Category: Criminal Behavior

As a matter of fact, there are multiple causes of crime, including personal characteristics, lack of discipline, politics, religious disagreements, and racism. However, poverty may be regarded as the most substantial cause of the majority of crimes as it indirectly leads to non-compliance with the law in multiple ways. First of all, poverty frequently leads to the inability to receive proper education and subsequent unemployment.

Moreover, poverty is closely connected with income inequality that may be defined as one of the sources of aggression and violent crime in human society (Coccia, 2017, p. 190). In turn, unemployment causes depression, desperation, stress, anxiety, and aggression that lead to alcohol consumption, drug abuse, and criminal activities. In other words, people are frequently forced to commit crime, especially robbery and mugging, as they are not provided with alternatives.

At the same time, poverty contributes to the development of criminal behavior. As previously mentioned, poverty may result in depression, aggression, alcohol consumption, and homicides. In turn, poor adults who have job spend almost all time trying to earn for living. As a result, children in poor families are often neglected or even abused. Subsequently, they may also demonstrate aggression, a lack of sympathy and self-control, poor conscience, and jealousy in relation to well-off community members  these are the antecedent conditions of crime. Subsequently, early indicators of criminal behavior incorporate a lack of discipline at home, the violation of school rights, and less serious crimes, such as larceny or burglary, determined by the simplicity and quickness of getting desired things (Britt, 2019).

Developmental processes refer to the involvement in more serious crimes and criminal communities. In turn, maintenance variables incorporate low education, the absence of legal opportunities for life improvement, unemployment, and growing aggression. In this way, forming criminal behavior, poverty as the main cause of crime contributes to the violation of the law.

References

Britt, C. L. (2019). Age and crime. In D. P. Farrington, L. Kazemian & A. R. Piquero (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental and life-course criminology (pp. 13-33). Oxford University Press.

Coccia, M. (2017). A Theory of general causes of violent crime: Homicides, income inequality and deficiencies of the heat hypothesis and of the model of CLASH. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 190-200. Web.

Many different events and factors can influence the criminals behavior and change their behavioral trends and patterns. Many of them come from the offenders social environment in which they live and operate. Criminal law professionals call these influencing factors environmental influences. Knowing these influences enables a criminologist not only to identify and find criminals faster but also to prevent many other potential crimes. Two environmental influences that can affect offender behaviors will be discussed here.

Upbringing and childhood experience, especially if it was adverse, are some of the primary sources of influence on the offenders behaviors, habits, trends, and patterns. Recent studies show that convicted criminals are likely to have experienced four times as many adverse childhood events than non-criminals (What influence criminal behavior? 2021, para. 4). Childhood is when a young person learns the fundamental norms of human society and the basics of human interaction. A person learning about social interactions through violence and living with abusive parents or relatives has a high probability of carrying such behavioral patterns into their adult life.

The negative and hostile social environment is also capable of influencing the trends and patterns of the perpetrator. This term encompasses a large number of diverse and varying situations. Its definition ranges from the group of people with whom the offender interacts to the place in which they live and their occupation. Researchers note that just living in an area with a high crime rate increases the chances that one will also commit a crime soon (What influence criminal behavior? 2021). It should be mentioned that places with high crime rates are often areas of poverty (What influence criminal behavior? 2021). Poverty has always been one of the big drivers of criminal behavior. A significant part of crime types and trends and patterns of criminals are influenced and led by it.

Reference

What influence criminal behavior?(2021). Walden University. Web.

When thinking about criminal behaviour, one would name murder, rape and assault. Those are the crimes most people are afraid of. But those are not the most prevailing ones. White Collar Crime, first coined in 1939, defined as criminal behaviour committed by a higher social class is the most common type. Money laundering and insider trading are the first ones that come to mind as those can easily be associated with the stereotype of a rich, upper-class men. White collar crime is financially motivated, non-violent but has a tremendous impact on society. Measuring the damage that white collar crime does to society is quite hard, still the FBI estimates costs between $300 to $660 billion, per year (Friedrichs. 2009). White collar crime is far more costly than conventional criminal behaviour, some argue even 50 times (Friedrichs. 2009), has negative health effects and is deadlier (Lynch, Michalowski. 2006).

What is the origin for white collar crime? Are there certain physical, personal or social factors that are prevailing? Is it dependent on background, employment or age? How can one determine risk factors, and most important, what are ways to prevent criminal behaviour? The following paper aims at answering all those questions and gives a broader picture about the most prevailing and underestimated type of crime.

One way to predict crime is using biological indicators, such as biomarkers as genes or brain scans. This helps predicting the likelihood of crime engagement and thus can be used for preventive purpose via biological interventions, or less formally, brain-active drugs. (Sing et al. 2013). Scientists usually tend to focus on biomarkers that show aggression or low self-control as those are linked with murder or other conventional crimes. Because of that, little scientific research has been conducted about white collar crime and studies as well as papers discussing this issue only developed in recent years, even though reasons to prevent this kind of criminal behaviour are significant. Focusing on predicting and preventing conventional crime has led to intensifying the already existing unequal research resource allocation between both crime types and made white collar crime seem even more unpredictable.

In order to clarify the terminology, a few comments will follow. The terms used from now on are “white collar crime” (criminal behaviour by a higher income group) and “blue collar crime” (referring to crime committed by a lower social class). Common white collar crimes except the ones mentioned above are fraud, identity theft and bribery. In this paper, white collar crimes are characterized violence free, but still illegal and harmful activities. Important to note is, that the terminology is not definite, as a blue collar crime could still be committed by an upper-class person, it rather developed from historical class associations.

How can we measure the Costs of White Collar Crime?

For blue collar crime, the measurement seems straightforward. One method would be to use the forgone lifetime earnings in order to come up with a number. For white collar crime, this is much harder. One factor playing an important role is the broad spectrum of incidents that are (or not) related with each other. This uncertainty goes in line with the cost estimates, ranging from $250 billion (Friedrichs. 2009) to $1 trillion (Ragatz et al. 2012) annually. What is also often overlooked is the lethality of white collar crime. Taking the inflation of cancer drug prices for higher profits as an example. Not only the financial costs, but also the costs to humans and society are hard to measure. Taking asbestos as another example, this formally marketed “magic mineral” has caused more than 100,000 deaths and over a million disability adjusted life years, according to the WHO in 2015. Even though insiders were aware of the health risks in the first half of the 20th century (Smith 2005).

Not only the private sector, also the government has to face consequences of white collar crime, taking money laundering, corruption or tax evasion as an example. One recent legal case about this topic was US government v. Siemens Bangladesh in 2008, where the later admitted bribery towards Bangladeshi officials in order to be the preferred candidate for public contracts. The payments that have been in the lower million USD seem pretty small compared with the previous estimated numbers, however this money has a totally different local purchasing power and could have been used for health treatments, building houses or sending children to school. That being said, one might conclude that white collar crimes create circumstances which could foster the development of blue collar ones.

Scientific Focus on Blue Collar Crime

When describing criminal behaviour in literature or movies, stereotypes are mostly minorities, urban and young men and crimes like assault or robbery. Thus, scientific research and data is mostly focused on markers that act as indicators for behaviour associated with those crimes such as violence or impulsiveness (Buckholtz, Meyer-Lindenberg. 2009). One theory could be, that biomarkers that are associated with blue collar crime are the same for white collar crime, as it was argued that a central element behind all crime is low-self control (Gottfredson, Hirschi. 1990). Risk seeking and shot-term perspective thus seem common factors for both kinds of criminal behaviour. However, multiple studies showed that corporate crimes are unrelated to deficits in self control (Simpson, Piquerro. 2002), and even attributed brain superiorities to them (Raine et al. 2012). This leads to the conclusion that white collar criminals invest in careful calculation, develop complex plans and rather not engage in impulsive action. According to a recent study, white collar criminals even score higher on measures of psychopathy when compared to the blue collar group (Ragatz et al. 2012).

