Why Was Jack the Ripper Never Caught Essay

Why Was Jack the Ripper Never Caught Essay.

Jack the Ripper was a notorious serial killer, whom some believe never even existed at all. He was the first successful serial killer and no one knew the identity of Jack the ripper. He had great hatred of prostitute’s . Jack the Ripper is just a name given to an unidentified late 19th century murderer. No one actually knows who this person was or where he came from. Jack the Ripper targeted prostitutes in England and killed them by cutting their throats in two places (a new twist to a common method of murder).

After they were dead, he stripped and mutilated them by removing some of their organs (suggesting that he had some sort of surgical knowledge). He always used a knife. The nature of the wounds that he caused looked like rough surgery, leading the police to suspect that The Ripper may have been a doctor. His method of killing them though wasn’t the reason he wasn’t caught.

It was mostly a lack of forensic knowledge that made it hard for detectives to identify him.

Also, he remained in the shadows and killed only at night in areas that were not densely populated. Obviously he had great knowledge of the place the death was occurred. Due to this he knows where to go if he was caught. Another point is that there were too many suspects of who Jack the ripper was. One of the most suspicious person was called Francis Tumbelty who was most fitted in the Jack the ripper profile. He is a doctor; he hates women (Tumbelty had some bad experiences involving women.

He was arrested for the attempted abortion of a pregnant prostitute. Later he fell in love and married a woman who turned out to be a prostitute. ), he travels a lot, he has a collection of uteruses (Jack the ripper took most of the victims uteruses); he was in England when the murders took place and many more. One of the more intriguing aspects of the Jack the Ripper murders is the amount of worldwide newspaper coverage that they generated.

Pages and pages were given over to reporting on the inquests into the deaths of the victims; local residents were interviewed at length; police officers were followed, and sometimes even bribed, as reporters endeavoured to secure that all too elusive exclusive that might help sell more newspapers. The press or media highly criticized the police and these criticisms were published in the newspaper. Most of the public also agreed with the press and they really want jack the ripper to be dead. This puts the police under pressure and queen victoria was furious about this.

Why Was Jack the Ripper Never Caught Essay

The Case for the Defence Essay

The Case for the Defence Essay.

The story begins in the Central Criminal Court in London at the trial of Mr Adams, who is accused with what was dubbed the “Peckham Murder”; the murder of Mrs. Parkers who was battered to death in Northwood Street. Adams was accused of the murder when four witnesses saw him or someone with his appearance coming out of Mrs. Parker’s house holding a hammer on the day that she was murdered. The case is muddied by the fact that while Adams is standing in the dock there is another Adams, his identical twin sitting at the back of the court with his wife.

The witnesses are all called to give their testimony and the final witness, Mrs. Salmon, who is also the prime character in the story, identifies the man in the dock as the murderer. However when Mrs. Salmon has the identical twin pointed out to her she becomes very confused.

This confusion means that it is impossible to say which of the twins was the murderer and the accused Adams is acquitted because of lack of evidence.

And here Graham Greene introduces the concept of the Divine Vengeance in the story. Divine vengeance is the main essence of the uncanny classic, “The Case for the Defence”. Initially, in the story, Greene presents forth that at least one of the Adams are certainly the murderers. This can be understood clearly by the number of evidences (witnesses), and the manner of writing of Greene. The scene yet plays loopholes and ultimately both the Adams escape without any of them held guilty. This is certainly against the “DIVINE JUSTICE”. After the twins escape human justice, one of them ends up being smashed badly by a big bus.

It is obvious that when things get beyond the hands of us mortals, the spiritual Lord has to do the required justice. Thus it surely puts to the reader’s thinking that the god has done the justice. But still the reader remains confused as the other people in the story whether the person who died was the real criminal or not? In this way Graham Greene uses his skills to make the reader think about the case and the murderer. The story is told through a narrator who does not participate in the plot but refers to the events of the story in the third person.

This means that the reader is left to read between the lines of what the narrator is saying to work out what really happened and also gives a good description of the characters, like Mrs. Salmon who is described as “the ideal witness, with her slight Scotch accent and her expression of honesty, care and kindness” showing the reader that her witness was reliable especially as the accused is described as “a heavy stout man with bulging bloodshot eyes”, not a character she was likely to have mistaken as someone else. Thus, in this way Graham Greene describes the characters really very well, making the story even better.

This short story is a good tense read and Graham Greene keeps the tension going right up to the end of the story as he finishes it with the words ”But if you were Mrs. Salmon, could you sleep at night?” By writing this the author is showing the reader that there is probably still a murderer on the loose and that Mrs. Salmon may be in great danger. This is a quick and easy short story to read and one that makes an ideal introduction to anyone who had not experienced the works of the wonderful writer Graham Greene.

The Case for the Defence Essay

Analysis of Ted Bundy Serial Killer Essay

Analysis of Ted Bundy Serial Killer Essay.

This paper will be an analysis of Theodore Robert Bundy a famous serial murderer who killed over a span of 4 years in the 70’s. This paper will discuss some of the developmental and situational factors that might have contributed to his reign of terror. It will also discuss the early years of his life as well as touch base on some of his crimes.

Introduction

Theodore Robert Bundy was born on November 24, 1946 to Eleanor Louise Cowell, he was born at the Elizabeth Lund Home for unwed mothers.

He was conceived out of wedlock , his father was unknown but it was listed on his birth certificate it was a sailor by the name of Jack Worthington. Who his mother supposedly had a fling with but that could never be proven(Sullivan, 2009).

Since Bundy was born out of wedlock and his mother did not want to be the talk of the town, she led everyone to believe that Ted was her brother and her parents were his parents and she lived this way for 4 years in Burlington Vermont with her parents until she decided to leave town and take Ted with her.

After about 4 years Ted and his mother moved out of Burlington Vermont and they settled in Tacoma Washington where his mother legally changed his last name to Nelson, for reasons which is still not clear. But within a year Louise Cowell met a young man by the name of Johnny Culpepper Bundy and they were married, and that’s when Ted’s last name was changed again for good to Bundy(Sullivan, 2009).

Bundy grew up in Tacoma Washington and he graduated from Woodrow Wilson Highschool. He was not very popular, kept pretty much to himself. He was quoted as saying he really did not know how to interact in a group. He would mimic people’s actions and responses in order to appear in a social setting(Aynesworth, 2000).

It is not known how early in life Ted Bundy began killing, but there was an early sign of abnormalities in his personality. As a young child his own family saw a difference in his behavior. One minute he was fine and then the next he would morph into this whole other person. His aunt recounted and incident when she had awoken from a nap her nephew Ted was standing over her with many knives around her body and he stood there with a complacent look on his face (Sullivan, 2009).

Ted would go on to graduate from highschool and attend college at Washington State, where he would meet the woman that is rumored to be the cause of his killing rampage, her name is Stephanie Brooks. They dated for about a year, but as their relationship progressed Ted’s Personality and sexual inadequacies got in the way of their relationship blossoming (Aynesworth, 2000).

It was not long after his break up with Stephanie Brooks that young women were starting to disappear from campuses around Washington State. When some of the bodies were found they were brutally beaten about the head, strangled, raped and torchered. Some were missing their heads completely. Bundy’s victims ranged from the age of 18 to 24, they all had dark hair and a part down the middle(Sullivan, 2009). Ted’ s reign of terror lasted over a four year period from 1974 to 1978, he killed over a span of six states (Washington, Utah, Colorado, Florida, Idaho and Oregon). He had a total of 36 victims, there was speculation there might have been more and Ted himself had hinted there was, but that was never proven (Sullivan, 2009).

