Socioeconomic growth and development significantly contribute to the community members well-being. The institutionalization of the economic structures and frameworks fostered a profound trickle-down effect on the interactions among individuals. Osuna argues Ms. Salazars murder is a culmination of dynamic entities within the spectrum of governance (1). Ms. Salazar is a victim of police brutality due to the dysfunctional administrative system. On the one hand, the author focuses on the repercussions of capitalism in society, reconstructing the event as a social murder. On the other hand, Osuna demonstrates the consequences of precarious work attributed to the neoliberalism mainframe, such as discrimination (4).
Ideally, this study addresses three vital thematic foundations encapsulating neoliberal capitalism, proletarian feminism, and working-class precariousness. Therefore, the sectional analysis enshrines the summary of Dr. Osunas article, key argumentative constructs, and personal appeals on topical issues. The intensification of wealth creation within the economic system is an unsustainable practice that challenges humanism and the practice of relationship-building. There is an inverse proportional relationship between social justice and the principles of neoliberal capitalism that profoundly steer work precariousness and multidimensional poverty.
Dr. Osunas Insight Summary
After the murder of Ms. Salazar, the government charged the police officers accountable for the incident while the American administration intervened to ensure intense training on professionalism. The significantly important terms in the study include neoliberal capitalism, working-class precariousness, and proletarian feminism. Ideally, the researcher stipulates that neoliberal capitalism entails deregulating socioeconomic rules to reduce the administrations involvement (Osuna 5).
Therefore, the majority of individuals labor to enhance wealth acquisition and accumulation among the lesser populace for minimal wage earnings as definitive working-class precariousness. In a different aspect, Osuna defines proletarian feminism as a womens movement to abolish degenerative patriarchy that threatens the counterparts well-being (5). Police brutality is one of the negatively-oriented outcomes steered by the influential neoliberal capitalism on working precariousness and code of conduct.
During the interrogation of the female police officer involved in the murder of Ms. Salazar, she establishes that she joined the police for a job. Osuna intersects and interprets the police officers attitude toward career professionalism within the spectrum of work precariousness (12). Primarily, the intensified economic growth and development fostered the marginalization of communities and personnel. The main reason involves the embedded capitalist pillar optimizing on differentiating the working class on distinctive platforms. According to Osuna, the rich attain the privileges dictating professional conduct mainly among the government representatives (10).
An excellent example is the institutionalization of policies that enhance the security among employers from laborers misconduct. However, Osuna notes that the efficacy level of the capitalist ideology proficiently depends on the adept conundrum of the surplus populace (14). Fundamentally, the sustenance of neoliberal capitalism regards the surplus population and the availability of job opportunities.
In a different continuum, proletarian feminism is a discerning issue within society, leading to an increase in social injustice among women. Osuna says that Ms. Salazars murder emanates from the existing discriminatory practices within the administrative system (11). The vital reason for Ms. Salazar to move to Mexico from El Salvador involved seeking employment and a better living environment for the family. However, despite securing a job in Mexico, she faced an additional threat that is imminent among women in the region enshrining feminism. Osuna reframes Ms. Salazar as a social murder due to the proficient contribution of dynamic entities leading to her death (13). Transcendentally, before her murder, she had reported the husband to child welfare authorities concerning child abuse and domestic violence.
Ms. Salazar moved to Mexico on account of the influential neoliberal capitalism but endured vehement tribulations based on proletarian feminism. Osuna perceives the governance structure as a dysfunctional project steered by the existing capitalist policies (14). It is vital to identify constructive insights enhancing sociocultural growth and development. Although capitalism fosters the elevation of economic advancement, it compromises community members livelihood within the marginal outlier of education, employment, and ethnicity. It is the core responsibility of the government representatives to incorporate rules and regulations preserving social justice and equity across the region while promoting essential socioeconomic preference.
Personal Appeal and Perception
The recalibration of capitalist policies is an endeavor fostering significant sociological and economic augmentation. In my opinion, policies promoting neoliberal capitalism promote the distribution of wealth based on the social status among society members. Therefore, a significant percentage of the laborers earn bare minimum wages while improving the production and wealth creation and accumulation among the employers. Ideally, the inverse proportion of laborers quality of living and the amount of output render an unsustainable foundation for the marginalization of social classes.
Prominently, I agree with Dr. Osunas argument that the killing of Ms. Salazar was a social murder based on the associative essence of the way of life and job security. It is evident that regardless of police brutality, the administrations response to the issue engulfs articulating the statistics and importance of intensifying professional practice with minimal engagement of the community concerning the issue.
I uphold that the roots of social injustice emanate from the degenerative patriarchy practices demeaning the role of women in the community setting. The incorporation of neoliberal capitalism intensified the effects of differential sexual identity through the working-class precariousness. Ideally, the three thematic constructs by Dr. Osuna further affirm the causative relationship and the trickle-down effect of the issues. Enhancing the participation of all relevant stakeholders in sociocultural, economic, and political development fosters sustainability on account of promoting inclusivity.
It is the core responsibility of distinctive entities to ensure the incorporation of policies addressing employees needs and productivity proportion to the quality of living. The articles insights on dynamic thematic constructs further render the emergence of additional questions to steer further investigation. What is the mediating factor between a nations cultural, economic, and political pillars and the influential neoliberal capitalism?
Does integrating communism and capitalism influence sociocultural growth and development?
Conclusion
The fundamentals of neoliberal capitalism enshrine multidimensional poverty and work precariousness across the vast population with disregard of social equity. The concept is affirmed through the murder of Ms. Salazar that prominently demonstrates the consequences of a dysfunctional governance system. Ideally, the article focuses on three foundational themes, including the precarious working class, proletarian feminism, and neoliberal capitalism. The institutionalization of policies on the privatization of property and the limitation of government involvement attributed to the intensified monopolization of employment opportunities and conditions. In this case, laborers encounter profound difficulties surviving on minimum wage and job insecurity. Ms. Salazar in an attempt to escape the multifaceted poverty, however, is entangled in the perceptive social murder incidence. Primarily, the capitalist practice focuses on the marginalization of the surplus populace and the wealthy personnel.
The solution to the practice enshrines an articulation of regulatory mainframe discerning the importance of equality among the laborers and the employers. It is critical that further studies focus on the strategic incorporation of initiatives promoting sociocultural, economic, and political pillars as sustainable constituents.
