shrink rap - Recently Updated Pages

Wrap up

betsi.little — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:27:10 CDT

Thank you for your participation in this class. When you get a chance, I would love to hear your impression of the class content. Please join the discussion thread below.

Week 2

betsi.little — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:50:01 CDT

This week, please read BOTH Authentic Happiness (Seligman) and Happier (Ben-Shahar). While reading both, please complete ten activities in Happier and all of the assessments from Authentic Happiness. Keep note of the results in your Happiness portfolio. Then, reply to the "Activities and Assessment" thread at the bottom of the page.

The reading guide for Authentic Happiness is attached below. Please complete it by July 9th. Remember it is 10% of the grade!

Also, plan to discuss your topic for you self improvement paper, in class Wednesday, June 23rd.

Watch the following TED talk and reply to the "A bottle of wine" discussion thread below.

Week 4

betsi.little — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:50:24 CDT

This week we will read Buddah's Brain (by June 30th). After our lecture in meditation, practice one of the styles taught for AT LEAST one week. Write about the experience in your happiness portfolio.

Watch the two lectures below and look for discussion question at the bottom of the page.

Week 3

betsi.little — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:45:04 CDT

This week read "Stumbling of Happiness" (Gilbert) and watch the two following lectures by the author.

Psychology of Happiness

betsi.little — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:31:41 CDT

This course is designed to be a primarily online course. We will engage in a series of readings, activities and discussions throughout the month of June.

Here are the books we will be reading this month!

Week 1

betsi.little — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:15:46 CDT

This week we will focus on the paradigm shift in psychology that has lead to the field of Positive Psychology, and the empirical study of happiness.

To Read: Read the pdf of The Psychology of Happiness and the article "Positive Psychology, Positive Prevention, and Positive Therapy" by Seligman.
To Do:

First I would like to you take VIA Survey of Character Strengths survey. You will need to register and create a log-in to take this, and many of our other online assessments for this course. Make sure you print out a copy for your homework portfolio.
Look at your results and your top strengths. Think of a time in your life when you've clearly used one of your strengths.
Now, go to the discussion thread "About me" and tell the group a brief story about the time you used one of your strengths. This will serve as our introduction to the group.
Watch the following lecture given by Dr. Seligman.
Later in the week, look for a discussion thread that will ask you to comment on your readings and video.

shrink rap Home

betsi.little — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 23:47:30 CDT

Welcome to "Shrink" rap!

It's back in action and thinking about happiness.
Check out our new tab on the topic!

Psychology is EVERYWHERE!

This site is designed to be a base for students enrolled in Trinity's psychology courses to engage in material OUTSIDE of the class room.

A B.A. in Psychology provides students with an in-depth understanding of human interaction and teaches students to respond to complex individual and social issues.

Trinity Lutheran College's psychology program is an integral part of the entire college’s curriculum—not only does it support other disciplines through its critical thinking development and social and behavioral courses, but it also facilitates the combination of faith and knowledge into one holistic educational experience.

Rachel's Portfolio

Rach720 — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:57:10 CST

Part I

Behavior Modification
The Problem: I have a huge issue with working out. I am really good about making a weekly and monthly schedule and usually following it, but when it comes to working out that is something that I can never stick to. At first I just thought that it was laziness however I don't have a problem with doing any other type of activities. Whenever I make a schedule for the week I can almost 90% of the time follow it completely. My goal is to be able to schedule in 4-5 times a week to work out in my schedule and follow those set times at least 75% for that week. For example if I plan to work out 4 times in one week I want to at least work out 3 of those 4 planned times. The Goal: My goal for this plan is to modify my behavior of not working out to being able to schedule set times in a week to work out and actually stay firm in those scheduled times. I am going to schedule 4-5 times a week to work out and every time that I do work out I will be able to put a star on a sheet of paper and for every ten stars that I have on the sheet I will be able to buy a new movie. By rewarding myself with a new movie I will be using positive reinforcement.

Self-Efficacy

High Self-Efficacy: One area in my life where I have high self-efficacy is that I will be able to pass all my classes and graduate from college with two degrees. Receiving a college degree is a huge influence of mine. My whole family has at least two degrees and therefore being able to receive my first degree is a very important to me. I have always done well in Business classes and therefore I know that I will be able to finish strong with that degree, no problem. I am new to the Psychology department this year but I have been doing well so far so I don't think I will have any huge boundaries standing in my way. I did not do fantastic in high school but I did not do extremely bad either. I was an okay student and since I was able to make it out of high school that gives me a huge influence to make it out of college.

Low Self-Efficacy: One area in my life where I have low self-efficacy is finishing my homework for religion class. I have always gone to a Christian school and therefore I have always been in religion classes and have not had a problem with it until this year. Last semester I just barely scrapped by in my religion class because I did not always finish my homework which mostly consisted of readings. When it comes to Psychology I can always get into my readings, at least most of the time, however when it comes to religion, something I have no interest in at all, it is hard to get into any of the readings.

One thing that I have decided to do to help my low self-efficacy is to start scheduling out 15-20 minute time periods in order to do my readings. I have decided on 15-20 minutes because that way I can read a little bit, process it, do something else for a little bit and then come back and do that pattern repeatedly until my readings are finished. I also plan to do this scheduling over a few days therefore I don't try and cram it all in in one day. If I am able to only schedule 15-20 minutes at a time and start there I am hoping to be able to at some point finish all my reading in one sitting.

Positive Psychology

Personality Portfolio 2

Trends In Neuroticism

Moving toward people:
I have always been the "baby" of the family and in all honesty I have loved it. When I was younger I was always the cute adorable one who got away with anything and who had all the attention I needed from my parents as well as there friends. When I was nine years old my mother was diagnosed with a Brain Tumor and given six months to live. Being nine, I obviously had no idea what was happening in our family and I could not understand where all the attention had gone. I remember being taken from one place to another while my mom was in the hospital and I remember almost feeling as though I was just being moved along to be put out of the way. It was then that I started to strive for any attention that I could get, good or bad. I never took school seriously and I always really hated it so I remember thinking well maybe I can start doing well and I did. I became the head math person at my school, but little praise was given and even though now I know that it was because so much else was going on in my parents world at the time I felt as though no one cared. School obviously was not getting there attention so I decided to try and get their attention in other ways. I remember when I was still in Elementary school I was once pushed off the swings, everyone came to make sure I was okay and I was sent home to be with my mom and I remember having all the attention I needed. Soon that attention went away and I decided one afternoon to make myself hurt by falling off the monkey bars just so I could get the attention I wanted. Because when I was hurt it was always an "accident" the attention was never negative and always very positive towards me. Soon I grew older and needed to strive for attention in other ways. I didn't know what else to do to make them proud so I started to strive for negative attention. I began to drink in high school and engage in "dangerous" behavior. Even though my parents weren't giving me positive attention, they were giving me negative attention, which all in all to me it was attention and I craved any type of it. By mid- high school I was sick of being yelled at and so I decided to crave for positive attention. I began to get very involved at church and there all the positive attention came!!! The more involved I was at church the more recognition I received from my parents. I loved church and I loved what attention it brought to me but I suddenly realized that I wasn't doing it for the good of people but for the good of myself. I decided to leave church for a few years and just do what i wanted to do. I ended up putting a lot of the energy that i had put into church into helping friends who needed help and it was then that I realized that yes I loved the attention that I received from my parents whenever I was involved at church but I also really enjoyed helping people through my church and it was not all about attention but making myself happy. I now realize that every time that I am not involved in some type of church thing that I find myself board with myself and seeking attention, good or bad.

Moving Against People:
In high school, I began to move against people through my achievements through the church. I felt as though that I needed to always be the one in charge and planning everything that was done to help people through out youth group. I also felt that no one could do as good of job as could because of all the praise I was given whenever I could plan a charity event. I always needed and wanted control of every event and activity that was going on because I felt as though things would be messed up and not end up going well unless I knew everything that was going on and I could have full reigns on it all. I would never tell people that what they were doing wasn't being done well but I would constantly think in my mind how they could be doing it better.

Moving Away From People:
I have always been a perfectionist and a control freak. If things were not perfect or I was not in control on how they could become perfect I would feel as though nothing was working out for me and that everything was going to or already was falling apart. This started to really come to form in my relationships with other people. If I was not loved by everyone I would feel as though something was not perfect that I would obsess about "fixing" the imperfection. I would also have "freak out" moments if for some reason one of my friends was mad and me and I could not control how they were feeling at the time. This ended up being one of the "complications" in a lot of my relationships with other people. My constant obsession and need for things to be perfect can be very over-whelming to people at times and no one really needs everything to be perfect all the time, and that is something I am slowly learning.

Most frequent area:
I would have to say that the area Horney’s trends of neuroticism that I most frequently come in contact with is moving toward others. I constantly look for praise and affection from others and if I do not have that praise I become fearful that something is wrong. I have always put others in front of myself and instead of working towards better grades and a healthier self I will make sure that everyone else is okay and my relationships with them are "perfect". I am someone who does not like conflict so I will put my personal needs aside to make everyone else happy which makes it pretty hard to please myself when I am constantly pleasing others.

Sources of Identity

Occupation: I am currently a students right now in order to learn more about the fields that I am considering going into. I have never done well at school therefore I have never really enjoyed being at school or going to classes. I am now trying to look at other options for my schooling so I can find ways to succeed and be happy with what I am doing. I love to work and I consider that to be my most stable occupation but I also want to achieve and possess the best job that I can, which would mean being able to obtain my degree in that area.

Gender: I am obviously a female and I love being one. However I do believe that being a female holds me back from certain aspects. Because females have "way more" hormones than males it is hard to be emotionally stable all of the time and therefore hard to guess certain outcomes of situations.

Ethnic group: I am a white female and therefore I am looked at for being upper middle class with all that I want. It is hard to be a known as upper middle class because those in upper middle class have seen as people who don't have any problems and that basically money can solve everything, which believe me in never the case.

Characteristics of Healthy People

Interpersonal relationships are the most common characteristic in healthy people as far as I am concerned. Those who have achieved Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs have a true healthy self being. Although it is known that no one person can stay at the top of the hierarchy forever someone who goes throughout the hierarchy has a true knowledge of self- being.

Personality Portfolio 3

Defense Mechanisms

Nine months ago my mother died. She had been sick for 13 1/2 years with a brain tumor therefore many people figured that I had had many years to prepare for her death, even I thought that way as well. In January of 2009 she was put on Hospice and given six months to live. It was then that instead of grieving for my mother and dealing with the fact that she was about to leave my world forever I turned into a person who needed to make sure everything around myself was okay. I wouldn't let anyone help me grieve and I wouldn't talk to anyone about how I was feeling. I cried, but never in front of anyone and it was very rare. On the day of her death I was two hours away from home and got a call from my dad telling me I needed to come immediately. Even though he didn't tell me that my mother had died I knew what had happened and as I drove those hundred miles all I thought about was what was I going to do with school, what arrangements needed to be made and how I was going to take care of my family. I didn't cry and I didn't want to think about the fact that my mother was in my living room at that moment lying in her hospital bed and never going to wake up again. When I got home I realized that I was running to my front door which i never did. My Dad opened the door and told me that my mother had died. Actually hearing the words hit me and I dropped everything in my hands and sobbed. It was the first time I had let myself go like that in 13 1/2 years. It wasn't until later in the summer that I realized everything that I have done regarding my mothers illness has been a defense mechanism. Every situation that I have blown out of proportion and every dramatic relationship that I have had was all a distraction from realizing my mother was dying. I have always been a "dramatic" person and never really understood why because I truly hate conflict. Once my mother had passed away I realized that it was all just a game for me because I needed something to do instead of dealing with my true problems. I created problems for myself so I wouldn't have to manage what was actually going on in my life.

