It’s easy to just look at a person that has committed a heinous act and label them an animal who only thinks about killing other people. However, that is not the case it’s only the surface level. Until you explore the details of the underlying issue(in this case it’s the psychological impairment of the said killer) it’s impossible to make a justified claim. A good strong point that they make is "Movies and TV have put an image into our minds that these are the characteristics of a murderer when in reality they are masters at disguising their emotions and thoughts letting them blend into society.” (Serial Killers: Nature vs. Nurture, How Serial Killers are Born). The second part of this statement is accurate, they are really good at hiding their emotions.
Richard finds out about Frank and Mary Ann and murders him. Frank was a normal person looking for love and affection as done anyone else. He found the wrong girl who was with the wrong guy. Frank was innocent in the situation but the jealousy of Richard Strout was to much for him to bare so he murdered Frank. The audience sees the reason behind Mr.Strouts murder and the reason behind Mr.Fowlers murder and deems one reason better than the other therefore one murder is okay and
To illustrate, the author repeats “you” to indicate that the boys are held responsible. Through this repetition, the author makes it clear that the “boys” are the only ones responsible for the sheep’s death. McCaig expresses his anger towards the criminals by blaming the criminals through the use of “you.” The phrase “hunters-men” is repeated to compare the felons to men. He degrades the “boys” by characterizing them as irresponsible when a man is responsible and follows the rules. The
This chase’s purpose, at a basic level, is to catch Montag, as he is now a public criminal. The true purpose of this chase is deeper, it is designed to convince the populace that the police are doing their jobs by catching fugitives like Montag. However, the ending to the chase tells a different story. They catch and kill “Montag” using the hound, however, they do not kill “Montag.” The police actually kill an innocent man while telling the public that they actually kill Montag, to save face. The killing shows that this society is flawed and corrupt, proving them to be a dystopia.
At first he thinks “ I don’t care if you believe in Jesus, God, Allah. . . The crew of thugs had been begging for a violent death like that: shot down, no mercy “(Patterson 193) meaning that in one sense Alex agrees with Taylor that they had it coming. Then almost immediately after Alex contradicts himself by thinking “ In my book and the blind eyes of justice, the fact that a man had it coming doesn’t make killing him right “ (Patterson 194).
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote takes a brave deviation from the mainstream of murder or crime novels in that it takes the perspective of the perpetrators of the crime in question. Dick Hickock and Perry Smith were two particularly perverse individuals who were hung for the murder of the Clutter family. The two lack virtually any relatability to the casual reader, however, Capote manages to evaluate the six weeks following November 14th, 1959 in such an analytical depth that the reader may even begin to sympathize with the duo. The men are portrayed by Capote through a journalistic and impartial description that enhances the reader's understanding of the two by going into trivial details. Dick and Perry are two individuals from conflicting
He took the law into his own hands and was the judge and jury when he decided to take all three monster’s’ lives. Law and keeping justice is a communal thing, but Theseus takes it upon himself to execute these monsters. What makes Theseus even more guilty is that he essentially planned out each of these murders and murdered these monsters that did him no harm. It is almost as if Theseus feels above the law with his hero status. Heroes often determine their own course of action, but don’t clearly think about the moral consequences or how they may be seen by everyone else.
Trent, who is the most out of place in this group of manipulators. His manipulation, like Archie’s was total and deliberate and served as the focus of the book, however his motivations and simply the nature of manipulation were comparably atypical. Mr. Trent was an interrogator who was charged with receiving the confession of a young Jason Dorrant for the murder of a little girl named Alicia Bartlett. Dissimilar to the other manipulators, Mr. Trent truly believes for at least the majority of his work that he is working toward the truth, and that his manipulation is for the good of society, but he also openly acknowledges that it is a manipulation. Cormier even dedicated multiple pages to describing the circumstances Mr. Trent created in the interrogation room to make his subjects more inclined to confession.
What Jack did appears to be murder, Jack’s unlawful actions is the crime he committed . The definition of “Crime” according to The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus is an illegal, shameful or evil act. What Jack did is an illegal, shameful, and evil act, but is it enough to say that although, he did commit a crime, despite his age, he should be charged because if he is capable to “run” a group of rowdy boys and has a belligerent mind set. Jack indeed killed two people, his victims being Piggy and Simon. He many not have killed Simon alone but he did attack Simon and he plays an important role in this case, he’s the one that influenced them to do
He goes on to tell that the only difference is between the crimes committed and the proof held against him. The reality between the Misfit and the Grandmother are very different and from this viewpoint it seems as if the Grandmother is a more dishonest and unfaithful person when it comes to selfishness. The Misfit does not express selfishness, rather he equally treats himself as he would with the people that he murdered. With two distinct differences in reality, both show similar signs of