So why is there such a low amount of research regarding white collar crime, while the research for biomarkers that are brought into association with blue collar crime was already successful? Biomarker research for blue collar crime has been fruitful, making more researchers likely to investigate this topic further. One example would be the MAOA gene, (when combined with maltreatment in childhood) which is linked to risk-taking (Caspi et al. 2002) and can be a good predictor of (conventional) crime. This – in contrast – is not the case for white collar crime, simply because motives appear to be more diverse and individual to each situation. To say it pretty harsh, it seems as if researchers intentionally did not invest into white collar crime research just because it seems unlikely that they will be successful.

Biomarkers for White Collar Crime

Driven by the already unequal allocated research resources between both types of crime, there is way less data on biomarkers or indicators than can predict white collar crime. So why not take an already known marker and check for indication?

One example would be poverty, as this is often found as a driver for violent offending (and thus blue collar crimes) among young people (McAra, McVie. 2016) as it fosters inequality. Homelessness is also another marker that is associated with people in prison, as the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom found out in 2012. It seems like people being caught for blue collar crime already start with a societal disadvantage in their lives which stands in contrast to the upper-class living standard that the stereotype of a white collar criminal pictures. But once again, it is definitely the wrong conclusion to label people as potential criminals due to the background they are coming from and have no power in changing.

For investigating biomarkers especially for white collar crime further, one has to differentiate between crimes that either have been committed by an in individual or an organization of people. As the later one is highly complex, I will now focus on the first group of criminal behaviour. With explaining characteristics of an individual, one might also conclude for group behaviour which will allow us to kill two birds with one stone.

Even though some white collar criminals seem to master manipulation and perform strongly in callous affect (Babiak, Hare 2007), this only matches two of the four characteristics of a clinical psychopath (the missing ones are erratic lifestyle and anti-social behaviour, according to Williams et al. 2007). As those characteristics are seen as helpful for a successful career in business or politics (Babiak 2006), it is not surprising that white collar criminals are often on a good track-record in their organization. “Bad” characteristics such as egocentricity or narcissisity can be mistaken as highly self-confident and a short-term sight might seem creative and visioning (Babiak 2006). Corporate psychopaths, characterized by the two markers mentioned above make up around 3-6% of business managers (Babiak et al. 2010). Another study found out that certain markers associated with psychopathy were more common within managers than in psychopathic patients treated in a clinic. Charm and egocentricity were a few of them (Board and Fritzon. 2005). Important to note is that the two groups (clinical psychopathic patients and managers) were differentiated by the non-existence of anti-social behaviour and erratic markers within the latter group, making them less likely to be impulsive, short-sighted and aggressive in a physical way. One even suggests than corporate psychopaths have played a role in the financial crisis 2007. Boddy (2011) suggests that changes in the employment process over four decades have put corporate psychopaths the possibility to step up in senior positions from where they used personal interests to create the crisis.

Besides the corporate world, politics is another field where white collar crime occur. Especially within countries where no strong observation and control process for politicians is present, political psychopaths can create a lot of harm.

Predict and Prevent White Collar Crime

As we now know about the characteristics of corporate psychopaths, paying attention to those characteristics during hiring processes seems as a good method to prevent white collar crimes. Such tests are already existing, but unfortunately only for a low number of professions, such as nuclear power plant operators as those can cause massive harm (Lowman 1989). So why not invent testing for other positions? Unfortunately, this process is not so easy. First, those tests consume a lot of time, resources and money. As profitability and cost effectiveness are important factors for cooperations, it is just too expensive to perform tests for every new hire, as one cannot predict whether an individual will be able to rise to a senior position or not. Second, people having traits that are found in corporate psychopaths are often good actors as they are strong in interpersonal manipulation. Thus, they are highly likely to pass those tests. Third, one would need highly skilled experts that perform those tests as it is extremely hard to differentiate a high level of self-confidence and egocentricity.

Brain imaging techniques have been used to examine the brains of psychopaths and even found correlations. Weekend connections between areas in the brain that are responsible for rewards and decision making found in people that have scored high on psychopathic measures can partly explain the tendency to neglect consequences and overvalue the immediate reward (Hosking et al. 2017). Even though those markers have been identified, it is today not fully clear how clear and predictive they are to clinical psychopathy (Hardcastle 2013). As even clinical psychopathy (which clearly has experienced more research than corporate psychopathy) struggles with clear indications, it is no surprise that brain imaging for corporate psychopathy cannot be generalistically indicative.

Nevertheless, the previous identified characteristic of callous affect appears to be heritable and may be a reliable biomarker (Viding, McCrory. 2013). I have unfortunately not found a study that investigates egocentricity, but one that researched narcissism, in particular high cortisol levels which are marginally related with narcissism (Reinhard et al. 2012). Heritability as well as hormone levels thus seem as biomarkers that correlate with corporate psychopathy. With further investments in research, I am fully convinced that this assumption will be found out to be more reliable.

Using the Results for Hiring Processes

With more emphasis allocated to above mentioned biomarkers for an entry to senior roles in politics and corporates, I am sure that a more healthy and trustworthy system can be created. A specific allocation of bioprediction to certain roles would thus save time and resources. Of course, highly skilled experts have to perform those tests on a case by case basis, as characteristics such as being charming even in stressful situations might be indicative of corporate psychopathy, but is highly desirable for certain roles that involve spontaneous engagement (Dutton. 2013). Thus, in order not to exclude good candidates, an automated system is definitely the wrong way to go. A way to test qualities of candidates “on the job” would simply be a higher level of monitoring, which is definitely wanted and desirable for senior roles in politics and the corporate industry. One would kill two birds with one stone. It is highly important to reduce the number of “false positives”, so that the newly implemented testing system does not create more harm than it is helpful. Of course it is inevitable to completely exclude the existence of such results which makes it even more important to implement only tests with a low degree of “false positives” and not base a decision on a single indication. Taking biomarkers as a way to deprioritize instead of exclude candidates seems as the way to go.

Concluding Words and Limitations

Research on white collar crimes and corporate psychopaths is definitely behind the one for blue collar crimes and clinical psychopathy, even though white collar crimes come with bigger costs and impact to society. Because of this, it is now the time to invest more time, work-power and resources to the latter in order to revert the unequal relationship. With more papers and studies, results will be more reliable, indicative and useful for both the political and corporate world.

As with all results, correlation does not mean causation. Findings have to be handled with care and decisions should be data driven. I am fully convinced that with an increasing investment in white collar crime research we will be able to improve hiring and step-up processes, predict risks and prevent incidents as well as crisis. Lastly, until this knowledge is collected, monitoring and increased oversight is the way to go and will for sure not be harmful. The positions that can create the biggest harm and damage in both politics and corporates currently are watched way too less, so checking processes will prove itself as a useful measure for the transition period.

Despite being a relatively new phenomenon, hate crime historically served as the “final solution”. It was enforced in the Second World War to “ethnic cleanse” Jews and was enacted in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In this paper, I will first define crime, and how hate crime falls within its category. Secondly, I will implement sociological theories, such as Strain Theory, Doing Difference theory, and Self-Control to analyze the topic. By exploring the material between strain, difference and self-control enable a more comprehensive and constructive vision of hate crime. I will also reference a case study from Canada in order to call upon the field of sociology to engage on the key issues of hate crime.

