Major and Minor players...

Beyond Black and White:

Racializing Asian Americans in a Society Obsessed with O.J.

By Cynthia Kwei Yung Lee

I found Lee's article to be an eye-opening piece in addressing the extended issues of race that seemed to revolve around the Simpson trial, yet weren't given the same amount of attention as the general confrontation that was developing between black and white Americans. I was unaware of the extent to which Asian Americans were involved in the case, save for Judge Ito, as well as the racial remarks that were used against them or when referring to them.

However, I do understand how these issues may have fallen below the radar of most Americans when looking back on this case. Yes, Asian Americans clearly had a role to play, but, for the most part, the major players in the case made race issue revolve around the tensions and distinctions being made between black and whites. A black man was on trial for killing a white couple. A white, racist police officer appeared to have tainted the evidence. The main black defense attorney made this a case about race, about being African-American in a white world. These were the major issues, the major players - the people that everyone was thinking about during the trial. Ito was obviously there and was also an essential part, as were the Asian American witnesses that testified in court, yet it wasn't really about them.

Clearly, the way in which the public reacted or better yet failed to react to much of the racial commentary about Asians during the course of the Simpson trial reflects the issue that this paper is bringing forward. Yes there was anger and people were offended by senator D'Amato's comments about Ito or the drawings published in O.J.'s Legal Pad, but this outrage really came from special interest groups. It seemed like in some of the situations presented, the American public largely accepted the comments that were being thrown around so carelessly by certain media members and people involved in the case.

What I did find particularly interesting, as Lee noted, was the backlash received due to the racial remarks made about Dennis Fung. Both Cochran as well as Shapiro made jokes at Fung's expense, yet the white, Jewish Shapiro seemed to be the only one who faced public wrath for his comments about the "Hang Fung" restaurant in which he handed out fortune cookies. Neither comment was tasteful, yet it seemed that, as Lee pointed out, Shapiro was the only one who found himself forced to make an apology in order to quell the public uproar. Cochran escaped unharmed, which appeared to be due to the fact that he was the one who made this case about race, who made it about the racism perpetuated by whites. It was interesting how that type of defense had some backlash against a white member of his own team, and really says a lot about the sentiments that brought during this trial, on differing levels of course, about issues of racism.

Clearly this case was about more than black and white, but not everyone seemed to realize that. Not everyone got on board and paid attention to every derogatory comment made about Asian Americans. The black/white perspective really took the forefront of this case, and while that is clearly troublesome, as other issues did exist, I do feel that it's understandable due to the race and identity of the major players/parties involved. Like in many major play or film or production, there are major and minor characters. And while Asian Americans clearly had their role to play in the Simpson trial, those roles were largely secondary to the white and black actors, and therefore did not garnish the same amount of attention.

It's all about race...

(RE)AFFIRMING RACE: "Reality."

Negotiation, and the “Trial of the Century”

By Darnell M. Hunt

Hunt's article on the issues surrounding the Simpson case, especially and obviously when it comes to race, does remind me of how important the trial became when it comes to race relations and realizations. Not that I'm admitting it was important from the start, but through over-sensationalized hyper-media coverage it became an issue of social importance, and one that people became engrossed with.

As this study details, it also became a portal into which we are able to see our own biases when it comes to race. The divide that existed between white and black Americans during the Simpson trial was massive, as noted by the statistics used in this article. Definitions of racism were established and challenged in both sects of society. Particulars of the case were argued round the clock, but in the end, it seemed that each group, at least for the most part, tended to side with its "own kind".

I found this study to be incredible interesting and insightful, as it was a momentary gaze into the discussions going on in every household and in every circle of friends all around the country, and it revealed some rather interesting issues and beliefs when it comes to different people's positions in society, and the beliefs they may hold due to their race and gender. A very insightful study study, and one that in the end, is still shocking to read about.

Focusing our attentiong, setting the agenda...

TV NEWS HYPER-COVERAGE AND THE REPRESENTATION OF PLACE: OBSERVATIONS ON THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE

By Derek H. Alderman

I found Alderman's piece on the hyper-coverage of the Simpson case to interesting, though admittedly incomplete, as he openly admits at the conclusion of the paper. As a journalism major, and a sociology minor, the idea of hyper-coverage by the media and the over-saturation of stories is nothing new. I have examined it from both a sociological and as well as a journalistic perspective, and I find flaws with this type of reporting from both angles.

First, from a sociological perspective, I see the danger focusing our attention on one story, and one story only, and fear that this type of extreme agenda-setting, which is a powerful tool of the media and other institutions, sometimes leads us a astray. As Alderman points out in this piece, coverage of the O.J. Simpson case made up nearly 30% of network broadcasts. It took away time from other international and domestic stories. While there are reasons why this case was so appealing, - it involved a celebrity, was very controversial, had a race element to it - in the grand scheme of things, there were other incidents and issues that demanded further attention. For example, as Alderman mentions, the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Simpson case beat out an act of mass murder and terrorism, one that should have been on every one's minds. But who has the control over that? The media.

I am equally disappointed with the Simpson coverage from a journalistic perspective. We know that there are issues in the media, that we tend to over/under-simplify stories, or that ethical issues are often brought up by the ways in which we report the news. It is scary to see how much of an influence we actually have on the world around us, how much we are able to control what's on the public forum. Bringing national stories to the local or regional level for instance, is a tactic that is widely used in the media, and one that Alderman identifies in this piece. And while oftentimes it is useful tool for explaining a national incident in local context, the way in which it was used during the Simpson case was sensational, and continually brought our attention back to O.J. and Los Angeles. This hyper-coverage is perhaps the scariest because although it is a way to segue from one story to another, it is also a way of keeping the viewer's thoughts on a certain piece, on a certain story, preventing the audience from thinking about other more important issues.

When it all comes down to it, the O.J. Simpson case was not that significant - it was not really an issue of social/public importance. But the media made it into one. And that's the power, and the responsibility of being a journalist.

Who saw that one coming...

Going to the Chapel? Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the United States, 1973-2000

By Sarah A. Soule

Soule’s article investigates the development of state-level same-sex marriage bans instituted in United States beginning in 1973 and ending in 2000, taking into account the effects of political influence, interest groups and the ideas of values of everyday citizens. Soule argued that all of these factors must be taken into account when determining how same-sex marriage bans came into place.

