Category: Murder

Inroduction

Terrorism remains one of the greatest challenges many societies and nations continue to face today. Different governments have been keen to adopt and implement appropriate measures to deal with this issue. This paper gives a detailed analysis of the efforts the United States and its allies undertook in Afghanistan and Iraq and the predicaments of fighting insurgent forces.

Generation Kill

The studied case study explains how the fight against terrorism changed significantly after the infamous 9/11 attacks. After this occurrence, American military leaders realized that the objective of dismantling Al Qaeda was more complex than they had initially thought. Such an effort required a continuous learning and coordinated approach. The outstanding aim was to have a clear knowledge of this terrorist group and what it wanted.

Consequently, the need to apply adequate human resources, modern technologies, effective communication networks, and teamwork became a reality (Feloni, 2019). This was a major shift from the traditional use of direct military attacks and the application of the Find, Fix, Finish, Exploit, and Analyze (F3EA) strategy (Generation kill, 2013). The US army drew its strength from different factors, including technological advancement, human efforts, social support, and coordination. This means that the butcher and bolt tactic was no longer an option when fighting insurgencies.

The Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan utilized technical methods to achieve their objectives much faster. Some of the common ones included global positioning systems, unmanned aerial vehicles (predators), and night-vision equipment. Such tools were used tactically to improve operations, coordinate efforts, maximize striking efficiency, and deliver positive outcomes (Goepner, 2016).

Several goals were critical for all military teams and their respective leaders. For instance, global positioning technologies made it possible for soldiers and units to be at the right place without any challenge. Night-vision tools and goggles made it possible for the soldiers to operate effectively in the dark. Predators supported the acquisition of real-time images and hit key targets.

Many people and experts interpret the outcomes of the events at Afghanistan differently. Some believe that the use of new technologies and coordinated efforts made it possible for the involved forces to find and attack most of the terrorist groups in the region (Feloni, 2019). Others acknowledge that such efforts catalyzed additional problems, including the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Feloni, 2019). Nonetheless, these experiences can become evidence-based guidelines whenever embracing modern technologies to minimize civilian casualties, increase coordination, and learn more about the motivation behind terrorism (Feloni, 2019). The collected information can guide different nations to implement better foreign policies in accordance with the realism theory.

According to General Stanley McChrystal, the use of technological capabilities against terrorist groups is an effective approach for dealing with this problem and delivering positive results. Unfortunately, the adoption of innovative techniques is associated with various risks since any group or criminal can have access to them. For example, such terrorists can use these technologies to commit heinous acts and claim the lives of many citizens (Goepner, 2016). Another concern is that they are expensive and many nations might be unable to acquire or utilize them efficiently.

Conclusion

The above discussion has described how the fight against global terrorism changed after 9/11. The adoption of technological methods transformed the way armies identified enemies and attacked them. Despite the recorded gains, the acquired experiences became critical lessons regarding the potential risks of using innovations against terrorism.

References

Feloni, R. (2019). Retired 4-star Gen. Stanley McChrystal explains how the realization the US was losing the Iraq War in 2004 led to the transformation of special operations. Pulse. Web.

Generation kill: A conversation with Stanley McChrystal. (2013). Foreign Affairs. Web.

Goepner, E. W. (2016). Measuring the effectiveness of Americas war on terror. Parameters, 46(1), 107-120.

Introduction

Terrorism is one of the major threats to the peace and well-being of individuals in the modern world. Radical military groups and organizations employ severe methods aimed at killing civilians to spread havoc and fear among people and attract attention to a particular issue. The terrorist act of September 11, 2001, organized by Osama bin Laden became a great tragedy that resulted in the war against terrorism proclaimed by the USA. The leader of al-Qaeda became the target number one for the U.S. military and justice systems. However, it is critical to emphasize the necessity of following existing domestic and international laws while struggling against terrorism; otherwise, governments will become similar to terrorist groups that disregard existing regulations. Thus, President Obama did not have the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and execute the plan, and it became a rude violation of international laws.

Background

Critical analysis of the events preceding this military operation will help to understand the context better. Bin Laden was one of the major theorists and initiators of the September 11 attacks. As a leader of al-Qaeda, he was responsible for organizing the terrorist act and its outcomes. As a result of this attack, 3,000 people died in the USA (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Moreover, the War on Terror was initiated to respond to the growing terrorist threat (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Bin Laden became the subject of an international search, and the USA devoted substantial resources to finding him (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). In such a way, the operation became a result of continuous attempts to punish a number one terrorist. For the USA, it was also a point of honor and a sign to others. For this reason, the operation was executed following Obamas order. However, the major problem was the targets location, as Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. It meant that the U.S. Army had to act on the territory of another state without its permission.

Domestic Laws

Thus, from the perspective of U.S. laws, the President had the legal authority to make this order. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Congress allowed the President of the state to use force against nations or organizations involved in terrorist acts (Savage, 2015). Furthermore, Obamas administration appealed to international law enabling states to use force regarding the laws of war (Savage, 2015). Regarding the war on terror proclaimed by the USA as a response to terrorist attacks, the use of military force on the territory of other states was justified. The operation was successful as Osama Bin Laden was killed. The President emphasized the fact that killing the terrorist was legal and did not contradict the existing laws.

International Laws

However, from an international perspective, President Obamas decision to send troops to another state violated one of the fundamental laws. The government of Pakistan was not asked for permission to use special action forces on its territories (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Moreover, the USA did not plan to do it, viewing this operation as an act of self-defense and a part of the war on terrorism (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). In such a way, the unauthorized use of military force on the lands of another country is a rude violation of the existing legal paradigm and cannot be justified by the domestic laws accepted by the USA as a response to the September 11 attacks. Moreover, the introduction of troops on the territory of another state can be viewed as the proclamation of war, meaning that the USA contributed to the growth of tension in international relations.

In such a way, Obamas decision to use troops on the territory of Pakistan created a legal precedent. The Presidents administration appealed to the domestic laws and the U.S senate resolution to use force when needed. However, this decision cannot be applied to international regulations or replaced (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Otherwise, there is a high risk of growing tension in international relations and the emergence of new disputable cases. The USA violated the existing regulations and invaded the territory of another state without any permission, which can also be viewed as a hostile act that demands a specific response (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Under these conditions, Obamas decision to execute the military operation disregarded international laws. As a result, Pakistan became a country invaded by troops and experienced reputational damage.

Conclusion

Altogether, it is possible to conclude that President Obama did not have the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan. It became a rude violation of existing international laws and norms. His administration appealed to the domestic regulations and authorities given to the President by the Senate. However, they are not relevant regarding global cooperation, as any state has the right to border integrity. The Invasion of U.S. troops on the territory of Pakistan became a precedent and demonstrated the weakness of existing regulatory agencies unable to ensure observation of existing international laws. Although the operation was successful and Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, the given goal was achieved by violating laws, which is unacceptable as it makes governments similar to terrorist groups.

References

Ambos, K., & Alkatout, J. (2012). Has justice been done? The legality of Bin Ladens killing under international law. Israel Law Review, 45(2), 341-366. Web.

Savage, C. (2015). How 4 federal lawyers paved the way to kill Osama bin Laden. The New York Times. Web.

The most serious and punishable crime someone can commit is first degree murder. The importance of first-degree murder is deciding whether someone deserves the death penalty, or life in prison for the crime that was committed. When a person chooses to commit murder, the deciding factors that make it first degree are if the person deliberately planned, premeditated and willingly acted out the killing of another person. Sometimes first-degree murder is argued to fit justified murder because the defendant can defend his or herself, first degree murder is the most serious homicide offense given that it is premeditated, deliberate, and willful when committing this crime. First degree murder has been on the rise since 2015 with the number of offenders shooting to 17,250 a percentage increase of 8.6 percent. Despite such a trend, first degree murder remains a controversial topic with most people contesting on different elements under which an act should be considered a criminal offense. As such, there is need to define pertinent issues within first degree murder context. This paper gives a clear definition of the concept of first degree murder, the scope of the problem, characteristics of criminal offenders, how rational choice theory relates to first degree murder, its application to criminal justice, and finally how different policies can be adopted following the rational choice theory to combat crime.