The Battered Womans Syndrome (BWS) is a term referring to women who are trapped inside or have recently emerged from a violent relationships which is characterized by cyclical violence. According to Zepinic (2021), the BWS was modeled after the type of post-traumatic stress syndrome occurring with veterans of Vietnam and applied to rape victims. Shrestha and Bhandari (2018) refer to it as to a learned helplessness which is triggered by physical violence; however, physical violence is almost always accompanied by psychological violence. This psychological violence demeans and degrades a woman, contributing to the destruction of her self-esteem and, consequently, her moral identity. The killing of the abuser by such a woman is often used as an example of justifiable homicide; however, it has a number of negative implications.
Battered Womans Syndrome
Defenders suggest that the cycle of violence in a relationship where a woman suffers battering excuses her killing her intimate assailant. Others claim that such women killing their oppressors are killers nevertheless, and are to be legally justified, not merely exonerated. Gosselin (2018) states that those arguing mainly disagree on whether the BWS is a legitimate defense or ones attempt to avoid being convicted of murder. It is fair: when it comes to defense on behalf of the accused, some cases of it might be a valid application of the concept, while others might simply look like it. One must never doubt the possibility of any defense being used illegitimately.
As it has been mentioned above, the BWS is founded on the theory of a womans learned helplessness as the result of cyclical abuse. According to Gosselin (2018), this theory holds that the victim starts to believe that there is no way for them to influence the violence of the abuser or escape it. One of the reactions in the face of this perceived horrible reality for the victim is to turn to the only conceivable option, namely, the killing of the abuser. It is deemed self-defense, even considering a possible lack of impending danger of death or serious harm for the victim at the occurrence of the killing.
The main source of evidence on the BWS comes from expert testimony. Early attempts to initiate the syndromes recognition through psychiatrists was objected for several reasons, including its non-acceptance as scientific, though now expert witness testimonys usage of the BWS as reasoning is admissible in most states. It is interesting to note that, according to Gosselin (2018), in recent years, controversy has arisen over the term battered womans syndrome , partly because it ignores men who are victims of domestic violence. Current research shows that every person, regardless of their gender, responds to domestic violence in a way that depends on numerous psychological and practical circumstances. Therefore, some experts suppose that the use of battered womans syndrome as a term is a non-appropriate basis for expert testimony.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the battered womans syndrome as a defense for excusable homicide, has a number of possible negative implications. First of all, it might simply be used as a loophole to escape punishment for the premeditated and deliberate killing. The BWS is founded on a theory describing the psychological state of the victim in a very specific way, which is not necessarily what every battered woman experiences. Secondly, the occurrence of the syndrome is not accepted as scientific knowledge, therefore, its legitimacy might be doubted. Thirdly, the name of the syndrome ignores the occurrence of male victims of domestic violence, and they might not receive the same treatment as women in the same situation.
References
Gosselin, D. (2018). Family and intimate partner violence: Heavy hands (6th ed.). United Kingdom: Pearson.
Shrestha, D., & Bhandari, N. (2018). Battered women syndrome: Need for judicial objectivity. The Kathmandu School of Law Review, 6, 149.
Zepinic, V. (2021). Battered women syndrome: A headache for medicine and law. Psychology, 12(6), 843-871.
The assassination debate has for a long time being subjected to public deliberations, especially in elucidating its legality as a tool of statecraft. Despite the various viewpoints arising from the debate, it is evidently clear that assassination has, and continues to be used by governments to eliminate public figures and dissidents perceived to sponsor or engage in horrendous and subversive actions (Asa & Amosy, 2005). Assassination cuts across societies, and is one of the oldest tools used by regimes in power politics.
Indeed, the history of targeted killing dates back at least as far as recorded history, and evidence demonstrates that it was used against popular public figures, including Julius Caesar, J.F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, among others (Vernon, 2004; Belfield, 2005). The upsurge of terrorism in the 21st century have served to invigorate the assassination debate, especially after the admittance by U.S. president George W. Bush that some perceived enemies of the American people were too evil to live following the 9/11 terrorist attack (Kaufman, n.d.). It is the purpose of this paper to support a policy that employs assassination as a tool of U.S. statecraft.
This paper intends to support the policy of assassination by evaluating the moral, legal, political and practical dimensions of assassination. Specifically, the moral dimensions will espouse various perspectives, including the immunity theory, self-defense theory, consequentialist theories, and deontological theories to support the use of assassination. On the legal front, the Executive Order 12,333 in addition to specific aspects of International Law, Geneva Conventions, U.N. Charter, and Declaration of Independence will be used to support the thesis statement.
These aspects include the use of lethal force, specific targeting of individuals and the pursuit of happiness. The immunity theory and consequentialist approach will be revisited to espouse the political dimensions of assassination. Also, the punishment argument and the proportionality doctrine of International Law will be discussed to demonstrate why public figures and political leaders who pose a serious threat to U.S. national security should be targeted for killing. Lastly, the paper will focus on the practical dimensions of assassination, which will include eradication of skilled terrorists, disruption of enemys infrastructure and command structure, and demoralization.
Scholars have offered different definitions of assassination to fit diverse contexts. At the most basic level, however, assassination can be defined as the targeted killing or elimination of a public figure, usually for ideological, political, public personal recognition, or religious reasons (Carlisle, 2007). This paper will evaluate assassination within the context of government-sponsored killing of public figures, opponents, and highly ranked enemy combatants.
According to Soderblom (2004) and Belfield (2005), assertions of the U.S. participation in assassination conspiracies against officials or militants in Iraq, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, Vietnam, and Afghanistan are vivid examples quoted regularly to make obvious the fact that the employment of political assassination is still in fashion.
Indeed, the administration of President Bush is on record for announcing that it had carried out successful assassinations on enemy targets in foreign countries (Kaufman, n.d.), an assertion that was not well received by anti-assassination lobbyists who claimed that the government was acting in direct contravention of Executive Order 12,333, which states that &no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination (Kershner, 2004, p. 44). Although the directive remains effective to date, the discussion below reveals compelling evidence as to why a policy of using assassination should be adopted as a tool of U.S. statecraft.
The Moral Dimensions of Assassination
Anti-assassination lobbyists have for a very long time argued that it is morally wrong to plan or arrange a scenario whereby the life of another person is willfully terminated for whatever reasons. The more liberal anti-assassination lobbyists have taken a stand that whereas it may seem proper to kill or disable an enemy combatant, the methods employed end up terminating the lives of innocent non-combatants. While the second argument is largely based on immunity theory on combatants and non-combatants (Kershner, 2004), the dynamics of the 21st century warfare has greatly blurred the proper distinction between the two.
