fandomhigh | Sociology Courses

Sociology of Violence: 2nd Period

Grissom greets the class with a lecture on mass murder.

"Discussion question today. The USA Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a mass murder as the murder of four or more victims at one location, within one event. I'm also going to include spree killing, which is killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders, in our discussion.

I want you to choose one category of mass murder:
# 1 mass murder by individuals
# 2 mass murder by terrorists
# 3 mass murder by a state
# 4 mass murder in warfare

and define the term, by numbers, for yourself. Do you think an individual who kills three people should be considered a mass murderer? Or how about during warfare?"

Sociology of the Paranormal: 6th Period

Grissom waits for his class to enter, and then literally sits on top of his desk.

"Okay guys. Before we start the next unit, I need ask you a question. Whether from personal experience, or just your general beliefs, please answer this -

What happens to you after you die?"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Welcome.

Phoebe signs in. When she sees the assignment, her face kind of pales.

She starts writing about ~ # 1 mass murder by individuals ~. After all, it looked like it would happen in her world.

Aeryn signs in, even though going to class right now is kind of pointless.

"There are different rules for warfare," she says, though she almost doesn't want to. "There comes a point where it's kill or be killed no matter who's attacking who, so is that murder? Because I've never seen myself as a mass murderer."

"Okay," Grissom nods, figuring that seems fair. "But if the individual isn't responsible, can the state be deemed a mass murderer during warfare?

"You do what you have to do," Aeryn says, maybe a little vehemently because wow, this is hitting home. "The state, or whatever, is the one who decides what the rules are, what you do and how to go about it. If they lose, they can be deemed whatever you want. If they win, they're the ones making the rules."

Grissom doesn't disagree, but pushes farther. "But what about in the eyes of history? No state, no matter how victorious, is immortal. So in the short term, definitions may be made by those that win the battle, but do you think that fair labels can be applied to states long after the war?"

"Does it matter then? It's over. History's already written and that's all anyone's going to care about. That's the part people remember, not what actually happened."

Bel is quiet. Very very quiet. You don't want to know what his total is.

Piper signs in and ponders the discussion question for a moment.

"I think an individual who kills three people should definitely be considered a mass murderer. Unless it was in self defense."

Peter signed in.

"With individuals, I think four seems kind of arbitrary. Really, by the time you've killed three people at the same time, it gives the impression that the killer probably would have murdered more if they could have."

"Theoretically, though, I guess you could lower it to two with the same reasoning, so I don't know."

Veronica signed in and look distinctly uncomfortable with the topic.

Krycek signed in, then looked over the discussion question. "I think it's highly situational for all of the categories."

Sociology Courses | February 15, 2006

Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15

Re: Violence : 2/15