Connive In Multicide

In August 1998 the IRA claimed responsibility for a car bomb which killed 28 and injured 220 in the Northern Irish Town of Omagh. The bombing was the worst terrorist activity in nearly three decades for Ireland. While claiming responsibility for the blast an IRA representative anonymously told an Irish newspaper “Despite media reports, it was not our intention at any time to kill any civilians. It was a commercial target, part of the ongoing war against the Brits. We offer our apologies to the civilians,”

Furthermore, criminal behaviour is learned, and when this behaviour is been taught, it entails techniques of committing the crime which at times can be complicated and other times quite simple; ' the specific direction of the motives, drives, rationalisation and attitudes.' (Newburn, 2013, pp. 394). Although this theory is rarely used when theorising white collar crime, it is nonetheless an important factor in many offending. For example, a study carried out by Geis of an electrical equipment company found that a lot of manufacture encouraged price fixing by their employee as a way of coping with market pressure. Geis pointed out that these activities was an established way of life where those that are involved learns attitudes and rationalisation that favour and support such misconduct. (Newburn, 2013). A second theory was given by Hirschi and Gottfredson, which is called the Self Control Theory. This theory focus on human nature and the significance of gratification. The central idea of this theory is that individuals peruse self interest and self gratification and the avoidance of pain. In regards to this theory crime is seen as a way in which individuals maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Furthermore, they argued that the differences that there are between those that chooses not to be involved in criminal activities and those that choose to

Within the various fields of criminology, the examination of the reasoning behind why individuals commit crime is important in modern debates regarding how crime should be controlled and prevented. Over the years, numerous theories have developed and continue to be explored – both individually and collectively. Some of the most significant theories with regards to the criminal behaviour of Jeffrey Dahmer include: rational choice theory, attachment theory, differential association theory, biosocial theory and social control theory. This assignment will focus solely on social control theory and how it relates to the case of Jeffrey Dahmer.

suicide attacks. The database helps the reader knows what all terrorist attacks have in common.

Q1. Terrorism is an act done by an individual or a group, using violence or the threat of violence to frighten people, in order to achieve a political, social or religious goal. The word “terrorism” comes from the French word terrorisme, meaning “to frighten.” Terrorism was originally referred specifically to state terrorism, which the French Government practised during the years 1793 – 1794 in the “reign of terror.” The roots and practices of terrorism can be traced back to 1st century AD in Judea where there was an assassination of Roman rulers. Terrorist ideology and aims vary from each individual and/or group. There has been over 2000 cases of terrorism driven by religious purposes. Religious terrorism is carried out due to motivations and goals in relations to religions or religious figures. An example of this are extremist groups such as Al Qaeda who justify their attacks by believing that these are commands given to them by the Koran. Political terrorists carry out violent acts to make a point with government leaders. An example of this is the assassination of Abraham Lincoln on April 15, 1865. Moral beliefs is another aim of terrorism. Moral issues such as anti-abortions have led to attacks, including abortion clinics and their staff in the late 1980’s.

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

There is typically an underlying social force causing the individual to act or think in that specific way. (Cox, 1986)

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

In John Brown’s case, he had killed 5 slaveowners, and although he killed them mercilessly, he still only killed people who would have been defined as guilty in his cause. John Brown’s attacks on slaveholders can be justified as an act of freedom fighting through the definition proposed by Walter Laqueur. “terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted”. Through this definition, it is evident that John Brown did not fit the qualities of a terrorist. Laqueur defined a terrorist as someone who targets innocent people to gain a political stand.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Butko (2006; Freedman, 2005) slightly reflects on Symeonidou-Kastanidou’s (2004) definition in less mechanical way by adding to it that there should be certain psychological effect on innocent victims. In case of the Gunpowder Plot, if the Plot would have failed to achieve its intended purpose, plotters expected at least to evoke condemnation of the society towards the King. The most definitive feature of terrorism in Butko’s (2006) opinion is the threat of violence or use of violence towards ‘innocent’ people, if all of the barrels with the gunpowder would have been ignited the casualties would have been enormous and it is not that hard to imagine, in light of the September 11, the state of horror it would have inflicted upon the London and the whole

There are many perspectives in which one can analyze and understand why a person decides to commit a crime. Some perspectives are social learning theory, strain theory, classical and rational choice theory, deterrence theory, biological and psychological positivist theories, among others. However, for the purposes of this paper, the biological and psychological theories will be discussed.

Control theory, Anomie theory and Strain theory provide very different explanations of why people commit crimes based upon assumptions about how humans function. Control theory suggests that humans are naturally drawn to breaking the law. Humans are driven to fulfill their needs and desires. Crime provides one method by which humans can reach their goals. Control theorists would thus ask why everyone does not turn to crime to meet their wants and needs. The question shifts from the typical why do people commit crime to why do people not commit crime (Cullen and Agnew, 2011). Hirschi suggest that crime and social bonds are linked, such that crime occurs in absence of a strong social bond. The four elements of the social bonds are

Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.

This act of terrorism and others like it were the result of divisions within the PLO which lead to the creation of extremist groups who decided that raids on