hare) This is the premise of the Nature argument, that genetic deficiencies are responsible for creating serial killers (Conan). Nurture: this is the flip side to the argument of nature; a killer’s environment is the most important factor as to why they kill. Studies have shown that a majority of serial killers come from abusive backgrounds. They were victims of horrific child abuse or did not have a healthy family life regarding relationships and family. It has been proven that the cycle of abuse is passed down through the generations, killing whatever empathy a young child may have had. (Sanford) Compromise: Nature and Nurture play a significant role in the creation of sociopaths and serial killers. Recent research has shown with the help of technology, that some control brain scans show the same traits of the serial killer. Only they have not killed, thought about killing and are productive members of society. Researchers realized that even though nature may have created undeveloped parts of the brain, the environment in which the individual grew up had a significant impact on the way they interact with society. Psychopaths have always been with us. Indeed, certain psychopathic traits have survived because they’re useful in small doses: the cool dispassion of a surgeon, the tunnel visions of an Olympic athlete, the ambitious narcissism of many a politician. But when these attributes exist in the wrong combination or in extreme forms, they can produce a dangerously antisocial individual or even a cold-blooded killer. Only in the past quarter century have researchers zeroed in on the early signs that indicate a child could be the next Ted Bundy (Bradley Hagerty). While successful non- killer psychopaths are “pro-social” go onto to be powerful successful leaders, these leaders were raised with loving and powerful family support and relationships. (Fallon) With this knowledge how can we as a society harness this information and develop programs that will help educators, families, counselors, and most importantly rescue children from an abusive environment, teaching them how to overcome what their environment has taught them.
With this in mind, it is imperative that researchers involve families with at-risk children to participate in their studies. Breaking down the stigma of diagnosing a child with a sociopathic or psychopathic disorder will allow doctors, counselors, and families give the at-risk child the best chances for success. According to the Child Mind Organization lack of awareness and entrenched stigma keep the majority of young people from getting help (Child Mind Institute Speak Up For Kids). Failing to get help, will often lead to academic failure, substance abuse and a clash with the juvenile justice system, the start of a lifelong downward spiral with no end in sight. There is no argument that treatment can be transformative, but we as a society need to do better. Those in power and those who are directly involved in research and those who interact with the children must commit to better training, better research initiatives and expanded public education efforts. The current statistics are staggering, 49.5% of American youth will have a diagnosable mental illness at some point before they are 18. This is based on diagnostic interviews done by professionals with a sample of young people ages 13-18 (Child Mind Institute Speak Up For Kids). For a more sobering fact, this equates to 17.1 million at-risk kids. The age of onset starts as early as 6 years of age when at-risk kids start showing anxiety disorders. By age 11 the median age where ADHA and behavior disorders start to appear. By age 13 the onset of mood disorders and at age 15 substance abuse (Child Mind Institute Speak Up For Kids). With proper intervention, all of the potential disorders can be eliminated. Educators have long known that children are not robots, that rote learning is not a one size fits all solution. Many teachers create a variety of lesson plans with different ways in which to reach the children, making learning fun and exciting. Allowing the kids to get their hands into and on the specific subject. But to be more effective, programs need to extend past the classroom, an at-risk child who lives in abusive or dangerous surroundings will shut down and all that has been taught will be thrown out the window. Out of school programs is one solution to the problem, these programs provide a safe environment for the children once the school day has ended. Historically, meeting the needs of low-income children has been a primary reason for the development of out of school programs, particularly after-school programs. Because safety tends to be a greater concern in low-income neighborhoods than it is in middle-income neighborhoods, there is a greater need for low-income children’s out-of-school time to be supervised by adults. However, children from low-income families are less likely to have afterschool caregivers available in their homes (Kirsten Miller). Many schools across the nation have some type of afterschool programs, more needs to be done. The programs must be inventive and provide the at-risk children a chance to experience a variety of things that they normally would not have access to, such as performing arts, sports, and a variety of student clubs. This will allow the child to find their interest and their voice; every child wants to belong and be heard, these programs will allow that to happen.
To answer the age-old question does the egg come before the chicken or is it the chicken before the egg? So is the debate on “Does the genetics of one’s makeup create the serial killer or is it their environment?” With the advancement of technology, researchers can now conduct controlled studies of genetics, brain scans, environmental factors and their impact with specific control groups and those of convicted serial killers. While researchers expected to see differences in killers, they found many control subjects have the same or similar brain scans. This result gives credence to the need for more development and understanding of programs that address early childhood development with a positive surrounding environment. A majority of people who become serial killers have the psychotic trifecta: brain deficiencies, either an underdeveloped part of their brain, faulty chromosomal or enzyme development and grew up in abusive surroundings. The work of Dr. Fallon resulted in the discovery of the “warrior gene.” This gene is only activated if one suffered abused as a child. His research has laid the foundation of prevention programs and help programs for at-risk kids and teens. As research develops so will the impact on education programs for at-risk kids and teens. By understanding that if a child has the disposition of a psychopath or sociopath, if taken out of an abusive or hostile environment, the child can be taught skills to help interact with society and peer pressure or stress thus giving that child a fighting chance to become a successful member of society as they grow up.