Crime is defined as acts prohibited by law and punishable by sanctions. No act is legally considered a crime unless it is prohibited by law. Therefore, crime is defined as a violation of the criminal law enforced by the state (Spencer & Mohr, 2006a). In sociology, it’s defined as “deviant behaviour which violates the normative conduct of how humans ought to behave”.

Offenders have the opportunity to inflict violence and incite fear upon intended targeted groups — directly or indirectly. Therefore it is suggested to be more severe in comparison to non-hate crimes. Researchers had raised concerns on how hate crimes should be defined. In order to define it, we must ask, “how do we define prejudice in the criminal context, and secondly, what prejudices deserve criminal attention?” (Jacobs and Potter, 1998). Hate is omnipresent throughout the world, but we must establish what is legal and what is punishable by law. Section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression to all Canadians, however, these freedoms contain limitations. Publicly expressed opinions must be reasonable and within the public interest. Therefore prejudices that’s deemed damaging to the social cohesiveness of society — racism, homophobia, and anti-religious views are deemed unacceptable.

The number of visible minority groups is expected to increase by 2036. Despite, Canada’s reputation as a multicultural and diverse country, victimization surveys and police reported that numbers of hate crimes had surged. According to Statistics Canada, 2018 reported a momentary decrease in hate crime rates in comparison to 2017, however, the figures disclosed that Ontario and Quebec’s numbers continued to increase every year.

As one of the leading provinces for hate crime, Quebec is regarded as unsafe for members of different backgrounds and LGBT. The Quebec shooting was noted as the worst hate crime to occur in Canadian history. In late January 2017, an armed shooter released fire and murdered six men in the mosque. Arguments were raised whether his actions stemmed from hatred or deep-seated racism, however, his lawyer argued his offence was invoked due to his mental illness and his desire of wanting to suicide. Therefore, was his actions caused by racism towards Muslims or his lack of self-control?

Individuals who haven’t and will not commit hate crimes have wondered what influences such people to commit such heinous actions. Although it remains relatively limited, empirical studies have proceeded to uncover the background traits of perpetrators (Byers et al. 1999) and their primary motivation to commit hate crimes. Using 169 hate crime case reports from the Boston Police Department, McDevitt et al. (2002) developed a typology that divided hate offenders into the following categories: “thrill”, “defensive”, “retaliatory”, and “mission”.

Despite methodological limitations to their study, it still remains the most comprehensive study that allows institutions to classify individuals and personality traits who are prone to commit hate crimes. They suggested that offenders who acted upon the thrill of offending were impulsive people, however, it’s unclear within hate crime literature why offenders seek out thrill in the first place. McDevitt et al. (2002:308) reported interviews with police investigators that thrill motivated hate crimes is “triggered by an immature desire to display power and experience a rush at the expense of someone else. However, this still does not explain why some young men wish to experience such a rush while other similarly immature young men do not.

In addition, “retaliators” are citizens who act in defence to protect their geographical space and their socio-economic security from a perceived threat to their territory. Minority groups are seen as “invaders” – who should be denied the right of extracting any resources from the land of their ancestors. Events such as 9/11 caused perpetrators to seek vengeance and secure their land from “ingroups”. The most extremist forms are “mission offenders” who purposely hunt down and attack victims. These individuals lack self-control and this will be further discussed in this paper.

Due to inequalities in income, education, and other capacities, many citizens are unable to achieve the goals set within capitalist societies. As a result, individuals who desire material possessions suffer a strain (Merton, 1968). Agnew (1992) expanded on the theory and suggested three types of strains that “caused inclination towards crime”. He argued that “others may prevent individuals from achieving their positively valued goals. Secondly, those who suffer from a strain may wish to remove or threaten to remove positively valued stimuli that individuals possess, and lastly, they may present or threaten to present individuals with negative valued stimulus — verbal insults or physical assaults” (Agnew et al, 2002:44). Therefore, if someone realises that their expected goals are limited by someone else, they may react in irritation, and be persuaded to adopt illegitimate means to attain their goals.

Both Merton’s and Agnew’s conception of strain uncovered negative sentiments committed against minority groups. Due to socio-economic insecurity in the perpetrator’s life, they are blinded by the belief minority groups, specifically, the Asian community receive preferential treatment. Feeling victimised, they blame foreigners for their instability and use ethnic groups as scapegoats.

Barbara Perry (2001) argued that strain theory was insufficient since it couldn’t explain why the most atrocious hate crimes were committed by economic and political giants. Although it is factual that many hate offenders will be socio-economically disadvantaged, others will come from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds (Sibbitt 1997). “Hate offenders may be employers, state agency workers, and even leaders of political parties”.

Perry (2001) argued that hate crime is better understood as an extreme form of discrimination. He states that within modern society, power hierarchies are constituted by dominance over “difference”. The difference has been used to construct social hierarchies relevant to gender, race, sexuality, and class. Ironically, the notion of “difference” results from people belonging to groups with members of the same and similar identity characteristics as them. People become bonded to their cultural and ethnic identity through a common interest – entraining why hegemonic forms exist. Those who fall outside society’s construction of identity are seen as “different” (Perry 2001). Those who are deemed different are resisted because they are feared.

Doing difference encompasses many types of hate crime (Perry). However, it too failed to explain why racist and anti-immigrant motivated incidents are committed by socio-economic strain (Gadd et al. 2005; Ray and Smith 2002). Since both theories are absent of essential elements, it is better to explain determinants of a hate crime when these theories are synthesised. Hottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that low-self control is the underlying cause of crime. If the opportunity is present for those who lack self-control, these individuals will act on impulse and commit to the act. However, someone with a tolerant level would not engage in criminal activities. It is important to note that, the formation of self-control is fostered within environmental factors — family and friends. Therefore, views of prejudice, racism, and hatred can be nurtured and normalized through parents and media.

Both Strain and Doing Difference theory proved socio-structural and socio-economic factors incline perpetrators to commit hate crimes, however, it fails to explain why some individuals who suffer from the same circumstances do not commit offences. Self-control does give a relatively good portrait of hate-crime perpetrators — young men lacking self-control, lack of education, or employment. However, research has not proven why some particular areas have more hate crime rates compared to others. In addition, hate crime remains enormously underreported. This means that the motives and background traits of all hate offenders cannot be held accountable, since there is no random sampling that can be done on perpetrators. Calling upon the field of sociology, I believe that these three theories developed great advancements for hate crime, however, the suggested theories do not explain “all types of prejudice motivated behaviours”, and perhaps they may build upon it. Furthermore, victimization is currently reported through the means of police reports. It is essential to understand that rates may be manipulated by these power elites, and cases may not be considered due to their own prejudice towards minority groups as well. There needs to be a better method. Actions must be taken in order to stop the predicament from how vastly it’s increasing.

Introduction to Ted Bundy: America’s Infamous Serial Killer

Theodore Robert Bundy also known and better known as Ted Bundy the imfiness America serial killer. Bundy committed countless crimes from theft and peeping, all the way to the kidnapping, rape, and murder of at least 36 young women. Ted also managed to escape from prison not once but twice. Ted Bundy was an outstandly brilliant person, it is too bad he used his smarts to carry out mass crimes rather than help the world for the good.