There are many different categories of homicide, but they are all charged as different levels of crimes. First degree murder is the most heinous, vicious act of homicide that a person can commit. In First Degree Murder—A Workable Definition, by Keith W. Blinn (1949-1950) explains the new Penal Code that was enforced in 1895 that divided first- and second-degree murder. First degree murder was punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for life (p. 731). Since the establishment of the Penal Code, America has since lived by it and uses it when handling terms of first-degree murder. Evidence is a major role when convicting a person for this crime. Without it, there is no way of proving that someone deliberately made a plan to kill someone before they acted it out. In our textbook, Criminology (fourth), Frank Schmalleger (2017) describes that first-degree murder involves malice aforethought which means that someone is waiting for their victim. The simple legal requirements needed to prosecute first-degree murder are the formation of the intent to kill and acting out the killing itself (p. 196). There is no significant number of requirements for someone to be convicted of first-degree murder. If it is planned in any way, willingly acted upon, and there is enough evidence the person will be convicted of it.

In many resources, first-degree murder is categorized under murder. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the estimated number of murders in 2016 was 17,250. It increased from 2015 by 8.6 percent. There were also 5.3 murders per 100,000 people in 2016. It increased by 7.9 percent from 2015 estimates. In 2016, there were 1,216 female and 8,938 male offenders who were 18 and over that committed murders. Under 18 years of age there were 55 female and 681 male offenders who committed murder. There was a combined total from male, female, and unknown of 16,964 murders committed in 2016 (Expanded Homicide Data Table 2). There were no arrest or clearance data reported for murders in 2016.

Using the data provided above men are more likely to commit first-degree murder, but there are a significant number of women who commit it as well. According to the FBI’s UCR Table 6, Terre Haute, IN had 4 murders and 157 violent crimes committed during the year of 2016 (Table 6). According to Blinn (1949-1950), most murders are committed in the heat of passion, which some say it could be premeditated, but not deliberate (p. 733). There are different characteristics the offender will consider when planning to commit a crime. Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer describes many characteristics of a killer in his journal, Not the Crime but the Cover-Up: A Deterrence-Based Rationale for the Premeditation-Deliberation Formula. These include; physical or psychological harmed victims, mercy killers, character respondents to extra ordinary situations, and mental ill victims, among others (p. 895; 896). Mannheimer (2011) describes how if the killer premeditates and deliberates on the act that they are not only more culpable, but also more dangerous than a killer who does not (p. 901). A person who plans and constantly thinks about committing this crime is more dangerous because they spend all of their time thinking and planning, which builds their anticipation of the crime and which allows them to release their pent-up rage when acting out the crime.

Following the offenders and victims’ characteristics discussed, the rational choice theory matches justification of first-degree murder incidences prevalent in the contemporary societies today. This theory was developed by Cornish and Clarke to help think through situational crime issues and bases on the utilitarian belief that humans are reasonable beings who measure the means and the ends of their actions. This theory borrows much from economic theories of choice behavior which reinforces the costs and benefits as important elements determining individual’s decision. Cornish and Clarke hypothesize that before indulging in crime, the offenders’ asses the likely consequences of their actions (Cornish & Clarke, 1968). The intention behind this theory is to provide a justification for situational crime prevention (Clarke 2014). As such, Cornish and Clarke argue that offenders’ rationality is bound within limitations in information processing ability, situational context, and emotions. In this regards, negative moods may lead to impulsive and risky decision making. This explains Blinn’s findings that most murders are committed in the heart of passion. Similarly, the physical and psychological wellness of an individual may push one into committing first degree murder. Moreover, illness is closely linked to reasons for indulging with murder. Further, responding to situations such as killing out of love to reduce suffering of a sick person (euthanasia), and protecting self from harm when attacked justify reasons for murder (Becker, 1968).

The rational choice theory can be applied in criminal justice system by reinforcing the motives behind the offender’s actions, methods used in murder, and the circumstances under which an offense was conducted (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). The theory is also used broadly to model the decision making process in court systems to understand behaviors of an individual in terms of actions that influence choices of indulging in crime.

The rational choice theory holds that crime is a product of criminal opportunity. As such, policies for crime management would include; decreasing the suitability of targets, increasing the number of guardians, and reducing the offender population. The rational choice theory assumes that the criminal justice system has the ability to control crime through aggressive law enforcement techniques and use of severe punishment to deter offenders. However, the major weakness in this theory is the assumption that criminals think about the consequences before involving themselves with crime. Consequently, a criminal can be deterred from committing crime if chances of apprehension are high, justice is swift, and the punishment is severe. Therefore, an inverse relationship should exist between punishment and crime. The sanctions for offense if heightened will discourage the offender from engaging in criminal behavior. Practically, crime rates are influenced and controlled by the threat and imminence of criminal punishment. Commonly, if punished more severely, offenders’ being rationally beings would choose not to offend since the offence is not worthy the punishment. However this applies to calculated and planned crimes. Moreover, increasing police patrol would significantly decrease instances of crime. Further, reducing opportunities for offenders to commit crime would help reduce crime rate. This works well in situational crimes where specific targets are safeguarded against criminals. Guarding targets, controlling means of crime committing, and monitoring offenders would yield a positive result in combating crime (Siegel and McCormick, 2006: 135). Techniques such as closed circuit television and public surveillance however have been criticized since they only move crimes to other locations. To solve situational crimes hence starts with addressing the root cause of crime such as poverty, welfare and housing, harm reduction, and health among other strategies.

In a nutshell, while many crimes are bad first-degree murder is undoubtedly the worst. A person who deliberately plans to kill someone should receive the worst punishment the justice system has to offer, which is the death penalty or life in prison. There are many statistics and articles that prove premeditative, deliberate, and willingly killing is classified as first-degree murder and there are fine lines that will convict a person of this crime. Statistics show that there has been an increasing trend on incidences of first degree murder. This problem confirms to the rational choice theory that assumes humans are reasonable beings who measure the means and the ends of their actions. This theory can be applied in judging motives and nature of crimes by the offenders during criminal court hearings to reinforce the motives and situations that triggered the criminal action. Finally, strategies such as decreasing the suitability of targets, increasing the number of guardians, and reducing the offender population have been noted as effective means of combating crime. These strategies can be reinforced through passing aggressive laws and use of severe punishment to deter offenders.

Reference Page

1. Becker, Gary (1968). ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’. The Journal of Political Economy (76): 169–217. doi:10.1086/259394
2. Blinn, K. W. (1950). First Degree Murder. A Workable Definition. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1949-1951), 40(6), 729–735.
3. Clarke, R. V. (2014). Affect and the reasoning criminal: Past and future. In J. L. Van Gelder, H. Elffers, D. Reynald, & D. Nagin (Eds.), Affect and cognition in criminal decision-making (pp. 20–41). London, England: Routledge
4. Cornish, Derek; Clarke, Ronald V., eds. (1986). ‘Introduction’. The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-96272-7.
5. Cornish, D.; Clarke, R. (1987). ‘Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory’. Criminology. 25 (4): 933–947.
6. Schmalleger, F. (2017). Criminology (fourth). Boston: Pearson Education.
7. Siegal, L and C. McCormick. (2006). Criminology in Canada: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies (3rd ed.). Toronto: Thompson, Nelson.
8. Zydney Mannheimer, M. J. (2011). Not the Crime but the Cover-Up: A Deterrence-Based Rationale for the Premeditation-Deliberation Formula. Indiana Law Journal, 86(3). Retrieved from www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol86/iss3/4
9. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook: UCR. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Expanded Homicide Data Table 2. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-2.xls
10. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook: UCR. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Table 6. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s. 2016/tables/table-6/table-6.xls/view

To begin with my reasoning, I would like to admit that any of the sides, either justification or accusation of the women’s decision to hide the evidence, is right or wrong. This decision can be both justified and not justified. Arguments are enough to prove both sides. However, for the goal of this paper, there is a necessity to take a certain position and explain it. I will not venture to affirm that my position is unambiguously right but I can suggest enough argumentation to defend it and prove that even murder can be sometimes justified. I take a utilitarian position which puts that interests of majority higher than interests of a certain individual. Utilitarianism justifies actions that bring benefit to a large population even if interests of a single individual are violated. In this context, I will prove that women’s concealment of the evidence is a sign of hope for the better future. Thus, I take a position that justifies women’s decision to hide what they believe to be incriminating evidence. ‘Trifles’ is an example of feministic literature. From the perspective of feminism, freedom of thought, and action for every member of the society, including women, is the highest value. Considering, hypothetical murder of her husband as an act of emancipation, Mrs’s Hale and Mrs’s Peters’s concealment of some details can be justified.

