Violent Minds

What Drives People to Kill?

Murder represents the ultimate violation of social norms – the deliberate taking of another human life. While serial killers capture public fascination, they account for less than 1% of homicides. The vast majority of murders are committed by “ordinary” people who, through a complex interplay of psychological, emotional, situational, and cultural factors, overcome powerful inhibitions against killing. Understanding what drives people to murder requires examining the diverse motivations, mental states, and circumstances that lead to lethal violence across different contexts and cultures.

The Psychological Mechanisms That Enable Killing

Overcoming Natural Inhibitions

Most individuals possess strong psychological barriers against taking human life. These barriers must be overcome – either gradually or suddenly – for murder to occur. Research demonstrates that the majority of those who commit lethal violence are not suffering from severe mental illness but are “normal” people who engage in psychological and social mechanisms that enable killing. Many of these mechanisms overlap with what we discuss in the psychology of violence and moral disengagement.

The potential for violence becomes increasingly plausible when strong in-group identity formation combines with perception of existential external danger, heightened perception of the in-group as “uniquely virtuous,” and characterization of violence against non-members as protecting group virtue. This process not only makes violence more likely but also increases glorification and celebration of violence as a means of protection against perceived threats.

Most individuals undergo a process of moral disengagement that allows them to avoid normal self-regulatory mechanisms in order to kill. Regardless of cultural or social context, individuals who commit violent acts often go through similar steps, including dehumanizing and distancing the “enemy,” dispersing responsibility for violence to the collective, and downplaying negative consequences of their actions.

The creation of an alternate moral framework – where killing becomes justified within a specific worldview – serves as both a form of identity formation and moral disengagement. An individual’s moral framework may be fluid, requiring additional disengagement processes depending on the situation. The “courage to kill and die” is not innate; rather, tolerance for violence is cultivated, reinforced, and channeled toward a chosen target.

The Role of Cognition in Violent Decision-Making

Violent offenders often display distinct cognitive patterns that mediate their behavior. Various cognitive distortions and maladaptive thinking patterns play contributory roles in how individuals appraise and respond to confrontation or conflict. These patterns sit on the same spectrum of distorted thinking seen in many offenders and are closely related to the “hostile world” schemas we explore in inside the mind of a killer.

Normative attitudes and beliefs influence how violent offenders process information and increase the likelihood of aggressive or violent behavior. Such cognitive biases stem from maladaptive schemas developed from direct and observational learning where antagonistic behavior serves a functional purpose.

Research examining the social cognition of murderers has found that they tend to show greater introspective self-focus than problem-solving focus. High-risk violent offenders also score higher on measures of criminal thinking styles and lower on positive and rational problem solving compared to low-risk violent offenders.

Hull’s research identified five disinhibitor themes that move would-be perpetrators toward fatal violence: closed-channel thinking (shutting out information that does not validate the already formed view), victim stance (viewing oneself as wronged), failure to consider consequences, objectifying the victim, and self-as-vehicle (perceiving oneself as merely an instrument carrying out inevitable actions).

The Dual-Process Model: Cognition and Emotion

The Hot and Cool Systems

Recent developments in understanding homicide decision-making incorporate dual-process models that recognize both cognitive and affective contributions. The saying “blinded by emotion” captures how feelings can disrupt cognitive processing and lead to less than optimal decision making.

System 1 involves heuristic, intuitive, and emotional processes – fast, automatic, effortless, associative, and difficult to control or modify. System 2 is deliberative, involving slower, effortful, controlled, and flexible processes. These developments are particularly important for understanding homicide, given the emotionally charged contexts within which such violence usually occurs.

The Central Role of Emotion

As Athens explains, violent criminal acts are products of people’s interpretations of collective situations, and in constructing these interpretations, emotions are every bit as important as thoughts. In fact, thinking about raw feelings is what creates conscious emotions.

