In Darkly Dreaming Dexter, Jeff Lindsay presents Dexter Morgan, a serial killer who kills only criminals, and in doing so, generates controversy about what constitutes morally justifiable behaviour. Lindsay’s protagonist blurs the lines between right and wrong, exposes the inherent flaws of justice systems, and ultimately forces the reader to evaluate his or her principles. While many North Americans believe that murder is unquestionably evil, I disagree on the basis that this stance overlooks the need to take into account the circumstances of the situation—such as who the victim is, who has committed the murder, and why he or she has done so—which are crucial factors in passing moral judgement on an offender’s actions. I argue that Dexter is correct to channel his sociopathy into something positive—disposing of individuals who have committed atrocious crimes in a vigilante fashion—because North American justice systems are incredibly flawed, as they allow heinous criminals to walk free too often due to prevailing social biases, systematic loopholes, and lack of manpower. Dexter compensates for this defect because, unlike justice systems, he eliminates criminals without prejudice towards the offender or the victim, operates on a straightforward basis free of political rigmarole, and achieves results in an efficient fashion, all of which make North American society a safer place, save lives of would-be victims, and spare their families mental anguish. Ultimately, this reveals that the line between what is right and wrong is not as clear as one might initially think, as well as the troubling notion that North American institutional structures are in need of reconstruction if readers are more confident in justice delivered by a ...
... middle of paper ...
...ens should have more faith in the established institution’s ability to deliver justice over that of a vigilante serial killer, but for many, that is not the case. Second, Darkly Dreaming Dexter demonstrates that there is not as clear of a barrier between what is morally right and wrong as North American society sometimes believes, seeing as murder, which is usually regarded as undeniably wrong, can sometimes be justified and placed in the spectrum of acceptable behaviour. Blindly dividing actions up into right and wrong, then, is not only irresponsible, but also dangerous, as it can lead individuals to inappropriately oversimplify complex situations. Ultimately, then, a society that unwaveringly opposes all forms violence can be just as problematic as one that condones them.
Works Cited
Lindsay, Jeff. Darkly Dreaming Dexter. Toronto: Random House, 2004. Print.
¬¬¬Though most American people claim to seek peace, the United States remains entwined with both love and hate for violence. Regardless of background or personal beliefs, the vast majority of Americans enjoy at least one activity that promotes violence whether it be professional fighting or simply playing gory video games. Everything is all well and good until this obsession with violence causes increased frequency of real world crimes. In the article, “Is American Nonviolence Possible” Todd May proposes a less standard, more ethical, fix to the problem at hand. The majority of the arguments brought up make an appeal to the pathos of the reader with a very philosophical overall tone.
As I was completing this assignment, I was watching the infamous Netflix documentary entitled Making a Murderer. The documentary follows the story of Steven Avery, who is currently in prison for the death of a woman, Teresa Halbach, in 2005. Steven Avery has been denying any involvement in the murder of Teresa Halbach for the past eleven years. In the middle of the reading, the documentary was exploring and analyzing Steven Avery’s deviant behavior as a young man (Making). As I observed what was being discussed about Steven Avery, I was able to build the connection between how society, and the community from which he came from, perceived Steven Avery and what Kai Erikson discussed in the first couple pages of the book with regards to deviance and its relation with regards to society.
Though his killings occurred over thirty years ago Clifford Olson is still knows as one of Canada’s most notorious serial killers. Active through the years 1980-1980 he was responsible for eleven gruesome murders in that short span of time. The shocking nature of his crimes ensured nobody would forget his notorious deeds. To build on that, Olson is loathed because he extorted authorities into paying $100,000 for the locations of his victims’ remains, an agreement that haunted the survivors of Olson’s crimes, and ruined the careers of the officials who buckled under Olson’s outrageous demands. Furthermore, his crime spree led Neighbourhoods that once claimed to be “so safe you could leave your door open” to secure their doors; hitchhikers were seldom found on highways, and telephone poles were covered with posters warning that nearly a dozen adolescents were missing and a killer was on the loose. Had he not been apprehended by the authorities on August 12th, 1981 his spree of brutal slayings may have continued for much longer, as he showed no remorse for his ruthless crimes.
Capital punishment and bias in sentencing is among many issue minorities faced for many years in the better part of the nineteen hundreds. Now it continues to spill into the twenty first century due to the erroneous issues our criminal justice system has caused many people to suffer. In the book Just Mercy authored by Bryan Stevenson, Stevenson explains many cases of injustice. Stevenson goes into details of numerous cases of wrongfully accused people, thirteen and fourteen year olds being sentenced to death and sentences of life without parole for children. These issues Stevenson raises bring to question whether the death penalty is as viable as it should be. It brings to light the many issues our criminal justice system has today. There
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it. Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with numerous images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by means of force. Thus, indoctrinating a nation of individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems can be resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating the fact that we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for individuals to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an individual strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period of time, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the ...
Whenever an author is creating an argument, they must appeal to whatever grabs his or her selected audience’s attention.When given the topic of Michael Fay, an 18 year old American citizen who was punished in Singapore for vandalism by being caned, two sources appealed to their audience in two contrasting ways. In “Time to Assert American Values,” published by The New York Times, the author tries to capture his or her audience by stirring up emotion. In “Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs up a Fierce Debate about Crime and Punishment,” Alejandro Reyes presents factual evidence throughout the entire article to support his claims. After carefully analyzing both texts, it is apparent that Alejandro Reyes gives a more convincing and sufficient
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it, (Lapham, 1985). Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with countless images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by force. Thus, indoctrinating individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems are resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for people to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an person strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the fact that, the negligence of the Vancou...
In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of supporters of capital punishment such as Mayor Koch.
...ment an integrative approach in a disjointed system of fragmented agencies and separate departments. In addition, examining violence through social development requires long term studies of development through life stages. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of crimes like the Virginia Tech murders, the pressure to re-act can outweigh the patience to act logically.
Gary Watson shares the true story of the serial killer Robert Harris in his essay “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil”. This inclusive narrative shares of a man who was once a very sensible young boy who found himself on the south tier of Death Row in San Quentin Prison. Through this story, the reader learns first about Robert Harris’s crime and then about his upbringing. Both of which are stories that one could consider hard to read and even consider to be a true story. Those who knew Robert Harris claimed that he was a man that did not care about life. He did not care about himself nor anyone else. Each inmate and deputy, from the prision, who was questioned about
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
Capital punishment in the United States is a highly debated topic. Arguments that want to get rid of this method of punishment usually mention the many problems that capital punishment is plagued with. The death penalty has many issues that cannot be resolved, and since these issues can’t be solved, the death penalty should be abolished. “The irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system.” (Evans 3) Even though the death penalty has been around since the 18th century, capital punishment has many issues such as wrongful convictions and high costs, proving it should be eliminated.
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
In his essay, Continuing the Search for Kinder Executions, published in The New York Times 2003, Mark Essig gradually reveals his opinions on the brutality of capital punishment. Even though prisoners may have committed acts that may be classified as wrong with the law, Essig believes that they should not endure any sufferance during capital punishment because it is inhumane. This action does not mean they will be able to get away with the crimes; they should just not be able to be brutally punished. While the author acknowledges logical arguments that favor capital punishment, he counters with carefully worded emotionally- laded examples that oppose the practice of executing felons because he is
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...