Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Deviance on social norms
Social perspective of deviance
Sociological perspective on deviant behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Deviance on social norms
In the book Seduction of Crime, Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil, Jack Katz tries to answer a simple question, “What are people trying to do when they commit crimes?” He answers this question by findings from his phenomenology studies covering a range from juvenile delinquency to the most cold-blooded murder. I am quite fascinated with the ideas of criminology, so I found this book's stories interesting. In my opinion, any type of murder is evil and a crime that must be punished. Society from the earliest of times has condemned murder by all means, and through history the punishment has varied. In recent times, majority of people and the law would argue that impassioned murder, often striking at close friends or loved ones, must …show more content…
From the class notes, phenomenology is a philosophical view that emphasizes the subjective and introspective nature of our experience. Phenomenologists seek to understand what a phenomenon is. They attempt to discover what deviance is by examining the way in which some acts and individuals come to be defined and labeled as deviant. A phenomenological approach involves conflict perspective, interpretivism and micro-sociology that sees deviancy as being relative and situational with no universal standard by which everyone can be measured. Also, a phenomenological approach believes what one society may be deemed as deviant behavior, the same act may not be seen as such by another social group in a different part of the world. It is society itself within a specific area that determines what is deviant behavior or …show more content…
If it was the other way around (the female shooting the male, it would probably be self defense). Katz explains this scenario not so much as murder but more like him sticking up for himself after years of abuse. A husband putting an end to the misery life with the wife could be seen as cowardly way of doing things, but if it was the woman committing the righteous crime however, would be more heroic and brave. Katz argues that in the husband’s mind, he was merely taking care of a problem that was haunting him and being self-righteous in order to protect his
The Chicago World Fair brought about through the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus landing in America has posed significant value and worth to the city of Chicago. Over a six-month period, more than 26 million visitors from all over the world would flock to the fairgrounds to experience the rebuilt and vibrant city of Chicago. The 600-acre fairground would have housed 200 buildings that showcased new food, art, technology, and entertainment. Chicago became known as the White City, a place of freedom, grandeur, and security. But unbeknownst to fairgoers, there was a serial killer among them. While Dr. H.H. Holmes lured his innocent victims to his “Castle”, just blocks away architect Daniel Burnham built up the dream city of Chicago. Both these men operated at the same time in history, simply blocks apart, both creating legacies that carry to this day. Burnham and Holmes are two side of the coin of human nature. In “The Devil in White City” Erik Larson’s juxtaposition of Burnham and Holmes, and the Black City and the White City, contributes to the understanding of human nature, that one cannot be good without having done evil, and that good and evil are viewed as complementary in their mutual dependence.
An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen’s The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy
The battle of good versus evil is present in all aspects of life. Actions taken by people can determine how others view them. Some choose to do what is right and good, while others choose what is wrong and evil. Many characters are forced to choose between the two, and some do not foresee the consequences of their actions. In the book Peace Like a River by Leif Enger, actions committed by the Davy, Jeremiah, and Jeremiah’s friends, both good and evil, always have consequences.
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it. Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with numerous images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by means of force. Thus, indoctrinating a nation of individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems can be resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating the fact that we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for individuals to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an individual strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period of time, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the ...
...tly that: a theory. It is based off of assumptions and abstract concepts of inherent drives and unconscious processes that are extremely difficult to comprehend, test and prove because if certain types of information are unconscious in one person, then they are most likely located in the unconscious of everyone else, including the people attempting to conduct research. The phenomenological theory, in contrast, places a greater emphasis on more concrete aspects of life such as perception of experiences, number and types of social interactions, relationships, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Such concepts are easier to define, test, and manipulate into reasonable arguments regarding the causes of antisocial criminal behavior and that is why the phenomenological theory provides a better explanation of this behavior than the psychoanalytic theory does.
According to Radelet & Borg (2000), deterrence was, in the past, the most frequently-cited reason for arguments in support of the death penalty. The claim stems from a belief that potential criminals will be less likely to commit severe acts of violence if they know that those who carried out similar crimes before them were put to death – in much the same way that heads on pikes at the gates of a city were intended to deter criminal activity in the Middle Ages. Recently, however, many studies have concluded that the death penalty offers no significant deterrent effects, and the few which claim to find support for these effects have received substantial criticism (Radelet & Borg, 2000). The majority of both criminologists and law enforcement officers surveyed expressed that they do not believe the death penalty offers any difference in the amount of violent crimes committed (Radelet & Borg, 2000).