When Ted was caught people were labeling him as a psychopath. The definition of a psychopath is a person who is impulsive, grandiose, callous and has not empathy what so ever, and that definition fir Ted perfectly. He was very grandiose, whe he decided to defend himself at trial instead of having a lawyer. He never showed empathy for his victims , even when he was denying his part in their deaths, and his callousness toward his victims, was proven when the bodies were found they were so brutally murdered (Harenski, 2010)

Now this paper will touch base on some of the situational factors that may have played a part in him becoming the man he was, and what signs were evident in his early years that probably could have prevented his outcome.

Situational

Some situational factors that might have contributed to ted Bundy disturbing behavior, was his obsession with pornography and his upbringing with his grandfather in his early years. His grandfather Sam Cowell was known to be a drunk and violent and also had a obsession with pornography (Sullivan, 2009).

Ted at a very young age was not really given much affection. His mother was not the comforting type. He was not able to develop that bond that a child has with a parent because a good part of his life he thought his mother was his sister, so that’s the way he interacted with her (Sullivan, 2009).

According to the attachment theory, when a child is born they are suppose form attachments with their parents. They depend on their parents for love and affection they also depend on them to teach them how to love and feel empathy for others, but if a child never receives that affection, they will have a difficult time interacting with others outside their comfort zone (pearce, 2010).

Bundy had a negative attachment representation which could have contributed to his personality defecencies, he mostly likely had what is called a maladaptive perception of others (pearce, 2010). Research has shown that a child who has negative attachment representation they develop certain dynamics in their personality which may include lack of empathy, habitual mistrust, superficial charm and avoidance of engagement or intimacy. They can also be controlling, demanding very manipulative, charming and deceitful. All the characteristics that have been associated with Ted Bundy, he said to be very charming, manipulative and he lacked empathy for his crimes (pearce, 2010).

Developmental Factors

Some developmental factors that probably contributed to Ted Bundy’s personality disorder, he witnessed his grandfather be violent and abusive towards the women in the household, but he always considered his grandfather to be and up standing individual, he does not remember his grandfather in that manner, but everyone else does. Also his grandfather who was known to have an obsession with pornography, which is a problem Ted claimed is part of his reasons for doing the things he did. (Aynesworth, 2000) Ted growing up was left to his own devices his mother was not much of a mother figure, like I said earlier he had detachment from his parents, so his development was compromised he really was not shown how to be, he was not told that if you do something wrong there is consequences for your actions, as a child he shoplifted and was suspected of robberies in his area he was questioned but he was never charged.(Sullivan, 2009)

Even though Bundy’s mother was not very active in his life, his stepfather Johnny Bundy had different form of parenting style, he was more of a authoritarian, he demanded respect and he physically punished Ted if he felt he was being disrespected. Authoritarian parents tend to be very strict and and children are expected to be obedient and they are not to question their parents authority, and on occasion Johnny and Ted had verbal arguments that became physical with Johnny hitting Ted, and his mother usually was the mediator.(Sullivan, 2009) The problem with this form of authoritarian way of parenting is the child does not get a chance to express oneself, so he or she has all this latent aggression that is waiting to be let loose, so for Bundy he was never allowed to express his anger freely in order to let some of that aggression go.(Bartol, 2008)

Ted Bundy at a very young age could have been diagnosed with a conduct disorder, because he was stealing at a young age, and he was just being a juvenile delinquent, but he was not treated for this so that also could have been a contributing factor, because at an early age he was exhibiting antisocial behavior.(Bartol, 2008)

He was going against societies norms at an early age, and he was exhibiting very disturbing behavior at the of 3 which should have been treated but it was ignored, a main issue with that might have been the era he was in , being born in the 40’s people were not as knowledgeable about disorders or tolerable if someone was diagnosed with one.

Discussion

In conclusion Ted Bundy was one of the worst serial killers of our time, he was brutal in his killings, and he took the lives of over 36 women that we know of, he lived his life in the spot light he had many friends, people considered him charming and intelligent, he was a big figure in politics in the 70’s. He graduated with a degree in Psychology and went on to study law, but never finished. The ironic thing is he acquired a degree in psychology and he himself had psychological problems. (Aynesworth, 2000)

He was a psychopath, he had no remorse no sympathy for his victims, he never referred to his victims as if they were people, in his interviews with Aynesworth and Hugh, he never referred to himself as the killer he always talked about the crime as if he was an outsider. Up until his execution is when he eventually started to acknowledge his crimes, he finally started to admit and confess to his transgressions, he even tried to use the knowledge he had of where the bodies were buried of the victims the police never found, but to his surprise the families of the victims wanted him to be executed more than they wanted to find their loved ones. (Aynesworth, 2000)

References

Aynesworth, S. G. (2000). Ted Bundy: Conversations with a Killer. Texas: Author Link Press. Bartol, Curt R., A. M. (2008). Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Harenski, Carla i, K. A. (2010). Aberrant Neural Processing of Moral Violations in Criminal Psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 863-874. M., S. K. (2009). The Bundy murders: A comprehensive history. North Carolina: Mcfarland & Company Inc. Pearce, C. (2010). An integration of theory, science and
reflective clinical practice in the care and management of attachment-disordered children: A Triple approach. Educational & Child Psychology , 73-86.

Analysis of Ted Bundy Serial Killer Essay

“Killings” By Andre Dubus’s Essay

“Killings” By Andre Dubus’s Essay.

“Killings” was written by the late Andre Dubus in 1979 (Dubus). According to the article “Andre Dubus,” often the characters that Dubus portray are in tense situations and “sometimes their frustration goads them to infidelity or acts of violence; more often, however, they simply become resigned to their lot” (Contemporary Authors Online par. 9). On the other hand, Matt revenge to committing his murder, which showed loss and consequences are explored in Andre Dubus’s, “Killings”. A jealous husband, angered by the fact that his estranged wife is involved in a new relationship, acts out in a presumable crime of passion and murders the man she was seeing.

As a result of this crime, a father suffers the loss of his son and plots retaliation, which results in the killing of his son’s murderer. His “id” was a very jealous husband that didn’t want his wife to be with another man, whereas on the other hand he cared and loved his family.

I feel like he didn’t want the sense of betrayal so he chooses to commit a murder. Both men experience a loss and subsequently act out in revenge. The difference in the moral character of these two men is what appears to determine the fate of their consequences. Richard Strout, a man of inferior morality, commits a crime of passion. He murders a man who is having a relationship with his estranged wife. Strout is portrayed in the story as being a spoiled, selfish, violent man. The pending divorce between he and his wife obviously left him feeling conflicted over the loss of control and he is angered by the fact that she was seeing another man so quickly after the separation.

There appears to be no feelings of regret or remorse from Strout after the murder. He seems to feel completely justified in the killing and even makes the statement, “He was making it with my wife” (Dubus). Strout’s lack of moral character is a key element in his being able to live with himself after committing this crime. His personal consequences seemed to be few, if any. Matt Fowler is portrayed in the story as being a man of great moral fortitude; he is a sensitive, loving husband, a protective father and a respected friend.