For instance, we have heard cases of sitting civilian presidents who allow terrorist organizations to operate from their territories to cause deaths to citizens of another regime as was the case with the Taliban terrorist organization in Afghanistan. In such a case, the sitting civilian presidents can be summed up as combatants since &they are both causal and logical agents of an unjust [terrorist] campaign (Kershner, 2004, p. 45). Killing or disabling them is therefore morally right according to the immunity approach.
Based on the self-defense theory, a sitting government has exclusive moral right and duty to defend its own citizens against internal or external threats. In equal measure, dissidents and other public figures that pose threats to the welfare of others first and foremost forfeit the moral rights that offer them protection against adverse actions (Kershner, 2004).
For example, in spite of the fact that terrorist organizations have no moral right to kill innocent citizens as it happened in the 9/11 bombings on the World Trade Center, they are less interested in constraining the casualties of war (Caulemans, 2009). Indeed, a terrorist organizations main goal is to cause fatalities to as many citizens as possible. As such, government agents involved in the planning, tracking and killing such dissidents have a moral right to do so under the self-defense theory.
The consequentialist theories of morality generally holds the view that moral agents should choose the actions that occasions the best consequence or outcome and, as such, consequences or outcomes of actions must be the only valid basis for any judgment that may be passed about such actions (Asa & Amosy, 2005). In equal measure, various deontological theories of morality such as utilitarianism hold the view that individuals should engage in actions that brings the highest possible good to many people. As such, it can be argued that a policy of using assassination to target people bent on causing harm to the greater good (peace of citizens) is tenable. Whats more, such a policy &would likely bring about the best consequences since it would help to prevent genocide, unjust military aggression, and other horrendous state actions (Kershner, 2004, p. 45-46).
The above discussion aptly demonstrates that assassination targeting individuals whose only desire is to cause harm to innocent people as is the case with terrorists is morally right. However, the U.S. needs to employ a moral-based combatant/non-combatant approach that would allow it to operate discriminately within countries that abet, aid, or support heinous subversive activities and eliminate individuals who target its citizens, ¬ for what they have done, or for what they are doing, but simply because they happen to be citizens of that particular [country] (Caulemans, 2009, p. 106). Such dissidents cannot find shelter in any moral law
The Legal Dimensions of Assassination
Anti-assassination groups largely rely on human rights law and some aspects of international law to argue their case that assassination has no legal basis (Soderblom, 2004). While this may be so, there exist numerous aspects within the laws that give assassination a legal backing. It is indeed true that the employment of targeted killing as a foreign policy tool directly contravenes the very logic of endorsing the Executive Order 12,333, already described in this paper. However, times have changed since the enactment of the order by President Ford in 1976, and it is only plausible to come up with other ways of ensuring that individuals bent on killing American citizens using modern-day asymmetric attack tactics such as terrorism or guerrilla warfare do not have their way.
Even though the U.N. charter still maintains a general ban on the employment of force, perceptions & of proportionality and mitigating civilian casualties now influence the legality of assassination (Soderblom, 2004). For instance, it is prudent to argue that a military-led assassination on Osama bin Laden could have prevented masses of civilian casualties that still continue to date, in addition to saving a lot of financial resources.
The author argues that the employment of lethal force against an individual or country perceived as posing a threat to the interests of another country is documented as legal in international law. Likewise, the specific targeting of an individual or groups of individuals is not prohibited in the U.N. Charter or in any other noteworthy decree governing symmetrical warfare such as the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions. As such, it is only prudent to argue that assassination is not outlawed, but it must be employed within the right context of the current laws.
International law, for instance, allows the employment of lethal force against a target for purposes of enforcing the law as well as in self-defense (Soderblom, 2004). Terrorists and other subversive groups are bent on creating disturbances, fear, and breakdown of the social order, and will go to greater heights to kill or maim innocent people if they are allowed the chance. Such dissidents, according to Asa & Amosy (2005), not only break the law but their actions directly contravene the Declaration of Independence which guarantees people certain unalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness. As such, the U.S. is by all means merited by international law to use lethal force on these individuals for purposes of enforcing the law.
In equal measure, Article 51 of the U.N. charter legitimizes the use of lethal force for purposes of self-defense (Soderblom, 2004). This is precisely what the U.S. relied on in attacking and assassinating Taliban militants after the 2001 terrorist attack. It is imperative to note that the military operation was sanctioned by the U.N., thereby giving credibility to the fact that there exist situations in which plotting and carrying out assassinations seems to be the only option, legally, especially when certain people of influence aspire to become common enemies of mankind either through symmetrical or asymmetrical warfare (Soderblom, 2004).
Political Dimensions of Assassination
As already mentioned, assassination is one of the oldest tools employed by regimes in power politics. The political dimensions of assassination can be discussed using several platforms. Under the immunity theory, political leaders who have no part to play in symmetrical or asymmetrical warfare should never be targeted for assassination. However, it is a well known fact that most political leaders have critical roles to play in armed conflict involving one country against the other, and most have overriding control over the military (Kaufman, n.d.).
For instance, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi ordered the killing of hundreds of critics, and that both leaders have in one way or the other sponsored terrorist activities, including playing host to numerous terrorist networks (Carlisle, 2007). Such political leaders can be presumed as active combatants, and therefore can be targeted for assassination just as the soldiers or terrorists who have an active role to play in either symmetrical or asymmetrical warfare.
The punishment approach argues along the basic premise that there is every reason to punish political leaders for initiating the acts that occasioned the war or brought about terrorist activities (Kaufman, n.d.). For instance, the Taliban political leader played host to the Al-Qaeda group, which later masterminded the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the U.S.
As such, the U.S. has every right to punish the political leader, not because he actively participated in the planning and execution of the bombings, but because his acts of giving homage to the terrorist network offered the attackers fertile ground to attack American citizens, who must be protected under all costs as envisaged in the Constitution of the land (Carlisle, 2007). As such, it was justifiable for the U.S. to launch military attacks with the aim of not only eliminating Osama bin Laden and his followers, but also the political leaders of Taliban. However, the perceived relationship linking a political leader to a specific subversive or terror group must be objectively proved for this approach to gain credence (Kaufman, n.d.).
