This week, we discussed terrorism in the media
Shoma Munshi's article Television in the United States from 9/11 and the United State's continuing 'War on Terror' discusses news media and its portrayal of terrorism and how the news makes it a big spectacle. The article goes on to talk about the incidence of 9/11 and its aftermath. The media is more concerned about creating it a media event, and not the event alone. Without the media to intervene and give us a story and show us images of the event, then what is the point in that? Another issue that was brought up in this article concerned the political aspect of terrorism and how the media portrays it as a 'War on Terror', instead of trying to ask harder questions like why has the US been a victim of terrorism, and what motivates people to commit such acts of terrorism?
I thought this article was interesting because it brings up the idea of terrorism and issues that are overlooked by the media and political figures. If we can reflect on past events we can learn from them and apply these lessons to the future and think about it critically in order to bring about change.
Boggs and Pollards article Hollywood and the Spectacle of Terrorism talks about the entertainment media and its take on terrorism. Similar themes are used throughout most movies that are about terrorism and uses similar character types and figures. Most of the terrorists in movies are from the "Middle East" and are scary/intimidating/psychologically unstable individuals. Movies about terrorism instill the fear and threat into its viewers and re-enforce beliefs about terrorism and stereotypical terrorist characteristics.
The Siege takes an interesting approach about United States ideas on terrorism. After an islamic terrorist is abducted into the United States, New York City becomes the target for terrorist attacks which leads to the declaration of martial law. I thought it was interesting that this movie was made before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and that the setting is New York City and Terrorism. The movie is almost a foreshadowing of events to come.
In this weeks CNN crime news headline i looked at an article about the murder of three men in Ohio
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/26/justice/ohio-craigslist-killings/index.html?hpt=ju_c1
These men were supposedly killed after looking for work on Craig's list. the bodies were found on a cattle farm in eastern ohio and the suspected murderer is 52 year old male Richard Beasley.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Week Twelve Blog
This weeks class discussion was particularly interesting covering the topic of serial killers and the media!
David Schmidd's article goes into detail about muderabilia and our fascination of serial killers and how they become famous, and become both feared and reveared by the American culture. So why sell muderabilia? Most of the people who buy these things are actually our typical average joe. The way in which popular culture treats serial killers is intersing because we condemn them for their inhumane actions, but we also are in awe of how somebody would go against all social norms and values and commit such heinous crimes. What it takes to become famous or a celebrity changes over time and our ideas of what it means to be a celebrity has changed over time. No longer do you have to noble in your pursuits to become famous, but you can also become famous for simply doing anything that grabs the publics attention, including commit crimes. Serial killers are also used in the media as inspiration for intersting literature, televison, films, politicians, policy makers, etc. Sometimes serial killers admit to thrive off the attentiont they recieve from the media that it fuels their desire to continue to commit crimes and motives and propels their actions. I thought it was interesting to think about the mixed feelings we have about serial killers and how they become famous. We feel a multitude of different emotions about serial killers including: repulsion, attraction, fascination, admiration, and condemnation
Ian Conrich talks about murderabilia as well, how it all started, and why our society has such a long standing fascination with serial killers. 1980's when incidences of serial killers became more prominent, did the hyper awareness of serial killers emerge. We started seeing more serial killers pop up out of no where preying on innocent people, which made Americans feel unsafe wherever they went. There were only a handful of serial killers during this time period, but it was enough for Americans to develop a fascination with them, increasing their fame and celebrity-status. This is about the time when we also see muderabilia pop up on the internet. Many people see this as just another result of our increasing consumerism in our capitalist country, where virtually everything and anything can be bought and sold on the internet nowadays. If we can buy almost anything, why not buy some serial killer muderabilia for your home? It could add an intersting touch and could possibly even be used as a conversation piece for your houseguests.
I thought that Silence of the Lambs was equal parts intersting and frightening. It gives us an insight into the mind of a serial killer cannibal (hannibal lecter) and Buffalo Bill. Both of these serial killers are creepy and evil in their own way. Hannibal is refined, gentelmanly, smart, clevel, cunning in the ways in which he commits crimes. The motive he has behind killing people is different than Buffalo Bills. Buffalo Bill is portrayed as a sloppy, pschologically troubled, confused, and creepy serial killer who just murders young girls to get their skin to make his lady suit. He doesn't seem to have the same joy or pleasure in killing people for the same reason as hannibal kills. The relationship dynamics between the criminal investigator Clarice, and Hannibal were interesting. She gets to ask Hannibal questions about the investigation trying to find Buffalo Bill, and He is almost like a father figure to her and their relationship somewhat sentimental and touching. He decides to leave Clartice alone because he says the world is a more interesting place with her in it. He gets joy in helping her solve the case and find Buffalo Bill, and even though he kills other people in the movie and eats them, he is fond of Clarice and sees her as a valuble person to have around in the world.
In the Rafter chapter 3 she talks about the difference between slasher, serial killer, and psycho films. Slasher films are often more gory, bloody, and violent, and use scare tactics to keep the viewers on edge. These movies are filled with suspense and use the same genre conventions throughout most of the slasher films. The killer is our for the mere fun of killling, and is less methodical and meticulous than a serial killer would go about his murders. Serial Killer movies go more in depth into the characters development, and give us an insight in the inner workings of the serial killers mind, and shows us the procedural and reapeted steps that they go through in the murders they commit. In Psycho films, genre conventions rely on ideas of abnormal psychology as the cause of the violent criminal behavior.
