Applying Weber 's Theories That Shape Everyday Life Essay

From prehistory to 21st century, violence and warfare permeate human existence. Tribes, cities, and nations have pitted their youth against one another in hopes improving their position. However, these Soldiers regularly fall short of maximizing their killing potential. In the book On Killing, Dave Grossman scrupulously examines war throughout recent history; specifically the human element in killing. His thorough assessment of the psychological factors associated with homicide is vitally important to individuals who wish to successfully lead their Soldiers during and after combat. Its ultimate value clearly visible in light of four major facets: the background of the writer, the general points of the book, analysis of essential concepts, and the insight provided.

For as long as humanity has existed, men have committed violence against one another. Assuredly, Nancy G. Guerra’s and Lyndee Knox’s entry on violence in the Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice affirms that, “As historical and cross-cultural records demonstrate, our evolutionary history is laced with examples of violence. Indeed, paleontological data reveal a rather continuous stream of human violence dating back thousands of years.” It is clear that violence is a part of human nature that has always existed and will likely never be eradicated. One of the aspects that all forms of violence seem to share is that, societally (in terms, at the very least, of Western societies), they are looked down upon. Consequentially, those who commit violent

Homicide always will be an aspect of life, whether it is in the 16th century, 21st century or in the future. At times of extreme stress, people may turn to murder as an outlet of a greater problem they cannot fix or control. Presently, homicide has a greater value in society due to popular culture references through the media such as television, film and writing; society constantly has homicide and murder in the subconscious. In David M. Buss’ findings in The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill,

murder in many occasions. As we take a deeper look inside the motivations behind these

In conclusion, it has been demonstrated the social construction of the lawful and unlawful homicide by using the actions of the police officers in two different cases. In the Mark Duggan case, the lawfulness of the homicide was demonstrated by police officer complying with the theoretical outlooks of Beccaria and Durkheim (Williams, 2012). Protecting the people and their cultural biases, applying the punishment that straightens the social bonds as well as following laws and legislations despite of unwanted reaction in from of riots portray Mark Duggan’s killing as a lawful homicide (IPCC (a), 2015). However, if laws and legislations were not followed and actions were not aimed to protect people which led to a break in social bonds the reasonable

The homicide rate in the United States has fluctuated over the country’s history, but it remains significantly higher than the rest of the supposedly civilized world. From the mid-nineteenth to the early twentieth century, homicide rates fell in every Western nation other than the Untied States. What is most interesting about America’s violent history is 1) that the Southern states are astronomically more violent than the rest of the United States and 2) there is little certainty or agreement about the sources and causes of the persistent regional differences in violent behavior. “Scholars from a broad range of disciplines, writing about the past as well as the present, have demonstrated that rates of violence have been consistently higher in the South” Adler. That violence has, at various times, been blamed on the Southern “code of honor”, race relations, legal institutions, rural environments, social darwinism, and the political and economic upheaval of the time, among others. Explanations for Southern violence have never been lackingAyers and while most of these explanations contain a small element of truth, their validity is lessened by insufficient ways of analyzing patterns in Southern violence. Most explanations are guilty of the oversimplification of a complex problem.

6. To review the case studies as they relate to the process of becoming a serial

The film, In Cold Blood holds in account various reasons why murders are perpetrated, but one of the major reasons is being due to mental illness, affected by socioeconomic, self-image, and being under the influence of pressure. These causes have been implemented in the film showing how they have influenced each other in carrying out a murder just like the murder of the Clutter family. It also ties in the way the Criminal Justice System went about dealing with homicides and the penalty that that followed in an unjustified manner.

In 14th century mythological creatures like werewolves and vampires were blamed for violent crimes and the cause of the crime was seen as supernatural, beyond human control. In today 's society criminals are still labeled as monsters, little effort is made to understand what influences their actions. However criminals are too average human beings and examining why crimes are committed can help law enforcement better handled and prevented future acts of crimes. Why do we label criminals instead of understanding their behavior? What factors influence people to commit crimes? By understanding the factors influencing the crime can future crimes be prevented? In an article by O’Toole called, “Words Matter and Labels Make a Difference”, she discusses how labels such as monster limit the public from understanding why the crimes were committed. In the article, “An Act of Evil? When Monsters Kill”, O’Toole explains the reasoning behind a father killing himself and his two sons. Janet Reitman discusses the life of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the man responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing in the Rolling Stone article, “Jahar’s World”. She interviews people close to Jahar to gain an understanding of what made him execute the bombing.

Violence throughout our time has been evident ever since the beginning of our human species. From verbal to physical, one will not go through his/her lifetime without understanding the violent nature of other people. Richard Wilkinson brought up a point that “More unequal societies tend to be more violent” (Wilkinson 2). Wilkinson shows that there is a prominent correlation between income and homicide. Lower incomes shows higher rates of homicide. In A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens shows how violence can flourish due to the inequality seen in the lower classes. Dickens uses violence to portray that a society filled with inequalities can lead to violence.

With time violence may become such a commonplace that even seemingly sane people will see no problem murdering a store clerk, opening fire on someone that cut them off on the highway, or killing a disobedient child. "A society that chooses violent death as a solution to a social problem gives official sanction to a climate of violence." (Prejean, 57)

In their respective sociological examinations of the forces driving capitalist society, both Max Weber and Saskia Sassen comment on the degree of social inclusion in the capitalist system. Weber, writing in 1906, argued in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that all workers, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, were compelled to participate in the Protestant work ethic underlying a capitalist society (Weber 123). Conversely, Sassen argues in her 2014 book Expulsions : Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy that workers, despite a desire to engage in society, are being expelled from participation in the current Capitalist system (Sassen 29). This contrast draws to our attention a paradigm shift in the structure of capitalist society over the last century: the change from popular inclusion to exclusion in the system. Drawing on David Harvey’s idea of a shift from the economic system of Fordism to flexible accumulation provides an explanation for this transition between inclusion of communities in mass production in Weber’s time to mass expulsion from the Capitalist system in modern times. When the Fordist method of coercive systemic inclusion produced profits, all workers were included in mass production, but when increasing rigidity and competition in that system brought a decrease in profits, Capitalism transitioned to the system of flexible accumulation, leaving workers to deal with the consequences of expulsion from society on

The following typology of mass murderers was presented by Turvey (2008:510). The types were grouped according to the variables of motivation, crime scene types, and victim selection by Fox and Levin (2005), who used the five categories of power, revenge, loyalty, terror, and profit.

To begin my research I started off by interviewing an ex-military Lieutenant and Hammond, Indiana police officer with experience of 22 years. His ideas on the topic of murder were simple. I asked him, “Do murders kill for different reasons” and he simply answered, “yes but, mostly gang related reasons”. He expresses his views on murders by talking about how psychological help will not be any use because, “that’s the only life they know” according to the Hammond police officer. I also asked the question, “What causes the murders aggressiveness”, he states from his experience, “that’s there way of getting back at someone”. This is common from an excerpt from Dr.Lisa Firestone in Making a murder.

Max Weber thought that "statements of fact are one thing, statements of value another, and any confusing of the two is impermissible," Ralf Dahrendorf writes in his essay "Max Weber and Modern Social Science" as he acknowledges that Weber clarified the difference between pronouncements of fact and of value. 1 Although Dahrendorf goes on to note the ambiguities in Weber's writings between factual analysis and value-influenced pronouncements, he stops short of offering an explanation for them other than to say that Weber, being human, could not always live with his own demands for objectivity. Indeed, Dahrendorf leaves unclear exactly what Weber's view of objectivity was. More specifically, Dahrendorf