History shows that the most significant breaking moments in the history of humanity occurred through huge sacrifices and much pain. It sounds sad and painful, but to receive something, one should first give something. Science can not explain the fact that the balanced exchange of energies in the universe creates order and organize chaos into something comprehensible. When we hear about the murder of a person, our human, compassionate nature aspires to justice and wants the offender to be punished for taking away human life. It is an undoubtedly, justified aspiration as human life seems to be the highest value. To a large degree, it is so until it does not come to a certain idea that aims to change traditional human life forever. It happens with the liberation of women and their emancipation in society. At a particular point in the history, feministic movements originated as an indicator of a new level of humans’ development, and the life of one male in this context is a sacrifice for a new reality of much more happy people than previously.

Both women experience a sense of guilt and duty to tell about their suspicion. However, they decide to protect Minnie from possible penalties. This act can be interpreted as immoral, at first sight. However, after careful consideration, their decision is an act of respect to female’s collective consciousness as free individualities of this society. They did not conceal the truth to protect the neibour, but they protected much more than just a woman. They defended the idea and their future. Their concealment demonstrates the necessity to address female needs as members of society. In this context, ‘Trifles’ is a sophisticated hint to this necessity.

Emotions tell us that human life is too precious to equal it to the value of a certain idea. We are brought up with the in-depth knowledge that God gives life, and only God has the right to take it away. However, when the cases of murder are considered, there are often many tiny details that lead to the act of murder itself. They often have an accumulative effect and represent the result of psychological pressure. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters suspect that Minnie has probably killed her husband. However, they also suspect that Minnie herself is a victim of abuse. In this context, the case becomes much more complicated. Any science will venture to prove whether a murder is a just punishment for abuse. It is a matter of morality. Any science will venture to measure and accept a certain degree of abuse for which murder is a just punishment. It is also a matter of morality. With this evidence, Minnie is also a victim, as well as her husband. I will not venture to affirm whose victimization is more terrible. I accept a position of justification Minnie’s husband sacrifices for the sake of a more bright future for women and society in general.

In conclusion, it makes sense to say that the fact that the women keep from the sheriff what they believe to be incriminating evidence against Mrs. Wright can be morally justified. The main reason for this is the absence of an unambiguous measuring system to define the degree of severity of the abuse to be able to justify the murder. To claim unambiguously that human life is the highest value and, thus, nothing can justify the murder would be hypocrisy because history proves that human life had always been less valuable than globe scale ideas. In this context, Mr. Wright’s murder should be considered as a sacrifice for the future. Consequently, concealment of women’s suspicions should be considered as a contribution to a new and more promising reality.

When it comes to Serial Killers almost all of them admit that they started out by acting out their fantasies on small animals. They then moved to humans and later admitted that animal torture brought them a great source of pleasure. Because of this, both elementary and high school teachers are required to report the abuse of animals either in the classroom or when it is directly talked about. The American Psychiatric Association lists animal cruelty as one of the behaviors signaling conduct disorder. Clinical evidence indicates that often by the age of eight, animal cruelty is one of the symptoms usually seen at the earliest stages of conduct disorder. Conduct disorder is a range of antisocial behaviors displayed in childhood or adolescence. Most of the time the profiles of children who evolve in adult psychopaths have components from or had developed conduct disorder at a young age. There are many studies on the underlying risk factors for Psychopathy. These factors contain and focus on developmental, genetic, neurobiological, social, and environmental factors. It is very important to report these behaviors when they are detected because there is no effective treatment for Psychopathic Personalities in adulthood, however, children with a specific neurobiological profile or specific behavioral disturbances can be treated to an extent. Those who have an increased risk of developing a Psychopathic Personality in adult life, have better chances to respond in individualized interventions, depending on the character and willingness of the child. The parents can also play a huge role in the future shaping of their child by being educated in how to supervise their children, and overlook annoying behaviors, and encourage positive ones. They are influenced to avoid punishment due to the fact that it won’t help their child, but it strengthens undesirable behaviors. Instead, they say that the use of reward appears to have better behavioral results. Programs that aim to help and reform children from this disorder highly focus on therapeutic individual interventions. These programs help to reduce psychopaths in the adult population.

Given that most serial killers are from dysfunctional families, such pathological and abnormal behavior may be ignored. So with that being said, what is a serial killer? A serial killer has no true definition because it is such a broad spectrum. The closest definition to the term would be someone who commits at least three murders over more than a month period. Said person typically has a predictable behavioral pattern. Within this period there should be a “cooling off” time in between, allowing them to gather themselves. Most of the time they will have a sexual or psychological motive. There is something called the “prototype” serial killer. Within the prototype, there are multiple versions of serial killers. The prototype concept allows for a killer to be more or less of a so-called serial killer depending on how closely they resemble the prototypes. There are four types of serial killers. Hedonistic, power and control, visionary, and mission. Hedonistic serial killers, also known as the “lust” or “thrill” killers, have a strong connection between personal violence and sexual gratification. They receive pleasure from the experience by taking the time to torture the victim in many ways. These killers are the ones often portrayed in movies and are classified as psychopaths. Power and Control Serial killers complete sexual gratification from domination and humiliation from the victim. They live by their own rules and guidelines and are classified as sociopaths. Many famous killers fall under this category. Visionary killers are compelled by voices and visions that tell them to kill certain people, these killers are psychotic. And lastly, mission killers feel a need and duty to kill certain types of people or a “class” or people whether that be religious, racial, or prostitute.

Psychopathy is a mental disorder that is often seen in serial killers, and it is a disorder that will most of the time go undetected. It is where the patient lacks empathy and conscience. They have no regard for the feelings or needs of other individuals. They lack emotions such as guilt, fear, pain, and embarrassment. This allows them to act recklessly or aggressively, even when they are completely aware that their behavior is wrong. There was a study done in 2012 where they took classified psychopaths and “normal” people, who were used as controls, and put them through a series of tests that would provoke a signal of fear, pain, or nervousness. All of these traits can be shown through the rate of heartbeat, sweat gland activity, corrugator activity, and body language. Within this test, the subjects were given a painful electric stimulus. The results for the psychopathic subjects, compared to healthy controls, were immensely different, as they failed to give off any type of reaction. There was an absence of all conditioned responses. This test proved that their minds and bodies work chillingly differently. They don’t feel the same pain and emotions, and even their bodies don’t give off signs that they are in pain or uncomfortable. With this being said, this makes them highly unpredictable and very manipulative. Most of the time when a person has this mental disorder, it often goes undetected due to their abilities to manipulate, and superficially charm. Another strongly associated feature of psychopathy is something called blame externalization. This trait goes hand in hand with manipulation due to the extreme measures that it will go. They will often make people feel as though they are in the wrong, when in fact, it is the other way around. They are masters at the manipulation of other peoples’ feelings and emotions but they are unable to experience these emotions and feelings for themselves. They will spend a lot of time observing their surroundings and will take in information as to what society sees as acceptable and a model human being. They will then portray this act in their everyday life. Said person tends to be very likable and will most times come off as charming because of this.

