Posted: September 12th, 2023

Being a criminal doesn’t always mean that they are a bad person.

You raise several interesting points regarding the complexity of determining whether a criminal is inherently a “bad person.” Criminality exists on a spectrum, and one’s actions do not necessarily define their entire character or morality.
Let me expand on some of the ideas you presented:
Ned Kelly’s upbringing and experiences of mistreatment at the hands of corrupt police officers undoubtedly shaped his perspective and motivations for criminal acts. As you note, films like Ned Kelly portray him as a heroic figure standing up against injustice. However, others may argue attempts to derail a train with potential loss of life cross an important line. Understanding context is key.
Your comparison to Steve Taylor’s concept of good and evil as flexible is insightful. People contain multitudes – even those who commit crimes can simultaneously perform good acts, like Ned Kelly rescuing a child. No individual is one-dimensional.
Comparing Ned Kelly to mass murderers is an unfair oversimplification that fails to consider his specific circumstances and the acts of self-preservation you described. Criminality exists on a spectrum, and intent/motivation are important factors when assessing someone’s character.
In conclusion, this paper provides an opportunity for nuanced discussion around the complexity of labeling another human as wholly “good” or “bad.” Context, circumstances, and the duality of human nature are all important to consider rather than overgeneralization. I hope these ideas are helpful for expanding on your thesis in a thoughtful manner. Please let me know if you would like me to elaborate on any part of this response. I’m happy to discuss further.

Being a criminal doesn’t always mean that they are a bad person.

This is meant to mean that no matter the severity of the crime committed by a person, it doesn’t automatically mean that they are a bad person. To determine if a criminal is a bad person it involves understanding the motivation that is the cause of the crime committed by the criminal. This is shown in the film Ned Kelly as Ned’s crimes are committed in retaliation for the mistreatment of him by the Victorian Police. This film portrays Ned as heroic figure who is standing up to mistreatment and it portrays the police as villainous scum due to their abuse of power.

Ned Kelly viewed himself and his family as victims of police persecution. However whilst growing …
I believe that the murder of several police officers at Stringybark creek were justified as if he didn’t shoot at them then he would have been killed himself. However I believe that his plans and attempting derailing of a Police Train heading to Glenrowan was unacceptable and showed how he was no heroic as he could have potentially killed some Police Officers who were not corrupt and who had no prior involvement in his life. However Ned Kelly rescuing a child from drowning whilst being a child himself shows that he was able to be heroic himself. This backs up Steve Taylor’s claims that good and evil are both flexible as Ned Kelly shows good by rescuing a child from drowning and evil by attempting to killed several Police Officers by derailing a train. My thesis was that being a criminal doesn’t alway mean that they are a bad person.I also find that the comparison made by Jack The Insider and Greg Davies between Ned Kelly and mass murderers to be unfair as the murder acted out by Ned Kelly were to save himself from being killed by the police. I believe that this thesis is true in Ned Kelly’s case as his life in crime would not have occurred if it was not due to constant mistreatment of some Police Officer’s towards his

Check Price Discount

Study Notes & Homework Samples: Response Paper #2: “The Birthmark »Expanding Market Share in Low-Income Markets