The brutal murder of his son catapults him into a position in which he feels compelled to avenge the death. The conflict that Fowler feels after his son is killed is overwhelming to him. Fowler feels that removing his son’s murderer from the world he and his family live in will ease his wife’s pain. His concern and compassion towards is wife is obvious when he says in the story, “She sees him all the time. It makes her cry” (Dubus). Killing Strout is the act of a protective husband and father doing what he believes to be the only practical solution and he views it as though he has a job to do.

Fowler is notably reluctant to carry out this act of premeditated murder. Not even a moment of satisfaction is allotted him after he completes the job of avenging his son’s death. Proceeding Matt accomplishes the mission he is immediately left with a profound sense of isolation; undoubtedly because of his high level of morality. The final words of the story indicate the loneliness he feels that he isn’t even able to share with his wife. “…he shuddered with a sob that he kept silent in his heart” (Dubus). Killing Strout is not the end of the pain for Matt Fowler; it may give him a sense of revenge, but he is still feeling so alone and hurt.

The other Fowler children are left to believe that their brother’s murderer has escaped trial and disappeared. Mrs. Fowler acknowledges this in the story when she says, “We can’t tell the other kids. It’ll hurt them, thinking he got away. But we mustn’t” (Dubus). This is yet another consequence of these murders. Frank Fowler and Richard Strout are dead, Matt Fowler will most likely feel forever isolated, and the lives of Ruth and the Fowler children have been deeply affected by these crimes.

Two very different men experience similar feelings of loss, revenge and consequence in this story. Both men commit an act of murder and both pay a high price in the end. One man’s sentence is death; the other’s is profound isolation. Neither life is left unaltered. This story is a lesson in passion, crime and morality.

Works Cited
Dubus, Andre. Killings. Lousiana: The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature, 1979.

Contemporary Authors Online. “Andre Dubus.” Detroit: Gale, 2006. Gale
Biography In Context. Miami-Dade Coll. Web. 25 Jan. 2012.
Dubus, Andre. “Killings.” The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed. Michael Meyer. 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012.96-108. Print

You may also be interested in the following: what is passion killing

“Killings” By Andre Dubus’s Essay

Dexter Morgen- Vigilante Serial Killer Essay

Dexter Morgen- Vigilante Serial Killer Essay.

To those who disagree with the stance of fictional vigilantly heroes such as Dexter Morgan, in effort to convince them that the vigilante’s actions have earned society’s full support, the offenses commonly lain against them will be disproved and a new perspective will be given to support them. Dexter is a serial killer in Miami, FL from Dexter, a series on Showtime; however Dexter only kills murderers. Dexter is considered a felon and his actions are a capitol offense.

Many would consider that grounds for Dexter to be thrown into jail, or even face death-row. But look at all the murder we allow and encourage today. Our military is trained to kill America’s enemies. While not everyone approves of war and while no one enjoys it, war is a part of our past and will be a part of our future. If nothing else, war must be accepted. Killing has gone on since the beginning of human history- whether that is Cain and Able, or the war between Sumer and Elam.

Who gets to decide who is an enemy of America? The obvious answer is Congress. But Congress is a group of elected officials here to serve its people. Our government of the people, by the people, and for the people is created for us. So ultimately we decide who our enemies are. We the people decided who we go to war with- who we kill. How do we decide who is an enemy of America? There are many acceptable answers such as: any one who threatens our interests, any one who disagrees with our laws, or any one who attacks our country. September 11, 2001 a terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda attacked America by sending planes through the World Trade Centers in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia. Al-Qaeda unjustly killed 3,000 Americans and American’s justly kill people like this every day.

If killing and war are accepted responses to threats posed against the way we live, then who makes the distinction between what killing is just and when killing is necessary. The answer is simple- the law. This topic no longer becomes a moral issue but an issue of law. If Dexter, like our troops over seas, is killing murders then morally Dexter has support. But not full support- not support from the law. There is no arguing murder is against the law, but there are no doubt exceptions. The military is a great example of citizens who, by our laws, can kill. These men are legally allowed to, or licensed, to kill. These are the citizens who kill murders that have or will murder Americans if given the chance. These murderers exist not only over seas, but also in America- killing 16,000 Americans annually. The court system will do the best they to capture them, but what happens when they fail? When citizens stand up against a crook, murderer, or rapist, the punishment lies with the man who rid the world of the injustice; the man that can not let injustice stand is the man that the law says is out of hand.

Why should the good be punished? Murder is usually considered an act of passion. It’s usually a one time thing which is why most murderers don’t get the death penalty. However, certain acts of passion fit the bill on who should get killed in the electric chair. A man who rapes and murderers victims deserves a much more severe punishment than the man who shot that felon. Most wouldn’t mind that the rapist was killed and most would believe that the man who shot the rapist had a good mind to do it. If these actions were perfectly legal, it would spark a movement. A movement that would result in the death or thousand of people who believe they are capable of killing felons too. A movement begun with the good intention of cleaning up our streets that will end with them covered in blood. Civilians should not be encouraged to fight crime.

But just like policemen and detectives, with training they can. A license to kill these murderers is the best weapon against them. A process should be set in place to allow for this. When the system fails, these licensed killers can put to rest those who murder. Dexter must find proof of the murderers guilt. It is part of his “code.” A set of rules made for what person he can kill. Dexter can only kill someone who is a murder, for no condonable reason. If Dexter finds this proof, he is free to kill. Why not make the code the description for who a licensed killer can kill?

This will lower the rates of overall death tolls and will stop other murderers who kill for a morally wrong reason or for none at all. If Dexter can kill legally, he has then earned all the support he needs. Dexter doesn’t need to be famous, he doesn’t need to have to world accept him, he just needs understanding. He has urges to kill, so why not use them for good? Dexter’s dark side could be used to created a brighter world, because there can be no light without the dark. If Dexter could be given a license to kill, we all would be in a safer place.

Dexter Morgen- Vigilante Serial Killer Essay

Justice for Lena Essay

Justice for Lena Essay.

Lena Baker was a black woman who endured a horrendous ordeal during her life. Born in a small town in Georgia, Lena lived with her mother and three children. Accused of murdering her employer Ernest Knight, Lena Baker alleged that he verbally and physically abused her. Keeping her as a prisoner, Lena yearned for freedom and sought many avenues to obtain it. Ernest Knight was a white man, a local gristmill owner who was determined to keep Lena not only as an employee, but also as a sexual partner.

Lena came to work for Knight originally hired by his son to help with chores as he recovered from a broken leg. However, from Knight’s point of view she was there to take care of all his needs. In this paper you will get the chance to walk in Lena’s shoes. I will attempt to tell her story through magazine articles, books, newspaper articles and other research. You will see that in the end Lena’s life no matter how terrible it was, it wasn’t all in vain, and still today she is remembered for her last heartfelt words and calm disposition.

Ulysia Gayle
Julie Warner
English
December 3, 2012
Justice for Lena

Lena Baker was a black woman born with three strikes against her. The first was that she was born in the south. The second was that she was born black. The third was that she was born poor. She was a black woman born in a small town in Georgia. She lived with her mother and three children and later moved five miles southwest of Cuthbert Georgia. Lena was no stranger to crime nor was she a stranger to hard work. Looking for work she acquired a job for a local gristmill owner named Ernest Knight. Knight needed a caregiver due to a broken leg. He needed help with household chores and meals, and Lena needed money. She procured the job with intentions of a business relationship only. However, Knight had other things in mind. Their relationship eventually became sexual on many occasions without Lena’s consent. The introduction of verbal and physical abuse soon followed. Threats against her safety as well as her children and mother were used to keep Lena at bay. She complied with Knight sexually but during this time (1940) relationships of that nature between blacks and whites were prohibited.

