Check out this latest story from CNN about a young woman who's facing up to 3-4yrs in jail for taping 3mins of the film "New Moon" during her sister's birthday party:
While I understand that bootleg movies are illegal, from the description of what was on the video as well as the fact that she was taping her sister's party left me feeling that it wasn't her intent to film the movie at all. On a side note, as someone who works at a movie theater, it isn't an usher's duty to hand out warnings if a guest is using a recording device. The guest is either asked to leave right away or the police are called in.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
"Criminal Minds"
The show "Criminal Minds" has been around for 5 seasons now and last week celebrated its 100th episode. The CBS drama/thriller follows an elite team known as the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), a branch within the FBI, that profiles criminal behavior in order to catch the criminal.
The role of these profilers is interesting considering the focus of our class is looking at what themes arise in controlling and punishing possible deviants and which characteristics are considered 'deviant'.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
BART Scuffle
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/22/california.transit.police.scuffle/index.html
Yesterday an altercation between a BART police officer and an individual was caught on tape with the officer forcibly removing the person off of the BART, while arresting the man the glass window by the railing they were standing near shattered. The entire incident made the news and portrayed the cop as being too aggressive.
Today, I went onto http://www.sfgate.com/polls/ where it listed the incident between the officer and the passenger. The poll itself was worded as “did the BART officer act appropriately in the glass-shattering incident?” with the following possible answers: “Yes, suspect was resisting arrest”, “No, too much force used” or “Strength of the glass is key”.
To me, this poll is problematic and sets the voter up to be biased from the start since the question itself exaggerates how the situation was handled with the wording “glass-shattering” instead of using words like “that resulted in glass-shattering”. The way the question is worded almost gives the implication that the officer’s physical actions towards the passenger were so aggressive that a glass shattered from the force of the arrest. When really, according to news reports, the glass shattered on both of them with both men being injured. The question, with how it’s posed, falsely leads voters to believe that the passenger was the only one injured.
Also, by specifying that it was a BART police officer, that description could trigger negative opinions given the BART incident that happened recently where a man was shot. There have been numerous reports that have described the incident occurring between a passenger and an ‘officer’ or a ‘public transit officer’. Instead of giving some anonymity and side-stepping additional controversy, the poll adds to it.
I feel like this poll could have reached more people if it had been a bit broader with its question and subject matter. It would have also been interesting if the poll included an area that specified if the voter was a frequent BART passenger, sometimes rode BART or didn’t take BART at all; attitudes towards those on public transit and the BART police may also greatly affect the results.
Yesterday an altercation between a BART police officer and an individual was caught on tape with the officer forcibly removing the person off of the BART, while arresting the man the glass window by the railing they were standing near shattered. The entire incident made the news and portrayed the cop as being too aggressive.
Today, I went onto http://www.sfgate.com/polls/ where it listed the incident between the officer and the passenger. The poll itself was worded as “did the BART officer act appropriately in the glass-shattering incident?” with the following possible answers: “Yes, suspect was resisting arrest”, “No, too much force used” or “Strength of the glass is key”.
To me, this poll is problematic and sets the voter up to be biased from the start since the question itself exaggerates how the situation was handled with the wording “glass-shattering” instead of using words like “that resulted in glass-shattering”. The way the question is worded almost gives the implication that the officer’s physical actions towards the passenger were so aggressive that a glass shattered from the force of the arrest. When really, according to news reports, the glass shattered on both of them with both men being injured. The question, with how it’s posed, falsely leads voters to believe that the passenger was the only one injured.
Also, by specifying that it was a BART police officer, that description could trigger negative opinions given the BART incident that happened recently where a man was shot. There have been numerous reports that have described the incident occurring between a passenger and an ‘officer’ or a ‘public transit officer’. Instead of giving some anonymity and side-stepping additional controversy, the poll adds to it.