Part 2:
Jung’s Typology Test
ESFJ
It's funny because when I looked at what an ESFJ was I thought, "oh my gosh, that is me!.... I'm glad I'm not the only crazy one." An ESFJ is known as the "caregiver" and strives to please people. When I looked up what careers would be good for me this was the list that came up;

Home Economics

Nursing

Teaching

Administrators

Child Care

Family Practice Physician

Clergy or other religious work

Office Managers

Counselors / Social Work

Bookkeeping / Accounting

Administrative Assistants

No I do not want to become a clergy or work in accounting but most of occupations on this list I have wanted to do at one time or another, which I thought was pretty cool.

Part 3:
Adler: Early Recollections
1. One of the first memories that I can remember is when I found my mother face down on her bathroom floor after her first seizure. I was nine and at home because we did not have school that day. We had just got to the store because there was an outbreak of lice at my elementary school and every child had to use the special lice shampoo. My mother had put the shampoo in my hair and we had to let it sit. I went out into the living room to watch my all time favorite show at the time, Matlock, and a few minutes later I heard banging coming from the bathroom. I yelled for my mom but I didn't get an answer. I can remember thinking, "oh no she got some of the lice shampoo in her eye!!!" which at the time was the worst thing that could happen, I now laugh about that every time I think about it. I tried to get into the bathroom but the door was being blocked by my mothers body. As a nine year old I had no idea what was going on so I went to the phone and dialed 911. While I was on the phone with the operator my mother came out of the bathroom and asked what I was doing. I told her that I was on the phone with 911, the took the phone and said "I'm so sorry, I must have fallen, I am fine." They sent firemen and an ambulance anyway. I remember standing in the kitchen as they hooked her up to machines and as the firemen put away groceries that my mother had not gotten to yet.
2. When I was trying to think of memories of when I was younger all that I could think about were memories of me and my mom after she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. I tried very hard to think of something else but it was those memories that I have held on to forever and will probably never forget.

PP part III

Rebekah.Evans — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:09:43 CDT

Psychodynamic Theories:
Freud Defense Mechanism

Freud has a series of Defense Mechanism, things we do to avoid anxiety with a situation. I definitely recognize the use of several defense mechanism that I use.

The one I use most often is repression, that is, knowing the situation is there, but not dealing with it. I have been doing that with my finals. I know that they are there and need to be done, more importantly I know that I should be stressed, about whether they will be finished on time. If you look around Trinity, you will see more interesting stories of what students are doing because they are dealing with their stress. However, I am not accepting that I am stressed, even though I am. I am refusing to dwell on stress, and rather pretend that the school year is not over. Often times, for the last month, when someone mentions the end of school, my reply is not to mention it. I know the anxiety is there, I just refuse to allow it.

Denial is one I have newly discovered. It is when you refuse to accept a situation. When I was 10 my parents divorced. I took it all in stride. I did not cry when my father moved out. I even have over the past few years wondered why I was so disconnected from an event that usually makes children miserable. Children blame themselves or want their parents to get back together. I was aware of my parents divorce, but I totally denied the effect it had on me. It has come to my attention in college, that I have been emotionally effected by the "lose" of my father.

I use the humor defense mechanism when things are going wrong. When dealing with the end of relationships, for myself and others, I use humor to dispel the tension. I do not necessarily tell jokes, but I do things that are considered at least a little amusing.

When dealing with expected confrontation, I use Anticipation. Anticipation is when you rehearse before what you are going to say and all possible replies, so that you are ready for whatever the response is. I have difficulty telling people what I actually feel or think if it might hurt their feelings. I also struggle with saying no to people. To better react, I use anticipation so that I do not back, and I do my best not to hurt feelings more than they need to be.

Jung:
The Keirsey Temperment Sorter is a test to determine what your personality is. There are 4 different sections: Introvert/Extrovert: energized by alone time, or energized by being with other people; Sensation/iNtuition: observing to form an opinion, or "getting feelings"; Thinking/Feeling: logical thinking, or letting emotions dictate; and Judging (linear)/ Percieving (Random)- linear thinking, or more scattered thinking.

The interesting thing for is I have been pretty close on the J/P scale for as long as I have taken this test. The last time they were equal. I have become steadily more introverted since the first time I have taken the test, so much so that E and I were tied the last time I took it. After taking this test the last time, I had some experiences where I was tired and needed to recharge. It got me thinking about whether I was really Extroverted like I have always believed. I realized that no matter how tired I was, I would want to go out and be with people. When I was extermely tired and "just needed to go home" as I said, I only needed 5 minutes alone before I was ready to be out and about. I was not tired because I was around people, it was because of the situation. Once I was able to remove myself from that situation, I was able to be recharged by people.

ENFP
1. 3 types of careers and why.
Psychologist, Actor, Writer. One of the traits of an ENFP is being project oriented. All of these types of job deal with projects, a patient or client, a play, a book. They also have great interpersonal skills and creativity.

2. It is interesting to me that these three were on the list. These are actually three jobs that I would enjoy doing. My current plans are to eventually become a psychologist. In an ideal world, I would be a writer on the side. Although acting is not a job I would be capable of having, it is a passion I have. The psychologist job is the one thing I have set in my furture.

Adler
When I was in kindergarten, we had a morning class and an afternoon class, in the same classroom. All of the kindergartners went on a field trip, and we got back before the end of school. I cried because the person who had my seat for the other class was sitting it my seat. My mom took me home early.

In the first grade, we had story time and would read out of a book. One time, while cleaning the area, I knocked over the book and the bookmark fell out. I put the bookmark back in the general area of where I thought we were, without reading to see where it should go. When we were reading later and the class realized the bookmark had moved, I did not say anything.

Looking at these two memories and the others that come to mind from over the years show me two separate traits, that are still very true today. The first is that I will attempt to manipulate people to get my way. The second, is that I am a people-pleaser and do not like people thinking poorly of me.
Although I am trying not to manipulate people as much, I still do it. I do not cry or pout (often) but I do other things. To defuse punishment, I smile sweetly and say nothing. I make up excuses not to do things until it fits my desires. One of the most important things for me is how others see me. I am trying to change my mentality with this, but it is still there. If I think people will look down on me for doing something, I will avoid it. I am not comfortable in the room with someone who is upset, no matter who (or what) they are upset with. I have to tell myself "who cares" before doing something a little out there.

Although these are two traits I do not completely like about myself, I can still see them there in my everyday life.

David's page

David.Beers — Thu, 21 May 2009 11:16:48 CDT

David Beers is amazing
Personality portfolio
Part 1

Skinner: Shaping Other’s Behavior

Problem: My girlfriend, Kayla, never goes to the grocery store with a list or idea of what she wants to buy. This makes it so we always end up forgetting things that we need or the trip takes a lot longer than is should be.

The target behavior: Get Kayla to make a list before we go out to the grocery stores.

Behavior Modification System: The system I will use to get Kayla to increase my target behavior is positive reinforcement. I will do this by giving Kayla a Jamba Juice or similar type of drink every time we go to the grocery store and she remembers to make a list. I will do this by using continuous reinforcement because we don’t do this activity very often. The only problem with using this type of reinforcement is it has a high extinction rate if the behavior is no longer positively reinforced. So after I see an improvement in the in ability to perform the target behavior I will switch to a variable ratio in order to keep her doing the target behavior.

Bandura: Self-Efficacy

High Self-Efficacy: I have high self-efficacy in ability to be a good boyfriend. Through my past experiences I have had bad relationships so I have learned how to improve and do things better. Also I have been told that I’m doing a good job at being one right now.

Low Self-Efficacy: I have low self-efficacy in my ability to control my anxiety in social situations. Through my past experiences I have noticed that I have a hard time controlling my anxiety when I’m in a social situation, and I quiet frequently have to stop whatever I’m doing because of this.

For increasing my area of low self-efficacy I can use an increase in my verbal persuasion from others. If I were to be told that I can control my anxiety and that everything is going to be ok then I could have an easier time going out and doing things that I like. Also if I verbally persuade myself, then I can explain to myself that I’ll be ok and nothing is going to happen that can’t control. Also I could look at vicarious experiences because I can see at how other around me are handling the same situations. I can see that my friends are able to control there anxiety and get things done, so I should be able to do it too.

Positive Psychology: Positive Emotions and Happiness

One way I can increase my positive my positive emotion is by doing my own form of love and kindness meditation at night. Every night be for I go to bed I could meditate on how I have been loved that day not on the negative things that happened. These thoughts can be from how Kayla or Brander, or even just some random person who helps me that day or how they have showed me love. Also while meditating I can think of how I can love and help out those around me. Then the second way I can apply this love and kindness to others by helping them, which is also something that I enjoy doing. In doing these I will have more positive emotions and thoughts and I will live longer. Go me.

Am I happy. No I’m not happy but I’m not really sad. According to Ed Diener’s Subjective Well-Being Scale I would put myself at a 4.5. According to Myers there are four traits which happy people usually exemplify: positive self-esteem, a sense of personal control in ones life, optimism, and a tendency towards extroversion. I find myself having a hard time with all of them, but if had to choose two that I’m successful at I would pick optimism and a tendency towards extroversion. The two that I’m really not likely to have is positive self-esteem, a sense of personal control in ones life. The reason I don’t feel I don’t have much control over my life because of school and work, I really feel like I don’t decide when I get to do the things I want to. Some steps to fix this would be to make a schedule of all my work and school work and then set aside time where I get to choose what I do and when to give myself a little bit more control. With the positive self-esteem I lack this because I don’t have a high self-efficacy in myself. Some steps I could take would be to look at all the positive things I have done through my past experiences. Also it would be good for me to have someone tell me all the good I do, and also tell myself the same things.

Personality Portfolio
Part 2

Horney: Neurotic Trends

Moving Towards People:
I had a hard time applying this to myself because I find myself not doing this at all really(or maybe I’m just in denial), but I did find an example in my life. My ex-girlfriend was like this almost to the exact description I found on the web site: http://www.helium.com/items/1400236-karen-horney-and-neurotic-types. She had a huge fear of abandonment because her dad had past away, and she became very clingy to me to the point in which she lost all her friends and tried to spend all the time with me. Also she looked to me to solve all her emotional problems. I can remember her calling me everyday last year and trying to get me to fix everything that was going wrong in her life. Also she was looking for me to be the dominate one and looked to me to take care of her. A great example of this was when she got fired from her job she looked to me to help her with financial problems and even what to do with her life. Last she really needed approval for everything in life. She would always ask me what she needed to do and always sought out my approval for everything.

