SOCIOLOGY DISCUSSION NO -4 WEEK ORIGINAL INITIAL DISCUSSION POST

Description

Instructions:

After going through each and every reading in detail these are readings which are below I have provided pdfwrite an original initial discussion post of 250-300 words that conveys your thoughts about the following question:The Unit 04 Discussion is based on the following required reading.DISCUSSION QUESTION: In the Unit 04 Discussion area , after reading For this activity, ask two of your friends or family members how they would explain what leads an individual to kill another individual. What theories or explanations appear to underscore their views? How might their view relate to their age, gender, and where they live?In this course, our discussions are what we describe as ‘asynchronous’; that is, students discuss an assigned question, exchanging ideas related to this question at varying points each week. A key benefit of asynchronous online discussions is that students can participate whenever it is most convenient (although see grading rubric about timing of posts below) and can think about the weekly discussion questions before participating. In this way, students often feel better prepared as they have read and engaged with the course materials before participating (which is also one of the important aspects discussed in the grading rubric below).The purpose of the discussion forums is to have students engage with course material and then demonstrate their understanding of course materials by expressing/explaining an idea, responding to other group members’ ideas, and/or developing a thread of ideas together as a group. In this way, students learn from the instructor, the course materials, and each other. It further provides students with ongoing opportunities to review, reflect upon, and apply new knowledge such as concepts, theories, or research findings. This will help when students are working on their two major writing assignments for this course which also requires knowledge of and engagement with course materials.There will be diverse perspectives and that is o.k. However, all students must strive to be constructive and considerate if they disagree with any of their group members. It is okay to challenge and disagree with each other but only if it is done in a respectful manner.

Note: There is no single ‘right answer’ and the approach you describe need not reflect all of the tactics! The goal here is to generate discussion and share ideas about how best to engage in challenging conversations about climate change.After you have made your original post, read some of the posts from your classmates and construct one reply post of 100-150 words that responds to one of your group-mate’s original posts. Your reply post should be written such that it does one or more of: identifies something that you find especially interesting or insightful about your classmate’s original post; poses an engaging and relevant question and/or builds on the ideas from your classmate’s original post; raises a real-life experience or observation that you feel would be relevant to illustrate or help further develop an idea or point in your classmate’s original post.Please note that you will need to make an original post before you can read and respond to your peers’ posts¨write in 260 words. follow proper guidelines as given in beginning. Use AP7 STYLE OWL PURDE. Provide reference.
Write in on own words.¨Some points to keep in mind:Be clear and to the point in your postings.Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.Keep postings to 250-300 words. Quality is better than quantity.Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.Support your thoughts by referencing the video and docx provided and other outside literature.Raise additional questions or points of discussion to stimulate further discussionIf you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA Style.Show respect and sensitivity to peers’ gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.You are strongly encouraged to take the time to review the following documents on writing quality discussion posting and on taking roles in discussions.PREPARING TO WRITE1. Read assigned material—critically—and take notes as you read: Who wrote this material (a respected expert? an activist with a specific aim or belief?) Do they have any possible biases? Are studies reliable and valid? (What kind of research was performed?) When was this material written? Are the definitions/conditions/opinions described still accur vant? ate/rele Is an opinion expressed? How might someone disagree? How does this material relate to other concepts and theories you are studying? (Remember, instructors choose readings with a plan in mind—try to imagine why they have assigned this reading) Does the article complement other things you have learned? Is it in opposition? 2. Read and understand the discussion question or topic provided by your instructor • What are you asked to do? (Formulate an opinion? Respond to a question? Explain a concept or theory?) • How are you asked to do this? What kind of information are you expected to include (e.g., supporting quotations or references, examples, etc.) Do you need to bring in outside research? 3. Sort out the finer details • Is there a word maximum? Minimum? (Most posts will be 1‐2 paragraphs maximum). • How many times are you expected to post? (Find out if you are required to post a certain number of times per question, per week, etc.) • How much of your grade is this component worth? Each post? Budget your time accordinglyAre you expected to respond to other students’ posts? What proportion of original posts versus responses are you asked to provide?INITIAL POSTS – An initial post is a response to the original question presented by the course instructor, or the opening post on a particular topic (i.e., not responding to other students’ posts). Consider each post a “mini‐thesis,” in which you state a position and provide support for it. If you are responding to a question, be sure to 1. Take a position: Provide a clear answer to the question (incorporate some of the wording of the question in your answer if possible). 2. Offer a reasoned argument: Provide an explanation for your point of view, and use evidence from your text, notes, or outside research (where appropriate) to support your point. 3. Stay focused: End with a summary comment to explain the connection between your evidence and the question (how your evidence proves your point). Your post might also introduce a question or idea that others can follow up on. But make sure you have answered the question first!Discussion Grading Rubric:Discusssion Marking rubric.A+ Discussion Post A+CriteriaExcellent16 – 20 points
Posted early and continued toTimeliness make contributions throughout each week.PostsQuantity of Posted more than three times each week.Posts


Overall Score
Level 5
All original posts were directly related to the question, were thoughtful, and includedQuality of references to the course readings.All response posts engaged classmates in further dialogue on the topic.