I feel like this poll could have reached more people if it had been a bit broader with its question and subject matter. It would have also been interesting if the poll included an area that specified if the voter was a frequent BART passenger, sometimes rode BART or didn’t take BART at all; attitudes towards those on public transit and the BART police may also greatly affect the results.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tune In?
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/10/to-kill-the-killer/#more-59955
It's one thing for someone to be sentenced to death for a crime, but it's an entirely different thing to weigh whether or not to watch that person have their death sentence carried out. For some it can give closure but I have to wonder, at what cost? Do the viewers themselves become a little deviant like the criminal they're watching?
I when CNN covered the lethal injection of the Oklahoma bomber and then when Saddam Hussein was hung it was released on news stations and on YouTube with many not even blinking or considering not watching.
Are we, as the viewer, in some way committing our own deviance and crime against ourselves?
It's one thing for someone to be sentenced to death for a crime, but it's an entirely different thing to weigh whether or not to watch that person have their death sentence carried out. For some it can give closure but I have to wonder, at what cost? Do the viewers themselves become a little deviant like the criminal they're watching?
I when CNN covered the lethal injection of the Oklahoma bomber and then when Saddam Hussein was hung it was released on news stations and on YouTube with many not even blinking or considering not watching.
Are we, as the viewer, in some way committing our own deviance and crime against ourselves?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Bystander Effect
The Bystander Effect commonly refers to incidents where a crime has occurred but people fail to report it because they were in a group or a community so they assumed that someone else would step in and do something, so they wouldn't bother with it themselves. The problem with this mindset is that if everyone in the group assumes the same thing then no action of any sort is taken.
The murder of Catherine "Kitty" Genovese is one of the most notorious examples of the bystander effect. Genovese had been attacked while walking at night, she had screamed to the people in the nearby buildings which scared her attacker off initially. However, the people in the apartments failed to act since they assumed that someone else would call the police. As a result, her attacker returned and killed her.
A few days ago another incident of the bystander effect took place, this time in Richmond, CA with a young girl being assaulted by a several people while a group of bystanders watched but failed to act. Some explained to police that Richmond was the type of place where you don't call the cops for fear of retaliation, while others assumed the cops had been called.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/03/they-bystander-effect/#more-58913
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/28/gang-rape-raises-questions-about-bystander-effect/
The murder of Catherine "Kitty" Genovese is one of the most notorious examples of the bystander effect. Genovese had been attacked while walking at night, she had screamed to the people in the nearby buildings which scared her attacker off initially. However, the people in the apartments failed to act since they assumed that someone else would call the police. As a result, her attacker returned and killed her.
A few days ago another incident of the bystander effect took place, this time in Richmond, CA with a young girl being assaulted by a several people while a group of bystanders watched but failed to act. Some explained to police that Richmond was the type of place where you don't call the cops for fear of retaliation, while others assumed the cops had been called.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/03/they-bystander-effect/#more-58913
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/28/gang-rape-raises-questions-about-bystander-effect/
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Escalation leads to fire
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/02/teen.burned.recovery/index.html
In Florida a young boy is fighting for his life after a group of teens purposefully set him on fire after a miscommunication about a video game sale spiraled out of control. Reading this story I was shocked by the sudden escalation from a minor argument to such a violent act. This sort of retaliation for a $40 video game raises questions about youth and they're desensitization towards violence.
In Florida a young boy is fighting for his life after a group of teens purposefully set him on fire after a miscommunication about a video game sale spiraled out of control. Reading this story I was shocked by the sudden escalation from a minor argument to such a violent act. This sort of retaliation for a $40 video game raises questions about youth and they're desensitization towards violence.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Legal Centralism
In class today we broke up into groups to dissect passages from the reading. I interpreted “The Legal Centralist Tradition” as such:
The Government was believed to be in charge of rules and enforcement of legal centralism. Hobbes is most known as a legal centralist, Ronald Coase believed that individuals could work out their differences without the aid of a central mediator however he too fell into Hobbes’ thinking and failed “to note that in some contexts initial rights might arise from norms generated through decentralized social processes, rather than from law” (139).
