The media represented the murder of Mathew Shepard as the perfect example of a hate-crime. However, JoAnn Wypijewski, in her article titled “The Boys Life” (Wypijewski 1), takes a deeper look at the case of Mathew Shepard and comes up with a more accurate thesis on why violence occurs in most situations. At the end of her essay, she writes, “It's said that hate-crime laws symbolize a society's values. If that is true, it means gay people are recognized only in suffering, and straight people are left off the hook. It means Shepard may stand for every homosexual, but McKinney and Henderson stand just for themselves. It means nothing for life and everything for death” (Wypijewski 13). She argues that this quote is completely false and is the media version of what happened to Mathew Shepard. In reality, she explains her thesis on violence through this false quote, she expects the reader to come up with the correct version of this quote. The version believed to be correct by Wypijewski is that straight people and gay people, everyone is equally connected to this case and anyone could have been in the spot of Shepard or the killers. In reality, Shepard not only stands for every homosexual, but for everyone, and McKinney and Henderson do not stand just for themselves, but they also stand for everyone. The Media’s view shows people get nothing for life, but everything for death, no one would know who Mathew Shepard was if he was alive today. The correct interpretation of Wypijewski’s quote leads into her thesis on violence. Her thesis on violence is that both the perpetrator and victim are common individuals; violence is used to assert one’s manliness, and violence escalates from the original intention by men with self-esteem issues.
Anot...
... middle of paper ...
...his way every time in the course of his life he would gain the respect of others and himself. Finally, the last part that played a role in murder was that he had to be a man, and assert his dominance over Love. There were reports just weeks before the murder Love had physically hit George with her purse “so hard that everything flew out” (Bozeman 1). After this incident George had to go and physically assert his dominance over Love to show that he is a man and that led to murder of Yeardley Lover by George Hugely V.
Overall Wypijewski’s thesis on violence is true in most common murders. Even though, different facts surrounded the murder of Love and Shepard her thesis proves true for both of the cases. The lesson learned through the author’s thesis shows that it does not matter the individuals involved or the location is, violence usually occurs for the same reason.
Shepard was a homosexual man, and his murder was labeled as a hate crime, a murder which, in the late 90's, dominated the airwaves: “Matthew Shepard” was the name at the tip of everyone's tongue, but what made his murder special? JoAnn Wypilewski points out in her essay “A Boy's Life” that, “Gay men are killed horribly everywhere in this country, more than thirty just since Shepard – one of them in Richmond, Virginia, beheaded” (609). When so many men are killed in a similar context why do we specifically care about Matthew Shepard – or why don't we? Searching simply the name “Matthew Shepard” in the Google database yields thousands of results in the form of articles, news periodicals, and videos. The media exposure of the Matthew Shepard case is overwhelming. The overload of information can leave us clueless. As college students of the twenty-teens who are fifteen years removed from the incident how do we care about Matthew Shepard?
Murder at the Margin is a murder mystery involving various economic concepts. The story takes place in Cinnamon Bay Plantation on the Virgin Island of St. John. It is about Professor Henry Spearman, an economist from Harvard. Spearman organizes an investigation of his own using economic laws to solve the case.
The kings of the middle ages initially created the position of a coroner to investigate the suspicious deaths of people and also to collect the death tax on the deceased’s estate. In the United States, we have two positions that work in the field of death investigating, obviously the coroner and the medical examiner. These positions are widely different in how they run. To be a medical examiner, one must have many years of experience in medical school, and they must be board-approved. However, for a coroner’s position, the people in the state elect a campaigning candidate, and that candidate does not need to have any medical experience. Both of these positions perform autopsies and deal with the suspiciously deceased, however they both have incredibly different requirements. Over the past decade, the necessity of the coroner’s position came into discussion among the field. According to those who wish to kill the job, the coroner’s position does not seem to have sufficient standards for all that the job entails. However, eliminating the coroner jobs from the departments will be tremendously inefficient for all the people involved in that
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
"You robbed me of something very precious and I will never forgive you for that. Mr. McKinney, I give you life in the memory of one who no longer lives. May you have a long life and may you thank Matthew every day for it." Those were the words said by Dennis Shepard at the sentencing of Aaron McKinney, one of the men who tortured, robbed, and murdered his son Matthew Shepard. He was given a life sentence. States must inflict a harsher punishment for people who commit gay violence crimes because over the years hate crimes based on sexual orientation have become the third highest category reported.
