| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Cages | >
> | The Many | | | -- By LeylaHadi - 08 Apr 2013 | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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 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. | | | | |
<
< | Denial of the Many | >
> | 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 if he sought 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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 one unified actor. Because we cannot understand, we are compelled to simplify them with a label (terrorist, sociopath, troubled), and then we banish them. | | | | |
<
< | 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 Bigger Picture | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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 even though I fully believe in the many, which furnishes my distrust and distaste of punishment and strengthens my desire for rehabilitation, sometimes I don’t know if the cognizant awareness of the many matters. Watching a documentary about Jeffrey Dahmer recently left me with a sick feeling of confusion. This human'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 raged for years, without anyone even remotely suspecting. 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. Still, killers, rapists (labels, labels), are too risky. The cost of failed rehabilitation is far too great, even though I don't believe in punishment. | | | | |
<
< | The Bigger Picture | >
> | The awareness of the many does not create an excuse for violent behavior. Understanding that there are various causes, genetic and otherwise, that allow the bloodthirsty part of a person to vigorously control the many, some of which may despise his outward actions, is a step towards two societal advancements. One, we stop adhering to the concept of punishment, of retribution. This naturally extends to less severe crimes too. Two, we prevent individuals from acting on their violent 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 general disposition, a certain set of relationships or lack thereof don't illuminate the entire picture, viewed in a vacuum. Study these individuals so that we have a better idea of the what makes particular parts of the many emerge, and use the information as a radar for other potential dangerous individuals. | | | | |
<
< | 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? | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | 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.
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
the motive for searching was to check for weapons, incidental to
which the drugs turned up, allowing the arresting officer to make a
number? That in fact this, like other decisions about what to
charge and how to dispose, are affected by a variety of
"incidental" factors, arising themselves in sequences of quite
separate social actions, that can't be accounted for on the basis
of any specific social policy towards particular offenders or
offenses? Modeling what happens on the basis of what we expect to
happen is a particular failure of lawyers, whose interest is in
power rather than public administration.
But what exactly do these realizations accomplish? Punishment is the institution, rehabilitation the naive dream. What can I do to change that? Do I want to do something to change that? Either way, once I decide, I should be able to pursue it, be able to have the knowledge, skills, and network to shake up the system. Otherwise, I am just putting myself in another form of prison.
It does not follow,
analytically, that not to be shaking up the system is to be in
another form of prison. Indeed, perhaps shaking up the system is
another form of prison, less easily escaped once entered. In any
event, I'm not sure that the conclusion has anything much to do with
the preceding ideas. Perhaps another look at the outline, to define
clearly what you want the essay to do, is the first step in
improving the draft. I think the present three stages are less well
integrated than the could be, because the strategy of explication is
unclear. You want to say something about the logic of punishment as
a part of social order-keeping, I think. This is indeed a tricky
subject, right at the heart of matters, where justice and injustice
are both forged. It's necessary to be very precise. I think you
need to state your own ideas clearly, through explicit statement
followed by illustration. | >
> | I have little knowledge regarding why, through centuries, human beings have focused on the idea of the individual as one unified actor. Because the idea is so fundamentally ingrained in most modern societies, I don't know if the concept will ever shift into one that acknowledges the many. I do know that the shock that comes after a person commits a particular unbelievable act, whether suicide, terrorism, cannibalism, is indicative of our disbelief in the many. The subsequent need to categorize the individual only cements the disbelief, as opposed to allowing the shock to be deconstructed and examined and work instrumentally to show that we are not one. | | | | |
>
> | While I am doubtful that the idea of the many will penetrate our legal system, I do know that it has aided my analysis of two critically important themes this semester. One, the subject of my first paper, how I see myself in the legal world. Two, the purpose of the law as it functions today, and what the purpose should be. | | |
|
|