Calabresi notes that the state/government is the center in the order of social hierarchy, that the state is responsible for determining a group’s placement within or outside of society as well as what exposure a group has to goods and services that could bring them closer to the center and which group is ‘entitled’ to those goods.
The Government was believed to be in charge of rules and enforcement of legal centralism. Hobbes is most known as a legal centralist, Ronald Coase believed that individuals could work out their differences without the aid of a central mediator however he too fell into Hobbes’ thinking and failed “to note that in some contexts initial rights might arise from norms generated through decentralized social processes, rather than from law” (139).
Calabresi notes that the state/government is the center in the order of social hierarchy, that the state is responsible for determining a group’s placement within or outside of society as well as what exposure a group has to goods and services that could bring them closer to the center and which group is ‘entitled’ to those goods.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Cold Case Solved 19yrs Later
A growth in technology over the years has contributed to the solving of a 19yr cold case where a woman was kidnapped as a child and left for dead.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/24/justice.rape.19.years/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/24/justice.rape.19.years/index.html
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/technology/01distracted.html?scp=18&sq=text&st=Search
Texting while driving isn't a new phenomenon, it's been around since phones had the ability to send a text message and teenagers were first given access to these phones. However, the debate surrounding whether texting while driving is more dangerous than driving under the influence is ongoing. The above article, which looks at the issue overseas, mentions a PSA that was created to show the dangers of texting with a reenactment of an accident involving a driver and her friends with the driver being oblivious to the road while using her phone.
The YouTube video can be found here, be warned, even though its a reenactment it is a little gory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I54mlK0kVw&feature=player_embedded
Texting and using a phone while driving is something that is universally done, regardless of age/sex/gender/occupation. Even though many states have made texting and talking on the phone illegal, it seems everyone still takes part in it or knows someone who does. Is it that elephant in the room that we know is there but nobody wants to fully acknowledge? How can we label it as illegal and deviant when the people who are enforcing the punishment (the police) are often caught on their own phones while driving?
Texting while driving isn't a new phenomenon, it's been around since phones had the ability to send a text message and teenagers were first given access to these phones. However, the debate surrounding whether texting while driving is more dangerous than driving under the influence is ongoing. The above article, which looks at the issue overseas, mentions a PSA that was created to show the dangers of texting with a reenactment of an accident involving a driver and her friends with the driver being oblivious to the road while using her phone.
The YouTube video can be found here, be warned, even though its a reenactment it is a little gory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I54mlK0kVw&feature=player_embedded
Texting and using a phone while driving is something that is universally done, regardless of age/sex/gender/occupation. Even though many states have made texting and talking on the phone illegal, it seems everyone still takes part in it or knows someone who does. Is it that elephant in the room that we know is there but nobody wants to fully acknowledge? How can we label it as illegal and deviant when the people who are enforcing the punishment (the police) are often caught on their own phones while driving?
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Skype Has a Big Brother Too
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/technology/internet/02skype.html?scp=19&sq=text&st=Search
Be careful what you talk about.
That's the warning that comes with the NY Times' article "Surveillance of Skype Messages Found in China". The article was forwarded onto me and it raises questions about how this may or may not effect any future amendments to the Patriot Act, especially when there are countries such as China that use a networking site (Skype) to monitor they're citizens. Does this sound a little familiar? After 9/11 restrictions against wire-taps and privacy were greatly lessened and the public for the most part gave into it because we were told that it would prevent future attacks. For me, the article was a wake up call to be more aware of the changes Congress may be making that could jeopardize our privacy.
Be careful what you talk about.
