Criminal justice specialists have raised concerns that the rise of “0 to 100” killers—individuals who transition from consuming violent online content to committing murder—may be linked to the growing presence of extreme violence on the internet.
These killers, often with no prior convictions, are reported to go from watching videos of torture, mutilation, and beheadings in the privacy of their homes to carrying out violent acts in real life.
Experts are calling for a new approach to identify this emerging type of murderer, one that draws inspiration from counter-terrorism techniques. This comes in the wake of high-profile cases like Nicholas Prosper, who killed his mother and siblings and plotted a school massacre.
Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, noted that there is now a “new threat cohort” emerging. This cohort includes both online radicalized terrorists and individuals who have delved into a “dark world” of extreme content online.
“There are quite a lot of similarities: they are isolated loners, boys rather than girls; the internet is obviously central; quite a high proportion have neurodivergence,” Hall explained. “We have to be stark about this – this behavior couldn’t have existed without the internet because it is the source of the idea that certain types of violence are the solution.”
Hall is preparing a report for the Home Office, commissioned after the Southport attack, to explore whether planning mass-casualty attacks should be classified as terrorism. He clarified that he doesn’t believe the definition of terrorism should be expanded but emphasized that the lessons from counter-terrorism could be applicable to managing this new cohort.
David Wilson, an emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, described research on the potential link between online violence and real-life crimes as an “emerging field.” Although past research challenged moral panic over violence in video games and films, Wilson argued that social media is different. It is more engaging, consumed alone, and its algorithms often direct users to more extreme content.
Wilson shared his own findings from years of teaching criminology students. When he asked 300 first-year students if they had ever watched a beheading video online, all of them raised their hands. He believes this growing exposure to violent content is reflected in the rise of such crimes.
He pointed to the rise of “0 to 100” killers, a term for individuals who skip the typical gradual escalation of offenses and go straight to murder. He linked this phenomenon to “mixed ideology” motives, including incel culture, the alt-right, and mass-killing manifestos. The issue is further complicated by reduced funding for youth clubs and mental health services.
Greg Stewart, a criminal lawyer and former youth justice lead for the Law Society, argued that while reforms to the youth justice system have successfully identified youngsters showing signs of behavioral problems, they miss “exceptional children” who may suddenly escalate to extreme violence. Stewart noted that the “escalator” approach to criminal behavior has been disabled, making it more likely for individuals to go from minor offenses to serious crimes rapidly. He also pointed out the overlap between autism, obsessive behavior, and radicalization.
Stewart proposed a Prevent-style response, where teachers and lecturers are trained to identify troubling thinking patterns in students. He cited the case of Nasen Saadi, who asked about murder in class before committing a stabbing.
Julia Davidson, a professor of criminal justice and cybercrime at the University of East London, warned that young people’s exposure to violent content has become a “public health problem,” even though establishing a direct link to offline violence remains challenging. She said young people often feel social pressure to consume violent content as a way to belong to certain online groups, which aligns with the toxic masculinity promoted by influencers like Andrew Tate.
Davidson highlighted the Online Safety Act, which aims to prevent children from encountering harmful content, originally focused on cyberbullying, pornography, and child sexual abuse. However, police have raised concerns about the growing impact of online violence, citing cases like the Olly Stephens murder. Almudena Lara, Ofcom’s policy director for child safety, noted that children are being exposed to a “perfect storm” of violent, abusive, and often misogynistic content.
While Ofcom works to balance free speech with child safety, Lara emphasized the importance of not pushing violent content to children and addressing the “cumulative impact” of exposure to such material.
Professor Lorna Woods, a legal adviser to the Online Safety Act Network, expressed concerns about the effectiveness of self-regulation by social media platforms in combating the issue. She argued that platforms should prioritize “safety by design” rather than relying on content removal as the primary method of dealing with harmful material.