Sociopathy, not to be confused with Psychopathy, is another mental disorder seen regularly in serial killers. Although often used interchangeably, the terms “sociopath” and “psychopath” have fairly different meanings. Someone who is characterized as a psychopath has no sense of right and wrong and is generally more manipulative, outgoing, and self-centered than someone who is characterized as a sociopath. Sociopathy is a disorder that correlates directly with antisocial behavioral patterns and attitudes, it is most closely related to Antisocial Personality Disorder. People with this disorder don’t understand others’ feelings and emotions. They’ll often break rules or make impulsive decisions without realizing the harm they had caused. Sociopaths can often lie, lack empathy, and have a weak conscience, which can lead them to be manipulative. They are also extremely volatile and are prone to having fits of rage and emotional outbursts. Unlike Psychopathy, classified sociopaths don’t really understand that what they are doing is wrong. With all of this being said, most cases of sociopathic individuals seem to be disturbed but they can actually show slight indications of trustworthiness, caring, as well as sincerity at times. All in all, the main way Sociopathy differs from Psychopathy is the slight ability to feel and the arrogance of how their actions affect them and how they have consequences. It is often easier to tell apart a sociopath from society rather than a psychopath who tends to fit in and be likable. Within the United States history, there have been approximately Serial killers to date. This number has been continuously growing as the years have passed.

Introducing a new factor that is not really known, biological reasoning could be the main reason behind someone becoming a serial killer. Even though it is reiterated throughout life and things like religion and punishment, why would someone still kill multiple times? This is because this is how they were born and wired into life. Using the use of genetic disorders, family history, neurology and other elements, it will be evaluated if the lesser-known biological reasoning is the most prominent reason.

Many serial killers did not have serial killer parents as such but what about the children of serial killers? Their genetics could be a reason why another killer was born. For example, the son of the “Rostov Ripper” Yuri Chikatilo, definitely turned out to be a criminal. The “Rostov Ripper” AKA Andrei Chikatilo murdered 52 women and children and even though his son did not do as bad, his son, in 2009, stabbed a man several times. Prior to this, he had been charged with fraud, extortion, rape, kidnapping and racketeering. Even after knowing his father and watching him get punished for this, it wasn’t a big enough deterrent and the crimes were still carried out.

Even though this next example is not necessarily a murderer, this person has talked about being scared that they would end up like their parents. The son of Fred & Rose West, Stephen West, has said that he was worried that he may continue his parents’ murdering life with him referring to be much like his father in nature. With him knowing it’s bad, he still thought there might be a chance for him to turn out like that.

A reason why genetics and parents may not be a cause of serial killing is that there are many examples where the children of infamous serial killers have grown up in a more behaved way. For example, the daughter of Ted Bundy, one of the worst known serial killers, Rose Bundy was conceived when Bundy was in prison. Even though there is not much on her, it was said by a Quora user that she is a good Christian and is living a happy life with her surname changed. The fact that not much is known and “Rose Bundy” has not been in the news, it is suggested that might be true. This, therefore, maybe down to her environment and her relationship with her father being non-existent. Since she had no contact with her father and had learnt that his behaviour was the cruellest, she stayed away from that life and all bad. Despite Bundy being said to be one of America’s worse serial killers, his daughter has managed to stay away from that lifestyle.

The son of Gary Ridgway, Matthew, had a good relationship with his father with plenty of contacts. He mentioned that his father was a normal dad (a ‘soccer dad). As his father was murdering on the side, Matthew would spend time on the weekend with his father. Once, Gary brought Matthew in the car with a woman. When the woman didn’t return, Gary had told Matthew that the woman decided to walk. There was another time where, while Matthew was sleeping nearby, Gary had sexual intercourse with a murdered body. Due to Gary being such a doting father and despite Gary having strong fantasies about killing from a young age, Matthew did not turn into anything like his father. This further proves that it is more likely down to the environment that a killer is made.

Talking more about science, the study of neurology and the brain can help to distinguish what makes a serial killer different to others internally. James Fallon, a neuroscientist, has analysed 15 psychopathic killers and found that compared to a healthy brain, there was a decrease in the orbital cortex and the area around the amygdala. This is the part of the brain that prevents impulsivity so the decrease of activity, means the person is more likely to make impulsive actions. The impulsivity may explain the lack of remorse that a killer may feel when killing multiple times since they did what they wanted to do quickly and afterwards it was the satisfaction of letting out anger built inside.

Using Fallon’s research, he mentioned in his book that he had conducted scans of people in his family. When looking at a certain scan, he saw that one was like those of a psychopathic killer and to his surprise, it was his own. He is a neuroscientist with no signs of becoming a serial killer which shows that despite having this slight disability in his orbital cortex, there was no effect on him. You could argue that someone’s brain may not have always been in this certain way and only developed after killing more which explains how someone can kill again but in terms of being born with it, it would be ruled out.

Abstract

Despite the universal hatred to the crime of murder, it is the unique feature of Islam that equates the killing of an innocent human being with the murder of whole mankind. Today many secularists uphold the dignity of human life so much that they stood against any sort of capital punishment for murder. An attempt has been made to show a comparative picture of criminality of homicide and its variant punishments between the concept of homicide under Islamic law and English law. According to the research of this assignment, the Laws of Islam have taken the issue of homicide more seriously and provided the heirs with more options to meet their grievances compared with the existing Common or English laws. Concept of Homicide (Murder) Under Islamic Criminal Law

Introduction

Homicide (Qatl) is an action causing the detachment of the soul from a human being. Islam considers murder to be the most heinous crime against a person. The blood of human being is sacred in Islam. Prophet (PBUH) reportedly stated that “the first act of Allah on the Day of Judgement would be to punish murderers by making them suffer the torment of Hell” Prophet (PBUH) at his last pilgrimage declared that “the blood of human being, their property and prestige are as sacred as the city of Harram of Makkah and the day of Arafah.”

Undoubtedly the greatest crime known to mankind is “murder” It has been punishable under all Systems of Law since early in the history of mankind and throughout the ages up to the present. Homicide (Murder) in Pre-Islamic Arabia: One distinctive feature of Arabian societies before Islam was hostilities and a desire for revenge. There were different clans (grouping of close relatives and families) There was always tension between one clan and another. There was no criminal law in operation but private revenge. In the event that somebody outside a clan murdered a member of that clan, it became incumbent upon the clan members to avenge his blood. The only possible way of providing the required blood was to go on a vengeance spree and therefore, consequent feud lasted for years.

From Vengeance Spree to Just Retribution: Islam radically renovated the default system and replaced it with another which, advocates justice and fairness technically referred to as ‘Qisas’ Foundation of Islamic Criminal System: The following verses, even though revealed on different occasions, are the foundation of the new Islamic Criminal System; “O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, mand compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.”

“In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves.” “Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased ’ s family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to All ā h for All ā h hath all knowledge and all wisdom.”

“We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what All ā h hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.”

The above verses clearly show that under the Islamic Criminal Justice Regime no life is worthless, regardless of the social, religious or gender status of the individual. Islam minimized the evil system by introducing three most salutary restrictions;

• a. Only the guilty party and not his fellow-tribesmen was liable to be killed or wounded.
• b. If the homicide or wounding was regarded as both deliberate and wrongful
• c. The injured party (in wounding) or his nearest heirs (in homicide) bring the matter before the judge.
• d. It is in their absolute discretion to pardon the culprit altogether, to settle the case out of Court, to accept the payment of blood-money instead of retaliation, or to claim their right of appropriate retaliation in person.

Qisas Crime (Murder)The offence of homicide is not a Hudood offence under the Islamic law but an independent offence, as it involves violation of the right of Allah and the right of man. In Islam individual right, however, overrides God’s rights in the sense that considerable discretion is given to the victim or his/her close relatives to seek retribution i-e Qisas, accept monetary compensation (Diyat) or forgive and waive both. The bottom line is that homicide under the Islamic criminal justice is a legally compoundable offence.