That's the warning that comes with the NY Times' article "Surveillance of Skype Messages Found in China". The article was forwarded onto me and it raises questions about how this may or may not effect any future amendments to the Patriot Act, especially when there are countries such as China that use a networking site (Skype) to monitor they're citizens. Does this sound a little familiar? After 9/11 restrictions against wire-taps and privacy were greatly lessened and the public for the most part gave into it because we were told that it would prevent future attacks. For me, the article was a wake up call to be more aware of the changes Congress may be making that could jeopardize our privacy.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Claims-Making
Who gets to determine the rules within a community? What would the punishment be if anyone happens to disregard the rules? These are just some of the questions I'll need to tackle with my project on claims-making. But first, let's look at that phrase again: 'claims-making'.
'Claims' suggests that a hierarchy of power has been established to oversee the rest of the community.
In this case the 'making' part symbolizes a set of rules, instructions, norms, etc. that are being established by the center/those in power. Once established, they are carried out to the rest of the community and declared part of everyday life.
Going into this project I think it'll be interesting to see whether there was an established structure with how the responses in the e-mail list were written, who or what actions were ridiculed by members of the community and whether there was one individual with a voice of 'reason' or multiple ones.
'Claims' suggests that a hierarchy of power has been established to oversee the rest of the community.
In this case the 'making' part symbolizes a set of rules, instructions, norms, etc. that are being established by the center/those in power. Once established, they are carried out to the rest of the community and declared part of everyday life.
Going into this project I think it'll be interesting to see whether there was an established structure with how the responses in the e-mail list were written, who or what actions were ridiculed by members of the community and whether there was one individual with a voice of 'reason' or multiple ones.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Free-Rider Problem
In class today we discussed the issue of the 'Free Rider Problem' which is when a person takes advantage of the benefits that are offered to them but they fail to contribute anything in return. In Olson's book "Logic of Collective Action" he believed that the only time a problem can be properly solved is when a group is small enough that the problem is visible, with a larger group the problem isn't as clear and there's the risk that those involved can become sidetracked by other issues.
In my head I began applying Olson's view of the 'Free Rider Problem' with our Mills community. Even though our campus is considered small compared to other schools, the 1,000+ students is too big of a sample to apply Olson's theory to. Narrowing it down, I thought of a situation where a class of students are taking an exam. Now, a free-rider may come in the form of a student who doesn't study at all for the exam BUT the student benefits if the professor gives the entire class a curve while grading. The free-rider can benefit from this curve while the other students, who put in their individual work of studying, may end up suffering if the free-rider scores low which in turn can effect how much of a curve is given.
In my head I began applying Olson's view of the 'Free Rider Problem' with our Mills community. Even though our campus is considered small compared to other schools, the 1,000+ students is too big of a sample to apply Olson's theory to. Narrowing it down, I thought of a situation where a class of students are taking an exam. Now, a free-rider may come in the form of a student who doesn't study at all for the exam BUT the student benefits if the professor gives the entire class a curve while grading. The free-rider can benefit from this curve while the other students, who put in their individual work of studying, may end up suffering if the free-rider scores low which in turn can effect how much of a curve is given.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed that CNN.com's section on crimes within the U.S. has changed its title? Before it was known simply as 'crime' but now the site has decided to change it to 'justice'.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/iphone.app.fight.crime/index.html
...Thoughts, opinions? For me, this change (however slight), is a tad ironic and not entirely fitting considering most of the stories published don't provide a victory at the end of each story.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/iphone.app.fight.crime/index.html
...Thoughts, opinions? For me, this change (however slight), is a tad ironic and not entirely fitting considering most of the stories published don't provide a victory at the end of each story.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Social Networks
What is it that drives so many to social networking sites? One would think that having so many networks would be daunting, maybe even a little frustrating. Instead, the public seems more eager in the last year to connect through sites like Twitter, Facebook and MySpace that it makes me wonder if society is placing more of a value on internet interaction than face to face communication. USA Today also looked at this phenomenon, even coining it as being a "flocking" of sorts:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-09-27-social-networking_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-09-27-social-networking_N.htm
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
"Suspect" vs. "Person of Interest"
As the investigation into the murder of Yale student Annie Le continues, CNN.com provided an interesting article called "What Does a 'Person of Interest' Mean? Nothing."
