Sex Killers: A Case Study

Cameron and Frazer are suggesting that policemen, psychiatrists and killers themselves, in this case, sex killers , are in a position of power as they have acquired information that others have not and are therefore using this information as the ‘truth’. The explanation of their found truth has a possibility to be misleading as it is known that both knowledge and power can be abused. In order to understand the quote, three terms must be defined in a Foucauldian nature; power, truth, and knowledge. Power in this context refers to the relation of social structures and the individual, truth, “in order for something to be established as a fact or as true, other equally valid statements have to be discredited and denied” and knowledge, is a conjunction
Foucault states that one can only exist alongside the other, which means that the knowledge about sex killers is only available due to power relations. Whilst simultaneously, because of power relations, knowledge about sex killers is available. For example, Beasley (2004), an agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a high position of power in society, had studied seven serial killers. In which he found a common factor in their lives, this common factor was each man had been apart of a dysfunctional family. With all seven having unstable family lives (whether it was childhood abuse, negligent parents, or failed marriages), this knowledge alone can cause the readers to determine that an unstable family is the sole cause for creating sex killers. Here we can see how Beasley has power writing this journal, this information may or may not be true from his limited research, but it will help reinforce societal norms within family values, which can be transpired into forms of moral behaviours, which they then reinforce those morals throughout their relationships and over time it becomes ‘common knowledge’. This has been found during the discourse on ‘sex killers’ dating back to the late nineteenth century. In 1888, ‘Jack the Ripper’,
The belief ‘sex killers’ are male territory. Even though there are women out there who have committed similar crimes. No women has fit the exact concept of a ‘sex killer’. A female muderer is often referred to as a ‘sadist’, where as men are sex killers (Cameron and Frazer, 1988, p.23). This is similar to the media coverage of the ‘rippers’ as women are treated differently as it comes down to the patriarchal society before us. There are examples of women in history who had appetites for sex and cruelty as a ‘sex killer’, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Countess Bathory, are only some of these women. Cleopatra, Catherine, and the Countess (who bathed in the blood of 80 girls) do not fit in the category of ‘sex killers’ as the knowledge does not fit fully in the mould, they were deemed enthusiasts of witchcraft where as the literature describes sex killers mainly focusing on an ‘object’ instead of particular people and grudges (Cameron and Frazer, 1988, p.23). However, these women murdered a multitude of people, over a period of time, and for their own gratification, therefore they should be considered as ‘sex killers’, another aspect that should be considered, the Countess victims were strangers which is a typical occurrence with ‘sex killers’ (Langvin, 2003, p.366). The language and