Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a Theories of crime final1
Similar a Theories of crime final1 (17)
Más de M.P. Ossa
Más de M.P. Ossa (20)
Último
Último (20)
Theories of crime final1
- 2. Our news department needs to cover the death penalty trial of JW Ledford for the following reasons: All theoretical frameworks of crime were used to spare his life from the death penalty. This makes his case a great study in Forensic Psych and criminology. (Rankin, Cook, 2017) The theories were used to aim to prove that he was not a habitual criminal, but that his crime was the result of his upbringing. (Sanchez, 2017)
- 3. Ledford robbed, then stabbed and nearly decapitated, Dr. Harry Johnston. He then went to his house, tied up Johnson’s wife and robbed her. He was accused of 1st degree murder. (Rankin, Cook, 2017) J.W. Ledford at around 20 years old.
- 4. J.W. “Boy” Ledford Jr. (His legal name are the initials J.W.) Was 20-years-old at the time of the crime Caucasian, Southern Baptist, described himself as “white trash” during proceedings. His mother was the victim’s housekeeper (Rankin, Cook, 2017) Dr. Harry Johnston Was 73-years-old at the time of the crime Caucasian, Southern Baptist, described as “feeble” during proceedings. Knew the perpetrator and the mother, who was his housekeeper
- 5. Offender inflicted 63 knife wounds. Offender nearly decapitated victim. No defense wounds on victim Incredibly, but not surprisingly, offender claimed self-defense. (Rankin, Cook, 2017)
- 6. Trial took place November 13, 1992 returning a guilty verdict. On November 14, the death penalty was recommended. Motion for new trial was denied on December 4, 1992. (Rankin, Cook, 2017)
- 7. As a Death Penalty case, all psychological, behavioral, biological and social theories of crime were used and evidenced (Sanchez, 2017)
- 8. These theories attempt to correlate a mental, cognitive, neurological or psychological pathology to the actual commission of a crime. (Conklin, 2012) Variables include intelligence, learning, personality.
- 9. According to his attorneys: 1. Ledford was intellectually disabled. 2. Held back in 1st and 3rd grade. 3. Only finished school by being socially promoted. 4.Tried twice to complete his first year of high school. Dropped out. 5. Could not understand what drove him to do what he did. (Rankin, Cook, 2017)
- 10. Ledford learned his bad behaviors from: 1. Bad parents 2. Chaotic family members 3. Allowance of alcohol and drugs in the family. 4. Allowance for truancy from school 5. Lack of order 6. Lack of family unit (Carr, 2017)
- 11. The currently-accepted theory that aims to correlate crime to actual physiological factors, such as genetics, is called EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (Conklin, 2012) This theory was used to mitigate the crime of J.W. Ledford, implying that he had biological triggers that led him to act without thinking.
- 12. Biological perspectives on crime have existed as early as 1750.(Conklin, 2012) Since psychology and psychiatry were not sciences until the late 19th century, all that was left was the study of people who alienated themselves in terms of behavior. (Conklin, 2012)
- 13. Ledford took the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale- Revised (WAIS-R) and scored a 77. (Whitfield, 2017) On the day of the crime, offender had a six pack of 16-ounce beers, and then took pills and consumed 10 joints. Attorneys claimed this changed his personality traits. (Whitfield, 2017)
- 14. Roper Vs. Simmons (2005) banned the execution of people under 18-year old because they lack the element of culpability due their immaturity. Attorneys said J.W. Ledford had the capacity of a teenager, only 20 years of age, and that he would fall under this exception. He was denied this defense due to the cruelty of the crime.
- 15. J.W. Ledford most definitely had a hard upbringing. His issues are both biological and social. His cognitive development is obviously not strong enough, drugs make it worse, but the lack of order in his life make everything all the more chaotic.
- 16. J.W. Ledford may have snapped during a fight with the elder Dr. Johnston. J.W. Ledford already came with a chaotic mix of drugs, alcohol, exposure to violence, and a broken home. His crime was not a matter of ”if” but “when”
- 17. Ledford prove to the public that Conklin (2012) theory is correct. His final words were “Kiss my White Trash Ass” prior to getting the needle.