48 and above
Original Initial Post(8-10 points) Length guidelines met.writing is clear and engaging; approach clearly described, including tactics it would reflect.approach connected to/rationalized in terms of QUESTION In the Unit 04 Discussion area , after reading For this activity, ask two of your friends or family members how they would explain what leads an individual to kill another individual. What theories or explanations appear to underscore their views? How might their view relate to their age, gender, and where they live?No any other outside source has to be used.I have also attached the grading rubric photo.
very very important instructions.please start reading instructions mamand guidelines and you have to answer to this i am proving the grading rubrics everythong write in own words no AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS THE SOFTAWARE TO DETECT.EACH AND EVERY LINE and each and every word.I Have also attached the grading rubric photo which is in form of image grading rubric is very much important you have to follow each and every instruction very carefully.only these sources which i have provided you have to use.I have also attached the grading rubric photo.Original Initial Post(8-10 points) Length guidelines met.writing is clear and engaging; approach clearly described, including tactics it would reflect.approach connected to/rationalized in terms of QUESTION: In the Unit 04 Discussion area , after reading For this activity, ask two of your friends or family members how they would explain what leads an individual to kill another individual. What theories or explanations appear to underscore their views? How might their view relate to their age, gender, and where they live?It should contain no spelling errors and typosREADINGS which have to be usedResources and link which has to be used are five pdf which have to be analsyed and use proeprly.NO OTHER SOURCE HAS TO BE USED ONLY these readings has to be used .No outsource has to be used.First you have go through these readings andFirst you have go through these readings andReadings are as follows:I have attached the pdf in orderREADING:1Understanding homicide. Chapter 3: Biological Explanations of HomicideREADING:2Understanding homicide. Chapter 4: Psychological Explanations of HomicideREADING:3
Juristat. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Homicide and suspected or developmental disorders (no. 85-002-X)

READING NO: 4

Introduction

She was possessed…that’s why she killed her child.I could tell by looking at his face…the big ears…the thin lips…he was going to kill someone.He lost control and killed his elderly neighbour because of repressed anger against his mother.While the above explanations may sound strange to us today, at one time these types of explanations represented dominant theories of homicide. Today, our explanations or theories of homicide are more sophisticated; at least we think they are, but who knows how they will look to homicide researchers a century from now. However, the origins of our theories can be traced back to some of these early explanations or, in the case of early biological and psychological explanations which the above represent, what is referred to as positivism.As indicated at the start of the course, we adopt a sociological criminology framework and, by now, you should have read Barkan’s (2015) description of this approach to the study of crime, including homicide. However, in examining theories of homicide, it is important to remember that there is no single explanation (another word for ‘theory’) for homicide and that explanations can be pitched at different and multiple levels of analysis. Therefore, we often look at a combination of factors at the individual, relational, familial, community or societal level to help us explain various types of homicide. This is the approach adopted by the public health perspective which was also introduced in previous units and specifically in the reading by Pridemore (2003).In other words, theories can focus on individual (e.g. sex, age, race/ethnicity) or situational factors (e.g. presence of firearms, role of alcohol) which may explain why certain individuals are at an increased risk of homicide victimization or offending or in what circumstances homicides typically occur (sometimes referred to as micro-level analyses). Alternatively, theories might focus on community- or societal-level factors that explain why different towns, cities, regions or countries have varying homicide rates (e.g. levels of poverty, presence of armed conflict) or why homicide rates have varied over time (sometimes referred to as macro-level analyses) such as improved medical responses or the evolution of targeted and more effective homicide prevention initiatives. Finally, theoretical approaches may integrate these various levels of analysis to provide a more comprehensive understanding of homicide through a multi-level framework. This is the ultimate goal of the public health approach because again those who adopt this approach recognize that no single factor can explain homicide and, therefore, so single legislation, policy or program can prevent homicide either.We will also learn that there are different types of homicide and so explanations may also vary by homicide sub-type. For example, while certain groups of individuals may be more likely to commit homicide, an individual’s social background, their current social situation, the environment in which they live, both locally and globally, or the immediate circumstances surrounding a potential conflict will likely influence their response to particular situations – whether they respond in a lethal manner or not. This fact was driven home for me when I was working as a young reporter in New Brunswick in the mid-1980s.