The consequentialist rationale for assassination insists that political leaders may become easy targets for assassination if killing them would not only help to save civilian casualties and financial resources, but would also uphold all the laws relating to armed conflict (Kaufman, n.d.). For example, if it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was enriching uranium for purposes of starting a nuclear warfare with Israel or any other nation, then it would appear more plausible to target him for elimination as an individual than permit his odious ambitions to ruin the lives of generations across the world. Again, the purpose or intent of such an action must be objectively proved, and the U.S. must never rely on hearsay to undertake such an operation.
According to Kaufman (n.d.), &the proportionality doctrine of international law supports a conclusion that it is wrong to allow the slaughter of 10,000 relatively innocent soldiers and civilians if the underlying aggression can be brought to an end by the elimination of one guilty offender (para 6). This assertion further demonstrates the fact that a political leader who is largely viewed as an unjust, imminent aggressor can be targeted for elimination instead of being left to put thousands of innocent lives in jeopardy. The Roman King Julius Caesar was targeted for elimination using this approach, and his killing brought a lot of prosperity to the ancient Romanians (Soderblom, 2004).
Practical Dimensions of Assassinations
There exist numerous practical reasons why targeted killings can be used to weaken the activities of individuals or groups largely perceived as posing a direct threat to the national security of the U.S. First, assassinations serve to eradicate skilled terrorists who are charged with the responsibility of making bombs that end up being used against innocent American citizens (McMahan, 2009). Terrorists are always drawn back when their bomb makers and recruiters are killed since it takes time to develop expertise.
Second, assassinations are known to disrupt the enemys infrastructure, command structure, and organization, and occasions immense anxiety and stress on other individuals or terrorists who must frequently move, change locations, and hide, thus completely decapitating their organizational might and flow of information. Assassinations on enemy targets such as terrorists also functions as a demoralizing agent since targeted individuals cannot freely move around to visit their families or friends without severe risk (McMahan, 2009).
Conclusion
The above discussion clearly demonstrates why a policy on using assassination as a tool of U.S. statecraft should be supported. The modern symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare is intrinsically different from traditional warfare as witnessed by the sophisticated technologies which terrorists and other operatives are using to hit enemy lines. As such, it is only imperative for the U.S. government to re-strategize and come up with legal frameworks that support the policy of targeted killing on individuals that work round the clock to destabilize the peace of this great nation.
A good starting point would be to amend the Executive Order 12,333 to allow U.S. intelligence community to undertake assassinations on figures that are known to be a threat to its national security (Asa & Amosy, 2005). Individuals such as Osama bin Laden must forever remain targeted for killing if the country is to maintain its stability. Others like the Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must know that there will be consequences for their actions. Letting such people off the hook will only serve to destabilize world peace.
Reference List
Asa, K., & Amosy, Y. (2005). Assassination and Preventive Killing. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 25(1), 41-47.
Belfield, R. (2005). The assassination business: A history of state-sponsored murder. New York, NY: Carroll & Graf Publishers.
Carlisle, R.P. (2007). One day in history: September 11, 2001. New York, NY: Harper.
Caulemans, C. (2009). Asymmetric warfare and morality: From moral asymmetry to amoral symmetry. In: T. Baarda & D.E.M. Verweij, The moral dimension of asymmetrical warfare: Counter-terrorism, democratic values and military values. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill.
One of the most debated arguments against the US led war against terrorism is the use of unmanned drones for carrying out attacks against terrorists and militants in countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
The common belief is that these attacks must be stopped at once as the severity of collateral damages is beyond acceptable level and these attacks are in clear violation of the international laws and infringement of the sovereignty of other countries.
The US led war against axes of evil or in other words against those regimes and countries, which according to the US, are harboring Al-Qaeda and other forms of terrorist networks has continued over the last 11 years. The US forces in their pursuit against the claimed terrorists and militant groups use unmanned drone to launch their attacks.
The US government claims drones to be effective way of carrying out operations against such groups. Despite of the criticism and questions raised both on the local and international forums against the validity of the use of drones to perform attacks on other countries soil, the US has continued its drone adventurism and the US Congress continues to support these actions.
The use of drones is argued on two basic fronts one is related to the violation of human rights and second is related to the violation of international laws. Drones are not without civilian casualties and many have been injured severely for life.
Their use is in no way supportive of the cause of fight against terrorism; instead it is giving birth to a new wave of terrorist and militants who view these attacks to be against their people and religious ideologies.
The Obama administration, which is in the office for the second time, has failed to pull out the US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and at the same time, it has shown reluctance to put a stop to drone attacks despite of the repeated protest by the governments of respective targeted countries. The legality of these drone attacks is quite weak and without doubt these some of these drone attacks can be considered as war crimes.
The United Nations (UN) has finally decided to set up investigation units to determine the legality of drone attacks by the US . But, it is also argued that such step by the UN is taken at the time when drones have already taken thousands of innocent lives.
The use of drones is in clear violation of basic human rights and they are threat to the humanity. It is clear that till now there is little precedent for the use of drones by the US in so called counter terrorism attacks and till the time the UN is able to establish some standards for their use, the sovereignty of other countries remains conditional.
To conclude, it will not be wrong to say that if these drones continue then there will definitely be other countries which would like to get hands on this technology and use it against others. Without any consensus on the legality of drones and monitoring of their targets it is impossible to argue in support of the standing of the international sovereign and humanity laws, which presently appear to be of no value to the US and its allies.
The rational creature is a very intriguing being true. Why do humans murder fellow animals without the slightest twitch of remorse? Of course, they dont call it murder: it sounds too heinous and very incriminating. Instead, they rationalize it with softer and more agreeable euphemisms such as slaughter and butcher. So we have slaughterhouses instead of murder-houses, and a butcher as opposed to a murderer. Very agreeable indeed!
What makes the difference when both cases presuppose termination of life? The application of double standards in describing the conscious termination of human life on the one hand and animal life on the other bares the subjectivity of mans rationalization to justify crimes against animality.
Consequently, when the need arises to make the termination of human life appear grievous, it acquires the term butcher, so that the judges human instincts are rattled when the prosecution accuses the defendant of mercilessly butchering his victim. Unwittingly, it is implied that to butcher, the fate that animals suffer, is the highest form of brutality. At the same time, it hints at the crude way in which animals are treated in the hands of butchers, such that to call it killing would be an understatement.