Early Life and Troubled Beginnings

Theodore Robert Bundy was born on November 24, 1946, in Burlington, Vermont. Ted was the son to Eleanor Louise Cowel, whom many called Louise. Louise gave birth to Ted at age 22 out of wedlock. Therefore he grew up in the shame of his mother’s sins, as a “illegitimate child.” The identity of Ted’s biological father is unclear and may never be known. Yet many believe it could be Lloyd Marshall or Jack Worthington or even possibly his grandfather, Samuel Cowell. Ted and Louise moved to Philadelphia and he was adopted by his grandparents in hopes to hide what had happened. Growing up Ted was told his mother was actually his sister. A couple years later Ted moved with his mom to Tacoma, Washington. Soon Louise married Johnnie Bundy and he became Ted’s stepfather. Although Ted took his last name, he seemed to think very little of Johnnie. It is safe to say that just like many other perpetrators of the law Ted did not have a good father figure to look up to. Statistics say that children who lived in a fatherless home are 50% more likely to commit a crime.

Bundy’s Academic Pursuits and Psychological Transformation

As a toddler Ted became fascinated with knives. Through his school days he made good grades yet he did not do well socially. Then in his teenage years, Bundy’s evil started to show as he would often steal and peep into others windows, especially that of young women as they changed. Ted attended the University of Washington where he earned his degree in psychology. He graduated in 1972. While in college Bundy fell for a pretty girl with long dark hair. After their breakup Ted was extremely devastated. Later on most of Bundy’s victims would resemble her. In the early 1970’s Ted transformed himself into the ideal American man. Becoming more confident outwardly, along with being more prominent in both social and political activities. Bundy was accepted into law school in Utah in 1972, however he never earned his degree. Due to the fact that was when he started his murdering spree.

The Onset of Bundy’s Criminal Activities

Ted Bundy most likely started his rampage around 1974. Bundy would lure young women into his tan 1968 Volkswagen Beetle by pretending to be hurt and asked for their help, their kindness causing the death of them. From there Ted would push them in his car kidnapping them. Bundy’s kills were very gruesome and included the rape and beating of victims before their eventual death. What Ted did after is arguably worse. Bundy was a necrophiliac, meaning he was sexually attracted and commited sexual acts with his dead bodies of his victims. After killing his victims he would return to their bodies, brush their hair, along with apply makeup to their face, and have sex with them. Bundy also decapitated 12 known victims. Ted confessed to the murders of 36 young women across multiple states including Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, and Florida in the 1970’s. Although in his confessions he never said “I,” he always said “the killer” and describe detailed descriptions of the crimes. Louise, like most loving mothers, only saw the best in her son. Refusing to believe the alleged charges against him, but later changed her mind after he confessed. Experts believe the true total of Bundy’s victims may be closer to 100 or even more. The actual number may never be known.

Ted Bundy ramage is believed to have started in Seattle, Washington. Experts say that Bundy’s first victim was 18 year old Karen Sparks, a University of Washington State student. Sparks was attacked by Bundy in her sleep on January 4, 1974. After going into Karen’s basement bedroom, Bundy tore a rod from her bed frame and began beating her with it. Then he rammed the metal rod into her vagina. Sparks is one of the lucky ones though as she managed to survive after her 10 day coma and had no memory of the attack. Teds next victim was 21-year old Lynda Ann Healey. Healey also attended the University of Washington State and was very well liked as she gave the weather report at a local radio station. This time Bundy took the extra key from her mailbox and bludgeoned her. Then changed her out of her pajamas and into fresh clothes, all while she was unconscious. Ted then inserted himself into the investigation by calling the police and said the person who killed Karen Sparks was the same person that took Lynda Healey. Donna Gail Mason, a 19 year old, was killed on her way to a campus concert at Evergreen State College. Her body was never found yet, Ted later admitted to killing her and burning her skull in his girlfriend’s, Elizabeth Klopfer, fireplace. Susan Elaine Rancount was 18 years old and went to Central Washington State College. She unlike Bundy’s other victims, was blond haired and blue eyed. No one really knows what happened but after a massive search. They discovered that other students remember being approached by a man named Ted with his arm in a sling. Bundy then moved his ramage to Oregon where first killed Roberta Kathleen Parks. She was taken between her school, Oregon State, and a coffee shop. Her body was later found with many others on Taylor Mountain in Washington. Brenda Ball and Georgann Hawkins were also that of Bundy’s victims. Both of them were last seen talking to a man with some type of handicap. In July 1974 Bundy took two girls in broad daylight in the same day from Lake Sammamish State Park, both Janice Ott and Denise Naslun. A witness reported that they saw a man with his left arm in a sling ask a woman for help with a sailboat. When she said yes Ted lead her to the car, by the time she realized there was no sailboat it was too late. Nancy Wilcox was a 16 year old cheerleader who vanished in October 1974, and was last seen riding in a Volkswagen Bug. After Bundy offered Rhonda Stapley a ride, he took her to Big Cottonwood Canyon. There he repeatedly raped and strangled her. She was only able to escape when Bundy turned his back to her and she ran for her life to a nearby river. Ted even posed as a police office, named “Rosewood.” Carol DaRonch was walking around a mall and was approached by “Officer Rosewood” telling her that her car was broken into and needed to come with him down to the station. She willingly went with him then realized what was happening. She broke out of the car despite both the handcuffs and gun to the head, and finding a couple driving nearby. Debi Kent was abducted a few hours later, but this time Bundy dropped the key matching the handcuffs found on DaRonch in the parking lot. Her parents still to this day leave the porch light on for her. Bundy continued killing in Janaury 1975 as he murder many young women in Colorado and Idaho then he came back to Utah. Ted then moved his rage to Florida when he escaped from prison. The murders and beatings at the Chi Omega sorority at Florida State University are his most gruesome. First Ted walked into Margeret Bowman’s room hitting and killing her with a piece of firewood. Bundy proceeded into Lisa Levy’s room. There he beat, strangled, tore one of her nipples off, deeply bit into her left butt cheek, and using a bottle of hairspray raped her. Then Bundy beat both Karen Chandler and Kathy Kleiner with a club yet both survived but suffered permanent damage. After that Ted went on to beat Cheryl Thomas. Although she survived it the attack left her permanently deaf and ended her dance career. Lastly Bundy killed 12 year old Kimberly Leach.

Capture, Trials, and Escapes

In 1975 while attending the University of Utah, Bundy was pulled over by police. The police searched his 1968 Volkswagen Beetle and Ted was arrested for the possession of a crowbar, face mask, rope, and handcuffs. He was then linked to many more sinister crimes. Again in 1975 Bundy was arrested but this time for the kidnapping of Carol DaRonch, a young Colorado women that managed to escape. Ted was convicted and received a 1-15 year sentence. Ted somehow managed to escape from prison not once but twice. The first time Bundy jumped out of a courthouse library widow, while he was acting as his own lawyer. Bundy roamed free for eight days and then was captured by police. Ted escaped the second time by crawling out of a hole he made in his prison cell. In order to fit through the small opening, Ted had to lose more than 30 pounds. Bundy then made his way to Tallahassee, Florida. Where he broke in and attacked four girls, then killing two of them at Florida State University’s Chi Omega sorority house on January 14, 1978. Also on January 9, 1978 Ted kidnapped and killed 12 year old Kimberly Leach. This marked the end of Bundy’s rampage as he was pulled over by police the next month.

