Inside the minds of murderers

(Medical Xpress)—The minds of murderers who kill impulsively, often out of rage, and those who carefully carry out premeditated crimes differ markedly both psychologically and intellectually, according to a new study by Northwestern Medicine researcher Robert Hanlon.

"Impulsive murderers were much more mentally impaired, particularly cognitively impaired, in terms of both their intelligence and other cognitive functions," said Hanlon, senior author of the study and associate professor of and clinical neurology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

"The predatory and premeditated murderers did not typically show any major intellectual or cognitive impairments, but many more of them have ," he said.

Published online in the journal Criminal Justice and Behavior, the study is the first to examine the neuropsychological and intelligence differences of murderers who kill impulsively versus those who kill as the result of a premeditated strategic plan.

  • Compared to impulsive murderers, premeditated murderers are almost twice as likely to have a history of mood disorders or —61 percent versus 34 percent.
  • Compared to predatory murderers, impulsive murderers are more likely to be developmentally disabled and have cognitive and intellectual impairments—59 percent versus 36 percent.
  • Nearly all of the impulsive murderers have a history of alcohol or drug abuse and/or were intoxicated at the time of the crime—93 percent versus 76 percent of those who strategized about their crimes.

Based on established criteria, 77 murderers from typical prison populations in Illinois and Missouri were classified into the two groups (affective/impulsive and premeditated/predatory murderers). Hanlon compared their performances on standardized measures of intelligence and of memory, attention and executive functions. He spent hours with each individual, administering series of tests to complete an evaluation. Hanlon has spent thousands of hours studying the minds of murderers through his research.

"It's important to try to learn as much as we can about the thought patterns and the psychopathology, neuropathology and mental disorders that tend to characterize the types of people committing these crimes," he said. "Ultimately, we may be able to increase our rates of prevention and also assist the courts, particularly helping judges and juries be more informed about the minds and the mental abnormalities of the people who commit these violent crimes."

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Predicting who's at risk for violence isn't easy

Dec 22, 2012

(AP)—It happened after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado, and now Sandy Hook: People figure there surely were signs of impending violence. But experts say predicting who will be the next mass shooter is virtually ...

Recommended for you

Family dinners reduce effects of cyberbullying in adolescents

8 hours ago

Sharing regular family meals with children may help protect them from the effects of cyberbullying, according to a study by McGill professor Frank Elgar, Institute for Health and Social Policy. Because family meal times represent ...

The Edwardians were also fans of brain training

14 hours ago

Brain-training programmes are all the rage. They are part of a growing digital brain-health industry that earned more than US$1 billion in revenue in 2012 and is estimated to reach US$6 billion by 2020. The extent to which they actually improve brain function re ...

Report advocates improved police training

Aug 29, 2014

A new report released yesterday by the Mental Health Commission of Canada identifies ways to improve the mental health training and education that police personnel receive.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet Jun 28, 2013
The conclusion is flawed. This information does not help jurors decide on an individual case as, for instance, they have no way of telling if the person in the dock is one of those who has a mental disorder or who was drunk on the strength of statistics alone.

In court, evidence that some percentage of a cohort have some property is irrelevant unless it can be confirmed that the particular individual in question has that property, and for this the statistics are irrelevant.

In fact stereotyping (finding a prominent trait in a group and then extending it to all members whether they are independently tested for it or not) is explicitly disallowed in court and is the basis for racial and other forms of discrimination which is, in fact, illegal in most countries...