Of Peter William Sutcliffe - Case Study Example

Peter William Sutcliffe Name Institution Executive Summary This paper presents a case of Peter William Sutcliffe, a British serial killer. Sutcliffe’s experience from childhood to adulthood is examined. The paper takes note of the fact that Sutcliffe had a troubled childhood. Although he was born as normal child, he grows up in a lonely primary school environment and further moves to a high school environment that was full of bullying and isolation. His adulthood was characterized by an increased interest in the activities of prostitutes. He then begins kill them. The paper further examines Sutcliffe’s criminal activities and identifies; attempted murder and murder as his key criminal activities. Various psychological theories and factors were used in order to explain Sutcliffe’s criminal activities. The theories include; differential reinforcement theory, the cognitive development theory, the humanistic theory and Hans Eysenck theory of personality. The paper recommends that there is need to re-examine the link between crime and physiological problems/ disorders. Introduction Peter William Sutcliffe also labeled as ‘’ The Yorkshire Ripper ‘’, is one of the most dreaded serial killers in British history. Sutcliffe, the first born son of John and Kathleen Sutcliffe was born on 2nd June, 1946, in Bingley county of Yorkshire. An intriguing aspect concerning Sutcliffe murder activities was that he targeted women essentially those he believed to be prostitutes. This paper seeks to present a case study of Peter William Sutcliffe. The scope of the analysis will be grounded on providing the experience of Peter Sutcliffe from childhood to adulthood. The paper will also provide an insight into Sutcliffe’s criminal activities and the causes of his behavior. The Experience of Peter William Sutcliffe from Childhood to Adulthood Peter Sutcliffe birth was basically normal. Steel (2005) discloses that his parents; John and Kathleen Sutcliffe took him home as a healthy baby boy. They were also confident that their son would at one point grow up to be like his father, a man who loved to watch and play different types of sports. Nevertheless, Peter grew up to be a shy and quite boy who only preferred to remain in doors with his mother, instead of playing rough games like his siblings. He preferred reading as opposed to being involved in sports. Peter was also greatly frightened by the masculinity of his father. This is because his father always treated him with contempt which affected his feelings. He therefore found a safe refuge behind his mother. Wilson (2005) discloses that Sutcliffe father was more enthusiastic about football and cricket as opposed to his children. Furthermore he seemed to be a ladies man. During his early school years, young Sutcliffe was detested by other children. As a result, during most of his play time he separated himself from the rest of the children and stood alone in a corner. He avoided the rough games based on the fact that he was small bodied and moderately strong. His father was concerned about him in primary school and even visited his school in order to encourage him to interact with other children. His father’s efforts were however futile (Steel, 2005). By the time he moved to high school, in his early teen years, Peter’s situation did not change. He was a subject of serious bullying which lead to his nonattendance of school for several weeks. The teachers found out that he had spent week’s upstairs hiding in order to read books and comics using a torch. The bullying was however terminated after the school took action (Steel, 2005). Peter later dropped out of school by the age of 15. He then got involved in various manual jobs which include; grave digging, factory work and as a salesman (Cross, 1981). During his late teen years Sutcliffe developed an unhealthy interest in prostitutes. He spent most of his time in the company of his friend Trevor Birdsall, watching the prostitutes petitioning on the streets of Branford and Leeds. Although, evidence does not exist to show that he used the services of the prostitutes at that particular stage of his life. However, a clear factor was that he was actually fascinated by the prostitutes and spent a considerable amount of time acting as a kind of watcher (BBC News, 1981). By the age of twenty, Peter first approached a woman by the name of Sonia Szurma a Czechoslovakia immigrant who lived in Branford. In 1974 Peter married Sonia after getting a lot of pressure from his family. The couple was not able to bare children due to the miscarriages of the wife. During their marriage, Sonia was accused of having an affair with an ice- cream van driver (Steel, 2005). It is apparent that by the time he entered his adulthood, his interest in prostitutes gained a new dimension. Markham (2009) discloses that in 1975 Peter Sutcliffe claimed that he gained a religious experience and a message from God that instructed him to kill prostitutes. He now acquired the desire to inflict physical injury on them. He therefore began his mission as instructed. He committed a series of murders and attempted murders and was detained in 1981 due to charges of driving using a false number plate. The police later questioned him concerning the killings. Sutcliffe admitted that he was indeed the offender. After a two – week trial at the old Barley Court, Sutcliffe was found guilty and convicted of thirteen counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder. On May 22nd 1981, he was sentence by a majority jury verdict to 30 years behind bars (Smartt, 2011). Peter William Sutcliffe’s Criminal Activities In order to identify the crimes committed by Sutcliffe, the Western Australian criminal code will act as a point of reference. According to section 277 of the Western Australian criminal code, a person who unlawfully kills another individual is guilty of crime. Depending on the circumstance of the case, the act may be referred to as manslaughter or murder. Police first recorded two files in 5th July and 15th August 1975, indicating that Sutcliffe had attacked