• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The rise started before 1950, rose the most rapidly from 1960 to 1970, plateaued in 1980, and then collapsed moving towards 2010.

      https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/at-what-age-do-serial-killers-start-killing/

      As previously mentioned, the typical age range for serial killers to start killing is in their late 20s to early 30s.

      So figure that the people killing were maybe maybe late 20s to early 30s in late 1950s to 1970, when the numbers were exploding.

      That means people born in ~1920 to ~1940; the serial killers probably were mostly born in the interwar period, between World War I and World War II; born in the Roaring Twenties and then the Great Depression.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

      Going based on the generations there, that would have mostly been the Silent Generation.

      The period of rapid increase was only about twenty years long, so it’s really only about the length of one generation (though that doesn’t mean that it need nicely align with the “generational cohorts” thing).

      The Boomers were already falling off.

      By the time Generation X rolled around, the spike would already have been done.

      Millennials were born between 1981 and 1996, long after all this happened.

      And one other point – remember that the graph is of absolute, not per-capita numbers. According to it, in 2010, we have numbers in absolute terms comparable to about 1955. But that’s in absolute terms.

      https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/1955/

      In 1955, the US population was about 106 million. Today, it is 334 million. That is, in per-capita terms, 2010 is somewhat-lower than any period shown on the chart. It’s not just low, it’s lower than it’s ever been.

      Now, all that being said, I’m not sure how they measure the number of concurrently-active serial killers. I would imagine that things like the advent of DNA evidence, buildup of fingerprint databases, and other changes in criminology probably have changed things; one might have assumed that a serial killer was responsible for a copycat/similar crime, or perhaps vice versa in different conditions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        151 year ago

        Going based on the generations there, that would have mostly been the Silent Generation.

        It’s always the quiet ones

        • borari
          link
          fedilink
          131 year ago

          And leaded gasoline and leaded diesel and leaded aviation fuel and lead pipes in household plumbing. Probably lead in the cigarettes everyone smoked literally everywhere.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think that the reduction in lead is far too late, if you figure that it’s cumulative exposure over someone’s lifetime, not short-term (which I have not looked up, but would expect to be the case).

          googles to sanity check

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801257/

          In this cohort study of 553 New Zealanders observed for 38 years, lead exposure in childhood was weakly associated with official criminal conviction and self-reported offending from ages 15 to 38 years. Lead exposure was not associated with the consequential offending outcomes of a greater variety of offenses, conviction, recidivism, or violence.

          Yeah, so it’s a childhood thing. You’d be talking about on the order of maybe a 20 year delay until a reduction in exposure translates into peak potential serial killer period.

          Also, for stuff like lead paint, it’s gonna be around for decades, gets kicked up over time, so it takes an even longer time for regulations to go have an effect, and that effect is very spread out, whereas this is a pretty sharp increase and decrease.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-based_paint_in_the_United_States

          In 1971, Congress banned the use of lead-based paint in residential projects (including residential structures and environments) constructed by, or with the assistance of, the federal government.[3] The Consumer Product Safety Commission followed with implementing regulations, effective in 1978.[4] Additional regulations regarding lead abatement, testing and related issues have been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          I’d – without digging up numbers – guess that halting leaded gasoline probably had the most-immediate impact on lead in the air, since burning leaded gasoline is gonna put it straight into the air.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Lead_Replacement_Petrol

          In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations to reduce the lead content of leaded gasoline over a series of annual phases, scheduled to begin in 1973 but delayed by court appeals until 1976.

          If something were gonna happen in the 1970s to reduce the rate of serial killing, to be a relevant input, it’d have to be something that had a major immediate effect rather than a long-term developmental effect.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        481 year ago

        The other theory I’ve heard that makes some sense is lead exposure. From 1925 to about 1976, lead was commonly added to gasoline. Lead is known to cause psychological problems including irritablity and general mood disorders.

        Pretty much everyone born during that period was exposed to aerosolized lead.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Maybe would be serial killers just spree kill in a mass shooting instead…that has certainly grown since Columbine

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It might be interesting to see if countries other than the US – and I have no idea if whatever metrics used by the author here can be applied in those countries, might not have the same data available – saw similar changes in serial killer activity, since that’d help let one know if the relevant factors producing the spike were something that the US in particular experienced or not.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I was thinking that people returning from WW2 might be a factor, war trauma or something, but that seems like it’s a little too early.