Moving Against People:
I tend to experience this one on a regular basis. An example from my life is in my relationships with my friends. This probably isn’t the healthiest way to do things but I still do it. I have a huge need to be in control with my friends. I like to make the decisions and have the power to have people do what I want them to do. When this doesn’t happen I tend to cut them off or avoid them. Also I look for admiration from my friends. I really like it when my friends look up to me, and I like it when people come to me when they need help. Last I tend to exploit others and use them to benefit myself. I don’t know why I do this because I usually don’t try to do this but I find myself doing this a lot. Side note: after thinking about this I kind of feel like a jerk.

Moving Away From People:
I mostly experienced this in high school. In high school I mostly secluded into myself and I also had the tendency to only keep a few friends and I mostly would lose them when things got a little rough. Also I had the mentality that of I left people alone then they would leave me alone and I wouldn’t have to deal with them. Last if I found a situation hard then I would just try and avoid it just like I would avoid people.

Which of the three do you think is most natural or frequent for you?
Like I said before I feel like “Moving Against People” is what I frequently do. This is kind of bad because I feel like I do this most of the time with out thinking. I have a huge tendency to want power and control in all aspects of my life and when I feel I lose this control I have a really hard time coping with life. I have been experiencing this in this class because I tend to set unrealistic standards and I’m not matching up to it because for the first time in my life I actually have to work hard for something. Also I tend to need social recognition in every thing I do because I really like it when people tell me I’m doing a good job or when people see me accomplishing stuff.

Erikson: Sources of Identity

Choose three of Erikson's sources that you believe are the most important to our own sense of identity, and for each, explain how they contribute to your stable ego identity

Family -
My family system is a dysfunctional one, but I feel it has helped shape my identity the most. I use my family to look on how I want my life to be. Sometimes I try to model after them, like my sister Jackie who is very successful in life, and sometimes I try to do the opposite of them, like my sister Sarah who hasn’t been very successful. By learning through observing I have learned what values worked and didn’t work, and then I applied this to my life. I also feel my family shaped my identity by how I was raised and how I perceived how I was raised. This shapes how I identify my role in a relationship because of my parents. In relationship to my ego development, my family has taught me right from wrong. Last, my family has put a set of standards that I have chosen to follow and live my life by.

Values -
Most of my life vales have come from a combination of family and religion. My values are what really control my ego and I mostly base everything I do on my values I’ve decided to follow. With out my core values I would be lost and not understand my identity. I feel like my identity is greatly influenced by the values I have chosen to follow. Also I feel like the values give me away to explain why I am the way I am. Having the values I believe in be a major part of my identity, I can use these values to help me put a firm foundation on my identity. My Foundations class taught me to set up some core values and build off of these the rest of my identity. I do this and it helps me to keep my life in balance.

Religion -
Religion is one of the most important parts of my identity. I feel like religion has given me some of my life values, which is also an important part of my identity. Also religion was an important part of my life during Erikson’s identity vs. role confusion stage which is where most of my identity development happened. I defiantly see myself as part of my religion and my religion plays a big in my life. Religion influences how I think, how I feel, and how I interact in certain situations. Also religion gives me something to fall back on in times of struggle and need. If I could put a name to my ego would be religion because religion is at the core of my life filter. Last religion is something I relate to really well so it gives me a way to base my life.

Maslow: Characteristics of Healthy People

1. Which two characteristics of self-actualization are represented most strongly in your personality? Give examples of each.

The two characteristics that are most strongly represented in my personality are spontaneity and detachment.

People who are self actualized have a tendency to have increased spontaneity. I feel like this didn’t come in my life until recently but it now is an essential part of who I am. I have found that I love growing and continuing in this growing by means of counseling and inner reflection. With this, I have discovered I love to try new ways of learning about myself and love applying what I learn to my life (especially in this class). I also enjoy being more spontaneous and trying new things. I also have been listening to my impulses more and also have been controlling them much better than I had in the past. Last, I feel as though I am an individual and have my own thoughts and feelings and that is ok. I feel like this individuality is what helps me with the other characteristic.

Also people who are self actualized have a tendency to have an increased detachment and desire for privacy. I feel I have both of these in a healthy way. I enjoy my privacy and alone time, and I really don’t need someone to be by my side all day every day, sometimes I just like to be alone. When I am alone, I don’t feel lonely or like I’m all by my self in this world. With the detachment I feel like I am a self starter and can get things done on my own, even though I don’t always enjoy doing that. I have noticed an increase in my dependence when I came to college because I didn’t have my parents to help me out with all my problems. Last, I feel like this has also contributed to why I didn’t move back home this year, which would have been more practical and cost efficient, but I enjoy being by myself and being responsible for myself.

2. Which two characteristics of self-actualization are least represented in your personality? Why do you think this is the case? Are these characteristics you would like to develop?

The two characteristics that are least represented in my personality are acceptance and creativity.

I feel like I have a little creativity but it is not very high on my list. I feel this because I can be creative when I have to, but I rarely do it out of pure enjoyment. This is not to say that I never like being creative. I just find it hard to think creatively and to try and think outside the box. Also when I am given a choice to do things in a creative way or just to get the task done I usually chose to do the way that is most effective. Last I feel like I’m not that original. I do enjoy trying to be original but if I have the choice once again I would prefer to do something the way someone has already done it.

I also feel like I lack acceptance of self, others, and nature. I really feel like this is mostly acceptance of self that I am struggling in. when it comes to others and nature I mostly have a neutral outlook, but I feel it would be better if I was more accepting of those things. What I’m really not accepting of is myself. I have a hard time not feeling guilty about things and I regret a lot of stuff. I also have a hard time just accepting that I am the way I am because I really want to be better than I am today. Also I feel like I don’t enjoy myself to my full potential. Last I feel as though I have unnecessary inhibitions because I could do a lot if I wasn’t holding myself back.

I would really like to develop both of these characteristics because then I could become a much more holistic person. Also I feel like these can be very beneficial like being creative. I feel being creative will give me an opportunity to really let my mind go and show that I can think creatively, and with the self acceptance, that would be nice to not feel so guilty all the time.

Rogers: Counseling Characteristics
1. Describe Rogers' view of empathy in your own words. Imagine that a friend of yours confides in you about her parents' recent separation; she feels cause in the middle of their ongoing arguments and is having trouble focusing on school as a result, How could you demonstrate your empathy for your friend?

Rogers view on empathy is feeling what they are feeling without getting your own emotions mixed in with theirs. Also he said that we generally view people’s lives in our terms not in theirs and we need to be in theirs, and getting into their life is much more effective for counseling. Last he said it is important to show the intent that you are trying to understand because even that is helpful.

If I had a friend who was going through these troubles I could show my empathy by not trying to look at them from an outside prospective and say I understand that you feel this way. I could try and put my self in their situation without involving my self too deeply where my emotions get out of my control. Last I would let them know I’m trying to understand how they feel because that can help them know that I’m really trying to experience what they are. (Side note: I had a councilor try this and I thought is wasn’t very effective for me)

2. Describe Rogers' view of unconditional positive regard (again, in your own words). How could you demonstrate unconditional positive regard with a school-age child who has just sworn at you in the midst of a tantrum?

Rogers’ view on unconditional positive regard is to show some one positive attitude or feeling toward some one no matter what happens. You also show them a nonromantic love called agape love. Last you prize the client as a person not just as a client and show them that they have worth in you life.

You can show this unconditional positive regard to a child who has sworn at you by telling them it’s ok, but don’t dismiss it. You need to tell them that you didn’t appreciate that, but this doesn’t mean you don’t like them or want to be with them. You need to show them the positive attitude no matter what, and understand that it probably wasn’t completely intentional that they did this. Last you need to tell them that you still value them as a person but you really didn’t approve of their most recent actions.

Personality portfolio
Part 3

Defense mechanisms:

When it comes to remembering dreams I just don’t so I’m choosing to do defense mechanism I use.

Denial: This is a defense mechanism that I was using up until recently. When I was ten, one of my sisters was heavily using drugs, and up until recently was in complete denial that this time period in my life had any effect on me personally. I final admitted to myself that this did effect me and my thoughts about my sister when I started counseling in November. Denial is not only a river in Egypt… it effects every one.

Fantasy: This is one that I used, when I was around the age of ten, a lot also. I used this because during this time, because of my sister’s drug usage, my family was constantly fighting with each other. When the fighting would happen I would go in my room and pull the blanket over my head and start to live in a fantasy world. This world would be similar each time; it usually had to do with me in a medieval realm fighting off dragons and demons. I did this for many years until I hit high school.

Acting out: This was my 4 years in high school. During this time I was rebelling against my parents just to get attention. I would mostly act out by dressing in a gothic type manner. Also I would do excessive amounts of arguing with them. I found myself starting to stop all of this once my family troubles started to die down.

Anticipation: this is the defense mechanism I use the most. I use this a lot especially when I get into an argument with someone and have to confront them later. I will usually run through the scenario at least once or twice anticipating what I will say and how they will respond to it. Also I do this for most critical conversations like a job interview or if I have to call someone I don’t know on the phone (which I hate more than anything).

Jung: Personality Type

I am an: ISFJ

1) According to www.personalitypage.com three jobs people in this profile are attracted to are: Clergy or Religious Workers, Counselors, and Social Work. I feel that these jobs would be considered by people like me because we are organized, and are in tune with how people feel. Also people like this have the introverted side so they value the one on one type of relationships that most of these jobs require.
2) I have considered to go into the clergy or into some form of child psychology. I feel that the clergy would be most compatible with my description because it requires a lot of organization and being able to sense how others are feeling (according to the website people like me are good at that). Also introverts enjoy more of the one on one type of relationships that clergy would be going through. Last the overview that the website said was this profile was a nurture, and I feel that clergy are nurtures.

Adler: Early Recollections

1) The earliest memory that I have is the one when I was ten and my sister came home high on drugs. I remember her coming home and telling me that there were people after her and I stayed up all night worrying about my sister. Another memory that I have was the night that my sister went to rehab. I had to leave the house because my parents had people from the clinic come over and take my sister away. I didn’t get to see her for 3 months.

2) I notice a theme of addiction. This has been a theme through most of my life with addition effecting members of my family and also myself. I feel that this theme relates to my current life because I just came over the addiction to cigarettes and tattoos. This style of life is one that I lived trough for a few years but now I am out of it and the theme of overcoming addiction is one that I now see in my memories.

Alumni

betsi.little — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:30:08 CDT

Final 3

Kayla.Rose — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:55:56 CDT

Is Hate Crime Legislation Constitutional?

Hate crimes are terrible things both to comprehend and to act out. There are so many people, so many groups, and so many conflicting ideas that it doesn't really seem difficult to develop hatred towards any number of people. Sadly, certain groups of people are protected more by legislature than others. It seems that even in the majority of our state courts people are heartened to know that they are not protected by their state's statutes. Based on the text of the eight Amendment it is apparent that it is unconstitutional that any one group be protected over any other group and that in under no circumstances are any citizen's rights allowed to be abridged. Some people take the stance that hate crimes are more heinous that the same type of crime committed not in hate. For example if a woman is assaulted because she is a lesbian versus a woman being assaulted by a mugger in general, some would say that the man responsible for assaulting the lesbian should receive a harsher punishment because of his motivation. Should all violent crimes be viewed solely as such or is it necessary for the courts, jury, and judge to dig deeper and punish an offender because of an opinion that he acted out? Is it constitutional to make an exception and allow certain groups to be protected above others because of their race, religion, color, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, or gender?