As i was browsing CNN.com I found an interesting article about hate crime in the country:
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/fbi-racial-bias-motivates-most-hate-crimes/?hpt=ju_c2
Crime reports show that more than half of all hate crimes are motivated by a racial bias. There were a total of 2600 anti-black offenses, 679 anti-white offenses, and 681 anti-hispanic offenses. there has also been a few incidences of anti-Jewish hate crimes in the country where offenders set cars on fire, and offensive graffiti found on park benches. The next largest category for hate crimes against relgion was anti-islamic. The level of hate crime has remained relatively stable in the country according to the 2010 report put out by the FBI. It was also reported that violence crime like murder and rape has dropped 6% since 2009.
David Schmidd's article goes into detail about muderabilia and our fascination of serial killers and how they become famous, and become both feared and reveared by the American culture. So why sell muderabilia? Most of the people who buy these things are actually our typical average joe. The way in which popular culture treats serial killers is intersing because we condemn them for their inhumane actions, but we also are in awe of how somebody would go against all social norms and values and commit such heinous crimes. What it takes to become famous or a celebrity changes over time and our ideas of what it means to be a celebrity has changed over time. No longer do you have to noble in your pursuits to become famous, but you can also become famous for simply doing anything that grabs the publics attention, including commit crimes. Serial killers are also used in the media as inspiration for intersting literature, televison, films, politicians, policy makers, etc. Sometimes serial killers admit to thrive off the attentiont they recieve from the media that it fuels their desire to continue to commit crimes and motives and propels their actions. I thought it was interesting to think about the mixed feelings we have about serial killers and how they become famous. We feel a multitude of different emotions about serial killers including: repulsion, attraction, fascination, admiration, and condemnation
Ian Conrich talks about murderabilia as well, how it all started, and why our society has such a long standing fascination with serial killers. 1980's when incidences of serial killers became more prominent, did the hyper awareness of serial killers emerge. We started seeing more serial killers pop up out of no where preying on innocent people, which made Americans feel unsafe wherever they went. There were only a handful of serial killers during this time period, but it was enough for Americans to develop a fascination with them, increasing their fame and celebrity-status. This is about the time when we also see muderabilia pop up on the internet. Many people see this as just another result of our increasing consumerism in our capitalist country, where virtually everything and anything can be bought and sold on the internet nowadays. If we can buy almost anything, why not buy some serial killer muderabilia for your home? It could add an intersting touch and could possibly even be used as a conversation piece for your houseguests.
I thought that Silence of the Lambs was equal parts intersting and frightening. It gives us an insight into the mind of a serial killer cannibal (hannibal lecter) and Buffalo Bill. Both of these serial killers are creepy and evil in their own way. Hannibal is refined, gentelmanly, smart, clevel, cunning in the ways in which he commits crimes. The motive he has behind killing people is different than Buffalo Bills. Buffalo Bill is portrayed as a sloppy, pschologically troubled, confused, and creepy serial killer who just murders young girls to get their skin to make his lady suit. He doesn't seem to have the same joy or pleasure in killing people for the same reason as hannibal kills. The relationship dynamics between the criminal investigator Clarice, and Hannibal were interesting. She gets to ask Hannibal questions about the investigation trying to find Buffalo Bill, and He is almost like a father figure to her and their relationship somewhat sentimental and touching. He decides to leave Clartice alone because he says the world is a more interesting place with her in it. He gets joy in helping her solve the case and find Buffalo Bill, and even though he kills other people in the movie and eats them, he is fond of Clarice and sees her as a valuble person to have around in the world.
In the Rafter chapter 3 she talks about the difference between slasher, serial killer, and psycho films. Slasher films are often more gory, bloody, and violent, and use scare tactics to keep the viewers on edge. These movies are filled with suspense and use the same genre conventions throughout most of the slasher films. The killer is our for the mere fun of killling, and is less methodical and meticulous than a serial killer would go about his murders. Serial Killer movies go more in depth into the characters development, and give us an insight in the inner workings of the serial killers mind, and shows us the procedural and reapeted steps that they go through in the murders they commit. In Psycho films, genre conventions rely on ideas of abnormal psychology as the cause of the violent criminal behavior.
As i was browsing CNN.com I found an interesting article about hate crime in the country:
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/fbi-racial-bias-motivates-most-hate-crimes/?hpt=ju_c2
Crime reports show that more than half of all hate crimes are motivated by a racial bias. There were a total of 2600 anti-black offenses, 679 anti-white offenses, and 681 anti-hispanic offenses. there has also been a few incidences of anti-Jewish hate crimes in the country where offenders set cars on fire, and offensive graffiti found on park benches. The next largest category for hate crimes against relgion was anti-islamic. The level of hate crime has remained relatively stable in the country according to the 2010 report put out by the FBI. It was also reported that violence crime like murder and rape has dropped 6% since 2009.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Week Eleven Blog
This week in class we discussed issues of women criminals in the media and issues of domestic violence.
In the Chesney-Lind article entitled Media Misogyny:Demonizing 'Violent' Girls and Women" she delves into issues concerning the misrepresentation of women in the crime culture. For the most part, women are underrepresented in crime-related media because women commit significantly less crime compared to men. The issue was raised about our cultures sudden awareness and preoccupation of female criminals that occurred as a result of the rise in crime rate in the country. At first, researchers believed that there was a sharp rise in women committing violent crime, when in actuality, there was not a statistically significant increase. People started to think that women were rebelling as a result of the feminist movement in the 1970's, which led to the increase in crime. As a result of women becoming increasingly involved in society sharing equal opportunities of employment with men, that they were also engaging in the same type of violent criminals behavior that we would normally just see coming from males. There was also an increased awareness of girls in gangs, and the kinds of behavior that was occurring shocked many people. Women who committed violent crimes were seen as crazy and psychopathic where as men do not receive as much of the blame for the crimes they commit, and instead causes are placed on bigger systemic/environmental factors. I think that the ways in which the media represents male and female involvement in criminal activity is skewed. The media was dramatizing women's violence and making it look like a bigger social problem than it actually was at this time in our nations history.
