Why Do You Decide To Kill Mr. Elliss Reed

Mass murder is defined by the FBI as the killing of three or more people in a single event or in the same day (Petersen & Farrington, 2007). Mass murderers are complex and can be examined by the many factors that regularly appear among them, such as violence precipitating events, weapon of choice, and mental illnesses. The motivations and methods for committing mass murder are easily broken down into specific groups, and through the examination of these definitions and specific cases there is much to learn about the mind of a mass murderer.

Already, nearly seventy death warrants have been signed, and more will follow if you do not end this madness. At this rate, if the number of the accused continues, the whole town-no, the whole colony-will be facing the noose. Because of these trials, people have the chance to accuse others in revenge or to better themselves. Putnam has been accusing others to gain land, which he takes from the accused. However, Putnam’s status and wealth protects him from being accused. When these trials are over, the only people left will be greedy sinners and murderers. Murderers who knew the innocents they accused would likely be killed. As you are aware, the commandments tell us that we shall not murder. For the sake of our colony’s integrity, you must call these trials off before all the innocents are killed, and the people left living become a

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of

Would it be true that capital punishment saves lives? Edward Koch, in his article “Death and Justice” believes it does. Koch, using common techniques to influence his audience, suggests that killers should be handled within this tried and avenged form of punishment. Koch opens his article by quoting convicted murderers Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, both in the last moments of their lives pleading for the justice system to put a stop to the endless cycle of killing. Using simple logic, Koch argues that the sudden changing of the killers’ moral character is not a result of remorse for the victims, but rather an attempt to save their own lives from the killing hands of the justice system. Koch effectively uses these quotes to suggest to the reader that a killer might have thought twice about his/her own actions if the death sentence were a belief.

Capital punishment is a subject full of controversy. When it comes to the topic of the death penalty, most of us will readily agree that it’s a grim subject. Where this agreement usually ends however, is on the question of how necessary it is. Whereas some are convinced that capital punishment is not only cruel its useless as well, others maintain that it is necessary for justice to be adequately served . In the article “The Penalty of Death” by H.L. Mencken the author addresses the objections against the death penalty as well as his stand on the whole issue while using several rhetorical strategies to not only get his viewpoint across but, make the reader really think about their own stand on the death penalty. Three of the most effective

People have always been curious on what makes a serial killer; after all, it is difficult to imagine murdering multiple people and not feeling an ounce of guilt or emotion afterwards. In severe cases, this is what a person having antisocial personality disorder is capable of. Infamous serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson were believed to have this disorder. Personality disorders in general can range from mild to severe in the afflicter’s actions, but antisocial PD is arguably one of the most dangerous seen in human behavior history.

In this world, there are people who are able to shoot, bludgeon, or torture a whole family and then sleep peacefully just hours after. Serial Killers have piqued the American public’s interest for generations. In the 1970s, for example, America was enthralled by the danger and fear of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, famous serial killers who killed a combined number of over a hundred people. Following suit of the popularity of serial killers, they have become ingrained in our culture through art, books, news, talk-shows, and movies. A famous example of this trend is in Flannery O’Connor’s ”A Good Man Is Hard to Find”, where the antagonist, The Misfit, brutally murders a family of six. O’Connor described The Misfit as a calm, polite, analytical, morally-confused, murderer with leadership skills and “strong white teeth.” This archetype, a person who can be perfectly calm while being aggressive and lacks a sense of right or wrong, has also been an interest of study in the medical field. The medical community has come together for patients that are described as lacking a moral conscious, naming their disorder psychopathy (Robinson). In Flannery O’Connor’s ”A Good Man Is Hard to Find” The Misfit exhibits signs of psychopathy, shown from his manipulating control over Bobby Lee and Hiram, and staying calm while he directly and indirectly kills six people.

Throughout time there has always been mentally disturbed people, but the problem is that they are on the streets and not in a psych ward. As you read this paper you will learn about some of the most infamous serial killers of the 20th century and the horrific atrocities they committed. We will go inside the mind of a serial killer and discover what drives them to kill people and also why some serial killers love to devour their victims, keep their limbs and even continue to preform sexual acts with them even after there are already dead.

“ I should have gone into college and gone into real estate and got myself an aquarium...That’s what I should have done…”~ Jeffrey Dahmer ( The Milwaukee Cannibal). Many think that serial killers are insane, not realizing how much thought goes into their killings and picking their victims. They also do not realize how much Serial Killer have in common, all the way from their personality, family life to neurological traits. Yet a very crucial fact that people tend to overlook is the very definition of insanity” A mental illness of such a severe degree that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality” and although Serial Killer may have a very twisted reality but they know that stealing a innocent's life is wrong, hiding under the claim

But I submit that such a philosophical foundation is flawed. Revenge while understandable from an individual human perspective is not a proper basis for society 's response to the misbehavior of its laws. This human urge to punish should be removed from the current system and replaced with methods of restrictions that utilize the offender 's potential to benefit his victim and society at large.

Cruel serial executioners have been broadly analyzed as sociopaths who are inadequate in compassion and exorbitantly worried with impression administration. In the expert writing, a comparative impression of the savage serial executioner is energized by scientists and writers who concentrate on specific qualities that have been broadly viewed as mentally unmistakable of the cruel serial executioners—specifically, their absence of compassion for the torment and enduring of casualties, their excessive worry with impression administration to augment individual joy, and their absence of regret. The individuals who look to comprehend perverted serial killers might have acknowledged uncritically the customary expert astuteness delineating twisted

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

“The serial killer ‘is an entirely different criminal,’ ”The term serial killer is misleading on the ground that each murder is intended to be the last.” We see them as a figure of “the dark side of human potential,” but they believe they’re “on a heroic quest for the biggest score possible” They believe they are “the archetypal figure of impurity, the representative of a world which needs cleansing.” However, society knows that serial killers are not heroes, and they’re not cleansing the world. “The figure of the serial killer is violent impurity personified, and it is a construction that necessitates figures of violent purity to confront it.” While it can be argued whether having mental disorders should prevent a serial killer from being capitally punished, it is proven that many serial killers suffer from “paranoid schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis, or psychopathology.” It’s even said that “this crime is actually a form of disease. Its carriers are serial killers who suffer from a variety of crippling and eventually fatal symptoms, and its immediate victims are the people struck down seemingly at random by the disease carriers.” Serial killers usually have a stressor in their life that makes them start killing, and when they do “homicidal mania becomes ‘a necessity… linked to the very existence of a psychiatry which had made itself autonomous but needed thereafter to secure a basis for its intervention by gaining recognition as a component of public

A. Attention Getter: Thou shall not kill, only one of the ten commandments that some individuals unfortunately can not seem to uphold. What would the world look like if we did not have an “eye for an eye” mentality? The debate about whether or not capital punishment is ethical or immoral is significant because our country is spending unnecessary amounts on death penalty executions, in which citizens do not know enough about the subject matter to disagree or protest its use. While tax payers are paying for this procedure, the death penalty poses many moral insurrections.