a prostitute in Bradford using a cosh that has a large stone inside a male sock. In this particular incident, the prostitute did not die. On the basis of section 277 of the Western Australian criminal code it can be stated that the two incidences could not amount to murder but attempted murder or an attempt to inflict injury on the victim. Sutcliffe first murder activity begun in 30 October 1975, when he killed a well-known prostitute referred to as Wilma McCann in Leeds. He hit the victim with a hammer in the head with one of the bowls entering the full thickness of the skull. On the basis of section 251 of the Western Australian criminal code, if a person unlawfully kills another person on grounds that are not for the purpose of self-defense, then this particular crime amounts to murder. The murder of his first victim; Wilma McCannon was basically intentional and therefore amounted to murder. On November 23, 1975, less than a month after the murder of Wilma, the body of Joan Harrison was discovered in Preston Harrison. Harrison a known alcoholic and prostitute died due to hemorrhage and shock arising from multiple injuries that were mainly caused by violent kicking of her body and head. Unlike the previous victim intercourse and sexual assault were had taken place immediately prior the death of the victim. The Detective Superintendent Brooks who investigated the incident found semen within her body. The next Murder was in January 20th 1976 of Emily Jackson also a well-known prostitute who was murdered in a factory in Leeds. Just like the other murders Emily Jackson was also killed using a hammer and also through stab wounds that were inflicted on her upper chest, lower neck and abdomen. Sutcliffe continued to commit murder up to his thirtieth victim. Some of the victims however did not die thus leading to charges of attempted murder. In general it can be stated on the basis of section 740 of the 2008 Western Australian criminal code, Sutcliffe was eligible for life imprisonment for the offence of willful murder. Causes of Peter William Sutcliffe’s behavior A number of psychological factors and theories can be used to explain Sutcliffe’s behavior. Brewer (2000) argues that the mental state of an individual greatly influences criminal activity. A sample of offenders exists who display symptoms of mental disorder at the time of their criminal activities. However, there are criminals who do not display signs of mental disorder when committing criminal activities. During the Peter Sutcliffe trial, findings were presented to indicate that he was suffering from a mental disorder when committing the murders. However, the evidence was not adequate enough to prove that he was sufficiently mentally impaired. He was therefore convicted of the crimes and sent to prison. Nevertheless, three years later he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital. One assumption that can be drawn from Sutcliffe case is that, it is possible that he had a mental disorder even prior to his arrest, yet his mental state was not considered by the jury when giving their verdict. According to social psychologists, the social behaviors that people display in society are usually grounded on the social roles that they take up in society. People frequently take up social roles which influence their expected behavior in society. For instance; psychologist such as Wetherell and Maybin (1996) argue that who we are is usually a product of our social roles as opposed to any definite core personality. Sonenstein (1999) asserts that there is a traditional male or masculine ideology that that a man should not talk about their problems and if they do they are bound to lose respect. This traditional ideology may also be argued as one of the factors that influenced the criminal activities Peter Sutcliffe. For instance; during his high school years, Peter was subjected to bullying which lead to his nonattendance of school for several weeks. Instead of reporting the incident to the school and his parents, he spent weeks hiding while reading books and comics. Such actions may have been instigated by the social construction that men are not supposed to talk about their problems. The bullying may have influenced psychological problems which may have later instigated his criminal behavior. The Hans Eysenck theory of personality is an essential theory that explains criminal behavior. The basis of Hans Eysenck theory of personality is that the personality of an individual influences whether an individual can conform to social rules or not. According to Eysenck, the most significant dimensions of personalities include; introverts extroverts and emotional stability. Each individual is placed along these dimensions which combine to form four categories which include; stable introverts, stable extroverts, emotional introverts and emotional introverts. Extroverts generally require more stimulation and excitement. As a result, they tend to be thrill seeking and impulsive and therefore participate in criminal behavior. Introverts on the other hand are even tempered, anxious, quiet and moody. It is argued that introverts are less likely to commit crime due to the conditioned fear which prevents them from taking part in ant-social behavior (Strelau, 1998). However, introverts are usually good at suppressing certain responses which may finally culminate to negative behavior (Buikhuisen and Mednick, 1998). For instance; a recent study in United States and New Zealand to examine the relationship between delinquency and personality discloses that youths with negative emotions such as fear and anxiety( attributes exhibited by introverts) tend to break down to stress which are linked to criminal behavior . When looking at Sutcliffe case, he exhibited the personality of an introvert during childhood. Nevertheless, during his adulthood he began to be more social. For instance; he made friends and would even go out with his brother in law for drinks. He also spent time with his wife and acted like a loving and caring husband. He still exhibited attributes of an introvert where some people described him