Fried In A Just World

“The only two people that know I am innocent, is myself and the killer.” Imagine being blamed for a crime you did not commit, and nobody would believe you no matter what you said. Steven Truscott had forty-two years of his life taken from him for being charged with a crime he did not commit. He was charged at only the age of fourteen for murdering and raping twelve year old Lynne Harper. He then became the youngest death-row inmate after one of the most famous trials in the history of Canada. Steven Truscott should never have been convicted for the murder and rape of Lynne Harper due to the fact the forensic evidence was questionable the

Theories of victimization essentially does something morally unpopular, by discussing how the victim caused their own victimization. Identified below are four theories of victimizations and examples of both strength and weakness of each. The goal for this paper is to briefly define at the four theories in order to grasp a better understanding of how individuals can lessen the opportunity to become a victim of a crime.

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.

authors use the concept of guilt to imply the idea that guilt has the capabilities to

This shows that a person’s guilt will manifest itself into ideas that can cause an irrational feeling in the person the guilt is eating away at. In addition, Dunstan ponders, “I was determined

Imagine if a random guy killed your daughter along with a couple of other girls: you would be furious. What would you want to happen to him? Would you want him to suffer greatly, or even die for what he did? Would you have sympathy for him because he is young? Would you forgive him if he apologized? This guy murdered your beloved daughter that you love with all your life, and you would do anything to stop him and put him to justice. If you turn this situation around, and it was your son who killed the girls, what would you want to happen to your son? Would you want him to suffer the consequences, or would you defend him to the highest point? These situations are

This ethical analysis will define the hierarchical societal pressures and psychological torment that validates acts of crime committed by Bigger Thomas in Native Son by Richard Wright and Maria in Ian McEwan’s novel The Innocent. In Wright’s novel, the main protagonist, Bigger Thomas, is a twenty year old that is prone to crime because of being marginalized in a racist white society that will not allow him to advance himself. After accidently killing Mary Dalton, Bigger’s fear of being caught is part of psychological torment that partially vindicates him from the crime. This is also true of Maria’s murder of Otto to protect Leonard from getting killed during a fistfight, since Otto had psychologically and physically abused her. Maria’s case is more compelling than Bigger’s, but they both share the underlying hierarchical abuse of society and the psychological torment that vindicates the traumatic outburst that lead to murder. These criminal acts define certain circumstances in which “crimes of passions” are vindicated in relation to the abuse and mental torment of the perpetrator of the crime. In essence, an ethical analysis of Bigger Thomas and Maria will definer the vindication of certain crimes due to hierarchical oppression and psychological torment in crimes of passion.

Lutwak, N., Panish, J., & Ferrari, J. (2003). Shame and guilt: Characterological vs. behavioral self-blame and their

Though the offender still believes that crime in general is wrong, they will justify or excuse their crime as necessary, morally correct or otherwise acceptable. Offenders might suggest that their crime was acceptable because they are not responsible (“Denial of Responsibility”), no harm occurred (Denial of Injury), the victim deserved to be victimized (“Denial of Victim”), the authorities have it out for them (Condemnation of the Condemners) or there is a higher good served by their actions (“Appeal to Higher Loyalties”). The offender in all of these cases recognizes that their actions were deviant, but argue that it was justified (Sykes and Matza , 2011). Under these theories, humans are considered to naturally want to commit crime, but generally believe that crime is wrong. When they do offend, they consider their offense to be justified exceptions to their belief in the wrongness of crime, the result of a lack of self-control or social bond.

The Effects of Revenge The pursuit of vengeance regardless of all consequences and collateral damage is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. In both literature and reality great acts of violence are the products of retribution. Subsequently, this theme of avenging a wrong is central to both Hamlet and The Count of Monte Christo. Revenge is unpredictable and often causes unforeseen pain, making generally it undesirable.

When we fail at things it is because of others; those who are below average bring us down.” (Campbell, 182-183). It is human nature that causes one to believe that they are special in comparison to most, therefore meaning that each person is born with the idea that they are better than everyone else. This belief of superiority makes certain people acknowledge that they have the self proclaimed power to accuse individuals of being the causation of bad situations, because every person has this self delusion that it wasn't their fault so it must be someone else's, someone who has less power than them. So certain individuals with self proclaimed power using other people's natural instincts to blame another person during a bad situation is an example of how one abuses their power to place blame upon a scapegoat. Another, piece from the novel speaks upon how humans like to personify their pains, and try to find one person in which they can place that blame on. “Ultimately, we make scapegoats out of those we have come to believe are incapable of suffering - we dehumanize them, making them easier to hate. We create the idea that these other people are inferior to

Julie Bouvier also perfectly matches the concept of Christie’s ‘Ideal Victim’, which lists criteria for the ‘type of victim’ that is likely to receive public sympathy, as opposed to being blamed. Christie’s ideal victim theory states that the “ideal victim” is weak, was carrying out respectable project; meaning she/he was not engaged in criminal activity, the victim was where she could not possibly be blamed for being; not a deviant place, such as a dark alleyway. Furthermore, regarding the “ideal victim”, the offender was bad, the offender was unknown and had no personal relationship with the victim. Ultimately, Ideal Victim Theory states that the victim must be powerful enough to make her case known, thereby successfully claiming the status

In this article Karyn Hall contends with the idea that revenge will not make you feel any better upon acting on it. Hall brings attention to this universal action called revenge. She uses an example from Shylock’s speech talking about the way someone treats you just because of their religion. Hall puts it in clear perspective that it will make you feel even worse after you have done the deed instead of waiting it out and take a break from the situation. In her article Hay (2013) did research trying to find out peoples’ reaction to injustice. Some people reacted and some did not but Hay made me convinced that the data was accurate and trustworthy. Trust is another key topic Karyn wrote about and without it you can not have a basic relationship.

In this paper, I am going to argue that living a just life is more worthwhile than living an unjust life. I will do this with evidence provided from the text. The argument in question is why (given the advantages of living an unjust life) would anyone want to live a just life. This very question was a major debate that carried on during most of the text of The Republic of Plato. Throughout the text we see Socrates, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus and Glaucon take on this challenge. They thoroughly go through what they feel is just, and unjust. They also outline the benefits of living both types of ways. They take the various ideals discussed and pick them apart in every which way possible. There is no point of view that is brushed under the rug. After seeing the stance of several of the characters in this book, I see myself siding with Socrates on many levels. This challenge is taken on heavily and incorporated in many of the other concepts discussed within Socrates’ circle.

Finding out one’s fault only makes the thinker feel guilty about their own fault. Good people put their needs before their own, and instead help others by displaying kindness and compassion. Others may feel the things they deem right is the way to go, none the less we judge a book by its cover and don’t take the good from it. Everyone possesses an evil trait that may not be shown but it’s within the human being.