So much is the casualness with which man regards the life of animals, to the extent that some incidences of animal deaths caused by man have no relevant expression at all. Is it appropriate, for instance, to say that he killed the housefly? It sounds sort of exaggerated, because a houseflys life is too insignificant in the wider scheme of things that properly speaking, the term kill is overly misused. What term can we possibly give to the act of ending a houseflys life, such that it gets the dignity it deserves, if any, without causing any ambiguities? There is none. Accordingly then, a housefly can only be swathed, as in smashing it against a wall, for such is the description its dignity deserves.
But there seems to be a pattern of discrimination that elevates the respect accorded animals as one moves from lower to higher animals. That is why a giraffe is properly described as having been killed. A giraffes life makes some sense, huh? Nonetheless, it will never be accorded the distinct, lofty, and dignified term murder, which is applicable only where human life is involved. Regardless, even where human life is in question, another criterion emerges to distinguish important deaths from insignificant ones.
Thus, the death of a village madman has brushed aside with the casualness with which a swathed fly is dismissed. Nobody will go into the trouble of investigating the circumstances of a madmans death, as it would happen, say, in the event the local tycoon meets his death in a very untimely manner. But an even important death is that of a politician, in which case suspicions give birth to assassination. Only important people get assassinated, right? Thus, if the local lunatic dies by the same bullet that felled a politician, it will by lunacy to call it an assassination. But on the other hand, the dignity of a politician demands that the death be called an assassination.
And there I catch the culprit: rationality!
Rationality has over time separated man from other animals; and when it was done on that line, took upon the differentiation of mankind into sub-Sapien species. However, this paper focuses on the impact of rationality in justifying human brutality against animals, and concludes that the justification itself is unjustified.
Throughout the history of mankinds evolution, the progression towards an exhibition of advanced mental capabilities has been the hallmark of distinguishing man from other primates. From the Homo habilis to the Homo erectus and presently, Homo sapiens, mans mental faculties have developed significantly. During the evolutionary period when earlier beings like the Zinjanthropus and later on the Australopithecus moved a pace closer to civilization, a distinction started to emerge that gradually weakened the primate cord he shared with other animals, drifting him further asunder towards hominoid status. As Homo habilis, he could employ simple implements to kill and devour for food and as Homo erectus, gained an upright posture as we exhibit it today.
Nonetheless, it was the transition to Homo sapiens status, the thinking animal, which eventually made man human, and distinguished him clearly from apes and chimpanzees with whom he shared most habilis and Erectus features (they both use hands to grasp things and chimpanzees can walk upright). But the human capacity to reason things out, to engage the mind in intellectual deliberations, to make mental speculations, and draw intelligent conclusions is an endowment to which no other creature can make claim.
This unique nature of man has been used to justify his domination over and exploitation of other creatures for his benefit. In an article by John Coetzee, the fictitious character Elisabeth Costello challenges this justification on the mere basis of reason. Her argument against the violation of animal rights (right to life, freedom, etc) based on their lack of reasoning is framed on the historical injustices men perpetuated against fellow men, and on scientific experimentation on the mental capabilities of animals.
The annihilation of millions of Jews by Hitler in Germany portrays the cruelty of man that transcends all reason. They were tortured and slaughtered like animals neither because they were incapable of reason nor because their killers had a logical basis. The 1994 genocide in Rwanda is another testimony to human cruelty that has nothing to do with differences in reasoning abilities. For three years, the ruling elite worked on an ethnic cleansing campaign to redefine the population of Rwanda into Rwandans, meaning those who backed the president, and the accomplices of the enemy, meaning the Tutsi minority and Hutu opposed to him (Human Rights Watch, 2004).
During the campaign to sow ethnic hatred directed at the Tutsi, the government spread propaganda based upon memories of previous domination by the Tutsi, and the revolution that toppled their rule and exiled many in 1959. Because the victims had been killed because they had reason to oppose, it could be argued that the ability to reason could be used against victims of violence, instead of protecting them. Thus, animals and men are not threatened by lack or possession of it.
Man has suffered most in the hands of fellow men when his reasoning capacity was at its best. In 1947, reflecting on the course that mankind had taken since the Enlightenment era of the 18th century, Theodor Adorno concluded the enlightened man was a danger to himself. It was an era marked by turmoil and oppression: a time of wars, colonialism, and general international animosity that marked WW2 and its aftermath- the Versailles Treaty which pitied Germany against France. He observed that far from liberating men from fears and establishing their sovereignty, the fully enlightened world radiated disaster triumphant.
He lamented that the technology which characterized the era of enlightenment did not work by concepts and images, the fortunate insight , but refers to methods, exploitation of others work, and capital. What men seek to learn from nature are the enlightenment to dominate it and other men: it has extinguished any trace of its self-consciousness (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1997, 4). Mental superiority, therefore, is not good enough reason to violate animal rights, since men have done worse to other men with whom they share the reason.
Frank Kafka and Wolfang Kuhler studied the ability of animals to reason and learn. Their experiments, which involved making the chimps reason out how to get food into their den, demonstrated that animals, including man, develop their reasoning capacities when forced to do so by circumstances (Searle, 2003). Because of hunger, the chimp named Sultan learned how to stack empty crates one atop another to get a bunch of bananas hung overhead. It is the same with human beings, who have been forced to reason their way out of difficulties.
Immanuel Kant said that difficulties were the catalysts that provoked men to dare to think. A developing philosophy during the Enlightenment period, it calls for mans reasoning capacity as a tool to solve problems and free himself from intellectual, economic, and political dominance. During the Dark Ages, the Reformists dared to think, discerned the errors of Rome, and achieved spiritual freedom. Man would no longer bow down and pay homage to a mortal.
The slave man dared to think, and deciphered the greed, brutality, and cruelty of his master. He defied the status quo, pursued freedom and justice, and freedom was achieved. From the mines of Africa to the Americas, North and South, the colonized and the enslaved broke the chains of bondage&because the freedom fighters dared to think. We have to rely on ourselves: we become our own author&.our own authority, and we have to use and appeal to our capacity to reason and think (Kant, 2001 139). Similarly, Sultan, the chimp dared to think to get food when the need arose. Then the difference between human beings and animals is not limited to reason alone, for each one of them has the potential to reason about their respective needs.
