| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | The Restorative Powers of a Criminal Trial: The Scapegoat
I believe that the criminal trial fosters a sense of “restoration” of the orthodoxy by, to borrow Rene Girard’s terminology and idea, providing a “scapegoat.” In Violence and the Sacred, Girard argues that members of a society, when faced with tremendous risks, single out an individual as the source of all problems and restore social order by killing the person in public. This is consistent with the use of scapegoats in Levitical sacrificial rites to not only restore the relationship between the “sinner” and God but also the “sinner” and the society s/he belongs to. By purging the symbols of sin and trouble, the rest of the society is restored to its original state. Drawing from such views, I believe that the conviction of a criminal through trial serves a similar function. | |
>
> |
- What has this got to do with Leviticus? There, I would ask you to remember, the goats are goats.
| | | Some may object to such view and the usage of the term “scapegoat” to describe a criminal, especially since the term is usually perceived as placing blame on an innocent victim. However, I believe that this term is appropriate if one realizes how the criminal trial legitimately transforms the criminal from an individual who committed an illegal act to a symbol representing moral blameworthiness. Once the criminal is convicted “properly” through the ritual of criminal trial [through our established procedures of fact finding], he or she “legitimately” becomes an embodiment of the “heresy” and the harms, both moral and legal, associated with it. This is largely similar to the function of the scapegoat as the symbol of atonement in the Levitical sacrifices. The bull or lamb, once in the hands of priest, is no longer a livestock but a vessel in which moral blame and legal guilt can be legitimately transferred to. Under such circumstance and the line between blaming the criminal for the act itself and blaming the criminal for any other social ills that are that trouble the other members of society often becomes blurred. Thus the petty drug dealer is not only seen as being guilty of selling drugs on a street corner, but also perceived as being morally depraved.
Such transformative effect that the criminal trial has upon “criminals,” in turn legitimatize the usage of public force upon the criminal. In our criminal trials, this takes the form of sentencing the punishment. However, here the emphasis should not be placed on the severity of the punishment but rather to the fact that such public act of condemnation once again makes clear the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy for the society. By punishing the criminal, the public is sacrificing the scapegoat that has become a symbol of “heresy” and moral blameworthiness. This act generates the sense that the “orthodoxy” and “justice” has been restored and ultimately contributes to the maintenance of social cohesion. | | | Conclusion
Considering that no single system can be perfect, I do not think it is a problem that our criminal trial system operates as a way of producing “scapegoats” to maintain the status quo in our society. Our society’s heavy ritual emphasis on acquiring legitimacy through “proper” procedures in fact probably prevents scapegoats that are more true to its dictionary meaning from emerging. While this does not mean that we should not look for better alternatives, I believe there is still value in our existing system no matter how flawed it may be. | |
<
< |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: | | | | |
<
< | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, TaeSangYoo | >
> |
- Don't you feel even a little silly, trying to explain every shoplifting and prostitution arrest on the basis of some grand pop-soc Theory of the Scapegoat? I don't think you could get an anthropologist of any seriousness to agree that scapegoating is the motive of sacrifice, any more than you could get a serious priest, rabbi, druid, bonze to agree. But you would surely have even more trouble getting a cop or ADA to join you in the theory that this is the reason that the community breathes a little easier when someone with 25 or 30 armed robberies on his rap sheet goes back to Elmira or Dannemora. The problem, I think, is that most "big thinking" about the criminal justice system behaves as though it were only its "big" cases. It's the "systemicity" of the system, its sheer endlessness, its inhuman relentlessness in the grinding up of lives it doesn't even notice, that have no rap sheet and aren't, officially, "victims" that you can't catch with redemptionist mythmaking. Every time you get set to talk about the Scapegoat, remember the two thieves who died on the same day, and who apparently weren't the son of anybody's god or even the son of anybody's sainted mother.
| | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
- That a goal of criminal process is to reharmonize what has been disrupted, to restore a sense of social solidarity, probably at the partial expense of the "criminal," is all but obvious, and forms--I agree-- a perfectly sound starting place for an essay. What you need to do in order to improve this one is to begin rather than end there: to drop the exclusivity of the claim (differentiating between a purpose and the purpose) and to back off the drums and cymbals, doing instead the work of going beyond the starting point, rather than orchestrating it, as you do here.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|