Deterrence theorists view murder as rational behavior, and assume that in calculating the gains and losses from killing, potential offenders are aware of the death penalty and regard it as a more severe sanction than imprisonment. Because the threat of one's own death presumably outweighs the rewards gained from killing another, murder is not an option for most people and always discouraged. In addition, some noted proponents assert that capital punishment provides an important educative function in society by validating the sanctity of human life (Berns, 1979; van den Haag, 1975; van den Haag & Conrad, 1983). Despite this logic, some challenge the applicability of deterrence to murder. Rather than being a product of deliberation and calculation, it is known that most murders are emotionally charged and their crimes are spontaneous events; they are "acts of passion" or result from a situated transaction rather than from deliberation (Bowers & Pierce, 1980; Chambliss, 1967; Luckenbill, 1977). Indeed, a significant proportion of homicides may not be intended. The situation escapes calm discussion, or due to some extraneous factor, an assault victim dies. Under such conditions, it is unlikely that perpetrators ("killers") give serious thought to whether they reside in a death penalty jurisdiction, or the possibility of execution.
There are many pros to the death penalty. Some claim that there is a preventative effect on potential murderers, although there is a lot of debate about this and just about every other argument for or against capital punishment. Another is the idea of incapacitation. Truthfully, why should someone have the right to live if they have taken that right from another person? The purpose why this writer supports capital punishment is because in observing victims’ families and their grief over murdered loved ones. This writer believes anyone who murders should be put to death. One reason for this is because people should not have the right to live after they have killed a fellow human being. The death penalty is a topic dealing with ethics, a set of moral principles or values. This issue is constantly filled with mix feelings and attitudes which the writer will attempt to present in the following paragraphs.
Many who have been touched by these crimes, the supporters, show a strong encouragement for the penalty, whereas those who have never had a loved one murdered by a deranged psychopath, the opposing party, show a sturdy opposition. The supporters encourage this endeavor usually seeking some sort of revenge against said “deranged psychopath.” These few represent the vast majority of citizens that find “comfort” in knowing that justice had been done. On the other hand, people who have not been affected by this find the penalty harsh and uncalled for, although the killer showed no mercy for the deceased. The individuals mentioned above are the faces representing the death penalty, whether they are for or against it.
One of the most widely debated and criticized methods of punishment in the United States is the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty is an issue that has the United States quite divided. While there are many supporters of it, there is also a large amount of opposition. Currently, there are thirty-three states in which the death penalty is legal and seventeen states that have abolished it according to the Death Penalty Information Center. There is no question that killing another person is the most atrocious criminal act that one can commit. I am not sure why, but it seems that the United States government is being hypocritical when it says that capital punishment is acceptable because a criminal did murder an innocent victim, and therefore should be killed (Philips, 2013). This is rule is known as the "eye-for-an-eye, and tooth-for-a- tooth theory." Of course, if we used this system all the time, there would be no need for laws. A second argument that some people use to support capital punishment is that the fear of being given the death penalty is going to stop criminals from murdering. How many criminals would murder in the first place, even in a state where there is no capital punishment, if they thought there was a chance of getting caught? Most murderers feel that they have a plan to get away with murder (Philips, 2013). Unfortunately, most are right. In response to this I believe that the United States Bill of Rights in the Constitution prohibits cruel an unusual punishment. There is nothing more cruel or unusual than taking someone’s life.
Using capital punishment would put an end to the killer’s suffering, and let him leave the world peacefully. With the death penalty in place, the victim’s family can finally get closure. Families that have been through the intense experience of losing a loved one might call for lex talionis, or eye for an eye. They could believe that the killer took their loved one from them and the only acceptable recourse would be to take the murderer’s life. This retaliation for the family might be the most important reason to instill the death penalty in today’s
Social science research has discredited the claim that execution deters murder. The majority of murders are committed in the heat of passion, and/or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, when there is little thought given to the possible consequences of the act. "Hit men" and other murderers who plan their crimes beforehand, intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught.
Edmund Kemper, a serial killer who killed his grandparents when he was fifteen years old once said "It was an urge. ... A strong urge, and the longer I let it go the stronger it got, to where I was taking risks to go out and kill people." Many people may ponder the question why serial killers feel the need to kill in the first place. Most psychologists say there is not one solid reason. Just like every snowflake is unique, every person’s motive for killing is unique.
When you think of an extreme crime you think of murder. When you think of an extreme punishment you think of the death penalty. Crimes of such severity sometimes deserve an equal punishment and we as a society accept this. However, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan argues that society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty. It is true that over the years since the death penalty was first implemented it has undergone some changes but this does not suggest that we believe that the death penalty is unacceptable.
Murder is considered a serious crime in our country. The loosely defined term of murder implies that a person who kills another human being with intent is known as being the worst kind of violent crime we see in our society. Any unlawful killing requires that a living person be killed and it does not mean that the guilty person feels any hatred or spite in order to plan and execute the act of murder. Moreover, the destructive acts that end peoples lives are classified as homicides which include manslaughter and first and second degree murder. More important, the justice system has put different labels on such crimes, but it also allows room for criminals to get away with murder.