Yes: Elena Grigera
Hate Crimes: State and Federal Response to Bias-motivated Violence

This did not seem like a very compelling article in the way of making me think that hate crime legislation is constitutional. Grigera presented this article as more of a summary or collection of facts and opinions about hate crime legislation in general. The article is set up under several very comprehensive headings, the first one being concerning the definition of hate crime and the issues surrounding it. Grigera uses the Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act literature to define a hate crime as, "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim... based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." Next, the article very briefly mentions why hate crime legislation is necessary. Under the next heading is a segment on what states have hate crime laws and specified punishments, what states have yet to define them, and the varying protected groups that are covered under these statutes in each state. Constitutionally the perspective of developing harsher punishments for crimes committed against protected groups can be debated. According to some the law- to be lawful- must remain blind in this respect. The law must not create inequality among groups by punishing those who commit crimes against them.... Wait, shouldn't this argument be in the next article? Hmm... The article then redeems itself by showing how many of these attempts have been thwarted at the state level.

No: Andrew Sullivan
What's So Bad About Hate: The Illogic Illiberalism of Hate Crime Laws

This author was by far more eloquent than the author of the article before. This may or may not have affected my opinion- or at least made me feel more justified in it. Sullivan starts his article by giving a few examples of hate crimes that had been publicized somewhat recently. His article then moves the reader into a contemplation of what hate really is and if the hatred paired with hate crimes is a different breed altogether. He mentions that just how there are different kinds of love (obsessive, need, etc.) there are different shades of hate (hate of the victim, hate that expresses power, etc); each of these "breeds" are sometimes better when viewed as separate entities rather than one in the same. Sullivan also goes to psychotherapist Young-Bruehl for a more psychological approach to the separate kinds of hate. Young-Bruehl states that there are three kinds of hate: hysterical hatred, which is fueled by the hater's own repressed feelings of eroticism towards the hated (an example is of men opposed to gay rights being aroused by homo eroticism); Narcissistic hate, sexism, and obssessive hate that consists of a fantasized threat from a minority. Sullivan also speaks of the lack of thought towards the victimized and the lack of thought towards the hater/hated relationship. Some racists, homophobes, or sexists might even gain a sense of power or recognition because of their actions fueled by hatred. This can be viewed as giving power to the "pathetic and the evil". In Sullivan's words, the government cannot do anything for the hated "that the hated cannot do better for themselves". "For hate is not foiled when the haters are punished but when the hated are immune to the bigot's power" (p 201).

I think it is unconstitutional to make hate crimes deserving of harsher punishments. I embedded a video from Google videos with Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt speaking against the unconstitutionality of Hate Crime Legislation. He definitely covers the things that I would like to say in my response here, but he probably does it more articulately than I could. (right now I am trying to explain it to David and I am doing a poor job)

Portfolio Part III

tristianleigh — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:30:32 CDT

Freud: Defense Mechanisms
Pick 4 defense mechanisms that we discussed in class, and give an example of how you have used each one at some point in your life.

According to the lecture in class, isolation is when someone separates their feelings from ideas and events. For example describing a traumatic event with no emotional response.

I may have a bit of a promiscuous back ground when it comes to relationships. The year after my graduation from high school I took a year off from school and worked. I didn’t have much responsibility except for work, and even so I worked at a boot store. It wasn’t exactly a high stress situation. In fact that summer and the following year I went out to parties and met boys and was in a few different relationships throughout the year.
Recently I entered into a relationship and my past was questioned. I explained some of it (not close to all or nearly half) and answered questions I was asked. Later he commented on how I could sit there and talk about the events without much emotion behind my words. Rather than getting emotional I simply sat there reciting facts and details which didn’t mean much to me. I think he had a point. That’s because I’m not exactly happy with that part of my life, it is what it is. I can’t go back and change that now. To deal with it I have disconnected my emotional feeling from those events and attributed them to items that simply happened in my life. I no longer want to waste emotion or regret on those events. In this case I feel like I used isolation as a defense mechanism for dealing with those events in my past.

We learned regression is temporarily reverting to an early state to deal with a problem rather than dealing with it in a normal way. Often the person reverts back to the state where they first encountered this problem and deals with it in the same manner they dealt with it in that setting.

I’m pretty sure we all know this one for me. I’ve mentioned it many times in previous personality profiles and we’ve discussed it in class multiple times. I have difficulty dealing with change, specifically when it involves moving on to next steps in my life or when important people are leaving or entering my life. In my example both are happening. I’m graduating from Trinity and I’m not sure what the next step is. I’m also leaving many good friends and moving back to Issaquah (temporarily). What’s beyond that, I’m not sure. I spent so much time trying to avoid dealing with it that I have ended up taking a year off to gather myself. Also I started acting like I did when I graduated high school. I started blowing off homework, I’ve been told that I’m acting out, I began to drink slightly more than I did throughout the other 3 years of my college career, and I may have even smoked a few cigarettes. This was how I acted when I didn’t know what to do about college. Luckily I see this and I’m trying to deal with it appropriately. (I’m still working on it I think…) This has not really been a successful defense mechanism expect for the fact that it got my mind of the situation at hand, graduation.

We learned that humor is often used to release tension and distract one from having to express their ideas and feelings. They redirect the conversation or attention into a joke or a funny story. They will often times relate the situation at head to a something funny. This can relieve stress.

I’m a big fan of using humor to de-intensify a situation. When a conversation gets too serious or I am feeling comfortable I will crack a joke to light a mood. Related to the previous defense mechanism, when people ask me what I’m doing when I graduate I tend to make a joke or say something such as, “would we all like to know…” I simply am uncomfortable with the question because I don’t know the answer.

But another example of when I used humor as a defense mechanism is when my great grandmother died. We, being my brother and I (because he knew I was struggling and wanted to help me get through it), sat around cracking jokes about her and her life and saying how she was in a better place and we wouldn’t have to put up with her cooking anymore. Dealing with losing her, we made jokes about the memories we had of her. Eventually we moved on to other ways of remembering, but I’m glad my brother was there to help me get through it by going along with my jokes. He knows me really well and knew that’s what I was going through rather than yelling at me for making jokes about our recently deceased grandmother.

Suppression is when an individual pushes thoughts out of the conscious mind into the preconscious because they do not want to deal with the emotions or to help them cope with reality. They can later bring these suppressed emotions to the conscious to deal with them.

Disclaimer, this like most of my entries makes me sound like a really bad person; I don’t think I’m actually that bad. I tend to emphasize certain aspects of situations to make my point... alright read on if you must…
So during J-Term I had a boyfriend which I did not fully like. I didn’t find him attract, nor did I like his attitude or personality. He was rude and dating him was an adventure. I was constantly annoyed by him and eventually decided I did not want to date him. I came to the conclusion that I was only dating him for certain reasons, the location of his apartment and time away from Trinity. However I didn’t want to break up with him for some reason. Rather than dealing with this and breaking up with him right away, I suppressed the feelings and ignored the fact that I wanted to break up with him and just drug myself along in the relationship. I eventually started complaining about him aaaaalll the time and got help breaking up with him. But I have no idea why it was so hard for me to do. Not only did ii use suppression for ignoring the fact that he was annoying at first, but I think I might have used repression earlier on in life and that is why I find it so difficult to break up with significant others? I’m not sure it might be something to explore. I think it would be a good idea to list all the relationships I’ve had and who’s broken up with who and how that happened, then of the bad ones I’ll see if there is anything I can remember to explain this negative reaction I have towards ending relationships on my terms.

Adler: Early Recollections
1. Adler believed that early memories are an important means of exploring personality. Jot down brief descriptions of 2-3 of your earliest memories. Note who is present in the recollection, what the world is like, and your own primary feelings, motivations, and behaviors.

I have this memory of when I was no more than 4 years old, taking a bath with my new swimming Barbie. I loved her, she was in a tie-dyed swim suit with long blonde hair, full face of makeup, and silver stud earrings. I played in the bath for quite some time because we only used that bathroom for when we wanted to take baths for some reason because my mom had a stand up shower and that’s what my brother and I always used for shower time. So when we did take baths they were special. I remember asking my mom if I could take a bath because I wanted to play with my Barbie in the tub. I made her swim around the tub and had fake conversations with her; I don’t remember what exactly the conversations were. I do remember that I wore a bathing suit into the bath because I wanted to be like my Barbie, which is kind of embarrassing to think about now, but hey I was a little girl. When it was time to get out my mom pulled the plug on the drain and I sat in the tub continuing playing while it drained. I remember playing with her earrings and I took them out. Suddenly one slipped out of my tiny hand and went down the drain. I was devastated. I cried and cried. My mom came running in and became frustrated with me because I wouldn’t stop crying and there was nothing she could do to get the tiny plastic earring back. She sat there talking with me trying to make me feel better. Eventually my brother came in but I don’t remember his involvement, I just remember his presences. I also remember being upset that my mom couldn’t fix everything. She was my hero, but failed in this situation. I was so angry with myself for letting it slip out of my hands. I replayed that moment many times before I accepted the fact that the earring was gone.

My second memory that I recall is being really young (age unknown) driving the riding lawn mower. My mom would turn the blades off and I would drive around the yard on the mower. It made me feel special. In this particular memory I was driving around and my mom was standing in the driveway talking with my aunt, my cousins may have been there but I’m not sure, along with my brother. I was driving along and then all of the sudden it got really bumpy and I remember trying to turn the steering wheel but it was really difficult. All of the sudden I run right into the bird bath, the lawn mower came to a stop, and the bird bath tumbled over. My mom comes running towards me and screams to see if I’m alright. I suddenly burst into tears. She then picks me up and carries me inside to make sure I’m alright. She calmed me down and distracted me with something else. I remember being sooo afraid that my father would be upset because it was his lawn mower. She made a promise that she wouldn’t tell me father and it would be our secret. I remember loving my mother so much at that moment because I didn’t get in trouble for the accident and she would cover for me. She left to go move the mower into the shed and put the bird bath back up. She never did tell my father. I even got to ride the mower multiple times later, however I had to stay at least 10 feet away from the bird bath at all times. I felt so little in this situation and everything felt like it was out of my control. I couldn’t change the fact that I ran into the bird bath.

2. Now examine these early memories for themes. How do themes relate to your current personality, or style of life?

My Mom’s Role:
Looking at these two memories I realize that they both have to do with my mom being the rescuer of the situation. In the first one, my mother failed and the second my mother was successful. She has always been the person I go to for help. I’m dependent on her in a lot of ways. However, realizing this has always made me want to stand on my own. Perhaps this is why I strive to be independent. I’m always feeling a struggle between holding on to that relationship with my mother, and growing up and pulling away to be my own person.