The article explains how the use of the term 'person of interest' has caused many who are sought after by the police in an investigation to be presumed guilty. When in reality the phrase simply means a person or a group of people being considered in connection to a crime but not as the direct cause.
The article is especially interesting if you consider all the times crime shows such as the "CSI" and "Law & Order" franchises use the terms 'suspect' and 'person of interest'. How is that we have become a society where the simplest act of using a certain term/phrase can subject someone's value in that society, regardless of whatever innocence they may or may not have.
The article explains how the use of the term 'person of interest' has caused many who are sought after by the police in an investigation to be presumed guilty. When in reality the phrase simply means a person or a group of people being considered in connection to a crime but not as the direct cause.
The article is especially interesting if you consider all the times crime shows such as the "CSI" and "Law & Order" franchises use the terms 'suspect' and 'person of interest'. How is that we have become a society where the simplest act of using a certain term/phrase can subject someone's value in that society, regardless of whatever innocence they may or may not have.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Patriot Act
The NY Times website posted an article about members of Congress are considering "extending crucial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, civil liberties groups and some Democratic lawmakers are gearing up to press for sweeping changes to surveillance laws" (Savage).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/politics/20patriot.html?_r=1
Savage, Charlie. "Battle Looms Over the Patriot Act." New York Times 19 September 2009: n. pag. Web. 21 Sep 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/politics/20patriot.html?_r=1
Savage, Charlie. "Battle Looms Over the Patriot Act." New York Times 19 September 2009: n. pag. Web. 21 Sep 2009.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
"Jennifer's Body"
(in progress)
This weekend the horror-slasher flick "Jennifer's Body", penned by Diablo Cody (screenwriter of "Juno"), hit theaters nationwide. Like any good horror film aimed for a teenage audience, there were the typical cliches, however there was one that the film played on not only during the movie but through all the promotion for the movie. This would be the scene where Megan Fox's character kisses Amanda Seyfield's character, the two being portrayed as childhood best friends. Hollywood once again relying on visually enticing audiences with two women is nothing new, neither is the hype that surrounded the 2-3min scene
However, when I watched the scene in a completely packed theater the audience was mostly silent throughout the scene. There was one woman though who verbally opposed to what she was seeing, even going as far to say "that's gross". While this reaction may be seen as simply ignorant, it did get me thinking.
Over the years people have argued back and forth about the impact of increased visibility of the LGBTQ community has had on society. Some say there have been numerous positive portrayals over the past few years, while others may argue that any portrayal (good or bad) helps. For me, hearing this woman say "that's gross" to the scene made me wonder if the consistent portrayal of same-sex intimacy is indeed hurting the cause for equality? Are we instead making it more deviant?
Let me explain. Take the circus where people have gone for centuries to see strange and almost taboo acts, like the bearded lady. While the circus is a big source for entertainment, it's still considered unnatural in society.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-09-15-jennifers-body_N.htm
This weekend the horror-slasher flick "Jennifer's Body", penned by Diablo Cody (screenwriter of "Juno"), hit theaters nationwide. Like any good horror film aimed for a teenage audience, there were the typical cliches, however there was one that the film played on not only during the movie but through all the promotion for the movie. This would be the scene where Megan Fox's character kisses Amanda Seyfield's character, the two being portrayed as childhood best friends. Hollywood once again relying on visually enticing audiences with two women is nothing new, neither is the hype that surrounded the 2-3min scene
However, when I watched the scene in a completely packed theater the audience was mostly silent throughout the scene. There was one woman though who verbally opposed to what she was seeing, even going as far to say "that's gross". While this reaction may be seen as simply ignorant, it did get me thinking.
