Serial Killer vs Media: A Symbiotic Relationship?

Serial Killer vs Media.  Sounds like a promoters dream fight.  Instead it is a proposed question: Do Serial Killers Have An Impact On The Media?  This may need restructuring.  Seeing it in writing brings to mind an equation rather than a question. This paper will attempt to explore where impact is really taking place in this equation.

Before we can discuss the serial killer we must first have a definition for him or her. The terms serial killer, spree killer and mass murderer are often thought to mean the same thing. Criminologists distinguish between the three as follows: 

· A serial killer commits a number of murders over a long period of time, with the killings separated by long periods of apparent normalcy. 

· A mass murderer kills several people in a single event. 

· A spree killer commits multiple-murders in different locations over a period of time ranging from a few hours to several days. The thing that distinguishes a spree killer from a serial killer is that while the serial killer will return to normal activity between killings, the spree killer will not (Anonymous c, 2005). 

For the purposes of this paper, while discussing serial killers specifically, the information contained here might just as easily apply to any of the killers above or any crime, act or event considered to be horrific in nature. It is also important to note that serial killers are not a new phenomenon in so called civilized societies. They are not something created by industrialization or advancing technology, but something more readily revealed through industrialization and advancing technology. There are recorded accounts of serial killers in the fifteenth century, such as Gilles de Rais (Gribbon, 2005). Looking further back into history, using today’s definition of serial killer, it is likely many more serial killers would be discovered, where records could be analyzed.