“People who do Crazy Things are not Necessarily Crazy”
Every human being faces at least one affliction in his or her life that leads him or her to behave in an unusual manner. While some people obtain support from others and learn how to handle situations correctly, others fight their battles alone and find themselves committing unthinkable acts. One taking a dispositional view would allegedly reach the conclusion that those who perform these unthinkable acts must suffer from insanity. With an opposing outlook, social psychologists observe how certain individuals react to difficult circumstances and determine why particular escapades occur as a result of distinct settings. They understand that “occasionally, these natural situations become focused into pressures so great that they can cause people to behave in ways easily classifiable as abnormal” (Aronson). Humankind should strive to fathom the depth of human behavior, and simply labeling these people as psychotic only decreases the chances of doing so. Some murder trials, after examination, will prove certain individuals to be psychotic, while other proceedings linger in the mind as an obscurity. Often times, people do not want to accept the fact that not all murderers are demented. “Szasz argued that we often prefer to attribute antisocial deeds to a person’s mental illness rather than to his or her intent or choice. It is difficult to accept the idea that sane people could willingly commit atrocities” (Kleinke). Thus, it remains crucial that we recognize how grievous conditions can generate one to become an eloquently volatile being. Two defined groups of individuals that account for a number of the enraged acts suggested as being “crazy” are: vulnerable persons dealing with agonizing treatment by the public and helpless minors growing up in unpleasant homes that lack affection. Considering the backgrounds of people who act deceivingly will allow society to better understand the reasons why unwanted deeds are committed and how they can be avoided. Just a few weeks ago I watched a showing on television called “Too Young to Kill: 15 Shocking Crimes” in which Eric Smith earned the second spot on the list. Smith had a full head of red hair, a face covered by red freckles to match and a thick pair of glasses for his bad eyesight. At age thirteen, this appearance never seems to be the most popular when trying to make friends. Kids continually mocked the redheaded loner and rejected his friendship. Since no one wanted to be seen spending time with the outsider, Smith exhausted most of his time bike riding in the small town he lived in. Eric Smith represents the vulnerable individual who put up with too much overwhelming treatment from his peers. Eventually, he had to cope with his anger, and he did so in a horrifying manner. One particular morning, as Smith did his routine bike ride around the town, a four year old named Derrick Robie asked his mother if he could walk alone to a summer camp that he attended just a few blocks down. Hesitantly, she agreed, only because the neighborhood was known to be exceptionally safe. Smith, riding his bicycle to the same camp, passed Robie along the way and decided to lure him into an unseen area. Smith said he saw Robie as an easy target; he knew the young boy stood defenseless. Robie was brought into a wooded area where he was brutally beaten and smashed over the head with a large rock. Smith even sodomized young Derrick by shoving a stick up his butt hole in order to stab his heart and confirm the preschooler’s death. A defense psychiatrist tried to blame the murder on Intermittent Explosive Disorder, which literally means deadly rage and anger. It is “currently categorized in theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as an impulse control disorder” (Wikipedia). However, when involved in many murder case trials, one finds that “consciously or unconsciously, people who are the subject of social science research may skew...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document