We have laws specifically enacted in order to protect society. However, if and when people engage in behaviors that primarily only harm themselves, is it right for the criminal justice system to intervene? To what extent should one be able to enjoy personal freedoms including the freedom of consensual participation? Euphemistically speaking, are there such things as crimes without victims? Consider this transcript from the latest pool of television advertising spots from the White House Office of Drug Control Policy:''This is Dan. This is the joint that Dan bought. This is the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. This is the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. This is the cartel that uses the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. And this is the family that was tied up by Dan’s cartel and shot for getting in the way. Drug money supports terrible things. If you buy drugs, you might too"
This advertisement clearly exploded the notion of private, consensual, adult drug use as a victimles. For example, as the debate concerning the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana continues to gain momentum, proponents of legalization and decriminalization are quick to observe and suggest, ''marijuana is overall becoming a more acceptable substance in our society.'' This is just one example that highlights the notion that morality and criminality are relatively volatile and not invincible to the forces of change, and acts that were defined as illegal ten or twenty years ago are not necessarily illegal today nor will acts that are considered illegal today necessarily be considered illegal ten or twenty years from now and vice versa. History has clearly demonstrated that the utilization of criminal law as a means to enforce morality is certainly not unprecedented, to say the least, and often takes a cyclical form. Nonetheless, as new aspects of the various behaviors categorized as crimes without victims continue to arouse considerable public controversy, it is likely that society’s views concerning morality and criminality as it relates to these particular offenses will also continue to deviate relative to today’s normative standards.
however, this line of reasoning is only one-side of a relatively recent, highly contentious and divisive, sociopolitical debate. The articles selected for review for the purposes at present serve to illustrate: the controversy surrounding the debate of victimless crime in general and illicit drug use specifically: the most basic, practically inescapable ideological biases from which the basis of the debate is centered; and, the relativity of law as it relates to social order crimes.
Definitional issues and the relative moral dissonance among the debaters, then, surround the primary controversy of this debate. Advocates who believe that victimless crimes ought to be reduced or eliminated argue, firstly, that victimless crime is not only an adequate social construct but also a reality, and, secondly, that the cornerstone of a free democratic society is that it extends freedom to all citizens as long as that freedom does not impinge on the equivalent freedom of others. Criminologists often make reference to the works of renowned labeling theorist, Howard Becker, who combined criminological conflict and symbolic interactionist theories and maintained that moral entrepreneurship, rooted in the Protestant ethic, was the most significant force behind the law. This is to say, Becker believed that it was the people that held the decision-making power that made rules in their interest and redefined what is and what is not deviant or criminal.The opposition of this debate asserts that victimless crime is a fallacious concept. That is, in actuality, there exists no criminal action that does not produce some sort of a victim.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Today the perception of family life consists of a picturesque scene with a white picket fence surrounding a house with a Golden Retriever playing with the children in the backyard. This setting has quite a bit changed, and according to Sullivan, the judicial systems needs to recognize atypical lifestyles of family living. Andrew Sullivan, editor of the New Republic presents to the reader a case in which the New York City Judicial System faced earlier this year. This case dealt with the rights of ownership after a partner of a gay relationship deceased. The Judge ruled that the gay partner is considered a family member only on the basis that there was an "interwoven social life" and ''emotional commitment'' to each other. This quandary enters the ideas of "domestic partnership laws." Sullivan explains how he is against domestic partnership laws and how he believes marriage is a conservative step towards for gays. Sullivan attempts to convince the reader to agree with his argument as to why a move towards gay marriages is a positive stride for society as a whole. He begins his argument with the ruling of the New York rent-control case.
Sullivan presents us with another argument as to why he feels domestic partnerships need to be abolished and why the government doesn’t allow traditional marriage for gays. ''The concept of domestic partnership chips away at the prestige of traditional relationships and undermines the priority we give them.'' I agree on how Sullivan feels the government won’t allow for gays to be on the level of traditional marriages as heterosexuals. Sullivan seems to have used this argument as one based on character. He appeals to the reader by showing how just as heterosexuals; gays feel the need to have the status of being married as well. Sullivan goes on and presents the reader with a values argument which shows the reader how gays are portrayed as. He goes on to present us with the stereotype gay, "Gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, antibourgeois, and radical." The idea of gay marriage is defended by those who choose to percieve the very idea is as similar as the idea of marriage between a man and a woman- nothing else.
