Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Are parents responsible for their children becoming criminals
Parents responsible for children's crimes
Parental responsibility for juvenile crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The love that a parent feels for a child is the most indescribable feeling in the world. Most parents would do anything and everything to protect their children, but not all parents are aware of the danger their child faces. In the short story "Killings," by Andre Dubus, a mother and father are faced with the tragic death of their son. Both parents, although both may not admit to it, believe that the murderer deserves the same consequences their son suffered. Matthew Fowler takes matters into his own hands, and along with his friend, Willis Trottier, kills Richard Strout. The death of Richard Strout should not be tried as a murder, but as a justifiable homicide. Matthew Fowler, the father of Frank Fowler, had every reason to reciprocate Strout's actions. A child should not be taken from a parent in the way that Frank was taken from his.
The actions that a parent takes in order to protect or support their child cannot be judged in a courtroom, because parents cannot describe the way that they feel knowing that their offspring is gone forever. In a court of law, Matthew Fowler should be tried for justifiable homicide, and he should possibly plead temporary insanity. A parent cannot control their violent actions, because the feelings that one feels towards a child is much stronger than any other emotion could ever be. Frank Fowler's life was taken in a horrific and traumatic matter, and for this, a parent cannot undergo the normal mourning process. A parent like Matthew Fowler could not go through each day knowing that their child's murderer is walking the streets freely. A mother, like Ruth Strout, would go crazy seeing that heartless person do everyday things that her son/daughter can no longer do. This would drive a person to temporary insanity, causing them to lash out and kill the murderer. Matthew Fowler had reason to kill Richard Strout, even if it would result in hurting Matthew in the end.
These two men, both coming from different backgrounds, joined together and carried out a terrible choice that rendered consequences far worse than they imagined. Living under abuse, Perry Smith never obtained the necessary integrity to be able to pause and consider how his actions might affect other people. He matured into a man who acts before he thinks, all due to the suffering he endured as a child. Exposed to a violent father who did not instill basic teachings of life, Smith knew nothing but anger and misconduct as a means of responding to the world. He knew no other life. Without exposure to proper behavior or responsible conduct, he turned into a monster capable of killing an entire family without a blink of remorse. In the heat of the moment, Perry Smith slaughtered the Clutter family and barely stopped to take a breath. What could drive a man to do this in such cold blood? The answer lies within his upbringing, and how his childhood experiences shaped him to become the murderer of a small family in Holcomb, Kansas. ¨The hypothesis of unconscious motivation explains why the murderers perceived innocuous and relatively unknown victims as provocative and thereby suitable targets for aggression.¨ (Capote 191). ¨But it is Dr. Statten´s contention that only the first murder matters psychologically, and that when
In Truman Capote’s famous non-fiction novel, In Cold Blood, there is evidence that supports the injustices of the trial: death penalty. The final outcome of the trail was never to be any different than death. “Of all the people in all the world, the Clutters were the least likely to be murdered” (Capote 85). We know the two men who killed the Clutter family, Perry Smith and Bill Hickock, preplanned the crime with malice and forethought. Although the actions were crul and grusome, does Death Row fit what they did if their pasts, childhood environments and situation, are bad. Capote shows the effect of childhood on the killers and if the death penalty is fair. Capote gives the killers a voice to show their humanity by giving childhood accounts of their lives. He questions the justice of is the death penalty fair, and if inherent evil is a product of childhood or society. Is it nature or nurture? Capote gives a look into the minds of the killers and the nature vs. nurture theory. The detailed account the killers’ childhoods makes the reader sympathize with the Clutter family’s killers Smith and Hickock. Should they reserve the death penalty? Did Truman Capote take a stand on the death penalty? By giving the readers a detailed accounting of Perry Smith’s and Dick Hickock’s childhood, Capote sets up the reader for nurture vs. nature debate on the death penalty. The question then becomes, do the effects (if any) caused by environment in childhood make for a trained killer or a natural born one?