Cathy Bullock and Jason Cubert's research article discusses the media's representation of domestic violence fatalities in Washington state, and analyzes how these cases are portrayed and the kind of ideas and attitudes about domestic violence that they convey to people in society. They described different characteristics of domestic violence, how the news media portrays domestic violence using a quantitative content analysis and a frame analysis which i found particularly interesting. There were five research questions that they were hoping to answer after conducting this study which looked into the newspaper and the type of content that was in the articles covering domestic violence. They were trying to look into patterns of physical/psychological abuse in the relationship, and whether or not it was an isolated incident or a long history of abuse involving a psychological dimension. Domestic violence can be a controversial, and touchy subject not only for the members involved, but for the legal system and law enforcement. When reporting domestic violence issues, police are more concerned with logistics (who, what, when, where) and the facts about the crime whereas sociologists, psychologists, and journalists are more interesting in the relationship between the couple, the context in which domestic violence occurred, and what led up to the occurrence. Most of the time, the status of the victim is female, and the perpetrator is male. Much of the blame is placed on the victim for the domestic violence occurrence as the instigator of rage in the other person, or doing something to provoke them. When a domestic violence fatality is reported, it is seen as any other type of normal crime such as murder, when it is not. It was found in content analysis that domestic violence was not specifically stated in the articles, but was left up to interpretation by the reader. The perpetrator was often exonerated. I thought it was interesting that the media takes a somewhat detached and shallow look at domestic violence cases and the issues surrounding it. In the future law enforcement and the news media can pay more attention to domestic violence and the complexity of the causes and what steps should be taken in order to ensure help for victims of domestic violence, and possibly prevent the maturation of these patterns of physical/psychological abuse in relationships that can be fatal.
The film Enough, is a look into the entertainment media's portrayal of domestic violence in society and how they try to sensationalize it. I thought this movie was interesting the ideas it projects about women being able to fight back in they are the victims of domestic violence. The way in which the perpetrator in this movie was portrayed was not exactly accurate. Most of the time, victims of domestic violence see the impending events coming, because there has been a slow and steady pattern of physical and or psychological abuse building up over time. Rarely do we see a perpetrator who seems perfectly normal on the outside, all of sudden attack his partner. The important question to look into here concerning this movie is whether or not this film raises awareness about domestic violence in the real world, or if domestic violence is used as a backdrop for an interesting narrative of a women's well deserved redemption?
I was looking up issues of domestic violence in the news media and found this interesting story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/nyregion/barbara-sheehan-who-killed-husband-is-found-not-guilty-of-murder.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=domesticviolence
The story is of Barbara Sheehan who was recently exonerated for murder of her husband, claiming that she shot him 11 times in self defense. Legal experts said the verdict was a vindication for the "battered-woman defense." Barbara Sheehan explained her history of abuse that she went through with her husband, and how it led up to her action in self-defense. According to New York's self defense laws, her actions of lethal force are justified when the threat to a person's life are imminent. Concerning this case, we cannot be 100 percent sure that she was acting in self-defense because we were not there, so we have to take her words, and any witnesses words as the truth. However, Ms. Sheehan was found guilty of possessing the second weapon after she continued to shoot her husband after he was no longer a threat. This story of domestic violence is just another example of the blurry lines between self-defense and murder and how hard it is for a jury to make a decision when it comes to a case like this. There is a lot more gray area and less black and white, and you have to take in a whole host of factors when looking into cases of domestic violence fatalities such as the situation in which it occurred, substances that might have been involved, history of abuse and violence, and whether or not the victim of domestic violence acted in self-defense in this case.
In the Chesney-Lind article entitled Media Misogyny:Demonizing 'Violent' Girls and Women" she delves into issues concerning the misrepresentation of women in the crime culture. For the most part, women are underrepresented in crime-related media because women commit significantly less crime compared to men. The issue was raised about our cultures sudden awareness and preoccupation of female criminals that occurred as a result of the rise in crime rate in the country. At first, researchers believed that there was a sharp rise in women committing violent crime, when in actuality, there was not a statistically significant increase. People started to think that women were rebelling as a result of the feminist movement in the 1970's, which led to the increase in crime. As a result of women becoming increasingly involved in society sharing equal opportunities of employment with men, that they were also engaging in the same type of violent criminals behavior that we would normally just see coming from males. There was also an increased awareness of girls in gangs, and the kinds of behavior that was occurring shocked many people. Women who committed violent crimes were seen as crazy and psychopathic where as men do not receive as much of the blame for the crimes they commit, and instead causes are placed on bigger systemic/environmental factors. I think that the ways in which the media represents male and female involvement in criminal activity is skewed. The media was dramatizing women's violence and making it look like a bigger social problem than it actually was at this time in our nations history.