Sullivan presents us with another argument as to why he feels domestic partnerships need to be abolished and why the government doesn’t allow traditional marriage for gays. ''The concept of domestic partnership chips away at the prestige of traditional relationships and undermines the priority we give them.'' I agree on how Sullivan feels the government won’t allow for gays to be on the level of traditional marriages as heterosexuals. Sullivan seems to have used this argument as one based on character. He appeals to the reader by showing how just as heterosexuals; gays feel the need to have the status of being married as well. Sullivan goes on and presents the reader with a values argument which shows the reader how gays are portrayed as. He goes on to present us with the stereotype gay, "Gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, antibourgeois, and radical." The idea of gay marriage is defended by those who choose to percieve the very idea is as similar as the idea of marriage between a man and a woman- nothing else.
blog#2: deductive reason
Since the beginning of history, man has tried to devise a perfect political system. Plato designed a utopian Republic, while Karl Marx radically changed the face of the earth by offering up a secular state that is supposed to be sufficient for all. The highest hopes for political systems were held by some 18th century French Enlightenment philosophers, specifically Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet. However, the concomitant attempt to bring about an ideal humanistic system (based on Enlightenment thought), most nearly attempted in Scandinavia, has fallen short of fruition. The great things these systems propose to offer, such as financial and legal equality, peace and moral freedom, are not sufficient for all these individuals, leaving people disillusioned and perfect utopian political systems fatally flawed. It is foolish to try to please all the people all the time with simple comforts. Hence, utopias are doomed to failure, as my critique will show and pessimists believe things can improve. Utopian perfection, though, is unrealistic because even the best of nations suffer. Nonetheless, there have clearly been great thinkers who have apealed to this idea.
For somethere are two governments: the spiritual and the political. Thus, there are two regulators, the conscience and external jurisdictions. The "former" has its seat in the interior of the mind, whilst the latter only directs the external conduct: one may be termed a spiritual kingdom, and the other a political one. However, anyone who knows how to distinguish between the body and the soul, between this present transitory life and the future eternal one, will find no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very different and remote from each other.
Condorcet and other Enlightenment thinkers comprised the most optimistic genre of thinkers in history. All of these humanists esteemed Hellenic optimism and the Roman State’s governmental form. They borrowed greatly from their British predecessors’ contract government and hope in people. Condorcet was the most optimistic of all the thinkers and has been a spokesman for optimists who seek perfection for the future. Together, these Frenchmen epitomized the ideals of utopia. While some later political theorists also helped model modern day socialist utopias, they owe much to Condorcet and his perfectionist dreams, as this paper will show. The predecessors to the French (Greece, Rome and England), the French themselves, and their philosophical followers created the philosophical constructs that led to the construction of social democratic states like present day Sweden. Just as there were three national influences on enlightenment thought, three consequent schools of thought which borrow from the French are correspondingly influential in modern utopian societies. These are communism as outlined by Marx, utilitarianism (from Mill), and nihilism.
For somethere are two governments: the spiritual and the political. Thus, there are two regulators, the conscience and external jurisdictions. The "former" has its seat in the interior of the mind, whilst the latter only directs the external conduct: one may be termed a spiritual kingdom, and the other a political one. However, anyone who knows how to distinguish between the body and the soul, between this present transitory life and the future eternal one, will find no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very different and remote from each other.