Over the years people have argued back and forth about the impact of increased visibility of the LGBTQ community has had on society. Some say there have been numerous positive portrayals over the past few years, while others may argue that any portrayal (good or bad) helps. For me, hearing this woman say "that's gross" to the scene made me wonder if the consistent portrayal of same-sex intimacy is indeed hurting the cause for equality? Are we instead making it more deviant?
Let me explain. Take the circus where people have gone for centuries to see strange and almost taboo acts, like the bearded lady. While the circus is a big source for entertainment, it's still considered unnatural in society.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-09-15-jennifers-body_N.htm
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Capital Punishment & Detterance
Turn on your television to any of the popular ‘cop’ shows, whether it be one of the “Law & Order” series or CSI and you’ll usually find an episode where a prisoner who is faced with the death penalty nearly dodges it or it’s revealed after the penalty is executed that the prisoner was indeed innocent. Even though its Hollywood’s portrayal of capital punishment it does have some truth to it. The risk of executing an innocent person is generally considered the strongest and more practical argument against capital punishment; abolitionists condemn the death penalty for its irreversibility.
Capital punishment has been a hot topic for debate for years with many agreeing for its continuation within the justice system as well as a good amount of those opposed to it. Those against the death penalty believe that it violates the criminal’s right to life, while proponents believe it re-affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it by taking other lives. For the most part, the death penalty has been the focus within the realm of public debate in the United States which has made courts and legal decision makers to observe the various attitudes of citizens surrounding the issue. With such scrutiny it’s brought up important questions such as: what arguments have been made for and against the death penalty? This question is answered in some of the key issues in the debate surrounding capital punishment: deterrence, social protection, retribution, barbarity, irreversibility, and costs.
Deterrence is the notion that punishments imposed by society for criminal activity will discourage its members from engaging in criminal behavior. Reduction of crime, or at least prevention of an increase in crime, is an example of a social goal. The goal influences the choice of punishments because of their impact on the crime rate. Proponents find that the death penalty is the only sanction that’s severe enough to deter professional criminals from taking part in violent acts. However, opponents of capital punishment have attacked the deterrent value of the death penalty for many reasons. Opponents have even said that capital punishment is no more of an effective deterrent than prolonged execution.
In addition to deterrence there’s also the issue of social protection. Regardless of their stances, both advocates and opponents of capital punishment agree that society has a right to protect itself from criminal activity. However, debate surrounds how effective the death penalty is as one of society’s means of protection.
Even if we consider that capital punishment is moral, we would still question its effectiveness. We would also wonder what the purpose of its sanction and if it accomplishes that purpose at a cost that is acceptable to society? Whether you’re a proponent or an opponent on the issue of capital punishment one must consider all aspects that fuel the debate. From deterrence, social protection, retribution, barbarity, irreversibility, and costs. It seems like public support for capital punishment has depended on a lack of understanding about how the death penalty actually operates in society.
Capital punishment has been a hot topic for debate for years with many agreeing for its continuation within the justice system as well as a good amount of those opposed to it. Those against the death penalty believe that it violates the criminal’s right to life, while proponents believe it re-affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it by taking other lives. For the most part, the death penalty has been the focus within the realm of public debate in the United States which has made courts and legal decision makers to observe the various attitudes of citizens surrounding the issue. With such scrutiny it’s brought up important questions such as: what arguments have been made for and against the death penalty? This question is answered in some of the key issues in the debate surrounding capital punishment: deterrence, social protection, retribution, barbarity, irreversibility, and costs.
Deterrence is the notion that punishments imposed by society for criminal activity will discourage its members from engaging in criminal behavior. Reduction of crime, or at least prevention of an increase in crime, is an example of a social goal. The goal influences the choice of punishments because of their impact on the crime rate. Proponents find that the death penalty is the only sanction that’s severe enough to deter professional criminals from taking part in violent acts. However, opponents of capital punishment have attacked the deterrent value of the death penalty for many reasons. Opponents have even said that capital punishment is no more of an effective deterrent than prolonged execution.
