Explanatory Understanding Of Crime Essay

Throughout Sissela Bok writing, she continues to focus more emphasis on justification. According to Bok, justification is the means by which a liar’s distorted perspective can be revealed. (Bok, 1999, p. 75) Bok suggests that “reasonable person” in general be considered the audience in ethical matters. (Bok, 1999, p. 91) She mention early in her writing that justification requires one to exercise the golden rule, sharing the perspective of those lied to as well as the one benefiting from the lie. The last eight chapters she discuss justification in great detail and clarification. In other words, often times in most situations a lie will backfire and cause harm to an individual as well as the person who is telling the lie. She give example of kinds of lies that are justified, such as lies in wartime and other crises, lies protecting

Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for

Myers only wants to examine the acts of extreme perpetrators rather than take into account their motivations or emotions because we only consider their actions with a rare exception of blaming those actions on “judgments of [a] depraved character.” With ordinary perpetrators, we tend to access their moral character through their actions, motives, and feelings but it differs with the extreme offenders cause we do not sympathize with their actions, let alone them.

According to Rachel Boba, “Crime analysis is a law enforcement function that involves systematic analysis for identifying and analyzing patterns and trends in crime and disorder” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime analysis).The information on these patterns can assist law enforcement agencies in the deployment of resources in a more effective manner; it can also help detectives to identify and catch suspects. Crime analysis also plays a role in improvising solutions to crime problems, and developing crime prevention strategies. There are various types of technology that is used in crime analysis. Crime analysis relies heavily on computer technology, and over the past fifteen years there has been a significant improvement in computer hardware and

Causes of crime are arguably criminology’s most important and largest research topic. In this process of research, criminologists and academics have used numerous theories in attempts to explain how and why people resort to crime (Ellis, Beaver, Wright, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine a case study first with the use of strain theories (ST), followed by social learning theory (SLT). The first section will involve a summary of the case of R v Mark Andrew HUGHES (2009) NSWDC 404 involving an outline of the offender’s personal life, of his crimes, and his punishment handed down by

Sentence was passed and in that moment my whole life completely changed. In the background, you could hear the people chant, “Justice has finally been served!” They don’t know me I thought. Everybody makes mistakes, right? But, where was my second chance in life. My luck, the death penalty became legal again and eagerly waiting for me to become its newest member. My palms grew sweaty as always when I grew nervous and scared. There was nothing I could do. These people wanted me to pay for what I put them through.

Mill and Singer agree that consequences are more important than motive yet disagree on motive’s relevance. Mill states that right actions do “not necessarily indicate a virtuous character” and that blamable actions “often proceed from qualities entitled to praise” (Mill 20). Similarly, Singer states that “there is no intrinsic difference between killing and allowing to die” (Singer 224). He uses the analogy of the travelling salesman to illustrate this argument. In this analogy, a travelling salesman sells tinned food that he knows contains a contaminant that will double the risk of stomach cancer. He sells the food nonetheless, with no identifiable victims and no certainty (Singer

There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that

Good people can cause severe harm if their motives are influenced by the values shared in a public corporation or are a result of manipulation controlled by the law. Bob Henderson’s ability to satisfy his interests to obtain success by dismissing social responsibility and contributing to the rise in obesity is wrong. Hannah Arendt founded the theory “The banality evil’ through analyzing Adolf Eichmann’s case during the time of the Holocaust. Eichmann and Henderson share similarities of both being ordinary men who influenced large scale harm. The intent of this essay will be to compare and contrast the perception of evil and discuss at which point radical evil may be mistaken for banal evil.

He opens his essay with an explanation of primary reasons and asserting that they are central to the everyday explanation of action. He states that giving the reason why an agent did something is usually, “a matter of naming the pro attitude or the related belief or both,” and he refers to this pair as the, “primary reason why the agent performed the action” (Davidson, 686). According to Davidson, it is these types of reasons that we appeal to in

Mill and Singer agree that consequences are more important than motive yet disagree on motive’s relevance. Mill states that right actions do “not necessarily indicate a virtuous character” and that blamable actions “often proceed from qualities entitled to praise” (Mill 20). Similarly, Singer states that “there is no intrinsic difference between killing and allowing to die” (Singer 224). He uses the analogy of the travelling salesman to illustrate this argument’s dependence on consequence. In this analogy, a travelling salesman sells food that he knows contains a contaminant that doubles the risk of stomach cancer, yet he continues to sell the food. His lack of certain, identifiable victims does not render this

An individual’s sense of morality may permit the self to be overcome and be driven by this desire, when it ensures the completion of an ultimately moral act. However the questions still remains. Should a person be judged by the nature of their actions or the intentions or motivations behind it? The question is as hard to answer, as it is to decide whether to use as a carnal, primordial drive, made of selfishness and desire, to complete a good deed. Analyzing this further, justice is not black-and-white: the answer to this question lies in the solution of another query. If they had attempted to do the good deed, the moral act, without relying on the id to fuel the flames, could the individual, have been able to succeed otherwise? Works

Human beings are not one-dimensional, nor are they two-dimensional. Every individual is a dynamic, three-dimensional person who should be treated and viewed as such. Just as one cannot view only part of a painting and expect to understand the meaning and subject of it, one cannot fully understand a person without taking the whole view into account. However, it is often assumed that the part glimpsed is indeed the whole picture. Though this is commonly done to a wide variety of people, a high percentage of those who have their intentions misconstrued by way of their actions are considered ‘evil’ or ‘immoral’ people.

For instance, Vetter (1990) studied the association of the intensity of the violence within the crime, with the reactions and assessment that humans provide for the motive of the crime. He states that, “ To many, a person who commits a series of heinous, apparently senseless, murders must be ‘out of his mind.’ The exact nature of the

As the authors guilt strains more and more upon his mental state, he must find a way to cope. He attempts to reach solace by using logic. Vendler notes this occurrence, “The speaker’s choice of definition and division into parts in the deceptively scholastic beginning (‘Th’expense of spirit in a waste of shame/ Is lust in action, and till action, lust / Is perjured,’ etc.)