Since a dramatic peak in the 1980s, serial killers in the U.S. have been in decline for three decades. Experts have a few theories that can help explain why.
I think it's more that it's a lot harder to become a serial killer and not get caught for long periods. Technology has advanced tremendously in the fields of communication, surveillance, and forensics since the heyday of the American serial killer so it's far more likely they'll get caught before perfecting their methods or the drive to kill becoming pathological. It's also way easier to just become a spree or mass shooter. I don't think it's a coincidence that while serial killers have declined in the same period spree/mass/workplace/school shootings have risen.
All that big brother/CSI stuff wouldn’t really affect the classic serial killer MO though. Even if we suppose that a random surveillance camera caught a killing or abduction, who’s to say that anybody would check it, if the victim was not known to be on that spot, or even that the victim was missing? I.e. if they’re not a privileged class victim. And if there’s no social connection between the victim and the killer, there’s no telecommunication trail.
It seems like it’d be relatively easy to prove that a person is a serial killer, but not much easier to identify them if they’re smart.
I think it's more that it's a lot harder to become a serial killer and not get caught for long periods. Technology has advanced tremendously in the fields of communication, surveillance, and forensics since the heyday of the American serial killer so it's far more likely they'll get caught before perfecting their methods or the drive to kill becoming pathological. It's also way easier to just become a spree or mass shooter. I don't think it's a coincidence that while serial killers have declined in the same period spree/mass/workplace/school shootings have risen.
All that big brother/CSI stuff wouldn’t really affect the classic serial killer MO though. Even if we suppose that a random surveillance camera caught a killing or abduction, who’s to say that anybody would check it, if the victim was not known to be on that spot, or even that the victim was missing? I.e. if they’re not a privileged class victim. And if there’s no social connection between the victim and the killer, there’s no telecommunication trail.
It seems like it’d be relatively easy to prove that a person is a serial killer, but not much easier to identify them if they’re smart.
I mean less that science has become magic and more that opportunities minimizing risk are fewer and far between. Especially consistent ones.