Quranic Verses Al Quran states; ”He who killed a human being without the latter being guilty of killing another or of spreading disorder in the land should be looked upon as if he killed all of mankind.” Qatl or murder of man by a man is no doubt the greatest crime of the society, it has been denounced in the Quran; “And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed intentionally with hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his heirs (wali) the authority to amend Qisas (Law of Equity in punishment) or to forgive, or to take Diyat ( Blood-money) but let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life(i-e. he should not kill except the killer only); for he is helped by the law.”

Hadith Prophet (PBUH) has declared homicide (murder) as the greatest sin. He also said “The greatest sins are to associate something or someone with Allah and to kill human beings.”

Classifications of Homicide under Islamic Law

According to Islamic Law killing a person will only entail punishment or financial liability if it is committed unjustly or unlawfully (zulm). This means that the acts of killing or of inflicting injuries must have been committed without a legal justification. Such a justification can be the fact that the killing was a lawful execution, or that it was justified by the interest of the Muslim community as a whole, such as;

• killing of Muslims used as shields by the enemy during a siege or a battle.
• Killing a person is also allowed if he lacks legal protection, as in the case of apostates
• Killing in self-defense
• Killing of renegade from Islam
• Killing of a man who insults Allah or His Prophet (PBUH)

Classification of Unlawful Homicide

Qatl-e-Amid Qatl-e-amd is intentional, deliberate well designed and premeditated homicide. Qatil-e-amid is one of the types of unlawful Qatl. To constitute Qatl-e-amid it is not necessary that injury should be caused with intention to cause death. As intention is completely a subjective matter which is only known to Allah Almighty and the accused, therefore to ascertain whether the killing was calculated or not, the juristic propositions are as follows;

• The size and nature of the object used in the killing should be considered;
• The body part on which the blow was delivered should be examined.
• The state of health and physical strength of the deceased should be taken into full account.

Qatl-Shib-Amid: Qatl-Shib-Amid is the second and lesser degree of Culpable homicide ‘not amounting to murder’ i-e death as a result of an action not always but sometimes fatal.

Qatl-e-Khata: Qatl-e-khaṭa or accidental causes death of a person without any intention to cause death or harm. Although the cardinal principle in Islam is that human error is not punishable as stated in the Quran: “There is no blame on you if you make a mistake therein: what counts is the intention of your heart.” And the Hadith: “My Ummah are forgiven from acts of mistake; the loss of life still has to be remedied as life doesn’t go without recompense in Islam.”

All these classes are based on the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah and therefore agreed upon by the jurists. However, some jurists have tried to add more classes in homicide; Qatl Misl-e-Khata or equivalent to accident, e.g. someone falls upon another in his sleep and kills him; and Qatl bis Sabab or indirect killing, e.g. a person digs a well and someone falls into it and dies as a result. As these classes are not based on any divine text, jurists are of divergent views on these issues and, therefore, those rulings do not represent the universal laws of Islam.

Punishment for Intentional Homicide (Qatl-e-Amid) In the case of Qatl-e-Amid the murderer faces several punishments;

1. Moral Punishment i.e. hell as the dwelling place in the hereafter
2. Legal Punishment: Qisas or equal punishment (unless forgiven by the heirs of the victim for blood-money or for nothing) Punishment for Accidental Homicide (Qatl-e-Khata) In case of Qatl-e-Khata; punishments prescribed in Islamic Law are as follows;

• a. blood money and al-kaffara; if the victim is a believer residing in the Islamic state
• b. al-kaffara; if the victim is a believer residing in an enemy territory
• c. blood money and expiation; if the victim is a non-believer residing in a state with which the Islamic state has a peace treaty
• d. blood money and expiation; in case of mistaken killing of a non-believer residing in an Islamic state

After the consensus of the jurists if a believer accidentally kills a non-believer in a territory with which the Islamic state has no peace treaty, then neither blood-money nor expiation is legally binding upon the killer.

Punishment for Quasi-intentional Homicide (Qatl-Shib-e-Amid) Whoever commits quasi- intentional homicide shall be liable to Diyat and Qisas shall not be applied upon him. The Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said; “The blood-money for quasi-intentional killing is severe like that for deliberate killing, but the perpetrator is not to be executed” Diyat: In Islamic legal terminology Diyat” is the name for the amount of compensation paid to the next of kin of the deceased as a substitute for Qisas in case of murder.

Purpose of Diyat

The purpose of diyat is manifold. Homicide puts an abrupt end to the life of the victim, whereby the victim’s family would be badly affected by this act, mentally, psychologically and economically. Thus, the aim is not only to calm the feelings of the legal heirs for revenge but also to console the victim’s family and compensate for the loss they suffer by such an offence. It has a punitive component as the Shariah uniformity fixes its amount to be equal for all victims, irrespective of their special status gender variations and other distinctions.

The amount of Diyat

The amount of diyat and the details of its payment are specified by the Sunnah; “The diyat for killing a soul is a hundred camels.” This was applied until Hazrat Umar became the Caliph and ruled that camels had become expensive. So he fixed the value of diyat upon those who possessed dinars as 1,000 dinars and on those who possessed dirhams to be 10,000 dirhams. The camel is still taken as the standard criterion and its equivalent market price in monetary terms is paid as diyat. The weight of gold currency (dinars) and silver currency (dirhams) as used by the Prophet’s Community have been declared to be basic commodities for the purpose of calculating diyat because they are still current and available in a form of pure gold and silver.

Concept of Homicide in English Law and It’s Comparison with Islamic Law

In terms of definition of homicide, there is no fundamental difference between Islamic law and English law. In English law, homicide is defined as” the killing of a human being by a human being.” Though Islamic law has divided the legal status of homicide into five categories;

• Obligatory
• Recommended
• Permitted
• Disapproved and unlawful

Whereas English law divides it into two broad categories;

• Lawful Homicide
• Unlawful Homicide

Lawful Homicide is further classified into;

1. Excusable Homicide: In which the bad character or bad intention of the person committing the crime cannot be inferred. It includes;

   I. Death caused by accident

   II. Death caused by child or a person of unsound mind

   III. Death caused by an involuntary intoxicant person

   IV. Death caused by a person in good faith for the benefit of the person killed

• (b) Justifiable Homicide: It may be committed by;
• (i) a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law
• (ii) a judge acting judicially
• (iii) a person acting in good faith and in pursuance of a judgment of a court
• (iv) a person doing lesser harm in prevention of greater harms
• (v) a person acting in private defence

In English law, as applied in Pakistan; Unlawful Homicide is classified as

1. Culpable homicide amounting to murder
2. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
3. Abetment of suicide (if suicide occurs)
4. Homicide by negligent act.

Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder Equivalent to Intentional Homicide Culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.

From this perspective it may be likened with ‘intentional homicide’ in Islamic law. In both, intention plays the central role. Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder: Culpable homicide will not amount to murder, if done under ‘grave and sudden provocation’. Though Islamic law exempts ‘lunatics’ from legal liabilities, it does not accept the excuse of grave anger to escape criminal liability of murder. The criminal is exempted from the liability of murder in English Law; Whereas in Islamic law both are to be held responsible for intentional murder.

Target- Accidental Killing or Mere Unlawful Act? English Criminal Law does not recognize wrong “target” as homicide at all. According to English law, it is merely an unlawful act which entails very little punishment. On the other hand, in Islamic law it is accidental killing in which offender is liable to pay blood-money unless forgiven by the heir of the victim. Abu Dawood defines quasi-intentional homicide in following words: “When the devil incites people to do evil, and blood is shed blindly, with neither malice aforethought nor bearing weapons.” Punishments for Homicide: The above discussion reveals that the English Law do not treat the criminality of homicide as seriously as is treated in Islamic law. So many acts have been driven out of the ambit of murder and made into mere unlawful acts. It is all at the definitional level. The lack of seriousness is more evident, when the issue of punishment comes forward. Even culpable homicide amounting to murder is to be punished with “death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine”

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is lighter than that of murder. If the act is done with intention of causing death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for any term, and fine. If the act is done without any intention to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment or fine, or both.