In addition to primary emotions like anger, moral emotions such as shame and humiliation have been identified as predominant features in violent offenders’ accounts of their behavior. Many homicide and violent offenders describe feeling “disrespected” or “ridiculed” as a key trigger for their violence because it engendered intense shame and humiliation.

Common triggers for homicidal thoughts among the general population include disruption of couple relationships, jealousy, revenge, greed, lust, fear, and self-defense. Notably, a substantial proportion of people report having had fleeting homicidal fantasies at some point, suggesting that such thoughts are relatively common and not necessarily pathological. What matters is whether these fantasies are acted upon and how they intersect with other risk factors, a topic closely related to why we cannot fully predict violent offenders.

Major Motivations for Murder

The Taxonomy of Homicidal Motivations

Research on adolescent homicide developed a taxonomy based on two motivational dimensions: the desire to hurt the victim and the intention to kill. Depending on whether each is low or high, four types emerge: situational (low desire to hurt, low intention to kill), intentional (low desire to hurt, high intention to kill), emotionally reactive (high desire to hurt, low intention to kill), and nihilistic (high desire to hurt, high intention to kill).

The most common motives identified across research include:

Revenge and Retaliation

Revenge represents one of the most powerful and prevalent motivations for murder. In mass murder cases, revenge is frequently the dominant typology, often stemming from conflict that made individuals feel isolated, humiliated, or deeply wronged. Revenge-driven murders often involve perceived betrayals, with perpetrators seeking to “even the score.”

Personal betrayal scenarios involve individuals who feel deeply wronged by former friends or partners, with the desire for retribution culminating in meticulously planned murder. Professional rivalry in competitive environments can escalate into deadly actions when employees resort to murder to eliminate rivals perceived as threats to career advancement.

Research on trivial altercation homicides – the most common motive category in some classic studies – reveals these cases involve escalated disputes over insults, curses, jostling, and other seemingly minor provocations. These homicides tend to involve status-seeking competition and risk-taking mechanisms, with males killing other males to defend reputation and status.

Financial Gain

Financial gain emerges as a compelling motive, driven by desire to acquire wealth or material benefits. Common scenarios include:

• Insurance fraud: Taking out life insurance policies on victims with intent to cash in on payouts post-murder
• Inheritance disputes: Eliminating family members to expedite or ensure claims to substantial inheritances
• Robbery homicide: Killings occurring during commission of theft, either intentional or unintentional
• Gang warfare: Murders over control of drug markets or other criminal enterprises

In serial murder contexts, financial gain motivates a significant minority of killers and is one of the most common overall motives. However, in many robbery homicides, perpetrators do not intend to kill – the death occurs as an unintended consequence of the crime, raising complex questions about culpability under felony murder doctrines.

Crimes of Passion: Jealousy, Anger, and Emotional Eruption

Crimes of passion are often spontaneous and driven by intense emotions such as jealousy, anger, or love. These motives arise in the heat of the moment, where perpetrators act without premeditation, often resulting in tragic outcomes.

Classic examples include love triangles where intense jealousy leads one party to eliminate a perceived rival. In volatile relationships, arguments can quickly escalate into violence, with heated altercations resulting in one partner fatally harming the other through momentary loss of control.

Among mass murderers, common emotional triggers include despair over life events, romantic rejection or severe jealousy, non-romantic grudges, and explosive rage following disputes. The majority of mass murder incidents appear impulsive and emotionally driven following adverse life circumstances, rather than the product of long-standing psychosis.

Passion-driven motives are characterized by lack of premeditation, focusing instead on the emotional state of the perpetrator at the time of the crime. Common motives include jealousy, revenge, fear, and anger, which may be conscious or unconscious. The act of killing may be spontaneous or premeditated, but crimes categorized as “passion” typically involve sudden, emotionally charged eruptions.

Intimate Partner Homicide: The Culmination of Abuse

Patterns and Risk Factors

Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is not a random act of violence but typically represents the culmination of a pattern of abuse, coercion, and control. The presence of a firearm in a home where there is a history of intimate partner violence dramatically increases the odds of lethal outcomes.