Loss of control:
In both situations I felt like I couldn’t control what happened. I couldn’t control getting the earring back and I fixated on the fact that I had lost it. With the lawn mower, I lost control of the mower and ran right into the bird bath. I needed my mother to fix the situation. To this day I hate feeling like I can’t control certain situations. I like to know what it going on and know that I have control over the outcome. This gives me a sense of security. When I don’t have control I often freak out, and many times call my mom.

Excessive crying:
I’m not really sure but for some reason in both of these memories I distinctively remember crying for an excessively long period of time. What could this mean? Did I have anxiety as a kid and couldn’t get over the situation? I’m not really sure. But even to this day when something bad happens I tend to fixate on the problem until I fix the problem, eventually get over it or someone talks me down from the ledge.

Jung: Personality Type
Jung Typology Test (Keirsey Temperment Sorter)

INTP
Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving
(Introverted Thinking with Extraverted Intuition)

“For INTP the most important preferences are Introverted Thinking. Your 'dominant function' is thinking, oriented towards the inner world. You provide explanation of how and why things happen. You bring structure and organization into the inner world of ideas and understanding. You analyze things, formulating hypotheses and explanations of how they function. You gather evidence to assess how true those explanations are. You produce mental models that replicate how particular aspects of the world work. You try to understand the full complexity of any situation.” -http://www.metarasa.com/resources/mmdi-report/

-What are 3 types of careers that people with this profile are likely to be attracted to? Why?

A great job for this would be someone who works underneath project manager thinking of and brainstorming ideas. Maybe an assistant of an inventor or someone that bounces random ideas off of a superior or partner would be an interesting path. Although INTP also work well individually so having to work with another person might be difficult. However, this might also keep things interesting.

They do not like routine work, so maybe a career that is constantly changing without getting repetitive. This might be an avenue for creative jobs such as design. Maybe coming up with ideas to make certain designs work. But nothing that involves feelings because INTP tends to not understand decisions made on feelings. So I’m hesitant to say an artist or something because often times they are motivated by feelings.

INTP like to seek patterns and logical explanations for things that interest them. So really
Any type of career dealing with logic might be an interesting career choice. Some type of reasoning job, such as an analysis. Although that job may get repetitive over time and become boring to an INTP.

-What ideas have you had about possible career directions? Which of these seems most compatible with your type description? Why?

I would really enjoy becoming a child psychologist one day. If I can put up with the schooling my dream job is to be a child counselor, mainly to help children by listening to them. I’d like to provide them with a safe place to share and open up. To have that place where they feel comfortable and don’t have to keep everything bottled up inside because that can be unhealthy and lead to all sorts of problems. This is interesting because deals a great bit with feelings which is not compatible with what I read from the INTP profile report.

I’ve also thought of Human Resources work. I think this may be compatible because the work tends to change from case to case. However not always so there is that risk of becoming repetitious. It is compatible in the sense of using ideas and facts to find the reasoning behind certain problems and then coming up with theories and solutions to solve the problems. However I might run into the issue of feelings in this career choice. (I’m not completely sure that I should look specifically for career which do not deal with feelings, because I do not necessarily agree with that part of my score on the typology test).

I did a basic google search for “jobs for INTP” and found many sites suggestions professional careers.
Careers mentioned by http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/careers/intp.htm include:

List No 1

The careers that, in our research, made most use of INTP's preferred function include:

List No 2

Careers chosen by those preferring the INTP's dominant function (Ti) (calculated using "selection ratio")	Careers chosen by those preferring the INTP's auxiliary function (Ne) (calculated using "selection ratio")
Professor/academic/lecturer Lawyer/attorney Scientist/biologist/physicist/chemist Researcher Consultant Engineer Computer specialist Doctor/health care Sales Careers/occupational advice/therapy Business Analyst Accountant/auditor/ banker/economist Writer/editor Teacher	Human Resources Teacher Engineer Scientist/biologist/physicist/chemist Assistant Accountant/auditor/banker/economist Careers/occupational advice/therapy Computer specialist Consultant Artist/actor Senior Manager Manager Trainer Project manager

Taking Sides 3

karlie.hill — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:33:44 CDT

Is Hate Crime Legislation Constitutional?
The argument about the constitutionality of hate crime legislation began with the argument stating that hate crime legislation is constitutional. The author began with the issue of hate crimes, and how often they occur in the United States. She stated that many states have little to no hate crime laws or statutes within their constitutions to protect those who are having crimes committed against them based off of race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. The author stated that hate crimes laws would protect minority groups who are typically victims of hate crimes. Beyond the state level, there are those who are pushing to have hate crime legislation put into the United States Constitution. There are often many challenges in trying to change the constitution for hate crime based laws. Many people say that it is wrong to say one crime is worse than other, and causes lesser victimization for some people as opposed to others. By changing the constitution, there would be harsher punishment for hate driven crimes, as they are crimes merely for violence, but also for “greater individual and societal harm.”

The second argument begins by trying to define hate. As we begin to define hate and hate crimes, the numbers of those crimes are obviously going to go up, even when the crime level stays the same. If hate is an idea or belief, how can the constitution put boundaries on that idea or laws constricting a person from feeling that? The author specified many different types of hate, and that the hate does not cause problems until it is acted upon. When hate becomes violent, is that when hate crimes occur? The author also worked to define what would be a hate crime, once we understood hate. The point he had made seemed to be if we cannot define or put borders on something as large as hate, how can we creates laws to protect it?

Personally, I don’t think that either of these arguments presented much for their side. I agree with aspects of both. What defines hate? The irrational feeling of disgust and extreme detest for a person seems to come to mind for me. Humans all feel hate which can lead to racism on a daily basis. Just as the second author said, when we are walking down the street, we will much more fear a black male than a white female, which is something that I can attest to. So we all feel hate, but we do not all act on it. There are things that I can hate, but if I act on that hate, I believe that is when it becomes a hate crime. At the moment when hate goes from thought to action, that is when the law needs to step in. There has to be more harsh punishments for those who commit these acts, and they are to show the society and individuals the hate that exists within them, and to instill fear because of their hate. This is why the constitution needs to have laws protecting the victim, and setting harsher punishment for the oppressor. By putting laws in place, we are protecting those who do not choose to be hurt based off of their gender, race, or sexuality. The laws would also put constraints on people who will act based off of their irrational thought. We cannot control people’s thoughts or actions, as they choose to act on their thoughts.

Is Capital Punishment Bad Public Policy?
The initial argument saying that capital punishment is bad public policy began with saying that capital punishment costs too much, and produces no results. It ends up in backlog, with one person killed for every four people sentenced to death. As well, capital punishment can be used as racial discrimination, which is apparent as more people who are poor or a racial minority is put to death. Capital punishment can also be unconstitutional as it is sometimes seen as cruel and unusual punishment, and does not guarantee equal protection. With all of the underlying issues of the death penalty being federally mandated, the courts chose to put it to the states. Another reason for capital punishment being bad public policy is because those who are put to death is left to the individual judges discretion. They have the power to choose whether criminal history or the degree of violence of the crime can cause a person to have the death penalty, but they also have the power to choose what a mitigating circumstance would be that would leave a person with a life sentence. This also leads judges and juries to determine who is a better or worse criminal. A person with redeemable qualities is not seen as someone who would kill a person and typically is presumed as not worthy of the death penalty. People against the death penalty also oppose the idea of risk involvement. They question what would lead a person to murder when there is great risk involved, but who is it that defines how great the risk is?
The second argument stated that the death penalty is not bad public policy. The author states that equality is lesser than justice, and therefore it does not matter who is committing the crime, but instead focusing on the fact that a crime has been committed. By removing rape as a circumstance that could lead to the death penalty, racial discrimination has been lessened, as now people cannot be put to death for a “menial” crime. The author also states that there is nothing wrong with the occasional miscarriage, or a person being put to death who shouldn’t have been. He argued that a few deaths is nothing compared to the lives that are saved because of the death penalty. He also states that a people who are fully aware of the repercussions of the crime that they are committing are then being rightly punished. A person who takes another’s life is aware of the consequences, and therefore is being shown the right ramifications for their actions. The author ended with the idea of deterrence. Though it is shown statistically that capital punishment is not deterrence for murder, even if it is deterrence for one murder, it is then serving its purpose.
I do think that capital punishment is bad public policy. Anything that is left up to a person’s discretion in the matter of life or death is wrong, as we do not know the thinking of the judge at the moment they choose to put a person to death. I understand the notion of a person being guilty and understanding their consequences at the time that they commit a crime, but a consequence is also jail, and for many people that is not a deterring factor. The idea of racial discrimination is also a factor that makes capital punishment bad. It can be used as a tool to eliminate people because of the race that they are, not the crime that they committed.

Journals 11-13 (Set 3)

