In article “Murder Isn’t a Nationwide Problem”, John R. Lott, Jr., does not struggle to layout the statistics that prove to us, the audience, that murder really isn’t a nationwide problem and that killings only take place in some places. In fact, the last sentence he states is: “To put it simply, murder isn’t a nationwide problem; it’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas”. Throughout the article, Lott, Jr. gives us many statistics saying the murders and the population in these “urban areas”.
It decieves the perception of viewers by portraying mass murders as a small issue that makes headlines frequently but cannot be solved. As for viewers, they must develop a bigger perspective and should not allow a few anchors to stop us from ending violence because they say our society is headed for self-inflicted extinction. Although, the article is conducted very bluntly, sucessfully plays with the right emotions of a reader and combined mixtures of facts and opinion to convince his idea, this article contain biases. For example Adam used several reports and facts about gun control laws in several countries, then gave his opinions on those laws. He also indicated a personal connection with the mistreatment of gun controls. By mentioning either of these biases, would be important to mention before a reader attempts to maintain an objective view of the article
According to the FBI Unified Crime Report for 2009, there were 385 murders in that year. The total population for Detroit in 2009 was just over 951,000. (The Neighborhood Scout, 2009) In Minneapolis, a city with about one-half the population of Detroit, the number of murders was 47. Not only is the population less than Detroit, the murder rate 6 times lower than Detroit. Here you can see that population seems to play a role in the amount of murders for these metropolitan areas. The area that had the most reported incidents of murder was Detroit. Minneapolis has shown that they have seen a 17% decrease in violent crimes over the past 3 years.
Then two decades later, in 1993, the capital punishment statutes had been reinstated and performing executions, once again striking the thing criminals fear most, death (Tucker). During the 1990s as more states began to reinstate capital punishment statutes, murder rates began to plummet. They went from 9.6 people per 100,000 in 1993 dropping to 7.7 in 1996 and as low as 6.4 in 1999, which was the lowest rate since 1966. In other words, as the author observed during his study of the forty year period, homicide rates have risen when the rate of execution went down and as the execution rates had risen, the rate of homicides had decreased (Tucker). Not only does the death penalty engender an aversion amongst criminals and people who are considering performing heinous actions, it additionally promotes a positive influence towards themselves and others around. The mandate of capital punishment establishes the attitude of abhorrence toward criminals, and causes people to think about what they are doing because of the possible consequences. With people believing that living the criminal life is not the best of decisions, they are deterred away from making the decision of performing the crime (Caldwell 598).
This paper will attempt to prove the relationship between homicide and the varying theories of Criminology which attempt to explain it. It will provide an introduction that will detail the legal definition of homicide, statistics related to its occurrence, evident behavioral patterns behind homicide in the United States, as well as a description of theories that may best describe the reasons for the occurrence of homicide. It will provide public policy prescriptions to attempt to lower the incidence of homicide in the United States before concluding.
It is irrational to think that the death penalty – a remote threat at best – will avert murders committed in drug turf wars or by street-level dealers” (Bedau). This shows that the death penalty is not stopping murders from occurring. The introduction to the death penalty conducted a survey were top criminologists stated that the death penalty does not deter homicide rates (Introduction). “For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9 [Murder rates by the 100,000], while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8” (Introduction).
Even though evidence proves otherwise, many people claim the large quantity of guns in the United States are culpable for the country’s murder rates. While the United States population and number of guns have steadily gone up since 1994, the rates of all different crime types have drastically gone down (Planty). Over the last nineteen years, almost fifty million guns have been added to the US, yet firearm violence has been reduced by more than two thirds (Federal Bureau). This completely contradicts the statement that more guns equal more violence. To compare the two, solely based on these statistics, it looks as though the upsurge of guns and armed citizens has only led to less violence. Another example, that disproves this, is the Firearm Act of 1997. After a school shooting, the United Kingdom passed this act banning almost all of their guns. That year, the UK had initially recorded seven hundred and thirty-four homicides. While only steadily increasing, by the year 2002, they had a recorded one thousand and forty-one homicides (Osborne). This act did not prevent homicides at all, and as a matter of fact it only created more violence. The District of Columbia is another case in point on how the lack of guns does not mean there is any lack of violence. DC has a 3.6% gun ownership ratio of the people living there, ranking it the lowest in the Unites States. At the same time, DC has the highest gun deaths and firearm robberies in the Unites States. The District has a
Despite existing gun laws already enacted, homicide rates from around the globe are augmenting yearly, resulting in an increase of innocent deaths. Several individuals have expressed that “When the homicide rate is disaggregated by age, it becomes clear that the increase in homicide after 1985 was driven almost entirely by a significant increase in homicides committed by juveniles (those under age 18) and youth (those between the ages of 18 and 24)” (Blumstein). With numerous guns still out in the open and
Answer: I think the authors point of view is one sided a little because he thinks everyone thinks their life out completely and has common sense. A lot of these crimes could have been prevented but you also have to take into account that persons circumstances. The crimes discussed in this chapter showcases that it can be a good explanation and not every murderer is a
A review was conducted from the Law and society Association, American society of criminology and the Criminal Justice sciences Academy and it revealed that a big majority concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent to homicide. More than 80 percent of those interrogated believe that the survey doesn’t hold up the effect of deterrence for the death penalty. Other criminologists suggest that more homicides are caused due to the fact that there is death penalty. The outcome of brutalization argues that the rates of homicides will increase because of the example served by state executions.
The author in this article talks about past studies that have been conducted over killings. The author explains whether or not contagion impacts the likely hood of leading to more killings. The mass shooting that involved lots of killings in 2012 caused more focus on the dynamics of why they were occurring so often. Studies from research being done show on average in the United States there is a mass shooting every 2 weeks. In a self-excitation contagion model stated in the article it shows events that are going to increase in the future. In the article the author shows a correlation with those that conduct a mass murder are likely to commit suicide. The author makes his work credible by informing the reader where he attended in this case Arizona
The United States has been a world leader in homicide for centuries. Indeed, “since the early 19th century ...[America has been] the most homicidal country in the Western world” and holds that title today (Kelley, 2009). In a 2007-2008 list of 31 nations, only two nations, Mexico and Chile, had higher homicide rates (Comparison, 2010). Nations with higher populations, such as India and China have fewer homicides (Comparison, 2010). Further, a nation such as Japan, which has a lower population but a higher population density then the United States, has one of the world’s lowest homicide rates (Comparison, 2010). Population size and density, therefore, cannot be the chief reasons for this nation’s higher homicide rates.
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)
2. Many researchers say deterrence data is “fraught with technical and conceptual errors, including inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, and failures to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates.”
This paper examines the act of mass murder. If society can find a valid answer as to what causes a person to commit mass murders, then the possibility of preventing the act would be great because it would be probable to recognize the psychotic behavior that is associated with mass murder. Occurrences of mass murder for instance the shootings at Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado theatre; Columbine and Virginia Tech over and over again dominate much of society's attention not only for weeks but often for months following the incident. The research question I have selected is: ‘What are the sociological and psychological causes for unforeseen criminal actions of Mass
Murder is a form of violence that does more harm than just destruction of property but leads to a loss of life in the process, and that makes it more severe than other forms of violence that may just end at injuries to people or destruction of property (Staples 2014). The sociological approach to issues of murder in the city highlights how the society or the environment increases the cases of death or reduces them in a case where there are few cases of murder and how the revelation would relatively contribute in mitigating the cases of violence (Pratt and Godsey 2003). The trend in deaths across different cities including Philadelphia is a motivation that results from how the city operations are set and are functioning, the level of security