Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Thirteeen

I have never really studied other societies such as tribes and preliterate bands and how they are able to control their communities. It is really interesting to compare it to the U.S. today. Our nation has all kinds of written laws and rules to which citizens are to follow, but obviously these restrictions are not always respected. After reading about other cultures and places around the world with their civil and criminal systems, I found it most intriguing to read more on the preliterate bands and tribes. I didn’t realize there are still villages that do no have any kind of written language making them known as the preliterate societies. I loved the fact that if “unlawful” acts were committed a common self-redress was relied on. With this bands would have “song duels”. This is exactly as it is written where bands and tribes would fight by singing and dancing. Each person involved in the incident (victim and offender) would sing insults to each other and a crowd would watch. In the end of it all the winner of the combat would be determined by how much the audience liked each person’s insults. There is no bloodshed or anything really violent only mean statements towards one another. Walsh stated that sometimes people from the different bands would actually hire or get help with what insults they wanted to sing. If you think about it, this is exactly what happens in the U.S. only the composure of the song is actually an attorney or lawyer.
As far as tribes are concerned, there is usually a civil chief which is sort of the mediator between two individuals having a dispute. In this kind of society there is the fear that if for revenge someone kills someone else that a family feud will occur and there will be persons dying left and right from each side of the families. To avoid this the chief will assign a fine of some sort to the offender and then they shall work that out with the victims family and also be ridiculed and insulted to learn their lesson.
As crazy as it may sound a lot of the way these different systems are handled actually makes sense. I am really fond of the way that some preliterate bands control social order. I think that having some kind of sing-off or dance-off to prove yourself makes sense and that it saves anyone from dying for being severely hurt. There is so much detail in all out our laws and so many different ways of handling problems that it is sometimes too much to handle. Hopefully, some day our nation can open its eyes to more civil things and take care of problems with less harm. If you want to learn more about these different kinds of societies look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit. It has lots of info about Eskimo and Inuit people.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Twelve

I do not understand how one person on day considered it morally correct to take someone from their home and make them a slave. It boggles my mind how just because the color of someone’s skin that they were automatically judged and not given the rights and privileges as others. If you think about it, the colonist invaded so many different cultures and societies just to take them away from their homes and families and make them work for little or no pay/ benefits. On top of destroying a lot of their lives already, all the people we captured from distant lands, we were racist towards and didn’t like. This sheer hatred still goes on today. I have never understood that apparently the color of your skin or the background you come from determines how smart you are, or how hard of a worker you are or that if you are anything but Caucasian, then you must be sick and just down right nasty. Obviously, I completely disagree with all the judgment and racism which occurs and I always have been. Growing up in California I had nothing but colored friends. My twin and I were usually the only white kids in our group. I loved it that way. I learned so much from all the different families and cultures. I was really disappointed when I moved to Idaho considering there are not very many cultured individuals here besides the majority of white people.
During class Jeremy asked us all if we believed that society has gone too far with trying to equalize everyone and compensate for all the judgment from the past or if we have maybe gone too far with the whole thing. It’s a hard question to answer. I could really go both ways. The way that I look at it is everyone makes mistakes and unfortunately humans today can not spend the rest of eternity making up for the decisions that were made a centuries ago. The nation simply needs to pick up its feet so that we can all move on in a positive direction. Little by little we have all gotten better with equality. From the Dred Scott Case to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm) we have been trying to make a change. Even a year later another change occurred and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was made. We have spent years trying to make up for all the lost respect, but when is it going to be enough? When are we finally going to be able to say that everyone is satisfied? I am not sure that day will ever come. There is no such thing as having a nation with not a single racist person in it. Sadly, we will always have someone hating some other type of race and visa versa.
We as a nation have come a long way since the Jim Crow Laws and the Dred Scott Case. I truly believe it is time to lay down our arms and finally live in a society that is not constantly feeling sorry and apologizing for the past. It all about the future so, why not start with a clean slate from here?

