37 Who Saw Murder Didn T Call The Police Essay

Psychology plays a very important role in the field of criminal justice. It is needed to help assess individuals who commit crimes, as well as, help to be a predictor of criminal behavior. Utilizing theories such behaviorism and operant conditioning, individual behavior is able to be assessed by the response to learning what actions result in rewards and what actions result in punishment. As a result of how individuals respond to rewards and punishment, learned behaviors have the possibility to be deterred or corrected.

In Psychology, there are perspectives and approaches that are looked into when trying to understand how the intricate human mind works. These perspectives are respectfully derived from different ideas and time periods, exemplifying different ways of thinking. These perspectives include: sociocultural, biopsychological, psychodynamic, behaviorism, cognitive, and humanism. These approaches are critically essential in solving something as serious as murder, or simply even why someone acts the way they do. There are many instances where there will be shocking news stories about people committing murders—people that are so unexpected to do such harm. However, when the six

38 people in Queens watched a woman named Kitty Genovese get stabbed and they did not call the police according to “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police” by Martin Gansberg. People follow the majority of people because they don’t want to do anything out of their comfort zone. Fear, ignorance, or following the crowd can keep people from taking action and speaking up to save the person in danger. When someone is in danger of being wrongly hurt, the bystanders are responsible for calling the police to save the person in danger. They shouldn’t put themselves in danger, but they are obligated to report the incident.

In the essay “Thirty-Eight who saw Murder didn’t call the Police”, Martin Gansberg describes how selfish and inconsiderable some people can be. He claims that society should be more involved in taking action when seeing violent or life threatening events occurring in their communities.

Psychodynamic (Psychoanalytical) theory was developed by Sigmund Freud in the late 1800’s and has gained increasing popularity in the history of criminality (Siegel, 2005). Freud believed that every individual carries “[the] residue of the most significant emotional attachments of our childhood, which then guides our future interpersonal relationships” (Siegel). Freud theorized that the personality is a three-part structure made up of the id, ego, and super ego. These three components work together in creating a behavior. The id creates the demands, the ego put the demands created by id into a larger context using reality, and finally the superego suppresses the id and attempts to make the ego behave morally, rather than realistically. Psychodynamic theory is significant to criminology because it explains “criminal” or “abnormal” behavior is the result of irregular development of the psyche.

The air is saturated with the smell of concrete and fear. The wailing of men echoes through the dark, unholy halls. A new face makes its way in. Only thing harder than holding back tears, are trying to not show fear. They will feed of it, off of me. It will not break me; I will not break. This is what to expect from an evil place where grown men can be molded; broken and reformed into a weaker being or into a strong piece of iron. The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study put together by Phillip Zambardo to test the psychological effects of a prisoner and guard scenario in a mock prison setting. The experiment lasted seven to fourteen days and was comprised of twenty-four male students, who were picked at random to take part in the experiment. The role of guard and prisoner were also selected at random. The mock prisoners were subjugated to psychological abuse, harsh authoritarian rule by the guards, and intense living conditions to ensure maximum results were met. The experiment concluded early and a couple prisoners left due to an intense amount of stress brought on from the ordeal. Although the experiment was brief, it gave a great deal of insight into how environment can abruptly affect the psychological well-being of an individual. Zimbardo states, “Would those good people, put in that bad, evil place—would their goodness triumph?” (Cherry, 2006) Everyone has darkness within them and all it takes is a little push. Every person picked for this experiment was not

Grinder. And she is the only witness. But the problem is that is she really didn’t see it first-hand. And her stories doesn’t keep much similarities with the others. So is she really reliable? I THINK NOT! If you analyze her accounts she said in her third account he walk to her door and nocked inquired her for some water. Then fell. She said that he was by himself before walking to her room. But the doctor said either or of those shot would “incapacitate” him. Also another thing pointing to the homicide is that the body of Lewis had no money on it while he came in with $120. But the owner had plenty of money when found for

We fear the judgment or the outcome of a situation . For example, in “Everyday use”

After reading, "Thirty-Eight- Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police" by Martin Gansberg, I was completely shook and confused as to why about 40 people didn’t report this to the police. It just sounds so inhumane and insane to see someone being stabbed and not helping. How can 38 people watching this bloody scene be okay with it and not call the police department? In the article, it mentioned that the investigator said that even if one person had called the police, she could have been saved. If I were in a similar situation, I would have immediately called the police and ambulance regardless of my condition or what time it is. In the article, one man said that he was simply “too tired” to call. How can someone lack so much care and sympathy

In Martin Gansberg's social criticism paper "Thirty-eight who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police" (1964), Gansberg claims that society should be more connected with making a move while seeing fierce or hazardous encounters between different people. He clarifies regarding this matter by giving a veritable murder circumstance that occurred as a short story. Martin Gansberg's inspiration of creating this work is to persuade perusers in order to take off changes in our overall population's attitude on open prosperity. His objective gathering was towards anyone all things considered, especially to the people who may witness savage level headed discussion between different people. Examining this article impacted me to recognize how far away nationals are from each other.

There are many perspectives in which one can analyze and understand why a person decides to commit a crime. Some perspectives are social learning theory, strain theory, classical and rational choice theory, deterrence theory, biological and psychological positivist theories, among others. However, for the purposes of this paper, the biological and psychological theories will be discussed.

How does “Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call The Police” and “Fame-iness” address people’s response to what celebrities and the public do? Unfortunately, nowadays, people do become famous for scandals and blunders, and not accomplishments. Not only do they rise to fame, but, quite frankly, most of the famous people in the current world are people we’ve never heard of? It has always been known that if a person is easily recognized and noticed on the street, popular to the public, or even a reputable person who has a tiny bit of an influence on the people then that person get to be called famous. More likely, to be listed under the list of “Hall of Fames.” Unlike people out there twenty four/ seven on television

My time in English 1101, was eventful with Professor Zaglewski, which made it one of the classes I didn’t dread coming to twice a week. The semester was filled with laughter, telling of stories, and a large amount of quizzes of the readings. I was taught many new things and refreshed of some old skills.

Martin Gansberg's "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder and Didn't Call the Police" is a descriptive and unsettling account of the murder of a young woman in New York City in 1964. The young woman in question, Catherine Genovese, was stabbed several times near her apartment building by a vicious killer. However, despite the savagery of the crime itself, Gansberg chooses to focus his attention on the silent observers, those who witnessed the attack and did nothing to prevent it. By way of several interviews with these individuals, Gansberg reveals a pattern of inaction and documents the reasons that the "good people" failed to offer any aid to the by then deceased Miss Genovese. Excuses ranging from "We thought it was a lover's quarrel" to a simple

Throughout life people face countless decisions; however, making the wrong choice may lead to a catastrophic consequence. As a woman was being brutally stabbed in Kew Gardens near Austin Street, numerous bystanders did not help or act upon calling the police. The choice of the bystanders to not phone the police lead to the death of an innocent woman. Had just one of the thirty-eight people called the police, that innocent woman would still have breath in her lungs. In the article “Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police,” Martin Gansberg expresses his anger and disapproval toward those who left a poor woman to die. If the thirty-eight people took immediate action and did not make excuses, the precious life of Catherine Genovese would have been rescued.