Risk factors with the highest predictive value for lethal outcomes are tied to prior patterns of abusive relationship dynamics. These include threats with weapons, death threats, choking incidents, stalking, controlling behaviors, abuse during pregnancy, and escalating physical violence.

The period immediately preceding or following a breakup is when risk of homicide is often highest. A breakup can trigger intense emotional distress and feelings of rejection, creating a period of considerable vulnerability for individuals who already have psychological difficulties or strong control needs. Violent behaviors are sometimes used to maintain control over the partner when that control is threatened by separation.

Psychological Profiles of Perpetrators

Research has identified several psychological profiles of intimate partner violence and homicide perpetrators, ranging from those who are primarily controlling and violent to those who are emotionally dependent and unstable. Some have extensive criminal histories and entrenched antisocial traits, while others have little prior record but exhibit intense dependency, jealousy, and difficulty regulating emotions.

Premeditated vs. Spontaneous Domestic Homicide

Former investigators often differentiate between premeditated and spontaneous domestic homicides. Spontaneous domestic homicides typically involve people who have a history of abusing their spouse and may struggle with substance use, rage, or jealousy, ultimately killing their partner in a “fit of rage.” Premeditated domestic homicides, by contrast, involve planning, stalking, or deliberate decisions to eliminate a partner.

Studies evaluating the link between intimate partner violence behaviors and suicide risk show that this relationship is particularly strong in male perpetrators of severe violence who are involved in legal processes. Approximately one-third of intimate partner homicides involve the perpetrator also attempting or completing suicide, underlining how despair and loss of control can intersect with lethal violence.

Parricide: When Children Kill Parents

The Adolescent Parricide Pattern

Adolescent murderers who kill their parents are, in many cases, terrified victims of severe child abuse, neglect, and dysfunctional parenting who kill out of desperation. A combination of interconnected social problems can create conditions for parricide: the youth is raised in a family with substance dependence or other major dysfunction; the child is severely abused sexually, physically, and/or verbally; violence in the family escalates; the youth becomes increasingly vulnerable to stressors in the home; and the child has ready access to a firearm.

Two crucial factors repeatedly emerge: the availability of a weapon and the presence of a chemically dependent or otherwise severely dysfunctional family. Parricide is often spurred by rejection and shaming from the father, hostility and overdependence on the part of the mother, parental neglect, domestic violence, and a long history of physical and emotional abuse. These dynamics overlap with the early life risk factors covered in our page on childhood trauma and abuse.

According to some researchers, most juvenile offenders who kill their parents do so to stop ongoing severe physical and/or sexual abuse. The adolescent may develop a need for vengeance following repeated humiliation and violence. In many cases, parricide represents a “violent explosion after years of abuse.”

Adult Children Who Kill Parents

When adults kill their parents, it is more often linked to psychiatric issues, entrenched dependency, or long-term toxic relationships. Risk increases when there is a long history of a dependent relationship with no one else around and persistent family conflict. The average age of adult children who kill their mothers is around 30; for those who kill fathers, it is slightly younger.

Individuals with mental illness may rely heavily on their parents, which can create intense stress in the relationship. Even though the child is an adult, they may not be achieving full autonomy, particularly when finances, caregiving, or guardianship are involved. Untreated or poorly managed psychiatric disorders can escalate these tensions and, in rare cases, contribute to lethal outcomes.

In adult parricide offenders, severe mental illness often plays a role similar to child abuse in juvenile offenders – it provides both a partial explanation and a socially intelligible narrative for a deeply disturbing crime.

Filicide: When Parents Kill Children

Motivations for Filicide

Parents kill their children for several major reasons often grouped into five categories: fatal maltreatment, altruistic, acutely psychotic, unwanted child, and spouse revenge. These motivations are complex and frequently intersect with mental illness, social stress, and relationship breakdown.

Fatal maltreatment deaths occur as the end result of child abuse, neglect, or factitious disorder by proxy and are the most common type of filicide.