The Final Arrest and Bundy’s Execution

The biggest single piece of evidence prosecutors had against Bundy was the bite marks authorities found on the bodies of the sorority sisters, as that matched that of Bundy’s. Ted’s cleverness, charm, and attractiveness allured the media making him like that of a celebrity during his trail. Bundy was convicted for the murder of the two Chi Omega girls and given the death sentence twice as punishment. He received yet another death sentence for the kidnapping and killing of Kimberly Leach. Bundy attempted to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court but was denied. Ted fought against the crimes placed on him but was found guilty. He spent nine years on Florida’s death row appealing his death sentence. Bundy even managed to buy time as he offered information on multiple unsolved murders. Yet justice was served on January 24, 1989 at about 7:00am in Florida State Prisons electric chair, known as “Old Sparky.” Bundy was said to have died with a smile on his face. As crowds cheered and set fireworks after Ted was executed. Before he died he stated that his wishes were to be cremated and have his ashes scattered in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State. Where he murdered many of his victims.

Bundy’s Personal Life and Psychological Profile

In 1969 Bundy met a young single mother named Elizabeth Kloepfer. Elizabeth and Ted started their six year long relationship in a Seattle bar. Elizabeth had problems of her own as she struggled with alcoholism. When Kloepfer became suspicious of Bundy’s whereabouts and behavior, he used his charm to ease her. Finally Elizabeth called the police concerning Ted but they did not believe her. She later went back with evidence. When she found out all that Bundy had done she ended things with him. Bundy later called her from jail telling her he had tried to kill her. After Elizabeth, Ted then moved on to Carole Boone who he met many years ago from working together. Bundy proposed to Boone in a courtroom in front of a judge during a phase of his trail. Boone said yes making it a legal marriage in the state of Florida. Together they had a daughter named Rose Bundy in 1982. Not much is known about Rose today. Carole divorced Ted three years before his execution when she realized he really was guilty.

While researching my serial killer, Ted Bundy, one of the most interesting things I learned was that although yes Bundy was a serial killer. In college he also worked at a suicide hotline in Seattle. So while he did hurt and kill numerous amount of young women, he helped save many lives. Seattle Police Department nominated Ted for the director of the Seattle Crime Prevention Advisory Committee.

References

1. Buy Clean Washington. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.carbonleadershipforum.org/projects/buy-clean-washington/
2. Eleanor Louise Cowell. (2019, August 21). Retrieved from https://crimepiperblog.wordpress.com/tag/eleanor-louise-cowell/
3. Harfenist, E. (2019, January 31). Was Ted Bundy A Necrophile? Inside His Last Disturbing Confession. Retrieved from https://www.oxygen.com/martinis-murder/was-ted-bundy-a-necrophile-inside-his-last-disturbing-confession
4. Hodge, M. (2019, January 17). How Ted Bundy’s execution was celebrated by hundreds outside prison. Retrieved from https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8202022/ted-bundy-execution-electric-chair-netflix-conversation-with-a-killer/
5. Kennedy, J. (2019, February 01). 10 Things Netflix’s Ted Bundy Documentary Left Out. Retrieved from https://whatculture.com/tv/10-things-netflix-s-ted-bundy-documentary-left-out?page=5
6. Margaritoff, M. (2019, May 08). Carole Ann Boone Married Ted Bundy Literally In The Middle Of His Trial – Then Had His Baby. Retrieved from https://allthatsinteresting.com/carole-ann-boone-ted-bundy-wife
7. Margaritoff, M. (2019, July 09). Meet Elizabeth Kloepfer: The Woman Who Survived A Relationship With Ted Bundy. Retrieved from https://allthatsinteresting.com/elizabeth-kloepfer-kendall-ted-bundy-girlfriend
8. Margaritoff, M. (2019, June 16). Rose Bundy Is The Only Child Of Serial Killer Ted Bundy – And She Was Conceived On Death Row. Retrieved from https://allthatsinteresting.com/rose-bundy-ted-bundy-daughter
9. Mental Health Resources in Vermont. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.rtor.org/directory/mental-health-vermont/
10. Ted Bundy. (2019, December 13). Retrieved from https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/ted-bundy
11. Washington State University: WSU: The College Board. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-university-search/washington-state-university
12. Brides of bundy ted bundy victim collage. (2013, December 06). Retrieved from https://theodorerobertcowellnelsonbundy.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/ted-bundy-myths/brides-of-bundy-ted-bundy-victim-collage/

The term “white collar crime” evokes an image of a well-dressed businessman involved in espionage or insider trading. But in reality, white collar crimes can include everything from tax evasion to forgery. If you have been charged with any type of white collar crime, it is in your best interest to contact a defense attorney with extensive experience in this particular area of law.

At Davis & Cannon, LLP, our legal team has been providing comprehensive legal services to residents of Gillette, Cheyenne, Sheridan and all of Wyoming for more than 70 years. We have successfully defended countless clients against charges for white collar crimes.

What is a White Collar Crime?

Although this term applies to a wide variety of offenses, white collar crimes typically involve deceit-based activity that results in, or is motivated by, financial gain. The most common white collar crimes we defend include:

Fraud

When an individual purposely deceives another for personal or financial gain, his/her actions may constitute fraud. This criminal offense comes in many forms, and can be a misdemeanor or a felony.

Forgery is one example of fraud. When someone alters the writing of another without that person’s consent, it is forgery. Signing an account holder’s name to an unsigned check and cashing it, without consent, is a very clear example of forgery in action. Depending on the type and severity of forgery committed, the offense could be a misdemeanor with up to six months in jail, or a felony offense punishable by hefty fines and up to 10 years imprisonment.

Other examples of fraud include writing false statements to obtain credit or property, money laundering, and sports bribery used to influence the outcome of an athletic event.

Embezzlement

The crime of embezzlement typically occurs when an individual entrusted with the financial affairs of another mismanages or steals money or property for personal financial gain. The distinction between stealing money via embezzlement and stealing money through fraud or bank robbery, for example, is that the embezzler was granted legal access to the money or property in question.

Embezzlement frequently involves a family member who is caring for a relative, a corporate employee with access to company funds, and other professionals who deal with investor money. Basically, anyone in a position of trust who steals another’s money for their own financial gain is likely engaged in the crime of embezzlement.

Extortion

Commonly referred to as blackmail, extortion is the act of obtaining property (usually money) by use of force, or by threatening someone. If an individual forces another to relinquish property against his will, he/she may be guilty of extortion. A conviction of extortion requires the use or threat of bodily injury, or the threat of serious public humiliation or ridicule.

The penalties for extortion are dependent on the type and severity of the offense and whether the individual has prior criminal history. In most cases, however, extortion is a felony offense punishable by between five and 25 years in prison.

Perjury

“I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” If a person recites this oath in court and proceeds to willfully lie to the court, it is a felony offense called perjury. Penalties for perjury vary widely based on circumstances of the case and prior criminal history, but include hefty fines and up to five years in prison.

RICO Claims

In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in an effort to fight organized crime. Under RICO, individuals can be prosecuted for racketeering activities involved in a criminal enterprise. Prosecutable offenses include money laundering, illegal gambling, drug trafficking, embezzlement, counterfeiting, and more.

Why You Need a White Collar Crimes Defense Attorney

Because of the perceived “sophisticated nature” of white collar crimes, courts can be particularly harsh when it comes to sentencing. If you’ve been charged with embezzlement, forgery, money laundering, tax evasion, or perjury, you need an attorney experienced in these types of cases.

As with any type of crime, many defenses against white collar crime charges exist. The most common of these defenses is lack of intent. If, for example, you were mismanaging funds entrusted to you by another, but the mismanagement was accidental, an experienced attorney may be able to get the charges against you dropped. Entrapment, wherein you are persuaded by an undercover agent to engage in criminal activity that you wouldn’t have otherwise participated in, is another common defense against white collar crimes.