Cathy Bullock and Jason Cubert's research article discusses the media's representation of domestic violence fatalities in Washington state, and analyzes how these cases are portrayed and the kind of ideas and attitudes about domestic violence that they convey to people in society. They described different characteristics of domestic violence, how the news media portrays domestic violence using a quantitative content analysis and a frame analysis which i found particularly interesting. There were five research questions that they were hoping to answer after conducting this study which looked into the newspaper and the type of content that was in the articles covering domestic violence. They were trying to look into patterns of physical/psychological abuse in the relationship, and whether or not it was an isolated incident or a long history of abuse involving a psychological dimension. Domestic violence can be a controversial, and touchy subject not only for the members involved, but for the legal system and law enforcement. When reporting domestic violence issues, police are more concerned with logistics (who, what, when, where) and the facts about the crime whereas sociologists, psychologists, and journalists are more interesting in the relationship between the couple, the context in which domestic violence occurred, and what led up to the occurrence. Most of the time, the status of the victim is female, and the perpetrator is male. Much of the blame is placed on the victim for the domestic violence occurrence as the instigator of rage in the other person, or doing something to provoke them. When a domestic violence fatality is reported, it is seen as any other type of normal crime such as murder, when it is not. It was found in content analysis that domestic violence was not specifically stated in the articles, but was left up to interpretation by the reader. The perpetrator was often exonerated. I thought it was interesting that the media takes a somewhat detached and shallow look at domestic violence cases and the issues surrounding it. In the future law enforcement and the news media can pay more attention to domestic violence and the complexity of the causes and what steps should be taken in order to ensure help for victims of domestic violence, and possibly prevent the maturation of these patterns of physical/psychological abuse in relationships that can be fatal.
The film Enough, is a look into the entertainment media's portrayal of domestic violence in society and how they try to sensationalize it. I thought this movie was interesting the ideas it projects about women being able to fight back in they are the victims of domestic violence. The way in which the perpetrator in this movie was portrayed was not exactly accurate. Most of the time, victims of domestic violence see the impending events coming, because there has been a slow and steady pattern of physical and or psychological abuse building up over time. Rarely do we see a perpetrator who seems perfectly normal on the outside, all of sudden attack his partner. The important question to look into here concerning this movie is whether or not this film raises awareness about domestic violence in the real world, or if domestic violence is used as a backdrop for an interesting narrative of a women's well deserved redemption?
I was looking up issues of domestic violence in the news media and found this interesting story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/nyregion/barbara-sheehan-who-killed-husband-is-found-not-guilty-of-murder.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=domesticviolence
The story is of Barbara Sheehan who was recently exonerated for murder of her husband, claiming that she shot him 11 times in self defense. Legal experts said the verdict was a vindication for the "battered-woman defense." Barbara Sheehan explained her history of abuse that she went through with her husband, and how it led up to her action in self-defense. According to New York's self defense laws, her actions of lethal force are justified when the threat to a person's life are imminent. Concerning this case, we cannot be 100 percent sure that she was acting in self-defense because we were not there, so we have to take her words, and any witnesses words as the truth. However, Ms. Sheehan was found guilty of possessing the second weapon after she continued to shoot her husband after he was no longer a threat. This story of domestic violence is just another example of the blurry lines between self-defense and murder and how hard it is for a jury to make a decision when it comes to a case like this. There is a lot more gray area and less black and white, and you have to take in a whole host of factors when looking into cases of domestic violence fatalities such as the situation in which it occurred, substances that might have been involved, history of abuse and violence, and whether or not the victim of domestic violence acted in self-defense in this case.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Week Ten Blog
This week, we discussed Race and Criminality in the media.
I found the readings for this week very interesting in the way that the media and our society constructs race and the dynamics that occur in crime between African-American's and Whites. In Carol Stabile's article "Criminalizing Black Culture" she discusses the inequality of the media and criminal justice systems in America towards African Americans throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Narratives of black perpetrators and white female victims, as well as blaming African American women for the cause of crime in young men, were used heavily by the media in different news stories. Not only were African American men targeted by the media in news stories, but they were also targeted on the streets, many times wrongly accused for crimes they did not commit simply because they were black and in the place where police could target them. We see several instances in politics where African American men were blamed for the countries high crime rates. In Bushes 1988 campaign we see fear narratives being used in the media, where he tried to show his opponent Dukakis as being soft on crime. The specific case was used in an add that showed an African American man Willie Horton recieving privelges in prison, being let out to go into the community where he committed murder and rape. These narratives illicit fear in American's, showing them that our society could be unsafe if we are soft on crime. This also further reinforced the idea of black perpetrators and white female victims. I find it interesting that society's ideas about crime and who commits it are highly influenced by the media and the images that they put forth. In reality, most of the crime committed is between young white males in a lower socio-economic status. This goes to show how the media's portrayals of crime are not always accurate.
In Race, Lies, and Videotapes: The L.A. Upheaval and the media, mark Schubb gives us an idea of the media's interpretation of the 1992 LA riots and the stereotypes that were used and shown to Americans about the people who were rioting. During the riots, journalists were videotaping footage and narrating, whithout actually going into the field and getting interviews with the rioters first hand. Journalists described the rioters as gang-bangers, thugs, holligans, who were setting a bad example for future generations. They were blaming the individual for the cause of this event, insinuating that the riots occurred because of people who were innately bad or just out looking for trouble. Instead of taking into account underlying systmeic factors of the cause of the riots such as: psychological oppression from law enforcement, lack of opportunity and jobs, poor education, low-income families, urban decay, just to name a few. There are a whole host of other factors that accummulate on each other to explain the causes and factors behind the LA riots that journalists failed to mention.