The findings in Soule’s study were actually fairly surprising. I too, was surprised as she was by some of her results. I would have assumed that states with more pro-gay/lesbian legislation would be less likely to ban gay marriage. Wrong. I would have thought states with Democratic leaders would more lenient than those with largely Republican or Conservative leaders. The opinions of elite leaders also do not matter significantly when it comes to the development of same-sex marriage bans. I found these two findings to be quite surprising. It seems that liberal or democratic leaders are more sympathetic to same-sex marriage, but the findings in this study did not support the idea that their affiliation had any effect on the beliefs of the people when it came to voting on and passing these bans. While this was rather surprising, the fact that states that had recently repealed sodomy laws or passed protections for gays and lesbians against hate-crimes were nearly twice as likely to pass laws banning same sex marriage simply blew me away. At least at first. Then I read Soule’s explanation for why this is, and it actually made sense. With the passage of such legislation, it actually mobilized anti-gay marriage interest groups to ban together in order to prevent the slippery-slope that would lead to gay marriage.

This actually made a lot of sense after previously reading the 1998 Maine Referendum in which naming, blaming and claiming were used in order to conjure up enough support to pass the referendum banning gay marriage. That piece of legislation also went into effect shortly after hate-crime laws were passed, and as Soule pointed out, this occurred because the passage of such laws actually scared enough of the interest groups to ban together and develop a strategy to circumvent the what they determined to be a threat to their way of life.

4 years, and that's all you've got to show for it?

The Effective Dates of No-Fault Divorce Laws in the 50 States

By Denese Ashbough Vlosky and Pamela A. Monroe

Vlosky and Monroe’s research essentially determines reviews and redefines the effective dates (dates in which laws went into effect) for the all the no-fault divorce laws in the 50 United States. They argue that inconsistencies in prior studies which measured these start dates differently undermined the research conducted and left out important areas of research. Prior to no-fault divorce, dissolving partnerships were put on basically put on trial, and one member was found and guilty and the other innocent.

I would argue that although slightly interesting, and somewhat important in one being able to determine when to begin measuring, this is probably one of the more useless studies I have read about so far. This article determines almost nothing, save the actual effective dates of no-fault divorce rates in the U.S. in just 5 other states. Most of the dates determined in this research already matches up with the majority of dates already used in other studies, which were able to both establish these effective dates as well as measure the effects of no-fault laws on the rate of divorce. This study did not do that in the least.

While I understand that Vlosky and Monroe were trying to give other researchers a template for which to measure no-fault divorces laws, this study, which seems to have taken 4 years to conduct and finally publish, resolves and tells us almost nothing new or important. Sometimes I feel completely let down by these articles, but this one by far takes the cake as one of the most useless. It doesn’t even measure the effects of no-fault divorce, which I guess was not the author’s intention, but that’s the part I was most curious about. I do not in any way believe an entire paper needed to be constructed on this single topic, and feel that in taking so much time to put what is essentially a “methods” section, or simply a small piece of the research, into a full-fledged academic article was a waste of the authors’ time, and a waste of my time because I happened to read it.

The Power of Precedence...

Blue Jeans, Rape, and the De-Constitutive Power of Law

By Kitty Calavita

Calavita’s article focused on the absurd ruling by the Italian Supreme Court, which overturned a rape conviction on the grounds that tight jeans would be impossible to take off without consent from the person wearing them, and how legal moments like this have the power to undermine the very beliefs and values it stands to uphold. These de-constitutive moments tend to happen during periods of cultural unrest and are often so out-of-touch with popular belief that they are easily brought to the foreground of our attention.

The case this particular article discusses is absolutely insane. It uses outdated, unsound reasoning to come to a conclusion that does truly undermine the legal system, making unproven assumptions about case that act as evidence of innocence. Yet the circumstances are so absurd, that it’s obvious the ruling did anything but seek justice. And it’s amazing how much of law is based on precedence, on the cases that went before.

It’s scary how much precedence can affect future cases. All the decisions that came before influence the ones that court continues to make in the future. The media outrage commented on how now all future rapists have a means in which to defend themselves in the future – “of course it was consent, how could I take her tight jeans off without her help?” Technically, the precedence from this case could be used by the defense to show that a defendant is not guilty of rape.

A similar ruling that sets an odd precedence occurred in my hometown. Several years ago, a couple kids tried to pull a prank on a friend. They went to his house and tapped on the windows at 8 pm on a Friday night. The friend wasn’t there, but his brother was. He came outside to investigate with a .22, and shot one of the teens in the back of the leg as they fled into the woods. A bunch of really shady incidents occurred after that, and it’s somewhat unclear about who actually called and ambulance and how helpful the brother was once he realized he’d shot a family friend. The family of the boy who was shot tried to press charges, but the case never made it past the grand jury. A year later it was picked up the state district attorney, but the charges being pressed didn’t apply well with the specifics of the case.

In the end, the brother got off without even a slap on the wrist. Now it was a stupid prank, and there was probably some reasonable fear the brother could have been feeling at the time when he decided to step out into the night with a gun, but think about the precedence that sets when he gets off without any punishment at all. He shot somebody. And nothing happened. They didn’t even take away his guns after that. Basically, this case can be cited in the future the next time someone shoots a person who’s on the property and claims that they feared for their life. I see scary similarities, however ridiculous, between this case and the one in Italy. Both the resulting rulings were absurd. Both set scary precedents. Both undermined the system of justice they were meant to preserve, and therefore were de-constitutive.

So what do men find sexually harassing?

The Influence of Race and Gender On Students Self-Reports

Of Sexual Harassment By College Professors

By Linda Kalof et al.

This article revealed the results of a study that relinquished responses from 525 undergraduate students, of various races and both in genders, in regards to their experiences of sexual harassment by faculty members at the college. 40% of women and close to 30% of men revealed that that had been subjected to sexually harassing behaviors, usually gender harassment.

The fact that sexual harassment exists on college campuses was not much of a surprise in this study. As the article reveals, there have been multiple studies like this carried out in the past. What I found surprising were some of the results and conclusions made available by the men who participated in the survey. While men are generally believed to be underrepresented in terms of experiencing and reporting sexual harassment, this study found that men may actually identify certain behaviors as sexually harassing in which women do not. I found this to be a rather intriguing finding, yet it did not seem as though the authors elaborated on this point, and I wish they did.

