Aileen's Case Study

is false, because there are cases where a person is morally responsible for what she has done even if she could not have done otherwise (835-6). Call such cases Frankfurt-style cases. A lot of literature thereafter has been targeted on these Frankfurt-style cases, particularly whether it’s really possible to construct them. Among critics of Frankfurt, David Widerker (2003) takes one step further and he grants, for the sake of his argument, that it is possible to construct Frankfurt-style cases ; however, he argues that even so, Frankfurt’s argument still fails because there are counter-examples to Frankfurt-style cases, which are in favor of PAP (60-2).

The chain of causation may be broken if the victim’s acts are free, voluntary and informed. In our case, Larry was driving carelessly and was not wearing a helmet during the crash, believing that they are ‘only for girls’. As Larry’s intervention was voluntary, it could break the chain of causation and Willow may not be convicted for murder.

The recent criminal trial that involved the victim Kallie Anthony and the accused, her mother, Casey Anthony was certainly filled with both determinism as well as free will accusations. What was lost in what became a sideshow or no more than a soap opera for some people was the tragic death of an innocent child that was no more than two (2) years old. After a lengthy criminal trail Ms. Anthony was ultimately found not guilty of the crimes in which she was accused after less than eleven (11) hours of deliberation of a jury of her peers (Hayes, 2011, para. 1)

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

The effects of the sexual and verbal abuse that Aileen Wuornos without a doubt shaped her view of herself as well as how the world viewed her. She had been abused practically from the moment she was born, as reported in a publication titled Serial murder and the case of Aileen Wuornos: attachment theory, psychopathy, and predatory aggression (Arrigo & Griffin, 2004). Aileen Wuornos’ life experiences prior to the age of thirteen were of abandonment, various forms of abuse, neglect, accompanied with an overall sense of not being good enough. As a child she had no control over her circumstances, furthermore she did not know that those actions were wrong. When she began prostituting at the age of nine it is doubtful she knew what she was doing

Then, after ignoring a doctor's warning that having another child would guarantee future depression, they had the child anyway. So this mental illness was almost welcomed by Andrea and her husband, and this mental illness is what they think is responsible for their deaths, so they are responsible for the deaths. 2. What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart' Should Andrea’s husband be held responsible for the death of the children?

After researching classical and neoclassical theories, I find myself siding with the assumption of freewill associated with the classical theory. Although, the neoclassical theory concedes there are factors that can inhibit freewill, I believe people still have a choice, but simply choose what they believe is best for them at the time, giving little care for the consequences. Therefore, I believe people are completely responsible for there actions, even with potentially inhibiting factors. Just look at several of the recent premeditated mass murders being committed by individuals who were later determined to be insane; should they not be held accountable simply because some psychological exam has determined them to be mentally diminished?

The incompatibilists argue that one is morally responsible for what she has done given that she could have done otherwise. Further, they think that if determinism is true then one could not have done otherwise, so if determinism is true, one is not morally responsible for things she has done. In debates surrounding the issue of free will, philosophers have focused on discussing whether determinism is true or false. Harry Frankfurt thinks even though the requirement of alternative possibilities in order to be held morally responsible for our actions seems intuitively plausible, it is a questionable premise in the argument provided by incompatibilists. Frankfurt calls the premise that “a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise” the principle of alternative possibilities or PAP (Frankfurt, 829). He argues that PAP is false and a person can be held morally responsible even if she could not have done otherwise.

When it comes to moral and legal problems, what is right or wrong usually gets clouded by details. The gray matter comes to play in deciding who was right or wrong in the short stories “A Father’s Story” and “Uncle”. In “A Father’s Story’, Luke Ripley was in the right for covering up his daughter’s crimes. Who wouldn’t do anything to keep their child safe no matter their age? The length a person is willing to go to keep their child safe in unmeasurable. Whereas in “Uncle” the niece is completely in the wrong. Despite our brains not reaching full maturity until the age of twenty-five, this middle-school-aged should know it is wrong to attack someone who did nothing to her with large gardening tool, continue to torture him after initially

Children that grow up in houses with alcohol and sexual misconduct tend to have lingering effects. Children may be more prone to committing criminal acts like the actions Billy has displayed. According to the textbook for this course, James Q. Wilson proposed an updated version of classical criminology that was called the Rational Choice Theory (Gaines and Miller, 2011, p. 25). The rational choice theory’s basis is that a person can choose to commit crimes or choose not to commit crimes (Gaines and Miller, 2011, p.25). However, when a person such as Billy decides to participate in criminal acts, there are reinforcers (rewards) or punishments (consequences) (Gaines and Miller, 2011, p.25). Billy’s actions have either led him to a reward or consequence, but most likely the reward has been greater than the consequences since he has continued to commit criminal acts (Gaines and Miller, 2011, p.25). It has been hypothesized that criminality even violent acts follow the aforementioned pattern according to the rational choice theory (Gaines and Miller, 2011

When Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act, Rosaleen (who is African American) decides she's going to go to town to register to vote, pronto. Lily is kind of bummed out about her upcoming birthday and asks to tag along so she at least gets out of the house on her big day.What should have been a day of triumph for Rosaleen turns into a run-in with the police, which ends with Rosaleen and Lily in jail. Lily is released as soon as T. Ray picks her up, but after a particularly nasty argument with him, she quickly realizes that life in his house represents its own kind of prison—and she's got to break out. Knowing that Rosaleen remains in danger in jail, she resolves to break Rosaleen out as well. She is successful on both counts, and they head

It has always been up for debate about who’s at fault for atrocities that are committed in todays society. With modern psychology research at its forefront, it has been discovered that the way a child is raised affects how they are as an adult. Seems simple. But, if a child grows up to become a murder, is it the parents fault? Or is it the individuals fault for committing the crime in the first place? One could also say that society as a whole could also be at fault for the “monsters” we create. Although opinion differs between each person, there is a bit of truth to all of these statements. I believe while partial blame goes to the ‘creator’ of such monsters, the rest of the blame goes to the monsters themselves because they are the ones acting

Is it true that if you do something outside your free will, you should be held responsible? To clarify, doing something outside your free will means doing something you could not have done otherwise. To answer the question, I believe that yes, you should be held responsible. Ted Sider claims that you should not be held responsible, and uses the following example to support his claim: Suppose that you are kidnapped and then forced to commit a series of murders by the hand of the kidnapper. Sider’s example clearly shows that you should not be responsible for actions committed that you could not of otherwise, but I can provide an example where you can.

The following analysis shall go in depth into the criminal liability of John in a hypothetical incident which occurring January 2016 in Armidale. John is a divorcee father of two children, namely William and Ned. His children are aged 20 and 14 years old respectively. During the course of a family dinner John commits several crimes in a fit of rage as detailed below which result in the death of his two sons.

A probable cause of life not being fair is that laws are unforgiving, everlasting, and unappeasable. Similarly, Marilyn, a young girl who wanted to spend quality time with her brother, made a choice to board a spaceship to visit her brother. On the spaceship, stowaways like Marilyn are unwanted and cannot stay. However, she did not know that the spaceship had such laws. Once Marilyn became a stowaway on the spaceship, it no longer had enough fuel to reach its destination; therefore, Marilyn must die. Marilyn advises, “It was the law, and there could be no appeal” (10). The law is unforgiving, and it does not accept changes. Likewise, Marilyn searches for alternate options other than dying, ways to change the law, and ways to