More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the psychology of serial killers
Essays on the psychology of serial killers
The psychology behind serial killers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Murder is a reprobate action that is an inevitable part of war. It forces humans into immoral acts, which can manifest in the forms such as shooting or close combat. The life of a soldier is ultimately decided from the killer, whether or not he follows through with his actions. In the short stories The Sniper by Liam O'Flaherty and Just Lather, That's All by Hernando Téllez, the killer must decide the fate of their victims under circumstantial constraints. The two story explore the difference between killing at a close proximity compared to killing at a distance, and how they affect the killer's final decision.
The perspective of the two stories allow the reader to perceive the sense of proximity the protagonist has with their victim. The Sniper is told in an objective point of view, the reader is presented only with short and factual information, keeping a distance between the reader and the story. Just Lather, That's All on the other hand, is told from a first person point of view, the reader intimately experiences the thoughts and feelings of the barber. The different points of view are used to give the reader an understanding of the distance the protagonists have with their victims. The third person point of view in The Sniper presents factual information, similar to how the sniper only knows what he sees of his targets. There is no compassion for the sniper when he is shot because it is stated in a neutral stand, just as he feels no compassion for his victims because he has not personally known them nor does he know their thoughts and feelings. The first person point of view in Just Lather, That's All gives a sense on empathy for the barber, as his thoughts and reasoning is presented, there is an understanding to why he d...
... middle of paper ...
... under any immediate danger (Téllez). Even though Captain Torres is very close to the barber, he is in a position of disadvantage because he is disarmed and he is retrained by the sheet that the barber put on him (Téllez). The proximity of the killer to their victim creates circumstances in which forces one to kill or allows one to not kill.
There is an obvious relationship between killing at a distance and killing close up. As seen in The Sniper, killing is easier compared to Just Lather, That's All, which involves murdering up close. With the different proximity of the protagonists to their victims, their decisions to kill is influenced. This is reflective of our modern day society, in which civilized countries can send troops over to undeveloped countries and kill the people without any remorse because they are not directly involved with the acts of murder.
The novel begins with the author’s own experiences as a law enforcement officer and his ideals on the use of deadly force. He explains that “at some deep subconscious level humans are both drawn to and repulsed by violence of any sort” (Klinger, 2004, page 8) and goes on to elaborate why the killing of a human being by an officer is acceptable in the eyes of society today. Even though this truth may seem harsh to some, the overall effects that occur when an officer fires his gun is even harsher when the light of reality is shed upon these gruesome incidences. As the novel continues, Klinger begins to share more information about the career that these few men and women choose to go into. The author describes how many of his interviewees were asked when applying to law enforcement agencies how they would feel about having to shoot someone. Most answered they would not feel any sort of hesitation, yet some men and women in their interviews with the author revealed that they never thought about themselves in that situation and were somewhat taken back by the question. Moreover, Klinger explains that shootings are uncommon incidences in the police...
As a socialistic society we live in we find ourselves in positions were conflicts arise between friends or family. 'The Sniper'; was written by Liam O ' Flaherty to express a subtle yet powerful opinion on such a conflict. With references this essay will analyse the short story bringing to light the structure used to contribute to the theme.
...me soldiers refuse to fire a shot due to the great personal conflict within them to kill another human being. Normal human beings cannot kill in cold blood. Normal human beings usually can’t even think about killing somebody. To not feel remorse after killing a fellow human being would be inhuman.
In order for me to achieve this goal, I have organized this paper into three main sections. In the first section, I will explain how everyone has killed in their lifetime for their own personal needs. In the second section, I will give examples of when killing is needed and required for the safety of one and one’s loved ones. Lastly, I will discuss when killing serves justice to others. I will follow this by citing my work and my resources.
Deterrence theorists view murder as rational behavior, and assume that in calculating the gains and losses from killing, potential offenders are aware of the death penalty and regard it as a more severe sanction than imprisonment. Because the threat of one's own death presumably outweighs the rewards gained from killing another, murder is not an option for most people and always discouraged. In addition, some noted proponents assert that capital punishment provides an important educative function in society by validating the sanctity of human life (Berns, 1979; van den Haag, 1975; van den Haag & Conrad, 1983). Despite this logic, some challenge the applicability of deterrence to murder. Rather than being a product of deliberation and calculation, it is known that most murders are emotionally charged and their crimes are spontaneous events; they are "acts of passion" or result from a situated transaction rather than from deliberation (Bowers & Pierce, 1980; Chambliss, 1967; Luckenbill, 1977). Indeed, a significant proportion of homicides may not be intended. The situation escapes calm discussion, or due to some extraneous factor, an assault victim dies. Under such conditions, it is unlikely that perpetrators ("killers") give serious thought to whether they reside in a death penalty jurisdiction, or the possibility of execution.