as a quit and hardworking man (Steel, 2005). In general it can be argued that Peter was generally an introvert and exhibited minimal levels of being an extrovert. This sort of behavior may have to some extent influenced criminal behavior. Another theory that can be used to explain criminal behavior is the humanistic theory that was propagated by Abraham Maslow and Seymour Halleck. The theory is grounded on the assumption that human beings are basically good although sometimes they are constrained by the society to act badly. It can be argued that Peter Sutcliffe was basically good since childhood. Nevertheless, the society had a role to play in influencing his criminal behavior. Foremost, the primary school environment subjected him to a state of feeling unwanted. This is basically because he was hated by most of the children. He therefore segregated himself all times. By the time he got to high school, Sutcliffe was subjected to serious bullying which also influenced his segregation and solitude in the school environment. In his adulthood he finds himself exposed to an environment where prostitutes operate. He progressively detests them and finally begins to murder them. It can be argued that the society in which Sutcliffe lived may have influenced his criminal behavior. The society essentially the school environment exposed him to a state of loneliness and isolation an aspect which may have influenced psychological problems such as paranoid schizophrenia which he was diagnosed with years later (Bohm and Vogel, 2010). The cognitive development theory is another liable theory that can be used to explain William Sutcliffe’s criminal behavior. The theory postulated by Kohlberg highlights that we acquire morality from the people we intermingle with on regular basis. These include our friends, family and the rest of the community (Byren, 2010). It is possible that Sutcliffe’s criminal behavior may have been influenced by individuals around him. His father was alleged to be a ladies man (Wilson, 2005). It is therefore possible that he might have solicited the services of the prostitutes which fueled Sutcliffe’s hatred towards prostitutes and further lead to his zeal for killing. Also during his late teenage years, Sutcliffe developed friendship with Trevor Birdsall, who they spent much of their time watching the prostitutes petitioning on the streets of Branford and Leeds. It is possible that his friendship with Birdsall may have instigated his negative attitude towards prostitute’s therefore leading to the criminal tendency of killing prostitutes. Differential reinforcement theory is another relevant theory that can be used to explain the causes of Sutcliffe’s criminal behavior. The theory is grounded on the premise that criminal acts usually occur in the environment in which the actor has been reinforced for behaving in that manner. When the criminal behavior is reinforced then the individual is bound to continue committing more crimes (Hollin, 2013). It can be argued that Sutcliffe behavior was actually reinforced by the fact that even after committing the first murder, the police were not able to arrest him. For instance Sutcliffe even dared to send an audiocassette tape with a personal message to the chief of police concerning their failure to detect a series of murders. As a result it is possible that the inability of the police to quickly detect the crimes may have motivated him to continue with his mission. Furthermore, reinforcement also resulted from his type of job. Based on the fact that Sutcliffe was a truck driver, he was always car sensitive. After committing murder he would dispose the car he used and get another car. He therefore gained more reinforcement based on the fact that the police could not easily trace the car. Conclusion The above discussion has presented a case of Peter William Sutcliffe, a British serial killer. The paper has also highlighted the experience of Peter William Sutcliffe from childhood to adulthood. A significant factor that can be noted from the analysis of Sutcliffe life is that he had a troubled childhood. His experience at home with his father and also during school was bound to instigate psychological problems which were bound to influence his criminal behavior. The paper also identifies various physiological theories that explain the criminal Sutcliffe behavior. The theories include; differential reinforcement theory, the cognitive development theory, the humanistic theory and Hans Eysenck theory of personality. In conclusion, it can be stated that Sutcliffe case presents the need to re-examine the link between crime and physiological problems/ disorders. References Buikhuisen, W and Mednick, S. (1998) . Explaining Criminal Behaviour: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Brill. Bohm, M and Vogel, B. (2010). A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory. Cengage Learning. Brewer, K. (2000). Psychology and Crime. Heinemann. Bohm , R and Vogel , B. (2010). A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory. Cengage Learning. BBC News . (1981). Yorkshire Ripper jailed for life. BBC News . Byren, J. (2010). .An Overview of Psychological Theories of Crime Causation. Graduate Criminology Seminar. Cross, R. (1981). Yorkshire Ripper. CollinsHarper. Hollin, R.(2013). Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology . Routledge. Keppel, D and Birnes, W. (2003). The Psychology of Serial Killer Investigations. Academic Press. Markham, S. (2009). Engaging with Bediuzzaman Said Nursi: A Model of Interfaith Dialogue. Ashgate Publishing. Strelau. J. (1998). Temperament: A Psychological Perspective. Springer Science & Business. Smartt, U.(2011). Media and Entertainment Law .Taylor & Francis. Steel, F. (2005). Peter Sutcliffe Criminal Minds and Methods. Sonenstein, F. (1999). Involving Males in Preventing. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Wetherell, M and Maybin, J. (1996). The distributed self: A social constructionist perspective . London: Sage. Wilson , C. (2005).The brutal father who made him a monster. Daily Mail. Western Australian criminal Read More