It seems that men are generally believed to put up with more behaviors that women usually find harassing because they view those behaviors in a different light, so it would have been very interesting to see the what men in particular view as sexually harassing. The findings of this study are also interesting, as it appears the way of assessing and surveying for sexual harassment seems to be mostly directed at white women. Hmm. Doesn’t it always seem to be that way?

The Brown v. Board Files....

“The Whole United States is Southern!”: Brown v. Board and The Mystification of Race

By Charles M. Payne

Payne’s article on the “mystification of race” shows how the term segregation and the philosophies that go along with it were used in a way to skew the pubilc perceptions of race and equality, and how power of those convictions alone were enough to detract from the importance of Brown v. Board, and even garnish great animosity of indifference towards it from both the white and black communities in the United States.
This article really demonstrated how complex the issues of race have been in this country, and how they have persisted like no other point in history. Slavery is nothing new. It existed for thousands of years, usually as the result of one nation or people conquering another. Basically, you lost, so now our slaves. But when it comes to slavery in the United States, in the 1800s, things were different. We linked slavery with ideas of race and inferiority, an way of thinking that became socially infused within our nation’s people
The effects of this way of thinking was so strong, that as Payne brings up on page 87, some argued that the civil war was an ideological victory for the Confederacy. As far their ideas concerning race and equality, they were right. Our social institutions and values taught led us to believe that blacks were inferior, which is why they were slaves, which was an entirely way of thinking when it came to race. Before that, it was rarely recognized in such a way, but as I said before these feelings of hatred or white superiority led to belief in segregation, which many were quick to support because of their beliefs about race. And those feelings continued to endured, even after the passing of Brown v. Board, as is demonstrated in this paper, and throughout our history. And obviously, those feelings that developed out of these initial ideas of race still linger, and at this point its really an issue that time will solve

Brown v. Board of Education and The Interest-Convergence Dilemna
By Derrick A. Bell Jr.

Bell’s article focused largely on the true interests of the Board v. Brown decision, and discusses Herbert Weischler’s theory that the decision was reached based on principles that were anything but neutral. I struggled at first to see this point, but it readily became clear as I read on.
It’s amazing to see how the decisions we often believe to be truly noble, are not actually made without other interests in mind. There were a number of positive outcomes that were argued to possible result from desegregation, much how there were a number of reasons that Lincoln decided to fight the American Civil War. Enabling blacks with equal rights was certainly a goal of the legislation, as was the abolition of slavery during the Civil War, but other reasons certainly came into play
It was these other factors that I found to be intriguing in Bell’s piece, particularly the argument that desegregation would improve U.S. relations with people all over the world. The world view of the U.S. would therefore be greatly improved, which obviously is important as foreign affairs always seem to be an issue this nation struggles with. However, I had never really thought about the international significance that result from Brown v. Board, yet the idea makes sense, as do the arguments that the perceptions of American blacks in the public eye would improve, as well as the claim that desgration would lead to further industrialization in the South.
I guess that when it comes to cases such as this, we sometimes take for granted the idea that the decision was reached purely on a moral basis of right and wrong, rather than the fact the a lot of different issues were raised and considered when it came to determining the benefits. Lincoln also fought the war because he believed in preserving the Union, and in the end, ending slavery proved to be necessary to complete that goal. The same could be said for a number of issues raised in Brown. V. Board.

Harsh on blacks? Or violent crime?

The Sentencing Decisions of Black and White Judges:

Expected and Unexpected Similarities

By Cassia Spohn

This article essentially focuses on the sentencing habits and discrepancies that may occur between black and white judges in Detroit, and how they may treat black and white offenders differently when it comes to sentencing them to prison. The study involved black judges sentencing 1,819 offenders, while white judges doled out 2,891 sentences for incarceration.

What surprised me about theis article was the great lengths of detail that went into the methods bethind the study that was conducted. The researchers attempted to account of every single possible varible that would clutter their study, and in the end the article simply became very narrow-sighted, simply asking the question: do black and white judges pose significantly different sentences when it comes to black offenders. The short answer is no, both judges adjudicate cases similarly, and more likely to sentence blacks offenders to prison over white offenders. Like most academic articles I've read thus far, I found the process and the findings intersting, but felt somewhat disappointed, as if I hadn't received a complete answer.

This was likely due to the fact that becuase the study was so narrow and address only specific cases (violent offenses) there wasn't much leeway to see whether or not disciminatory sentences may occur. It also seems that these studies seem to leave us needing more answers: "Although the data reveal that both black and white judges sentence more harshly than white offenders, the data do not tell us WHY this occurs. Further research should address this issue. " I understand that no answer is ultimate, but man, sometimes it almost gets us asking, well, than whats the point?

I do appreciate the fact that the author then attempted to explain why harsh sentences may be imposed on the defendants, for reasons such as preventing black on black violence, the seriousness of the crimes committed, and considering the high enemployment rate of blacks in Detroit coupled with the probability that they might offend again. Yet, they precede this analysis with, "This significant finding contradicts the widely held assumpion that blacks do not descriminate against other blacks." But didn't they go on to say...well, this study seems to be a bit contradictory as well, and it may not be discimination.

I also feel that the fact that about 85% of the offenders in the stury were black was downplaye to an extent, but I suppose their disporportionate represntation is another issue. When it comes to the validity of this study, I still think the focus was too narrow, and that harsh sentences weren't given out due to race, but were more likely due to the violent nature of the offense. I think the study may have more accutrately examined the conflict by examined less serious cases (as was done in another study menioned in this piece) where overly harsh sentences can be more easily identified when there is overt discrimination and or racism. They also left out all the cases that were dismissed. What if there was data there that could hasve indicated the leniency of black judges? Because once someone is determined guilty by the law, there is usually a set sentence to follow.

That's my main critique of this article, that is seemingly set itself up for a certain answer with too narrow a focus, because who's going to be lenient on serious, violent crime? Not many people.

So we got the facts...now what?

Are Twelve Heads Better than One?

By Phoebe C. Ellsworth

I actually found this article to a rather intriguing and eye-opening study. Essentially, Ellsworth conducted a study of a mock trial using a random sampling of people from California. After watching a video-taped reinactment of a criminal trial, the participants were divided in 18 juries and asked to deliberate for one hour in an attempt to reach a verdict (which was not expected). The point of the study was to record the jury deliberations in order to see how much jury members understand about the law when it comes to discussing the facts of the case.