Criminal Justice Experience: A visit to the Ada County Court House

For my “Criminal Justice Experience” I initially was going to visit the Ada County Police Department and take part in another “Ride-Along” again, but considering I have done that several times in the past it is time to experience something new. A fellow collogue and I decided on taking a visit to the Ada County Court House instead. We were not really sure what we were actually getting ourselves into so it ended up being quite the little adventure. There were numerous cases to chose from that were open to the public. Figuring that criminal cases would be more interesting than civil cases, we chose to view seven different individual cases which were set at the same time being 1:30 pm in room 201. The judge seeing these cases was Judge Cawthorne. They have seven cases at once because it is often the situation that about 75% of the individuals end up pleading guilty with the public defender before seeing a judge. Having been through the same situation myself and coming to court to fight what I felt to be an unfair speeding ticket, I sort of knew what was going to occur during the duration of viewing these criminal cases.
All of the seven cases were “State vs. _________”, which only two actually held in the court room with Judge Cawthorne. The first case was State vs. Soloche which was a young man probably middle aged and he was in court for his forth conviction of possession of marijuana. He had a female public defender with him to speak to the judge during the hearing. Before the hearing Soloche was supposed to have attended a substance abuse class and as for sentencing he charged a $500 fine with $250 suspended plus court costs, 90 days of jail with 90 days suspended, 100 hours of the community service, and probation. The deal with the probation was that if Soloche would take a urine test before sentencing and the results were negative then he would be given two years unsupervised probation, but if it were to come back positive for drugs then he would be under one year supervised and one year unsupervised probation. It was really neat to observe this kind of court room setting. Even though the hearing was not a major case, it was crazy how I was able to connect the class material to everything which was going on. As the judge was speaking to the court about what Soloche was supposed to have completed, she asked him if he understood what he was being charged with any everything that we was giving up if he pled guilty. The judge accepted Soloche’s plea, because she stated it was factual. Apparently, with this specific case Soloche stated he was unaware of everything he had to do besides the evaluation. Having this said the judge told him everything again and then the prosecuting attorney made statement to what he believes Soloche should be charged with. Soloche’s previous record up to now consist of: two different accounts of an invalid license, domestic battery charge which was reduced to disturbing the peace, three convictions of marijuana, and an inattentive driving conviction. The prosecuting attorney then stated what he felt Soloche should be charged with again and it happen to be very similar to what we was already told, only that the prosecuting defendant wanted him to spend 90 days in jail with 80 days suspended. From that point on Soloche agreed to taking a urine test and unfortunately the test did come back positive making it so that his final charges were to be: $500 fine with $300 suspended and had to pay court fees, 100 hours community service served within 10 months, 32 hours of drug/alcohol education and 90 days in jail with all 90 suspended. Judge Cawthorne confirmed the hearing to be a judgment of conviction and that Soloche needs to talk to the probation office soon as well as the community service representatives.
What intrigued me the most about this case is how nice Judge Cawthorne was and how stupid the defendant was. I could not believe that he seriously did not learn enough with the first three convictions of marijuana alone. I believe we got off very easily. I actually could not help but laugh during the hearing when the judge asked him if he wanted to take a drug test and that Soloche literally physically turned around and asked him parents, “How long has it been since I have been back from New York?” They replied with, “About a month.” The judge stated that it is about a month for marijuana to leave your system. Of course though, Soloche thought he was okay and ended up not being okay.
The next case was State vs. Border and this was concerning a DUI conviction which was in violation of her probation. Borders appeared pro se for the sentencing hearing. Borders had signed a police memorandum in the event that on the day of her sentencing hearing she would have paid off her fines and been to alcohol education classes in turn doing these things her prosecutor would be lenient with the final charges against her. Borders was unable to complete the things needed due to her mother being very ill the past six weeks and so she was actually living in Lewiston, Idaho with her mom and drove to Boise for the court hearing and planned on leaving court today to drive back up to Lewiston. Unfortunately, since Borders was unable to pay the fine nor attend alcohol classes up to the hearing, the prosecuting attorney said that be other side of the agreement was to do a “Pay or Stay”. She was said to have money on her, but if it was no enough then she was to be put into custody and stay in jail. The allegations against her probation violation are that she failed to pay the fines and costs and complete the 16 hours of alcohol education classes. Her payment withheld judgment so she could actually be completely re-sentenced for the crime. Since Borders decided to represent herself, she had a hard time understanding exactly what was being stated to her from Judge Cawthorne and so the judge asked her if she would actually like to cancel the proceedings and apply for the public defender. The judge stated that if Borders did decide to apply for a public offender that she would choose whether or not she was qualified for it. As this point Borders was to fill out an application, but when she was to be given one there were only Spanish forms in the court room. Judge Cawthorne stated that there had only been Spanish forms in there for a while. This indicated to me that either it is usually only Hispanic or Spanish speaking citizen that have actually needed to fill out this specific form for a while. What I learned to be very valuable information from this case was that the judge was actually trying to help Borders out in the sense that she kept saying things which should not have been stated just for the fact of the prosecuting attorney being able to use it against her. Once again, I feel the judge in this case was very lenient towards Borders with letting her reconsider representing herself so that she could be rightfully charged with the help of someone on her side. I was not able to find out the final conviction just for the fact that Borders did apply for a public defender and that was to be reviewed in the near future by Judge Cawthorne.