Condorcet and other Enlightenment thinkers comprised the most optimistic genre of thinkers in history. All of these humanists esteemed Hellenic optimism and the Roman State’s governmental form. They borrowed greatly from their British predecessors’ contract government and hope in people. Condorcet was the most optimistic of all the thinkers and has been a spokesman for optimists who seek perfection for the future. Together, these Frenchmen epitomized the ideals of utopia. While some later political theorists also helped model modern day socialist utopias, they owe much to Condorcet and his perfectionist dreams, as this paper will show. The predecessors to the French (Greece, Rome and England), the French themselves, and their philosophical followers created the philosophical constructs that led to the construction of social democratic states like present day Sweden. Just as there were three national influences on enlightenment thought, three consequent schools of thought which borrow from the French are correspondingly influential in modern utopian societies. These are communism as outlined by Marx, utilitarianism (from Mill), and nihilism.
blog#1:inductive reason
The idea of rhetoric in the english language seems to frighten anyone who is introduced to it by their teachers and professors and although it may be difficult to the untrained skill, there is a specific aspect of rhetoric that seems to go unobseved that we as a sciety have learned over a wide range of discipline in the way we communicate; "analysis." Analysis is not a skill that is always clear and monolithic let alone single or whole, in fact every discipline in the language of every person in the world contains its own ways of analyzing and with those ways come the different generalizations of an analysis. to analyze something is to understand a complex phenomina by breaking down the components and obseving the patterns and the relationships of the patterns themselves, wether or not they be fallable in any way. if this process is done so properly, then the idea of rhetoric is easy to understand and do. As the great master of rhetoric Aristotle once described, the way to master the art of persuading is to mimic the professionals; those professionals in the aspect of analyzing in rhetoric lives in everyone. Every person analyzes everything they see or hear or smell or taste or feel or touch everyday and although they do not realize it, analyzing in rhetoric is the same process.
For example, a person that describes a car of the latest model, in the mind they will describe the way it looks, the content of the car on the outside as well as inside the car. They will observe the as aspects of the car in their mind just as much as the bad aspects in a car that came out three or four years ago. This is the same in rhetoric. In the passage ''Okeefenokee Swamp" by Joshua Laerm, two columns are written, one using objective writing and subjective writing in the other. In the subjective column the swamp is described more detailed and more lively and desciptively than the subjective column. The subjective column describes the swamp in more dull detail and boring descriptions.
The idea of analyzing in rhetoric is just as simple as observing a car. However, some may say the first rhetors of thier time such as Aristotle had to practice their analysis thoroughly and redundantly to truly grasp the knowledge of it. In all credebility, the people who say this prove a good point; however they are missing one section of the idea. To understand something one must practice it more than twuce, yes, but rhetoric is more prudent than that. In analysis one practices the process everyday. A todler knows that if candy tastes better than broccoli, obviously the candy will be the winning choice because it has more flavor that apeals to the todler. The case is similar in argument. If one person says that candy is better than broccoli and another todler says that broccoli is better than candy, the two will give their reasons after multiple questions and statements regarding "why?" "no, because..." or " yes,because..." The point is that rhetoric has been used since young ages and since times even before Aristotle, the only thing that makes rhetoric difficult is the lack of practice and training of the skill itself; evryone uses rhetoric every day of their lives, therefore it is not hard if we do it blindly.
For example, a person that describes a car of the latest model, in the mind they will describe the way it looks, the content of the car on the outside as well as inside the car. They will observe the as aspects of the car in their mind just as much as the bad aspects in a car that came out three or four years ago. This is the same in rhetoric. In the passage ''Okeefenokee Swamp" by Joshua Laerm, two columns are written, one using objective writing and subjective writing in the other. In the subjective column the swamp is described more detailed and more lively and desciptively than the subjective column. The subjective column describes the swamp in more dull detail and boring descriptions.
The idea of analyzing in rhetoric is just as simple as observing a car. However, some may say the first rhetors of thier time such as Aristotle had to practice their analysis thoroughly and redundantly to truly grasp the knowledge of it. In all credebility, the people who say this prove a good point; however they are missing one section of the idea. To understand something one must practice it more than twuce, yes, but rhetoric is more prudent than that. In analysis one practices the process everyday. A todler knows that if candy tastes better than broccoli, obviously the candy will be the winning choice because it has more flavor that apeals to the todler. The case is similar in argument. If one person says that candy is better than broccoli and another todler says that broccoli is better than candy, the two will give their reasons after multiple questions and statements regarding "why?" "no, because..." or " yes,because..." The point is that rhetoric has been used since young ages and since times even before Aristotle, the only thing that makes rhetoric difficult is the lack of practice and training of the skill itself; evryone uses rhetoric every day of their lives, therefore it is not hard if we do it blindly.
