Overview
Summarize the post .
For each discussion activity, you are responsible for posting a reply to at least one postings made by your classmates.
After you have made your original post, read some of the posts from your classmates and construct one reply post of 100-150 words that responds to two of your group-mate’s original posts. Your reply post should be written such that it does one or more of: identifies something that you find especially interesting or insightful about your classmate’s original post; poses an engaging and relevant question and/or builds on the ideas from your classmate’s original post; raises a real-life experience or observation that you feel would be relevant to illustrate or help further develop an idea or point in your classmate’s original post.
Please note that you will need to make an original post before you can read and respond to your peers’ posts.
Some points to keep in mind:
- Be clear and to the point in your postings.
- Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.
- Keep postings to 100-150 words. Quality is better than quantity.
- Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.
- Support your thoughts by referencing the readings used, and references used in post below or other outside literature.
- Raise additional questions or points of discussion to stimulate further discussion.
- If you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.
- Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.
- Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.
- When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA 7 Style.
- Show respect and sensitivity to peers' gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.
- You are strongly encouraged to take the time to review the following documents on writing quality discussion posting and on taking roles in discussions.Taking a role in online discussion.Taking a Role in Online Discussions Below are some roles that anyone in an online discussion can fulfill in order to help move an online discussion forward in productive ways. See if you can determine what role is required in your online discussion and then write a message that takes on that role. Devil's Advocate • Takes opposing points of view to those currently under discussion Pollinator • Travels to other groups, reads their postings and summarizes points made in other groups not made in home group. Facilitator • Comments on the groups process (e.g. “Perhaps we should all remember to put a subject line in our messages.”) • Encourages others to participate, • Starts a thread or an idea on the topic, if the discussion lags. Summarizer / Discussion Weaver • Summarizes the discussion for the group at specific intervals in 1 or 2 short paragraphs. Usually summarizes twice per week or if the discussion lags • Reminds others about what has already been discussed. • Asks the group what issues have been concluded and what ones are still to be discussed. • Relates ideas in posted messages to one another. Researcher • Assumes responsibility for looking at what is available on the net, journals etc. and brings ideas back to the group. Responder Replies to others and builds on the ideas of others. This is a role that everyone in the group must perform for every discussion.
POST-1 (Nirjala Sigdel)
Karla Homlaka, a serial murderer, was influenced by her partner Paul Bernardo's criminal behavior. They murdered and assaulted countless others, including Karla's sister Tammy. This all started when Karla was 17 and Bernardo was 23. The two instantly connected and shared a passion for sadomasochistic sexual activities. Bernardo, whose sexual preferences were highly deviant, asked Homolka if she would let him rape other women, and she agreed (Karla Homolka, n.d.).
Neutralization is the theory that best suits Karla's case. Sykes and Matza's (1957) neutralization theory enables offenders to rationalize their acts and crimes while also protecting them from self-criticism and the guilt of others. Such rationalizations occur after the unlawful act has been committed, but the authors point out that there is grounds to assume that they can precede such behavior and support action (Pettigrew, 2018).
Karla Homolka, a victim of her partner’s abuse, had been trying to get Bernardo arrested. In exchange for cooperation, she pled guilty to manslaughter and received a 12-year prison sentence. However, additional proof, including videotapes, proved Homolka's intent to commit crimes against victims (Government of Canada, 1999). This demonstrates the neutralization theory, since Homloka frequently blamed Bernardo for her behavior, portraying herself as the victim. Despite the fact that she was involved in the killing, she pleaded guilty in order to cooperate with the officers in getting Bernardo convicted; nonetheless, evidence discovered revealed that she was not forced but voluntarily participated (Government of Canada, 1999).
According to Levin and Fox (2017), many characteristics common among numerous murders, include the demographic profile of white males, generally in their thirties. Moreover, supported by the theories on causation, there are common patterns in the backgrounds of multiple murders, such as head injury and childhood trauma (Levin & Fox, 2017). Her case stands out among serial killer demographics because she is a female, which is rare compared to the more prevalent profile of middle-aged white males. Furthermore, her behavior could have been affected by a desire to please her partner, implying that this relationship shaped her behavior.
References:
Government of Canada, D. of J. (1999, October 18). Plea Bargaining. Www.justice.gc.ca. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ilp-pji/pb-rpc/pb4-rpc4.html
Karla Homolka. (n.d.). Crime Museum. https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/serial-killers/karla-homolka/#google_vignette
Levin, J., & Fox, J. A. (2017). Multiple Homicide. The Handbook of Homicide 249–267.
Pettigrew, M. (2018). Confessions of a Serial Killer: A Neutralisation Analysis. Homicide Studies, 24(1), 69–84.
LABEL POST -1 AS(Nirjala Sigdel)
- Post -1 summary reply WRITE in 8-12 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word.
- Grading criteria is
Criteria A+ Discussion Post
Reply
Post
(4-5 points)
All response posts engaged classmates in further dialogue on the topic.
Length guidelines met; writing clear and compelling; poses an engaging and relevant question and/or builds on the ideas from a classmate's original post OR raises a real-life experience or observation relevant to illustrating or further developing an idea or point in a classmate's original post.- please start reading instructions mam
and guidelines and you have to answer to this i am proving the grading rubrics everything write in own words and do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS THE SOFTWARE TO DETECT.EACH AND EVERY LINE and each and every single word.
- I Have also attached the grading rubric photo which is in form of image grading rubric is very much important you have to follow each and every instruction very carefully.
- only these sources which I have provided you have been provided in post for post1 and reference for post which are provided only those no outsource has to be used.
- I have attached the grading rubric for student reply post.