Altruistic filicide involves parents who kill out of a distorted belief that death is in their child’s best interest. This can occur in the context of psychosis, severe depression, or terminal child illness. A psychotic parent may believe they are saving the child from a fate worse than death, while a suicidal parent may not want to leave the child behind in what they perceive as a cruel world.

Parents experiencing mental illness may develop delusional beliefs that violence against their child is actually saving the child or that the child is possessed or cursed. When violence is related to mental illness, it is often enacted against those to whom the person feels closest, intensifying the tragedy.

Acutely psychotic filicide involves parents who kill their child for no rational reason, sometimes in response to command hallucinations or severe delusional thinking.

Unwanted child filicide occurs when children are killed because they are seen as obstacles to the parent’s goals, lifestyle, or new relationship.

Spouse revenge filicide involves one parent killing the child in order to inflict maximum emotional harm on the other parent.

Demographic Patterns

Both mothers and fathers commit filicide at broadly similar rates, but fathers more often attempt or complete suicide afterward, more frequently have multiple victims, and may kill their spouse as well. Fathers, like mothers, may kill as part of chronic abuse or neglect, related to mental illness, or as revenge against a former partner.

Filicidal mothers frequently have depression, psychosis, prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts. Many are unmarried, unemployed, and have histories of abuse and limited social support. Multiple stressors – economic, social, abuse history, partner relationship problems – combine with primary caregiver responsibilities and difficulty coping with the demands of childcare.

Children under age five have the highest relative risk associated with maternal mental disorders. Children whose mothers are diagnosed with schizophrenia or mood disorders are at higher risk than those whose mothers have other psychiatric conditions. In a large share of cases, a suicide attempt or suicide occurs in conjunction with the filicide.

Mental Illness and Murder

The Limited Connection

Contrary to public perception, serious mental illness – specifically psychosis – is not a key factor in most murders. Only a small minority of homicides and mass shootings are directly driven by severe mental illness. Many more cases are associated with non-psychotic conditions, substance use, personality disorders, and situational crises, where mental illness is one component in a broader web of risk factors rather than the sole cause.

However, while only a minority of individuals with severe mental illness ever commit homicide, a notable proportion of convicted homicide offenders are diagnosed with severe mental illness. Elevated rates of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression have been found among individuals convicted of homicide, and mental disorder can significantly elevate the risk of serious violence in a subset of vulnerable people.

Mental disorder increases the risk of homicidal violence several-fold compared to the general population, with some studies suggesting schizophrenia can increase the risk of violence markedly in both men and women. That risk is further amplified by co-occurring substance misuse, trauma, and social stressors.

The Role of Psychotic Symptoms

Studies report that at the time of homicide, a high percentage of perpetrators with psychosis are directly motivated by delusions and/or hallucinations, especially persecutory or threat-related beliefs. Many male homicide offenders with schizophrenia describe acting under the influence of psychotic symptoms rather than clear, goal-directed motives.

Individuals experiencing psychotic symptoms and strong perceptions of threat are more likely to carry sharp weapons, and many schizophrenic offenders who kill use knives or similar instruments they already have on their person. This pattern reflects a mix of perceived need for self-protection and impaired judgment.

First-Episode Psychosis: The Critical Period

Approximately 40% of homicides committed by people with psychotic illness occur before they receive any treatment. The rate of homicide in first-episode psychosis is much higher than after treatment begins. Once psychosis is identified and treated, the risk of homicide drops substantially, highlighting the critical importance of early detection and intervention.

The decline in homicide rate after treatment likely reflects a combination of medication, psychotherapy, improved insight, social support, and monitoring. This underscores why early mental health intervention is a key component of violence prevention strategies.

Triggers for Violence in Psychotic Individuals

Research examining triggers for violent criminality in patients with psychotic disorders has found that stressful life events, physical injuries, and substance intoxication significantly increase short-term risk of interpersonal violence. Triggers include exposure to violence, bereavement, self-harm, traumatic brain injury, accidents, and acute intoxication.