tristianleigh — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:07:53 CDT

Is Capital Punishment Bad Public Policy? YES: David Von Drehle, “Miscarriage of Justice: Why the Death Penalty Doesn’t Work” NO: Ernest van den Haag, “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense” Capital punishment has been debated over the years. It is complicated to simply be for or against the issue without having some knowledge of the topic. Actually, I take that back, it’s very easy for American’s to simply pick a side and strongly support their opinion with little or no background information. This is why it’s such a heated debate, because those who actually do research and examine the topic critically are attacked by not only knowledgeable opponents but ignorant groups as well. Lets take a look at the article: The amount in which death sentences have actually been carried out over the last 75 years has fluctuated dramatically, going from around 152 executions a year to 47 to 1 back up to 23 , and then 98 executions in 1999. David Von Drehle gives the reader a history of the fight for and against the death penalty along with examples of some inmates on death row. Drehle argues that the death penalty in place drives up cost of tax payers. For all the legal fees and court processes that take place when a prisoner is sentenced to death, the expenses are astronomical compared to an inmate sentenced to life in prison. This also creates years upon years on death row for the individual. This can be seen as immoral. An individual waiting to die does not create the healthiest of psychological states. This is seen as cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty has also been attacked for the high numbers of minorities that have been executed. Drehle describes capital punishment as an unfair against the poor and minority groups. Because of the numbers of those executed compared to the percentage of races in America, it looks like minorities are being unfairly sentenced to death more often than majorities. Drehle also goes on to state from the history that the death sentence has become a matter of aggravation and mitigation for the judges. An individual is judged based on aggravating and mitigating factors of a crime. This, however, is a matter of judgment rather than one being sentenced based on fact. This seems to be unfair. Because of the automatic appeals process, the individual is judged again based on the Supreme Court’s opinions. This creates a conflict between the standards set of the original court and the Supreme Court. Who’s judgment is correct? With all the history of the death penalty, the question of its original intent comes up. Is it being used as a deterrent? Drehle states that the death sentence is no longer a deterrent for crime because of all the appeals and processes. So few of the criminals on death row actually get executed that it no longer deters crime. Ernest van den Haag argues the opposite, capital punishment is not a bad policy. His first point is against those who say distribution makes it a bad policy. Death forced on an individual will be the same no matter how many it is applied to. A more equal distribution will not make the death penalty more or less moral, it would only make it more or less equal. Therefore this is not a strong argument against the death penalty. When Ernest approaches the issue of innocent being wrongly accused and executed, his reply is a little crude. He simply states that the few deaths of the innocent do not outweigh the number of those that are justly executed. He compares it to other aspect of the corporate world where lives are ruined or even killed and how that cannot always be avoided. There are always going to be unintentional deaths, but the benefits of the death penalty surpass the risk of killing those few innocent. On deterrence, Ernest admits that although it may have not been shown statistically, a fear of death still prevents many from murdering. By continuing to reinforce the death penalty, we are deterring many from committing future crimes. Ernest concludes that is the fear of death is greater than the fear of imprisonment, the death penalty will work as a deterrent. In relation to Drehle’s claim that the death penalty is more costly to carry out than life in prison, Ernest disagrees. Ernest states this is only true if we make the assumption that a sentence for life in prison comes will no added costs of future trials. Life in prison can accumulate many costs due to judicial processes. He also goes on to state that justice is outweighed by any amount of money. We all know how I feel on the death penalty. I’m a Texas girl from Harris County (which we learned in class is one of the highest ranking counties for death sentences). I’m proud to say I support the death penalty. Does this make me seem heartless? Some might think so, but I disagree. I feel justice must be served. If someone takes a life of another individual or multiple people, they deserve to have their life taken from them. It’s an eye for an eye world; why not make it a life for a life. I feel like those states which do not use the death penalty are too soft and ask for high crime rates. There is an argument over crime actually being deterred by execution, and this I don’t have the answer to. I like to agree with Ernest, that the death penalty does deter crime even if it does not show up in studies. However, it’s hard to argue with fact that those areas with high execution rates also have high crime rates and the number does lower immediately following an execution. I do agree with those that say death sentencing creates too many prisoners on death row because they are not being executed at the same rate of sentencing. However rather than fixing this by abolishing the death penalty, they should find a solution to the long drawn out appeal process which takes place after the sentencing. There is too much time wasted in this stage. It is also ridiculous that there is an automatic appeals process. If the criminal says (s)he committed the crime and was found guilty and does not want the appeal, they should not be forced to have an appeal, they should be scheduled for execution. Also if a state doesn’t plan on executing a prisoner, why would they sentence them to death? So many states have low execution rates but continue to sentence criminals to death. This is what creates the huge imbalance of death row inmates to actual executions. When it comes to the death penalty being imposed in an undistributed way, I disagree. We learned in class that those who tend to be arrested are usually from minority groups because of many different factors. Well this is the same. If they are getting arrested, they are more likely to be tried and receive a higher rate of punishment. Therefore yes they may have a higher rate of being sentenced to death, but it’s not that they are chosen based on their race to receive the punishment, that’s just eh way to cookie crumbles because of our justice system. So the punishment is not unjust simply because it is being used against some and not others. Yes there may be something to look at to try to create an equal balance, but there in not an issue of justice with the punishment. Is Hate Crime Legislation Constitutional? YES: Elena Grigera, “Hate Crimes: State and Federal Response to Bias-Motivated Violence” NO: Andrew Sullivan, “What’s So Bad About Hate: The Illogic and Illiberalism Behind Hate Crime Laws” Elena Grigera argues the Crime Legislation is constitutional. She expresses her feelings of hate crimes to be malicious and wrong. She states that hate crimes are so evil because they are intended to terrorize not only the victim but the whole group in which the victim fits into, be it race, sexual orientation, sex, or religion. When hate crimes occur the whole group is attacked and lives in fear. There can be a psychological impact on the communities as they fear future attacks. Often the communities will feel vulnerable and unprotected by the law. This creates new problem which I will not address in this journal. Laws were made to deter hate crimes. Crimes which were motivated by hate and created a greater harm to society are punishable by harsher sentences. Offenders choose to act out their hate in crimes usually to random victims in certain groups. Different states have different hate crime laws, some having none. Some have tried to argue that they hate crime should not be punished more harshly than regular crimes because of the First Amendment, freedom of speech. However the Supreme Court replied by saying is does not violate the First Amendment, criminals are punished for choosing to act out violent acts based on prejudice. Instead, the victim selection and discriminatory conduct should be punished. Other arguments have been made stating that the language of the statues is unclear and vague. With this it is unclear what may or may not be constituted as a hate crime. However, the states reject this saying that any crime motivated by prejudices against one group falls under the statues. The statutes were created to create equality. They are meant to be neutral creating equal opportunity for all to be protected under the laws. Andrew Sullivan argues that there are many different meanings for the word hate. There are different types of hate with different types of motivation behind each type of hate. To classify all hate crimes into one category would be unfair. It does not allow for the crime to be explained with different motives. He also states that some wars are left better unfought, whatever this might mean. I wonder if he’s saying this is a battle we’ll never be able to win because hate is inevitable. Sullivan goes on to say we are hard-wired to hate. We need a sense of belonging, and with that comes a sense of unbelonging. We are social beings and associate with other, forming groups. By creating these groups to belong in we do not belong to other groups and form hatred towards the other groups because they are not like our group. When we get into conflict we tend to hit people where it will hurt most and attack their group. Even if it’s over silly arguments, words and feelings escalate and attack home, for example the young neighbor boy in Sullivan’s article who is ultimately charged with anti-gay harassment because of kicking and calling names. Sullivan mentions several times that we cannot condemn criminals without knowing the reasoning and feelings behind the hate. There is a knowledgeable hate and an ignorant hate. To truly understand the act, we must know the motivation and the reasoning behind the act to be able to properly punish the offender. Sullivan argues that some use racism as a joke rather than bigotry. The firefighters decorated their float to mock blacks and reenacted James Byrd’s murder. They claim they weren’t doing this to hurt someone. It was a social act to create humor. In fact this often happens. Is hate unconscious then? I think Sullivan would argue it is. The question he asks is about the motivation behind the acts. Sullivan also tried to relate with hate crimes by the prejudice he’s experienced in his own life. But Sullivan has never experience a truly traumatic hate crime. Also his threats were form members of his own group, for speaking against hate crime laws. He is seen as a traitor. He also victimizes the hate crime offenders. Finally Sullivan asks why hate for a group is worse than hate for one individual. He also goes on to say that every crime can be called a hate crime if you consider who is involved and hate laws create further separations between groups and create more harm than good. I think it hate crime laws are absolutely necessary. They protect groups who need extra protection because all the hate towards them. I’m from Spring, Texas which is right outside of Houston, Texas. Jasper, Texas is approximately 130 miles away from Spring, that’s roughly two and a half hours away. So when James Byrd was dragged in 1998, I heard about it a lot. People around Houston made a huge deal about it because it was so close. With that, I have no toleration for hate crimes. Along with my strong support of the death penalty, I think any death resulting from a hate crime should be punished by immediate death. It is inexcusable to attack a person based on the group they belong to. These harsh punishments are needed. They deter future hate crimes from happening. However, the public should be made aware of the harsh punishments for hate crimes. I feel like many do not understand the full consequences of committing a hate crime. When the media covers a hate crimes story, they should cover a little background information for the public on the laws and what the perpetrator faces. We cannot ignore the issue and hope the problem goes away. To lower our standards of citizens and hope they do not create crime out of hatred for a particular group is asinine. That is putting too high of expectations on society. People will simply take advantage of this opportunity and commit hate crimes more often. Hate crimes are dirty and malicious. I’ve seen firsthand how sweet old men can suddenly change to something evil when someone mentions a black person. I’ve also seen mothers or fathers get livid if their white daughter shows interest or is dating a black boy. They will threaten disownment. The south can be a dirty place for hate crimes. With this experience and knowledge of hate crimes, hate crimes cannot be tolerated and should have harsher punishment. With that, I stand that the hate crime legislation is constitutional. Can "Expert Witness" testimony in the Courtroom Be Made More Equitable? YES: Anna Maria Gillis, “Science in the Courtroom” NO: Preston Lerner, “A New breed of Hired Gun: In Today’s Legal System, You Not Only Need the Best Lawyers Money Can Buy – But Also the Best Expert Witnesses” Anna Maria Gillis makes it a point to explain the outrages ease it is to get an expert witness to say anything the attorney desires. She also points out the lack of experience and knowledge an expert witness may actually have. Gillis explains that an expert witness can be anyone who is willing to testify their opinion on the matter with little or no scientific proof to back their opinion. However, juries tend to take their word as absolute truth in a case. Gillis also mentions that expert witnesses are overused and a waste of money and time in the litigation process. In fact, judges often get frustrated with many expert witnesses brought in. They see the experts as hired help to support an attorney’s case. These experts distort truth. The point of the expert witness is to improve understanding of a scientific matter in a case. These witnesses should be impartial and reporting facts, rather than opinion. To make them more equitable, or impartial, Gillis has a few suggestions. She mentions the standards in which a court uses to allow certain experts to testify which have been questioned in the past. If we stick to these standards or even raise them, it will be more likely to get an impartial expert. Also, these standards should be upheld in all courts across the United States. The problem with this is that there tends to be no absolute truth in many scientific matters. So it is suggested that the experts represent theories only which are supported by majority of experts in that field or area. Also experts should only be professionals with much previous knowledge on the matter rather than the average Joe reporting on his knowledge of molecular science (just an example). Testimonies should not be permitted to be based on unpublished data and should be required to submit the data on which their inferences are based on. Judges are allowed to rule out unsound experts however judges do not have much knowledge in scientific areas so they really have difficulty in knowing what is admissible as reliable information and what is not. Judges should also take advantage of the law passed which allows them to appoint expert witnesses. However this has shown to be problematic. Judges have difficulty finding many experts so they tend to ask ones they know in personal life. They also feel like this is interfering with the system. They are likely to appoint an expert which may hurt a party’s case as opposed to supporting their side. Many experts are not willing to testify. It also presents a budget issue; by appointing experts the judges are requiring the parties to pay a certain amount for the witnesses. Some cannot afford the experts chosen. Gillis feels that rather than loosening our standards to find more expert witness, we should tighten them to make them more reliable and fair. Preston Lerner agrees that you can hire an expert witness to say anything you need. The problem is that it will always be that way. He starts his argument off talking about our poor society and a lack of adequate health care for children. I’m not sure how this pertains to the issue of equitable expert witnesses. Maybe it’s a reason for all the civil suits, a need for money? I’m not exactly sure. He does go on to make some interesting statements. He points out that the standards have been raised for expert witnesses but this hasn’t made much of a difference. Not all courts uphold these standards and many are only used in criminal cases. Civil cases deal with higher money stakes so expert witnesses are needed more. He agrees that judges can rule out witnesses, but they tend not to for some reason. He puts blame on them for allowing this to happen in the courts. He also suggests that it’s the attorney’s job to poke holes and find lacking areas in the expert’s testimony. The other party should find flaws in the expert’s evidence rather than complaining that they are being partial to one side. In all reality Lerner admits that the court system is becoming a battle between experts. Attorneys find experts who will support their case, that’s just how it works. With the experts being paid ridiculous amounts, they will continue to change their testimony to support one side’s case. I agree with Lerner that this is just how the system is these day. But I also agree that change can be made to make the testimony more equitable. By taking some of the suggestions of Gillis, we can uphold the experts to a higher standard in order to be able to testify. We cannot have average Joe in court claiming to be an expert when it has been proven that juries listen and believe the expert’s opinions. Not only should the individual’s credentials be examined but they should supply references which make them more reliable. Also their evidence should be supported by scientific support which must be shown in court. They should use appropriate processes when studying evidence for a case and all information should be made to both sides. I like the idea of judges being able to appoint experts however I think this is difficult for them. Instead of judges appointing, the government makes a list of willing and acceptable expert witnesses available and the parties are allowed to choose from the database which experts they would like to use. Attorneys should also try harder to poke hold in the expert’s testimony. This will make them seem less reliable in the juror’s eyes and they will not depend so much on the expert’s opinions. Also it’s kind of their job to do this anyway. So can they be made more equitable, yes. However, it will be hard because unfortunately money will always sway one’s testimony.