In addition to deterrence there’s also the issue of social protection. Regardless of their stances, both advocates and opponents of capital punishment agree that society has a right to protect itself from criminal activity. However, debate surrounds how effective the death penalty is as one of society’s means of protection.
Even if we consider that capital punishment is moral, we would still question its effectiveness. We would also wonder what the purpose of its sanction and if it accomplishes that purpose at a cost that is acceptable to society? Whether you’re a proponent or an opponent on the issue of capital punishment one must consider all aspects that fuel the debate. From deterrence, social protection, retribution, barbarity, irreversibility, and costs. It seems like public support for capital punishment has depended on a lack of understanding about how the death penalty actually operates in society.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
When the Attacker Becomes the Victim
Earlier today one of my friends directed me to a CNN article about a student from the John Hopkins University who had killed a man who was allegedly robbing him and his housemates. Despite this twist of the potential victim going on the offense, the most interesting part was the attacker was killed by a samurai sword.
While this is indeed a unique crime, I was more focused on the last part of the article where the police were considering whether to charge the student with murder. Is it fair to charge someone who was the intended victim? Should the criminal/attacker be given sympathy? Or should sympathy for the criminal vary by the degree of the victim's reaction and the severity of the wound?
While this is indeed a unique crime, I was more focused on the last part of the article where the police were considering whether to charge the student with murder. Is it fair to charge someone who was the intended victim? Should the criminal/attacker be given sympathy? Or should sympathy for the criminal vary by the degree of the victim's reaction and the severity of the wound?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Consuming Violence
This summer I continued to work at a movie theater, add in my thesis which is about society’s desensitization to violence against women through the visualization on TV shows aimed at teenage audiences and I couldn’t help but notice how society keeps on consuming violence, especially over the last few years.
As far as the movie business goes, the summer was once again filled with bloody and gruesome movies that were very pro-violence (ex: "My Bloody Valentine") and more than a few that centered on some sort of violence towards its female character(s). Working at the theater made me become aware of just what lengths people will go to in order to see the latest R-rated film, the more horrific and violent the film is the more desperate the attempts seem. Even with precautions put in place, such as security guards and checking IDs, people still do what they can to get into these films versus sneaking into a PG-13 film. Which leads me to wonder: what exactly is the appeal? Is it the age-old theory that if you make something unattainable/taboo that it becomes that more interesting? Or is it some weird rebellion against authority? Or is it just plain old curiosity?
I suppose my real interest in why society is so hungry for violence, more so the visualization of it, centers on my confusion around why on one hand we tell citizens that any ‘normal’ person should be opposed to violence of any sort, however on the other hand we popularize violence with films such as the “Saw” movies, the torture-centric “Hostel” movies and even in television with shows like “Dexter” that manages to put a serial killer into the role of the ‘hero’ in the story, his redeeming quality being that he only kills other murderers and criminals, never an innocent. But can these depictions be redeeming, especially if there’s only a small shred of blurred decency?
What does that say about us, as a society? Clearly we are capable of forgiving even some of the more absurd aspects of human behavior, but are we being too forgiving when it comes to violence as entertainment?
Has violent behavior become the norm? Is that why we see so much of it? Is this just another instance of art imitating life? Or should all the arguments in favor and against the visualization of violence in various aspects of the media be erased? Is it better to have these multiple avenues (ex: movies, television shows, games, etc.) as a tool instead of having these heinous acts be taken out in real-life?
*sits back*
The table's all yours folks.
As far as the movie business goes, the summer was once again filled with bloody and gruesome movies that were very pro-violence (ex: "My Bloody Valentine") and more than a few that centered on some sort of violence towards its female character(s). Working at the theater made me become aware of just what lengths people will go to in order to see the latest R-rated film, the more horrific and violent the film is the more desperate the attempts seem. Even with precautions put in place, such as security guards and checking IDs, people still do what they can to get into these films versus sneaking into a PG-13 film. Which leads me to wonder: what exactly is the appeal? Is it the age-old theory that if you make something unattainable/taboo that it becomes that more interesting? Or is it some weird rebellion against authority? Or is it just plain old curiosity?
