Analysis Of Who Should We Blame For Horrific Crime

The article, “Who should we blame for horrific crimes” written by Tom O’Conner, draws from multiple tragedies that occurred in Otorohanga and Kinohaku during late September 2016. One of these involving three deaths in a king country settlement and another in Otorohanga. This emphasizes on just who should be blamed?
A criminological theory employed by O’Conner to understand the act committed is the theory of Psychological Positivism. Many psychiatrists and doctors have dedicated the majority of their working lives to assess and evaluate offenders. It was established that there is a big difference between individual offenders and why they commit crimes. Also, it was found that a range of offenders did not seem entirely liable for their actions

The offender had taken mind-altering drugs in their past, which caused mental health issues that influenced their thoughts and behaviour. The offender was under the influence of illicit substances at the time of the offending. Psychological Positivists would argue that because of these psychological factors which included being under the influence and a contributing mental illness, the offender is not entirely responsible for their actions as their mind state was altered. O’Conner interprets this act by communicating that “In spite of crime statistics, however, most people are law abiding citizens and shrink from breaking the law. That can change when there are mental health issues or illegal drug use which create some mental health issues involved and the normal inhibitions of civilization are neutralized” (O’Conner, 2016). O’Conner is communicating his point through a Psychological Positivists perspective. O’Conner explains that most people would never commit such crimes, however, when under the influence of illicit substances which could create health issues such as a mental illness, you can’t control it. It is employed that this could happen to anyone with contributing internal psychological factors or anyone who dabbles with illicit substance use which could lead to a mental illness. Thus, if the offender

This is because Classicism was developed at a time of great movement and sought to promote the rights of individuals as rational and equals (Bradley & Walters, 2011). Thus, a Classicist would treat the situation as any other. The offender free willingly chose to take drugs throughout their life, knowing the consequences that could arise from their actions which caused them to act in a way that’s inhumane, therefore, they must be punished. To clarify this in a simple form, humans are completely in charge of choosing how to invest their time and vitality, along these lines knowing the outcomes of one's actions i.e. you do the crime, you do the time (White & Haines,