I'm just going to put this here...:
Is the law effective in terms of who it punishes, who is truly at fault, the perpetrator or their influence?
Key Pointers :
Thought in terms of serious crimes - serial killers / murder / manslaughter etc. (crimes resulting of life sentence or death penalty in some countries - talk about case studies to example a series of events, paint imagery of once being a child then corrupted by generational and societal influences and trauma that creates morbid mindsets equipped for murder)
How to abstain behaviours from childhood (encouraging a more open and accepting society in terms of helping those with troubled thoughts and behaviours sincerely and not seeing them as lesser human or treating them as such to make an inclusive society)
Not in means of how they punish but who they punish (introduce the idea of punishing influence to prevent recurrences and to defend children leading a life of crime due to influences and behaviours that they were instilled with)
Initial Thoughts :
Concept to deal with an issue to solve it from its root or else there would be a probable recurrence
Most crimes influenced from trouble childhoods as children are naive and easily influenced instilling certain behaviours they may see as right, which they then take these habits from their youth into adulthood
Who does the law punish? - Those found guilty at the time → Influence should be included i.e. parental figures / Labels / Businesses / Anyone involving themselves to set of a chain of reaction resulting in crime (if not severe punishments introduce deterrences and encourage a child's/adult’s ability to voice their hardships without fear of being judged or uncared for, situations revolving around a child's lifestyle should be dealt with great care more than being treated like a checklist to ensure their future is free from mental deficits and nurtured to accept their mindset and grow into it in a positive way rather than to hate it and treat both themselves and the people around them negatively when it comes to more terminally disturbed mindsets)
What To Research :
……. murder case relevant in showing that the cause of the murder (the murderers sole influence) was accused with allegations but still got away unscathed
…… murder case relevant in showing childhood trauma and unexplored or untreated behaviours allow darker tendencies to develop - every murderer has a motive and a reason which usually stem from childhood discrepancies
Thought Draft :
The concept of law is all inclusive and its consequences aim to apprehend all subjects definitive to whatever legislation is implemented upon them. Subserviently, its overall liability can be questioned in concept of its capability. The law is just. The law is fair. The law aims to punish those equivalent to the perpetrators of said crime. Whilst we can wholeheartedly agree to this claim it is also mandatory to note the equivalent and inevitable liability rates of apprehending and punishing every criminal. In a moral state, the idea of who is at fault lies upon the individual who directly committed the crime and the individual who indirectly influenced the crime.
From an ideological viewpoint, we may also utilise the concept of generic problem solving. An issue can not be resolved unless it’s from the root of origin. To simplify one may not find themselves at point ‘Z’ without starting at point ‘A’ and following in obligatory order, where some may try to intervene at point ‘S’, the remainder of the chain of command is still existing, so to say to try to solve a problem from the middle will not have the same long term effect as solving it from the beginning.
To retain this information, there is no generic point in absolving an individual without attacking the root of their problem in terms of serial killers, murderers, and even those with involvement of manslaughter or any high risk consequence actions that in some countries would end up in a death penalty or a life sentence.
To follow, we must entertain this concept not in means of how they punish ultimately, but who they punish. With the hypothesis of punishing influences in crime it’d form a notion that in turn it’d prevent recurrences and deter and defend both children from leading a life of crime due to influences and behaviours they were instilled with at an easily labelled young and naive ages to the point where such habits are seen as right or correct which they will then take from their youth into adulthood. In terminal belief, the law inhibits punishment to those found guilty at the time, however in truth it should also include influences such as parental figures, record labels, businesses, essentially anyone involving themselves to trigger a set of chain reactions resulting in major crime. Whilst said influence may face allegations of sorts, it is found that a large percentage of them are left unscathed and in credo would most likely cause the same crime to be committed over and over leading to the judgement of are the ones who commit the crime truly at fault or under heavy impressions and influence of the ones forcing the hand. However in terms of this separate argument would incur a theorem of the choice, responsibility, and capability of an individual in bounds of free will and initial circumstances and potent concepts present.
A huge example of this is the ‘Big Lurch’ case where a rapper killed and was to have eaten his roomate whilst being under heavy influence of drugs, more specifically PCP, he was consistently encouraged to take the drug by his record label causing dependency and addiction. Anton already had a history of substance abuse after severe injuries sustained in the past. PCP as a whole, whilst having the ability to cause numbness and a sense of calm, its side effects could pose as deadly, inducing severe violence and aggression which when paired with delusions and paranoia and hallucinations whoever abuses an unregulated intake can have long periods of generically not being in control of their body for weeks at a time.
According to Antron, he allegedly claims that his label, Stress-Free Records was actively
pushing him to do PCP, sell drugs and to be involved in a violent and crime based lifestyle. He also claims that he was practically spoon-fed PCP by his record label; they very much enabled and encouraged his destructive habits and addictions instead of receiving professional help, all in means to sell Anton off as a more scary and hardcore rapper to resemble his form of music to make it more enticing for his target audience and in turn produce more profit from his music. From this case we can truly say that there were one too many people at fault. In theory, if the record label was initially encouraging him to abuse illegal substances from the get-go, who’s to say a repeat won't happen again from the same and or other music labels. As well as this, Anton and those he surrounded himself with should have had the initiative and inclined action to try to have him receive rehabilitation which is a mistake of their own. Despite this the several riveting factors kept Anton tied to his record label as he was heavily dependent on them especially in a financial aspect.