I suppose my real interest in why society is so hungry for violence, more so the visualization of it, centers on my confusion around why on one hand we tell citizens that any ‘normal’ person should be opposed to violence of any sort, however on the other hand we popularize violence with films such as the “Saw” movies, the torture-centric “Hostel” movies and even in television with shows like “Dexter” that manages to put a serial killer into the role of the ‘hero’ in the story, his redeeming quality being that he only kills other murderers and criminals, never an innocent. But can these depictions be redeeming, especially if there’s only a small shred of blurred decency?
What does that say about us, as a society? Clearly we are capable of forgiving even some of the more absurd aspects of human behavior, but are we being too forgiving when it comes to violence as entertainment?
Has violent behavior become the norm? Is that why we see so much of it? Is this just another instance of art imitating life? Or should all the arguments in favor and against the visualization of violence in various aspects of the media be erased? Is it better to have these multiple avenues (ex: movies, television shows, games, etc.) as a tool instead of having these heinous acts be taken out in real-life?
*sits back*
The table's all yours folks.
What is Deviance?
It is the beginning of the semester and the beginning of this class. In the course catalog the class is listed as SOC 112: Sociology of Deviant Control. However, during the first day of class we were told to disregard the ‘Deviant Control’ part and consider it more the Sociology of Deviance or the Sociology of the Deviant. I am writing this entry right now because I want to put down what my initial thoughts are regarding deviance, before I begin any of the readings, before we go in depth with class lectures and discussions and before the semester is over. Why is this important to me? Because I find it interesting to see how an initial idea/thought/assumption starts out as and then slowly evolves, whether it becomes strengthened or changes.
Right now, at this very moment, I define ‘deviance’ as acts an individual partakes in and/or is considered by society as wrong/unjust/criminal/etc. Deviance, for me, can range from small petty crimes like vandalism to bigger crimes like murder and kidnapping. To me, deviance is the intent to do something wrong and potentially hurtful to another individual. It is deviant in the nature of it wanders away from what is acceptable behavior and acts into a grey area. Deviance is the intent to do harm, to do wrong, to break the law and to feel no remorse in having done these actions.
As far as who is ‘deviant’, for me the ones that fall into this category are murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and muggers/robbers to name a few. I understand that the individuals that I’ve listed can be considered the more extreme of ‘deviants’, however I do not consider people who are not the ‘norm’ in regards to sexuality, ethnicity, race, and gender as ‘deviants’. Why? Because they are not hurting anyone, they are not intentionally setting out to do harm to an individual or a group, and some are being labeled for things that they cannot control.
Now, one may argue that religion can play into deviance, however like politics I try my best to stay a good distance from talks of religion. Not only do I find it in poor taste to discuss in social settings but I also find that discussions just turn into heated conversations that end up going in circles with no clear middle ground in sight. Hm, perhaps conversations of politics and religion should be considered ‘deviant’ since it threatens to shake up a foundation of a social group. :)
I’m excited to see what the class has to offer me, how it will change my views and how it can make my views grow. I have no doubt that like many of my previous classes, this one will challenge my beliefs and force me to confront a few of my assumptions but I will confront this like I have so many times in the past: with an open mind. Because if anyone hopes to become a better person it must be done with an open mind and with the willingness to grow as a person.
It All Begins Somewhere...
As I'm writing this, this blog is officially 5mins old. It has been created as per my professor's request for our sociology class. This blog will document my insights/observartions/opinions not only regarding our class readings and discussions but also the world around me outside of the classroom. Kind of scary to consider, yeah?
Buckle in and let's see where this crazy ride can take us.
Buckle in and let's see where this crazy ride can take us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