This is a side note to my experience…
I was quite unaware that I was actually not allowed to voice record the actual court cases. A Marshall came in with the urine sample results from the State vs. Soloche case and informed me that I was not allowed to be recording. I have yet to research this further. One thing that gets me though, is that apparently it is okay to take notes and write anything you want down, but you can no voice record anything? That does not seem very fair to me. Any suggestions or answers feel free to let me know! Thank you!!!

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Eleven

This chapter was really interesting to me because I have never focused on nr really studied feminism before. What made the chapter was that the lecture was actually given by a true, modern day feminist. There is so much from this chapter that I completely disagree with as far as what women used to be seen as and how they were portrayed in society. During the history of women, women were defined as three things in “Tudor Age of England” and they were silent, obedient and chase. It amazing me how much time has changed the meaning of what women really are. I completely disagree with a lot of the history of women and what they meant to society. Besides sexual organs, we are and should be treated completely equal to men. I understand how men can be seen as protectors of the home and family, but that does not mean that women have to be such that of a child in the home with no say or sense of decision. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were getting closer to how it really should have been. They gave women some rights, but then again still believed that women were subordinate to men.
I had no idea that Brownmiller’s theory of rape meant there was no such thing as rape if you are married. If your husband wanted to have intercourse with you even if you didn’t want to, then he had the right to force you, because you are his property. I could not be more against anything else in my life as far as believing the utter opposite. I know that today the law states that you can be married and still be considered raped if you do not want to have sexual intercourse. In Ancient Hebrew, if someone was raped outside of marriage the victim and offender were both stoned to death for it. Also, during the Code of Hammurabi both the victim and offender are both drowned to death for the offense of rape. I couldn’t help but laugh when Marianne spoke about the “Rule of Thumb” and what it meant. It baffles my mind to think that it was actually accepted to physically beat your wife. The rule was that the stick used could not be any bigger than the circumference of the husbands thumb. To briefly read into the origin and meaning of the “Rule of Thumb” look into http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rule-of-thumb.html. This chapter really opened my eyes to appreciate how far we have come as a country and for the laws we have now. I sometimes wonder if I could be classified as a modern feminist just because I am very much for the equality of woman and man. Considering the field in which I am studying is majority male, I am curious as to how it will be when I do finally get my degree and look for job.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Ten

