( BASED ON AN EXTRACT FROM MY BOOK “KILLER INSTINCT – Having a Mind for Murder”

Many people in society tend to link murder to mental illness. It is an understandable reaction for people to believe that for any person to murder another, a degree of mental illness must be involved. But the fact is that the majority of murders are not the result of mental illness. Far more likely are motivations such as drug disputes, vengeance, or strong human emotions such as jealous rage or displaced male pride. Alcohol or drug intoxication is a very common factor in triggering violence that may become murder. Being drunk or stoned can have a grave effect on the brain’s ability to make normal judgments and take rational decisions.

Mental health authorities are generally at pains to stress that violence resulting from mental illness is uncommon, and that most people with those illnesses will not be violent. Stigma against the mentally ill is significant and it is therefore seen as important to educate the general public about the low risk of violence in order to assist with the treatment and rehabilitation of mentally ill people in our society.

But it is also important to be honest and up front about the fact that psychosis can produce irrational violence, and at times result in murder. Particular types of illness are more likely to be associated with violence and particular symptoms may point to a more heightened risk. The cases I have presented indicate those red flags. Paranoid types of psychosis; delusions of persecution; voices commanding the person to kill; psychotic depression with delusions of hopelessness and despair; drug-induced psychoses with the inclusion of family members in paranoid delusions – all amongst the factors that raise the potential for murderous violence.

Becoming more aware of those higher risk patients, and being more proactive in getting them well treated, will reduce the risk of them acting on their irrational beliefs with possible tragic results. The cases of psychosis that I have described in “Killer Instinct” indicate that those particular murders arose from those illnesses and, retrospectively, it is possible to see how different treatment, given earlier, might have been preventive. But the cases also indicate the considerable difficulties for families and professionals in recognizing the developing risk and predicting the potential tragic outcome in order to prevent it.

Whilst there are many paths to murder, there are also many more victims than the person who ends up dead. That deceased person is the primary victim, having lost their life. But there are usually many secondary victims. Close family will have to grieve the loss of their loved one, and their lives will usually never be the same again. They will suffer the trauma of what they have seen or heard about in regard to the killing. They may develop post-traumatic stress disorder or some other medical complication. Children may be left parentless, with all the long-term issues that can cause. A family that has experienced a murder in its midst, even when they bear no responsibility for the event, can feel the stigma of what has occurred for the rest of their lives.

In many cases, the family members of the murderer are secondary victims as well, with secondary guilt and remorse on the behalf of the murderer, even if they have no remorse themselves. Any loyalty to the murderer will create very conflicted feelings. They will probably be stigmatized and their lives may never be the same again.

Neighbours or witnesses less directly connected to the murder may also suffer trauma. The emergency workers and police attending the scene of the crime will need to confront a traumatic sight and deal with distressed people. There can be many knock-on effects, the ripple effect of a very violent event. Even members of the general public can feel very unsettled by a murder in their community.

It must not be forgotten that the person who carries out the murder is also a victim. This is most obvious when the crime has been the result of a serious mental illness which has turned a previously well and functional person into an irrational killer. That person is a terrible victim of the illness, just as is the person they murdered. If the killer survives the offence, their life will never be the same; they will spend years in hospital, and a lifetime on a forensic order. Once they recover from their illness, they will have to confront the reality of what they did and grieve for the victim, who was very likely a close family member or members. They may never be able to resume close family ties with their children or other loved ones. They will always bear the stigma of having been a killer, even though the illness was not of their making. They will likely bear a great burden of guilt, even though the illness was not their fault. They will likely not experience ready acceptance by a community that does not understand and fears being too close to such awful events. They should not expect politicians to understand or be supportive. There are no votes in murder, even when it is the tragic result of a mental illness. Tough talk and punitive policies are more likely to find favour. The media is rarely empathetic, often referring to the ill offender in lurid terms such as “crazed killer”.