Exposure to violence, in particular, contributes to sharply elevated short-term risk of offending in the days and weeks that follow, with risk gradually returning toward baseline over time. This pattern supports the idea that recent stressors and environmental shocks interact with psychosis to drive some violent acts.

Gang-Related and Group Violence

Gang Homicide Dynamics

Gang homicide is best understood by examining the social networks of action and reaction that create it, rather than searching for purely individual determinants. Individual murders between gangs create an institutionalized network of group conflict, independent of any one person’s participation or motive. Within this network, murders spread through an epidemic-like process of social contagion as gangs evaluate the highly visible actions of others and negotiate dominance, retaliation, and reputation.

Youth gang homicides more often arise from intergang conflict and status disputes than from the drug trade alone. Many are driven by the expressive defense of identity as a gang member, defense of the group and its territory, recruitment rituals, and the need to maintain or enhance the gang’s reputation. These dynamics echo the predatory and status-driven motives we explore on dark psychology and violent offenders.

Gang norms constitute a crucial factor in elevated violence levels. Violence that is internal to the gang, especially during group functions such as initiations, serves to intensify bonds among members. Many gangs are governed by norms that support the expressive use of violence to settle disputes and achieve group goals.

The Arms Race Dynamic

Gang members arm themselves because they believe their rivals have guns. The proliferation of firearms and shootings escalates violence by creating a perceived need for more and better weapons, so that no group feels at a disadvantage.

Spikes in gang homicides are often explained by turf disputes between gangs and tend to occur in specific neighborhoods involving particular rivalries. Each peak in killings corresponds to a series of escalating confrontations, usually over control of territory, whether traditional street turf or entrepreneurial drug markets.

Research reveals that gang-motivated homicides show evidence of clustering and diffusion, with gang-related, revenge, and drug-motivated homicide clusters frequently overlapping in space and time. These homicide types also have the highest rates of firearm use, underscoring the role of weapons in amplifying everyday conflicts into lethal encounters.

Cultural and Honor-Based Killings

The Culture of Honor

The Theory of the Culture of Honor explains how certain societies develop norms that demand men never show weakness and react violently to threats to their reputation. In such cultures, “honor” becomes the central value, and homicide can be viewed as an acceptable or even mandatory response to perceived insults or shame.

Research confirms that certain cultural elements associated with traditional masculinity and heightened anger promote negative personality traits and increase the propensity toward homicide. Within the U.S. Southern culture of honor, aggressive acts dating back to the 1800s have often been deemed appropriate and even necessary. The culture of honor has been linked to domestic violence, school shootings, gang violence, and other forms of extreme aggression.

Honor Killings

Honor killings involve the use of violence and fear as tools for maintaining control and preserving family reputation. These killings have historical roots in settings where people lacked reliable legal protection and had to cultivate fierce reputations to deter theft or exploitation. Inspiring fear and demonstrating a willingness to retaliate became a survival strategy.

In societies with weak rule of law, people may feel compelled to build reputations for violent revenge. In modern contexts, the cultural features that lead to honor killings are complex, often involving the belief that family honor has been damaged by female behaviors related to sex outside marriage, relationships, or even clothing choices. In some cases, male homosexuality is also treated as a source of shame. Families may fear losing respect and being shunned, and some come to believe that only an honor killing can restore their status.

Cultures in which honor killings occur are usually considered “collectivist,” where the family is more important than the individual and personal autonomy is viewed as a threat to collective honor. These motives are deeply rooted in patriarchal traditions where control over female behavior is seen as central to preserving family standing.

Psychological Mechanisms

From a psychological perspective, honor killing can be understood partly as an attempt at “dissonance reduction,” where anxiety is fueled by the gap between deeply held beliefs about honor and perceived violations of those beliefs. Individuals experience “honor” as a sense of dignity and social worth that depends on approval and respect. The fear of losing this honor can become a major source of anxiety.

