Katlyn Elaine Reynolds
- katlyn
- Hey, my name is Katlyn I am a junior at HTHS. I am 16 and play soccer for the school team an olympic team and and indoor team. I chose my topic because I think criminal investigations are interesting. I am also planning on taking a course in college that has to do with my topic, so this gets me a head start.While doing my research there is never a dull moment, so it keeps me going.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Response 6
Catch Me If You Can
The book Catch Me If You Can, by Frank Abaganle took place in New Rochelle, in the 1960s.Frank Abagnale Jr., a kid in high school, looks up to his father, who's in trouble with the IRS. When his parents separate, Frank runs away to Manhattan with $25 in his checking account. While in Manhattan he hopes to regain his dad's losses and try and get his parents back together. While trying to make it on his own he learns how to write bad checks and he becomes really good at it. Just a few years later, the FBI tracks him down in France; he's extradited, tried, and jailed for passing more than $4,000,000 in bad checks. Along the way, he's posed as a Pan Am pilot, a pediatrician, and an attorney. He met a lot of women, which were his passion, and he just had the time of his life. And, from nearly the beginning of this life of crime, he's been followed by an FBI agent, Carl Hanratty. Carl is tyring his hardest to catch Frank but everything he does to get close just doesn't ever work and Frank always slips right past him. This really gets Carl heated and he still tries even harder to find him.
During all of this chaos Frank meets this pretty nurse that is young and comes from a wealthy family. He met her when he was posing as a doctor. When frank fell in love with her she brings him home to meet the parents. Frank then asks her dad if he can marry her. They were then going to get married when Carl Hanratty had just found out where he was. Carl and a ton of FBI agents swarmed the house and interrupted a huge engagement party. Frank got away and left his fiance without understanding what was going on. Frank was later caught and put in prison for fraud.
Frank was an amazing con artist and was extremly smart and good at what he did. He did not inherit the gene of becoming a a criminal because no one in his family wasa criminal. He picked up on it on his own and practiced it a lot and thats what made him a master at it. Frank posed as other people and wrote a lot of bad checks. How they didn't catch him instantly blows my mind. What i really liked about this book is that it is a true story. Frank was practically a genius at a young age and was able to outsmart many FBI agents who were many years older than him. Like other criminals he started committing crimes at a young age. Also i beliee one of the reasons he took money was the fact that when he grew up he was poor and didnt have a lot. Also it is a fact that poorer people are more suceptible to crime. All around i really enjoyed reading this book because it helped me figure out some more things about criminals.
The book Catch Me If You Can, by Frank Abaganle took place in New Rochelle, in the 1960s.Frank Abagnale Jr., a kid in high school, looks up to his father, who's in trouble with the IRS. When his parents separate, Frank runs away to Manhattan with $25 in his checking account. While in Manhattan he hopes to regain his dad's losses and try and get his parents back together. While trying to make it on his own he learns how to write bad checks and he becomes really good at it. Just a few years later, the FBI tracks him down in France; he's extradited, tried, and jailed for passing more than $4,000,000 in bad checks. Along the way, he's posed as a Pan Am pilot, a pediatrician, and an attorney. He met a lot of women, which were his passion, and he just had the time of his life. And, from nearly the beginning of this life of crime, he's been followed by an FBI agent, Carl Hanratty. Carl is tyring his hardest to catch Frank but everything he does to get close just doesn't ever work and Frank always slips right past him. This really gets Carl heated and he still tries even harder to find him.
During all of this chaos Frank meets this pretty nurse that is young and comes from a wealthy family. He met her when he was posing as a doctor. When frank fell in love with her she brings him home to meet the parents. Frank then asks her dad if he can marry her. They were then going to get married when Carl Hanratty had just found out where he was. Carl and a ton of FBI agents swarmed the house and interrupted a huge engagement party. Frank got away and left his fiance without understanding what was going on. Frank was later caught and put in prison for fraud.
Frank was an amazing con artist and was extremly smart and good at what he did. He did not inherit the gene of becoming a a criminal because no one in his family wasa criminal. He picked up on it on his own and practiced it a lot and thats what made him a master at it. Frank posed as other people and wrote a lot of bad checks. How they didn't catch him instantly blows my mind. What i really liked about this book is that it is a true story. Frank was practically a genius at a young age and was able to outsmart many FBI agents who were many years older than him. Like other criminals he started committing crimes at a young age. Also i beliee one of the reasons he took money was the fact that when he grew up he was poor and didnt have a lot. Also it is a fact that poorer people are more suceptible to crime. All around i really enjoyed reading this book because it helped me figure out some more things about criminals.