Contact Davis & Cannon, LLP Today

If you have been charged with a white collar crime, the skilled legal team at Davis & Cannon, LLP can help. We will analyze the details of your case to determine the most appropriate legal strategy for your unique situation, gathering necessary evidence and building a strong case in your favor. Do not go through this difficult time alone. We are here to help you protect your rights, and keep your record clean. Contact Davis & Cannon, LLP at _____ today for a free and confidential consultation about your case.

Introduction

The use of hate and violence can often result in unfortunate events for those involved, leading to strong emotions, uncontrollable behavior, and other actions motivated by negativity. Hate speech can also lead to violent and criminal acts, as discussed by the following articles in this paper. However, the restrictions that are often imposed on hateful rhetoric or actions can walk a fine line between protecting individuals’ rights and protecting the free expression of thoughts and opinions. Understanding the fine differences that separate hateful actions against hate crimes are important to distinguish because this helps us formulate better policies that ultimately protect all existing constitutional rights, while also ensuring peace and safety in a society characterized by multicultural values and other important individual differences.

Hate crimes are not a serious problem

In his article for the New York Times in 1999, Andrew Sullivan makes a peculiar argument about hate, hate crimes, and society’s way of dealing with them. Sullivan begins his article by seemingly trying to comprehend what motivated some of the most gruesome, senseless, and brutal hate crime killings in recent US history. Sullivan concludes his introductory paragraph by stating that, “for all the society’s definitions of hate, people still do not really understand it and are thus unable to approach and resolve the problem of hate in a meaningful way.”

According to, the New York Times says, Sullivan (1999) argues that hate is far less of a clear concept than prejudice, bigotry, or bias. He questions whether hate is meant to stand in for all these concepts or represent a combination of them. Here, Sullivan makes the mistake of making a false dichotomy. He argues that, if hate encompasses everything mentioned above, then the fight against it is quixotic or meaningless. If, on the other hand, hate refers to a specific object, then fighting against it would be unconstitutional (Sullivan, 1999). There are a lot more ways to categorize hateful behavior and subsequently deal with it than Sullivan would have his readers believe.

Among other things, this means that hate has evolved and so should our understanding of it. Throughout his article, Sullivan argues that figuring out what is hateful and what is not was a lot easier in the “good old days” (1999). Because it is hard to determine the delicate boundaries between hate, prejudice, bias, and anger, Sullivan thinks people should just grow a thicker skin and embrace hateful and racist behavior as daily parts of their lives. I strongly disagree with this sentiment, especially now, when our society is divided than it has ever been before. Instead of giving any kind of hate a giveaway, as Sullivan would seemingly have us do, our legislators, media, and ordinary citizens should strive to mitigate it as much as possible, if not eradicate it altogether.

Hate crime laws are unnecessary

Throughout this article, Hate Crime Laws Are Unnecessary in 1999 taken from Robert H. Knight’s testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and is in relation to the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. Knight testified as a representative of The Family Research Council and argued against the said law on grounds that it would give too much power to the federal government and infringe upon the right of free speech. The law was meant to give the Federal Government greater power in fighting hate crime. As Knight saw it, the law created special classes of victims and provided them with a higher level of protection than those who did not fall under these specially created classes.

According to Knight (1999), seeing the law would compromise free speech and equate it with hate speech. Knight brings to mention the popular novel 1984 and the concept of “thought policing”. While the author brings some insightful points in their article, drawing this kind of comparison is patently absurd. Knight seems to be especially concerned with the “normalization” of homosexuality, as he returns to this issue several times throughout the article (1990). The law said, according to Knight, “would make it a federal offense to say anything negative about homosexuality” (1999). Indeed, Knight states that “homosexual activists have characterized even mild formulations of opposing views as a proximate cause of violence” (Knight, 1999). Having the mindset of how terribly homosexuality had been treated in the past, I really have no objection to laws that would provide extra protection for them. Knight also bashes NGO agencies that are dedicated to gathering statistics pertaining to violence against the homosexual population. In the article, Knight dismisses their data as inconsistent and plainly wrong. In the final analysis, Knight seems to be bothered by the fact that homosexuality had begun to enter the mainstream of American society. He seems to be bothered by this a lot more than the actual law he is testifying against.

The definition of hate crimes should not be expanded

As its title implies, the third article argues that the current legislature is more than enough to deal with all violent crimes, including hate crimes. The article The Definition of Hate Crimes Should Not Be Expanded was written by Fred Dickey and originally published in the Los Angeles Times Magazine in 2000. Like previous authors, Dickey also begins his article with an anecdote involving an angry white man who had been convicted of hate crimes against women. As it turns out, Billy McCall (who is the man in question), is an unstable individual who is prone to lash out and attack indiscriminately in his fits of rage. Dickey (2000) used McCall as an example of the relative inefficiency of hate crime statutes and uses his case to argue against expanding the legal definition of hate crimes.

The core of Dickey’s article is the author’s claim that hate crime laws are a product of good intentions that ultimately do more harm than good. The author states that this kind of legislature is ostensibly aimed at punishing terrorists and high-profile hate crimes. Instead, the main offenders consist of poor and uneducated people who are more prone to “throwing punches than bombs” (Dickey, 2000). Basically, Dickey believes that the people who are most likely to be prosecuted for hate crimes will not even be aware that this kind of legislature exists. Furthermore, Dickey echoes Robert H. Knight’s statement about thought policing by claiming that prosecutors will go out of their way to link the offenders with racist beliefs and behavior.

While Dickey makes some solid points in his article, I am still left unconvinced that the US judiciary system should just ignore the fact that many of the violent crimes that happen are indeed motivated by hate towards “others”. Even though the expanded legislature may very well fail as a deterrent, it will still put the violent and hateful behind bars.

Alana Baranov’s (2016) view on hate crimes is that it starts with a spark and that it can grow out of proportion. Hate speeches do not only lambast one individual but the whole group that they represent, thus sparking an even bigger defense system that may involve violence. Baranov claims, that one should not stop the hate with hate (2016). It creates a cycle of vengeance and perpetuates hatred.

Thus, the Hate Crimes Working Group has stepped in to educate people about the dangers of provoking hate crimes by coming up with laws that make acts of hate unacceptable. These initiatives are meant to be carried out with awareness campaigns starting from influencing young people to learn from history’s lessons of hate’s repercussions on mankind in order to build a brighter and more love-filled future. Baranov reminded readers of the dehumanizing effects of the Holocaust and genocide. Her suggestion is to nip the suggestion of hate in the bud, meaning people should be vigilant in calling out anyone who makes a negative, prejudicial comment against someone. For some, it may start as a joke meant to offend someone as well as the group he or she represents. Baranov says this is also known as ‘identity crimes’ because it hurls pain and destruction at one’s identity (2016). She advocates respect and acceptance of diversity and does not tolerate slurs and racist remarks. People need to look beyond their differences and uphold each other’s dignity despite the negativity that may prevail around them. This can significantly help in healing from the wounds of the past and not further aggravate them by replenishing them with more pain due to hateful actions and words.

According to (Crime laws defined in Stop the Hate presentation Farmer, 2016) defined what hate crimes are, so that people may better understand hate crime laws. He differentiated hate crimes from bias incidents, with the former being crimes motivated by hatred towards a certain population, and the latter an act not involving a crime even if it is perceived as offensive. This distinction helps in evaluating acts of violence against others, whether through actions or words. Additionally, it assigns the appropriate fines and punishments, such as prison terms to each deemed as a hate crime. Hate crimes are those meant to hurt others because of their differences from the offender such as the victim’s gender orientation, disability, race, etc., and is mostly considered discrimination. Towards the end of the article, Farmer mentions the need to also check into bias incidents, as perhaps these could lead to hate crimes if not suspended from the onset (2016). The author encourages sessions discussing hate crime prevention so that more people can understand its devastating effects on the human spirit.