The results were interesting, and not all that surprising. In general juries did a fine job of understanding the facts of the case, and were able to accurately discuss them in order formulate opinions of the trial. Yet it was somewhat upsetting to see how little people truly understood the essence of the law when it came to applying the judge's instructions, yet this is understandable because people are generally ignorant of the law. Just one of last week's articles easily demonstrates this - Seron's article about providing legal representation to impoverished tenants in NYC. Simply having someone with legal knowledge present immediately increase the efficiency of their cases and, if I remember correctly, doubled the rate at which cases were determined in their favor.

Essentially, we are now taking those people who know very little about the law and are asking them to render a legally sound verdict. That's very hard to do, and unsurprisingly, the juries struggled in this study to do it. It's amazing and that juries are often given these legal instructions when discussing a case, and much of the time have no interpretation of those instructions, nor any way of even remembering them. By serving on a jury, each member is already having a great deal of neew information thrown at them in a very short time, and honesetly it's surpring they do as well with the facts as they do. But in general, they have very little help when it comes to the legal issues they must confront, and that really represents a problem within the legal system. Furthermore, it's upsetting that the judge's intructions may actually hinder the deliberation process (i.e. "We can't speculate about what the defendent was thinking or what he wasn't thinking.")

And though I know the law is very difficult to understand without a degree or at least some type of legal education, I was actually surprised by some of the things coming out of the juror's mouths -"Yeah that's right. Self-defense would be manslaughter," or "If you kill your girlfriend, it's manslaughter." Neither of those phrases really makes any sense, and just goes to show how little we commong folk understand the law. Though it's interesting to note in the introduction how juries are often picked by the defense becase they are not the best and the brightest, rather the ideal jury is more common and less educated than some of the potential jurors who pass through.

So, are 12 heads better than one? One might think so, but that does not appear to be the case at all when it comes to interpretating the law, because clearly only one of those 13 heads has the education to properly do so.

Can't we bargain pleas?

A Wake-Up Call from the Plea-Bargaining Trenches

By Stephen J. Schulhofer

Schulhofer's article proved to be a quick, interesting read. Essentially, he critiques much of the current work regarding studies on the effects of plea-bargaining on the justice system, and effectively dismisses the claims by those in favor of preserving the present system. He then follows his critique with a couple suggestions about ways in which we could alter the present system for the better: either by setting a fixed deal system, in which plea bargains do not differentiate on a case-by-case basis, or by abolishing the system entirely.

I found Schulhofer's work to be quite insightful, because, in my opinion, the way in which we use plea-bargains, especially when it comes to crime cases, it completely circumvents the justice process. The facts are not hear, due process is not met, and both the prosecution and defense attorney's use bargaining as a means to better themselves. Prosecutors can offer a deal in case which they may not win at trial to improve their own record, and defense attorneys are paid a flat fee and are often overloaded with cases, so there is almost no incentive to go through a long and lengthy trial. In either case, there is no justice, and both sides actually work together in order to prevent justice by offering too lenient, or too harsh sentences.

However, I don't entirely agree with Schulhofer's conclusion that plea-bargaining should be completely abolished. I just don't think it can happen within the system because it is too deeply entrenched. Sometimes a bargain can be appropriate, but more often than not, we are too quick to use it to the point that it abuses everything we know about law and order. I do actually agree with the author's point about the trials themselves, especially when comparing trials by jury vs. those that appear simply before the bench. In reality, it is not truly the trial process that ties up our legal resources, but the selection of the jury, and their deliberation, amongst many other things that actually take more time. In reality, if more cases were determined by justice rather than juries, we could exponentially speed up the trial process, without using additional resources, while at the same time decreasing the use of plea bargaining.

Furthermore, I think more needs to be done to encourage our defense attorneys to take more cases to trial instead of jumping to accept the plea. WE NEED more public defenders - we need to give them more incentives to work other than processing as many cases as possible. That's where change really needs to take place. Combine this idea with Shulhofer's and I think we may seem a vast improvement within the Justice system. Take the money used to find and interview and build juries for trials and give it to the defense attorneys so they can argue there cases before a a judge, or before the bench.

Legal representation is good? No way...

The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants
in New York City's Housing Court: Results of a Randomized Experiment

By Carroll Seron et. al.

In case you couldn't tell, that was a bit of sarcasm there in the title. Of course legal representation is good when you have to go to court. Essentially, this study researched the legal outcomes of two groups of low-income tenants living in NYC. The control group had little or no representation, while the treatment group were assisted by The Pro Bono Project against Homelessness, and more than 56% of the clients received legal representation in court.

According to the study's conclusion and discussion, those clients who received representation were a lot more successful in their court appearances than the control group. The treatment group had about 32% of their cases make judgements against them, while the control group had 52% of their court appearances swing in the landlord's favor.

Considering what we have discussed thus far, this does not surprise me. We know that the legal system is a game, a competition that requires the knowledge and know-how of a professional. Of course those that have representation are going to fair better and not be taken advantage of as easily.

The article largely reminded of the struggle between the RPs and OSs that we have encountered time and time again in our studies. For example, most landlords, who usually have more knowledge of the law, have representation nearly 95% of the time, while poor tenants do not, and usually have legal aid only 5% on the time. The difference in power between the two groups is honestly frightening, and largely exemplifies the problems within our legal system that this study was trying to address.

When it comes to encounters with the law, legal know-how and representation are actually very, very important. I keep bringing this up because it's the most recent example in my mind, but in the fall I had to meet with the city prosecutor regarding a violation of the local noise ordinance. My roommate and I had both received citations, yet I met with the prosecutor on our behalf to discuss our options. When I told him this, he asked me, "are you representing your roommate?" I thought this was a weird question, since I was there on his behalf I guess, but I said yes. Apparently, this was not the answer I should have given.

Even though I was sort of representing him in my mind, there is a very different definition of representation in the eyes of the law, in which I was appearing for my roommate in legal terms. My understanding of the term was very different from that of the law, and I was immediately informed about this. This is just a simple example of how easily ignorance of the law could lead to trouble, and eventually a ruling against you.

