Cassandre Jadotte

Case Study 4: Joran van der Sloot

Professor IDONIA BARRETT
The Criminal Mind CRJ322002VA016-1188-001
November 25,2018
 “Deviant” sexual acts typically include everything from bisexuality, nudism, topless

dancing, and fetish behavior to more extreme acts such as pedophilia (sex with children),

zoophilia (sex with animals), and necrophilia (sex with dead persons). However unconventional,

most sexually deviant acts are not defined as crimes (in all places and circumstances, at least).

On the other hand, more extreme forms of sexual deviance such as sex with children, animals,

and dead persons are more universally regarded as unlawful. However, a strict interpretation of

relativism would suggest that even these actions, no matter how despicable, could not be defined

as categorically immoral—or, for that matter, “criminal.”

The key turning point descending into deviance was living a leisurely lifestyle as

an only child, which may have enabled his acts by feeling immune to punishment since his father

was a judge and the police chief was a family friend. Jordan Van Der Slot’s deviant behavior

began at an early age, his mother admitted he always had a difficulties telling the truth. Jordan

use to sneak out from his parents’ home to gamble and drink beyond the legal limits. He was

known for dosing young girls with the date rape drug and taking advantage of them.

“Sexual deviant” is an accurate label for van der Sloot acts of sexual gratification

involving his sex organs and the mouth or anus of both women, anus to mouth or involving

invasion of the anus or vagina of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person
with the use of drugs and or alcohol.

His father is a powerful judge, and the family is quite well off, financially, but the

fact that van der Sloot continues to be caught in these incredibly shady situations, making

confessions on camera and being taped while performing illegal activities in hotel rooms and still

walks about freely, says a lot more about society itself than it does about the sociopathic

tendencies of van der Sloot. Jordan's story became even more suspicious that Van Der Sloot's

father was arrested, believing he had involvement in hiding Holloway's body and aiding the boys

testimonies to the police. Without enough evidence to detain either member of the Van Der Sloot

family, and with their special legal connections, police had no choice but to let both of them go

free.

Relativism varies according to the individual and is usually influenced by the

beliefs, culture, psychology and several other factors which shapes the belief and thinking of the

individual. There are several moral questions which makes difficult to accept the response of

relativist. For instance, according to the Eskimo culture, in Holland, killing old people is right

while according to Americans, east of Oregon, it is wrong practice and needs to be eliminated

from the society. Moreover, in contemporary culture, fornication is correct and acceptable while

according to Christians it is absolutely wrong. The moral issue involved is the old people are the

asset of the society and we cannot kill them. Relativist might face the problem in justifying its

answer as the answer of the people will be influenced by culture and psychology of the human

being, and an unspoken argument for eliminating the certain group from the society. The

relativist is in dilemma which argument to support and the absolutist denies that it is always right

to obey the culture and its beliefs.

 The rationales for society’s changing attitudes towards what is deemed acceptable

sexual behavior is the increasingly permissive attitudes about certain kinds of sexual behavior:

“Between the 1970s and the 2010s, American adults became more accepting of premarital sex,

adolescent sex, and same-sex sexual activity, but less accepting of extramarital. Premarital sex

continued to rise in the 2000s and 2010s.” .“In the early 1970s, 29% of Americans (35% of men

and 23% of women) believed that premarital sex was ‘not wrong at all.’ This rose to around

42%in the 1980s and stayed there through the 1990s, rising to 49% in the 2000s and to 55% in

the 2010s (59% of men, 52% of women)…. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 47% of Boomers in the

early 1970s believed premarital sex was ‘not wrong at all,’ compared to 50% of GenX’ers in the

early 1990s and 62% of Millennials in the 2010s.”With regard to same-sex relationships and

practices, younger generations have shown decisive changes: “Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 21%

of Boomers in the early 1970s believed same-sex sexual activity was ‘not wrong at all,’

compared to 26% of GenX’ers in the early 1990s and 56% of Millennials in the 2010s.”The

number of sexual partners people reported having has increased: The “total number of sexual

partners since age 18 increased from 7.17 in the late 1980s (11.42 for men, 3.54 for women) to

11.22 in the 2010s (18.22 for men, 5.55 for women).”Rates of casual sex have also increased:

“Among 18- to 29-year-olds reporting non-partner sex, 35% of GenX’ers in the late 1980s had

sex with a casual date or pickup (44% of men, 19% of women), compared to 45% of Millennials

in the 2010s (55% of men, 31% of women).”(Archives of Sexual Behavior, “Changes in

American Adults’ Sexual Behavior and Attitudes, 1972–2012)

References

(Archives of Sexual Behavior, “Changes in American Adults’ Sexual Behavior and Attitudes,

1972–2012)

(Barak 2000)

(Sutherland 1961 )