Have you ever wondered what could cause a person to kill another person? How they could do it time and time again and not feel one ounce of regret? Serial killer Joel Rifkin asked himself this same question after he was convicted of killing 17 women. He wondered why he could commit such a violent act, and he decided to have scientist explore his brain to give him the answers that he wanted. Dr. Daniel Amen examined Joel’s brain scans, “When I looked at Joel Rifkin’s scan, I thought to myself, this is a brain that is vulnerable to violence. He had low activity in his prefrontal cortex that most human thoughtful part of the brain” ("Joel Rifkin - Psychopathic Brain"). Joel is not alone on this, 13 out of every 20 serial killers that have been
A killer is not born. A killer is made. However, we are all born with the potential to kill, and any one of us can be made into a killer. It might take a lot to drive us to murder, but some people are simply more susceptible to the idea than others. People tend to believe that serial killers are mentally ill individuals, however, more often than not, they are rational beings who have suffered tremendously. Often, we cannot tell who is a serial killer. It could be the person standing next to you, and you would not have the slightest indication. Serial killers are shaped by isolation from their peers, neglect from loved ones or caregivers, and copious amounts of physical and psychological abuse as children.
Serial murder investigations are the most difficult cases for investigators. Serial murder investigations can become wide spread, and can include many challenges that will require time, money and resources. An example of the commitment required to investigate a serial murder case is that of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. One investigator worked the investigation full time for 11 years. The day he made the Arrest was the day he retired. Serial murder is one of today’s most terrifying crimes. The killing of multiple people within various jurisdictions can alter everyday life for people residing within these communities. The result is intense pressure from the public and media placed on investigators to track down and apprehend these killers who commit such horrific acts to unsuspecting victims.
By definition, a serial killer is ‘an individual who murders more than three victims, one at a time during a relatively short interval’, but is it possible to define the reasons and motives behind these attacks? One of the most intriguing aspects of crime throughout the years has been focused on serial killers. What makes a serial killer tick? There is not any one, straightforward answer as to what motivates individuals to commit murder. “Unravelling the making of a serial killer is like aligning a Rubik's cube”.
What drives a person past insanity? What drives an individual to feel no remorse, but rather a psychological relief in murderous acts? Consider all the different types of people on Earth as well as the lifestyles and situations these people are raised up in. As much as it’s desired to think the world is filled with people who carry no such thing as a bad bone in their bodies, that thought process is simple deception. The fact is that psychopaths and sociopaths hide among others in everyday environments - neighbors, teachers, family members, doctors, friends, or even the local mailman. Psychopaths are declared as people who suffer from a mental disorder causing aggression and abnormal behaviors such as their “lack of
According to the Oxford Dictionary; a serial killer is a person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern. They usually go through a cooling down period where there are no murders. Then start the killing spree back up again after the cooling down period. The killing spree usually doesn’t last more than a couple of years without the murderer being caught. And there is usually a victim type and killing style which leads to the killer being identified. This is the definition of a serial killer so why is it so commonly believed that this is a male dominated area. “However, if, as seems to be the case in many countries, the only
Ever wondered if there is a serial killer in your community? The characteristics of a serial killer may shock you or be surprisingly familiar to some of you. It is important for society to get informed about the various types of serial killers that are out there. It is essential for families to educate their children about strangers, to be careful with everyone they encounter on the streets, store, and even in their neighborhoods. A serial killer is defined as a person who murders three or more people in at least three separate events, with a "cooling-off period" between the kills. The big question is, what makes a person do these atrocious killings? We will analyze personal histories, categorized serial killers,
Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, the BTK Killer. The names and assumed names of these cold-blooded serial killers are forever branded into the cognizance of people everywhere. This is mainly due to the mass media coverage, including newspapers, movies, television specials and books. This media coverage brought to light that these killers were, on the surface, normal, successful, attractive, productive members of society – that is, until the time that their heinous crimes came to be discovered.
Brenna Courtemanche Professor Crombie ENC 1102 4 April 2014 The Mind of Serial Killers There is no specific manual or "how to" book to depict what a serial killer would potentially act or look like. It would be comforting if real-life serial killers were like those in the movies. If they were obviously masked like Jason on Friday the 13th, we would be aware whenever they approached. If they were introverted loners like Psycho's Norman Bates, they could not trick us so easily into their deviant plan.
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.