Monday, December 13, 2010
blog 7....the motives
a. good and evil are two characteristics in human life that inevitably make up a person, however it is the path we choose to take that creates us.
b.although there are people in this world that are cruel and evil, it does nopt necessarily mean that they do not have both lights and darks in their moralities.
c.good deeds, maturity, responsability
d. point-by-point
blog 6... working definitions
freedom: freedom is what we hope for. freedom is what some do not have. freedom is what some strive for. in all their life they try to fly. fly the heavens if their present and hope to change the future. this is what freedom means. like the wings on a bird
blog, narrative.....Heartbeats
all i could rememver was the emotional toll it had on me. the bkank state of mind that she had. the sweet essence of her gentle perfume. the long, flowing waves of her hair in the wind. the kind taste of her lips as they kindled mine. there was only one special spot in this entire ecosystemic city that we prefered to be. not necessarily because of the privacy, but because of the way this place acted as a window. a window that allowed us to experience the life of the city; the heartbeat of the lights, the peoplem, the music. thats what we loved the most. this place was a window because it protected us from that heartbeat. it gave us a chance to hear our own heartbeats as one. it used to seem that way for me at least.
passion avenue was the street i lived in before it happened. it was a lonely street. it existed under the majesty of the subway train, and next to it- on the sidewalk- was old man Johnson's dinner. he was as old as anyone recognized him to be. my old two bedroom apartment on the top floor of the outcome building, was all i had now. it awlways rained here in the city. nobody knew why. i loved it though. the sound of the million and one water dropplets as they exploded on the cold concrete was my sound. hers was the life of the city. the loud metalic cry of the iron monster as it passed by my window, faster than the eye could notice. the musky aroma of the steam as it reguvinated the pores of anyone who passed by the sewage openings on the sidewalk. that was her sound. the city, in all its glory and majesty was our open field. the lights of the many buildings and stores, malls, hospitals, rooms, closets, offices, work rooms, living rooms, resturaunts, clubs, dinners, and classrooms, and electric rooms, museums, and hotels. it was all our guides, our own faces of warmth. our signs to find ourselves if we got lost. i remember the looks on other people's faces as they watched us run side by side, or towards each other. they thought we were immature delinquents, im sure. but they did not understand what our heartbeats learned from each other/ that night especialy, in my room when our hearts mingled with each beat as they began match and become one. that is what they did not understand. but i don't blame them though. who am i to judge other hearts that haven't gone through all the sufferage i went through. i kind of respected them for it, but their stories arte no business of mine. this is true.
passion avenue was the street i lived in before it happened. it was a lonely street. it existed under the majesty of the subway train, and next to it- on the sidewalk- was old man Johnson's dinner. he was as old as anyone recognized him to be. my old two bedroom apartment on the top floor of the outcome building, was all i had now. it awlways rained here in the city. nobody knew why. i loved it though. the sound of the million and one water dropplets as they exploded on the cold concrete was my sound. hers was the life of the city. the loud metalic cry of the iron monster as it passed by my window, faster than the eye could notice. the musky aroma of the steam as it reguvinated the pores of anyone who passed by the sewage openings on the sidewalk. that was her sound. the city, in all its glory and majesty was our open field. the lights of the many buildings and stores, malls, hospitals, rooms, closets, offices, work rooms, living rooms, resturaunts, clubs, dinners, and classrooms, and electric rooms, museums, and hotels. it was all our guides, our own faces of warmth. our signs to find ourselves if we got lost. i remember the looks on other people's faces as they watched us run side by side, or towards each other. they thought we were immature delinquents, im sure. but they did not understand what our heartbeats learned from each other/ that night especialy, in my room when our hearts mingled with each beat as they began match and become one. that is what they did not understand. but i don't blame them though. who am i to judge other hearts that haven't gone through all the sufferage i went through. i kind of respected them for it, but their stories arte no business of mine. this is true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)