20200407180021grade_rubic 20200407175000grade_rubic 20200407174953__i_deserve_punishment___killer_ted_bundy_bargains_and_postures1
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, review the Week 3 Final Comprehensive Case Report Topic and Outline assignment and your discussions in Weeks 1, 3, and 4 that pertain to this Final Paper.
For the Final Paper, you will take on the role of a death penalty mitigation expert hired by the defense attorney to work as a sentencing advocate on behalf of the client/defendant. Based upon the chosen case from the attached list (that was selected in Week 1), you will create a comprehensive case study report arguing against the death penalty for your client (the perpetrator). This report will contain an analysis of the psychological factors that may have contributed to the commission of the crimes in the chosen case study and how these psychological factors should be considered a basis for a prison sentence less than the death penalty.
In your online classroom, select the link “
Killer Bios
” for a list of these infamous murderers. In that link, you will find several Ashford University Library sources on each murderer. In addition, there are some starter links listed below under each name.
In your paper,
- Summarize the chosen case.
- Evaluate the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crimes.
Explain the psychological, situational/social, and biological factors that you believe led to the offender’s criminality.
- Evaluate how these factors may have contributed to committing violent crimes.
Identify whether your client suffered from a mental illness.
Identify the diagnosis and how the diagnostic criteria was met. - Evaluate the ACEs score you calculated for your client in the Week 3 Adverse Childhood Experiences discussion, to the extent that you were able to answer the questions based on what you could out about your client’s history.
Explain the impact of childhood trauma, abuse, and neglect may have on criminal behavior.
Examine whether your client had any events in life that could be considered traumatic such that this could have influenced the criminal behavior.
Explain what the scientific research says about the impact of trauma on criminal/violent behavior. - Analyze any other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence for your client.
(That is, was your client gainfully employed? Did your client lack a significant criminal history prior to the most recent offenses? Mitigating factors can be anything that humanizes your client and thus makes him/her seem like a candidate for a lesser sentence than death).
- Evaluate the mitigating circumstances found in this report.
- Propose a specific psychosocial intervention based on your evaluation of the client and case such as counseling, medication, restitution, and so forth. (This proposed intervention will serve as your argument that the death penalty is not appropriate for your client based on these mitigating factors.)
- Summarize your analysis and restate your intervention in the conclusion.
The Comprehensive Case Study Report
- Must be six to eight double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.)
- Must include a separate title page with the following:
Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to
APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.)
.
- Must utilize academic voice. See the Academic Voice (Links to an external site.) resource for additional guidance.
- Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper and must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.
For assistance on writing Introductions & Conclusions (Links to an external site.) as well as Writing a Thesis Statement (Links to an external site.), refer to the Ashford Writing Center resources.
- Must use at least four scholarly, peer-reviewed, credible sources in addition to the course text.
The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.
- Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.)
- Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.) resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications.
Carefully review the
Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.)
for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.
Description:
Total Possible Score: 30.00
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately summarizes the chosen case.
Proficient – Summarizes the chosen case. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Minimally summarizes the chosen case. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to summarize the chosen case; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The summary of the chosen case is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment
instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly evaluates the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her
crime(s).
Proficient – Evaluates the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crime(s). Minor details are missing or
slightly unclear.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crime(s). Relevant details are
missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crime(s); however,
significant details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crime(s)is either
nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly evaluates the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion.
Proficient – Evaluates the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion. Minor details are missing or slightly
unclear.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion. Relevant details are missing
and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion; however, significant
details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively analyzes other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death
sentence for the client.
Proficient – Analyzes other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence for the client. The
analysis is slightly underdeveloped.
Basic – Minimally analyzes other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence for the client.
The analysis is slightly underdeveloped.
Below Expectations – Attempts to analyze other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence
for the client; however, the analysis is significantly underdeveloped.
CRJ308.W5A1.07.2018
Summarizes the Chosen Case
Total: 4.00
Evaluates the Biopsychosocial Factors that Led the Client to Commit His or
Her Crime(s)
Total: 4.00
Evaluates the ACEs Score Calculated for the Client in the Week 3 Discussion Total: 4.00
Analyzes Other Mitigating Factors that May Provide a Credible Argument
Against a Death Sentence for the Client
Total: 4.00
Non-Performance – The analysis of other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence for
the client is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly evaluates the mitigating circumstances found in this report.
Proficient – Evaluates the mitigating circumstances found in this report. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the mitigating circumstances found in this report. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the mitigating circumstances found in this report; however, significant details are
missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the mitigating circumstances found in this report is either nonexistent or lacks the
components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Clearly and accurately proposes a specific psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and
case such as counseling, medication, restitution, etc.