Is Capital Punishment Bad Public Policy?

YES: David Von Drehle, “Miscarriage of Justice: Why the Death Penalty Doesn’t Work”
NO: Ernest van den Haag, “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense”

Capital punishment has been debated over the years. It is complicated to simply be for or against the issue without having some knowledge of the topic. Actually, I take that back, it’s very easy for American’s to simply pick a side and strongly support their opinion with little or no background information. This is why it’s such a heated debate, because those who actually do research and examine the topic critically are attacked by not only knowledgeable opponents but ignorant groups as well. Lets take a look at the article:

The amount in which death sentences have actually been carried out over the last 75 years has fluctuated dramatically, going from around 152 executions a year to 47 to 1 back up to 23 , and then 98 executions in 1999. David Von Drehle gives the reader a history of the fight for and against the death penalty along with examples of some inmates on death row. Drehle argues that the death penalty in place drives up cost of tax payers. For all the legal fees and court processes that take place when a prisoner is sentenced to death, the expenses are astronomical compared to an inmate sentenced to life in prison. This also creates years upon years on death row for the individual. This can be seen as immoral. An individual waiting to die does not create the healthiest of psychological states. This is seen as cruel and unusual punishment.

The death penalty has also been attacked for the high numbers of minorities that have been executed. Drehle describes capital punishment as an unfair against the poor and minority groups. Because of the numbers of those executed compared to the percentage of races in America, it looks like minorities are being unfairly sentenced to death more often than majorities.

Drehle also goes on to state from the history that the death sentence has become a matter of aggravation and mitigation for the judges. An individual is judged based on aggravating and mitigating factors of a crime. This, however, is a matter of judgment rather than one being sentenced based on fact. This seems to be unfair. Because of the automatic appeals process, the individual is judged again based on the Supreme Court’s opinions. This creates a conflict between the standards set of the original court and the Supreme Court. Who’s judgment is correct?

With all the history of the death penalty, the question of its original intent comes up. Is it being used as a deterrent? Drehle states that the death sentence is no longer a deterrent for crime because of all the appeals and processes. So few of the criminals on death row actually get executed that it no longer deters crime.

Ernest van den Haag argues the opposite, capital punishment is not a bad policy. His first point is against those who say distribution makes it a bad policy. Death forced on an individual will be the same no matter how many it is applied to. A more equal distribution will not make the death penalty more or less moral, it would only make it more or less equal. Therefore this is not a strong argument against the death penalty.

When Ernest approaches the issue of innocent being wrongly accused and executed, his reply is a little crude. He simply states that the few deaths of the innocent do not outweigh the number of those that are justly executed. He compares it to other aspect of the corporate world where lives are ruined or even killed and how that cannot always be avoided. There are always going to be unintentional deaths, but the benefits of the death penalty surpass the risk of killing those few innocent.

On deterrence, Ernest admits that although it may have not been shown statistically, a fear of death still prevents many from murdering. By continuing to reinforce the death penalty, we are deterring many from committing future crimes. Ernest concludes that is the fear of death is greater than the fear of imprisonment, the death penalty will work as a deterrent.

In relation to Drehle’s claim that the death penalty is more costly to carry out than life in prison, Ernest disagrees. Ernest states this is only true if we make the assumption that a sentence for life in prison comes will no added costs of future trials. Life in prison can accumulate many costs due to judicial processes. He also goes on to state that justice is outweighed by any amount of money.

We all know how I feel on the death penalty. I’m a Texas girl from Harris County (which we learned in class is one of the highest ranking counties for death sentences). I’m proud to say I support the death penalty. Does this make me seem heartless? Some might think so, but I disagree. I feel justice must be served. If someone takes a life of another individual or multiple people, they deserve to have their life taken from them. It’s an eye for an eye world; why not make it a life for a life. I feel like those states which do not use the death penalty are too soft and ask for high crime rates. There is an argument over crime actually being deterred by execution, and this I don’t have the answer to. I like to agree with Ernest, that the death penalty does deter crime even if it does not show up in studies. However, it’s hard to argue with fact that those areas with high execution rates also have high crime rates and the number does lower immediately following an execution.

I do agree with those that say death sentencing creates too many prisoners on death row because they are not being executed at the same rate of sentencing. However rather than fixing this by abolishing the death penalty, they should find a solution to the long drawn out appeal process which takes place after the sentencing. There is too much time wasted in this stage. It is also ridiculous that there is an automatic appeals process. If the criminal says (s)he committed the crime and was found guilty and does not want the appeal, they should not be forced to have an appeal, they should be scheduled for execution. Also if a state doesn’t plan on executing a prisoner, why would they sentence them to death? So many states have low execution rates but continue to sentence criminals to death. This is what creates the huge imbalance of death row inmates to actual executions.

When it comes to the death penalty being imposed in an undistributed way, I disagree. We learned in class that those who tend to be arrested are usually from minority groups because of many different factors. Well this is the same. If they are getting arrested, they are more likely to be tried and receive a higher rate of punishment. Therefore yes they may have a higher rate of being sentenced to death, but it’s not that they are chosen based on their race to receive the punishment, that’s just eh way to cookie crumbles because of our justice system. So the punishment is not unjust simply because it is being used against some and not others. Yes there may be something to look at to try to create an equal balance, but there in not an issue of justice with the punishment.

Is Hate Crime Legislation Constitutional?

YES: Elena Grigera, “Hate Crimes: State and Federal Response to Bias-Motivated Violence”
NO: Andrew Sullivan, “What’s So Bad About Hate: The Illogic and Illiberalism Behind Hate Crime Laws”

Elena Grigera argues the Crime Legislation is constitutional. She expresses her feelings of hate crimes to be malicious and wrong. She states that hate crimes are so evil because they are intended to terrorize not only the victim but the whole group in which the victim fits into, be it race, sexual orientation, sex, or religion. When hate crimes occur the whole group is attacked and lives in fear. There can be a psychological impact on the communities as they fear future attacks. Often the communities will feel vulnerable and unprotected by the law. This creates new problem which I will not address in this journal.

Laws were made to deter hate crimes. Crimes which were motivated by hate and created a greater harm to society are punishable by harsher sentences. Offenders choose to act out their hate in crimes usually to random victims in certain groups. Different states have different hate crime laws, some having none. Some have tried to argue that they hate crime should not be punished more harshly than regular crimes because of the First Amendment, freedom of speech. However the Supreme Court replied by saying is does not violate the First Amendment, criminals are punished for choosing to act out violent acts based on prejudice. Instead, the victim selection and discriminatory conduct should be punished.

Other arguments have been made stating that the language of the statues is unclear and vague. With this it is unclear what may or may not be constituted as a hate crime. However, the states reject this saying that any crime motivated by prejudices against one group falls under the statues.

The statutes were created to create equality. They are meant to be neutral creating equal opportunity for all to be protected under the laws.

Andrew Sullivan argues that there are many different meanings for the word hate. There are different types of hate with different types of motivation behind each type of hate. To classify all hate crimes into one category would be unfair. It does not allow for the crime to be explained with different motives. He also states that some wars are left better unfought, whatever this might mean. I wonder if he’s saying this is a battle we’ll never be able to win because hate is inevitable. Sullivan goes on to say we are hard-wired to hate. We need a sense of belonging, and with that comes a sense of unbelonging. We are social beings and associate with other, forming groups. By creating these groups to belong in we do not belong to other groups and form hatred towards the other groups because they are not like our group. When we get into conflict we tend to hit people where it will hurt most and attack their group. Even if it’s over silly arguments, words and feelings escalate and attack home, for example the young neighbor boy in Sullivan’s article who is ultimately charged with anti-gay harassment because of kicking and calling names.

Sullivan mentions several times that we cannot condemn criminals without knowing the reasoning and feelings behind the hate. There is a knowledgeable hate and an ignorant hate. To truly understand the act, we must know the motivation and the reasoning behind the act to be able to properly punish the offender.

Sullivan argues that some use racism as a joke rather than bigotry. The firefighters decorated their float to mock blacks and reenacted James Byrd’s murder. They claim they weren’t doing this to hurt someone. It was a social act to create humor. In fact this often happens. Is hate unconscious then? I think Sullivan would argue it is. The question he asks is about the motivation behind the acts.

Sullivan also tried to relate with hate crimes by the prejudice he’s experienced in his own life. But Sullivan has never experience a truly traumatic hate crime. Also his threats were form members of his own group, for speaking against hate crime laws. He is seen as a traitor. He also victimizes the hate crime offenders.

Finally Sullivan asks why hate for a group is worse than hate for one individual. He also goes on to say that every crime can be called a hate crime if you consider who is involved and hate laws create further separations between groups and create more harm than good.

I think it hate crime laws are absolutely necessary. They protect groups who need extra protection because all the hate towards them. I’m from Spring, Texas which is right outside of Houston, Texas. Jasper, Texas is approximately 130 miles away from Spring, that’s roughly two and a half hours away. So when James Byrd was dragged in 1998, I heard about it a lot. People around Houston made a huge deal about it because it was so close. With that, I have no toleration for hate crimes. Along with my strong support of the death penalty, I think any death resulting from a hate crime should be punished by immediate death. It is inexcusable to attack a person based on the group they belong to.

These harsh punishments are needed. They deter future hate crimes from happening. However, the public should be made aware of the harsh punishments for hate crimes. I feel like many do not understand the full consequences of committing a hate crime. When the media covers a hate crimes story, they should cover a little background information for the public on the laws and what the perpetrator faces.

We cannot ignore the issue and hope the problem goes away. To lower our standards of citizens and hope they do not create crime out of hatred for a particular group is asinine. That is putting too high of expectations on society. People will simply take advantage of this opportunity and commit hate crimes more often. Hate crimes are dirty and malicious. I’ve seen firsthand how sweet old men can suddenly change to something evil when someone mentions a black person. I’ve also seen mothers or fathers get livid if their white daughter shows interest or is dating a black boy. They will threaten disownment. The south can be a dirty place for hate crimes.

With this experience and knowledge of hate crimes, hate crimes cannot be tolerated and should have harsher punishment. With that, I stand that the hate crime legislation is constitutional.

Can "Expert Witness" testimony in the Courtroom Be Made More Equitable?

