Are Certain Kinds Of Acts Always Wrong Criminology Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

According to what I've learned over the years I would have to say yes most definitely. Specifically rape, child molestation, torture of innocent people (keyword is innocent), and mass murder (ethnic cleansing) are always wrong. These specific acts usually satisfy a sick and negative form of individual gratification for the perpetuator; whether, it is for psychological reason(s), sexual reason(s), prejudice reason(s), or some other negative reason(s). The majority of society is not benefited during those acts, certainly not the individual surviving victims of those violent acts. Those close to the victims could be negatively affected too.

According to Utilitarianism discussed by Robert L. Holmes in his book Basic Moral Philosophy, "Utilitarianism requires not that we ignore our own good, but we extend our concern to include the good of all people affected by our actions. Its basic directive, stated simply, is utilitarianism: maximizes goodness for all people (Holmes 119)."

These violent acts of rape, child molestation, torture of innocent people, and mass murder (ethnic cleansing) don't maximize goodness for all people affected by these acts. It is wrong that these violent acts use up valuable society resources for negative purposes. These acts don't benefit anyone except the perpetuators of the violent acts. Survivors of those acts, and possibly those close to the survivors, continue to suffer which is counter-productive for these individuals and society as a whole.

When I say rape I mean various forms of violent rape, date rape, and acts of that type. I don't believe consensual sex between an 18 year old and a 16 year old should be considered rape (statutory rape) which causes another teenager, who is slightly older, to be labeled a sex offender. An adult over 20 years old having sex with a teenager that is under 18 years old is wrong in my view. Some experts, I've heard on various news shows and documentaries, would agree that rapists usually commit the act of rape ultimately as an act of holding power over someone else. Sexual gratification is usually just a secondary benefit for these sick individuals. From what I've heard from some experts certain rapists supposedly rape others to enact some form of psychological revenge against an abusive parent. I would say that many rapists are just violent, angry individuals, who for whatever insecurities, resort to rape to satisfy their own sick needs. Maybe they are too scared and weak to fight or confront the real source of their anger and frustration on a fair playing field. Rapists ultimately had a choice whether or not to commit the act of rape, and they chose to commit the rape. Rapists commit a sexual act without the consent of the victim. This is completely selfish, and it's a way of stealing someone else's freedom.

Rape serves no benefit to society because it creates more traumatized individuals making it counter-productive in nature. If the victims survive they could suffer physically and psychologically for the rest of their lives. Law enforcement, the judicial system, and the prison system use valuable resources: time, tax money, and energy to catch and control criminals including rapists. Rapists are using up resources of society for negative reasons. Some might say without violent criminals, such as rapists, not as many societal resources such as police, etc. would be needed to catch and control these criminals. Police, etc. resources would still be needed, but maybe not in as a great a quantity. Certainly less tax funds would be needed to fund those societal resources. This would mean fewer jobs, but in the end wouldn't that be a good thing if it meant less violent crimes such as rape? This is not likely to ever happen of course.

According to the definition of deontology derived from the website, "Deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes of the action ("

Outcomes in the case of violent crimes, such as rape, are additional people needed in areas like: law enforcement, judicial systems, and prison systems to control violent crimes. The character of the act or rape is evil, and side benefits such as more jobs to control violent crime aren't important. According to deontology that would make the act of rape wrong.

Child molestation is always wrong no matter what the circumstances, serving no other purpose than to gratify the sick twisted sexual gratifications of the pedophile. You could also say just as in rape, child molestation is a matter of a weak and warped individual holding power over a weaker individual (child). Child molestation holds many of the same problems as rape, including: being committed by individuals who themselves were traumatized in the past. Some might say that because child molestation is an act committed against children with minds still in development it's even worse than the forced rape of an adult. The trauma of the act on the child, if they survive, might create a more permanent result than it would for an adult. Like rape the victims of child molestation suffer both physically and psychologically. Like rape victim's some of these molested children may have difficulties with so-called normal relationships later on after the trauma. These children may also have misconstrued ideas of sexual relationships unless taught otherwise, and if not helped, this might lead to other future problems. Child molestation is also counter-productive to society as a whole for many of the same reasons as rape, but yet it is probably worse for the molested children if you think about it.

To me torture of innocents and mass murder in the form of ethnic cleansing often occurs for the same reason, prejudices.

According to the website, "prejudice is an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts, or a preconceived preference or idea ("

Prejudices are developed over time due to many circumstances, and are sometimes instilled in an individual at a young age by prejudiced parents. Prejudice often has deep roots sometimes going back 100s or even thousands of years in some areas. This could be due to competition over resources with deep seeded personal hatreds resulting from the competition. Prejudice could be generally accepted inferiorities regarding another group of people: i.e. European and American White people's view of African people as inferior people lead to slavery and other exploitations of African people for hundreds of years. It also resulted in Jim Crow Laws in the U.S., Apartheid in South Africa, development of violent hate groups, etc. Prejudices are often passed on from generation to generation. Prejudice could be brought to a head during difficult socio-economic times leading to a war or some other conflict.

Due to prejudices Nazis basically viewed Jews and certain other groups to be inferior to their own so-called Arian race. Nazis basically saw Jews as the root of all evil and ignorantly blamed the Jews for many of the difficult socio-economic problems the Germans experienced during that time period. Derived from excerpts on, in reality the causes of the socio-economic problems in Germany during that time period were probably due in large part to the Treaty of Versailles after World War I and the Great Depression (

A further insight from explains, "Resentment against Jews in a lot of countries of that time period stemmed from the fact that Jesus had outwardly banned monetary lending and dealings so many Christian people had to turn to Jewish people for borrowing and so forth. In the time of Hitler, the world had recently suffered from the Great Depression and many Jews had remained in successful and prominent positions despite this. It was therefore easier for them to visualize the Jewish as a greedy and gluttonous people taking away from them their hard earned money. Hitler was able to sway the country into using Jewish people as a scapegoat for the countries ailments ("

The Nazi's mass murder, torture, and exploitation of the Jewish ethnic group in Europe was not only 100% pure evil, but ignorant, stupid, and a tremendous waste of valuable societal resources (time, energy, people, money, land, etc.) for no good benefit to society. Certainly the resources they used up could have been put to better use for society. The individual victims and their families obviously did not benefit from these acts. Ultimately more people did not benefit from the Nazi's violent acts; therefore, the Nazi's acts could be considered wrong under the theory of utilitarianism. Who knows how much was lost due to this mass extermination; how many great contributions the exterminated Jews and members of other Nazi-targeted groups could have made if they were still alive today, along with their offspring?

Overall violent sex crimes and violence due to prejudice (torture of innocents and ethnic cleansing) don't benefit society as whole, and they don't benefit most individuals in a good way. Valuable societal resources are wasted because of these violent acts. Victims that survive these violent acts can be severely damaged. This can lead to further problems and pain which can be a further drain on the individual victims and those close to them. This seems to me to be a compounding-counter-productive process which doesn't benefit society as a whole. This makes violent sex crimes and violence due to prejudice wrong according to utilitarianism theories. Under deontology those violent acts could be considered wrong because of their character. Anyway that's how I see it. You can decide for yourself.