The internet has grown quicker than anyone could have ever anticipated. It has created vast opportunities, and people are becoming more and more dependent on it. It has enabled the emergence of new forms of crimes as well as new methods of committing traditional crimes like murder. Murder is one of the most vindictive and serious forms of homicide today. It is hard to understand why a sane person would decide to take another person’s life. The nature of this crime including what constitutes it has changed over time. The murder rate in the U.S sustained a recurring flow of increases and decreases during the twentieth century. The early1900s witnessed an increase in the rates of murder which peaked in 1933 at 9.7 murder per 100,000 people (Hattis, 2017). The next twenty-five years experienced historically high fluctuations in murder rates, so did the overall index crime rate. The rates of murder during the 1990s decreased, and by 1998 this hit a 30-year low of 6.9 murders per 100,000 population. The U.S murder rate reached 4.9 per 100,000 population, and by 2017 this rate reached an all-time high (Hattis, 2017).
Until the early years of the twenty-first century, the internet had limited capacity, and a lot of information had yet to be consolidated within it. Hence, a person could not gather a lot of information regarding someone else. The best people could do is call each other up or request for a face-to-face meeting. Many serial killers before this time were forced to stalk their victims for weeks to acquire information about them. They would go to bars and other social places and fished around for potential victims. For example, all the murders committed by Dennis Rader, one of the most gruesome serial killers, were predetermined and preplanned. He used to stalk his victims for weeks to determine where they lived, when they arrived or left home, or who else lived with them. Rader would then break into the victim’s home, cut the phone lines so that the victim could not call for help, and then wait for them to arrive. Teddy Bundy also preplanned his killings by conducting surveillance and entering homes to gather information regarding their daily routines. He would then lure his victims by feigning car troubles or wore a false plaster cast on his leg or would limp on crutches to gain sympathy. Sometimes he would fake being an authoritative figure like a firefighter or police officer.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The face of murder has changed tremendously since this period all thanks to the internet. Most killers today rely on the internet for the pre-planning phase of their crime. People post very personal information or their identities online, not realizing the kind of danger they are putting themselves in. Murders in this age and time lurk in popular internet venues and use information publicly divulged in social networking sites and online profiles to identify potential targets (Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Ybarra, 2008). They will usually conceal their identities and sometimes real age to appeal more to the target. They then slowly convince victims into meeting with them and then abduct them. John Edward Robinson is supposedly the first killer known to have used the internet to find victims.
Serial killers like Dennis Rader and David Berkowitz depended on traditional media platforms to inform society of their killing, usually on their own terms. Rader, for instance, wrote letters or sent floppy disks to the police leading them to his victims. The advent of social media during the past couple of years has resulted to a new kind of "performance" crime, where killers create accounts of their deeds via videos, images, and texts that they then dispense digitally to the public (Berry-Dee & Morris, 2006).
Throughout the middle of the twentieth century, men and women who were too busy or shy to meet in person found love through “matrimonial bureaus” like the lonely-hearts club. Killers like Harvey Cargan and Harry Power used print media platforms such as lonely-hearts club ads and newspaper classified ads to identify victims (Rauf, 2016). Currently, murders use the same kind of modus operandi, just that they do this through the internet. Many accused and convicted killers have contacted their victims through online advertising platforms like Craig’s list. For example, in 2009, Michael John Anderson lured Katherine Olson to his home with a babysitting ad on Craig’s list and murdered her. Also, Australian killer Ashley Marvin Coultson picked two victims from an advertisement they put in the paper requesting for a third roommate. He responded to the ad and killed them when they agreed to meet with him. On the other side of the globe, Hiroshi Maeue, a ruthless Japanese serial killer often identified his victims from suicide chat rooms. Chat rooms are used to find not only victims but also to plan consequential killings.
The method of execution has not changed significantly. Most murders during the twentieth century usually entailed sexual assault, especially the ones committed by serial killers. Today, sexual assault before murder is still prevalent. Some killers also torture and strangle their victims to death. The murders of today and yesterday both form a vision in their minds of their victims based on physical characteristics, gender, race, and so forth.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the internet has changed the way murder crimes are committed. The criminal justice system faces greater challenges now than they did before. For this reason, they too will have to seize the opportunities the internet provides in order to manage this crisis.
References
Berry-Dee, C., & Morris, S. (2006). Killers on the web: True stories of internet cannibals,
murderers and sex criminals . London: John Blake.
Hattis, S. H. (2017). Crime in the United States 2017 . Lanham: Bernan Press.
Rauf, D. (2016). Historical serial killers . New York: Enslow Publishing
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Ybarra, M. L. (2008). Online "predators" and their
victims: myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. The American Psychologist, 63, 2, 111-128.
