Killing can be motivated by one or several motivators. There are various motivators that would result to numerous people getting killed for the need of self-preservation, justice, as well as the need to belong. The actions based on these motivators when someone is killed can be reactive versus impulsive, revenge versus a level of understanding, and conforming versus non-conforming. The impact of society, organizations, and gangs in influencing actions can be tied to the motive and basics for the action. Examples of these influences are rules and regulations, education and awareness programs, and dispute resolution.
The prerequisite for self-deterrence, which everyone has felt before in some way or another, can be motivated by reaction or impulse that leads to killing. An example of reactive motivation supporting self-prevention of one’s own life or their family is killing an armed robber or thief. Society’s rules and regulations influence this action by establishing laws that protect individuals from being charged. The action must have been taken to protect oneself or their family from death or serious harm from the robber or thief. However, as seen with the stand your ground law that exists in some states, the individual can react based on the premature fear of being killed without ensuring the use of dispute resolution or an awareness program resulting in no harm or death to anyone. This law has led to an increase in impulsive motived killing based on the need for self-prevention. Finally, wars are the best example of the need for self-prevention killing. During wars, individuals face kill or be killed situations, which can be both impulsive and reactive throughout the conflict. Society’s influence during war can be seen in both a negative or positive matter. The negative influence would be observed and supported by nations declaring war on other nations. The positive influence can be the use of some conflict resolution that leads to end the war or a path to that end.
It is without doubt that self-preservation may result to unwanted behavior that is killing. As a result, there are various effects that might be focused in in order to minimize the possibility of such needs being violated in ways that may result in killing. For instance, having boundaries that are not to be crossed as well as stating such boundaries that enables one to ensure situations that would require him/her to act in self-preservation does not occur. As elaborated exceedingly, such situations are responsible for actions that might result to killing (Tartakovsky, 2011). Bearing in mind that setting such boundaries and sticking to them is a dexterity that one ought to sharpen over time, being able to name them becomes the first step to ensuring that others understand your limits that may include but not limited to physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual limits. That way, others will appreciate them with time, and a situation that requires one to protect and defend his/her self-preservations does not take place taking into consideration that it may result to killing. In addition, being direct about the self-perseveration limits becomes crucial (Tartakovsky, 2011). Considering the fact that various people have divergent personalities and cultural backgrounds in their conversations and actions, crossing the limits of an individual become easy. Hence, being direct will help in ensuring that the limits are not over looked at any point because self-preservation was indicated as a reason for killing. Moreover, practicing self-awareness goes a long way in minimizing the likelihood of one’s needs of self-preservation from being violated in manners that would result in behaviors such as killing. Through self-awareness, an individual will be in a position to notice the points at which someone’s boundaries have been crossed, bearing in mind that it is the only way of controlling the emotions that comes as a result of such provocations (Tartakovsky, 2011). Equally, through self-awareness, an individuals will be in a position of weighing the options that might be applicable in regaining and maintaining the self-preservation mood. Otherwise, unwanted behaviors, killing being not unexceptional may take place.
The need for justice or fairness can lead to killing in the form of revenge rather than seeking understanding. However, in some parts of the world Arab societies believe in honor killing. Honor killing is the act of killing someone that has brought dishonor to ones family by their actions. In the case of honor killing there is no revenge, but an action that is understood and accepted by the Arab society. The need for justice or fairness can lead to killing that is motivated by revenge. For example, the old saying of “an eye for an eye” comes to mind. The motivation is pure revenge based on the fact that some societies and cultures believe on this level of revenge to be justified. However, the legal system in most modern countries such as, the United States make it illegal to kill someone purely for revenge if the act of killing is done outside of the moment of being physically threatened with death. In other words, if you killed someone the next day or later after they have killed your child or spouse then it would be considered premeditated murder. The individual may still be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but it would be a case that would have to be proven in court. Even though both actions are supported by the motive of revenge, the later action of premeditated murder would be held to different standards of proving the act of killing was justified under the legal system. The defense in court for the premeditated murder would be not guilty by reason of insanity based on the influences that modern society’s rules and regulations (laws) have on revenge killing in support of the need for justice. Coupled with the above elaborations on the need to ensure fairness, enhancing judicial democracy and independence would improve people’s perception about the judicial system itself. As result, the notion of an eye for an eye will be reduced, and in process, the need for murdering others with the intention of vengeance would not be necessary.