Professor Dawson’s Story: Reporting Homicide

In the late 1980s, as a young reporter in my first job at a newspaper in New Brunswick, I covered my first murder trial. At the time, I was working in a town that just happened to be experiencing a series of homicides, not all of which were perpetrated by the same offender. My interest in violent crime was also likely sparked during this time although I did not yet fully appreciate the value of theory and research in understanding human behaviour or how complex the processes can be when attempting to explain or understand violence.The trial that I covered was that of Earl Lewis who had been charged with the second-degree murder of Raymond Patrick Murphy on October 13, 1986. After covering the daily activities of his 1987 trial, I reported that Lewis had been convicted of second-degree murder. Second-degree murder, as you now know, comes with a mandatory life sentence, but the parole eligibility period can range from 10 to 25 years. Sitting in court on the day that Lewis was sentenced, I heard the Crown prosecutor request the maximum parole eligibility period of 25 years. When Lewis was asked by the judge if he had anything he wanted to say before being sentenced, Lewis responded, “I agree with Mr. Ferguson (the Crown prosecutor), I probably do deserve 25 years in my opinion, and if that’s the case, I guess I’ll have to do it.” The judge sentenced Lewis to life with no parole eligibility until 20 years had been served. (Review Professor Dawson’s newspaper article, or the transcript.) Later, as Lewis was leaving the courthouse, he was asked by a reporter if he was disappointed that he did not get the 25 years and he replied, “It wouldn’t have mattered too much.”I recall thinking to myself that it should matter (wouldn’t it matter to you?) and wondered why it did not matter to him. I began to understand why Lewis responded that way when I received a letter from him several weeks later in which he complimented me on the coverage of his trial and, in part, to explain some of his behaviour. He told me in his letter that he had spent 29 of his 41 years in one institution or another, including some of his early years, which were spent in reform schools. When he was released from prison in 1985 after spending about 12 years incarcerated for an earlier manslaughter conviction, he said he had $500 in his pocket and was not prepared to live again on the outside. He concluded his letter by writing, “I think of a poem I seen one time…walls and bars do not make a prison. How many people in the community are in their own self-made prisons on the outside? Be it self-made or a way of life they cannot seem to change out of. I think if you took a poll, it would be quite a few.”After reading his letter, I had a better understanding as to why it did not seem to matter to him how long his sentence was because he did not distinguish a great deal between his life on the outside and the one he was returning to as a result of his sentence. I also realized that despite hearing the trial details of the circumstances that lead to the killing, which focused on the role of alcohol and his anger, I still had little understanding about the multitude of factors that likely contributed to his actions at that point in his life. Regardless of his reasons for writing this letter, it made me realize that the stories I and other journalists wrote when covering these events did not provide society with much context with which they could try to understand why homicides or other types of crime occur or why some people kill.The knowledge that I have today is extensive compared to what I knew when I was reporting on some of these same issues in the mid-1980s. At that time, I knew nothing about offenders, their motivations, their situations, or their lives when writing these stories. I also knew nothing about the lives of victims even though I had written stories about those who had suffered child abuse and domestic violence. I realized, then, that my stories were totally without context or even a minimal understanding of the complexity of the issues I was reporting on. Yet my stories were reaching a large audience and helping them to construct what they knew about these issues. While there are many reporters out there who try to provide the needed context, the constraints reporters work within often prevent this from occurring in any meaningful way.In summary, an understanding of why homicides occur cannot be achieved by reading newspapers or watching television broadcasts that cover these events. Such an understanding may not even be possible by studying this phenomenon for years as I have done because, as you will see, there are many competing explanations for violence. The difference between my early years as a reporter and me now, however, is that I now have more knowledge about homicides and those who perpetrate them. I know that to say someone is psychologically unstable or sick is not an adequate explanation for the fact that they took another human life. Nor is it enough to say that someone lived in poverty to explain their violent actions. The fact that I know these things means that I am part of a better-informed public—a public that is required for effective violence prevention. In the mid-1980s, I was not. Are you? Hopefully, by the end of this course, yes, you will be.The oldest explanations for homicide are supernatural in their origins and focused on demonic possession or inherent evilness captured by the first quote above. As explanations, they certainly hold some fascination and continue to represent a never-ending source of plots for both movies and television, but there is little evidence to support such explanations today. However, with the rise of positivism in the 18th century, biological and psychological explanations for crime and violence became popular and continue to vie with or complement sociological