| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Cages | | | Deterrence
There is a running theme this semester, it seems, that is, the purpose of the law. But that is too broad a concept; the purpose of a law depends on the particular law. For example, I suppose the law against operating a vehicle while under the influence exists to establish that the state officially condemns the act, in hopes of preventing drunk driving. But a part of this law is the punishment, the axe that compels us to adhere to the rule. What is the purpose of this punishment for this law? To deter others from driving under the influence? As a form of retribution to the particular driver? But retribution for what exactly? What real evil has the drunk driver committed when he's tailed and stopped by a police officer? He drank and drove, which doesn't necessarily show that he is evil or in need of retribution. Is it, then, to prevent a possible harm from occurring if he is allowed to continue drinking and driving? Well, no, because a police officer need only put him in the back of his car and take him home. | |
<
< | So, continuing with this particular situation, the purpose of punishing a drunk driver who has yet to actually harm anybody should not be retributive, if retribution is based on the moral right, and what is deserved. It must be, then, to make an example out of this particular drunk. Society has been warned that if they drink and drive (and are caught), they will pay. If they do it more than once, they will pay in more ways than one. | | | | |
<
< |
If you don't punish the drunk driver who is caught before there is
an accident, for what will you punish the one whose conduct results
in an accident claiming lives? Is he punished for being unlucky?
Is preventing those who drive drunk from driving punishment? Or is
it prevention with negative personal consequences?
Perhaps the problem with the conversation is the analytical
categories, which prevent us from addressing clearly enough the
range of social motivations and the nature of the collective
behaviors we adopt.
Eviction
Take a different criminal law though: larceny.
This sentence doesn't
do the job of explaining to the reader the structure of the argument
she is following.
The purpose of the rule against stealing from others is, again, to establish that the state condemns taking another person's property without consent, to prevent theft from happening. But if the law did not exist, and the government did not condemn larceny in some overtly dog-eat-dog world, I don't think it is clear that people would steal more, or that more people would steal.
Why is that not clear?
Is the evidence inconclusive? What we observe about looting,
banditry, "ethnic cleansing" and so on in times of civil
disturbance, cross-culturally, seems pretty suggestive. Events
occurring in Indian history (to take one possible locale among
many) in 1857 and 1947 seem also to confirm the principle.
Society would have some sort of unwritten understanding not to take other people's things, thus pretty much having the same people steal for the same reasons, regardless of the nonexistence of the law. They would still suffer condemnation from society, they would still become outcasts, except they would not be behind bars. So here, then, is the purpose of the punishment for larceny to rid society of thieves? And why is that ok, and why is it that the people who get to decide get to decide, and does it actually accomplish anything?
Surely it would be
right to say that societies that have satisfactorily subjected
themselves to the rule of law achieve on the whole very much higher
levels of protection of property from force and fraud, private and
public, than those that haven't. The property of the rich is
always better protected than the property of the poor, but it is
hard to name a society with weak commitment to the rule of law in
which the property of the poor is as well protected as it is in the
most oppressive and grasping society performing the rule of law,
which is probably our own. Making theft illegal is what makes
public corruption illegal, which restrains the power that most
pitilessly plunders the poor.
Seeing the Many | >
> | Denial of the Many | | | During my third year at Cornell, a string of sensationalized suicides occurred on campus; notably, the kids jumped off bridges. The last suicide that took place before the administration decided it needed to erect fences across all the bridges was of an acquaintance of mine. In hindsight, there were many signs, despite his very tight group of friends, his stellar grades, the job he had lined up, his very loving girlfriend. One night a few of us were drinking together, and he burnt each of his knuckles with a cigarette. Since Matt, no students have jumped into the gorges; and three years later, the fences are now removed, replaced with heat-detecting nets under the bridges. The student body has successfully finished its time in prison, and is now only on probation.
