More handpicked essays just for you.
Criminal behaviour biological and psychological
Criminal behaviour biological and psychological
Criminal behaviour biological and psychological
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Monsters in Society: Jeffrey Dahmer Versus Grendel “The only motive that there was was to completely control a person… and keep them with me as long as possible, even if it meant just keeping a part of them.” Using this statement, Jeffrey Dahmer offers his insight about what made him the cruel, demented being people have known him to be for the last 25 years. Many questions still remain, however. How do we, in society, define the term “monster”? What makes a monster? What shapes our perceptions of monsters, and how do these perceptions change over time? Several centuries passed between the time of Grendel from the epic poem, Beowulf, and the Milwaukee Monster, Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance. Grendel is a creation of the Anglo-Saxons, whose culture …show more content…
Dahmer, for example, essentially wanted others to be submissive to him; this served a basis for having his victims rendered unconscious before he did the truly disturbing aspects of his actions. He also craved the everlasting companionship that having corpses around could satisfy well enough because he also did not want them to leave, either. Suppressing his true feelings also played a major role in the attacks. He refused to share anything, so dark fantasies grew heavier in his mind and eventually led to 17 deaths. Finally, death fascinated him, as well as control, from a young age, which led to him killing and dissolving animals in acid. Simply put, Jeffrey Dahmer had predominantly selfish, compulsion-driven reasons for doing his crimes. In contrast, Grendel was only acrid that he did not have the comitatus that the Danes had. He also hated the songs about God that the people in Herot sang due to God exiling him. While Dahmer obsessed over the concept of death itself, Grendel was more obsessed with the act of killing, even getting giddy over seeing the sleeping warriors in the mead hall. As can be seen, Grendel and Dahmer had wildly different motives for committing their …show more content…
Jeffrey Dahmer carried out his task in a more drawn-out process, as opposed to Grendel’s simpler, less systematic mode of operation. Dahmer, for the most part, would go to gay clubs, public baths, or other places his sort of victim would frequent so he could pursue and allure them. From there, he’d bring them to his apartment with promises of sexual favors, drinks, pictures, or just plain hanging out. Then, after getting drunk, he’d crush up a small handful of sleeping pills to render his prey unconscious, following this with either fulfilling his own urges or by strangling them. He’d then rape many of the resulting corpses, dismember them, occasionally eat some flesh, and soak the body in acid to liquefy the flesh. He’d occasionally preserve heads, limbs, or bones and keep them around the apartment to eat and pleasure himself to later. All of this, in total, would be a several-week-long process. Grendel, conversely, took the more expeditious approach. He’d simply wait for the warriors to fall asleep after their partying, sneak in, smash or throw people around the mead hall, and quickly leave. As shown above, Dahmer took the more elaborate, twisted approach to his slayings, while Grendel wanted to get his kills done and over
In society, there have always been different roles in defining the boundaries between right and wrong; Monsters take a big part of that role. In Jeffrey Cohen’s “Monster Culture,” Cohen explains seven theses which provide a clearer explanation of how monsters take a part in establishing these boundaries. The oldest Anglo-Saxon story written- “Beowulf”- provides three different monsters which all connect to Cohen’s seven theses. In the older version, however, the monsters do not relate to humans in any way, except that they are enemies. The modern version of Beowulf portrays Grendel’s mother to still be evil but also have relations with the humans in the story.
As children, our parents tell us that monsters do not exist. The truth is that they do exist and they live among us, masquerading as one of us. Two examples of these monsters are serial killers Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. A serial killer is classified as a person who kills three or more people, in separate events, over a time frame of a month, with “cooling off” periods in between. While Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer both share a sick twisted mind and a penchant for killing, differences in their upbringing, personality, and preferences drastically set them apart.
Dahmer’s need for companionship mixed with his perversions led to the idea of turning his victims into “zombies” m
We live in a world inhabited by Monsters. Monsters have been identified and represented in a myriad of ways since the birth of time and humanity. The intrusion of uniformity as we define it, the monster. Monsters have been depicted to frighten and agitate, to destruct and clout arguments, and to shape societies. In the chapter “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)”, Jeffrey Jerome Cohen argues with logic and reasoning to the way monsters have been interpreted far and near time. In everything we create, monsters are the by-products of our technology, the products of the things unconsidered. By inspecting our monsters, we divulge the intricacies of our culture, past and
From 1987 to 1991, Jeffrey Dahmer reign terror over the gay community. He was a social incompetent, homosexual man. His spent his entire life feeling as an outcast in this giant world and struggled to find his voice and his sense of self. He resorted to dead rodents and mannequins to bring him entertainment and companionship. Eventually, Dahmer thirst for more and when his abuse of alcohol could no longer medicate him he allowed his gruesome fantasies and needs to take control.