- 18. Carr, C. (2017) Execution Date set for J.W. Ledford, Convicted of Murder Office of the Attorney General Chris Carr. Retrieved from http://lawgeorgia/gov/ Conklin, J. (2012) Criminology, 11th Ed. Boston: Pearson Rankin, B., Cook, R. (2017) Georgia Executes J.W. Ledford for 1992 murder of neighbor The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/local/Georgia- executes-ledford-for-1992-murder- neighbor/0OTpXAqbC7ooKSFYqw1DiI/
- 19. Sanchez, J. (2017) Overview of the Capital Trial Process Capital Punishment in Context retrieved from https:// www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources /trialprocess United States Supreme Court Roper vs. Simmons 543 US.551
Notas del editor
- His demographic group goes largely ignored, is mocked consistently, and continues to be disregarded. A common name is “poor whites.” A vulgar version is “white trash.” Once you see his case, you will beg to question if this man was or was not a victim of his circumstances
- On January 31, 1992, 20-year-old J.W. Ledford went to the house of 73–year-old Dr. Harry Johnson, his neighbor, and asked for a ride to the supermarket. An argument ensued after the victim thought the offender had stolen from him Dr. Johnston was found dead hours later, after the perpetrator went to pawn the murder weapon and guns stolen from the Johnston property. (Rankin, Cook, 2017)
- There is a demographic implication in these facts. Ledford was a poor, young, immature, white male who, according to Conklin (2012) reunites the typical factors for violent criminals. Aside from these factors, he came from a chaotic home, abusive parents, drug addiction was rampant in the family, there was no parental care, and he ended up dropping from school. His victim was his exact opposite: successful, middle class, older, happily married, and willing to help others, including J.W. Ledford; a social “inferior.” There is nothing to be said of the victim’s profile that would have made him a better candidate for the crime, as crime is random and unfair. However, all the pointers were there to show that J.W. Ledford was high risk since a very early age (Whitfield, 2017)
- The type of killing with a knife may indicate excessive anger against the victim. It was not just a shot, or choking, or gradual abuse. It was a snapping of an unknown origin, according to Ledford’s defense. This is what led them to say that he did not plan the murder, for which First Degree would have been overcharging. However, the death was still particularly cruel. (Whitfield, 2017)
- Death penalty cases, because they involve the potential punishment of ending someone’s life, are different than other cases. They demand that all variables are seen, and all evidence is allowed, to give the criminal the benefit of the doubt in that the commission of the crime was not necessarily malicious, but caused by biological, social, environmental, psychological and/or economic issues that rendered the individual unable to act rationally. These are called “mitigating circumstances” Sanchez (2017)
- Psychoanalytical theories of crime start in the 19th century with Charles Goring, who was one of the first to correlate ”flawed” intellect with crime. (Conklin, 2012) The studies on the influence of cognition in behavior were further and more influentially proposed by Sigmund Freud. Freud correlated behavior to upbringing and cognitive capability. (Conklin, 2012)
- These factors were used as potential mitigating circumstances (Sanchez, 2017) to explain the causes that led Ledford to act and did what he did. The implication here is that his socioeconomic demographics, the fact that he had a bad childhood, and a presumably low intellect would make him act differently than other people, but not by choice. Essentially, the defense is saying that his circumstances made him the way that he is, not a malicious intent to kill someone.
- Father abused drugs and alcohol and beat up the children. Chaotic household. Ledford witnesses this from an early age. 3. Mother was the breadwinner and was never home. Attorneys claim he failed to be protected or learn to protect. 4. Ledford first got inebriated at age 7, on moonshine. His family encouraged it. This led to consuming regularly. (Attorney General Chris Carr, 2017)
- The first person to use the term was biologist Michael Ghiselin in 1973. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby also used it in the book: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and The Generation of Culture
- Phrenologists such as Cesare Lombroso believed that the brain structure determined behavior. An actual biological theory was proposed by William Sheldon but it erroneously correlated corpulence with temperament
- His attorneys claimed this puts him at a borderline range for potential mental retardation. However, 70-130 can be considered an average if the test is given differently. The 77 score does not really determine any condition than grants considering Ledford any different. The test can be manipulated through focusing in different areas of the mind. This 77 could have been manipulated as well according to Rankin and Cook (2017)
- The Courts decided that Ledford was able to recognize right from wrong. He was also carrying weapons (a knife) and he was 20 years old, not 18 or less, at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court denied what is known as a “stay of execution” and allowed for him to eventually get killed by lethal injection. There was another issue regarding how this injection would interact with the chronic pain medications that Ledford was already taking. (Ranking, Cook, 2017)
- J.W. Ledford did not have an academic or educational background J.W. Ledford was a poor, white American with a drug and alcohol problem and a chaotic household. J.W. Ledford reunites all the traits that often criminals disclose after they have committed their first crime. (Conklin, 2012)
- He may have remembered his father’s beatings and maybe he did lose his mind. His cognitive development is obviously not strong enough, drugs make it worse, but the lack of order in his life make everything all the more chaotic. At this point, he would have done the same thing to any other person if he had found himself in similar circumstances. (Whitfield, 2017)
- Up until the end, Ledford was chaotic, defiant, and asserted himself to be all the things that Conklin (2012) defined in his book. The mention of himself as “white trash” denotes that he already classifies himself in a lower social stratum. Moreover, the fact that his mother was a servant of his victim, and the fact that the victim was better off than he was may have wanted this man, who had nothing, in control of the other man in some way. Undereducated people, and people who know that there are others who have more than they do, or are better off, may develop envy, resentment and jealousy. While this was never said during the trial. J.W. Ledford’s crime did show a degree of violence and anger that makes anyone wonder what was going through his mind. (Whitfield, 2017)