Making several escapes, Knight would find Lena, even going to her home during peak hours on numerous occasions to take her and do with her as pleased. Later during this forbidden relationship Ernest Knight’s son as well as the town learned of its meaning and taunted Lena for it, although Knight was the aggressor. Lena was eventually assaulted by Knight’s son, beaten so critically that she needed time to recover herself. Shortly afterwards she was jailed for the same relationship. Fed up with the abuse, Lena wanted desperately to return home, but Knight begged the differ. Imprisoned she knew she was fighting for her life, despite the threats she and Knight entered into battle over a gun which Knight was eventually shot. Panicked and afraid Lena fled the scene. She eventually turned herself in with hopes that all would work in her favor. Needless to say although the town knew of this relationship, no one said anything in Lena’s defense.

No one came to Lena’s rescue. There was no justice for Lena. A black woman accused of murdering a white man didn’t stand a chance no matter the circumstances. Lena soon went on trial. The trial convened on August 14, 1944, at the courthouse in Randolph County under the jurisdiction of Judge Charles William “Two Gun” Worrill, who presided at court with two pistols on the bench. In her testimony, Baker described how Knight locked her in the mill house while he went to a church singing. When he returned, he brought her something to eat but refused to let her leave, she said. When she insisted on going home, the two began to argue, and Knight brandished an iron bar that was used to lock the door. Baker said she feared for her life and attempted to push past Knight to leave. As she did, Knight was shot through the head. Baker testified that she walked immediately to the house of J. A. Cox (the county coroner and a man for whom she had done fieldwork) and told him that she had killed Ernest Knight, (Lela Phillips, Andrew College, Published 12/09/2005).

The jury consisted of twelve white men (not unusual for 1944), but many of the jurors were good friends who attended the same small churches, socialized with each other’s families at card parties, and shared morning coffee at a local cafe. (Justice Denied, THE MAGAZINE FOR THE WRONGLY ACCUSED, Issue 29 – Summer 2005, Page 8). Found guilty of murder in less than 6 hours, Lena received the death penalty as her sentence, earning Lena Baker a place in history as the first and only woman to be sentenced to death by electric chair in the state Georgia, (Netflix, lenabakerthemovie.com 2008). On March 5th 1945, after being held in a prison in Reidsville GA, she was executed but not before saying these last words calmly. “What I done, I did in self- defense, or I would have been killed myself. I am ready to meet my God.”

She was pronounced dead after six minutes and several shocks as her family mourned. (Albany Herald, Closure for The Baker Family, August 30th 2012). In 2005 Baker was granted a full and unconditional pardon by the State of Georgia, 60 years after her execution. The movie “The Lena Baker Story,” is about her life. Her nephew, Roosevelt Curry, received the papers pardoning Baker posthumously. The pardon stated the 1945 decision to deny her clemency and execute her was “a grievous error”. Baker was buried in the Vernon Missionary Baptist Church cemetery in Coleman where she is currently resting in peace. Unfortunately, neither her mother nor her children lived to see that one day there would be Justice for Lena. (Albany Herald, Closure for The Baker Family, August 30th 2012).

Work Cited
Phillips, Lela. “The New Georgia Encyclopedia, History and Archaeology.” The Lena Baker Case. Andrew College, Published 12/09/2005.
Phillips, Lela. “Justice Denied”: THE MAGAZINE OF THE WRONGLY ACCUSED. Issue 29- Summer 2005, Page 8.
Wilcox, Ralph. “Netflix, thelenabakermovie.com.” Hope and Redemption. 2008. Phillips, Bond Lela. “The Black Commentator.” Execution In A Small Town. Andrew College Cuthbert GA.
The Albany Herald, Closure For The Baker Family. Issue August 30th, 2012

Justice for Lena Essay

Jeffrey Dahmer Research Paper Essay

Jeffrey Dahmer Research Paper Essay.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a notorious serial killer in the late 70’s throughout the early 90’s. What made him stand out from most serial killer’s was what he did to the bodies of his victims. During this research paper, I will cover his childhood life, what led to his lifestyle of killing and cannibalism and also the crimes that were committed during his murderous acts. I will also compare what theories relate to Jeffrey Dohmer and what could possibly be the reason why he did what he did.

Childhood life

Jeffrey Dahmer was born in Milwaukee on May 21, 1960 with two loving parents by the name of Lionel and Joyce Dahmer. He seemed like an ordinary child until the age of six, when he had a minor surgery and also when his mother gave birth to his brother. This is when his self-confidence seemed to be lacking. He started to isolate himself from other people and became very anti-social. He went from an outgoing social child to a loner who was uncommunicative and withdrawn.

By his early teenage years, he seemed disengaged, tense and friendless (biography.com). In 1966, the Dahmer family moved to Bath, Ohio where Jeffrey’s insecurities continued to grow and his shyness kept him from making friends. Here is where he became fascinated with animals and started collecting road kill and stripping the animal’s carcasses and saving the bones (crime.about.com/od/serial/a/dahmer.htm). He began dissecting animals near his home in the woods on a regular basis.

High School/ Young Adulthood

Dahmer continued his anti-social behaviors throughout the start of his years at Revere High School. He maintained average grades and seemed to be a fairly normal teenager. He worked on the school newspaper but also developed a bad drinking problem. He was known as a model student, respectful, polite, and well groomed. Overtime, he became less interested in school and his social life really decreased. In the summer of 1978, Dahmer graduated from high school. His parents divorced just short of his 18th birthday. After high school Dahmer enrolled at Ohio State University and spent most of his time skipping classes and getting drunk. After a couple of semesters, he decided to drop out of college and to return home with his father. After an ultimatum was given to him by his father, he decided to join the Army. He signed up on a six year contract, but after two years he was discharged due to his drunken behaviors (crime.about.com/od/serial/a/dahmer.htm). Murder #1

Dahmer struggled with his own homosexual desires, mixed with his need to fulfill his appalling fantasies. His first murder was that of a hitchhiker he picked up. He was 19 year old Steven Hicks. He invited him to his father’s house in which they had some alcoholic drinks and then engaged in sex. Following their sexual acts, when Hicks was ready to leave, Dahmer bashed him in the head with a barbell and killed him. He cut up his victim’s body and placed it in garbage bags. He buried all Hicks body parts in the neighboring woods surrounding his father’s home.

It would be nine years later before committing his second murder. In this particular murder, some of the additional crimes committed against the victim are, false imprisonment and kidnapping. False imprisonment is when someone reasonably believes they are restricted from movement. Steven Hicks voluntarily went with Dahmer to his father’s house. But when Hicks was ready to leave, at the point before Dahmer bashed Hicks in the head, I believe he felt he was restricted to leave at that brief moment before being killed. He is also guilty of kidnapping because Hicks was restricted from leaving by Dahmer before the attack took place. Murder #2

Dahmer’s second murder occurred in September of 1987 when he picked up a 26 year old man by the name of Steven Tuomi at a bar. Dahmer claimed he killed him on impulse and later stated he had no memory of committing this crime. After this particular murder, Dahmer’s murderous rampage begins to occur sporadically. Two murders in 1988, another in 1989 and his method were consistent to picking up his victim’s at gay bars. He had sex with all of his victim’s before and sometimes after killing them.