In class we watched some of the documentary Crips and Bloods which gave us insight into the history behind the formation of gangs in LA, and why they became so violent. A whole host of different factors were brought up including psychological oppression, degredation, and racism of police officers towards African American's. During the 1960s young African American males were not allowed to join the boyscouts, so they started forming their own groups. After the constant mistreatment and segregation from the police, they were at the point of being degraded so much that a deep seated hatred developed for themeselves, white people, and the urban environment that they lived in. The government didn't put enough time and money into restoring these LA neighborhood's, that they eventually decayed and became places of opportunity for crime to occur. The more that African Americans became degraded, the more anger was built up that eventually had to become channeled through some way, shape, or form. Because they had no one else to identity with besides themeselves, they formed gangs which fulfilled love, belonging, and esteem needs and gave themeselves a sense of identity. Many African American young men felt like they had nothing to live for, no purpose, direction, or reason to follow societys norms because they were not respected. This brought up the notion of mutual respect and having a reason for caring in African American's. Why should I respect you and your property if you don't respect me, and take the time to fix this urban decay? All of these factors and more played a part in the formation of the Bloods and the Crips.
In the News media today, it seems like we don't see the same amount of criminalizing of black culture compared to the Watts rebellion era and the 1992 LA upheaval. Most of the crime I have been noticing in the media are controversial trials and random other insignificant crimes. Maybe this means that we are shifting away from racist tendencies in the way the media portrays crime to society.
I found the readings for this week very interesting in the way that the media and our society constructs race and the dynamics that occur in crime between African-American's and Whites. In Carol Stabile's article "Criminalizing Black Culture" she discusses the inequality of the media and criminal justice systems in America towards African Americans throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Narratives of black perpetrators and white female victims, as well as blaming African American women for the cause of crime in young men, were used heavily by the media in different news stories. Not only were African American men targeted by the media in news stories, but they were also targeted on the streets, many times wrongly accused for crimes they did not commit simply because they were black and in the place where police could target them. We see several instances in politics where African American men were blamed for the countries high crime rates. In Bushes 1988 campaign we see fear narratives being used in the media, where he tried to show his opponent Dukakis as being soft on crime. The specific case was used in an add that showed an African American man Willie Horton recieving privelges in prison, being let out to go into the community where he committed murder and rape. These narratives illicit fear in American's, showing them that our society could be unsafe if we are soft on crime. This also further reinforced the idea of black perpetrators and white female victims. I find it interesting that society's ideas about crime and who commits it are highly influenced by the media and the images that they put forth. In reality, most of the crime committed is between young white males in a lower socio-economic status. This goes to show how the media's portrayals of crime are not always accurate.
In Race, Lies, and Videotapes: The L.A. Upheaval and the media, mark Schubb gives us an idea of the media's interpretation of the 1992 LA riots and the stereotypes that were used and shown to Americans about the people who were rioting. During the riots, journalists were videotaping footage and narrating, whithout actually going into the field and getting interviews with the rioters first hand. Journalists described the rioters as gang-bangers, thugs, holligans, who were setting a bad example for future generations. They were blaming the individual for the cause of this event, insinuating that the riots occurred because of people who were innately bad or just out looking for trouble. Instead of taking into account underlying systmeic factors of the cause of the riots such as: psychological oppression from law enforcement, lack of opportunity and jobs, poor education, low-income families, urban decay, just to name a few. There are a whole host of other factors that accummulate on each other to explain the causes and factors behind the LA riots that journalists failed to mention.
In class we watched some of the documentary Crips and Bloods which gave us insight into the history behind the formation of gangs in LA, and why they became so violent. A whole host of different factors were brought up including psychological oppression, degredation, and racism of police officers towards African American's. During the 1960s young African American males were not allowed to join the boyscouts, so they started forming their own groups. After the constant mistreatment and segregation from the police, they were at the point of being degraded so much that a deep seated hatred developed for themeselves, white people, and the urban environment that they lived in. The government didn't put enough time and money into restoring these LA neighborhood's, that they eventually decayed and became places of opportunity for crime to occur. The more that African Americans became degraded, the more anger was built up that eventually had to become channeled through some way, shape, or form. Because they had no one else to identity with besides themeselves, they formed gangs which fulfilled love, belonging, and esteem needs and gave themeselves a sense of identity. Many African American young men felt like they had nothing to live for, no purpose, direction, or reason to follow societys norms because they were not respected. This brought up the notion of mutual respect and having a reason for caring in African American's. Why should I respect you and your property if you don't respect me, and take the time to fix this urban decay? All of these factors and more played a part in the formation of the Bloods and the Crips.
In the News media today, it seems like we don't see the same amount of criminalizing of black culture compared to the Watts rebellion era and the 1992 LA upheaval. Most of the crime I have been noticing in the media are controversial trials and random other insignificant crimes. Maybe this means that we are shifting away from racist tendencies in the way the media portrays crime to society.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Week Nine Blog
This week we discussed the use of surveillance for monitoring crime.
In Jewkes article, "Crime and Surveillance Culture", she delves into how the use of surveillance in our culture has adapted to the change in our culture. She discusses surveillance and how it applies to controlling the body of people, Governance and governmentality, profit, voyeurism and entertainment, and the idea of panopticism. Over time, society has used surveillance techniques to have control, power and authority over people in order to keep society safe and to have order. Surveillance techniques have been used in prisons, and see this in Bentham's panopticon design so prison guards can monitor the prisoners. As the advancement of technology has changed, so has surveillance techniques. We have switched from reactive to proactive measures in surveillance in crime control. instead of catching the criminal after the fact, we now use surveillance techniques to look for precursors to criminal activity in a way to try and stop the criminal before he commits the crime. However, this switch in proactive measures has created some bias as to what indicators that people look for such as specific races, appearance, etc. Crime is also seen as occurring out of opportunity instead of strictly blaming the individual for criminal activity. if people can better track the whereabouts of criminals by using surveillance to see what areas are more conducive for crime, then we can possibly reduce the crime rate. Surveillance can also be applied to everyday lives of people. For instance, the use of baby monitors and other high-tech advancement are used to keep track of a child's wherabouts. However, there are also downsides to this increased use of surveillance. Society has felt the need to become hyper-aware of what people are doing all the time, and as a result, this has made many people paranoid.
