A serial killer is a person who murders several people to seek unusual psychological gratification. Serial killers often execute these homicides within short time frames, and they often tend to include a critical time lapse between them. Over the past few decades, discussions on what repeatedly forces serial killers to commit violent crimes have emerged. A couple of studies affirm that both social and biological factors contribute to the making of serial killers. These studies have concluded that genetics and environments go hand in hand when it comes to encouraging brutal criminal behaviors. The primary aim of this paper is to discuss whether serial killers are born or made.
The cultural popularity of serial killers remains high across the globe. This has pushed scholars to conduct numerous studies and publish articles on serial killers’ psychological and biological mysteries. Through such studies and articles, people can learn more about these people and the factors that motivate their actions. According to reports released by the FBI’s Behavioral Science unit, a significant percentage of serial killers in the United States are white males. They tend to execute heinous murders when they are between 20 and 40 years old. A significant percentage of them are also characterized as intelligent, and most of them tend to be loners. Most serial killers have past criminal history records, and criminologists affirm a relationship between serial killing, burglary, and rape (Miller, 2014).
Attributions of serial killers.
Nature plays a significant role in the making of serial killers. Recent research has shown that childhood maltreatment significantly contributes to antisocial behavior. Traumatic events, child abuse, and parental violence shape people’s personalities during childhood. Scientists have also found a significant relationship between childhood traumatic experiences and later criminal conduct. However, it is crucial to note that not all abused children become serial killers, and not all serial killers endured abuse during childhood (Hernandez et al., 2015). Some serial killers further do not show any signs of becoming murderous. They lead everyday lives just as regular children, score good grades, love going to school and have loving families.
Various biological perspectives, including brain abnormalities and genetic predispositions, are also used to explain the behaviors of serial killers. According to (Sharma, 2018) , criminals tend to have higher brain dysfunction levels than non-criminals. Numerous studies further affirm that biochemical imbalances contribute to violence and criminality. Aggressive behaviors among males have also been linked to varying levels of male sex hormones such as testosterone and androgen. When it comes to genetic components of criminal behavior, theorists speculate that males whose biological fathers are criminals are more likely to become criminals than those whose fathers were non criminals.
When researching on the behaviors of different famous serial killers, they all seem to have different explanations for why they committed homicides. While they may have a few things in common, they are inadequate to give 100% connection. Numerous scholars further affirm that genetics, trauma, environment, and personality are among the variables that collectively drive serial killers. Therefore, generalizing the cause of serial killers’ conduct is clearly off base and pretentious. It is quite evident that more studies need to be conducted to understand better what makes a serial killer. There is significant interest across the professional and public spectrum to warrant thorough evaluation.
Hernandez, J., Highsmith, J., Madrigal, S., & Mercado, M. (2015). Nature (MAOA) and Nurture in a Criminal. UC Merced Undergraduate Research Journal, 8(1).
Miller, L. (2014). Serial killers: I. Subtypes, patterns, and motives. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(1), 1-11.
Sharma, M. (2018). The development of serial killers: A grounded theory study.
Argument Essay On “The Crucible” By Arthur Miller Sample College Essay
Robert Maynard, an American journalist, once said that the dignity of man is an ideal worth fighting for and worth dying for. In the play “The Crucible,” the price of dignity is passed through a litmus test by John Proctor. He has to decide between his life and his dignity. In the end, John chooses his dignity over his life, a position I support, and give reasons for doing so in this paper. What Proctor gained from his decision to recant his false confession was worth the price of his life.
Proctor is a decent bloke, genuine, straight, and flat, but he has a significant drawback: his love for Abigail led to their infidelity, and Abigail’s hatred of his wife, Elizabeth, launched the witch craze. When Danforth demands writing and publicizing the admission, John recognizes that the statement is more than a technicality; it is also a possible chance for the judge to confirm the witch hunt and sanction the deaths. Thus, his admittance runs counter to his aim to end the town’s panic. “You’ve worked your spell now, and I believe I see a ray of decency in John Proctor. It’s not sufficient to make a banner out of, but it’s white enough to keep such dogs away” (Miller 105). As he qualifies his decision to recant his confession, Proctor adds this. While an oral admission may have no link to reality, putting his signature on record will lend legitimacy to the prosecution’s lies, staining the reputations of his companions who have perished in denial of the accusations leveled against them.
