4 ms·
It could just be better policing. If you catch someone after they kill once or twice, they don’t get the chance to become a serial killer. But I haven’t looked
by nscalf 6y ago
It could just be better policing. If you catch someone after they kill once or twice, they don’t get the chance to become a serial killer. But I haven’t looked up any stats on this.
- StavrosK 6y agoOr they know how to hide better. We've always only caught the stupid ones anyway.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> It could just be better policing. If it was “better policing”, you expect the clearance rate for actual homicides to have gone up as well as the identified serial killers to have gone down. Instead, the clearance rate has gone down, as well. “Worse policing” of murder would better explain both reduced clearance of homicides and reduced numbers of identified serial killers.
- oh_sigh 6y agoThere can be multiple factors at play. For example, future serial killers may be caught after one killing, but drug gang murders may go unsolved.
- fnord123 6y agoThere's also the mobile phone effect. The dopamine treadmill has stopped people from going out and murdering.
- cedilla 6y agoWorse policing also leads to more incorrect clearings. Who knows how many murders were incorrectly pinned on husbands or wives, or known petty criminals, or tramps? The same technology we use to find murderers can also exonerate people. We also tossed out a lot of bogus methods based on pseudo-science and learned a lot about the reliability of witnesses; and all the modern technology exposed many expert witnesses as charlatans.