Sociology - Ken Levi - Becoming a Hitman

Jenna Fellows

Helene Lawson

Sociology

31 January 2018

1. Research Question:

The author Ken Levi decided to do this research because he wanted to look more into people’s deviant desires and figure out how people could kill someone for money and not feel bad about it. How could they view themselves after it?  Do they think that what they are doing is okay?  The question that the author asks “How does such an individual manage to overcome his inhibitions and avoid serious damage to his self-image?” So, what the author is asking is how can a person can just cold bloodedly kill someone for money when they know it is wrong and feel like a normal human?  We all have deviances like the hitman.  Although our deviances might be stealing something or telling a lie we have to live with ourselves just like the hitman.

1. Theoretical Perspectives:

Levi uses different views such as historical materialism, idealism, and positivism (exchange theory).

1. Historical Materialism: Historical materialism falls under the realism category. It is the structure of social relations that is explained by patterns of relationships. This view always includes the subject of an alienated worker separated from society by stigma (shame). The hitman would fall under the category of an alienated worker. He works on his own and is separated from all parts of society because he knows what he is doing is wrong and that society doesn’t support what he is doing.
2. Idealism: Idealism says that the world is created by the human mind. It is a qualitative method of studying sociology, which studies what people think and how they behave. Idealism relies on interviews and participant observation as the basis for its conclusions. The author wrote this article based of an interview with a former hitman who is in jail. This article is centered around the hitman, how the hitman thinks, how he acts, and most importantly, how he does what he does. The interviews throughout the article discuss the hitman’s feelings about what he is doing, how he views himself, his first experience, and the planning of his kills.  
3. Positivism (Exchange Theory): The exchange theory is when people make decisions depending on the rewards they will receive in exchange for the price they must pay. The hitman agreed to be interviewed in exchange for his anonymity, which meant his name will not be used, and he will have a private conference room, and a signed contract promising his anonymity (89).  This article is all about a hitman. A hitman is a person who is paid to kill someone for money. This article is a perfect example of exchange theory because the hitman is getting money for killing someone the hitman’s boss requested. Most hitmen work for a criminal or political organization, so it’s like their job.

1. Author and Method of Research

The author of this article is Kenneth Levi. Levi worked at the University of Texas at San Antonio. He had a very easy grading system. In the article it says, “he sued the university and several officials, invoking Sec. 1983 and asserting that the university had denied him procedural due process and equal protection of the laws in its tenure decision and had conspired to silence the dissent of faculty members who had favored his candidacy.”  Ken Levi was also a tenure track assistant professor of sociology at the University of Texas at San Antonio.  The University of Texas of San Antonio is an institution that at the end of their sixth year of employment, tenure-track professors must be awarded tenure or be given a terminal contract.

During Dr. Levi’s sixth year the University’s tenure-evaluation process began with the review of his qualifications by a Division Faculty Review Committee.  This committee consisted of all tenured faculty members of Dr. Levi who had not been trained in the discipline of sociology.

The author conducted his research for the article by actually interviewing a hit man.  The interviews were spread out over seven, tape recorded sessions over a four-month period.  The hit man that was interviewed was chosen at random from 50 prisoners who had been convicted of murder.  The hit man told Levi about an “accidental” killing, involving a drunken bar patron who kept bothering him and finally the hit man pulled a knife on him.  In court, he claimed that it was self-defense.  During the first two interview sessions, the hit man admitted that he was ashamed of his killing because of its “sloppiness” or “amateurishness.”  He then indicated that he had more to say.  When Levi stopped the tape recorder he asked the man if he was a hit man and he responded with yes.  Levi had given the man certain guarantees like no names during the interview, a private conference room, and a signed contract.  They both agreed to talk about the hit man in the third person, with his name being Pete so nothing he was saying would sound like a personal confession.  Since no names were used Levi had no way of comparing his account of his career with information from other convicted murders.

The author only interviewed one person because hit men are hard to come by because hit men usually take infinite care to conceal their identity.  Therefor you can see why this paper has only one case to report on.  Pete’s account was compared to similar accounts from available literature.  While such a method can never produce verified findings, it can point to suggestive hypothesis.  

1. Focus of Reading

The article focuses on how the hitman killed and he never got caught. Pete also talks about his first experience and how it was a negative one, the heart of a hit man and reframing the hit.  The hit man explains that during his first negative experience he made a big mistake.  He looked into the eyes of the victim and saw an innocent man not an enemy.  He saw a look of “why me?” on the victim’s face.  This image made the hit man sick every time he thought about it.