Sanity of Paranoid Serial Killers

[jwill]

I am using "sanity" to refer to responsibility under the law; "insanity" then would refer to conditions in which a person could not be held legally responsible. An insane person could be found guilty but insane, thus solving the crime but not justifying punishment in the criminal justice system.

After reading many of the stories, I think that one criterion of sanity has been the existence of PURPOSE in the crimes committed. The weird or horrible acts committed, or strange behavior, have not been considered relevant.

For example, a person such as John Haigh has been described as a "classic paranoid". But, he wasn't insane, although, according to the story, he revealed an incredible apparent lack of sophistication in dealing with police, and he smiled during his trial at everything revealed about his murders for profit. He just kept smiling.

This can be explained in terms of his purpose in life: Apparently, this purpose was never to admit to being hurt or in trouble.

He should have chosen different ways of maintaining this purpose, but his choices were to steal (never suffer an employer) and kill (never suffer a complaint). He never was offended, scared, or otherwise injured by the words or implications of the testimony during his trial, either. A very simple, consistent man.

Perfectly sane. As sane as a soldier who kills people in battle because they are the enemy; as sane as Willie Sutton, who robbed banks because that's where there was money to steal.