        In 1944, this data shows the largest cohorts in an infantry unit being measured being 19-24 years old.

        https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7c725k/what_was_the_average_age_of_the_soldiers_that/

        A 19-year-old – the youngest cohort listed – would be 33, maybe the end of the peak period to start serial killing – 14 years after 1944. That’s in 1958, and that’d have been the tail end of American WW2 veterans being in the prime serial killer initiation age. The boom had started then, but the highest rate of increase came later…and that’s looking at the very tail end of the WW2 vets.

        The serial killers would mostly have been children or young teens during World War II, not actually served in it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Back in the day you could afford both med school and running an elaborate murder hotel with some gruesome custom made contraptions. Now you can’t even afford a simple murder house. What has come of this country.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          And don’t come telling us that cutting on avocado toast will suddenly enable us to afford a reasonable home with a decent torture basement.

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Be the change you want to see in the world. Go out and kill your entire neighborhood, it’s the patriotic thing to do.

    • Neato
      link
      fedilink
      English
      731 year ago

      Who has the money or the leave to travel around, book hotels, go on lots of dates and buy power tools,

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        601 year ago

        Boomers: Would you rather eat avocado toast or become a serial killer?

        Millennials/GenZ: What the fuck? Uh, I guess I’d rather eat the toast?

        Boomers nObOdY WaNts To SerIaL KiLl aNyMoRe!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        Most serial killers had their own vehicle and house, and were able to keep those despite most killers not being able to hold down a job once they started the murders.

        Try doing that today. You can’t methodically kill people if you’re freezing to death on the streets.

        These greedy corporations are just saving us from serial killers by making it impossible to become one without financial ruin.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Plot twist. The serial killers still have all that time, but they realized the could kill way more people by becoming billionaires and exploiting them to death.

    • SolidGrue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      171 year ago

      Nah. It’s an industrialized, mass-produced economy now. Before the 90s, killing people was a bespoke trade. Mass murder was a one-on-one kind of transaction, each murder personally crafted for the victim by a specialist. The really industrial scale deaths at the time were the stuff of nation-states.

      The transition of mass murders to the private sector as heralded by Atlanta, Waco, Columbine and Oklahoma City coincided¹ with the Clinton admin and the advent of NAFTA, which promoted mass industrialization of heretofore domestic industries².

      Ever since, it’s been death dealt on an ever expanding scale on an j cident-by-incident basis. A sort of Moore’s Law of death and disillusionment.

      I hate myself for even penning this diatribe, but the situation is so bleak it feels like no depth of dark humor will reallybshock anyone anymore.

      1. Correlation does not imply causation
      2. This is such a badly formed argument even for satire, I’m embarrassed
  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    331 year ago

    Interestingly the start of the decline is 1988 which also happens to be the year the seminal Stewart Raffill film Mac and Me was released. Coincidence? I wonder.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      John Wayne Gacy killed 33 people, that we know of, in his entire life. 21 killed in Uvalde alone.

      We just streamlined things.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Not really, ETA, IRA, Al Qaeda the Palestinians hijacking planes, Pablo Escobar blowing up planes, Unabomber, Oklahoma City. These are all things of the past.

    • JustEnoughDucks
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      One could argue that it is preferable to serial killers.

      Serial killers meticulously plan and often torture their victims extensively and many of their victims families never get closure because nothing gets tied back to the killer.

      Mass gunman attacks, for example, kill orders of magnitude faster with much less pain for many of their victims, the perpetrator isn’t active for a long period of time, and the families get closure.

      Of two severely fucked up scenarios that happen, it seems that one is worse.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Yes and I think it’s ridiculous. Like that podcast My Favourite Murder? That’s just insulting to the victims who died terrified and alone, IMO. Might as well have a podcast called My Favourite Rape if they’re going to treat human misery as a spectator sport.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    271 year ago

    Lots of great possibilities listed in article.

    I was shocked that 60% of murders are solved. It was not that long ago that the solving rate was near 20%.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It was roughly 60% in 2018, which was lower than it was decades before that. It was 90% in the 1960s for instance. Murder clearance rates have been declining for decades. 2023 was under 50% and is a record low for murder clearance.

      Basically more and more murders are going unsolved, and this is a trend stretching decades. National murder clearance rates have never been 20% since that data has been tracked.