While John 's mother never confronted her husband about his actions, or went to the police before the murder she did eventually confront the police during the trial. " Sandra Telford had her husband served with divorce papers at Riker," (Locos Parentis"). While this was the right thing in the end, later everyone was debating on whether or not she should go to jail as well, but in this case I believe that she was just as much as a victim as John and Chris were. For all the jury and police know she could have been physically abused, and even gas lighted by her husband which makes it even harder to leave. These possibilities make it harder to leave someone and with a total of 4,000 deaths every year related to domestic violence she could have been attempting to protect her own life. While she personally was not convicted of any crime in this case, Robert took a deal and got two to six years in prison, his son was sentenced to ten plus years. This particular sentence is unjust due to the fact that John could have been dealing with the abuse from his father starting from the time he was born, so he may not know right from wrong. Due to this factor and evidence in the case I believe John should be put into a mental hospital so he can attempt to learn right from wrong and get the therapy he obviously needs. Looking at the evidence against Robert I believe
...olent incidences contrast in specific details and their fathers personas, both children lose their innocence and gain the experience and knowledge to question life and make logical decisions.
“Killings", written by Andre Dubus in 1979, involves several aspects such as revenge, morality, and murder. Elements, such as the story’s title, the order of events, and the development of the characters, are very unique. It successfully evokes emotion and suspense as the plot unfolds in sequence. Though it seems easily overlooked, the title “Killings” is very important due to the fact that the thrill of suspense is left in the mind of the reader. The title encourages readers to question who and what. It is also an intricate setting for the plot’s mood. It implies that a murder has taken place, but that is all the reader knows. The chronology of the story uses a style called "in media res”, a term used to describe the common strategy of beginning a story in the middle of the action or entering on the verge of some important moment (Meyer 2198). In this story, the readers are shown that murder not only takes a life, but it can also take away a living persons sense of self worth, their spirit.
The mother of the child is portrayed as a normal woman with no mental health problem. This would lead the viewer to believe that the child’s tendency to murder developed in her short life span by her sense of entitlement and lack of punishment. She had no sense of consequences and we are led to believe she is like this due to her environment (which is partly the case).
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
The artical I read was called Moms who Kill by Mark Levy. I found the artical on psychologytoday.com. In the artical it discusses how common and how dangerous postpartum depression really is.
I believe that this issue could be resolved if there would be a help line to help you threw a time when you have a crying baby that will not stop from crying. I am sure that there are help lines like that, but I wish people would use them. Also I think that the men and women who have killed their son or daughter may have a pass of being abusive or have anger problems. I know for a fact that Travis had anger problems.
If you love your child, the death of your child is more painful than the death of any of your loved ones, including one’s own parents. And because of this devastation, I do not wish this pain even to my enemies.
Jerome Klinkowitzís remarkably insightful review of Donald Barthelmeís work begins with an anecdote about an evening they spent together in Greenwich Village (Barthelmeís home for most of his life as a writer), and how a perfectly Freudian remark by Barthelmeís wife put a stop to the writerís boorish mood:ìëWhy Donald,í she said, ëyour fatherís is bigger than yours.íShe was referring to their respective biosin Whoís Who in America.î
Experts argue that no one is predestined for a life of crime. They believe that influences such as repeated abuse, extreme neglect, poverty, media violence, and easy access to guns play the major role in molding children into criminals. The father of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer wonders, "If potential for evil is in the blood that some of us pass on to our children" (Seifert 23). In the quiet New York town of Savona, Eric Smith, age thirteen, intercepted four-year-old Derrick Robie on his way to a park recreation program and offered to show him a shortcut. Hesitatingly, Derrick set off with Eric.
However, Matt Fowler had different reasoning for his actions. After burying his twenty-one year-old son who was just on the cusp of graduating college, he finds that Strout, his son’s murderer, has been released on bail pending trial and until then he has resumed his normal life. Watching his wife not only mourning the loss of their son, but also having to see the killer in daily activities, has caused a mental and emotional strain on their life. The affect on Fowler’s family that Strout is walking around free and seemingly unconcerned is one of the main reasoning that is posed when Fowler and his friend Willis T...
The sympathy of the government for mothers such as Khaila, trying to recover their parental rights has worn thin. Child abandonment is a serious offense and the children that suffer from such neglect face many psychological problems; if they are ever able to survive their circumstances. The abandonment and neglect of a child can result in serious criminal charges. One striking example is the case of seven month old Daniel Scott (Should We Take Away Their Kids?). Baby Daniel had been left for hours unattended and died of in a pool of his own blood. His mother, a crack addict left him in the care of his father to go on a six day crack binge. His father in turn, left him in his crib leaving the door of their Bronx tenement unlocked for any danger to afflict his unprotected son (Should We Take Away Their Kids?). The parents were later charged with manslaughter by negligence.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.