We have so many in Florida they're an endless source of interest, but they're all overshadowed by Bundy. But then there's the underrated Gerald Stano, who might as been as prolific as Bundy, Judy Buenoano who liked to kill family members for insurance (the last woman to go to Old Sparky), the compellingly insane can't-look-away-like-a-bad-car-accident Aileen Wuornos, Danny Rolling, the Gainesville Ripper, the list goes on and on and on...and on...
Supposedly Bundy's still hanging out on death row. His trial in the Kimberly Leach murder got moved to Orlando and you can still see where he scratched his name into the side of the defense table. The old courthouse is now the Orange County History Museum. I've taken multiple pictures of it - I'll try to find one. Apparently he had a much higher opinion of his intelligence than he actually was and thought if he could get away with murder in Florida, then he'd "won." (What, I have no idea) I read somewhere along the line that serial killers, except for ones that use explosives (think Ted Kaczynski) don't particularly have high IQs. He's a fascinating figure. PhD in mathematics from Michigan and faculty appointment at Berkeley by his early 20s. Left because he couldn't relate to people. Imagine that. This SNL skit with Will Ferrell as Kaczynski at his Harvard reunion never fails to make me laugh.
Interesting that you mentioned Aileen Wournos there ( not familar with the others, apart from Kaczynski). Imho Wurnos and Manson were mentally ill - understandably so; through the systemic, heinous emotional and sexual, neglect and abuse they incurred as children and subsequently the lack of support by the health-care/socialcare system; throughout their childhood, teens and adulthood - this could have been prevented, without a doubt. They themselves were obvious victims of severe and chronic abuse. So, why are they vilified?
Always find it fascinating (in an exhasberated sense) that the judgement of those who are obviously mentally ill
andhave been seriously neglected by either their families, or society are primed for punishment.
If someone is involved in a school-shooting, for example, they are considered a criminal - however, if it is a kid in a school, or a few kids who commit suicide - it is deemed a tragedy.
Now, i understand that the motivation behind these two scenarios may differ. However, considering that both may be borne from a source of lack of integration, poor self-esteem, family/community dysfunction etc. - why would one be considered criminal and the other a tragedy; why would one (i.e., a school shooting ) be considered 'evil', rather than a symptom of a more extroverted expression of the collective dysfunction;rather than that of a suicide?
If it is a numbers game - i.e. the suicide kills him/er self and not many - does this not remind us of the psychopathic test; where if a person where asked if they could save a life of many, by sacrificing/endanging the lives of one or, two in a specific circumstance ( which the psychopath deems good - as its a numbers/rewards game); for the purpose of the task/experiemnt - it's interesting that the individual who holds the numbers saved, over the circumstantial value of human life, more important; are deemed psychopathic - as they are not encumbered by the moral dilemma; which causes trauma of empathising with the human suffering of
all under threat of death, over the 'target' individuals killed ( sacrificed for the larger group), in the experiment.
This leads to the gravity of the question and the values of a nation/nations; that are enmeshed in defending one's will by the right to kill those who seem a threat to you, your territory, or your nation, by
any means - then why would anyone have the right to judge a kid who murders others based on the fact that they were judged by such a society that sanctions this type of action when faced with such a dillema, by virtue of their constitution and more importantly; their cultural values?
In a war economy; psychopathy is an asset to get kids to conscript and fight the enemy- without question and for ' the greater good'. So why is this punished by a judicial system when the culture breeds this valuelessness; and rewards it, through many commercial and socio-political means. Is it trying to 'kill-off' those who cannot keep the secret that is has 'groomed' it's children to? Why are citizens not questioning the system that they are raising their children in/ seeing it as benign?
Surely it is the most sensitive children that pick-up on and adapt to the values of a culture?
In a system whose values are clouded in valuelessness. How can a perpetrator be brought to justice; when that system rewards the values of perpetrators; as part of it's cultural milleu? It's insane.
Not saying there shouldnt be laws or, boundaries but when the foundation of those laws and boundaries are based on a laizzes faire, collonialistic sense of narcissistic entitlement to perpetrate - where do the boundaries lie? Why have they not been since re-established; if it is such an 'outrage' to the social structure.
Are most perpetrators victims of a system that has failed to lead and organise a just society; are they just good, conformist players in an injust system; symptoms of the failure of a system that has neglected it's human values? Is it less a fact that there are more violent criminals and just terrorist-youths and adults that have learnt to be obsequious to the abbhorent and fundamental truths of their culture - legitimately, how does this render them totally culpable when they are charged with anti-social acts? Perhaps they are just less discerning of the paradox; less aware; lower in conscentiousness and higher in openness, of personality - why is this not a factor, in judging crime?
* Not to idealise or be unaware of genuinely dangerous criminals and their individual motivations, however...most are crafted from cultural and/financial circumstance rather than neurology.