Naming, Blaming and Claiming a Moral Panic

Naming, Blaming, and Claiming in Public Disputes:
The 1998 Maine Referendum on Civil Rights Protection
for Gay Men and Lesbians

By Carolyn Wiethoff

Wiethoff’s use of the Fesltiner’s theory on naming, blaming and claiming proves to be quite interesting in this article. She easily demonstrates how the Christian Civic League of Maine used this three-step narrative to appeal two distinct groups of voters – ultra-conservative Christians and undecided voters in the general public – in order to over to endorse a referendum ending civil rights protections for GLBTs. Because the response to this attack was very limited by GLBT groups, the CCLM was able to name possible social harms, attribute them to GLBTs, and then make a legal claim for the referendum in order to ensure those harms do not happen.
I found Wiethoff’’s take on the naming, blaming and claiming narrative to be very accurate, and troubling. I was also intrigued by how much the process overlapped with the idea of a moral panic. In retrospect, that is what this type of narrative allowed the CCLM to launch against homosexuals living in Maine.

Demon Activity – homosexuality and its perceived harms/risks
Minority Group – obviously blame is attributed to GLBTs
Victims/Group in Need of Protection – children and Christians
Policy Proposed – 1998 Main referendum banning civil rights protections

First, they identified the harm/demon – homosexuality. Surprisingly they were able to demonize homosexuality through the fear of old stereotypes (HIV/AIDS), the belief that homosexuals were actually a powerful force in society unworthy of civil rights protection because they would likely use that power to endorse homosexual teachings in schools and threaten the Christian way of life. Naturally, in the 2nd part of the process, GLBTs were the minority group blamed/attributed with creating and perpetuating this type of risk and social harm through their life-style choices.
The next step in the moral panic was to identify a group in need of protection. The CCLM effectively portrayed children and those of the Christian faith to be the most directly threatened by homosexuality, both physically (through the perceived risk of being more likely to be exposed HIV/AIDS) and spiritually (endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and threatening Christian beliefs/freedoms).
Finally, the CCLM proposed legislation through it’s referendum to abolish civil rights protection for GLBTs, which they argued would protect children and Christians by keeping homosexual groups from becoming too powerful and pushing their risky lifestyles and harmful practices on the rest of society.
It’s incredible to see how easily the CCLM was able to pull of this obviously discriminatory maneuver, largely without much dispute from the GLBT community, while at the same time quite I found it appalling that our legal system could be manipulated and used in such a way even in this day and age. It just goes to show you how powerful the naming, blaming, claiming narrative is, especially when combined and presented in the context of a moral panic.

The changing of claiming

The Emergence and Transformation of Dispute:
Name, Blaming, Claiming…

By Felstiner, Abel & Sarat

In this article, the authors effectively present theory on how naming, blaming and claiming are essential to the litigious processes that are carried out on a daily basis. They argue that this narrative must be applied by individuals in any given situation in order legal action to occur and for a suit to be filed. The process is as follows: injury or harm must be recognized; said injury/harm is attributed to an outside party; grievance is filed/brought against those perceived to be responsible; is grievance is ignored or rejected, a claim may be made and the situation is transformed into a matter of legality.
The section I found most interesting within this article was how goals may change through the legal process. What the plaintiff initially wanted in the beginning may not continue to be the objective as the dispute progresses, and at the same time, the dispute itself is subject to change as well. An example of this is presented in the ways in which the courts individualize remedies, effective changing the goal of the plaintiff. The example given is victims suing a “manufacturer to alter the production process,” and instead only being awarded a monetary sum by the court.
It’s somewhat disheartening to think that this could be the outcome, that the goal of social good is forgotten and replaced instead of compensation by the courts, but I suppose this backs up the findings of Ewick and Sibley, in that once a dispute enters the legal realm, it is no longer entirely in the hands of plaintiff/complainant. He or she actually gives up power in the pursuit of power/justice. In the case mentioned in this article, those suing a manufacturer give power to a judge, who instead of coinciding with their wishes to order the company to alter their practices and production methods, awards them monetary sums instead, ultimately changing the objective and conclusion the initial dispute that was filed.

But didn't he just say....

Propensity to Sue in England and the United States of America:
Blaming and Claiming in Tort Cases

By Herbert M. Kritzer

In this article, Kritzer takes an in-depth look at the likelihood that Americans will file suit in comparison to the litigiousness of the English culture. While the findings do determine that Americans are more likely to go to court because they associate injury/harm done by others with compensation, the degree to which we sue is not much greater than our neighbors from across the pond.
While I was able to come to this conclusion, I found it to be a very rocky road in getting there. I don’t know whether I simply couldn’t comprehend aspects of this article or whether or not the argument wasn’t effective enough, but I found it difficult to make sense of Kritzer findings until he summarized everything. The statistics were presented in rather confusing way, and he tended to make statements that seemed rather contradictory.
For example, on page 414, Kritzer, begins a paragraph: “Regardless of the kinds of comparisons I make, the claiming rates in England exceed those in the United States.”
This seemed to be a bit surprising to me. Then, right at the very bottom of the paragraph, Kritzer says: “However, even ignoring this element of difference, there is a lower claiming rate across the board in England than in the United States.” Huh. That wasn’t what you said a minute ago. Statements like this, coupled with a seemingly endless list of statistics and repetitive legal rhetoric just confused the hell out of me throughout this piece, though I was able to gather and agree with his conclusion that our culture in general is more likely to attribute blame to others than the English, and that we tend to associate blame with compensation. But I guess it was tough for me to get there.

Improperly labeling junkies

Legal Consciousness on the Margins of Society:
Struggles Against Stigmatization in the AIDS Crisis

By Michael Musheno

This particular article proved to be an interesting study. The element I found most compelling was how both groups in the study tended to buy into the stigmatization and stereotyping that amounted due to their lifestyles and afflictions. For example, each of the female heroine users didn’t feel in any way that they were victims, and that each of them was a full-blown “junkie”, despite the fact that only one of them actually exhibited uses practices that would characterize them that way. Likewise, with the HIV-positive men in the study, they found themselves blaming their lifestyle and agreed with society’s common misconception that AIDS was a gay disease and it was their own fault for contracting it.
In both cases, the individuals were subject to labeling theory. Essentially, they found themselves buying into the insults and names they were being called so that they themselves believed that’s what they were. This theory has come up during my studies of crime and juvenile delinquency. Essentially, certain groups of people are labeled in a negative way that identifies them as being bad or being lower than others. Part of the theory is also the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which due to the labels, an individual actually becomes what he or she is being called.
In this reading, we see this type of labeling being used against both the heroine users and the gay HIV-positive men. The women are junkies, and the men live a lifestyle that is risky and wrong, and is largely to blame for their condition. Both groups find themselves believing the labels and even starting to think that they deserve to have HIV. I find myself curious as to the fate of the female heroine users. At the time, only one of them exhibited the characteristics of a junkie, yet all of them labeled themselves this way. After the support and treatment group was disbanded, I wonder how many of them actually progressed into full-blown addiction due to their labeling.