Proficient – Proposes a specific psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and case such as counseling,
medication, restitution, etc. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Proposes a limited psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and case such as counseling,
medication, restitution, etc. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to propose a specific psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and case
such as counseling, medication, restitution, etc.; however, significant details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The proposal of a specific psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and case such as
counseling, medication, restitution, etc. is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately summarizes the analysis, and thoroughly restates the intervention.
Proficient – Summarizes the analysis, and restates the intervention. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Minimally summarizes the analysis, and partially restates the intervention. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or
inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to summarize the analysis and restate the intervention; however, significant details are missing,
unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The summary of the analysis and restatement of the intervention are either nonexistent or lack the
components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar.
Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work
contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few
errors which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work
contains major errors which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Evaluates the Mitigating Circumstances Found in this Report Total: 4.00
Proposes a Specific Psychosocial Intervention Based on the Evaluation of the
Client and Case such as Counseling, Medication, Restitution, etc.
Total: 4.00
Summarizes the Analysis, and Restates the Intervention Total: 4.00
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics Total: 0.75
Written Communication: APA Formatting Total: 0.25
Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to
distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted
pages.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All
sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and
cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on
the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations – Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be
scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted
correctly.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Page Requirement Total: 0.25
Written Communication: Resource Requirement Total: 0.75
Powered by
Description:
Total Possible Score: 30.00
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately summarizes the chosen case.
Proficient – Summarizes the chosen case. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Minimally summarizes the chosen case. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to summarize the chosen case; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The summary of the chosen case is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment
instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly evaluates the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her
crime(s).
Proficient – Evaluates the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crime(s). Minor details are missing or
slightly unclear.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crime(s). Relevant details are
missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crime(s); however,
significant details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the biopsychosocial factors that led the client to commit his or her crime(s)is either
nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly evaluates the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion.
Proficient – Evaluates the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion. Minor details are missing or slightly
unclear.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion. Relevant details are missing
and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion; however, significant
details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the ACEs score calculated for the client in the Week 3 discussion is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively analyzes other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death
sentence for the client.
Proficient – Analyzes other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence for the client. The
analysis is slightly underdeveloped.
Basic – Minimally analyzes other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence for the client.
The analysis is slightly underdeveloped.
Below Expectations – Attempts to analyze other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence
for the client; however, the analysis is significantly underdeveloped.
CRJ308.W5A1.07.2018
Summarizes the Chosen Case
Total: 4.00
Evaluates the Biopsychosocial Factors that Led the Client to Commit His or
Her Crime(s)
Total: 4.00
Evaluates the ACEs Score Calculated for the Client in the Week 3 Discussion Total: 4.00
Analyzes Other Mitigating Factors that May Provide a Credible Argument
Against a Death Sentence for the Client
Total: 4.00
Non-Performance – The analysis of other mitigating factors that may provide a credible argument against a death sentence for
the client is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly evaluates the mitigating circumstances found in this report.
Proficient – Evaluates the mitigating circumstances found in this report. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the mitigating circumstances found in this report. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the mitigating circumstances found in this report; however, significant details are
missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the mitigating circumstances found in this report is either nonexistent or lacks the
components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Clearly and accurately proposes a specific psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and
case such as counseling, medication, restitution, etc.
Proficient – Proposes a specific psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and case such as counseling,
medication, restitution, etc. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Proposes a limited psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and case such as counseling,
medication, restitution, etc. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to propose a specific psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and case
such as counseling, medication, restitution, etc.; however, significant details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The proposal of a specific psychosocial intervention based on the evaluation of the client and case such as
counseling, medication, restitution, etc. is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately summarizes the analysis, and thoroughly restates the intervention.
Proficient – Summarizes the analysis, and restates the intervention. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Minimally summarizes the analysis, and partially restates the intervention. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or
inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to summarize the analysis and restate the intervention; however, significant details are missing,
unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The summary of the analysis and restatement of the intervention are either nonexistent or lack the
components described in the assignment instructions.
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar.
Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work
contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few
errors which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work
contains major errors which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Evaluates the Mitigating Circumstances Found in this Report Total: 4.00
Proposes a Specific Psychosocial Intervention Based on the Evaluation of the
Client and Case such as Counseling, Medication, Restitution, etc.
