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.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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)