Hate crime laws

This last article from Issues and Controversies (2019) questions the effectiveness of Hate Crime Laws. Hate crimes in this article are defined as crimes motivated by the offender’s bias against the victim’s “race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity” (para. 1), which echoes the two other articles’ inferences that such crimes are very discriminatory and prejudicial. This article is lengthier than the other two, detailing findings of hate crime, such as the percentages allotted to categories of biases that motivated the crimes. As of 2017, it was found that the greatest motivator is racial discrimination, followed by religious differences and sexual orientation. Some hate crimes are motivated by the offenders’ biases against gender identity, gender, and disability. The rise in the prevalence of hate crimes has been attributed to the presidencies of Obama and Trump, and these are debated upon by their respective followers. However, the focus of the article was on hate crime laws such as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) which was passed by Congress in 2009. Such laws advocate severe punishment for crimes motivated by discrimination against the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. However, there are also people who question it, because it penalizes the offender’s right to free thought and speech.

A thorough discussion of hate crimes that persisted throughout history was presented in this last article Issues and Controversies (2019) chronicling several events that raised much outrage on the trampling on the victims’ dignity. Such dehumanization has pushed authorities to protect the victims and sanction the perpetrators. Most of these crimes were caused by racial prejudice. Later, it spread to various other discrimination issues. Hate crime laws came to impose more severe punishments on the offenders, and those opposed to it defended their stand as a just exercising of their freedom of speech and thought as they voice out their negative opinions of people and issues. For them, being restrained from doing so may be considered a crime, violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution encouraging the freedom of speech as well as the Fourteenth Amendment which advocates for equal protection of the laws.

Although hate crime laws have become a sanctuary to victims and the marginalized, offering them comfort and security, it continues to be controversial in the face of its opponents. Lawmakers continue to find the best measures to address hate crimes so that they are significantly lessened, if not eradicated, without sacrificing the right to free speech and thought. In all three articles, it is maintained that violence is not a solution and human dignity should always be upheld regardless of a person’s identity, culture, and orientation. That remains to be the most significant of human rights.

Picture a society that doesn’t believe in rape culture, they don’t joke about serious issues such as sexual assault, they don’t use misogynistic language and objectify a women’s body, they don’t glamorize the idea of sexual violence, they don’t disregard a women’s rights and their safety, they don’t refuse to acknowledge the harm caused by sexual violence and they don’t trivialize rape.

I have a strong belief in fairness and justice for those victims of rape culture. Rape culture perpetuates the belief that victims have contributed to their own victimization and are responsible for what has happened to them. This makes it seem as though rape and sexual assault are acceptable when in fact it is the opposite. Rape culture should not ever have been and should never be acceptable.

Sexual assault case statement made by the Chief Judge, he argued, “because the victim wore very, very tight jeans, she had to help him remove them, and by removing the jeans it was no longer rape but consensual sex. This became known throughout Italy as the “jeans alibi” (‘Denim Day’, 2020). Victim blaming is a devaluing act that happens while the sufferers of a criminal offense or an accident are held liable for crimes that have been committed in opposition to them.

Why should someone be blamed for something they did not deserve?

I’ll tell you why, these perpetrators believe that just because the victim wears provocative clothing, is by themselves in a street at night, or is getting drunk on a night out that a victim wants to be sexually assaulted.

The poor victim that had to endure the pain of not only the physical abuse but mental abuse that will affect them for the rest of their lives. The victim experiences shame – internalizing some of the emotional and mental injury perpetrated; that is in addition to how the abuse, such as physical or sexual, may mark a sufferer physically. (Schroeder, 2020).

While being masculine isn’t automatically a negative trait, the expectations and enforcements that lead an individual to act as “tough” as possible are often linked to several negative phenomena, including body image issues, the suppression of emotions, and violence against women. Toxic masculinity, therefore, leads to a society where the victimization of women and empowerment of men is normalized and accepted in an exceedingly widespread manner, also known as key elements, to rape culture.

One of the fundamental ideas at the guts of “rape culture” is that the concept of rape is inevitable, men can’t help themselves, and ladies must consequently work to protect themselves against it. In the context of rape culture, the concept that men are entitled to sexual experiences is deeply entrenched. The UN researchers discovered that this mindset is pervasive among the rapists they surveyed. many of the men who acknowledged that they had sexually assaulted someone else, greater than 70% stated they did it due to “sexual entitlement.” 40% said they had been angry or wanted to punish the woman and approximately half of the men stated they did not feel even a pinch of guilt.

Society is told “don’t get raped” rather than “don’t rape”.

The 1970s was one of the most terrifying decades for America, the most notorious and dangerous serial killers ran wild during this decade. One gripping serial killer that made everyone’s stomach twist at the call of his name was Theodore Bundy. Bundy was very different from everyone else in a strange and dark way. The man with the world at his fingertips; He was smart, outgoing, and handsome, but behind the disguise was an absolute nightmare. Theodore Bundy was the epiphany of true evil, killing many young women in the 1970s, causing a public uproar that led to his execution in 1989 and justice for the victims of the devil himself.

On November 24th, 1946 in Burlington, Vermont, Eleanor Cowell gave birth to who no one knew at the time would become the most threatening serial killer of all time. Theodore Bundy never had an easy life. Bundy never had the chance to know who his real father was. His mother married a man who went by the name of Johnnie Bundy in 1951. As Ted Bundy grew up he lived with his grandparents; he was told that his mother was his sister. In those times, not having a father was rather odd. Theodore was bullied and ridiculed in his early school years. The Biography of Ted noted that from a very young age Ted Bundy was always intrigued with knives and darker materials. Bundy from the exterior looked like any normal young boy, however, he was fighting his own demons inside.

Ted Bundy graduated from the University of Washington in 1972 with a degree in Psychology. After Bundy graduated in 1972, he was looking to further become a lawyer by attending law school in Utah, however, the beginning of his serial killer ways arose and he would never finish law school. While Theodore attended the University of Washington according to The Biography of Ted Bundy, he dated and fell completely in love with everything he wanted in life. This woman was beautiful, had money, class, and influence. Bundy fell in love with her and the materialistic things she owned in her life. Ted Bundy was destroyed after their breakup. Many victims of Bundy had similar features to his ex-lover.

January 1974 was the beginning of a true nightmare. The rampage of the devil had begun. Early beginning of January, Theodore Bundy killed his first victim, Karen Sparks. Karen Sparks was an eighteen-year-old student at the University of Washington. He broke into her apartment while she was sleeping and beat her with a rod. He sexually assaulted her and eventually killed her that night. The very next month Theodore Bundy struck on a very well-known young woman in the community. Lynda Ann Healy, 21, lived in the University District of Seattle, where the main campus of UOW was located. Lynda Ann Healy did the daily ski report on the radio. He abducted her and then strangled her to death. The sad body of Lynda Ann Healy “was later found on Taylor Mountain outside, located about 25 miles outside Seattle”(Canning, 5). Theodore Bundy killed many women in Washington and Utah. He began killing young college women left and right.