This chapter is similar to that of chapter one, because it talks about morals, values, and norms. This chapter is about social change and how different types of people and communities react to it. Depending on the society, community or even person, change can be easily seen as a bad thing. It can be threatening to certain individuals, because they disagree with the new ways. To have change means to break tradition. Several people think this is in violation of values which have been created and evolved over time. When ideas are introduced into a community it is embedded into them over generations and generation making those specific ways very valuable and special. Throughout history social change has sometimes been displayed as a bad thing. Change is most commonly introduced by someone from outside the society or community of people. Sadly, several “changes” have been brought with death, war and even invasions making it understandable that having something be permanently different is not very welcome. I disagree with the thought of change being a negative thing. Social change opens doors and enables all of us to learn new things and become more open minded. The world would not be where it is today if it were not for different individuals from different parts of the world traveling and spreading what they know and have learned. As stated above, I understand that change can be said to be bad, but if the good is concentrated on more, there is a tons more that can come out of the situation which is positive. Having change come and go does not mean that your values have to change or that they are violated against. What you believe is right and wrong is fine. You can walk through the open doors which are in front of you or you can just as easily shut them. It is your decision. Change is inevitable and will occur all the time since we are all human and have the freedom of the creative mind. We can say and think what we will about how the world should be. This is why the US is a democracy. Modern changes are usually able to work themselves out smoothly, because we are so open-minded. In any case that certain people feel to no accept change and the growth of knowledge, there are the courts of law which can help resolve any issues. An interesting web page about the effect the courts can actually have on social change is http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98118643.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Nine

Of all the different reasons for and against the death penalty, I find myself swaying both ways at different times depending on the case. In the text there are several legitimate reasons that justify why the United States should change to abolishing the death penalty. I would have to agree with the majority of them. The US says we are so different from other countries and that we want to be nothing like our enemies. Having the death penalty be legal puts us at the same level as several other countries such as China and Iran. There is always the question of whether or not someone on death row actually should be there. In the past people who were thought to be guilty, but were really innocent, were put to death. By the time cases were finally resolved, it is too late to free them because they had already been injected with a serum that makes them sleep forever. Does the death penalty really help with deterrence? Are people really learning that certain crimes committed can lead to their lives being taken? These are hard questions to answer. I believe it all depends on the life of every individual. Some only have to experience general deterrence to learn while others have to go through direct deterrence to actually decided and figure out that what they had done was wrong. When agreeing with the death penalty, does the government really have the power to play God and take someone’s life, because they have broken the law? Considering I am not a very religious person, I would not think of this question to be valid question to testify against the death penalty. I have always believed that you should do unto others as you want done to you. Some people would rather sit in jail for the rest of their lives and get fed three meals a day, have a bed to sleep in, a clean shower every day and people to talk to. Others would hate this and not want to rot in a cell until they finally take their last breaths. If someone I loved was murdered and I had the chance to face the killer, I would probably want to kill them myself, but then again is death what they want? If they would rather die then I would want them to stay alive and think of what they have done to my family and I. If they are scared of death and want to live in prison instead then I would want them to die so that they could not have the pleasures of prison life. Having a criminal put to death saves money and trouble in all aspects. It costs one amount to kill them and saves money and time on trials, attorneys, judges, living in prisons, paying those to take care of the prisons, etc. As I stated before, I can not directly relate myself to either pro or against capital punishment. Hopefully, by reviewing the website http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/group1.htm you can make a decision on whether you are for or against it. This website has different links for different reasons to why individuals feel as they do when it comes to the death penalty.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Eight

When reading this chapter before our discussions in class, I was really disappointed at the fact that children were really treated as they were back in the seventeenth century. When I first learned about this kind of treatment done to children last year, it made me sick to my stomach. The first thing I would think of when I heard about the New York House of Refuge (NYHR) was the movie “Annie”. In this film the children were driven to work in very poor conditions and are treated as slaves. This kind of house or workplace was thought to be very good in the eyes of the community, but really it was often of worse living condition then living in a broken down home. The New York House of Refuge was said to be a place where children could receive work training and spiritual training. Instead they were pushed around and abused. When children arrived at this hellhole they were to stay there until they grew to be adults. There was not any way of getting out or anything. Eventually, it became all what the children knew of.
Finally, in the late 1800’s a new era began and the Child Savers movement started. This was a much better living environment than that of the NYHR. Instead of saying that they wanted to help the children who came to them, they actually did. They provided them with work and spiritual training. This was a much better atmosphere because it was also very family orientated and they children were treated as they should have been from the very start. The textbook provided a lot of very useful information to this, however if you check out more on http://www.rny.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_ed_reform_history.shtml and also http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=215-OQtLnfsC&dq=Child+savers&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=dmE9zkek1q&sig=yH_uHP116qu-Idq577kQsMkvbxE&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPR9,M1.