Final Murder/ Arrest

In May of 1990, he moved out of his grandmother’s house and into the apartment that later became notorious for his killings. He committed four more murders before the end of 1990 and two more in April of 1991, and another in May of 1991 (answers.com). On May 27, 1991, 14 year old Konerak Sinthasomphone was seen on the street, wandering naked, obviously under the influence of drugs and bleeding heavily. Two females from the neighborhood spotted him and called 911. Dahmer approached and tried to convince the women he was ok and attempted to take the boy away. The women stopped him until police arrived. Dahmer told responding police the Konerak was his 19 year old boyfriend and they had an argument while drinking. The police were convinced of Dahmer’s story and they released the boy back to him against the two women’s will. Later that night, Dahmer killed and dismembered Konerak’s body and kept his skull as a souvenir (answers.com).

In this particular murder, Dahmer was also guilty of false imprisonment and kidnapping. The 14 year old boy Konerak was attempting to escape from Dahmer until he convinced the police that everything was ok and proceeded to take the drugged boy back with him. At this point kidnapping took place because Konerak was restricted from leaving when he was taken by Dahmer back to his place. False imprisonment also takes place because Konerak felt he could not leave from Dahmer’s captivity once he got hold of him again. The police in my opinion were guilty of Negligence by not further investigating the incident properly.

The legal Definition of Negligence is conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. In the summer of 1991, Dahmer was killing approximately one person per week. Dahmer came up with a theory that he could turn his victim’s into zombies. He attempted to accomplish this by drilling a hole in his victim’s head while their still alive and injecting hydrochloric acid into the frontal lobe area of their brains with a large syringe (answers.com). Surrounding neighbors of Dahmer constantly smelled bad odors coming from his residence. They also heard sounds such as drills or power saws.

Final Attempt/ Arrest

On July 22, 1991, Dahmer enticed another man into his home in attempt to make him another victim of his sick fantasies. Tracy Edwards was the name of the potential of Dahmer. There was a struggle between Dahmer and Edwards when Dahmer attempted to handcuff his wrist together. Dahmer had him at knife point and forced him into his bedroom. When Edwards saw the pictures of the mangled bodies on the walls and noticed the terrible smell coming from a large blue barrel. He punched Dahmer in the face, kicked him in the stomach, and ran out the door and escaped (Answers.com). He ran down the streets with handcuffs still hanging from one hand and waved down a patrol car.

The police were led to Dahmer’s house by Edwards. When police arrived, they saw the photographs of the mangled victim’s bodies and at this time Dahmer was placed under arrest. While investigating, police found a human head in the refrigerator and multiple pictures of severed body parts. Further searching continued and police found three additional severed heads, severed hands, penises, and multiple human remains. This was the breaking point at which the story of Jeffrey Dahmer gained notoriety (Answers.com).

This is when the public found out about accusations of his practicing necrophilia and cannibalism. Jeffrey Dahmer was indicted on 17 counts of murder and later reduced to 15. The attempt murder of Edwards was not tried in court. Dahmer’s trial began on January 30, 1992. The evidence against him was so incriminating, Dahmer plead not guilty due to reason of insanity. His trial lasted only 2 weeks and he was found guilty of 15 counts of murder and was sentenced to 15 consecutive life terms. He expressed remorse for his acts and said he wished he was dead. In May of 1992, he was extradited to Ohio, where he pleaded guilty to the murder of his first victim, Stephen Hicks (Answers.com).

Dahmer’s Death

While Dahmer was serving his time at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, he was attacked on two different occasions by fellow prisoners. The first time was when he was returning from a church service. He survived that attack with superficial injuries. The second attack occurred when he was doing janitorial work in the prison gym, he and another inmate was attacked and severely beaten with a broomstick handle on November 28, 1994 by an inmate, Christopher Scarver. Dahmer died of severe head trauma while on his way to the hospital. Dahmer’s brain was then kept an examined for study purposes.

Internal factors

Internal factors that could have determined why he was subjective to commit such crime were his anti-social behavior. This behavior leads a person to more likely, lie, steal, assault others, and commit violent acts of crime. Anti-social behavior poses a great risk to a person’s physical and mental health. It also puts a person in a higher risk to use drugs, alcohol, and also very promiscuous behavior. Some external factors that could have subjected him to commit his violent acts were his relationships with the outside world. He felt alone and isolated from the outside world which made him want to have control over it by taking in victims and giving himself power over them. I don’t think there is a specific theory that can pinpoint why Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did. The only theory that I believe fits with his behaviors was the fact that he was anti-social and that’s what leads him in the direction he chose to go in. An anti-social person can lead them to a life of crime and violent behaviors.

The behavior of Jeffrey Dahmer did fall in this category and his actions that which a normal person would not do shows his anti-social behavior very likely played a big part in his decisions. Theories are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt but they do make sense to an extent and help lead us in the right direction to understand why people that commit crime do what they do. These theories are vital to learning and understanding because it can help a Criminologists determine why Criminal’s such as Jeffrey Dahmer do what they do. Jeffrey Dahmer seemed to have void inside of him that he needed to fill. He felt empowered and satisfied when he took in his victims killing and mutilating their bodies. He was sane because he planned and knew what he was doing when committing the acts and there was definitely intent.

Conclusion

Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the most notorious serial killer’s today because of the way he went about his crimes. His victims’ families will be haunted by the actions taken by Dahmer. His actions were very disturbing and he needed to be removed from this earth. He is now dead and gone and people in the surrounding areas where he caused all that pain will no longer have to worry about him.

Work Cited
www.biography.com/people/jeffrey-dahmer-9264755
www.answers.cm/topic/jeffrey-dahmer

Jeffrey Dahmer Research Paper Essay

Three Day Road Chapter Analysis: Murder Essay

Three Day Road Chapter Analysis: Murder Essay.

The chapter starts off as Elijah and Xavier are being sent to another great Allied offensive in the city of Amiens. Xavier makes the statement that the battle for food has become as constant as the war against each other and that for most people the war itself is the real enemy. The Canadian army has advanced a great distance and it appears that it will not be long until the war is over. As Xavier and Elijah are raiding the trenches of the German lines Elijah disappears in pursuit of the retreating Germans, which causes Xavier to worry that Elijah’s lust to kill might have driven him too far this time.

After Elijah’s return he is lectured by Colquhoun (the man who replaces McCaan) about Elijah’s absence, he remains silent as he realises any further comments will only make matters worse.

It is shown that Colquhoun and Lieutenant Breech are jealous of Elijah’s medals and achievements.

After this Elijah searches for Xavier to tell him the things he had done when was gone, he describes to Xavier how he followed the Germans and began to kill them one by one until he ran out of bullets. Elijah claims that it was too easy and that it lost the thrill it once gave him. While Elijah is returning to his section after his killing spree he stops in one of the other Canadian division’s in-order to obtain more morphine, in his attempt to steal the medicine he notices an injured man in the medic’s tent asking for morphine. Elijah inserts so much medicine into the man that he sees the life leave him.

Xavier is unpleased with this story so that he walks away from Elijah. Later on, Xavier and Elijah report to Lieutenant Breech and see Grey Eyes who appears to have been gone for a few weeks. Elijah is being accused of being an addict to morphine and to scalping the heads of his kills. Elijah is outraged to the limit where it begins to frighten Lieutenant Breech, and as he pulls his revolver out and points it at Grey Eyes a bombardment sends them all flying in the air. Elijah soon awakes from un-consciousness and kills both Grey Eyes and Lieutenant Breech. The chapter ends with Elijah explaining to Xavier how soon the war will be over and they will return home together as heroes, however, Xavier’s response is that they can’t and that Niska is dead.

