Criminal Justice (Nature of Crime)

I wanted to comment today on the terrorist attacks in Turkey. I know that this does not directly coincide with U.S. criminal justice system, however, I think there are some important connections. Clearly, I think this gives momentum in this country toward the entire anti-terrorism movement that has swept through the entire federal governments and most state and local governments. As a society we will be seeing more events such as the secret prosecution of Jose Padilla for two reasons. Firstly, Americans do not want events such as those occuring in the Middle East to occur in here. Secondly, we are most assuredly going to be hit eventually by another terrorist attack. The groups responsible for ongoing attacks in Turkey, Iraq, Israel, and Pakistan are too determined and resourceful to be stopped.

Besides the obvious anti-terrorist slant that our law enforcement agencies have taken there are addtional lessons that we could probably learn from these overseas occurences. For example, it clearly a plethora of issues that cause terrorism to occur. These issues include economics, religious discrimination, humiliation by the western governments such as the U.S. and Israel, and a marginalizing of entire groups of people such those subgroups in Iraq and the Palestinian people. What does this have to do with criminal justice in the U.S.? Our governments do the same thing domestically as we do abroad. We marginalize entire groups of people and keep them in relative enconomic desperation. This leads to law violations such as drug dealing or theft. It also leads to the development of cults or subgroups such as those associated with David Koresh or white militia groups who back bombers like Eric Rudolf. So there are many parrallels and we would be wise to try to learn from these terrorist instances.

I just wanted to know if everyone had heard about those recent blasts in Instanbul, Turkey. What a mess. I really believe that the United States will probably be attacked again by terrorists and I think that this most recent terrorism strike in Instanbul is an example of the ongoing problems around the world. These problems seem to have gotten worse following September 11th. I wonder why? Maybe it is because of the United States' response to September 11th.

I am very interested in the recent legislation that has been signed by President Bush concerning partial-birth abortion. I am surprised, actually, that it hasn't been a bigger deal in the news. I suppose that I agree with President Bush and this legislation. I am not very educated about the partial-birth procedure but from what I know it sounds a little like the procedure actually attempts to kill a partially formed baby.

In all honesty I do not agree with President Bush about his religious stances and how he has brought his religiouls zelousy into the White House, however, I do not think that this type of procedure is really aimed at achieving a religious end. I think, on the contrary, that this legislation is a much more moderate stance. Clearly, there are abortion rights advocates and doctor's groups who will argue against this point, however, this seems if not to be a case of right and wrong, to be a case of the strong protecting the weak.

I would like to comment on the recent readings involving the social process theories (strain and anomie). I think these are really interesting ideas because they involve or seem to involve a wider range of possible explanations than previous theories. For example, as opposed to psychoanalytic theory or deterrence theory anomie theory addressed society as a whole and possible explanations that reside in how are society is structured. I think that these ideas are broader in scope, however, have at least one major drawback; that is that there isn't enough credit given to individual circumstances. When we consider the complexity of human development, of course, we can say that certain environments cause certain behaviors, however, when we do this at the expense of excluding individual circumstances we are making a mistake.

I wanted to comment on the recent rape of the Albertson's employee. Although this event occurred more than a two weeks ago, I feel the effects of it are still being felt here in Las Cruces. A good example of this is the additional security at the Albertson's on Lohman. I was grocery shopping the other day at this store and saw a security guard standing in the parking lot. I know that this extra security is the result of the recent rape.

Many times in class or while I am reading the text or article I will ask myself why and how the government (state, local, or federal) could be so naive or reactionary to the problem of crime as to engage in knee jerk reactions. These reactions take the form of extra police, larger arrest rates, more convictions, and larger amounts of people being sent to prisons. I believe that these reactions are the result of many things. One may be what some criminologists term conflict theory (feminist, marxian, or critical race) but I also believe a motivating factor for the government officials who make these decisions are their own fears and to a larger extent the fears of their constituents. When people feel afraid they want to react. This need for action takes the form of longer prison sentences, larger prison populations, stronger sentencing for drug abusers and sellers, and even the occassional sexual assault like the one at Albertsons. We live in an unsafe world. Horrible things happen. American citizens should expect and receive a certain amount of safety when they step outside their doors. However, the fact still remains that no one can be safe and secure all the time.

I am going to comment on the reading in Module 2 concerning the "discovery" of child abuse. I found this article absolutely fascinating. It really bring home for me the idea that all criminal justice takes into account so many other factors and variables that just penology, law enforcement, and or parole. This field really is as wide as society itself. Another facet of this article that I found interesting was the coalition building that took place in the medical profession just prior to publishing the results of the radiological findings. This type of action has many lessons for criminology. Primarily, we need to build coalitions with groups that we may not normally think of as interested in the same issues as us. This article actually reminds me of the other article that I read about criminology from Stuart Henry and Werner Einstadter. In this article these authors wrote about the political motivation and it crucial role in accomplishing the things that criminologists may want to attempt to implement. That is, as criminologists we must find the right time to propose our ideas or somehow to work these ideas into the mainstream political climate.

I want to comment on the reading about Morale Entrepreneurs. To me, this really seemed like an interesting name and article. I suppose my interest in this topic, like most criminal justice topics, is that I find very applicable to my life. Specifically, this article talked initially about moral crusaders who feel that it is their job to save the world from some wrong or evil. I personally know people, with whom I work, who act in this way. It seems after reading this article and others that people who act in this way are almost entirely self-delusional. That is, for any one person to think that they hold the keys to a problem or problems in society and that their sole idea(s) will be a solution to the problem is proposterous. From what I have learned about the criminal justice field to date is that no one idea is ever sufficient enough to explain the myriad of social, psychological, biological, and cultural forces that affect crime and hence society.

Another facet of this article that I found interesting was our class discussion of it. When Dr. Mentor was talking about how the moral crusaders ideas are transformed into policy this seemed very realistic. I think that our responsive policies to the September 11th terrorist attacks is a great example of this policy cycle. We had the event and then our country's reaction to it. There were the moral crusaders who stepped in (president Bush is a great example) and who proprosed ideas to help bring us out of danger. There was probably a brief period, emphasis on brief, where data was collected, and off we went to war in Afghanistan. Lets keep in mind that the actual terrorists primarily came from Saudi Arabia. The problems with this strategy are already becoming very clear. Primarily with our funding (resources) and continued resistance to this action from groups in Afghanistan.