Response 5
Lombrosso is a famous criminal anthropologist that is regarded by many as the father of criminology. In general, his principal idea was that people are born criminals, he was absolutely convinced that it is n their nature to commit crimes. His views on studying crime may be defined as deterministic and probably that is why he "viewed criminals as being a more primitive form of human, influenced much by Charles Darwin's writings on evolution”. So, he believed that criminals having an innate predisposition to criminality are not of the same kind or not the same species as 'normal' people. According to him, they occupied an intermediate position between modern people and less developed ancient ancestors of Homo Sapiens. Lombrosso defined criminals as Homo Delinquents and estimated that they have certain characteristics that differ them from other normal people. He made serious researches concerning the problem of distinguishing criminals among other people and he finally worked out the main physical characteristics that could help a specialist to say if a person is an innate criminal or not, namely they are as follows: "a) size and shape of the head; b) enlarged cheekbones and jaw; c) fleshy protruding lips; d) abnormal teeth and dark skin". These characteristics were sufficient to him to distinguish a criminal among 'normal' people though a few other factors could be added to previous four such as an excessive use of tattooing, excessive idleness and a tendency to express the ideas pictorially. In spite the fact that Lombrosso collected quite a large amount of data based on his analysis of Italian prisoners and soldiers they are not sufficient enough to make the conclusion he made, that criminals are different from a non-criminal part of the population by their nature. To prove this insufficiency of data it would be enough to indicate that he didn't use a control group of 'normal' people that nowadays is an essential condition of objectiveness of final conclusions. Thus, it makes his conclusions quite questionable and uncertain. It is also worth noting that Lombrosso worked out the classification of criminals according to which all criminals were divided into four categories: born criminals, insane criminals, occasional criminals or criminaloids, and criminals of passion. Such categorization demonstrates that he admitted the possibility of occasional crimes that may be regarded as the possibility of environmental influence on the criminal but not innate but it is not exactly so because even though "through revision of his works he gave attention more and more to environmental explanations and most noteworthy is the attention he gave to social, cultural and economical variables in his explanation of crime, even though he always stated that they were less important than biological factors". Thus, it is obvious that to certain extent Lombrosso admitted the impact of environment on a personality of a criminal he still stood on his ground.
I think Lombrosso was not correct on the research he collected. There are a large amount of pieces missing in his studies. Most of his opinions were just ridiculous and did not make sense at all. Criminals do not have a cerain look, there are very different types of criminals and all criminals havetheir own look. Although it is a fact that people who are criminals like to express themselves with art and tattoos. People who express theirselves with tattoos are a sign that they have rebellion in them. Still, there are people like me for example that have a tattoo but are not criminals so that fact is true to an extent. Criminals are no different than a normal person except for the decisions they make as a person. Lombrosso says that a criminal is built different and can be picked out of a crowd which is a load of crap. Also Lombrosso didn't use a control group of any sort so none of his alleged assumptions could be confirmed.
Response 4 multi-media
Criminal Minds
Criminal Minds on CBS had a great show about a criminal with psychological problems. The title of the show was “Public Enemy.” This was about a guy who would go into public places and would slice random people’s throats. Then the BAU is called to the scene to determine why the man was doing it. They later conclude that the man has the psychopath of an arsonist, and not exactly a spree killer. The reason why the man is committing these crimes is because the man had hatred for his father. The BAU was able to catch him by creating a ruse which he cannot resist. The man in this TV show was obviously a victim of some sort of abuse when he was a child. Also he was not born with any psychological problems but later developed it. The psychopath that has come out of him in his killings has most likely been caused by his years of abuse by his dad. This guy is an example of criminals not being genetically inclined to kill but it is more of how he was raised.