Throughout history we see monsters taking many different shapes and sizes. Whether it be a ghoul in the midst of a cold nightly stroll or a mass genocide, monsters are lurking everywhere and our perception of what monsters truly are, is enhancing their growth as a force with which to be reckoned. Fear of the unknown is seen throughout time, but as humans progress we are finding that things we once were afraid of we are less frightening than they once were. Monsters can evoke fear in their targeted victims rather than physically harm their victims. For instance, every year a new horror film is released with the next scary beast, but why do we call something a monster even if we know it is not real? Even certain people and creatures are classified as monsters, but are they really monsters, or do their actions speak of monstrous doings? In his article and book chapter Monsters and the Moral Imagination and chapter 5 of On Monsters, Stephen Asma suggests that monstrosity, as we know it, is on the rise as humans progress, and how we perceive monsters can often define monstrosities in itself, providing evidence as to why monster cultures are on the rise, and showing how human progress has evolved our perception of how we think on the topic that is monsters.
John Gardner’s Grendel delicately betrays the humanity of a monster. The reader is pulled into the story of Grendel’s life, his rather philosophical journey, and his ultimate downfall. Remarkably, the tale of a creature who, in Beowulf, is a simple force of evil, becomes a complex, storied protagonist. However, this complexity must not be mistaken for righteousness. No, even Gardner’s Grendel remains evil, but in a way that is more relatable, more human. He is cognizant of his wrongdoing, and he even attempts to break his own cycle of destruction, but in the end surrenders to a dark and thankless fate. Grendel’s inherent evil is revealed as he disregards preexisting morals, embraces
In any classic story about heroes and villains, the monsters involved are often characterized as the evil ones and, consequently, receive no justice under the law. Throughout the epic story Beowulf, the hero of the story encounters three monsters that are threats to society: Grendel, Grendel’s mother, and the dragon. The monsters in Beowulf are quickly targeted and destroyed because of the harm they cause to society. However, upon further examination of the monsters and the motives for their actions, the reader can view the monsters not as the cutthroat villains they may initially appear to be, but perhaps as victims of society. In today’s society, murderers and robbers are also portrayed as “monsters” because of the atrocious crimes they commit. While it is undeniably wrong to commit any kind of crime and I do not wish to condone murder or theft in any way, there may also be an ulterior explanation for why these modern “monsters” cause harm to society. In comparing and contrasting the monsters of Germanic epic with criminals of today, perhaps we can gain some insight into the motivation of both.
Driven by his sexual fantasies, Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the most infamous examples of a hedonistic killer. Participating in cannibalism, Dahmer claims these acts were attempts at becoming closer to his victims.
...al murder, therefore there is no reason to commit serial murder at all. But, because of not telling anyone of his compulsions of murder and necrophilia starting at the age of fourteen, this, may of ultimately led Dahmer down this road.
“My consuming lust was to experience their bodies. I viewed them as objects, as strangers. It is hard for me to believe a human being could have done what I've done”(Dahmer). Jeffrey Dahmer is notably one of the most infamous serial killers in the United States. Along with seventeen murders under his belt, he was also a pedophile, cannibal and necrophiliac.
Dahmer was always an outcast. In his early years, he seemed fascinated with death and dead animals. This carried on throughout his childhood. At puberty, not only was he a heavy alcoholic (first noted at age 14), but he was realizing he was gay. He had fantasies of a completely subservient partner whom he could totally control. These fantasies were
During Dahmer’s psychiatric evaluation, Dr. Wahlstrom concluded, “Jeffrey was suffering from a mental illness never cured for” (FBI 1992). This leads me to perceive that Dahmer must have been displaying psychotic traits that went unnoticed and undocumented during his early lifetime. I can only speculate that this uncured mental illness lead Dahmer to develop and refine his inability to empathize with society; which in turn, lead him to engage in cruelty without mentally comprehending the victim’s suffering. Although the causes for psychopathy are unclear, some suggest that psychogenic aspects can outline abnormalities which may be present in psychopaths (Schmalleger 2014). When looking at Dahmer’s distant relationship with his parents early on in his childhood, I became conscious of the fact the lack of affection from his parents which may have lead him to develop twisted views on how one should display affection to others, thus prompting him to show psychotic behavior later on in life (The profile of Jeffrey Dahmer 1996). Even though the letter of the law fails to describe Dahmer and even if he was not fit to stand trial, I believe the court would have declared him fit for trial due to the brutality of the
Richard’s case clarifies the common notion that monsters
Monsters are hunted. The lore of their destruction is excessive, glowing, and dispersed. It is a crucial component of their mythology. There is no eluding the hunter, armed with the vampire stake and crosses and the werewolf’s silver bullet. But then it is the hunter whose tale it is to begin with. Beowulf cannot stay hidden forever, or he would not be Beowulf. Monstrosity relies, in this sense, on its exposition for its production, and it is in this superficial sense of vitality by revelation that two theorists of monstrosity concoct a fantastic world of ‘society’ to keep themselves at bay. Michael Uebel’s “Unthinking the Monster” and Mark Dorrian’s “On the Monstrous and Grotesque” represent similar though distinct theorizations of monstrosity in terms of otherness, difference, relation to self, and production in/by rhetoric. The articles consider the relation between monstrosity and the terms against which it is defined. Yet the pieces are also monsters, and the worlds they sing of are the ones they behold with rapt attention. It is their theorization of monstrosity that allows for the continuation of both insides and outsides in a way more immediate than their encapsulation of such a movement considers.