The power of the gatekeeper

Making Law at the Doorway:
The Clerk, the Court and the Construction of Community in a New England Town

By Barbara Yngvesson

It’s interesting how much Yngvesson seems to like small towns. Anyway, her notion of the clerk as a gatekeeper of the court seems to be spot-on. As the man presiding over the hearing, the clerk, it is his duty to hear the “evidence” of these “garbage cases” in order to determine whether or not they actually go to court. Most of the cases really didn’t need to go much further than they did. They mostly involved small claims and neighbor disputes, and I suppose that in most cases, we cannot waste the time and resources of the court over small, petty squabbles.
However, there was definitely one case in particular where I felt more of a response may have been necessary. The final case involving the Hispanic woman and her family, the Polish couple, and the English couple seemed to be a bit more serious than the clerk was willing to recognize. He dismissed their cases as “frivolous” and really appeared to be talking down to them. He believed their quarrels amounted to “kidstuff”, and that they were simple problems only involving poor people. They sounded a bit more serious to me. Children carrying weapons? The use of racial slurs and epithets? Physical violence and confrontations between men and women? I suppose throwing them in jail wouldn’t have really helped things, but the clerk really seemed way to dismissive in the charges the complainants were making, especially in the way in which he tended to talk down to the people involved.
In a way, I found his dismissive behavior and his “stop fooling around” attitude to be somewhat inappropriate. There were fairly serious allegations the complainants were making. What was most unusual was the way in which local law was applied to make it seem like this type of behavior was acceptable. Both the complainants and the clerk seemed to agree that due to the bad neighborhood, “vicious behavior is a normal exchange.” Therefore, certain acts and actions were actually tolerable due to the context in which it was occurring, and the actual law doesn’t apply. However, if the same actions were occurring elsewhere in another community, criminal charges may have been brought forth, or at least the matter may have progressed beyond a hearing.

Just a bit too much...

Images of Law in Everyday Life:
The Lesson of School, Entertainment, and Spectator Sports

By Stewart Macaulay

Some of the references in this article may be outdated, but it seems that the theory still applies fairly well to today. I mean, c’mon, a VCR? Macaulay seemed to be all about that piece of outdated, obsolete piece of technology, though I supposed it was still big in the 80s. Anyway, back to the point at hand. Yes, in the end, Macaulay does make a fairly accurate point about how we all learn about the law and litigiousness through school, entertainment and sports. All of three of these topics come with rules, and showcase laws and the consequences of not following those laws. I clearly see the point Stew’s making, but I feel like it takes a very long time for him to make it, and that overall this was too broad of a topic for him to cover in this one article.
Some of the discussion was filled with odd points that distracted me from the topic at hand, such as his apparent disdain for the way in which we are educating American students about history and the bureaucracy and demand for profit from the publishing industry. His argument also included vague statements about the way in which we present law on television and in films, yet clearly they were a lot of mixed message being offered by those mediums. He claims they are inaccurate representations of reality that tend so show only certain themes, but then he goes to list a vast multitude of the many different ways in which law and law enforcement has been portrayed in the media.
Basically, I didn’t find his statement to be entirely relevant to his thesis, nor were they always backed up the statistics and references he used throughout the piece. In the conclusion, Macaulau noted that many of his findings were in fact contradictory, and I think that remained true throughout the article. The points he made on one page seemed to be forgotten by the next. And the final few pages he sort of lost me when he started talking about how there three areas of society should be altered in order to more accurately depict the relationship between law and society. I know the point he is making, and that we indeed learn a great deal about the law through these more common everyday experiences, but the extent to which he wants to alter them or at least find new meaning just seemed to be a very far stretch, and one that I simply could not buy.

More frustration with a local ordinance...

As I read through some of the interviews used in this book, I couldn’t help but find myself identifying with some of their accounts. I have been before, with and against the law before myself, and in general, I have not been a particular fan of the dealings I have gone through. I have found flaws in the system.
One character I identified with was Millie Simpson. In her case, she found the justice system to be disorganized and unaware of her predicament. She was forced to return to court a total of three times in order to clear herself of fraudulent charges. The 2nd time appeared to be the most disenfranchising, when her public defender never showed and she found that judge that was presiding over the case “acted like he didn’t know why I was even back there.” He then proceeded to punish her to the full extent of the law, even though he seemed largely unaware of the facts her case.
I found the same sort of disorganized justice here in Ithaca. I seem to keep posting about these, but late in the summer, I too was slapped with a noise violation. Knowing it would be too difficult to appeal the case, I went down to the Ithaca City Court to take a plea and knock the coming fine down to a minimum. After talking with the city prosecutor, he said he wanted to speak with the ticketing officer in order to determine the appropriate fee, and told me he would have the court adjudicate my case for another two weeks, and that I should send him an email if I hadn’t heard back from him by then.
A week and a half went by, and I didn’t hear anything, so I sent him an email inquiring as to the developments in the case, asking if he had talked to the officer and had come to a decision. The email he sent back was one of complete confusion. He had no idea to what case I was referring to in the slightest, even after I gave him my name, the ticketing officer’s name and my address. He seemed very unsure of why I was even writing to him, and I was forced to refresh his memory. Again he set the hearing to be adjudicated in another two weeks. Again I had to email him and remind him of the details of the case. This time he remembered, but still had not spoken to the officer, nor had he made a decision. In the end, I determined I had to be more persistent in my emails, and made it clear I wanted a decision soon. He stepped up his efforts, and nearly two and a half months after we received the ticket he finally gave us the minimum fine.
Like Millie, I found it rather disenfranchising, because you like to believe in general that the justice system is organized and aware of the very dealings happening in its court. But clearly in both cases, the key players in the cases, one being a judge, the other a city prosecutor, were unaware of the facts. It seems remarkable how quickly they can forget about a case, when it indeed does take up a substantial amount of time and effort just to get through some of the more mundane dealings. Millie had to appear in court three times before her case was finally settled. I was there only once, but found myself emailing and sometimes calling the city prosecutor on a weekly basis. In the end, I found myself simply feeling glad that it was over.