Character Analysis:

In the chapter “Murder”, the main character is Elijah. The chapter is mainly describing his actions, and the choices he is making. In this chapter there are also hints of Xavier’s feelings, and a bit of an explanation to his sadness, which is Niska’s apparent death. We’re also learning more about Elijah’s past and the connection he has grown with Niska, to make Elijah into more of an individual by being taught how to hunt. However, it’s safe to say that Elijah is definitely descending into madness even further from his act of killing Breech and Grey Eyes, especially in such a gruesome technique. Elijah is gaining strength and relieving the pain off his mind by killing his problems away, and he’s even doing this in the careless way of not even following orders and being his own leader. “Elijah says he’s concerned that they will stop fighting sooner than he wants them to, and he’s anxious to see more action.” (333)

This quote was said by Xavier, and it’s indicating how Elijah is fueled by the deaths of people and has a desire for it. He feeds off the idea of taking others’ lives to grow him more and more. These are definite signs of the Windigo. In addition, Elijah is being possessed by his morphine addiction, and he is losing himself. “I know I’ve done horrible things here, I know you think I have gone mad. Sometimes I feel like I was mad too. But I feel like I must leave this place, that I am ready. We will go back home and you and I will return as heroes.” (343) This quote was said by Elijah during a conversation with Xavier by the campfire. Maybe Elijah still has some sanity in him, seeing as he wants to leave the chaos of war too. He is a very interesting character, and is definitely an enigma of this book. It’s a bit ironic because you would think Elijah is scared of war, but now he has become more scared of going back to his old life.

Theme:

The theme that this chapter would most accurately relate to would be “the Descent into Madness.” Elijah is undergoing a phase where he is losing his humanity with each kill he consumes. Elijah seizes to see himself as merely human and gives himself super human characteristics this becomes clear when he claims “he walks with one foot in this world, one firmly planted in the other world.” Furthermore, Elijah fully descends into madness as he betrays his own people by murdering Breech and Grey Eyes. At one point Elijah acknowledges what is becoming of him and tries to fight it however, Xavier knows there is no going back from the evil and atrocities Elijah has committed.

Hero’s Journey:

The stage of the Hero’s Journey which relates to this chapter is the tests Elijah and Xavier must face which result in Elijah’s descent into the abyss. After Elijah’s murders he tries to justify his actions to Xavier at which point Xavier makes a statement about Elijah’s moccasins saying, “There’s no fixing those” (343). What do you think Xavier actually means when he says this? He means that much like Elijah’s moccasins he has gone too far past the point of being able to return to what he once was. Elijah has reached the point of pure evil thus, he has become a windigo.

Discussion Questions:

1. Before Elijah strikes Grey Eyes he shouts for him to wake up (340), why do you think he does this? It is shown a couple of times in previously the novel that Elijah enjoys to look into the eyes of the ones he kills for example, earlier in this chapter when he injects too much morphine into the injured man. It fills the emptiness inside Elijah to know that his face is the last thing the people he kills will ever see. In a way it makes him immortal. 2. After Elijah returns to his section he claims that he has killed around twenty German soldiers, do you think it Elijah may not be telling the truth about this or perhaps exaggerating what he has done? 3. Elijah describes one of the dreams he is having to Xavier (338). What does the dream represent?

Three Day Road Chapter Analysis: Murder Essay

Speech on Capital Punishment Should Not Be Abolished Essay

Speech on Capital Punishment Should Not Be Abolished Essay.

Criminal Justice , 2009 David B. Muhlhausen, “The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives,” Heritage Foundation, August 28, 2007. www.heritage.org. Reproduced by permission of the author. “Capital punishment produces a strong deterrent effect that saves lives.” In the following viewpoint, David B. Muhlhausen argues that capital punishment should not be abandoned because it deters crimes, saves lives, and the majority of American citizens support its use. Additionally, he maintains that evidence does not support claims that racial discrimination results in a disproportionate number of African Americans incarcerated on death row.

David B. Muhlhausen is a senior policy analyst in the area of criminal justice for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy research organization.

As you read, consider the following questions: 1. According to the 2006 study conducted by the RAND Corporation, what affects whether the death penalty is sought as punishment for a crime? 2. What are the three findings of Joanna M. Shepherd’s analysis of data from 1977 to 1999 on the death penalty? 3.

Based on research conducted by H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings, how many murders result from each commutation of a death row sentence? While opponents of capital punishment have been very vocal in their opposition, Gallup opinion polls consistently demonstrate that the American public overwhelmingly supports capital punishment. In Gallup’s most recent poll, 67 percent of Americans favor the death penalty for those convicted of murder, while only 28 percent are opposed. From 2000 to the most recent poll in 2006, support for capital punishment consistently runs a 2:1 ratio in favor. Despite strong public support for capital punishment, federal, state, and local officials must continually ensure that its implementation rigorously upholds constitutional protections, such as due process and equal protection of the law. However, the criminal process should not be abused to prevent the lawful imposition of the death penalty in appropriate capital cases.

Crime Characteristics More Important Than Race

As of December 2005, there were 37 prisoners under a sentence of death in the federal system. Of these prisoners, 43.2 percent were white, while 54.1 percent were African-American. The fact that African-Americans are a majority of federal prisoners on death row and a minority in the overall United States population may lead some to conclude that the federal system discriminates against African-Americans. However, there is little rigorous evidence that such disparities exist in the federal system. Under a competitive grant process, the National Institute of Justice awarded the RAND Corporation a grant to determine whether racial disparities exist in the federal death penalty system.

The resulting 2006 RAND study set out to determine what factors, including the defendant’s race, victim’s race, and crime characteristics, affect the decision to seek a death penalty case. Three independent teams of researchers were tasked with developing their own methodologies to analyze the data. Only after each team independently drew their own conclusions did they share their findings with each other. When first looking at the raw data without controlling for case characteristics, RAND found that large race effects with the decision to seek the death penalty are more likely to occur when the defendants are white and when the victims are white. However, these disparities disappeared in each of the three studies when the heinousness of the crimes was taken into account.

The RAND study concludes that the findings support the view that decisions to seek the death penalty are driven by characteristics of crimes rather than by race. RAND’s findings are very compelling because three independent research teams, using the same data but different methodologies, reached the same conclusions. While there is little evidence that the federal capital punishment system treats minorities unfairly, some may argue that the death penalty systems in certain states may be discriminatory. One such state is Maryland. In May 2001, then-Governor Parris Glendening instituted a moratorium on the use of capital punishment in Maryland in light of concerns that it may be unevenly applied to minorities, especially African-Americans. In 2000, Governor Glendening commissioned University of Maryland Professor of Criminology Ray Paternoster to study the possibility of racial discrimination in the application of the death penalty in Maryland.

The results of Professor Paternoster’s study found that black defendants who murder white victims are substantially more likely to be charged with a capital crime and sentenced to death. In 2003, Governor Robert L. Ehrlich wisely lifted the moratorium. His decision was justified. In 2005, a careful review of the study by Professor of Statistics and Sociology Richard Berk of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his coauthors found that the results of Professor Paternoster’s study do not stand up to statistical scrutiny. According to Professor Berk’s re-analysis, “For both capital charges and death sentences, race either played no role or a small role that is very difficult to specify. In short, it is very difficult to find convincing evidence for racial effects in the Maryland data and if there are any, they may not be additive.” Further, race may have a small influence because “cases with a black defendant and white victim or ‘other’ racial combination are less likely to have a death sentence.”