explanations, expanding criminology’s interdisciplinary focus within sociological criminology.Again, the emphasis in this course is on sociological explanations or those that focus more on factors outside the individual to explain why homicides occur and why particular groups are more at risk than other groups. This approach helps to counteract the common perception in popular culture and the media that continue to focus on individual explanations for homicide, rarely drawing our attention to how social factors play a key role in understanding this phenomenon. Despite this, a well-informed public need to understand all potential explanations, so we will learn about biological explanations first followed by an overview of psychological explanations before we turn to the more sociological-focused theories in the next unit.Topics covered in this unit include:Biological ExplanationsPsychological ExplanationsBiological Explanations of HomicideThe first set of explanations for homicide are biological and the second quote in the introduction to this unit is based on explanations from one of the founding fathers of the distinct discipline of criminology, Cesare Lombroso.Fiona Brookman, the author of the text from which Chapter 3 – Biological Explanations comes, highlights in a clear and concise manner the classic biological theories, beginning with Lombroso, and moving to twin and adoption studies that sought to understand the relationship between inheritance and criminality. More recently, she brings our attention around to neurobehavioral research that focuses on the role of hormones (e.g., testosterone, pre-menstrual syndrome, or PMS as it’s more commonly known) as well as recent work by Adrian Raine on brain abnormalities and Debra Niehoff on stress and its effects on the brain. Brookman closes the section with key criticisms of these explanations, which are important to understand as an informed member of the public on this topic.The last section of this chapter focuses on other biological factors that may be associated with homicide risk and that may be more within our control than those discussed earlier in the chapter. These include environmentally-induced biological deficiencies such as those caused by the use of drugs and/or alcohol, poor nutrition, and exposure to lead.As you read through this chapter, try to think of some criticisms of the explanations. Can you think of others beyond those identified by the author? Can you think of any of our current criminal justice policies that seem to have their origins in biology? Ask your friends or family what they feel are the most common reasons why people commit homicide and see if their perspectives lie within the biological tradition. If not, they may be more in line with psychological explanations, which we turn to next.Psychological Explanations of HomicideThis set of explanations are perhaps the most common among the general public; that is, variations of the person being ‘crazy’, ‘mentally ill’, ‘not in their right mind’, ‘delusional’, ‘sick’, and so on. What most of these adjectives are pointing to, is the state of the homicide perpetrator’s mind and how that mental state led to the killing.Similar to biological explanations in their origins from positivism, psychological explanations focus on individuals’ psyche, personality structure, personality type, and so on, sometimes focusing only on the individual, but often looking to the social context in which the violence occurred to understand how and why people react differently to different cues or environments.Brookman’s Chapter 4 – Psychological Explanations clearly lays out the various traditions within psychology and their contributions to the study of violent crime, including homicide, beginning with perhaps the most famous name associated with psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. The chapter then moves onto what is referred to as evolutionary psychology or socio-biology which emphasizes the way in which our behaviour has evolved to emphasize or ensure our continuing existence and to enhance our fitness for future generations.Discussed in this chapter are two well-known proponents of this theory, Dr. Martin Daly and the late Dr. Margo Wilson, psychology professors at McMaster University, whose book Homicide published in 1988 continues to influence researchers today. In their book, Daly and Wilson cover various types of homicide and their evolutionary origins, including infanticide (the killing of infants), femicide (women killing), parricide (the killing of one’s parent), and male-on-male homicides.Finally, Brookman covers personality theories, including the role of mental illness, as well as social and cognitive psychology as further major areas of this set of explanations.We learned earlier in the course that the Homicide Survey began to collect information on the role of suspected mental or development disorders in homicide incidents in 1997. To date, these data show that disorders cover a wide range of problems, including schizophrenia, psychotic disorder, depression, and fetal alcohol syndrome. However, it’s important to note that these diagnoses are not necessarily medical in origin but based on information that arises through police investigations.No any other outside source has to be used.I have also attached the grading rubric photo.very very important instructions.please start reading instructions mamand guidelines and you have to answer to this i am proving the grading rubrics everythong write in own words no AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS THE SOFTAWARE TO DETECT.EACH AND EVERY LINE and each and every word.I Have also attached the grading rubric photo which is in form of image grading rubric is very much important you have to follow each and every instruction very carefully.only these sources which i have provided you have to use.I have also attached the grading rubric photo.