Incapacitation is another oft-cited justification for use of the death penalty, since no murderer has ever been executed and subsequently gone on to kill again. Radelet & Borg (2000) state t...
If a mass killer’s murders are committed in more than just a single location, then they are part of a continuous action (Murder 1). Their victims are usually chosen at random, not just killed at first sight. Their targets may also come in specific groups. More than occasionally, a mass murderer will take his own life after his urge to kill is over. This is possibly because authorities recognize the killer is unstable and are likely to shoot the killer in order to protect themselves. A typical mass murderer uses a semi-automatic weapon and plots his murders to be made in a school, university, or restaurant (murder 1).
Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
When one shoots and kills an intruder in her home, is it considered murder or self defense? When a soldier shoots and kills a man, is he defending his country and following orders, or he is committing murder? These are questions raised by A Few Good Men, a 1992 film by Rob Riener. When Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey are given orders to give Pfc. William Santiago a code red, they accidentally take it too far and kill him. They are then placed on trial for murder, but are they really guilty? Though many people would consider Dawson and Downey to be sadistic or even ruthless for what they did to Santiago, Zimbardo in “The Stanford Prison Experiment” and Milgram in “The Perils of Obedience” explain how they are simply ordinary
The first unit on our textbook Interactions by Ann Moseley and Jeanette Harris talks about the self-concept. It is hard to find a definition for the self-concept because it is certain beliefs about ethnicity, religion, and personalities combined. This unit has a number of readings by various authors where it shows struggles with the self. Self-identity, ethnic backgrounds, and self-esteem are the major aspects of those readings. After reading their writings I found that I could relate to their experiences. The three readings that got my attention were “Zero” By Paul Logan, “I’m Just Me” by Lylah Alphonse, and “The Jacket” by Gary Soto.
After reading The “Most Dangerous Game” we, as a class, were asked whether or not it is considered correct to kill someone but, like a ballot, there were mixed results. This can branch out into a wide variety of topics ranging from abortion to downright murder. “Most Dangerous game” is a short story about a man named Rainsford who gets saved after a boat crash. The man who saved him, General Zaroff, is a hunter. A trait both share in common. However, Zaroff kills humans rather than animals in that the hunt is more thrilling. Of course, there is a disagreement on the subject matter to further the plot. Rainsford is completely opposed to the idea of killing his own kind. We also analyzed the film, “The Hunger Games”. Katniss Everdeen was forced into an arena where the only way to stay alive was to kill others. Both pieces of literature are a survival of the fittest test. Both had justifiable reasons for killing and it made reputable, however morbid, sense.
Taking a life is a very serious crime and it is seen as one of the worst violent crimes one can commit. Society has a hard time coping with why people result to such cruel violence when usually it isn’t necessary. Taking a life typically results in your own life being taken by the criminal justice system. Many offenders, however, do escape without punishment. First-degree murder is usually defined as a killing that was deliberate and premeditated which is what Michael Dunn is being charged with for shooting a 17 year old Jordan Davis (First Degree Murder Law & Legal Definition). Within my paper, I will summarize the article of the shooting of Jordan Davis, explain the relevance of the article to my Criminal Justice class, and discuss the implications for the criminal justice system.
Mark Rose, in “Reforming the Role,” comments on how the hero’s hesitation to kill at the propitious moment, coupled with his later hasty decision to kill, have left the protagonist a changed man:
Powder, a short story written by Tobias Wolff, is about a boy and his father on a Christmas Eve outing. As the story unfolds, it appears to run deeper than only a story about a boy and his father on a simple adventure in the snow. It is an account of a boy and his father’s relationship, or maybe the lack of one. Powder is narrated by a grown-up version of the boy. In this tale, the roles of the boy and his father emerge completely opposite than what they are supposed to be but may prove to be entirely different from the reader’s first observation.