How to Get Away With Murder
The problem with committing murder is the high risk of being caught. When somebody decides that murder is necessary, the problem of how to do it and how to avoid being caught are usually the first thoughts when creating a plan (Behrle, 2014). Unfortunately, the police have become very sophisticated in their investigating skills. Very few murderers get away with it; until now, that is. There are ways to fool the police and the coroner's office. If more people knew how to blow up a car with Drano, or cause a massive heart attack without any physical signs of foul play, there would be more unsolved or unexplained deaths in which many life insurance policies would be paid without question (Manson, 2015).
Tom Richards “Perfect” Plan
According to an FBI researcher Tom Richards, the method of using Drano
…show more content…
The second thing is that rubber gloves are imperative; you do not want to leave fingerprints on a burnt - out car or on the Drano bottle. Remember to dispose of the gloves at a very distant location, perhaps making use of your local grocery store dumpsite. Once you have a full understanding of the timing in which to commit the act and the correct disposal of the gloves, you may continue with the steps in creating this destructive action. (Manson, 2015) Tom Richards has explained many possible ways to commit quick easy murders and processes to keep from getting caught.
There have been many people that have researched how to kill another person and get away with it. Some even commit the crime, but very few keep from being caught (Behrle, 2014). Technology and methods used by the police and investigators has become so advanced, that it is extremely difficult to accomplish something so complicated and not leave a trace behind suggesting that the murderer was in the area or had anything to do with the crime (Manson,
In the case of Alois Dolejs the crime control model, was swift and took the criminal off the streets. The police had a lot of circumstantial evidence, for example, bloody cloths and two different types of blood. On the advise of his attorney, he was instructed not to disclose the location of the bodies, until after the trial.
Is it justifiable to inflict the death penalty on individuals who have committed murder? As majority would have it, yes. There are many arguments in favor of capital punishment. Some of these include taking a murderer out of this world once and for all, and saving money that would be spent on them if they were given a life sentence, as well as the majority rule of citizens of the United States wishing it to stay. In Truman Capote’s nonfiction novel, In Cold Blood, Dick and Perry were assigned the death penalty for the cruel murders of four members of the Clutter family in a small town in Kansas. Not only did this pair of men deserve what they got, but it is also better for the state that they were executed.
latter methods could allow a person to commit murder and easily get away with it.
In 2012, there were an estimated 14,827 murders and non-negligent manslaughter crimes reported by all agencies in the United States according to the Uniform Crime Report at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter are defined “as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.” A 1.1 percent increase occurred from 2011 to 2012. But it should be noted, this is a 9.9 percent drop from the figure for 2008 and a 10.3 percent decrease from the number of murders recorded in 2003. Of the murders that occurred in 2012, it is estimated that 43.6 percent were reported in the south, 21.0 percent were from the Midwest, 21.0 percent were accounted from the west, and 14.2 percent were from the northeast
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
Even though through research we have found the traits, and reasons why serial killers like to kill there is still much to be learned about them. As years go on so will the research on serial killers and hopefully we as a society will fully understand them and one day be able cure whatever inside that makes them have the urge to kill.
On December 18th 2015 Netflix aired with great popularity a 10 part documentary series called “making a Murderer” The documentary, written by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demo, present the case of Steven Avery; a convicted murderer exonerated on DNA evidence after serving 18 years for the assault and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen. The writers present the series in a way that suggest that Avery was framed by the Manitowoc Country police department. and present that the police planted evidence to frame Steven Avery because he had been exonerated from the previous crime. The ethical problem with this as is presented by Kathryn Schulz in The New Yorker, is that the documentary argues their case so passionately that they leave out important
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).
Mass murderers are a danger to society. These killers are malevolent monsters with the desire to kill, and they are nothing new to the general public of today. According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as the killing of 3 or more people on the same day or in a single event. Such killings are rare in the sense that 96% of murders have only one victim while less than 1% have 5 or more. One question that people may have is, “What goes on in their mind?” or “Why do they do this?”. What makes a murderer a murderer is their type, traits, motives, and methods.
Main Point 1: Imagine someone that has been accused of murder and sentenced to death row has to spend almost 17-20 years in jail and then one day get kill. Then later on the person that they killed was not the right person.
Throughout the United States violent crime has been a persistent problem that state governments are constantly trying to contain, if not eliminate. When a crime arises to the severity of the death penalty many times people instantly jump to the support of pro capital punishment , thinking that the accused should be put to death for killing another person. Currently updated as of 2011, there are 34 death penalty states and 16 states that have abolished the death penalty. In deed, very few issues are as polarizing as that of capital punishment. Support for the death penalty crosses all lines of race, socio-economic status, and religion. Given the right climate and circumstances, anybody can be quick to judge, convict, and condemn. Aside from the vengeful feeling of ‘an eye for an eye’, people are in favor of the death penalty because they feel it deters criminals and its less taxing on our penal system. However, what they fail to realize is that the death penalty has not been found to do either of those things, in fact, states without the death penalty have had consistently lower crime rates. Likewise, people are not correctly aware of what the results of the death penalty have really produced, or that life in prison without parole has been proven to be the more effective and economical path to go. The death penalty has proven to be more costly and a failure as a deterrent to crime.
Between 1977 and 2010, an estimated 8,000 people were on Death Row in the US and out of those 8,000, more than 1,200 were actually executed (Siennick, 2012). Policy makers and scholars have been especially interested in whether the death penalty serves a crime-control function by deterring prospective murderers (Siennick, 2012). This debate on whether or not the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent is important to our society because we need to understand the impact of this ultimate and final punishment. Expectations of deterrence follow from the basic idea that potential murderers decide whether to kill after considering the benefits and costs of killing (Siennick, 2012). The Death Penalty as punishment can be a deciding factor to a potential murderer when they make the decision whether to kill someone or not. There is assorted evidence on whether or not this happens and there isn’t a chosen method to gather data that fully supports this idea.
Ever wondered if there is a serial killer in your community? The characteristics of a serial killer may shock you or be surprisingly familiar to some of you. It is important for society to get informed about the various types of serial killers that are out there. It is essential for families to educate their children about strangers, to be careful with everyone they encounter on the streets, store, and even in their neighborhoods. A serial killer is defined as a person who murders three or more people in at least three separate events, with a "cooling-off period" between the kills. The big question is, what makes a person do these atrocious killings? We will analyze personal histories, categorized serial killers,
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.
Unfortunately, the Peterson's case is not unique. Their case is only an example of one of a million crimes that are committed daily in which the death penalty could be applicable to punish the perpetrators and therefore stop them before they attack, kill, rape, or rob another victim. However, not all of the murderers or serial killers are captured; and most of the time, it takes many years to get enough evidence to give closure to their innocent victims and their families.