This show still makes me believe that criminals are made into criminals and not born with the traits. So far all of my research and data collected has backed my opinion up. 70 percent of criminals have had some sort of abuse growing up. This is sad because knowing these facts parents should treat their children better so that they want be the parents of a future criminal. This man in this show had psychological problems that could have been caused from anything but there is no proof that he got it from his parents. Also if his parents would have treated him better when he was younger he wouldn’t have turned out the same way. So this only lets us believe that he developed it over the years of growing up.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Response 4
Criminal Behavior
There is a vast amount of evidence that shows our criminal justice system is the new home for individuals with psychological problems. Although this may seem like a solution to some, it is creating a dilemma for our society. Once we label these individuals as criminals it creates a stigma for those who may suffer from psychological problems. Certain psychological problems have been shown to be heritable and if given the right circumstances, individuals with those genes could find themselves engaging in criminal activity. Therefore, should society look towards limiting the reproductive capabilities of individuals who suffer from certain psychological problems to better society? That same question was asked back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s when the role of genetics in crime was widely accepted (Joseph 182). Prominent researchers believed that genes were fully responsible for criminal activity and that criminals could be identified by their physiological features. Along with this information and the idea of a eugenics movement during the same time period, it was not surprising to learn that acts of sterilization took place to rid society of “criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists" (Joseph 182). This period was therefore marked with inhumane treatment and the belief that genes were the sole reason behind criminal behavior. Not long after the practices of controlled breeding, there was evidence to support the idea that the environment also played an important role in crime. Early family studies were conducted that showed a predisposition for criminal behavior as a result of inherited characteristics, but that an individual's characteristics and personality could still be modified by the environment (Joseph 182). Although these studies were void of high validity and reliability, it still raised the question of whether the environment can also influence individuals to act in a criminal manner. The debate between genetics and environment continues today with much more reliable research and data. Consequently, this paper will examine the various roles in which both genes and environmental factors influence criminal behavior. Secondly, they advise individuals to define antisocial behavior is through criteria used to diagnose certain personality disorders. More specifically, they mean those personality disorders, such as Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is associated with an increased risk in criminal activity. A final measure suggested for defining antisocial behavior is by examining personality traits that may be influential in the criminal behavior of individuals. Traits such as aggressiveness and impulsivity are two traits that have been investigated the most (Morley & Hall 3).
After this research I think it is true that some criminals have inherited psychological problems from their parents and this has caused them to commit crimes. Although psychological problems are inherited from parents there is still no explanation for the criminals that all of a sudden start killing people and breaking the law. So this still makes me believe that criminals commit crimes because of what they have been exposed to growing up in life. Most criminals weren’t born with psychological problems and later develop them in life. Also 70 percent of criminals all say that they had some sort of abuse growing up. Most of them were victims of emotional abuse.
There is a vast amount of evidence that shows our criminal justice system is the new home for individuals with psychological problems. Although this may seem like a solution to some, it is creating a dilemma for our society. Once we label these individuals as criminals it creates a stigma for those who may suffer from psychological problems. Certain psychological problems have been shown to be heritable and if given the right circumstances, individuals with those genes could find themselves engaging in criminal activity. Therefore, should society look towards limiting the reproductive capabilities of individuals who suffer from certain psychological problems to better society? That same question was asked back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s when the role of genetics in crime was widely accepted (Joseph 182). Prominent researchers believed that genes were fully responsible for criminal activity and that criminals could be identified by their physiological features. Along with this information and the idea of a eugenics movement during the same time period, it was not surprising to learn that acts of sterilization took place to rid society of “criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists" (Joseph 182). This period was therefore marked with inhumane treatment and the belief that genes were the sole reason behind criminal behavior. Not long after the practices of controlled breeding, there was evidence to support the idea that the environment also played an important role in crime. Early family studies were conducted that showed a predisposition for criminal behavior as a result of inherited characteristics, but that an individual's characteristics and personality could still be modified by the environment (Joseph 182). Although these studies were void of high validity and reliability, it still raised the question of whether the environment can also influence individuals to act in a criminal manner. The debate between genetics and environment continues today with much more reliable research and data. Consequently, this paper will examine the various roles in which both genes and environmental factors influence criminal behavior. Secondly, they advise individuals to define antisocial behavior is through criteria used to diagnose certain personality disorders. More specifically, they mean those personality disorders, such as Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is associated with an increased risk in criminal activity. A final measure suggested for defining antisocial behavior is by examining personality traits that may be influential in the criminal behavior of individuals. Traits such as aggressiveness and impulsivity are two traits that have been investigated the most (Morley & Hall 3).