Considering the fact that the need for justice or fairness can lead to killing in the form of revenge rather than seeking understanding, it becomes necessary for certain effects to be undertaken to minimize such likelihood. One way that justice and fairness would be maintained to reduce the chances of behaviors that would result to killing is through the standardizing and harmonizing the judicial acts to be adhered to. It is without uncertainty that the existence of unequal social justice systems that govern people would result to other means of ensuring that the needed justice is needed (Woodruff, 2011). Killing is on such method that would be opted for, hence, harmonizing all the judicial system for instance in the giving out sentences for crime offenders will ensure the offended are satisfied with the sentences given. That way, there will no need for turning to other forms of justice seeking methods such as killing by the offended parties. In a like manner, intensifying the judicial sincerity is an additional of ensuring that other forms of fairness are not opted for. Considering that fact that the communities of recent times are comprised of divergent people with different cultural backgrounds, having a judicial system that is fair would go a long way in preventing a section of a community from turning to other methods of revenging with the intentions of seeking justice (Woodruff, 2011).
Next, the urge to be appropriate as the underlining reason for killing is an example of conforming by individuals that are influenced by the pressure of gangs. Although, the fear of self-prevention may also contributes to why an individual joins a gang and then kills an innocent person. This can be seen as a rite of passage into the gang. However, as an individual continues on this path of gang life, then killing based on the need to belong grow stronger into a need for self-preservation not only from inside the gang, but from elements outside of their gang. Some individuals take the path of non-conforming to gang life, which place them in harm’s way in the form of possibility facing the death. In such a case, individuals opt to rely on the society’s legal system to protect them. However, some individuals have to kill based on the need for self-prevention when deciding not to conform to a life as a gang member. The individual cannot depend on the society’s legal system to be available to protect them from facing death at the hands of gang members.
Sense of belonging as elucidated herein as well plays a significant role in propelling individuals to kill. However, there are various effects that would be put in place to ensure that such actions are not resulted to. One fact worth noting is the fact that sense of belonging is majorly influenced by the perceptions that people have. As a result, adopting effects that increases their perception would go a long way in ensuring that they are willing to maintain the interdependence with other people in the society. That in addition involves the creation of a perception that people act as they would expect others to act ensuring that they do not feel out of place. Otherwise, people will develop unwanted behaviors that would ensure that they feel recognized killing one of the unwanted behavior. Moreover, self of belonging is enhanced through the social bonding as well as perceived control, perceived safety, greater participation, and greater civic contributions or involvement. That is considering the fact that many killings have taken place as a result of gang related activities. Basically, the major factor that brings about the formation of gangs is the creation of a self of belonging that may lack within the society. Hence, adopting means of ensuring that the populaces have the sense of belonging will ensure that they do not have any reason of joining the gangs from where the urge of killing is enhanced.
On the same note as it would be expounded further down, the act of killing would be brought about by the needs of people. That means that people are motivated to opt for the unwanted behaviors with an objective of attaining their desired needs killing being one of the unsolicited activities. Hence, ensuring that people have an equal opportunity to attain their desired needs would best be termed as the best ways of eliminating the unwanted behaviors among other ways. Equally, that would be the needed features or facets that are necessary for not only the society, but also the community or organizations where a large number of people meet and socialize. They will go a long way in guaranteeing the no person feel oppressed because an equal opportunity to successes would have been offered to all. Respect, trust, and appreciating each other goes a long way in ensuring that sense of belonging is attained even in organizations such as schools and workplaces. Through trust, a person’s values would have been given a positive chance to sync with the organizations stated values as well as the guiding principles within the organization. That is bearing in mind that there are negative and positive influences that result for an individual to opt to unwanted behaviors including killing as illustrated with the paper. Hence, it is mandatory for such organizations to create a culture of trust and respect within their organizations since it enables a balance of interest to be meet reducing the prospect of unwanted behaviors with killing not being an exception. Putting more focus, therefore, in the above elucidated aspects would minimize the threats to self-preservation, as well as unfairness within the society, and sense of belonging all of which have the capabilities of propelling individuals to act unlawfully.
Finally, when looking at the act of killing based on a need, it can be tied to motivation that is influenced by an outside organization or society. As shown in the examples above, the need for self-prevention supported by the motive of reacting to the threat with or without the influence of society’s or organization’s rules, awareness programs, and dispute resolution programs can lead to the act of killing. There is almost always a chain of events and influences that can lead you back to the single moment when the individual made the choice to kill. Most people do not wake up in the morning and state, “Today I’m going to kill someone.” However, society has found and dealt with a fraction of the population who choose to kill in order to bring them some form of pleasure. These individuals are still fulfilling a need of pleasure, stimulation, or purpose. This action can be supported by the motive of impulse or non-conforming, which may stem from a mental illness. The influences of society or organizations can feed into the pleasure of an individual to lead them to more acts of vengeance. The connection between the act, need, motive, and outside influence can be discovered once you peel back the layers or work your way form the core (the act) to the outside.
Reference
Tartakovsky, MS. Margarita (2011). 10 Ways to Build and Preserve Better Boundaries. Psych Central. Retrieved on May 25, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/10-way-to-build-and-preserve-better-boundaries/0007498
Woodruff, P. (2011). The Ajax dilemma: Justice, fairness, and rewards. New York: Oxford University Press.