The case of a real human being, Srinivasa Ramanujan, is another pointer to the undiscovered potential of animals to reason. The Indian captive had worked out mathematical formulae that his masters could not figure out, until much later. The fact that they could not figure out and describe his rationale in terms they could grasp made them assume that he couldnt reason at all. When they later discovered their inabilities to penetrate his ideas, they realized that Ramanujan was intellectually superior to they had thought initially. If they had not interacted with him, nobody would have ever known of his genius in arithmetic.
Likewise, we presume all animals to be irrational simply because we have never had a chance to learn about their reasoning patterns if they have any. Their reasoning, however irrational it may be, is only personal and beyond our speculations (Gert, 2005). It could be that their rationale is so complex that we cant figure it out, just as Ramanujans captors could not understand him. Similarly, the reasoning potential of the chimps would never have seen the light of day if they had not been given a chance to prove it. It was not what was good for them and theyre kindred, but a response to circumstances that demanded a humanistic behavior.
In any case, the questions that Sultan was asking himself: like why the man was behaving the way he was behaving by hanging the bananas instead of throwing them on the floor, is more complex than the practical stacking of crates to get the bunch. The nature of their existence, which is limited to simple survival skills, is satisfied by what their brains are capable of. Even in their irrational nature, they actually act towards an end to meet their needs (Aquinas and Pegis, 1997). Man, on the other hand, is pressured by a variety of wants and needs (animals dont have wants) which motivates him to reason accordingly.
The ideas of John Locke echo the same sentiments as those of Elisabeth Costello. Locke observes that all ideas are initiated by sensation or reflection. There must be a catalyst in the environment to sensitize men and animals to think (Fuller, Stecker, and Wright, 2000). This is exhibited by the response of men to problems and difficult situations, like the existence of oppression and exploitation which spark revolutionary ideologies. In this category, we find Karl Marx and Hegel with their communist ideology that inspired a revolution in Russia. Similarly, animals respond to situations, such as Sultan to satisfy hunger.
His other contention that the soul/mind starts to have ideas when it starts to perceive reflects Costellos suggestion that reasoning is preceded by some probing into the state of affairs and being aware of circumstances. This is demonstrated by Red Peter when he asks: Now that Im here, what is there for me to do&..if I do not subject my discourse to reason&.what is left to me, but gibber and emote and knock over my water glass, and generally make a monkey of myself (Coetzee, 2003, 31).
In conclusion, the marginalization and oppression of animals should not rest on our perceived differences of intellect. Men have time and again oppressed their kind. Their reasoning capacity is facilitated by the need to adapt to circumstances, and animals respond equally to survive. Similarly, animals have demonstrated the capacity to learn, and therefore they are not lacking in mental capabilities. Until we get the chance to figure it out, we will never fully understand the mental processes of animals, just as Ramanujans ability was hidden from his captors.
To maim and kill animals based on reason is to contradict reason itself.
References
Adorno T., Horkheimer M. (1997). Dialectic of Enlightenment Volume 15. New York: Verso.
Aquinas, T. S., Pegis, C. A. (1997). Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Man and the conduct of life. New York: Hackett Publishing.
Coetzee, J. (2003). Elizabeth Costello. New York: Viking.
Fuller, G., Stecker, R., Wright, J. (2000). John Locke, An essay concerning human understanding in focus. New York: Routledge.
Gert, B. (2005). Morality: its nature and justification. New York: Oxford University Press, US.
Human Rights Watch. (2004). Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. Web.
Kant, I. (2001). Lectures on ethics. London: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (2003). Rationality in action. New York: MIT Press.
The murder of Helen Betty Osborn has attracted much attention of journalists, police officers and writers. It should be noted that this crime could be significantly motivated by racism and sexism. More importantly, the failure to investigate this crime properly was attributed to many prejudices that governmental officials could held against Aboriginal people of Canada.
This paper is aimed at discussing the way in which this problem was explored in different sources such as the report of the Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission and the poem Helen Betty Osborne written by Marilyn Dumont.
Despite the fact that these sources differ dramatically in terms of style and form, they highlight the idea that the state can marginalize Aboriginal people in various ways. This is one of the main observations that can be made.
It should be noted that the report of the Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission consists of three volumes. The second volume is supposed to address various issues that were related to the murder of Helen Osborne and the actions that were taken by the police (The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission unpaged).
In particular, the authors focus on the reasons why the investigation of this case was so prolonged. Much attention is paid to the problem of institutional racism. According to the results of this study, many police officers suspected mostly Aboriginal students and disregarded other people that could be involved in the murder of this woman (The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission unpaged).
Furthermore, the authors argue that many witnesses could be excluded from the investigation only because they were of Aboriginal origin (The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission). These are some of the main challenges that were identified in this source, and they suggest that in many cases Aboriginal people could be discriminated on the basis of their race.
The authors of this report want to present an unbiased evaluation of the key events. Additionally, they do not try to make any unbiased claims about the behavior of police officers and governmental officials. They do not argue that Helen Osborn was murdered because of her race.
Nevertheless, they give a very critical evaluation of police officials who were responsible for the investigation of this murder. These are the main stylistic peculiarities of this report. This document can be a good overview of this case, and it is more suitable for people who want to know more about the main circumstances of this event.
In turn, Marilyn Dumonts poem also explores the tragedy of Helen Osborns death; however, she wants to discuss these problems in a literary form. She wants to speak about the collective experiences of many women who fallen victims of abuse.
Furthermore, the writer mentions such names as Donald Marshall, Richard Cardinal, or Anna Mae Aquash (Dumont unpaged). It should be taken into consideration that these are the people who became the victims of social injustice. In this way, the author shows that Helen Osborn was not the only victim of injustice (Dumont unpaged).
Additionally, in her poem, Marilyn Dumont wants to show that she was deeply touched by the death of Helen Osborn. This is why the first line of this literary work starts with the phrase, Betty, if I set out to write this poem about you it might turn out instead to be about me (Dumont unpaged).
This author also raises the problem or racism in Canadian society. In particular, she mentions that native women fail to reach the so-called standards of womanhood (Dumont unpaged). These are some of the problems that are of greatest importance to Marilyn Dumont.
Furthermore, this poem is aimed at highlighting some of the main stereotypes that people can have about Aboriginal people. For instance, many people spoke about the alleged promiscuity of Native Canadian women (Dumont unpaged). In this way, the author wants to explain why so many of these women could be victimized by the police because of racial stereotypes existing in the society.