The game of law

This is an interesting idea that seems to come up again and again when talking about law, and I find it’s one worth investigating. Ewick and Sibley write, “games are clearly demarcated encounters, bounded in space and time, with formal beginnings, turn takings and endings” (p. 136). Obviously, a very similar description could be applied towards the law. Several of the respondents used in this book too, referred to the justice system as some type of game to be played. Arthur Williams found that there was a “great deal of mental stimulation in situations where” the lawyers “were playing games” (p. 138). Raymond Johnson too looked at the justice system as game, as an arena where “You either win, or you lose. As long as you accomplish your objectives, you win. I’m not concerned about justice” (p. 140).
In reality, it is a game, one that Ewick and Sibley say have rules, boundaries, and objectives. And like all games, they do eventually come to a sort of conclusion, where you either win or lose. But there are even more parallels than that. Juries and lawyers are “drafted” by the defendants. A judge presides over the court as a sort of referee or umpire to ensure that the rules are followed. Clients that have more money, like professional sports teams are able equip themselves with better legal lineups, increasing their chances of victory. The court established at varying levels of power and importance, as are major and minor league teams. These comparisons go on and on, and it becomes clear, as it did with Michelle Stewart, that “the truth has very little to do with it, that it is really just a chess game” (p. 138).
As Denzel says in Training Day: “It’s not what you know. It’s what you can prove.” Clearly, it’s how you play the game. And in sports all the time there are ways around the truth, around the rules. In both worlds, there are loopholes, strategies, practices, coaching sessions. In both processes decisions are made and carried out in a way that will influence the outcome of the game, of the trial, in the favor of one party/team of the other. And this idea of game is not limited to the courtroom, but rather it extends throughout the whole process.
For example, two summers ago, my guitar was stolen from the backseat of my car. I immediately sought out help from the police by filing a report on my stolen property. In addition, I reported the missing item to several music shops in the area and told them to be on the lookout. One week later, one store contacted me with the name and number of a person selling the exact item described. After receiving that information, I again contacted the police and told them who stole the guitar. In the end, I was able to recover my stolen property. The point is, even in this process, which occurred outside the courtroom, a game was played. I made specific maneuvers and drafted key players (guitar stores and police) in order to get back my guitar, and once I knew where it was, I sent in my closer to secure the win (in the form of a detective).
In the end I also had to make a decision about whether or not to press charges. If charges were filed, the guitar would be kept as evidence, and it was likely that it would take months before it was finally returned to me. So in the end, I had to make a decision that, to some, would seem like sacrificing justice, in order to get my guitar back as soon as possible and allow me to finish out the season. Maybe a slight stretch with my example, but that point is that the law truly can be a game, one, that is played with a strategy and key heavy hitters, and in this case, I believe I played it rather well.

Before, With and Against

There is this theme repeating throughout Ewick and Sibley’s account of the common place if law, which I have used as a partial title to this entry, that I find rather interesting. Before, with, and against the law. While the authors do present law as existing on several different levels, consisting of many actors and players, they also tend to draw on some their interviewees opinions that law is this sort of abstract force that one best not cross. These three themes – before, with and after, truly seem to uphold that second idea of the law as a sort of supreme force.
The idea of the law in itself is almost too big to imagine. When I hear the word law, as do many of the interviewees in this account, my mind doesn’t necessary go to the many players who make up a part of the system. Instead, I do find myself thinking about this abstract force that is supposed to dispense justice and uphold the peace. Without law, chaos would ensue. Somehow, the system keeps us all in check, yet it is a confusing and mystifying establishment. Millie Simpson said that at the conclusion of her case, the judge delivered his judgment in such a way that she “didn’t even understand what he was saying” (p. 92). Bess Sherman too found herself mystified by the extent of the law she dealt with in order to find her Social Security check, and the power wielded by her doctors in influencing that decision.
A lot of this interviews resulted in accounts such as this, with a feelings of confusion, or apprehension or bewilderment at the idea of law as this intimidating force that runs our lives. I do find it interesting though, that in many cases the interviews do refer in some ways to the players that make up the system, while in much of the time it’s simply the system or idea of law that is recognized. Yes, we tend to see the law and justice as this sort of force or abstract ideology which we follow, but it is upheld, carried out and dispensed by a vast group of actors. Law is perpetuated by people. It is a social process in which people challenge each other, or companies, or work together.
In this respect, I find it amazing that the Law and Society movement still seems rather undeveloped and in its infancy. We have talked about natural law, but really there is no law in nature like the kind we have established here within our society. Law requires people; it requires some type of social interaction between many different people. It is not necessarily this isolated, abstract idea that governs our lives, as we often believe it is, but a process infiltrated with people. One does not necessarily stand before, with or against the law. Rather, he stands before a judge, with his lawyer and his accuser. The world is s stage, and we are all players, and no truer words could spoken when talking about the law.

Shhh...local law in effect

Inventing Law in Local Settings: Rethinking Popular Culture
Barbara Yngvesson

I found Yngvesson’s article on the role of law in small localities to be interesting and largely applicable to my own encounters. She claims that “law is a cultural exchange, conducted inside the king’s rules.” However, as in cases concerning a king and the distance between himself and his colonies, the initial rules are subject to change, for law is invented at the top but, it is reinvented in local practices.

Another important note that I found interesting was the idea that courts play a very complex and central within certain local communities as “arenas where community is created and notions of self and others are defined.” Being a college student living in Ithaca, I immediately thought of the arena that exists here in this small city, and the stir it has caused over the past few years.

Of course, the drama that was fought out in the courtroom that I’m now referring to was the establishment of the local noise ordinance, which allows police officers to hand out individual fines to residents and tenants who are creating an unnecessary amount of noise. I believe on the books, the ordinance is violated if noise can be heard 25 feet from and individual’s front porch.