Matt's actions brought about the first time I critically contemplated the multiplicity of our person. This young man who appeared to have everything going for him literally threw it all away. The people close to him knew about his struggle with depression and that he had even attempted to kill himself before. But he was so scared of what would happen to him if he asked for help, that he'd be locked up, or anesthetized. He felt there was no safety net, and so he didn't look for safety, even though I'm sure there were conflicting forces within him that yearned for help. His friends didn't think he would ever reach that point, and couldn't look through the facade of unity to see that there were parts of him that could reach that point, which tragically took over that one afternoon. If only the idea of oneness wasn't viewed as a given, and instead understood as the position we reach through deep study and acknowledgement of the many. | |
<
< | The criminal justice system puts people inside cages, rather than spending more energy and money on preventing the need for the cages, fences, in the first place. Like with suicide, there is a fearful perplexity which surrounds some of the worst human crimes, from rape to murder. We want to understand, we want to know what causes people to act in ways most cannot imagine. We need to figure out what causes the seemingly normal Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs of the world to commit nightmarish, unforeseeable acts, presumably so we can pick up on the signs, the behavior, and prevent the worst. When we can't understand the behavior, or logically connect the dots, we are left frightened and disconcerted. Instead of picking apart the plurality of the person, analyzing the many parts to understand why one part won over the rest to control the body's actions, we see the person as a one unified actor. Because we cannot understand them, we banish them. [note: we label them with ugly terms] | >
> | The criminal justice system puts people inside cages, rather than spending more energy and money on preventing the need for the cages, fences, in the first place. Like with suicide, there is a fearful perplexity which surrounds some of the worst human crimes, from rape to murder. We want to understand, we want to know what causes people to act in ways most cannot imagine. We need to figure out what causes the seemingly normal Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs of the world to commit nightmarish, unforeseeable acts, presumably so we can pick up on the signs, the behavior, and prevent the worst. When we can't understand the behavior, or logically connect the dots, we are left frightened and disconcerted. Instead of picking apart the plurality of the person, analyzing the many parts to understand why one part won over the rest to control the body's actions, we see the person as a one unified actor. Because we cannot understand them, we are compelled to label them to dehumanize them, and then we banish them. | | | The Bigger Picture | |
<
< | What comes of my awareness of this heterogeneity? I can use the understanding for my own betterment, to improve myself, my relationships, and my abilities as a lawyer. But in terms of the bigger picture, how will this understanding penetrate its way into the legal system? And what if sometimes the understanding doesn't matter? Watching a documentary about Jeffrey Dahmer recently left me with a sick feeling of confusion. For a while, I have believed in rehabilitation over punishment. Watching this man's story, of seduction, brutal murder, and consumption of his prey, followed by his time in prison repenting and turning to spirituality, made me question how much rehabilitation can really accomplish. The monster inside came out, without anyone close to him knowing. The damage was done. Why should we care if he is rehabilitated; how can we ever take the risk of setting him free?
Of course, Dahmer is an anomaly and an extreme case. For me, however, people who kill for the pleasure of killing should never be allowed back into society. Regardless of understanding that there are many causes, genetic and otherwise, that create a particular type of bloodthirsty person, and that the particular person has multiple incompatible parts to him, some of which may despise his outward actions, the person is still a very real threat. The cost of failed rehabilitation is far too great.
And even less sociopathic, take Dzhokhar. Even if we can analyze | >
> | What comes of my awareness of this heterogeneity? I can use the understanding for my own betterment, to improve myself, my relationships, and my abilities as a lawyer. But in terms of the bigger picture, how does this relate to the workings of the law? And what if sometimes the understanding doesn't matter? Watching a documentary about Jeffrey Dahmer recently left me with a sick feeling of confusion. For a while, I have believed in rehabilitation over punishment. Watching this man's story, of seduction, brutal murder, and consumption of his prey, followed by his time in prison repenting and turning to spirituality, made me question how much rehabilitation can really accomplish. The monster inside came out, without anyone close to him knowing. The damage was done. Why should we care if he is rehabilitated; how can we ever take the risk of setting him free? | | | | |
<
< | Whether I think killers should be punished is a different question. Punishment and reentrance into society are not the only options, of course. We | >
> | Of course, Dahmer is an anomaly and an extreme case. For me, however, people who kill for the pleasure of killing should never be allowed back into society. The cost of failed rehabilitation is far too great, even though I don't believe in punishment. Understanding that there are many causes, genetic and otherwise, that create a particular type of bloodthirsty person, and that the particular person has multiple incompatible parts to him, some of which may despise his outward actions, is a step towards preventing the future killers from acting on their urges; the urges will exist. Take the Dahmers and Bundys, even the Tsarnaevs, and instead of focusing solely on the why, examine the which. Understand that a particular lifestyle, a particular general disposition, a particular set of relationships or lack thereof don't indicate much, viewed in a vacuum. | | | | |
<
< | Using his story as a map, guide, to rehabilitate potential Dahmers -- and then take it to how seeing everyone's multifaceted parts makes that more attainable.
| >
> | My own realization of the many, though, does not achieve much on a large scale. The understanding won't penetrate its way into the legal system, particularly the criminal justice system. When | | | Which everybody understands. Would it not be right to say,
however, that the motive for arresting is making the numbers, while |
|