The Death Penalty Deters Crime

Federal, state, and local officials need to recognize that the death penalty saves lives. How capital punishment affects murder rates can be explained through general deterrence theory, which supposes that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crime deters individuals from committing crime. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker’s seminal 1968 study of the economics of crime assumed that individuals respond to the costs and benefits of committing crime.

According to deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals [economist Paul H. Rubin writes] “rationally maximize their own self-interest (utility) subject to constraints (prices, incomes) that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere.” Individuals make their decisions based on the net costs and benefits of each alternative. Thus, deterrence theory provides a basis for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates. Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents.

The rigorous examination of the deterrent effect of capital punishment began with research in the 1970s by Isaac Ehrlich, currently a University of Buffalo Distinguished Professor of Economics. Professor Ehrlich’s research found that the death penalty had a strong deterrent effect. While his research was debated by other scholars, additional research by Professor Ehrlich reconfirmed his original findings. In addition, research by Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro strongly reconfirmed Ehrlich’s previous findings.

The Death Penalty Saves Lives

Numerous studies published over the past few years, using panel data sets [statisticians make distinctions between panel sets vs. what they call “one-dimensional,” or “cross-sectional” data sets] and sophisticated social science techniques, are demonstrating that the death penalty saves lives. Panel studies observe multiple units over several periods. The addition of multiple data collection points gives the results of capital punishment panel studies substantially more credibility than the results of studies that have only single before-and-after intervention measures. Further, the longitudinal nature of the panel data allows researchers to analyze the impact of the death penalty over time that cross-sectional data sets cannot address. Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders.

Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s death penalty moratorium. They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders. Separately, Professor Shepherd’s analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings. First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Second, executions deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races. Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.

Commuting Death Penalty Sentences Is Deadly

Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado at Denver have published two studies confirming the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The first study used state-level data from 1977 to 1997 to analyze the influence of executions, commutations, and removals from death row on the incidence of murder. For each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred. Alternatively, for each additional commutation, on average, five additional murders resulted. A removal from death row by either state courts or the U.S. Supreme Court is associated with an increase of one additional murder. Addressing criticism of their work, Professors Mocan and Gittings conducted additional analyses and found that their original findings provided robust support for the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders.

Zimmerman’s second study, using similar data, found that executions conducted by electrocution are the most effective at providing deterrence. Using a small state-level data set from 1995 to 1999, Professor Robert B. Ekelund of Auburn University and his colleagues analyzed the effect that executions have on single incidents of murder and multiple incidents of murder. They found that executions reduced single murder rates, while there was no effect on multiple murder rates. In summary, the recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders. While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African-Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African-Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder.

The strength of these findings has caused some legal scholars, originally opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, to rethink their case. In particular, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago has commented: If the recent evidence of deterrence is shown to be correct, then opponents of capital punishment will face an uphill struggle on moral grounds. If each execution is saving lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition, far greater than most critics have heretofore alleged. Americans support capital punishment for two good reasons. First, there is little evidence to suggest that minorities are treated unfairly. Second, capital punishment produces a strong deterrent effect that saves lives.

Further Readings

Books Howard Ball Bush, the Detainees, and the Constitution: The Battle over Presidential Power in the War on Terror. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2007. Hugo Adam Bedau and Paul G. Cassell Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Michael Braswell, Larry Miller, and Joycelyn Pollock Case Studies in Criminal Justice Ethics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2006. Mark Costanzo Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Angela Y. Davis Are Prisons Obsolete? New York: Open Media, 2003. Kevin Davis Defending the Damned: Inside Chicago’s Cook County Public Defender’s Office. New York: Atria, 2007.

Rolando V. del Carmen and Chad R. Trulson Juvenile Justice: The System, Process and Law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005. Jack L. Goldsmith The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration. New York: Norton, 2007. Tara Herivel and Paul Wright Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor. New York: Routledge, 2002. Steve Holbert and Lisa Rose The Color of Guilt & Innocence: Racial Profiling and Police Practices in America . San Ramon, CA: Page Marque Press, 2004. James A. Inciardi Criminal Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. Eleanor Hannon Judah Criminal Justice: Retribution vs. Restoration. New York: Routledge, 2004. David Klinger Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Christian Parenti Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis. New York: Verso, 2000. Joycelyn M. Pollock Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2006. Jeffrey Reiman The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2007.

Anthony Thompson Releasing Prisoners, Redeeming Communities: Reentry, Race, and Politics. New York: NYU Press, 2008. Jeremy Travis But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2005. Samuel Walker and Charles M. Katz The Police in America. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Samuel Walker, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam DeLone The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2006. Brian L. Withrow Racial Profiling: From Rhetoric to Reason. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. Periodicals Roy D. Adler and Michael Summers “Capital Punishment Works,” Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2007. Louis Freedberg “Reforming Three Strikes,” Nation, November 1, 2004.

Annette Fuentes “Give the Kids a Break,” USA Today, February 13, 2008. Cathleen Kaveny “Justice or Vengeance,” Commonweal, February 15, 2008. Nancy Merritt, Terry Fain, and Susan Turner “Oregon’s Get Tough Sentencing Reform: A Lesson in Justice System Adaptation,” Criminology & Public Policy, February 2006. Michael M. O’Hear “The Second Chance Act and the Future of Reentry Reform,” Federal Sentencing Reporter, December 2007. Mary Price “Mandatory Minimums in the Federal System: Turning a Blind Eye to Justice,” Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities, Winter 2004. Julie Rawe “Congress’s Bad Drug Habit,” Time, November 19, 2007. Bruce Shapiro “A Lethal Decision,” Nation, May 12, 2008. Jonathan Turley “The Punishment Fits the Times,” USA Today, January 16, 2008.

Speech on Capital Punishment Should Not Be Abolished Essay

Ted Ammon Murder Essay

Ted Ammon Murder Essay.

The murder of Robert Theodore Ammon, known as Ted Ammon, shocked the east end community. Nobody had been murdered in East Hampton in over 20 years. The 52 year old banker was very popular with his business colleagues. His private life seemed ideal, two adopted children, five homes and luxury cars. Some facts seemed very ominous though, one being the vicious divorce Ted Ammon was involved in with his wife Generosa.

The murder was centered around Danny Pelosi and Generosa Ammon. Pelosi was a high school dropout with a rap sheet filled mostly with drunk driving charges.

His situation was nothing to get excited about until he came in contact with Ted Ammon’s wife Generosa. Generosa was said to be having an affair with Danny Pelosi, a young contractor. Pelosi was quoted as saying “I thought I hit the lottery.” Who wouldn’t think the same? In 2000, Generosa actually began dating her new boyfriend, the electrician named Danny Pelosi, whom she hired to supervise a $4 million dollar renovation of her new Manhattan townhouse.

Ted Ammon was murdered in 2001, it was “a big question mark” said David Moore, chairman of 24/7 Media Inc., an online ad agency on whose board Ammon had served as chairman until this spring. It had been an entire month and nothing had been found. No suspects had been identified, no arrests made, no murder weapon found, and no clear motive given for the slaying. Ted Ammon was murdered on October 20, 2001. His body was not found until October 22, 2001 by a co-worker who went to the home when Ammon missed multiple obligations. This date was just days before the divorce papers were to be signed between Ted and Generosa.