While of course this may be just an excuse to rant about a local ordinance that I find unjust and ambiguous as no noise complaints are even required to administer tickets, I think this is an interesting example of how local law defines the values of a community. In this particular example of course, we’ve seen how local lawmakers have enacted policy that apparently a large enough proportion of the local community feels is important and necessary. Many locals are tired of the noise emitted by partying college students, and so the law has been altered in order to preserve that.

The actions of the court may be interpreted as offering a “moral sense,” one that includes “awareness of a community of interests extending beyond the pursuit of individual legal rights.” The noise is indeed an interesting issue, that may or may not violate individual rights in pursuit of the community’s interests. And honestly, if applied correctly, I understand that sacrifice. Why should a family have to call in a noise complaint on their neighbors who are partying at 4 a.m. on a weekday? It makes more sense for the police to be able to handle that situation on their own, should they come across it.

However, in the case of a group of girls living a few houses down from mine, the implementation of the noise ordinance seemed unfair and unjust. One early summer evening, four girls were issued tickets after, apparently, playing a game of scrabble that got too rowdy. I’m not entirely sure of the point I was making with this last bit, but it was something I wanted to share. My intention was to apply to reading to my own life.

Let's talk about class

Law and Inequality: Race, Gender…and, of Course, Class
By Carroll Seron and Frank Munger

Seron and Munger article picks up where Galanter left off in his discussion of law and society and the influence of class on legal proceedings. In fact, they even make reference to his piece on the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in order to establish the rift that exists between social classes. At the same time, they also utilize his rather ambiguous use of the word ‘haves’ in order to sum up a the lack of social theory defining and characterizing social class in the context of law, just as class hasn’t been entirely theorized or defined by social scientists. This is something that Seron and Munger feel is a problem.

Class, while often thought of as highly influential in the courtroom, has largely been unexplored in theory and explanations in terms of law and society. It is applied to social problems, but not necessarily developed in theories. This is an important point, considering the role of social scientists in evaluating problems at their root. How can you seek improvement or begin to offer solutions if you haven’t fully examined the issue and developed further rational thought?

As the authors note in the conclusion, “Research without a structural concept of class impoverishes our understanding of law and inequality.” How do we study class? Do we understand class in the greater scope of the world and how it impacts society’s encounters with the law?

It seems almost funny that class has been so overlooked by social theorists, because, at least in my mind, its impact on a number of issues is largely unmatched by anything but race or gender. I suppose it’s not necessarily that it’s been overlooked but a more concrete understanding of depth of the role that it plays has yet to be developed. Class structure is incredibly complex, and as Seron and Munger point out, many of our terms used to describe class are ambiguous when applied to certain groups, especially in today’s society as class lines become more and more blurred, at least in terms of the middle class.

What exactly is a middle class American? I am from New Hampshire, and based on my family’s income level and the luxuries we are able to afford, I would classify my family as middle class. However, my roommate from Long Island also classifies himself as middle class. I have been to his home. I have seen his lifestyle. He will graduate without any student loans, while my accumulated total will significantly higher. Clearly, our understandings of middle-class are different, and I think this sort of exemplifies the problem within our current modes of thinking. They are outdated, they are somewhat obscure, and our understanding of class needs to be remolded before we can accurately address it as an issue.

To have or have not...

Why The ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead:

Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change
Marc Galanter

In his piece “Why The ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead, Galanter take s a comprehensive look at how power is distributed throughout our legal system, as well as the various roles and players that contribute to and hold onto that power. What he finds is that there is indeed a great rift between those of varying classes and their specific dealings with the law. While not all OSs are necessarily comprised of the lower class, nor are RPs all necessarily wealthy and powerful (though likely they do have access to significant resources), there is certainly a class division between them that has a great impact on their dealings with the law, at least as far as clients are concerned.

It is a division that many of us are largely aware of, but one that still catches my eye as Galanter investigates the extent to which it affects the legal process, and, of course, that difference is constituted by one’s wealth and power. It seems stereotypical in nature based on our understandings of the court, but in many cases it seems to remain true.

On page 117, Galanter cites the research of Carlin and Howard, who found that the types of cases brought forth by poorer clients (which seem to be more typical of OSs in Galanter’s view) are generally handled in mass quantities, and that due to low fees and a low payoff, “only a limited amount of time and interest is expended on any one case – there is little or no incentive to treat it except as an isolated piece of legal business.”

In effect, we see that the efforts of most OSs to pursue their individual views of justice are severely limited by their resources, their knowledge of the law, and the power that they bring with them to the courtroom. All of these, in turn, are largely influenced by their class level in society, which determines the extent of their wealth, education and influence. The RP clients, on the other hand, have much greater capabilities in the courtroom, as it is an experience that they are familiar with, the have the economic capital to fund their endeavors, and in general prove to be powerful individuals, or are representing powerful entities.

The extent of this rift between the lower and upper classes in the courtroom has led to great inequality in the pursuit of justice. In most OS pursuits, cases are usually settled before ever going to trial, and long before the trial would normally end had it been seen the whole way through. Take for example, plea bargaining.

This is a tactic largely used in criminal court to expedite cases that court-appointed attorneys don’t have the time or resources to argue, nor do their clients in most cases. This is not to say that plea bargains are only offer to lower-class OSs, but that they are disproportionately involved in the outcome of their cases. Is that justice? In most cases, no. It’s really a method of curtailing the legal system, of avoiding the entire judicial process by accepting some level of guilt, even if that punishment doesn’t entirely it the crime. Where’s the due process? Where’s the right to defend oneself?

This is a direct result of the construction of the legal system, as well as the players that take part in it. As the ‘have nots’, the lower class are indeed treated to a different style of justice than those with resources and power. This is nothing new, and it will likely take time to change. In order for that change to take place, Galanter concludes that 4 major changes need to take place: a chance in rules, institutional facilities must be improved, legal services must be improved and expanded, and the position of ‘have not’ parties must also be improved.

These guidelines, while still a little vague in nature, provide the foundation for which change must occur. All of this change largely affects the lower class, the OSs, the ‘have nots’, because they are the ones most negatively affected by then current judicial system, as we have currently seen. The justice system is indeed in large need of reform, and it is in fact long overdue. But of course that takes time, and that is something that we have… or have not?