After this research I think it is true that some criminals have inherited psychological problems from their parents and this has caused them to commit crimes. Although psychological problems are inherited from parents there is still no explanation for the criminals that all of a sudden start killing people and breaking the law. So this still makes me believe that criminals commit crimes because of what they have been exposed to growing up in life. Most criminals weren’t born with psychological problems and later develop them in life. Also 70 percent of criminals all say that they had some sort of abuse growing up. Most of them were victims of emotional abuse.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Response 3 on small print source
In Serial Murder, a book by Robert Dolan, I read a chapter about where serial murderers come from. Dolan says that becoming a serial murderer developes over a period of time, and it usually begins in childhood. Many murderers commit small crimes before they commit murder. In this book Dolan mentions many murderers and tells their stories. One of the murderers is John Wayne Gacy. Gacy committed some sick murders before he was stopped by the police. Later after questioned about what made him do the things he did, he said he killed to gain the power that his father had taken away from him when he was a kid. Also Dolan states that 70 % of all interviewed criminals had a familiar history of abuse(Dolan 27). Also all serial murders suffer from emotional abuse. FBI profiler John Douglas talks about Ed Kemper, a serial murderer, and says that Kemper is " an example of someone not born a serial killer but manufactured as one(Dolan 30)." Douglas says this is because of his mother's abuse towards Kemper when he was a child. Another one on the serial murderers Dolan talks about is Richard Chase. Chase grew up with a schizophrenic mom and he later developed schizophrenia. Dolan believes that people who grow up with abuse and messed up parents later turns to violent crimes.
I believe Dolan's assumptions on serial murderers are very true. Given the facts about parental abuse towards their children, it is clear that children do turn to violent crimes if they are not raised in a healthy enviroment. I strongly believe that parents have a strong influence on their children's lives and the way their children behave. Also when children are exposed to their parents behaviors it tends to rub off on them. So if a parent exposes their child to abusive behaviors their child is going to turn to those behaviors later on in life.
I believe Dolan's assumptions on serial murderers are very true. Given the facts about parental abuse towards their children, it is clear that children do turn to violent crimes if they are not raised in a healthy enviroment. I strongly believe that parents have a strong influence on their children's lives and the way their children behave. Also when children are exposed to their parents behaviors it tends to rub off on them. So if a parent exposes their child to abusive behaviors their child is going to turn to those behaviors later on in life.
Response 3
Criminal Minds on A&E follows the men and women of the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), an elite team of FBI profilers who get inside the heads of hardened criminals to discover what makes them tick. Leader of the group is Jason Gideon, whose academic approach to cases and guides the team as they analyze the country's most twisted criminal minds. They specialize in anticipating their next moves before they strike again. Each member brings his or her own area of expertise to the table as they pinpoint predators' motivations and identify their emotional triggers in the attempt to stop them. This show entails many criminals and their intellect behind their crimes that they commit. There are many different types of criminals on this show some having backgrounds of child abuse and some just randomly committing crimes. It is up to the BAU to figure out what is really going on in the criminal minds as they hunt them down. Members of the BAU believe that there is always a motivation behind a criminal act, and if there isn’t then the patient is psychotic.
After watching criminal minds I realized that all of the murders in the show had a motive to kill. None of them just randomly wanted to kill someone or randomly become obsessed with killing. This proves that criminals don’t commit crimes because they were born to do it, they have had something happen to them that possessed them to think it was the right thing to do. These TV shows really were interesting to watch because they were realistic and seemed like they really understood what they were talking about. The information they provided really backed up with all the research I have found. I believe that being a criminal has nothing to do with genetics but it has to do with who you grow up around and who your surround yourself with in your everyday life.
After watching criminal minds I realized that all of the murders in the show had a motive to kill. None of them just randomly wanted to kill someone or randomly become obsessed with killing. This proves that criminals don’t commit crimes because they were born to do it, they have had something happen to them that possessed them to think it was the right thing to do. These TV shows really were interesting to watch because they were realistic and seemed like they really understood what they were talking about. The information they provided really backed up with all the research I have found. I believe that being a criminal has nothing to do with genetics but it has to do with who you grow up around and who your surround yourself with in your everyday life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)