Which states has the highest number of serial killers
Executive summary
Different reporters and datasets disagree on the simple question “which states have the most serial killers” because sources use different measures — raw counts of offenders, counts of victims, or victims per capita — meaning California, New York and Washington, D.C./Alaska each claim a different kind of “top” spot depending on the metric chosen [1] [2] [3].
1. The headline winners by raw offender counts: New York and California
Several recent compilations that count known individual serial killers by state place New York at or near the top — one dataset reported New York with 18 recorded serial killers, followed by California with 15 [2] [4] — a finding echoed in Newsweek’s reporting that ranks New York first on recorded serial killers [5]. Those tallies reflect lists of documented perpetrators and are sensitive to how researchers define “serial killer” and which historical cases are attributed to a particular state [6].
2. The headline winners by victim totals: California and Texas dominate in sheer fatalities
When the question anchors on total victims attributed to serial killers rather than number of offenders, California stands out with dramatically higher victim counts; one review cited 1,777 victims in California and 984 in Texas, making California the highest by that measure [1]. WorldAtlas and other outlets similarly list California first in “sheer volume” of serial-killer victims, followed by Texas, Florida, Illinois and New York [3] [7].
3. Per-capita distortions: tiny jurisdictions and sparse states climb to the top
Per-capita calculations flip the map again: Washington, D.C. was reported as having the highest rate — roughly 25 victims per 100,000 residents — followed by Alaska (7 per 100,000) and Louisiana (6.5 per 100,000) in one compilation [1]. Independent reporting and later summaries note striking per-capita spikes in smaller or sparsely populated states such as Montana, where victims per million were unusually high in one analysis, underlining how population differences skew rates [8] [1].
4. Why the numbers disagree: definitions, attribution and the era problem
The disagreement between sources traces to three methodological fault lines: whether the dataset counts killers or victims, how “state of origin” is assigned (birthplace, place of arrest, or place of crimes), and which time window is used — many datasets concentrate on the 1970–2000 “serial-killer peak” while others compile historical totals across eras [6] [2]. Media summaries and true-crime outlets routinely republish lists with inconsistent methodologies, producing competing “top state” headlines [5] [9].
5. What can be said with confidence and what remains uncertain
It can be stated with confidence that the United States has more documented serial killers than other countries and that some states — notably California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois — appear repeatedly near the top of raw counts or victim totals [6] [3] [2]. What cannot be settled from the available reporting is a single, definitive ranking without first selecting a metric (offenders, victims, or victims per capita) and agreeing on attribution rules and timeframes; the sources reviewed demonstrate clear tradeoffs and omissions rather than a unified national dataset [1] [5] [4].