Criminal Justice

Classifying serial killers as legally insane is tricky. On the one hand, any serial killer is clearly sociopathic or psychopathic based on their unfeeling disregard for their victims. Many would easily be diagnosed with other mental illnesses like schizophrenia. On the other hand, mental illness is not insanity. Insanity is usually defined for legal purposes much as incompetence is defined for medical purposes: as complete detachment from reality or inability to make a sensible decision. Thus, a serial killer might be mentally deranged but not actually insane.

For example, they know that what they are doing is against the law; they are not detached from reality in that sense. They cover up their tracks and their crime to avoid getting caught. If interrogated they can lie well, and frequently make up stories so as to appear mentally ill. They do this in the hopes that appearing mentally ill will make a judge or jury grant them an insanity plea. An insane person would not be able to cleverly craft their murders in the way many serial killers have. Thus, the justice system must clearly distinguish between mental illness and insanity. Psychiatrists and other professionals can aid judge and jury in making the distinction. Reserving the insanity plea for clear instances of psychotic breaks and other reasonable diagnoses would help prosecutors effectively try their cases.

Even if not deemed legally insane, a serial killer is certainly morally and ethnically insane. For all reasonable, non-judicial purposes, a serial killer is as insane as a human being can be. If someone who kills indiscriminately, systematically, and often with pleasure is not insane then who is? The lack of compassion for other human beings and the lack of emotion that characterizes the sociopath is one of the most chilling phenomenon of criminology. In the courtroom, a serial killer will not meet the definition of insanity even if labeled psychopathic. Therefore the definition of insanity depends on the context.