Another resultant force to introduce the thesis and principles of interpreting the punishment of an influence could be in forms of deterrences. Relevance in why murders occur are usually discovered from exploring the killer's childhood trauma revealing unexplored or untreated behaviours that they both were exhibiting or subject to, that allow darker tendencies to develop. Every murderer has a motive and a reason, almost like a drive in which usually stems from unresolved childhood discrepancies.
Continuing from this point, both a child and an adult's ability to voice their hardships without lingering fear of being judged or mistreated should be encouraged with great care and not disdain. If it is found that such mindsets were identified from a young age, situations revolving around a child’s lifestyle should be dealt with immense delicacy rather than being treated like a checklist. This maintains both the child's sense of normalcy and ensure their future is free from any possible mental deficits, and that both the subject and society should nurture and accept such mindsets and grow into them in a positive manner rather than to treat such a concept inhumanely and in disgust despite them having a more terminally disturbed thoughts and prospects, outcasting them is an immensely large root of most crimes committed in adulthood this being more likely in terms of serial killers.
In an ordeal and a key abstraction of an established society, children are seen as innocent, however it is the select few heavily impacted from generational trauma and societal influences that in turn negatively nurtures a mindset and capability equipped solely for murderous tendencies.
A key example of this is the Kim Wall case, where a journalist was subject to murder due to a man, more specifically Peter Madsen’s indefinite hate towards women. The source of his hatred stemmed from his childhood. Whilst facing an abusive and unsafe environment caused by his own father, his mother had left Madsen behind causing deeply rooted hatred towards not his father but his mother. Alongside entertaining a disturbed mindset and no real concrete form of help for his traumatic experiences, Peter ended up murdering Kim Wall inside a submarine, her body mutilated and left many people in despair. This is key to coming to terms with the idea that it is in fact deeply felt hate and anger and unresolved emotions from incredibly traumatic childhoods that can lead up to a chain reaction. As a result it is fundamental to know how to abstain behaviours from intercepting a kids childhood which is a reiteration of evolving a more encouraging and accepting society in terms of helping those with troubled thoughts and behaviours sincerely and not seeing them as lesser human or treating them as such in order to formulate a more inclusive and conventionally integrated society.
Condensed Speech :
We often speak of the law as something absolute — fair, just, and balanced. It aims to punish those who commit crimes, and on the surface, that seems like a sound system. But beneath that structure lies a deeper question: Are we truly punishing the right people?
Crime doesn’t start in a vacuum. It is not an isolated event. It begins at the root — with influences, trauma, and long-standing systemic issues. We often focus on punishing the individual, the one who physically committed the crime. But what about those who created the conditions? What about the ones who pushed, encouraged, or even profited from the eventual fallout?
Take, for instance, the tragic case of rapper Big Lurch — Anton. Anton already had a history of substance abuse after severe injuries sustained in the past. Under the influence of PCP, the drug as a whole, whilst having the ability to cause numbness and a sense of calm, its side effects could pose as deadly, inducing severe violence and aggression which when paired with delusions and paranoia and hallucinations whoever abuses an unregulated intake can have long periods of generically not being in control of their body for weeks at a time. He killed and allegedly acted upon cannibalism, eating his roommate's girlfriend's face. Horrific, yes. But here’s the context: his record label, Stress-Free Records, was allegedly feeding him the drug — encouraging his addiction and promoting a violent persona to boost sales causing addiction and dependency. Should the blame fall solely on Anton? Or should it extend to those who enabled and exploited his downfall? However in terms of this separate argument would incur a theorem of the choice, responsibility, and capability of an individual in bounds of free will and initial circumstances and potent concepts present.
We must ask ourselves — if we never address the roots of criminal behavior, how can we expect to stop crime at all? Like trying to fix a problem at point ‘S’ without starting at point ‘A’, we’re only treating the symptoms, not the disease.
In an ordeal and a key abstraction of an established society, children are seen as innocent, however it is the select few heavily impacted from generational trauma and societal influences that in turn negatively nurtures a mindset and capability equipped solely for murderous tendencies, outcasting them is an immensely large root of most crimes committed in adulthood this being more likely in terms of serial killers and so on.
This applies beyond substance abuse. Consider Peter Madsen — the man who murdered journalist Kim Wall. His hatred of women, which led to such a horrific act, stemmed from deep-rooted trauma in childhood, whilst facing an abusive and unsafe environment caused by his own father, his mother had left Madsen behind causing deeply rooted hatred towards not his father but his mother. He was never given proper support, and society turned a blind eye until it was too late. Alongside entertaining a disturbed mindset and no real concrete form of help for his traumatic experiences, Peter ended up murdering Kim Wall inside a submarine, her body mutilated and left many people in despair.
So, I ask: is justice just when it only punishes the outcome, and not the cause?
If we want real change — fewer crimes, fewer tragedies — we need to rethink accountability. That means holding not just perpetrators responsible, but the influencers, the enablers, and the systems that silently shape them.
It is fundamental to know how to abstain behaviours by intercepting both an individuals childhood and an adults lifestyle which is a reiteration of evolving a more encouraging and accepting society in terms of helping those with troubled thoughts and behaviours sincerely and not seeing them as lesser human or treating them as such in order to formulate a more inclusive and conventionally integrated society.
And above all, we must build a world where children and adults alike can speak about trauma without fear. Where support replaces stigma, and where intervention happens at the root — not at the breaking point.
Thank you.
Research to add next time : 1. more case studies that represent a wider global spread [patterns] 2. look into various statutes and see what legislations may apply or be altered to adhere to such a concept 3. How to formally make change