I thought this was an interesting article about the surveillance culture because i don't really think about it that much in my day to day life and the idea that my behavior is being monitored to a degree is interesting. Societies preoccupation with human activity and the need to monitor our behavior is an interesting phenomenon in our culture that has become more prevalent with technological advances, and it will be interesting to see where this leads in the future in attempting to control criminal activity.
In Jewkes article, "Crime and Surveillance Culture", she delves into how the use of surveillance in our culture has adapted to the change in our culture. She discusses surveillance and how it applies to controlling the body of people, Governance and governmentality, profit, voyeurism and entertainment, and the idea of panopticism. Over time, society has used surveillance techniques to have control, power and authority over people in order to keep society safe and to have order. Surveillance techniques have been used in prisons, and see this in Bentham's panopticon design so prison guards can monitor the prisoners. As the advancement of technology has changed, so has surveillance techniques. We have switched from reactive to proactive measures in surveillance in crime control. instead of catching the criminal after the fact, we now use surveillance techniques to look for precursors to criminal activity in a way to try and stop the criminal before he commits the crime. However, this switch in proactive measures has created some bias as to what indicators that people look for such as specific races, appearance, etc. Crime is also seen as occurring out of opportunity instead of strictly blaming the individual for criminal activity. if people can better track the whereabouts of criminals by using surveillance to see what areas are more conducive for crime, then we can possibly reduce the crime rate. Surveillance can also be applied to everyday lives of people. For instance, the use of baby monitors and other high-tech advancement are used to keep track of a child's wherabouts. However, there are also downsides to this increased use of surveillance. Society has felt the need to become hyper-aware of what people are doing all the time, and as a result, this has made many people paranoid.
I thought this was an interesting article about the surveillance culture because i don't really think about it that much in my day to day life and the idea that my behavior is being monitored to a degree is interesting. Societies preoccupation with human activity and the need to monitor our behavior is an interesting phenomenon in our culture that has become more prevalent with technological advances, and it will be interesting to see where this leads in the future in attempting to control criminal activity.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Week Eight Blog
This week in class we looked at cinematic representations of prison
In Paul Mason's reading hedelves into how prison films are portrayed and the genre conventions that have been used over the past century. Overal, the prevelence of prison films in the mdia is not very high, but most of the same character types are used. We see an innocent man who was wrongly convicted of a crime, sent to prison where he has to deal with a malevolent warden who makes his time as hard as possible. We usually end up sympathizing with the main character, and hope that in the end he gets out of prison. This character usually makes friends as well as enemies in prison films. We see the prison as a dirty, corrupt place where people are trying to survive. These general images that used throughout most prison films feeds into our ideas about what the prison system is like, as well as life on the inside. In many cases, films and documentaries choose to show the prison as an unsafe, violent place where murder and fighting is rampant. However, daily life in prison is not always this exciting.
Rafter expounds more on the prison film and the same genre conventions that are discussed in Paul Mason's article are discussed in her book. However, she also mentions prison documentaries and they are focused on redemption and in some ways dramatized.
The Shawshank Redemption was an inspirational prison film to watch because it focuses on the relationship between Andy and Red. Andy is wrongly convicted of murdering his wife, and ends up spending more than 20 years in prison, going through a lot of experiences. At first, it wasn't easy, because he was attacked and the film also suggests that he was gang raped. After a while, he becomes good friends with Red and forms a deep bond. All throughout the movie, he is portrayed as a hero, who only trys to do good for the prison guards, fellow inmates, and the warden. He gets money to build a library, helps educate a young man to get his highschool diploma, helps the warden with his finances, and helps people with their taxes. The warden is portrayed as corrupt and evil throughout this film, and will go to any lengths to keep Andy in prison. Andy escapes from prison by digging his way out, and in the end we see him meet up with Red in Mexico. I thought this film was heart warming because we see the innocent man escape from prison finally, and it mentions things about hope throughout the film. Red said that hope is dangerous thing, and Andy said that hoep is a very good thing. We see the evil warden kill himself and two best friends who get to spend the rest of their lives together in Mexico. Justice has been achieved.
At CNN.com i found an interesting article about a man who had been arrested for 70 days on account of the disappearance of a woman he was vacationing with in Aruba. His attorney has asked for his release, and claims that he is not responsible for her disappearance. He argues that the courts do not have enough evidence to continue to detain him, but the court did not agree. The man claims that while him and the woman were out snorkeling, he signaled for her to come back, but she was no where in sight. Is he innocent? is he guilty? when there is not enough evidence to prove someone innocent or guilty, the verdict usually leans towards locking them up instead of letting them off in most media trials. However, some recent trials have shown the contrary in which the socially guilty, but legally innocent are not locked up. In the media we see this going both ways, and in prison films, we tend to see the innocent accused of a crime they did not commit.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/justice/aruba-missing-woman/index.html?hpt=ju_c2
In Paul Mason's reading hedelves into how prison films are portrayed and the genre conventions that have been used over the past century. Overal, the prevelence of prison films in the mdia is not very high, but most of the same character types are used. We see an innocent man who was wrongly convicted of a crime, sent to prison where he has to deal with a malevolent warden who makes his time as hard as possible. We usually end up sympathizing with the main character, and hope that in the end he gets out of prison. This character usually makes friends as well as enemies in prison films. We see the prison as a dirty, corrupt place where people are trying to survive. These general images that used throughout most prison films feeds into our ideas about what the prison system is like, as well as life on the inside. In many cases, films and documentaries choose to show the prison as an unsafe, violent place where murder and fighting is rampant. However, daily life in prison is not always this exciting.