Total: 4.00
Summarizes the Analysis, and Restates the Intervention Total: 4.00
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics Total: 0.75
Written Communication: APA Formatting Total: 0.25
Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to
distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted
pages.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All
sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and
cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on
the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations – Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be
scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted
correctly.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Page Requirement Total: 0.25
Written Communication: Resource Requirement Total: 0.75
Powered by
Title:
Database:
”I Deserve Punishment” Killer Ted Bundy bargains and postures
to the end. By: Lamar, Jacob V., Holmes, Charles, TIME
Magazine, 0040781X, 2/6/1989, Vol. 133, Issue 6
Complementary Index
”I Deserve Punishment” Killer Ted Bundy
bargains and postures to the end
Pleasantly handsome, piercingly intelligent, he was a master manipulator, a silver-tongued
charmer who lured women to their deaths, confounded police pursuers and clogged the court
system for nearly a decade. Last week, when Ted Bundy was finally strapped into Florida’s
electric chair and jolted with 2,000 volts of electricity, he paid with his life for the 1978
kidnaping and murder of Kimberly Leach, a twelve-year-old Lake City girl. But if his last-
minute confessions prove to be true, the former law student may have killed as many as 50
young women in Utah, Washington, Idaho, Colorado and Florida from 1973 to 1978, making
Bundy one of the nation’s most grotesquely prolific serial killers. Through legal maneuvers,
Bundy, 42, had won three earlier stays of execution. But his luck ran out on Jan. 23, when the
Supreme Court refused another delay. Cocky and contemptuous at his 1980 trial, Bundy
turned remorseful in his final days, offering to confess to an array of unsolved murders. ”Ted
Bundy feels morally compelled as he faces death to do the right thing,” said Diana Weiner,
one of his attorneys. Although his disclosures may eventually help close up to 23 outstanding
cases, few authorities credited Bundy with more than a last-ditch effort to delay his execution.
Said Florida Governor Bob Martinez: ”For him to be negotiating for his life over the bodies of
victims is despicable.” A onetime Boy Scout and A student, Bundy seemed headed for a
sterling career in Republican politics in Washington State and even served as assistant
director of the Seattle Crime Prevention Advisory Committee. Perversely, he was the author
Listen American Accent
of a pamphlet instructing women on rape prevention. That such an ostensibly upstanding
citizen would rape and mutilate scores of women, then dump their bodies in remote places,
was almost beyond comprehension. The morning of the execution, some 200 bloodthirsty
revelers gathered outside the penitentiary in Starke, Fla., for a ghoulish celebration. They lit
sparklers, cheered and waved signs reading BURN, BUNDY, BURN and ROAST IN PEACE.
One of the few dissenters was college student Nanda Rogers, 22, of Orlando, who stood by
herself a few yards away. ”I believe in the sanctity of human life — even Ted Bundy’s life,” she
said somberly. The day before his execution, Bundy, choking back sobs, said, ”I don’t want to
die, I kid you not, ((but)) I deserve, certainly, the most extreme punishment society has.” He
had seemed to deliberately seek that punishment. In December 1977, while jailed in Colorado
awaiting trial for the murder of a nurse, Bundy asked policemen which state would be most
likely to execute a killer. Florida, he was told. He soon escaped from jail and headed for the
Sunshine State. There he crushed the skulls of two sorority sisters in their rooms at Florida
State University. Three weeks later, he killed young Kimberly Leach.
In a final interview, conducted by California psychologist and radio evangelist James Dobson,
Bundy tearfully cited the media as a source of his dementia. Perhaps playing to his inquisitor,
a member of the 1986 federal pornography commission, Bundy said, ”Those of us who are . .
. so much influenced by violence in the media, in particular pornographic violence, are not
some kind of inherent monsters. We are your sons, and we are your husbands, and we grew
up in regular families.” Some of Bundy’s relatives might not have been so ”regular.” The
illegitimate son of a Philadelphia department-store clerk, Bundy claimed he spent his early
years with a deranged grandfather who assaulted people, tormented animals and had an
insatiable appetite for pornography. Bundy talked of being appalled after his first murder. ”It
was like being possessed by something so awful, so alien,” he said. ”But then the impulse to
do it again would come back even stronger.” Yet a succession of appellate courts ruled that
Bundy was not mentally incompetent to stand trial, as he repeatedly claimed. In 1987 a
federal judge called Bundy ”the most competent serial killer in the country . . . a diabolical
genius.” His decade of imprisonment and endless appeals eventually cost Florida taxpayers
more than $6 million. In a society increasingly fascinated with violent crime, the Ted Bundy
story captured the public imagination. Five books and a television mini-series were produced
about the boy-next-door killer. With network-TV broadcasts of the murderer’s last interview
and scenes of crowds gathered outside the penitentiary, even his execution became a media
circus. Whether Bundy intended it or not, his final encounter with death renewed his
nightmarish grip on the nation’s attention.
~~~~~~~~
By Jacob V. Lamar and Charles Holmes
Copyright of TIME Magazine is the property of TIME USA, LLC and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
iPhone and Android apps EBSCO Connect Privacy Policy A/B Testing Terms of Use Copyright Cookie
Policy Contact Us
powered by EBSCOhost
© 2020 EBSCO Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.