Certainly, this poem differs dramatically from the report of the Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission. Marilyn Dumont does not want to sound objective and she wants to discuss her own impressions.
Nevertheless, her writing is extremely engaging and the poem raises a great number of thought-provoking questions about the relations between the state and Aboriginal community. It seems that her exploration of this problem is also important because Marilyn Dumont evokes compassion for people like Helen Osborn. This is one of the major achievements made by this writer.
Overall, this sources show that the death of Helen Osborn raises a great number of questions about society and the relations among various groups in this society.
The sources that have been discussed suggest that many Aboriginal women could be victimized only because of their gender and race. By looking at this case from different perspectives, one can better understand various issues that were related to the case of Helen Osborn. This is the main benefit of these readings.
According to the felony murder rule, when an offender in the process of committing a felony, either accidentally or intentionally, kills a victim, the judge could charge him or her with homicide. The critical purpose of this rule is to avert criminals from being violent when they commit felonies. The felony murder rule should make felons more conscious of the adverse effects of crimes that they engage in and reduce the number of felonies. For example, the sentence for bank robbery is less severe than the sentence for homicide. However, a criminal might unintentionally kill a cashier or visitor of this bank and be charged with murder afterward. It is expected that the risks of being accused of murder are too high for some people, and this will encourage them not to commit a crime at all.
The felony murder rule applies only to inherently dangerous felonies. Some scholars, such as Seibold (2017), treat the limitation of the felony murder rule to the inherently dangerous felonies as its significant downside. The reason for the limitation is that these crimes are so dangerous that the rule attempts to deter criminals from initiating them. Even if the death of a victim was caused not by an offender himself, he still might be accused of the death that occurred in the process of committing a crime. Therefore, as it has been already noted, the rule makes individuals who plan to commit an inherently dangerous felony of its potentially lethal consequences and the punishment for these consequences.
In some cases, the application of this rule is unfair. For instance, two unarmed adolescents with no criminal records enter a house that they thought is abandoned. However, even though the house looks deserted, it is not, and its owner believes that these teenagers are armed and want to rob him. The owner shoots the boys, kills one of them, and injures another. The owner will not be charged with the murder because he defended his property and his life. However, according to the felony murder rule, the injured robber will be accused of his friends death because he died in the process of committing an inherently dangerous felony.
References
Seibold, J. H. (2017). The Felony-Murder Rule: In Search of a Viable Doctrine. The Catholic Lawyer, 23(2), 133-162.
In many states, the crime of first-degree murder is conceptually defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or lying in wait for the victim (Georges, Weiner, & Keller, 2013, p. 157).
First-degree murder would require either an intent to kill or intent to cause serious injury together with an awareness of a serious risk causing death (Mitchell, 2007, p. 318).
Elements of First-Degree Murder
Intent specific intention of perpetrator is to end the life of a human being or to cause serious injury.
Deliberation/Premeditation Contemplating or planning to take away the life of another person ; forming conscious intent to kill and then acting on the intent; deliberation and/or premeditation must occur before the act of murder, not at the same time (Mitchell, 2007).
Unlawful The act itself is against the law.
Malice Aforethought Means the same thing as acting with a premeditated intent to kill a human being, and normally includes an evil disposition or purpose and an indifference to human life (Mitchell, 2007, p 320).
While some states treat the element of malice in the same manner as premeditated intent, others require a demonstration of malice distinct from the willfulness, deliberation and premeditation usually essential for first-degree murder (Georges et al., 2013).
Act reus (guilty act) in first-degree murder entails the physical killing of another human being by the perpetrator, while the Mens rea (guilty mind) encompasses the development of intent, deliberation, premeditation, and malice aforethought (Georges et al., 2013).
Criminal Stature Murder is a felony of the first degree [but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death, as provided in Section 210.6 (Denno, 2009, p. 41).
Classification of Crime
According to Mitchell (2007), first-degree murder can be classified as a crime against person due to the following reasons:
It is committed against an individual and targets the particular individual as opposed to targeting property or public order.
It is committed with the intent of ending the life of an individual or causing serious injury to the individual.
The crime committed results in the proximate death of a person.
Factual Scenario
Patrick comes at home only to meet his wife in bed with his best friend Nicolas. The two friends resolve the issue and Patrick pretends to have forgiven his friend Nicolas . However, after several weeks, Patrick lies in wait for Nicolas at an estate car park and shoots him on the chest, killing him instantly.
This scenario, though fictional, demonstrates a crime of first-degree murder as Patrick developed a deliberate intent to end the life of his friend Nicholas upon finding him in bed with his wife.
Penalties
There should be different penalties for different categories of crime (e.g., crimes against property, people, or public order) as some crimes are more serious and carry far more ramifications than others. As such, the penalty administered for a particular crime should be commensurate with the seriousness and the consequences of the crime itself (Georges et al., 2013).
Crimes are different, hence the need to apply different penalties in the administration of justice. For example, first-degree murder is a very serious crime that cannot be equated with a crime involving the destruction of property as murder takes away a life of another human being and hence the punishment should be equally harsh to serve the objectives of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation.
Additionally, some crimes such as first-degree murder are intrinsically wrong as they violate the right to life and are oppressive, hence they need to administer harsher penalties on such crimes (Georges et al., 2013).
Lastly, some crimes such as first-degree murder result in higher costs to society (e.g., escalation of violence, spreading fear and grief, limiting investment opportunities) than is usually the case with crimes such as burglary. As such, perpetrators of such crimes should receive harsher penalties (Mitchell, 2007).
Credibility of Sources
The credibility of reviewed sources was evaluated by
looking at the qualifications of authors and their institutional affiliations,
looking at the currency of the articles, and
assessing the relevancy of the topics covered. .
References
Denno, D.W. (2009). Selected model penal code provisions. Web.
Georges, L.C., Weiner, R.F., & Keller, S.R. (2013). The angry juror: Sentencing decisions in first degree murder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 156-166.
Mitchell, B. (2007). Distinguishing between murder and manslaughter in practice. Journal of Criminal Law, 71(4), 318-341.
First degree murder is the most severe form of homicide. It is commonly defined as the intentional killing of another person by someone who acted willfully, deliberately, and with planning. It is a crime against the persons as obviously the action or actus reus causes direct harm against another individual and results in death. The mens rea around first-degree murder is complex as it depends on the statute of the state. Some require premeditation, while others such as New York only uses first-degree murder in those rare circumstances of killing of police officer or others on the list. Other states use both approaches. There are also different considerations to premeditated as this can range from simple deliberation to intentional prior calculation and design.
