Fluent Essays

Heres the prompt.For this paper, I want you to spend the first half presenting Grossman’s thesis and supporting arguments in a book summary. The second half of the paper will have you act as a sociological investigator to understand the high murder rate within organized crime. Are there specific tactics utilized by these gangs that allow for their members to feel more comfortable engaging in homicide? Does this serve as an avenue of critique to the work of Grossman, or is there something here that actually reinforces his thesis?Things to keep in mind:Your paper needs to be evidence based. This means that you will need to do some outside research to back up your analysis of the phenomenon of gang violence. This is a sociology paper, so it should reflect sociological thinking and utilize concepts from the discipline. The reader should have a clear understanding that you have attended class, done the course readings, and have a strong understanding of the course materials.Students will be graded on:· How effectively they summarize the thesis and supporting arguments of Grossman· Integration of outside sources to support their points· Utilization of course concepts and perspectives· Demonstration of an understanding of the sociological perspective· Clear articulation of their points and organization of their paper· Following the formatting guidelines and prompt instructions· Ability to convince the audience of the reasons for the higher homicide rate within gang membershipMLA Format criminology.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Presenting Grossman’s Thesis and supporting Argument Summary Grossman draws from published personal accounts, interviews and academic studies to investigate the psychology that is involved in killing in combat. He stresses out that human beings have a strong innate resistance to try and take human life. He takes a step further to examining the techniques that the military uses to overcome this aversion. His study is mainly focused on the Vietnam war. It shows how the American solider was ‘enabled to kill’ than any other solider in history. He further argues that the combination of the breakdown of the American society and the pervasive violence in video games and in the media is slowly conditioning children in manner that is similar to that of conditioning soldiers. (Jones) argues that human beings have gotten to the point of desensitization where the infliction of pain has become the source of entertainment instead of revulsion. People are learning to kill and learning to like it. The paper focuses on the act of killing its intimacy, drawing great focus on the social and psychological impact that exists after killing, repercussions of killing and the resulting disorders. Thesis: Despite the unbroken tradition of war and violence, man is not a killer by nature. As per (Kurdahl), warfare has a harsh unforgiving realm in which only the most valuable tactics, ideas and ideas are preserved. The ultimate goal for any war is to subdue the enemy by killing them. It therefore required the soldier to become a killing machine. Different techniques were used to try and achieve this. Using drill was one of the techniques used. It was later understood that soldiers become exhausted with this sort of training as they entered a dazed condition where all sharpness and consciousness was lost. With this kind of training, soldiers were not willing to kill the enemy. It was observed that when a leader came closer to a soldier and ordered them to fire, then they would fire. Immediately, the obedience demanding authority left, the firing would stop. A clear indication of soldiers being ‘unable’ to kill. According to (Jonathan H. Turner), these failures therefore prompted realistic training to try and achieve higher firing rates. The high firing rate was in the Vietnam was as a result of training. It involved conditioning the modern soldiers with techniques that enabled them to kill. The Vietnam war had a universal distribution of automatic weapons which could be responsible for the high number of kills per shot. Even with these factors in place, so much fire occurred and so many soldiers were ‘willing’ to fire. A clear indication that there was something different about this war. (Grossman section 4 chapter 2) explains that, the Bible and the Torah greatly condemn killing. However, there is great debate on this issue as the Bible has the record of killings and several battles. Killing under authority has been represented as acceptable and honorable. Moral distance is a key dominant factor in the enabling violence and its rationalization. There are several variables to put into consideration when looking into the probability of a personal kill. They include; demand of authority, group absolution, total distance from victim, total attractiveness of victim and the aggressive predisposition of the killer. Probability of a personal kill The probability of a personal kill can be defined as the total psychological leverage that is available that enables the execution of a specific personal kill. Demands of authority It is a product of multiplying intensity of demand for killing by legitimacy of obediencedemanding authority by proximity of obedience-demanding authority by respect for obedience-demanding authority Group absolution It is a product of intensity of support for the killing multiplied by number in immediate killing group by identification with killing group by proximity of killing group Total distance from victim It is a product of physical distance from victim multiplied by the cultural distance from the victim by social distance from the victim by moral distance from the victim by mechanical distance from victim. Target Attractiveness of Victim It is the product of multiplying the relevance of victim by the relevance of available strategies by the payoff in killer’s gain and adding it to the payoff in victim’s loss. Aggressive Predisposition of Killer It is the product of training or conditioning of the killer multiplied by past experiences of the killer by the individual temperament of killer. An equation that ties all these variables to produce the probability of personal kill would be: Probability of Personal Kill = (demands of authority) × (group absolution) × (total distance from victim) × (target attractiveness of victim) × (aggressive predisposition of killer) The variables presented indicate that a person is not born a killer but instead they are made to become one. A person will kill under the compulsion to