This was about a year after Generosa had begun dating Danny Pelosi serving to make them both suspects in the murder. Danny Pelosi was arrested March 24, 2004. He claimed to not knowing anything about Ted being murdered at this point. It was not until June of 2004 that Danny saw the autopsy pictures of Ted Ammon and said “I almost vomited” due to the brutality of the murder. Daniel Pelosi was convicted of murder of Ted Ammon on December 13, 2004 and sentenced January 25, 2005 to 25-years-to-life in prison.

Ted Ammon had multiple places where he lived. He was bludgeoned to death in his East Hampton summer home. Police said he was beaten to death while sleeping by his wife’s boyfriend Danny Pelosi. Ted was discovered naked in the master bedroom of his house on Middle Lane. All of his bed sheets were taken; they were believed to have the suspect’s blood on them. There was no murder weapon found at the scene or at any secondary crime scene either. Danny Pelosi, who actually ended up getting married to Generosa Ammon three months after her multimillionaire husband was bludgeoned to death in his Long Island mansion.

Police said that Generosa made the offer to Pelosi to kill her husband for a reward. This gave Pelosi motive to kill Ted Ammon. Pelosi drove to 59 Middle Lane in East Hampton, the address of millionaire Ted Ammon with intent to murder Ted. He completed his task and left the house with no trace of evidence. There were a few reasons why police believed that Ted Ammon was killed. There was some suspicion of Ted having enemies, he was an investment banker so it could have been possible he made a bad investment and got mixed up with the wrong people. There were also questions of Ted’s sexual orientation.

A pubic hair was found on Ted’s body, not showing any signs of sexual abuse but there was the idea of Ted Ammon being killed by another man who Ted had sexual relations with. A major belief was that he was murdered so Generosa would receive of the fortune in its entirety. Ted had offered her a 10 million dollar settlement in the divorce. Pelosi tried convincing Generosa to accept that offer. Danny said “Take the money and run. Where I come from, forget it, I’m good.” Generosa did not listen to Pelosi and declined the offer. She hung in there and accepted Ted’s offer of 25 million dollars. It was the weekend before they would sign this contract when Ted Ammon was murdered.

The investigators used a wide variety of techniques to try to incriminate Danny Pelosi or Generosa Ammon. They searched for fingerprints, clothing fibers, hair, and biological material like blood, semen or saliva. None of these techniques were successful and no DNA evidence was found at the scene. This is very fascinating because there is so much DNA one leaves behind by simply going anywhere, humans are constantly shedding skin and hair, approximately 100 hairs per day. I believe that the investigators really did not search hard enough because they would have found something that would have given clear proof that Pelosi or Generosa either were or weren’t at the scene of the crime.

There was video surveillance of Ted Ammon; the video cameras were installed in the East Hampton home by Danny Pelosi, allegedly for Generosa to spy on Ted Ammon. Generosa and Danny would be the only ones who would know where the tapes were. The footage recorded could be viewed remotely from a laptop which Pelosi had at his sister’s home the tapes were gone when police arrived. If Pelosi was innocent why would he try to destroy the video tapes? Danny Pelosi was asked at trial by his lawyer if Generosa had asked him to kill Ted Ammon. Pelosi replied, yes, she had come to him and asked if he knew anyone who could be hired to murder Ted. Pelosi stated turned down both requests (to murder or if he knew someone who would).

After spending 7 years in jail, Danny Pelosi has come out with a story. He stays with his story and says he did not kill Ted Ammon, he places blame on his now dead ex-wife Generosa, in saying she had hired someone to kill him. “Generosa wanted revenge because she believed that Ted had a baby with a girlfriend” said Pelosi. Pelosi states that Generosa had come to his job one day and offered 50,000 dollars to have her husband beaten up. Pelosi brought this offer to his co-workers. Danny states that Chris Perino is the real killer. Chris Perino confessed to driving with Danny Pelosi to the mansion in East Hampton the night of the murder. Perino also says that Danny Pelosi came out of the house with blood on him and saying “I think he’s dead.”

Danny Pelosi said that Chris had contracted two other people to help him with the task. The investigators also found great witnesses to testify for the prosecution. There were three witnesses who said that Danny Pelosi confessed to the crime. Tracey Riebenfeld, one of Danny Pelosi’s past girlfriends got Pelosi to confess to her in 2002. Mr. Pelosi told her that he had delivered the blows while Mr. Ammon cried and begged for his life. He told her that a flashlight and lamp had been used to beat him. When Ms. Riebenfeld asked Mr. Pelosi why he had done it, he pounded his chest and said, “Because I’ve got a monster inside of me.” Pelosi was terrified at this point thinking that Generosa was trying to “frame” him. This testimony was excellent for the prosecution. The nanny of the children, Kathryn Mayne, was another great witness.

Mayne told the court how Pelosi confessed to the brutal October 2001 murder. Mayne also accused Pelosi of threatening to kill her. She told how Pelosi bragged “about how he had beaten and beaten him and how Ted had begged for his life.” Kathryn was still taking care of the two adopted children proving how she really cared for the Ammon family. The last witness was Robert Pelosi, Danny’s Father. Mr. Pelosi recalled talking with his son at a wedding on Oct. 21, 2001 which was the day after Mr. Ammon was beaten to death. Daniel Pelosi asked, “If someone wanted to get rid of something, what could you do?” this statement made Pelosi look very bad. Pelosi wouldn’t even look at his father when Robert Pelosi called out “I love you Danny” while he was testifying.

I believe the investigators could have used databases such as SICAR (Shoeprint Image Capture and Retrieval). Since this mansion was a beach house, there could have been some type of shoeprint left near the crime scene possibly in sand. If a shoeprint was found and Danny Pelosi had a match to the shoeprint, the prosecution would actually have evidence to prove Danny was at the home of Ted Ammon near the time he was murdered.

When the jury went to deliberate, Pelosi was confident. After three days, the verdict came back guilty of 2nd degree murder. He said nothing but appeared to be very surprised. Pelosi had been convicted on purely circumstantial evidence, the trial was over. There was still so many questions left unanswered, was it really Danny Pelosi who killed Ted Ammon? Had Generosa planned to murder her husband to take over his money and estate? We will never know the real truth, for now a convicted killer is in jail for a long time where he belongs.

Works Cited
* “Former Girlfriend Says Pelosi Told Her He Beat Financier to Death.” NY Times. NY Region, Oct. 27 2004. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/nyregion/27pelosi.html?_r=0>. * “The Mysterious Death Of A Manhattan Millionaire.” The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 15 Nov. 2001. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/11/15/the-mysterious-death-of-a-manhattan-millionaire.html>. * “Witness Called ‘Final Nail’ in Pelosi Case.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 12 Jan. 2005. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1499647>. * “Who Killed Ted Ammon? Interactive Timeline.” CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2004/02/06/48hours/timeline598561.shtml>.

Investigative Techniques

* Fingerprinting-An impression on a surface of the curves formed by the ridges on a fingertip, especially such an impression made in ink and used as a means of identification. * Interviewing-A formal meeting in person, especially one arranged for the assessment of the qualifications of an applicant. * Interrogation-To examine by questioning formally or officially * Witness-One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced * Hair Identification- Evaluation of DNA in hair can identify or rule out individuals in criminal cases

Source for all definitions-
The Free Dictionary. Farlex, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2012. <http://www.thefreedictionary.com>.

Ted Ammon Murder Essay