      Some cities are near that currently though, like Oakland. Interpreting police incompetence around murder cases as somehow indicating less serial killing is pretty absurd.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        I know I’ll sound like a bootlicker, but this is why I’m in favor of more street cameras for the city. It’s obnoxious how often there’s a picture of the car involved in something but no one catches them because there’s no way to just follow the car to where it went.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          Well but people who attend protests should not be tracked through clothes they have purchased, for example.

        • KillingTimeItself
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          because it’s also a massive privacy invasion as well. If someone with access to the system decides they don’t like me, they can stalk me, if someone hacks it, whatever is in there about me is now available to them. If the government wakes up one day and decides that it doesnt like people who have differing political opinions, suddenly they have a profile of who i am and what i do almost perfectly.

          It’s very much patriot act levels of national security, but for the individual. “we’ll spy on you, but it’s only so terrorism doesn’t happen, we promise” and then uh, snowden shows up in the story.

          Same thing with something as simple as tracking vehicles, it’s a lose lose most of the time, and a win lose the rest of the time.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nowadays peopke bring their phone to a murder like a chump.

        Some of the analytical software that can be applied to mobile phone cell ping and metadata alone is incredible. Not only is it able to show snapshots of a given period to identify patterns, but it can also be walked back in time to identify patterns which are increasing in their intensity. This can indicate changing behaviours in individuals and groups.

        You might think the solution is to turn off your mobile, wrap it in foil, leave it at home, smash it ect but that’s not the answer. A suddenly lost mobile agent is a red flag, as is an abnormally stationary one, or an abnormally repetitive one.

        Imagine you’re an analyst, and you’re aware of a potential terror cell consisting of 5-8 members. You’ve identified from cell metadata that each member has met at least one other member at least once in person. Imagine then that 6 of these individuals either go off-line, or their phone remains stationary for an unusual amount of time, eg normally they would be at work. You could reasonably conclude that they are having a secret rendezvous in meatspace. Then, based on the time taken for each mobile to reconnect, and its position when it does, you might be able to heat map a list of possible locations that they could have met at, based on estimated travel time for each. Then you might find evidence of tgeir meetup from osint sources like CCTV or sat imagery.

        If you dont want mobile phone metadata used to uncover your crimes, you should constantly behave unpredictably. Maybe carry a foil bag and keep your phone in it sometimes at work to simulate black spots. Maybe choose a mobile provider with the worst possible coverage. Sometimes leave your phone at home. You know those random spam messages you get on Signal or whatsapp? Converse with them occasionally, these act like red herrings in your interaction matrix. Anything that contributes as chaff, white noise, false signals, whatever you want to call them, anything will help if it makes you unpredictable.

        And that’s just phones. CCTV, satellite imagery, other peoples phones and devices, freeway ALPR cameras, audio devices, all these things contribute to mapping your move.ents, constantly, over time.

        Take solace that probably nobody is actually watching you, at least, no human is. Just an algorithm. When the algo detects youve deviated from your pattern, then it might flag you for human review, so try not to have an easily identifiable pattern, and chaff that bitch up as often as you can.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I wonder if thats due to increasing competency/giveafuckness by authorites.

      or if its due to decreasing competency amongst killers.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        I believe that was discussed in the article. Along with early interventions that help little shits not grow into giant shits.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    351 year ago

    Most crime has declined dramatically since the 90s. And yet right wing media is scaring the shit out of people, saying there are murderers, rapists, and terrorists behind every bush.

    The world is actually becoming more empathetic and safer, but some people want us to be scared because fear keeps them in power. Don’t believe them.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    27
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They have joined the military or private military companies since. they can kill as much as they like with complete impunity, in many wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine and Gaza, plus it’s brown people they are killing so they feel triple the reword, society is fine with that as long as it who they view as the enemy who’s the subject of their carnal instincts.

    You can’t convince me that the image of the horrors committed by the IDF in Gaza and the US military aren’t of psychopaths having a blast paid for by their own societies.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    441 year ago

    In the book Freakonomics they made the argument that the sudden decline in crime in the late 90’s appeared to be tied to Roe v. Wade. I wonder if this is similar.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Murder “clearance” rates in the US have been declining for decades, meaning police are solving fewer and fewer murders. Unsolved killings were at record highs in 2023.

    Seems to me that there are probably just less serial killers being suspected, investigated, and caught, as police continue to do less and less, rather than there being less serial killers. The United States is now basically the least effective country at solving murders in the industrialized world.