Rafter expounds more on the prison film and the same genre conventions that are discussed in Paul Mason's article are discussed in her book. However, she also mentions prison documentaries and they are focused on redemption and in some ways dramatized.
The Shawshank Redemption was an inspirational prison film to watch because it focuses on the relationship between Andy and Red. Andy is wrongly convicted of murdering his wife, and ends up spending more than 20 years in prison, going through a lot of experiences. At first, it wasn't easy, because he was attacked and the film also suggests that he was gang raped. After a while, he becomes good friends with Red and forms a deep bond. All throughout the movie, he is portrayed as a hero, who only trys to do good for the prison guards, fellow inmates, and the warden. He gets money to build a library, helps educate a young man to get his highschool diploma, helps the warden with his finances, and helps people with their taxes. The warden is portrayed as corrupt and evil throughout this film, and will go to any lengths to keep Andy in prison. Andy escapes from prison by digging his way out, and in the end we see him meet up with Red in Mexico. I thought this film was heart warming because we see the innocent man escape from prison finally, and it mentions things about hope throughout the film. Red said that hope is dangerous thing, and Andy said that hoep is a very good thing. We see the evil warden kill himself and two best friends who get to spend the rest of their lives together in Mexico. Justice has been achieved.
At CNN.com i found an interesting article about a man who had been arrested for 70 days on account of the disappearance of a woman he was vacationing with in Aruba. His attorney has asked for his release, and claims that he is not responsible for her disappearance. He argues that the courts do not have enough evidence to continue to detain him, but the court did not agree. The man claims that while him and the woman were out snorkeling, he signaled for her to come back, but she was no where in sight. Is he innocent? is he guilty? when there is not enough evidence to prove someone innocent or guilty, the verdict usually leans towards locking them up instead of letting them off in most media trials. However, some recent trials have shown the contrary in which the socially guilty, but legally innocent are not locked up. In the media we see this going both ways, and in prison films, we tend to see the innocent accused of a crime they did not commit.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/justice/aruba-missing-woman/index.html?hpt=ju_c2
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Week seven blog
In this weeks lecture, readings and viewing, we looked into the legal system, courts, film lawyers and how they are portrayed in criminal law films.
In this weeks reading entitled "Film Lawyers: Above and Beyond the Law", Greenfield delves into describing the image of lawyers in crime films and how they are portrayed. The quest for justice seems to be a prominent theme throughout movies, and issues of right and wrong regarding the legal system as often fuzzy and complicated. Lawyers are not always the good guys and the legal system does not always achieve justice. Often times, they are both incompetent, and the images we see of lawyers are not always accurate. Most lawyers in Law films get a good review and try to give justice for their clients in every way possible. Sometimes they fail in their endeavors, but we usually see them in a positive light throughout law film history.
The various types of criminal law films were discussed in Rafters reading this week and she delves into the different types during the different time periods. In the 1930s and 40s there was the law film Noirs where crime films and the lawyers were portrayed as fighting an corrupt system and justice was not always upheld in this case. The scenes and imagery in these movies are dark, mysterious, dirty streets where lawyers have to get down to the nitty gritty realities of crime and fighting for justice. In the 50s and 60s time period we see lawyers being portrayed as heroic as in To Kill a Mockingbird. We see Lawyers as smart, capable, morally good people who are willing to fight for justice at any costs. From the 1970s on we see a decline in the appearance of law films, as well as a decline in quality. The reason given by rafter for this is that issues in the legal system were being worked out, so law films were not as prevelent, reflecting the time period and culture. Rafter does an effective job at outlining the different types of law films throughout the 20th century in America, and shows how ideas about lawyer and the legal system have changed over the years. Lawyers can be portrayed as competent, effective and good, even if it means bending the rules a bit and going around the system to get justice. The justice system can be portrayed as ineffective and also a source of authority.
After watching Presumed Innocent and discussing it in class, I thought about what Rafter discussed about the decline in law films during this time period. I thought the movie was intriguing, complicated, as well as perplexing in the plot line as well as the ideas that it images and ideas it conveys regarding the legal system, lawyers, law enforcement, and how they go about their jobs and solving crime. This movie gives us a complicated story about the murder of an attorney. She is portrayed as promiscuous with the men in her office and ends up having an affair with one of them (Harrison Ford). His wife is upset and decides to kill her and frame him using every possible method in order to make him look guilty, pointing all evidence that he was the man who committed the crime. She doesn't want him to go on trial and get out of hand, but it does and other attorneys in the office try to convict him of the murder, and use manipulation and deceit to hide and construe the evidence. The judge decides to let the case go, but we don't find out until the end that it was the wife who committed the murder. We are strung along in the movie to believe that maybe he actually did kill this woman he had an affair with. Evidence was also lost and hidden in the film by investigators and police officers. Evidence was overlooked in his house when the police had a search warrant to look for a murder weapon. The twisted plot and makes for an interesting film about crime and the ideas we have about the justice system. There is more corruption in the legal system than we might believe. We assume that lawyers and law enforcement officials are always competent and accurate, but this movie shows us otherwise.