It is the common feature of supporters of secular laws that they portray themselves to champion of the dignity of human life. But when the punishment of the criminals who have showed no respect whatsoever to the dignity of human life comes forward, they always propose very soft punishment. By taking lenient position in favour of the criminals, they are, in fact degrading human dignity. Prerogative of Mercy of the Crown/Head of the State: Another dissimilarity between the Criminal law of Islam and that of English Law is that in the former it is the heir of the victim, not the head of the state or anybody else, who is empowered to demand Qisas or be satisfied with blood- money, or to forgive for nothing; while in the latter the heirs have been deprived from such rights and instead the head of the state has been vested with the power to pardon any criminal without showing any reason whatsoever.

Conclusion

Both Islamic law and English or Common Law treat homicide as a heinous crime. In punishing the criminal, the former authorizes the heir of the victim, not the Crown/State, to choose any of the three options Qisas, Diyat (blood-money), or Afuw (forgiveness) while the latter considers it as a crime against State and empowers the head of the state to pardon the criminal at his will with the exclusion of the heirs of the victim. In quasi-intentional homicide, both Islamic law and the criminal law of the country exempt the criminal from death penalty, but the former imposes blood-money in favour of the heirs of the victim (unless remitted) and the latter prescribes imprisonment for different terms.

References

Books

1. The Quran.
2. The Penal Code 1860
3. Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law (Muhammad Hashim Kamali)
4. Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First
5. Century (Themes in Islamic Law) by Rudolph Peters
6. Principles of Islamic International Criminal Law A Comparative Search by Farhad Male
7. Gender Justice in Islamic Law Homicide and Bodily Injuries by Musa Usman Abubakar
8. Developments in the English Law of Homicide by Ronald H. Mausdsley

E-Sources

1. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
2. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

In history over the years, human civilization has brutally overturned each other, bringing murder and harm into existence. Various cases sprung into the public eye as killings blossomed nationwide. Every day people were tricking society, hiding, and waiting for their next innocent victims to cross their path.

Once killings became more common, different types of killers began to be named and detected. There are four types of killers, each has its own way of proceeding with their victims. Killers who are compelled by visions or voices are considered psychotic. The voices are accused to be telling the killer to kill certain people due to their experiences, making this type of killer a Visionary killer. The most basic, well-known killer, is a Hedonistic killer. This type of serial killer makes a strong connection between personal violence and sexual gratification. This type of killer can also be described as a “lust” or “thrill” killer. This killer receives pleasure from the act and has eroticized the experience. They generally take the time to torture or mutilate their victims. A killer who feels an absolute “need” or “duty” to kill certain types of people is called a Mission killer. They tend to be extremely religious and some kill more toward people who have done badly in the past such as being in jail or even prostitutes. Although these killers view their murders as a good deed in the eyes of God, they are not psychotic. Lastly, there is Power and Control killers. This type of serial killer experiences complete sexual gratification from the domination and humiliation of the victim. This killer is a true sociopath and lives by his own personal set of rules and guidelines. Many of the famous serial killers we have seen in history and in the media would fall under this type of a serial killer. Some killers have a mixture out of these identified groups, but there isn’t an exact recipe for a serial killer.

We all are either organized or disorganized. Messy killers tend to lack covering up the tracks of their murders which often leads to them getting caught. These types of killers don’t usually plan out murders which is why they’re so careless with their victims. More than likely, the killers take action at the wrong place and time, with most of them not being aware of what is the correct time to do so. After the killer is finished, they move to different states or cities to avoid jail time along with being exposed to their violent doings. Usually, these people have low IQs and are extremely antisocial. They don’t have very much family which leads to them gathering voices in their heads telling them to proceed in a killing. Some killers collect “trophies” after they kill to remember their time with a victim but not disorganized killers. Since they have little sense of what and why they are killing, their attitudes are frantic after the murder which causes them to be difficult when it comes to confessing to their crime.

Organized people who act out and killers are the most difficult to capture. They have high IQs and are extremely manipulative. Due to their high intelligence, they can easily read people and use them to their advantage. Before they kill they take precautions to each step of their plans. This type of killer picks a victim and analyzes them for several days before pouncing. Once they are ready to kidnap their victim, they do it by making the person feel sympathy with the killer then proceed to another location before committing murder. These people make sure the body cannot be found that is unless they wish for it to be found. A killer like this calls their murders their “work” as if it is an art piece, meaning they have a great amount of pride in when they kill. Oddly enough, they stay in touch with the news, keeping up with the media’s details on the case. Organized kills also, find pleasure in causing the police confusion or frustration when searching for the killer or bodies.

People who view the news and observe the horrific incidents that occur always come to the question, how can somebody do that to another human being, this only being answered by retracing back to the mind of a killer.

Some people always say maybe these killers were born evil and that is simply why they are this way. Yet studies expose other reasonings as to why people become cold-blooded killers. Many killers have disorders that feed them unhealthy motives to kill. Serial killers are much more likely to exhibit antisocial personality disorders such as sociopath or more likely psychopathy, which are not considered to be mental illnesses by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). These disorders share many common behavioral traits which lead to the confusion between them. Key traits that sociopaths and psychopaths share include a failure to feel remorse or guilt, a disregard for the rights of others, a disregard for laws, and a tendency to display violent behavior.

Very few serial killers suffer from any mental illness to such a debilitating extent that they are considered to be insane. To be classified as legally insane, an individual must be unable to comprehend that action is against the law at the exact moment the action is undertaken. In other words, a serial killer must be unaware that murder is legally wrong while committing the act of murder in order to be legally insane. This legal categorization of insanity is so stringent and narrow that very few serial killers are actually included in it.

Psychopathic serial killers such as Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Dennis Rader are entirely aware of the illegality of murder while they are in the process of killing their victims. Their understanding of right and wrong does nothing to impede their crimes, however, because psychopaths such as Bundy, Gacy, and Rader have an overwhelming desire and compulsion to kill that causes them to ignore the criminal law with impunity. The image of the evil genius serial killer is mostly a Hollywood invention. Real serial killers generally do not possess unique or exceptional intellectual skills. The reality is that most serial killers who have had their IQ tested score between borderline and above-average intelligence. According to sources from mythology, it is not high intelligence that makes serial killers successful. Instead, it is an obsession, meticulous planning and a cold-blooded, often psychopathic personality that enables serial killers to operate over long periods of time without detection.

The study is to examine the neuropsychological and intellectual differences of murderers who kill impulsively and those who kill as the result of a premeditated strategic plan.

Criminals who tend to kill often have a stressor to cause them to act out in a dangerous way. A stressor is a traumatic event that is elicited upon someone. Stressors are typically known to be “breaking points” that drive the ill person to act out on the feeling they’re experiencing due to the random stressor. The stressor can be linked to a traumatic past in their childhood or even early adulthood.

Serial killers have a connection to childhood abuse. Studies have revealed a number of murder cases where the murder has gone through a type of abuse as an adolescent. Approximately 42% of convicted serial killers suffered from physical abuse as a child and 74% suffered from psychological abuse. Sexual abuse also seemed to be a prominent characteristic among serial killers as 35% have witnessed the sexual abuse and 43% have been abused themselves. Another form of trauma linked to these killers is head trauma. Roughly 29% of serial killers were found to be ‘accident-prone children.’ The combination of these factors leads to various sociologists to view psychopathic behaviors as a defense mechanism for the brain.