Ted Bundy murdered around 36 women that we know of. There have been rumors and investigations that prove he in fact killed way more women than anyone thinks. Not just a serial killer, Bundy saw himself as an actor playing a role. That is exactly what Ted Bundy did. At first glance, a lot of women thought he was very attractive and it drew them to him immediately. Ted Bundy was known for driving the same yellow Volkswagen Beetle. Bundy most times would dress himself up to look injured and ask women for help. He would be charming and trusting to these women. He knew how to lure the women in. Detectives, who were receiving hundreds of tips a day, dismissed the suspicions, thinking that a law student could not possibly be the perpetrator. Theodore Bundy was truly conveying. He would lure women to his car then sadly sexually assault them and kill them. His charming ways toward everyone even helped him escape. Theodore Bundy was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List and yet he was still able to escape from jail twice. In jail, he was able to build trust with outsiders, gaining a legion of women who fell in love with him. Theodore Bundy was very intelligent with how he could talk to people. He was very confident in himself and knew how to play his own game.

Theodore Bundy escaped court two times. In 1977 police finally started to link Theodore Bundy to crimes. On the night of his capture, Bundy was driving his Volkswagen Beetle. The police pulled him over and asked him to search his car. In the Biography of Ted, they bring up what they found in Theodore Bundy’s vehicle,” The following year, he was pulled over by crowbar, a face mask, rope, and handcuffs”(A&E Television Networks, 13). Theodore Bundy was then linked to the Murder of Caryn Campbell. Ted Bundy was charged with first-degree murder. He was then transferred from Utah to jail in Aspen, Colorado to hold a trial. Bundy eventually was allowed to assist in his own defense, he had the right to use the library whenever he wanted. On June 7, 1977, Ted Bundy jumped from the second-story window of the Pitkin County Courthouse with the motive to escape. He ran for the mountains and made his first official escape. He was captured eight days later. In December Bundy escaped from prison yet again, he climbed out of a self-made hole in the ceiling of his cell, having dropped more than 30 pounds to fit through the small opening. The authorities did not discover that Bundy was missing for 15 hours, giving the serial killer a big head start on the police. On that last escape, Bundy made his way to Tallahassee Florida on January 14, 1978. He broke into the Chi Omega Sorority house and attacked four of the young female residents, killing two of them. On February 9 Bundy kidnapped and murdered a 12-year-old girl named Kimberly Leach.

Ted Bundy was not able to kill all of his targets. However, the ratio of him successfully murdering the poor victims to failing was very drastic. There was a survivor of the devil in the 1970s. Carol DeRonch was eighteen at the time and despite hearing all the rumors about a serial killer, wasn’t afraid to go in public alone. On November 8th, she drove herself to the mall and entered a bookstore. Shortly after arriving at the mall, she was approached by a police officer or so she thought. He seemed like any other officer. The police officer warned her that someone had tried to break into her car. Carol DeRonch noticed all of the signs were there; he had smelled like alcohol, he was driving a bug instead of a patrol car, and there was nothing missing from her car. However, the 1970s were a different time and since he had a realistic badge, she decided to trust him. DeRonch followed him and got into his car. Carol felt eerie the whole time and noticed things were going south until he was pulled over by an elementary school. She noticed that the handles on the passenger side were easily accessible. Carol began to panic and he cuffed one of her wrists to the handle inside the car, holding her at gunpoint, and threatened to kill her. Carol DeRonch stated that she “ had never been so frightened in her entire life …whole life went before my eyes”( Mederios, 5). Carol fought with every dying breath and finally ran away from the monster.

Bundy’s final act on the run was a high-speed chase in Pensacola, Florida. He was in a stolen vehicle, with 21 stolen credit cards, that marked the end of his murderous crimes. The most crucial evidence that helped connect Bundy to the two Chi Omega murders at FSU, was bite marks on one of the victim’s bodies. They were a definitive match to Bundy’s. In July 1976, he was convicted for the two society murders at FSU and was given the death penalty twice. He received another death sentence in 1980 for the murder of Kimberly Leach. ​Ted Bundy’s death and execution was a famous, national event for onlookers outside the prison gates and millions of viewers watching from home. “Burn, Bundy, Burn!” adorned protest signs and comprised the chants of hundreds. After nine years in the Florida State Prison, on January 24, 1989, Ted Bundy was put to death by the state of Florida. Within minutes, two thousand volts surged through the wires. Bundy’s body tensed and his hands tightened into a clinch. The most notorious killer was dead.

Theodore Bundy was one of the most notorious killers in American History. On the outside, he may have been a charming, attractive, and intelligent man, but on the inside, was a terrifying world. He defined darkness. Theodore Bundy was the epiphany of true evil, killing many young women in the 1970s, causing a public uproar that led to his execution in 1989 and the justice for the victims of the devil himself.

Rape is a very sensitive topic that has a lot of meaning behind it. The definition of rape online is “ unlawful sexual activity and usually, sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person’s will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception.” (Merriam-Webster). Unfortunately, the only people who are aware of rape are those whose loved ones have experienced this. Which should not be the case. As a culture, we need to take a stand and change the culture.

It becomes a hot topic when you start realizing this happens all around and not many open up to admit it for several reasons. Because now the word “rape” is considered a joke. People who have been rapped are 3 times more likely to suffer a major depressive episode due to the trauma of sexual assault. According to Suicide.org., over 70% of women let their partner seduce them when they don’t want to. Seventeen percent of American women have been victims of sexual assault at some point in their lives. Only 39% of rapists get reported to the police, and only 3% of them go to jail. About 13% of the rape victims commit suicide (Caruso).

There have been different occasions where rape has been taken as a joke, the first time she got rapped, her boyfriend broke up with her because she had “cheated on him. He put a knife to her throat and told her he would kill her if she said she didn’t want to. When she wanted to report him, people told her she couldn’t because she didn’t say “no” to him. At least half of the babies that at born to minor women are fathered by adult men. With at least 10 or more age difference. Now girls aren’t able to wear skirts without them saying “she’s asking for it.” When she went to a party when she was 14 and wore a skirt and a guy kept touching her butt all night, her mother said it shouldn’t have happened if she wore sweatpants. When a 16-year-old girl who had her first orgasm while getting raped, had to watch her 34-year-old rapist go free because she had an orgasm. When a guy friend told her and her friends he had gotten raped by a woman when he was 12, a “friend” laughed at him and he said he should be happy he got laid at a young age. Her 17-year-old best friend’s parents let her 14-year-old brother walk outside till 12 pm, but she has to be home at 9. A guy from her old school got raped by another guy, but because he is gay, they said it’s not considered rape. A 19-year-old lesbian got raped by a guy, and didn’t go to prison because “ he only tried to turn her straight so she would be accepted by her parents.” In some cultures, girls & boys are still getting thrown out of their families because some guy/ girl sexually assaulted them. They’re still teaching girls to walk faster at night instead of teaching a guy they shouldn’t rape. Because I have to explain “rape”, it makes me angry.

There are times people think they can handle rape if it happens to them. But if they don’t report it, there could be another victim after them. We live in a culture where men feel that reporting rape is a weakness because a man’s sexual encounters should always be seen as positive no matter what. Society doesn’t create a safe place for men who have been abused. Women on the other hand are often mocked or blamed when they share their stories. It even gets more complicated for individuals who identify as LGBTQ. It can happen between families and friends, making it even more difficult to speak up.

Rape happens all the time and people don’t realize it and often when they do people don’t take it seriously. People need to understand that it happens more often than thought. We need to create a world where it needs to be taken seriously. They say that education is one of the most powerful tools to change anything and to take a stand. We need to express ourselves and share our stories. Silence only hurts us. When we don’t talk about it rape continues. When we don’t talk about it suicide happens. Educating people about rape will save lives.