The report of a student being stabbed 61 times in Kelantan, with jealousy cited as a key motive, is deeply disturbing. Beyond the brutality, it raises a difficult question: what drives a person to such extreme violence?
It is tempting to dismiss such acts as “evil” or incomprehensible. A criminological perspective, however, calls for a more measured view. Violence of this scale is rarely random. It is usually the result of psychological, emotional and situational pressures building over time before erupting in a catastrophic act.
Jealousy is central in this case. It is a powerful and destabilising emotion, especially when tied to rejection, betrayal or loss. From a criminological standpoint, such emotions can trigger “affective violence” – impulsive acts driven by intense emotional states rather than careful planning.
When individuals lack the ability to regulate these emotions, jealousy can quickly turn into anger, resentment and aggression. Violence becomes an outlet for overwhelming emotional strain rather than a calculated decision.
A key factor in the severity of such attacks is dehumanisation. Offenders who inflict excessive harm often detach from the humanity of their victims. This allows them to suppress guilt and justify their actions, even if only momentarily.
The victim is no longer seen as a person, but as the source of pain or humiliation. Empathy collapses. This helps explain instances of “overkill”, where the violence far exceeds what is needed to cause death. The act becomes an expression of rage or a desperate attempt to reclaim control.
Such crimes often occur within personal or familiar relationships. Unlike instrumental crimes committed for material gain, they are deeply expressive. The intensity of the violence may reflect unresolved emotional conflict, perceived betrayal or possessiveness.
In these situations, offenders may construct a distorted narrative in which the victim is blamed for their suffering, making the violence seem justified in their own minds.
However, emotional breakdown alone does not explain such acts. Social learning also plays a role. Individuals raised in environments where aggression is normalised – through family, peers or wider social exposure – may come to see violence as an acceptable response to conflict.
Without strong emotional regulation and conflict resolution skills, the risk of escalation increases. In moments of crisis, aggression can become the default response.
Broader structural factors must also be considered. Stress, social isolation, prior exposure to violence and limited access to mental health support can heighten vulnerability. While jealousy may act as the trigger, underlying issues such as insecurity, low self-esteem or past trauma can intensify emotional reactions.
Without support systems or coping mechanisms, these pressures can converge into a volatile psychological state.
It is also important to emphasise that violent crime is fundamentally colourblind. It cuts across ethnicity, religiosity, education and economic status. These factors may influence exposure to risk, but they do not determine individual behaviour.
Substance abuse may further lower inhibitions and impair judgement, but it does not on its own explain or excuse violence. Such acts emerge from a complex interaction of psychological, situational and environmental factors.
Crucially, cases like this challenge the idea that perpetrators of extreme violence are entirely different from the rest of society. The capacity for violence exists along a continuum.
What restrains most people are internal controls such as moral values and empathy, as well as external constraints like social norms and legal consequences. When these controls weaken or collapse under emotional strain, the risk of violence increases.
What appears “inhuman” is often the result of very human emotions spiralling beyond control under specific conditions.
Understanding these dynamics is essential, not to excuse the act, but to prevent it.
Public discourse often focuses on punishment after the fact, with far less attention given to early intervention. Preventing such violence requires a multi-layered approach.
It begins with nurturing emotional intelligence from a young age, including the ability to manage jealousy, rejection and conflict. Families and schools play a vital role in developing empathy, communication skills and resilience.
At a societal level, access to mental health support must be expanded, particularly for young people. Awareness programmes on healthy relationships and emotional regulation can help reduce risk.
Community-based interventions that identify and support individuals in distress before they reach a breaking point are equally important.
Ultimately, this case is a stark reminder that extreme violence is rarely senseless. It is shaped by the interplay of emotional triggers, psychological processes and social influences over time.
Jealousy, when combined with poor emotional regulation and underlying vulnerabilities, can become a dangerous catalyst.
Moving beyond reactive responses requires a deeper commitment to addressing these root causes.
Only then can meaningful steps be taken to prevent such tragedies and build a safer, more emotionally resilient society.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.