I looked up the Michael Jackson murder trial on CNN.com because i thought it was interesting pertaining to our topic of discussion this week.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/california-conrad-murray-trial/index.html?hpt=ju_c1
Conrad Murray is the man accused of accidental manslaughter of Michael Jackson after giving him too much propofol to help him sleep. In court, The pathologist they showed the jury the picture of Michael Jackson's autopsied body showing evidence of a homicide. The pathologist said that it would be an easy mistake to misuse the drug and give an over dosage. Murray has claimed in defense that the overdose was an accident, and that he didn't intend to give him too much, but was actually trying to wean him from the drug, because he supposedly had a dependency on it. Murray said that he didn't know he was also taking other drugs at the time which led to his intoxication and death. If he actually is convicted of involuntary manslaughter, then he could spend 4 years in prison and loose his medical license. This is another trial story in the law that eludes to the messy, complicated legal system that he have. Nothing is usually black and white when convicting someone of murder. sometimes trials last for a long time, even if all the evidence is there, pointing the person, the jury and judge cannot always discern who is innocent or guilty. Sometimes people are wrongly convicted, and technically speaking someone could be innocent, but socially guilty in the public's eyes. Other times, people are let off, when they are guilty and get away with heinous crimes.
In this weeks reading entitled "Film Lawyers: Above and Beyond the Law", Greenfield delves into describing the image of lawyers in crime films and how they are portrayed. The quest for justice seems to be a prominent theme throughout movies, and issues of right and wrong regarding the legal system as often fuzzy and complicated. Lawyers are not always the good guys and the legal system does not always achieve justice. Often times, they are both incompetent, and the images we see of lawyers are not always accurate. Most lawyers in Law films get a good review and try to give justice for their clients in every way possible. Sometimes they fail in their endeavors, but we usually see them in a positive light throughout law film history.
The various types of criminal law films were discussed in Rafters reading this week and she delves into the different types during the different time periods. In the 1930s and 40s there was the law film Noirs where crime films and the lawyers were portrayed as fighting an corrupt system and justice was not always upheld in this case. The scenes and imagery in these movies are dark, mysterious, dirty streets where lawyers have to get down to the nitty gritty realities of crime and fighting for justice. In the 50s and 60s time period we see lawyers being portrayed as heroic as in To Kill a Mockingbird. We see Lawyers as smart, capable, morally good people who are willing to fight for justice at any costs. From the 1970s on we see a decline in the appearance of law films, as well as a decline in quality. The reason given by rafter for this is that issues in the legal system were being worked out, so law films were not as prevelent, reflecting the time period and culture. Rafter does an effective job at outlining the different types of law films throughout the 20th century in America, and shows how ideas about lawyer and the legal system have changed over the years. Lawyers can be portrayed as competent, effective and good, even if it means bending the rules a bit and going around the system to get justice. The justice system can be portrayed as ineffective and also a source of authority.
After watching Presumed Innocent and discussing it in class, I thought about what Rafter discussed about the decline in law films during this time period. I thought the movie was intriguing, complicated, as well as perplexing in the plot line as well as the ideas that it images and ideas it conveys regarding the legal system, lawyers, law enforcement, and how they go about their jobs and solving crime. This movie gives us a complicated story about the murder of an attorney. She is portrayed as promiscuous with the men in her office and ends up having an affair with one of them (Harrison Ford). His wife is upset and decides to kill her and frame him using every possible method in order to make him look guilty, pointing all evidence that he was the man who committed the crime. She doesn't want him to go on trial and get out of hand, but it does and other attorneys in the office try to convict him of the murder, and use manipulation and deceit to hide and construe the evidence. The judge decides to let the case go, but we don't find out until the end that it was the wife who committed the murder. We are strung along in the movie to believe that maybe he actually did kill this woman he had an affair with. Evidence was also lost and hidden in the film by investigators and police officers. Evidence was overlooked in his house when the police had a search warrant to look for a murder weapon. The twisted plot and makes for an interesting film about crime and the ideas we have about the justice system. There is more corruption in the legal system than we might believe. We assume that lawyers and law enforcement officials are always competent and accurate, but this movie shows us otherwise.
I looked up the Michael Jackson murder trial on CNN.com because i thought it was interesting pertaining to our topic of discussion this week.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/california-conrad-murray-trial/index.html?hpt=ju_c1
Conrad Murray is the man accused of accidental manslaughter of Michael Jackson after giving him too much propofol to help him sleep. In court, The pathologist they showed the jury the picture of Michael Jackson's autopsied body showing evidence of a homicide. The pathologist said that it would be an easy mistake to misuse the drug and give an over dosage. Murray has claimed in defense that the overdose was an accident, and that he didn't intend to give him too much, but was actually trying to wean him from the drug, because he supposedly had a dependency on it. Murray said that he didn't know he was also taking other drugs at the time which led to his intoxication and death. If he actually is convicted of involuntary manslaughter, then he could spend 4 years in prison and loose his medical license. This is another trial story in the law that eludes to the messy, complicated legal system that he have. Nothing is usually black and white when convicting someone of murder. sometimes trials last for a long time, even if all the evidence is there, pointing the person, the jury and judge cannot always discern who is innocent or guilty. Sometimes people are wrongly convicted, and technically speaking someone could be innocent, but socially guilty in the public's eyes. Other times, people are let off, when they are guilty and get away with heinous crimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)