Infancy is one of the most significant stages of a developing human being. Emotionally, infancy is extremely crucial to the future development of the adult personality. The first 12 months of life are especially important to the development of emotions like affection and remorse which are two traits serial killers lack. If a child doesn’t receive attention or touch from their parents within the 12 month period, the child may suffer substantial personality disorders in the near future. The range from absence emotions such as sympathy, remorse, and affection can cause the child to develop a sense of one itself. Infant bonding is the key to personality growth and development. This explaining why a common characteristic among killers is them being passed around from families attempting to be adopted, while never truly knowing genuine emotions towards loved ones. The emphasis of infancy upon early childhood has undercovered neurological and physical abnormalities that may begin as the prenatal stage in some humans. Links have been discovered between the impairment of executive brain function and aggression through research leading to many serial killers being diagnosed with a type of neurological disorder. This meaning the killers are reacting to chemicals in their brain and possibly hereditary factors rather than evil intentions.

Interacting with peers is another portion of early development as well. Commonly, serial killers were isolated from their childhood peers. Many killers suffered from issues such as stuttering, dyslexia, social disadvantages, and even weight problems.

Due to these killers’ disadvantages, bullying often occurs causing them to harbor secret aggressive fantasies, whether it’s to the bully or to easier more vulnerable targets. This makes the killer feel a sense of power as if they are rebuilding their loss of pride and confidence. Similar to their own bullies, they feed off of their victim as if portraying it as themselves being bullied. Making a reflection of their own sorrow and fear considering the fact that the child has problems expressing personal emotions themselves.

Another similar characteristic that serial killers collectively contain is having their dominant figure as their mother. The mothers of these soon to be murders tend to enhance or grow murderous hate towards women. The only explanation for this hate to begin is if the caretakers are over-controlling, overprotective, physically or emotionally abusive to their child. Statics show around 66% of serial killers was raised with the dominant figure being their mother.

Researchers have closely examined the reasonings as to why killers kill. In many cases, most research has unearthed the notion of killers killing to fill a type of empty void in him or herself. It has also been discovered some contain dark fantasies that fuel their motives to cast harm upon others. This being typical for most serial killers. Other studies have supported these findings and conclusive evidence presented has offered distinct patterns in reinforcing the behavioral context that serial killers maintain.

90% of serial killers are males in their 20s to 30s. Most are Caucasian males with a lower-to middle-class upbringing. These indifinications are used by the authority to personalize a killer to their crime, but how can a soon be victim point out their future of danger?

People who aren’t experienced in the works of profiling, can’t search out or know if they are speaking to a serial killer. Killers tend to hide due to them feeling different, or due to the scanning the people around them. No matter how people view this concept, killers are human just like everyone else. They go on with life as similar to the rest of society does. Some killers are arrogant, ignorant of their own crimes, while still exceeding in the attention of authority and the media. An all-time example of this type of killer would be Ted Bundy. His belief that he, in fact, did not commit these crimes were an annoyance to the courtroom. Ted even pushed to be his own voice in court, while angry, his lawyer then taking his placement. There are also killers who are tedious and shy away from the media. Shyness and arrogant killers determine whether or not the crime will be appointed directly to the right alleged murder.

Serial killers do kill numerous times but they do halt in their killings sometimes. The killer can experience “stress-free” areas where ever they travel to. The stressors backgrounds can be uprooted by any trigger, whether if it’s with another person or with the environment. Some killers kill prior to gender or race, with Ted Bundy preferring to murder various women, most with similar characteristics.

Overall, the time’s killings and vicious murders have marked the horrific history of the study behind these killings. Studies have proven that killers are created due to the killer’s upbringing instead of the person being born a bad seed. Being born evil has been officially blown out of the water, due to research of these people being abused in many ways throughout their life. Whether it’s verbally, physically, or emotional abuse is a key factor. Bullying and being shunned by society, while getting identified as a freak or an outcast is a lead to loss of self-awareness. People aren’t born to kill or to take part in wicked actions, they were molded by people who showed them how to hurt people. Thus giving them all they ever knew how to do, which was inflict pain upon others. Behind a killer is a person who didn’t receive help or the proper beginning of emotions for normal development.

The most serious and punishable crime someone can commit is first degree murder. The importance of first-degree murder is deciding whether someone deserves the death penalty, or life in prison for the crime that was committed. When a person chooses to commit murder, the deciding factors that make it first degree are if the person deliberately planned, premeditated and willingly acted out the killing of another person. Sometimes first-degree murder is argued to fit justified murder because the defendant can defend his or herself, first degree murder is the most serious homicide offense given that it is premeditated, deliberate, and willful when committing this crime. First degree murder has been on the rise since 2015 with the number of offenders shooting to 17,250 a percentage increase of 8.6 percent. Despite such a trend, first degree murder remains a controversial topic with most people contesting on different elements under which an act should be considered a criminal offense. As such, there is need to define pertinent issues within first degree murder context. This paper gives a clear definition of the concept of first degree murder, the scope of the problem, characteristics of criminal offenders, how rational choice theory relates to first degree murder, its application to criminal justice, and finally how different policies can be adopted following the rational choice theory to combat crime.

There are many different categories of homicide, but they are all charged as different levels of crimes. First degree murder is the most heinous, vicious act of homicide that a person can commit. In First Degree Murder—A Workable Definition, by Keith W. Blinn (1949-1950) explains the new Penal Code that was enforced in 1895 that divided first- and second-degree murder. First degree murder was punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for life (p. 731). Since the establishment of the Penal Code, America has since lived by it and uses it when handling terms of first-degree murder. Evidence is a major role when convicting a person for this crime. Without it, there is no way of proving that someone deliberately made a plan to kill someone before they acted it out. In our textbook, Criminology (fourth), Frank Schmalleger (2017) describes that first-degree murder involves malice aforethought which means that someone is waiting for their victim. The simple legal requirements needed to prosecute first-degree murder are the formation of the intent to kill and acting out the killing itself (p. 196). There is no significant number of requirements for someone to be convicted of first-degree murder. If it is planned in any way, willingly acted upon, and there is enough evidence the person will be convicted of it.

In many resources, first-degree murder is categorized under murder. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the estimated number of murders in 2016 was 17,250. It increased from 2015 by 8.6 percent. There were also 5.3 murders per 100,000 people in 2016. It increased by 7.9 percent from 2015 estimates. In 2016, there were 1,216 female and 8,938 male offenders who were 18 and over that committed murders. Under 18 years of age there were 55 female and 681 male offenders who committed murder. There was a combined total from male, female, and unknown of 16,964 murders committed in 2016 (Expanded Homicide Data Table 2). There were no arrest or clearance data reported for murders in 2016.

Using the data provided above men are more likely to commit first-degree murder, but there are a significant number of women who commit it as well. According to the FBI’s UCR Table 6, Terre Haute, IN had 4 murders and 157 violent crimes committed during the year of 2016 (Table 6). According to Blinn (1949-1950), most murders are committed in the heat of passion, which some say it could be premeditated, but not deliberate (p. 733). There are different characteristics the offender will consider when planning to commit a crime. Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer describes many characteristics of a killer in his journal, Not the Crime but the Cover-Up: A Deterrence-Based Rationale for the Premeditation-Deliberation Formula. These include; physical or psychological harmed victims, mercy killers, character respondents to extra ordinary situations, and mental ill victims, among others (p. 895; 896). Mannheimer (2011) describes how if the killer premeditates and deliberates on the act that they are not only more culpable, but also more dangerous than a killer who does not (p. 901). A person who plans and constantly thinks about committing this crime is more dangerous because they spend all of their time thinking and planning, which builds their anticipation of the crime and which allows them to release their pent-up rage when acting out the crime.

Following the offenders and victims’ characteristics discussed, the rational choice theory matches justification of first-degree murder incidences prevalent in the contemporary societies today. This theory was developed by Cornish and Clarke to help think through situational crime issues and bases on the utilitarian belief that humans are reasonable beings who measure the means and the ends of their actions. This theory borrows much from economic theories of choice behavior which reinforces the costs and benefits as important elements determining individual’s decision. Cornish and Clarke hypothesize that before indulging in crime, the offenders’ asses the likely consequences of their actions (Cornish & Clarke, 1968). The intention behind this theory is to provide a justification for situational crime prevention (Clarke 2014). As such, Cornish and Clarke argue that offenders’ rationality is bound within limitations in information processing ability, situational context, and emotions. In this regards, negative moods may lead to impulsive and risky decision making. This explains Blinn’s findings that most murders are committed in the heart of passion. Similarly, the physical and psychological wellness of an individual may push one into committing first degree murder. Moreover, illness is closely linked to reasons for indulging with murder. Further, responding to situations such as killing out of love to reduce suffering of a sick person (euthanasia), and protecting self from harm when attacked justify reasons for murder (Becker, 1968).