Whether a behavior is labeled normal or abnormal is shaped by social judgment rather than absolute truth. A community that values honor above individual life can promote honor killings by encouraging the idea that violence restores dignity and should not be punished. Honor killings have been linked to psychopathic traits in a minority of cases, but more broadly they reflect how cultural norms can override typical inhibitions against lethal violence.

Altruistic and Compassionate Homicide

Mercy Killings

Mercy killings pose complicated legal and moral questions, because defendants in these cases are often viewed as morally different from other homicide offenders. A person who is motivated by compassion and decides to kill another is sometimes seen as less culpable than other defendants because they are not typically violent and are unlikely to repeat their actions.

Examples include parents who end the lives of severely disabled or terminally ill children, believing that death is in their best interest. Some caregivers have attempted to end a loved one’s life after catastrophic injury or degenerative illness, convinced that continued existence would bring only suffering.

The emotion of compassion can become a powerful driver of action. While the killing is neither legally justified nor fully excused, it may be viewed as an understandable response to unbearable circumstances, which can influence how courts assess criminal responsibility. Compassionately motivated offenders generally pose little ongoing threat to the public, and their motives can significantly affect how their crimes are morally evaluated.

The Moral and Legal Complexity

Active euthanasia is often defined as inducing the death of a person who is undergoing intense suffering and who has no realistic hope of recovery. Because the expressed motive is usually to relieve suffering, active euthanasia is often described as “mercy killing.”

However, mercy killing in its involuntary form – carried out without the patient’s consent or against their wishes – is illegal in virtually all jurisdictions and is usually charged as murder. The debate centers on whether genuine compassion can ever justify actions that violate fundamental prohibitions against killing.

Thrill Killings: Murder for Pleasure

The Psychology of Recreational Murder

Thrill killing represents murder committed primarily for excitement and pleasure rather than instrumental goals like money or revenge. Those identified as thrill killers are typically young males, though profiles vary. The major common denominator is a sense of deep inadequacy and a powerful need to feel dominant, in control, and alive.

In many cases, thrill killers make their victims suffer in order to feel good. Sadism is fairly common in thrill killings, and the offender may torture, degrade, or rape victims before taking their lives. They frequently have an “ideal victim type” with specific physical or demographic characteristics, overlapping with themes examined in serial killers and sexual paraphilias.

Thrill killers derive intense satisfaction from the process surrounding the murder – the stalking, planning, and attack – rather than from the killing alone. Some notorious offenders have described the rush of killing as better than sex or more exciting than hunting animals, framing humans as the “most dangerous prey.”

In one well-known case, a fifteen-year-old who tortured, murdered, and mutilated two victims reported that he had long fantasized about torturing and killing people and wanted to become a serial killer. He told investigators that the murders gave him a feeling of “pure happiness” that lingered for weeks, exemplifying how fantasy, sadism, and sensation-seeking can fuse into lethal behavior.

Premeditation vs. Spontaneous Murder

The Distinction and Its Significance

Killings with no discernible premeditation may be deemed “spontaneous” – these deaths often result from rage, frustration, or provocation by the victim. In contrast, premeditated murder involves planning and deliberation before the act, sometimes over days, weeks, or even years.

Research on homicide premeditation reveals heterogeneity in findings. Some studies have argued that among juvenile murderers, the largest proportion of homicides are impulsive or spontaneous. In samples of incarcerated offenders, robbery tends to show higher rates of planning than homicide or physical assault. While much research suggests homicide is often unplanned, there is significant variation across contexts and offender types.

Psychological Differences

Premeditated murder is often viewed as worse because the offender had time to reflect and still chose to kill. The greater time to think should have allowed a typical person to be exposed to normal social influences, calm down, or seek alternatives. A premeditated murderer is seen as more dangerous because they are the kind of person who plots the death of another over time despite opportunities to reconsider.