    It’s absurd trying to spin police incompetence as a positive thing. Roughly 27% of murders in Oakland, CA are solved for instance. Who knows if there is a serial killer at work with that kind of solve rate?

  • BarqsHasBite
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Besides what they listed in the article, I would add lead exposure.

    It’s a short read, pretty good.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1161 year ago

    Lead poisoning is still the prevalent theory, I think. It fucks up brain development in ways that make kids tend to sociopathic personalities.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Weapons availability and the mental health crisis. In countries without easy access to guns, mass killings are conducted with knives or cars (runovers). And in countries with socialized healthcare that includes mental health, mass killings don’t happen, at all, or very rarely if ever. Socioeconomic inequality is usually the third element, like in the fire triad, mix the three and you get mass shootings.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        Shit life syndrome. The difference is they turn their misery outwards instead of committing suicide.

      • theodewere
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        too many scared assholes who love their guns more than anything else… highly sensitive momma’s boys in love with their guns, always ready to lose their shit…

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
        link
        fedilink
        351 year ago

        Availability of weapons mixed with infrastructure development that atomizes communities to the point that the only places some people can find any social activity is nihilistic message boards full of psychopaths that actively encourage terroristic attacks on society but in the oblique way that dodges accountability for it when someone actually goes and does it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        301 year ago
        1. Easy access to guns
        2. The rise of easy access fascist media
        3. The dissolution of public institutions

        It’s simply too easy to grab a gun by anyone. Military grade equipment is available to pretty much anyone with a credit card. Then you combine that with a CONSTANT beating drum from people like Alex Jones talking about how much they want crush, destroy, kill their enemies and how corrupt everything is. Then also talking about how people need to rise up and do “something”. While also in the same breath telling people to go off their meds and how any sort of treatment for mental disorders is actually poison. Then pair that with the fact that there’s pretty much no public infrastructure around public health (thanks Reagan). That means if you are having some sort of mental break down, depression, whatever, if you can’t afford the $100s/$1000s of dollars to get regular psychiatric treatment you are basically just going to be untreated. There is also pretty much no safe place to recoup for someone in distress but not at risk of suicide. But even if there were, even if you could afford it, fascists and preachers know that mentally healthy people are harder to grift so they spend all their time demonizing the very help you’d need.

        However, not everyone that does this is mentally unwell. Some are just hateful fascists that believe killing gets their hate filled messages into the world. It’s why it is irresponsible for any media outlet to publish the name or manifestos of these assholes. Having notorious killers encourages more notorious killers.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          As to that first point, you know we had AR-15s in the 70s, right? (No one gave a shit. They weren’t “cool” until the Assault Weapons Ban. Yeah, that didn’t work out so well…)

          You know guns were far easier to get back then? LOL, I got an old Mossberg 500 (think classic 12-gauge pump) that was branded Revelation. They sold those at Western Auto stores.

          It was no thing to see a dude with a loaded gun rack in his pickup. Point being, access is not the thing that changed.

          And the rest of your post? On. The. Money.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Current gun laws are pretty restricted compared to things that used to be allowed. The big one is mail order guns, you could just send a money order and get pretty much any semi-auto gun you wanted delivered to your house with no background check at all.

            Full auto gums required a tax stamp since the 30s, and weren’t banned until 86.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            As to that first point, you know we had AR-15s in the 70s, right?

            The other 2 factors are important along with the internet. There may have been less legal barriers to getting an AR-15, that does not mean accomplishing such a task was easy to do. It’s not like there were AR-15 ads on TV or in newspapers (well, there may have been, but that would have been highly regional). It’s not like every city had an “AR-15” guy in the yellow pages. Legal access hasn’t changed, but general access has (particularly to assault rifles).

            Regardless, my advocacy is first just starting with laws I think most everyone can agree with, red flag laws. Take away or don’t allow the purchase of guns by a domestic abusers or someone with a history of violence. Heck, you could even put a time limit on that stuff like “within the last 7 years”.

            A ton of these cases are fairly young men (<20). So it would be enough to say “hey, if you are under 25 and your school teachers say ‘Do not let this kid in particular have a gun’” then you don’t get a gun until you turn 25. Or even an outright ban on ownership for people less than 25 (though that’d be much less popular).

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/971544/number-k-12-school-shootings-us-age-shooter/