do so. They try do almost anything to avoid killing unless they are under very strong social pressures to comply. A soldier has to be coerced, conditioned and provided with the mechanical and the mental leverage in order for them to kill (Jonathan H. Turner). As per (Jones), killing does not come natural to humans. It therefore leaves the individual prone to psychiatric meltdowns. It is manifested in anxiety states, obsessive and compulsive state, fatigue and confusion states of the individual. Some research indicates that veterans from the Vietnam war have been seen to have a higher probability of committing murder, robbery or assaults. Some of it is contributed to PTSD. They have also been seen to have increased cases of suicides, alcoholism, drug use and divorce. Some psychiatrists argue that it is also as a result of the lack of social support after coming from combat. Different studies dispute these finding and counter by concluding that veterans are better members of the society. Understanding the high murder rate within organized crime According to (Youngs), organized crime can be traced back to the early 1830s with links to gambling and prostitution. The FBI defines organized crime as any group that has a form of organized structure whose primary aim is to obtain money through illegal activities. They usually maintain their position through the use of violence, corrupt public officials, extortion and generally having influence in their locales as a whole. As per (Little), there are several types of organized crime. They engage in a myriad of several criminal activities ranging from access device fraud, identity theft, healthcare fraud, real estate fraud, insurance fraud, drug trafficking, human smuggling, prostitution, money laundering and extortion. There are different theories on the reason as to why people commit crimes. Some believe that crime comes from a rational choice and criminals usually weigh their pros and cons of committing any crime before they actually do it. On the other hand, there is the theory that criminals are psychologically and biologically different from the law-abiding citizens. However, the sociological theory of criminology says that the society is solely responsible in creating the conditions that an individual commits a crime. Meaning that people are usually influenced by the society to commit the crimes. It looks at crime as a societal problem and not an individual one. (Kurdahl) explains that in the case of the high rate of murder rate within organized crime, one could link it social learning theory. A case where the individual learns to kill from each other. The other explanation could be on social conflict theory. These is where there is a big gap in terms of class and wealth which creates conflict. The sociological theories have made it clear that criminal behavior is not innate to human’s circumstances are what affect how people act. An indication that people are greatly influenced by their environment and are not born criminals. Murder rates are also high in areas that have high rates of unemployment and poverty. Research shows that viewing entertainment violence can eventually lead to the increase in aggressive tendencies, values and behavior. It is seen that the prolonged of such medias leads to desensitization of violence in real life (Grossman Chapter 1) Characteristics of organized crime offenders (Little) explains that in order to understand the reasoning behind organized crime murders, it is important to have a view of the characteristics of the organized crime offenders. The age at the inclusion of the offense, gender, nationality and the ethnicity. Age For general offenders and serious offenders, the common age for general offenders and serious crime offenders was 20 and 21 respectively. The mean age of the organized crime offenders is at 32. Gender Majority of the individuals in organized crime are men Ethnicity As of the time of the research, statistics showed that White Europeans accounted for the least number for organized crime. Blacks accounted for 23\% while Asians took 15\% of the organized crime. According to (Duyne),the increased murder rate in organized crime is directly linked to the environment in which the offenders are brought up in. Organized crime primes on its victim’s fear. For them to thrive they have to inflict it. Killing those that go against them has been identified as the ultimate way to instill fear in those that would dare go against the group. It is a tradition that has been used to earn the so called ’respect’ among their peers and even another groups. The high rate of murder can also be attributed to organized crime using murder as a way of communication. Organized crime often send messages to their rivals through killing members of their crew as a way of either warning them or as assign of marking their territory (Jonathan H. Turner). Conclusion From a sociological point, organized crime is as a result of inheriting traditions that have made murder right in the eyes of the offender. No man is born a killer. However, the society and the environment shape them to killers. It therefore attributes to the high murder rate as they grow knowing that communication should either come from inflicting fear, pain and killing others. The same way a soldier is conditioned to kill when in war, is the same way that organized crime offenders usher in new members and make them adhere to their system of violence. A look into murders in organized crime further prove that Grossman thesis statement that despite the unbroken tradition of war and violence, man is not a killer by nature. Works Cited: Duyne, Petrus C. van. Mobsters are human too: Behavioural science and organized crime investigation. Crime, Law and Social Change (2000): 369-390. Article. Grossman, Dave. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Open Road Media, 2014. book. Jonathan H. Turner. Human Emotions: A Sociological Theory. Taylor & Francis., 2007. Jones, Edgar. The Psychology of Killing: The Combat Experience of British Soldiers during the First World War. Journal of Contemporary History (2006). Article. Kurdahl, Ask Elklit and Sessel. The psychological reactions after witnessing a killing . Journal of Psychotraumalogy (2013): 56-75. Article. Little, William. Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition . Creative Commons, 2012. Book. Youngs, David Canter & Donna. Crime and society. Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences (2016): 283-288. ... Purchase answer to see full attachment