By contrast, someone who kills in the spur of the moment may have been subjected to an unusually intense set of environmental pressures. Poor impulse control, substance use, or extreme emotional arousal can all contribute to spontaneous murder. In some cases, though, this lack of impulse control may indicate a comparable or even higher risk of future violence, depending on whether the circumstances were truly extraordinary or likely to recur.

Self-Defense Killings

Legal and Psychological Factors

Self-defense represents a legally recognized justification for homicide when specific conditions are met. Generally, the threat must be imminent (happening or about to happen), the force used must be proportional to the threat, and the person claiming self-defense must not have been the initial aggressor under many legal standards.

A key element in self-defense claims is the concept of “reasonable belief” – the defendant must have genuinely believed they were in danger and that the use of force was necessary to protect themselves, and this belief must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation could share. This balance between subjective perception and objective reasonableness is where psychological factors become crucial.

The Role of Fear and Perception

In self-defense cases, the law recognizes that each person’s perception of danger is influenced by their experiences, fears, and mental state. Psychological and emotional factors shape how an individual perceives threats and how quickly they interpret situations as potentially deadly.

Fear, stress, and trauma can impair a person’s ability to assess situations and make rational decisions, leading to actions that may not align neatly with legal expectations. Expert testimony is often used to explain these psychological factors to juries, providing context and insight into the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the incident.

Evidence of the deceased’s violent history may also support the claim that they posed a legitimate threat. If the deceased had previously attacked or threatened the accused, that information can justify a heightened fear response. How jurors perceive the defendant – whether as someone acting out of fear or out of anger and malice – can be as important as the physical evidence itself.

Conclusion: The Multifaceted Nature of Murder

Murder is not a monolithic phenomenon driven by a single psychological profile or motivation. Rather, it emerges from diverse combinations of individual psychology, emotional states, situational factors, social contexts, and cultural frameworks.

The psychology of murder encompasses the meticulous planning of revenge-seekers, the explosive rage of crimes of passion, the delusional beliefs of psychotic individuals, the calculated decisions of gang members defending territory, the cultural imperatives of honor killings, the desperate acts of abused children, the distorted altruism of parents who kill out of perceived love, the thrill-seeking of sadistic murderers, and the fear-driven actions of those who genuinely believe they are acting in self-defense.

Understanding what drives people to kill requires recognizing that “normal” psychological mechanisms – emotional regulation, moral reasoning, decision-making, and group identity formation – can be disrupted, distorted, or overwhelmed by combinations of biological vulnerabilities, traumatic experiences, mental illness, substance abuse, cultural norms, situational pressures, and relationship dynamics.

Most people possess strong inhibitions against killing. When murder occurs, it typically represents either a breakdown of these inhibitions through psychological processes like moral disengagement and dehumanization, an overriding of these inhibitions by intense emotions such as rage, fear, or despair, or a reframing in which killing becomes morally acceptable within an alternate framework of meaning.

The vast majority of murders are not committed by psychopaths or the severely mentally ill, but by individuals who, in specific circumstances, made choices that led to lethal violence. Some of these choices were impulsive reactions to provocations or threats; others were deliberate acts following extended planning. Some were influenced by cultural expectations; others by individual pathology. Some occurred during psychotic breaks from reality; others during moments of crystal-clear purposefulness.

This complexity has important implications for prevention, intervention, and justice. Effective prevention requires addressing multiple risk factors across multiple domains – improving mental health treatment, reducing access to firearms in high-risk situations, intervening in abusive relationships, providing alternatives to gang involvement, challenging cultural norms that glorify violence, treating substance abuse, teaching emotional regulation and conflict resolution skills, and identifying and supporting at-risk individuals before violence occurs.

The question “What drives people to kill?” has no single answer. It requires understanding the full spectrum of human psychology – from our deepest fears and strongest emotions to our capacity for moral reasoning and our vulnerability to social influence – and recognizing how these factors can combine in tragic ways to produce the ultimate violation: the taking of another human life.

• Book of the Year

•