Week 5 discussion 1 and 2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Week 5 discussion 1 and 2 - Essay Example A normal person of average neuropathy scores between three and six. An average non-psychopathic criminal scores of between 16 and 22. A criminal with antisocial personality scores between 22 and 26 while a serious psychopathic antisocial personality criminal scores between 26 and 29 (Snowden & Gray, 2011). The PC L-R’s twenty traits are grouped into two factors; factor one is described as true psychopathy traits, which describes the mental, psychological, and erosional state. They are eight traits that assess how an individual feels, mental status and thought process. Factor two traits are referred to as false psychopathy. The factor two traits describe an individual’s conducts, demeanor and activities. The traits assess antisocial, deviant behavior and lifestyle behavior (Barone, 2004). In as much as PC L-R is one of the most credible tools for assessment of psychopathy, it may not entirely address the nature of human behavior as behavior is influenced by social and cultural environment. In certain social settings, it is culturally ethical and acceptable to conduct activities like cattle rustling, which is not ethical in other communities. It would be inappropriate to apply the rating scale on people homogenously as it could have legal implication when an individual is found not guilty on an insanity defense. However, through the use of the PC L-R assessment, a rehabilitation mechanism could be developed and implemented effectively as a means of changing the dominant undesirable antisocial traits (Cooke et al., 2007). Serial murder is an unlawful homicide of more than two people, which is carried out systematically in a period of more than 30 days. Serial murder can occurs in a specific place or different locations, but appears to have similar motive. Serial killings bare similar characteristic, planned, and have a cooling off period between the killings. An example of serial murder is that of Ted Bundy,

The Constructivist Approach in International Relations Essay

The Constructivist Approach in International Relations - Essay Example The paper tells that the constructivists have over and over questioned the rationale behind the self-centred notion of rationalism. In place of this, Constructivism has favoured some form of social ontology. Its proponents believe that human beings are social actors, and as such can never live away from the society’s power to shape their actions, so that they can conform to certain forms of behaviour. However, Wendt admits that, since constructivism is unable to provide international relations with â€Å"a clear test of their predictive power...† and without a clear theory to help in assessing domestic politics, it cannot, therefore, solely in studying international relations. It needs a backing from some other theories of international relations. Therefore, my paper seeks to critically assess the strengths and shortcomings of the constructivist approach in International Relations. In doing this, the paper will give a brief discussion on how constructivism has come to b e one of the major theoretical approaches of IR. It will also look at the strengths and weaknesses of constructivism. Moreover, it will give a comparison between constructivism and neorealism. The works of various constructivists will be visited to shed more light on the topic. These constructivists include Martha Finnemore, Alexander Wendt, Thomas Risse, and Peter Katzenstein. Today constructivism is actually one of the main theories of International Relations. It is built on the premise that almost all important features of global politics owe their existence to some given social circumstances and events in history. The theory strongly refutes the claim that international politics are controlled by intentional human actions that can never be controlled. It also does not agree with the notion that international politics is controlled by the uncontrollable nature of the same. The intention of constructivism to look at international relations as a result of social construction makes the theory clearly distinct from the traditional approaches to not only realism but also liberalism. There is a lot of emphasis on the human nature of humans as being an outcome of the relations we have with others. We are who we are today because of the social relations. As such, the argument here is that it is our social relations that construct us. However, the same world cannot exist without human beings since it is what it is because of the social relations. Therefore, as the world controls us, we equally control the world. Both humans and the world make each other (Zehfuss 2002, p.4). Constructivism’s importance in international relations is clearly brought out in the claim that the most important debate, now or in future, is that â€Å"between rationalists and constructivists.† Another factor that makes constructivism an important tool in the study of international relations is the fact that it occupies â€Å"the middle ground between rationalism and more radic al approaches, often called reflectivist or relativist†