Factual Scenario
The case of State v. Forrest is a true case of events. A very sick man is admitted to the hospital in 1985, deemed to be untreatable, so he is made comfortable. His son arrives to visit the father, getting into argument with nurse, arguing that his father is dying while the nurse suggests he could hold on for a while longer. After being left alone, and seeing his father struggling to cough, the son (defendant) takes out a small handgun and shoots his father in the temple 4 times. He later justifies this as mercy, not wanting the father to struggle anymore. At which point he then surrenders and cooperates with law enforcement (Lippman, 2018).
Multiculturalism and Diversity
In the factual case presented, multiculturalism does not play a strong role. Everyone involved as white, middle class. Jury in the 1980s small town in N.C. were likely the same as well. The media, and potentially jurors, were at times sympathetic to the defendant. While the state obviously prosecuted as first-degree murder since intent does not matter outside of the intent to kill in such premeditated cases, the defendant was viewed by many as a troubled but loving son. In terms of multiculturalism, I would argue that if the same situation occurred at the same time and location, but the family was African American, it would have been perceived much differently due to the existing societal prejudice at the time. It would have been described as a troubled family and gun violence. The defendant may have had faced other charges for using a gun in the hospital, and potentially a life sentence may not have been enough for the jury, as capital punishment was readily used at the time.
Judges and Sentencing
I support that judges should generally be given discretion however it should be provided with some limitations. First, all serious crimes (particularly against the person) should have minimum sentencing based on state law. Second, judges should be monitored for disparity outcomes, meaning sentencing outcomes associated with nonlegal factors such as race, gender, or other characteristics should not occur. Otherwise, discretion is an incredibly valuable tool in in the application of the law towards the concept of justice. Justice is more than punishment for breaking the crime, it is ensuring that appropriate level of punishment is provided given the circumstances surrounding the events and individual being charged. Discretion is helpful in sentencing decisions with justice in accordance to societys moral principles and highest constitutional values of life and liberty are applied (Ostrom et al., 2004).
References
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). First degree murder. Cornell Law School.
Lippman, M. (2018). Contemporary criminal law (5th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.
A medical examiner must identify the victim of murder by conducting a postmortem examination (Crime Museum, 2016). To this end, all physical evidence that can be retrieved should be examined. Numerous methods are being used for identification purposes, but the most important are forensic odontology and anthropology. The best possible outcome of a postmortem examination is either confirmation or identification of a murder victim supported by firm evidence (Crime Museum, 2016).
This task can be either simple or difficult and laborious. Their family members recognize the majority of the deceased individuals. In such cases, medical examiners are presented with taking facial photos and making two sets of fingerprints (Crime Museum, 2016). However, various factors, such as massive head trauma, decapitation, mutilation, or prolonged submersion in water, could significantly complicate the process of identifying the deceased individual (Claridge, 2015).
It can stop the progress of crime investigation and impede the family of the deceased from settling insurance claims (Crime Museum, 2016). Therefore, it is a medical examiners responsibility to use all their knowledge and skills for the purpose of positive identification of the murder victim (Claridge, 2015).
Fingerprints
One of the essential instruments for determining the victims identity is the examination of palm and fingerprints. It is also the most reliable method for identification purposes that has been adopted at the beginning of the twentieth century by the New York City Civil Service Commission (Crime Museum, 2016). The medical examiner searches an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) for possible matches (Fisher, 2012).
Their reports usually contain one of three results: the person made the print, the person did not make the print; it was impossible to evaluate the print (Fisher, 2012). Patterns of skin on the soles of the feet or palms are considered to have the value of evidentiary power that is equal to that of fingerprints (Fisher, 2012).
If the body has been substantially deformed due to the influences of external forces, it is necessary to make a comparison of existing prints with the latest ones that could be found in the home of the deceased or at their work (Fisher, 2012). However, even in cases when the subject is significantly decomposed, unconventional methods for taking fingerprints could be utilized. But only specialists with many years of fingerprint classification experience can successfully employ those techniques. In the majority of cases, those methods might result in a positive identification (Fisher, 2012).
Dental Records
Dental records could also be used for the identification of a murder victim. They rely on antemortem records similar to palm and fingerprints (Crime Museum, 2016). The most effective technique for identification with the use of dental records is antemortem radiography (Crime Museum, 2016). However, if such type of evidence is not available, the dental examination can be utilized for obtaining a positive identification.
During the process of teeth examination, the presence of an experienced dentist might be very useful. For example, a trained specialist could help to assess root fillings (Crime Museum, 2016). If there is a possibility to establish the dentists identity who has treated the subject, it is necessary to ask them for help. They might confirm the victims identity and provide x-ray photographs that could be compared to those made by the medical examiner (Crime Museum, 2016).
The data obtained from the dental examination is especially valuable in cases where the body is decomposed or substantially damaged. It could help to establish a victims age, unhealthy habits, or even occupation. While conducting the dental examination, forensic odontologist looks for characteristics such as missing teeth, disease marks, fractured or chipped teeth, groves on teeth, and worn surfaces, among others (Fisher, 2012). Even one tooth retrieved from the crime scene could prove highly valuable for identification purposes (Fisher, 2012).
Determination of Gender
The bones found at the crime scene could be used for the determination of gender. The size and shape of a pelvis and especially preauricular notch, could help to unequivocally establish the gender of the subject. The walls of male craniums are usually thinner than those of females. The frontal nose angle and curve of the eyebrows are different for two sexes; therefore, they could also help in the process of a postmortem examination (Fisher, 2012).
The Head of the joint of the upper arm is normally larger in male skeletons than in female ones. The sizes of breastbones, thighbones, and shinbones could also serve as reliable indicators of the victims gender (Fisher, 2012). The female skeleton without pelvis has a lighter construction than a male one (Fisher, 2012). The childs teeth might be used to determine their gender if other indicators are missing.
DNA
The use of DNA is the most reliable method to identify the victim of murder by conducting a postmortem examination. The forensic examiner has to prepare samples of skin, hair, or bone marrow and compare them with existing antemortem records or samples (Crime Museum, 2016). Therefore, if a body has significantly decomposed, and only bones are left, DNA can be used for positive identification (Crime Museum, 2016).