The rational choice theory can be applied in criminal justice system by reinforcing the motives behind the offender’s actions, methods used in murder, and the circumstances under which an offense was conducted (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). The theory is also used broadly to model the decision making process in court systems to understand behaviors of an individual in terms of actions that influence choices of indulging in crime.

The rational choice theory holds that crime is a product of criminal opportunity. As such, policies for crime management would include; decreasing the suitability of targets, increasing the number of guardians, and reducing the offender population. The rational choice theory assumes that the criminal justice system has the ability to control crime through aggressive law enforcement techniques and use of severe punishment to deter offenders. However, the major weakness in this theory is the assumption that criminals think about the consequences before involving themselves with crime. Consequently, a criminal can be deterred from committing crime if chances of apprehension are high, justice is swift, and the punishment is severe. Therefore, an inverse relationship should exist between punishment and crime. The sanctions for offense if heightened will discourage the offender from engaging in criminal behavior. Practically, crime rates are influenced and controlled by the threat and imminence of criminal punishment. Commonly, if punished more severely, offenders’ being rationally beings would choose not to offend since the offence is not worthy the punishment. However this applies to calculated and planned crimes. Moreover, increasing police patrol would significantly decrease instances of crime. Further, reducing opportunities for offenders to commit crime would help reduce crime rate. This works well in situational crimes where specific targets are safeguarded against criminals. Guarding targets, controlling means of crime committing, and monitoring offenders would yield a positive result in combating crime (Siegel and McCormick, 2006: 135). Techniques such as closed circuit television and public surveillance however have been criticized since they only move crimes to other locations. To solve situational crimes hence starts with addressing the root cause of crime such as poverty, welfare and housing, harm reduction, and health among other strategies.

In a nutshell, while many crimes are bad first-degree murder is undoubtedly the worst. A person who deliberately plans to kill someone should receive the worst punishment the justice system has to offer, which is the death penalty or life in prison. There are many statistics and articles that prove premeditative, deliberate, and willingly killing is classified as first-degree murder and there are fine lines that will convict a person of this crime. Statistics show that there has been an increasing trend on incidences of first degree murder. This problem confirms to the rational choice theory that assumes humans are reasonable beings who measure the means and the ends of their actions. This theory can be applied in judging motives and nature of crimes by the offenders during criminal court hearings to reinforce the motives and situations that triggered the criminal action. Finally, strategies such as decreasing the suitability of targets, increasing the number of guardians, and reducing the offender population have been noted as effective means of combating crime. These strategies can be reinforced through passing aggressive laws and use of severe punishment to deter offenders.

Reference Page

1. Becker, Gary (1968). ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’. The Journal of Political Economy (76): 169–217. doi:10.1086/259394
2. Blinn, K. W. (1950). First Degree Murder. A Workable Definition. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1949-1951), 40(6), 729–735.
3. Clarke, R. V. (2014). Affect and the reasoning criminal: Past and future. In J. L. Van Gelder, H. Elffers, D. Reynald, & D. Nagin (Eds.), Affect and cognition in criminal decision-making (pp. 20–41). London, England: Routledge
4. Cornish, Derek; Clarke, Ronald V., eds. (1986). ‘Introduction’. The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-96272-7.
5. Cornish, D.; Clarke, R. (1987). ‘Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory’. Criminology. 25 (4): 933–947.
6. Schmalleger, F. (2017). Criminology (fourth). Boston: Pearson Education.
7. Siegal, L and C. McCormick. (2006). Criminology in Canada: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies (3rd ed.). Toronto: Thompson, Nelson.
8. Zydney Mannheimer, M. J. (2011). Not the Crime but the Cover-Up: A Deterrence-Based Rationale for the Premeditation-Deliberation Formula. Indiana Law Journal, 86(3). Retrieved from www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol86/iss3/4
9. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook: UCR. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Expanded Homicide Data Table 2. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-2.xls
10. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook: UCR. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Table 6. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s. 2016/tables/table-6/table-6.xls/view

To begin with my reasoning, I would like to admit that any of the sides, either justification or accusation of the women’s decision to hide the evidence, is right or wrong. This decision can be both justified and not justified. Arguments are enough to prove both sides. However, for the goal of this paper, there is a necessity to take a certain position and explain it. I will not venture to affirm that my position is unambiguously right but I can suggest enough argumentation to defend it and prove that even murder can be sometimes justified. I take a utilitarian position which puts that interests of majority higher than interests of a certain individual. Utilitarianism justifies actions that bring benefit to a large population even if interests of a single individual are violated. In this context, I will prove that women’s concealment of the evidence is a sign of hope for the better future. Thus, I take a position that justifies women’s decision to hide what they believe to be incriminating evidence. ‘Trifles’ is an example of feministic literature. From the perspective of feminism, freedom of thought, and action for every member of the society, including women, is the highest value. Considering, hypothetical murder of her husband as an act of emancipation, Mrs’s Hale and Mrs’s Peters’s concealment of some details can be justified.

History shows that the most significant breaking moments in the history of humanity occurred through huge sacrifices and much pain. It sounds sad and painful, but to receive something, one should first give something. Science can not explain the fact that the balanced exchange of energies in the universe creates order and organize chaos into something comprehensible. When we hear about the murder of a person, our human, compassionate nature aspires to justice and wants the offender to be punished for taking away human life. It is an undoubtedly, justified aspiration as human life seems to be the highest value. To a large degree, it is so until it does not come to a certain idea that aims to change traditional human life forever. It happens with the liberation of women and their emancipation in society. At a particular point in the history, feministic movements originated as an indicator of a new level of humans’ development, and the life of one male in this context is a sacrifice for a new reality of much more happy people than previously.

Both women experience a sense of guilt and duty to tell about their suspicion. However, they decide to protect Minnie from possible penalties. This act can be interpreted as immoral, at first sight. However, after careful consideration, their decision is an act of respect to female’s collective consciousness as free individualities of this society. They did not conceal the truth to protect the neibour, but they protected much more than just a woman. They defended the idea and their future. Their concealment demonstrates the necessity to address female needs as members of society. In this context, ‘Trifles’ is a sophisticated hint to this necessity.

Emotions tell us that human life is too precious to equal it to the value of a certain idea. We are brought up with the in-depth knowledge that God gives life, and only God has the right to take it away. However, when the cases of murder are considered, there are often many tiny details that lead to the act of murder itself. They often have an accumulative effect and represent the result of psychological pressure. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters suspect that Minnie has probably killed her husband. However, they also suspect that Minnie herself is a victim of abuse. In this context, the case becomes much more complicated. Any science will venture to prove whether a murder is a just punishment for abuse. It is a matter of morality. Any science will venture to measure and accept a certain degree of abuse for which murder is a just punishment. It is also a matter of morality. With this evidence, Minnie is also a victim, as well as her husband. I will not venture to affirm whose victimization is more terrible. I accept a position of justification Minnie’s husband sacrifices for the sake of a more bright future for women and society in general.

In conclusion, it makes sense to say that the fact that the women keep from the sheriff what they believe to be incriminating evidence against Mrs. Wright can be morally justified. The main reason for this is the absence of an unambiguous measuring system to define the degree of severity of the abuse to be able to justify the murder. To claim unambiguously that human life is the highest value and, thus, nothing can justify the murder would be hypocrisy because history proves that human life had always been less valuable than globe scale ideas. In this context, Mr. Wright’s murder should be considered as a sacrifice for the future. Consequently, concealment of women’s suspicions should be considered as a contribution to a new and more promising reality.