Rated
Jun 20 2007
•
3 reviews
•
crime, abnormal psychology
• redwoods.edu
The beginning of this paper reads much like the standard "Nature v. Nurture" arguments that have been done to death. That is, until one reaches the sixth paragraph...
From the page: "While the foregoing analysis portrays the serial killer as a lost, lonely, abused little child, another theory, based on the same information, gives an entirely different view. In this analysis the killer is indeed rejected by his family but only after being repeatedly defiant, sneaky, and threatening. As verbal lies and destructiveness increase, the parents give the child the distance he seems to want in order to maintain a small amount of domestic peace (Samenow 13). This interpretation suggests that the killer shapes his parents much more that his parents shape him. It also denies that the media can influence a child's mind and turn him into something that he doesn't already long to be. Since most children view similar amounts of violence, the argument goes, a responsible child filters what he sees and will not resort to criminal activity no matter how acceptable it seems to be (Samenow 15 - 18). In 1930, the noted psychologist Alfred Adler seemed to find this true of any criminal. As he put it, "With criminals it is different: they have a private logic, a private intelligence. They are suffering form a wrong outlook upon the world, a wrong estimate of their own importance and the importance of other people" (qtd. in Samenow 20)."