Debugging the Dark Side: What If Serial Killers Applied the Scientific Method?

I recently went through a fun thought experiment – ‘What if a serial killer approached their grim work like a computer scientist debugging a complex piece of code?’

Instead of chaos, imagine their actions resembling a methodical process of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and refinement. Let’s take a satirical stroll down a historic lane of logic, exploring what happens when the scientific method meets the macabre.

First how are Computer Scientists and Serial Killers aligned?

While the idea of a link between computer scientists and serial killers might sound plausible, it’s mostly a trope found in fiction or sensationalized media rather than reality. However, a few points might explain why this comparison arises in popular culture:

1. Meticulousness and Patterns: Both computer scientists and serial killers are often portrayed as meticulous and methodical. Computer scientists work with algorithms, logic, and patterns to solve problems, while the fictional stereotype of a serial killer is someone who plans their crimes with precision and follows a “signature.”
2. Obsession with Details: Computer scientists can be deeply focused on their work, spending hours on code or debugging. This obsessive attention to detail can be misinterpreted in fictional narratives, drawing a parallel to how serial killers are sometimes depicted as obsessive about their crimes.
3. Media Representation: Popular culture has perpetuated a fascination with “hacker” or “technological” villains, blending the skills of computer science with criminal behavior to create compelling narratives. Examples include characters in TV shows, movies, or books where tech-savvy individuals use their skills for nefarious purposes.
4. Misunderstood Personalities: Computer scientists, especially in earlier decades, were stereotyped as socially isolated or awkward. These traits are sometimes unfairly linked to criminal minds in fictional portrayals.

So, the Scientific Method: A Framework for the Grimly Methodical

The scientific method, a cornerstone of problem-solving in computer science, provides a structured way to investigate phenomena, test ideas, and refine conclusions. Here’s how it might look if applied—hypothetically, of course—to a criminal mind:

Step 1 - Observation: The first step is noticing patterns in the environment. Imagine a hypothetical Jack the Ripper surveying the foggy streets of Victorian London. He might observe:

• Certain alleys are dimly lit and rarely patrolled by police.
• Crimes committed after midnight garner less immediate attention.
• Areas with high foot traffic during the day become eerily deserted at night.

Much like a computer scientist analyzing logs for recurring bugs, our imagined villain takes note of the vulnerabilities in his “system.” These observations form the basis for further investigation.

Step 2 - Hypothesis: Based on his observations, the killer forms a hypothesis:

If I commit crimes in poorly lit alleys after midnight, I will reduce the likelihood of detection.        

This step mirrors how a developer might hypothesize about the root cause of a bug. For example,?If the application crashes only during peak usage, the issue might be related to resource allocation.

Step 3 -Experimentation: Experiments are conducted to test the hypothesis. In our macabre scenario, the killer might “experiment” with different locations, times, and methods to see which yields the desired results. Key variables could include:

• Time of day:?Early evening versus late at night.
• Location:?Busy streets versus secluded alleys.
• Method:?Quiet and quick versus more elaborate approaches.

Each “experiment” provides data to refine the process. Similarly, a computer scientist might tweak code parameters or test different environments to isolate the root of a problem.

Step 4 - Data Collection: No scientific process is complete without meticulous record-keeping. The fictional killer might track:

• The success rate of their crimes (e.g., evading capture).
• Response times of law enforcement.
• Witness reports or lack thereof.

These data points are analogous to error logs or performance metrics collected during software testing. A methodical mind would likely use tools - a ledger or even a basic spreadsheet - to catalog results for analysis.

Step 5 – Analysis: With data in hand, the killer evaluates the results:

• Were crimes in poorly lit alleys less likely to draw attention?
• Did targeting areas at specific times reduce risk?
• What factors contributed to failure or success?

Heatmaps, charts, and statistical analysis could come into play. For example, mapping crime locations to identify patterns - a task modern police forces now perform with geographic profiling tools.

Step 6 - Refinement: Finally, the killer refines their approach based on the analysis. They might avoid certain areas where patrols have increased or adjust their methods to reduce noise or evidence left behind. This iterative process - tweaking variables for better outcomes - is eerily similar to debugging a stubborn piece of code.

Throughout history

Jack the Ripper is often depicted as a logical planner, evading capture despite the high-profile nature of his crimes. His ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of Victorian London’s infrastructure mirrors how a savvy hacker might exploit security loopholes in modern systems.

Fast forward to today, and cybercriminals use similar data-driven approaches. UK-based hackers, for instance, have orchestrated ransomware attacks by analyzing vulnerabilities in company networks. While not 'killers' in the traditional sense, their iterative, methodical processes echo this dark hypothetical.

Debugging the System: Catching the Logically Inclined

Just as a criminal might apply the scientific method, so too do the authorities. Modern law enforcement employs technology rooted in computer science to track and apprehend methodical offenders:

• Geographic Profiling:?Using crime locations to predict where a criminal might live or strike next.
• Social Network Analysis:?Mapping relationships to uncover hidden accomplices.
• DNA Analysis:?Leveraging biological data to identify suspects.

These tools are essentially the reverse of our fictional killer’s debugging—working backward to identify and eliminate the root cause of societal 'bugs.'

What Can We Learn?

This thought experiment highlights the power of structured, logical thinking. The scientific method is a powerful tool—whether you’re debugging code or solving crimes. But it also raises ethical questions: How do we ensure these methods are used to improve society rather than harm it?

As computer scientists, we take pride in the tools we develop to debug complex systems. Let’s use those tools to fix the world’s problems, not exploit them.

In the end, whether you’re solving crimes or debugging code, it’s all about finding the bugs and fixing them. While Jack the Ripper may have evaded capture in his day, it’s comforting to know that today’s technologies are designed to debug society’s darkest corners—one iteration at a time.

?