Proctor’s refusal to give up his dignity implies that he believes that such fidelity will lead him to eternity. He is absolved of his previous transgressions and goes to execution. “Because it’s my name!” says John, “Because I don’t have room in my life for another! Because I am not worth the dust on the hangers’ feet! I’ve given you my heart; leave my name!” (Miller 143). “He hath his goodness now,” Elizabeth remarks at the close of the play, in response to Hale’s appeal that she persuade John to admit openly. “Please, God forbid I take it from him!” (Miller 116). This phrase argues that, instead of being remembered for accepting a false confession against his neighborhood, he recognizes that his reputation will be renowned for standing firm, even at the expense of his life. Elizabeth does not push him to rethink because she comprehends the sacrifice he is undertaking for both the community and their household.
As the play concludes, Proctor achieves martyrdom as he gives up his life, having refused to have put the false confession in writing. He ensures that the lives of his neighbors are not lost in vain and gives the town a chance to recover from all the drama and chaos caused by the witchcraft allegations. Living for him by lying to the court would have been untenable, therefore demeriting the claim that decanting the false confession and being hanged was not worth the price of his life. “How may I live without my name (Miller 153)?” John contemplates himself as useless, equating it to death, if he abandons all of his principles to avoid execution.
In conclusion, Proctor loses his life and keeps his dignity, his decision well documented in the town’s history books and one I firmly concur with. It is important to note that there are issues or scenarios in life that transcend the importance of one man and, in that measure, their existence. The preservation of this life in this instance would have spelled doom for the town and probably cost more lives than the one lost by Proctor deciding to stand for the truth.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. 1953. New York, Penguin Books, 2003.
Argumentative Essay On Drinking Water Essay Example
Many people are questioning if bottled water or tap water is the healthier option for their health. The conclusion has been speculation that bottled water and tap water are roughly equal in safety. In the long term, drinking tap water may help you save more money. But when traveling, purchasing bottled water may prove more practical. This may result in an individual returning to the store for bottled water and not because bottled water tastes better; bottled water is available almost everywhere. Tap water provides an unlimited supply of freshwater anytime required for drinking, cooking, and watering pets and plants and any other use.
Drinking tap water is safer as compared to bottled water for human consumption. The most significant danger linked with drinking bottled water is the possibility of being exposed to hazardous pollutants released by plastic containers. When you drink water out of a plastic bottle, even if it is not acidic, you increase your risk of consuming chemicals from the plastic container’s manufacturing process since these toxins may leak into the water over time. This is especially frequent with bottles of water that are old and those liable to high temperatures. BPA and other plastic toxins may get into the circulation, where they may cause a variety of health issues, including cancers of the breast, prostate, and uterus. They can also cause liver and kidney disease. Unfortunately, scientists have not given all of the possible long-term impacts of absorbing toxins via bottled water intake at this time. These chemicals may build in your system over time, making you more susceptible to several health conditions.
It is cheaper to drink tap water than bottled water, which might not be filtered as expected. While bottled water is typically portrayed as superior to water from a tap, the truth is that in a number of cases, bottled water is just exalted water from the tap. However, although some companies filter their water further before packaging it, others fail to do so and just bill for the bottling. Buying bottled water may cost hundreds of times more than getting it from your own tap. Research shows that bottled water may not be safe compared to municipal tap water. This is because the municipal water supply in our residences is strictly controlled. The EPA sets legal limits for hundreds of toxins and frequently tests for in public tap water, and the EPA enforces those limits. As a result, bottled water is subject to minimal regulation and has been discovered to contain arsenic and hundreds of other toxins in recent tests. One would likely obtain the cleanest water to drink by filtering water from the tap at home rather than purchasing.
Drinking tap water is environmentally friendly since the containers can be re-used safely compared to bottled water. There is a detrimental effect on the environment from bottled water, especially in terms of plastic waste. Most plastic bottles cannot be recycled since they are constructed from petroleum-based materials. Plastic recycling in the United States was just 23% in 2007. It’s a fact that many plastic bottles wind up being thrown away or littered in the forest, lake, or ocean. However, some individuals have begun recycling throwaway plastic water bottles by refilling them numerous times to lessen their carbon impact. In theory, this may seem like an excellent idea, but re-using a single-use water bottle may be risky. Re-using these bottles exposes you to the danger of ingesting more chemicals and micro-plastics from the container. These bottles are also difficult to clean because of their form and the soft plastic they are made of, making them an ideal breeding ground for germs. This may be dangerous to your health if you re-use these bottles for a long time.
In conclusion, given the potential health risks associated with bottled water, one may want to prefer purchasing a reusable water container of high-quality made of metal and a filtration system to filter water for your house to reduce your risk. This can assist in guaranteeing the health of you and your family while also lowering the rate of plastic pollution. This may contribute to the preservation of the environment for future generations.
Qian, N. (2018). Bottled water or tap water? A comparative study of drinking water choices on university campuses. Water, 10(1), 59.