YES: Anna Maria Gillis, “Science in the Courtroom”
NO: Preston Lerner, “A New breed of Hired Gun: In Today’s Legal System, You Not Only Need the Best Lawyers Money Can Buy – But Also the Best Expert Witnesses”

Anna Maria Gillis makes it a point to explain the outrages ease it is to get an expert witness to say anything the attorney desires. She also points out the lack of experience and knowledge an expert witness may actually have. Gillis explains that an expert witness can be anyone who is willing to testify their opinion on the matter with little or no scientific proof to back their opinion. However, juries tend to take their word as absolute truth in a case.

Gillis also mentions that expert witnesses are overused and a waste of money and time in the litigation process. In fact, judges often get frustrated with many expert witnesses brought in. They see the experts as hired help to support an attorney’s case. These experts distort truth.

The point of the expert witness is to improve understanding of a scientific matter in a case. These witnesses should be impartial and reporting facts, rather than opinion. To make them more equitable, or impartial, Gillis has a few suggestions. She mentions the standards in which a court uses to allow certain experts to testify which have been questioned in the past. If we stick to these standards or even raise them, it will be more likely to get an impartial expert. Also, these standards should be upheld in all courts across the United States. The problem with this is that there tends to be no absolute truth in many scientific matters. So it is suggested that the experts represent theories only which are supported by majority of experts in that field or area.

Also experts should only be professionals with much previous knowledge on the matter rather than the average Joe reporting on his knowledge of molecular science (just an example). Testimonies should not be permitted to be based on unpublished data and should be required to submit the data on which their inferences are based on.

Judges are allowed to rule out unsound experts however judges do not have much knowledge in scientific areas so they really have difficulty in knowing what is admissible as reliable information and what is not.

Judges should also take advantage of the law passed which allows them to appoint expert witnesses. However this has shown to be problematic. Judges have difficulty finding many experts so they tend to ask ones they know in personal life. They also feel like this is interfering with the system. They are likely to appoint an expert which may hurt a party’s case as opposed to supporting their side. Many experts are not willing to testify. It also presents a budget issue; by appointing experts the judges are requiring the parties to pay a certain amount for the witnesses. Some cannot afford the experts chosen.

Gillis feels that rather than loosening our standards to find more expert witness, we should tighten them to make them more reliable and fair.

Preston Lerner agrees that you can hire an expert witness to say anything you need. The problem is that it will always be that way. He starts his argument off talking about our poor society and a lack of adequate health care for children. I’m not sure how this pertains to the issue of equitable expert witnesses. Maybe it’s a reason for all the civil suits, a need for money? I’m not exactly sure.

He does go on to make some interesting statements. He points out that the standards have been raised for expert witnesses but this hasn’t made much of a difference. Not all courts uphold these standards and many are only used in criminal cases. Civil cases deal with higher money stakes so expert witnesses are needed more.

He agrees that judges can rule out witnesses, but they tend not to for some reason. He puts blame on them for allowing this to happen in the courts. He also suggests that it’s the attorney’s job to poke holes and find lacking areas in the expert’s testimony. The other party should find flaws in the expert’s evidence rather than complaining that they are being partial to one side.

In all reality Lerner admits that the court system is becoming a battle between experts. Attorneys find experts who will support their case, that’s just how it works. With the experts being paid ridiculous amounts, they will continue to change their testimony to support one side’s case.

I agree with Lerner that this is just how the system is these day. But I also agree that change can be made to make the testimony more equitable. By taking some of the suggestions of Gillis, we can uphold the experts to a higher standard in order to be able to testify. We cannot have average Joe in court claiming to be an expert when it has been proven that juries listen and believe the expert’s opinions.

Not only should the individual’s credentials be examined but they should supply references which make them more reliable. Also their evidence should be supported by scientific support which must be shown in court. They should use appropriate processes when studying evidence for a case and all information should be made to both sides.

I like the idea of judges being able to appoint experts however I think this is difficult for them. Instead of judges appointing, the government makes a list of willing and acceptable expert witnesses available and the parties are allowed to choose from the database which experts they would like to use.

Attorneys should also try harder to poke hold in the expert’s testimony. This will make them seem less reliable in the juror’s eyes and they will not depend so much on the expert’s opinions. Also it’s kind of their job to do this anyway.

So can they be made more equitable, yes. However, it will be hard because unfortunately money will always sway one’s testimony.

This week in Class

betsi.little — Sat, 16 May 2009 22:36:33 CDT

Part III

Kayla.Rose — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:55:17 CDT

Part III: Psychodynamic Theories

Freud: Dreams

(a.) Record a dream immediately upon wakening. Write down its manifest, or surface, content.

[My Dream]

In my dream I was in a reasonably open area outside. There were large rock structures, like the kind you would see in Arizona (sandy colored and random shaped). The ground was covered in gray gravel and there was no visible vegetation. To one side I sensed a cliff/canyon/rocky drop off, but I never really went in that direction. The only point to this part of the dream that I remember was the absolute necessity that I was burdened with- to bury several dead, bloody bodies. I do not know where they came from or anything other than I just needed to dig a shallow pit and toss them in and cover them with some gravel and then venture away from my remote location. Kelly Bickel was there, nicely dressed (as usual) and she only could manage to bury one body between a chain-link fence and a large sand-rock. She had made a small gravel burial mound and even put a few gerbera daisies on top. She was sort of mourning for this unknown person and I could not understand why she was wasting time in that way. I did not say a word to that effect though. We walked away and across the gravel landscape... My dream ended with Kelly off in the distance and a dusty wind blowing to blur my vision, but the one thing I clearly made out that I then realized had appeared frequently during my dream, was a brown rabbit matted in blood.

(b.) Then, spend some time pondering this dream. Your goal now is to uncover the dream’s latent (hidden) content. Try to relate these associations to concerns, fantasies, or impulses you might have at this time. Consider any obvious symbols that might appear in the dream. What might be the specific wish fulfillment in this dream?

[What could it mean?]

I discussed this dream in class recently and said that I probably wouldn't post it here, but all I have been having lately are super off-the-wall dreams that I can barely remember. So, for better or for worse here it goes...

In my dream I can most easily and comfortably see the dead bodies as representations of those things, events, or ideas that I have was leaving behind. During the time when I had this dream I was attending counseling and just breaking through a most difficult time in my life. This would make sense; burying the bodies could be pointing to those things that are "dead and gone" or perhaps a "cleaning out my closet" type of activity. I felt very disconnected and unemotional towards the dead and my only sense was that of unhurried necessity. This, I feel, is the best way to look at such situations, especially if those burdens that one is burying are only holding them back and weighing them done emotionally. The gravel pit seemed to represent the distance, obscurity, and isolation that these burdens deserved. They are now out of the way because I no longer wish to tote them around.

In a book that Marlin lent to me ("Inner Work" by Robert A. Johnson) a method is described, a form of more or less fee association. Using this technique I concluded what the appearance of Kelly could have meant. I view Kelly as beautiful, creative, intelligent, and of conviction. She, may have been a representation of my own creativity and conviction. Where Kelly was mourning this single body between a rock and a chain-link fence, perhaps a part of my creativity and conviction too was expending energy on this one buried body.But why this one body? Why in this notable place?

Freud would suggest that the big rock was a penis (latent of course, I would never just dream something terrible like a penis). The canyon would be a vagina. The fence a barrier between the two... OR A rock could also mean a an effort to change (as in climbing a rock) and/or contemplating a foundation to build these changes on. The canyon, according to Dreammoods.com, "represents your unconscious mind and hidden feelings. It may point to emotions and relationships that you did not recognize." The fence would still be manifest of a sort of barrier. Here, it is comforting to see that see bodies are no longer associated with my unconscious and that they are, and will remain, separated by a big metal fence. Obviously there are still some gaps in this analysis. This does not mean failure! Ah, this only means more time for reflection.

As I go to leave this gravelly place I am encountered most obviously by this bloody rabbit. Dreammoods.com suggests that seeing a rabbit in your dreams symbolizes success and luck. My book, 20,000 Dreams (Rain. no year?), lends the rabbit to symbolize the quiet endurance of one's pain or preoccupation with physical eroticism. Personally, I view the rabbit as a symbol of fertility. A bloody rabbit, then would suggest a lack or problem with ones fertility or perhaps the fear or anticipation of such a problem. This would make sense since I had just gone through a related event. This surprised me. Seeing the rabbit being left behind in this waste land was a good thing. Although the rabbit was unmoving it was still alive so I will recognize the significance that it bears, yet I will leave it behind along with the bodies that I needed to bury for my health. There was a sense of confusion and of remorse when I walked past this rabbit. Truly, in waking life I feel a sense of guilt for having left such an event behind at all.

Jung: Personality Type

You are an ENTP
ENTP is also known as the VISIONARY

Quick. Ingenious, good at many things. Stimulating company, alert and outspoken. May argue for fun on either side of a question. Resourceful in solving new and challenging problems, but may neglect routine assignments. Apt to turn to one new interest after another. Skillful in finding logical reasons for what they want. Inspiring and enthusiastic, Analytical. Like novelty and uncertainty. Pragmatic and goal-oriented. Love challenges.

1. What are 3 types of careers that people with this profile are likely to be attracted to? Why?

"This ability to intuitively understand people and situations puts the ENTP at a distinct advantage in their lives. They generally understand things quickly and with great depth."
- Jobs in Mediation or Counseling (divorce mediator)

"ENTPs are fluent conversationalists, mentally quick, and enjoy verbal sparring with others. They love to debate issues, and may even switch sides sometimes just for the love of the debate."
- Jobs in Debate (lobbyist, lawyer)

"Although their logical abilities lend strength and purpose to the ENTP, they may also isolate them from their feelings and from other people."
- Jobs where I am not allowed to care (cadaver anatomy, hit man)

"They highly value knowledge, and spend much of their lives seeking a higher understanding. They live in the world of possibilities, and become excited about concepts, challenges and difficulties."

- Scholar, Philosopher, Anthropologist, and those people who just come up with ideas and get paid for it!

I also visited :http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/careers/entp.htm for more interesting job ideas for my personality type! My top ones were:

2. What ideas have you had about possible career directions? Which of these seems most compatible with your type description? Why?

Well, interestingly enough I have wanted to be a psychologist, specifically a counselor, before I became enrolled in Trinity. I suppose this could mean several things, but mainly that I am being true to myself and that I am on the right track in pursuing a job that will be rewarding and worth a long time investment. This is especially heartening when I consider how easily I can become bored and restless when I feel my needs aren't being met or when I am not contributing to a relevant cause.

Human Resources, again, is a career I have been looking into. A job where I can help people while being creative and not being tied to the same tasks everyday. I like the idea of using the skills I have and not having to get too emotionally invested in one person or set of people. Specifically in this field I would love to work in interior design (for lack of a cooler term). Based on my research this year, it has become apparent that not only can one's environment effect how they work (and quality in which they produce that work), but this important factor is not being properly considered when developing schools, office buildings, etc.

Speaking of Manager, my secret goal is to become the head of a GIANT corporation. Not blood and life sucking one like Wal-Mart or Monsanto... A company that not only runs business, but also gives back to the world (Bill Gates style). Even cooler than being first in command is being the adviser and personal confidant to the first in command... Or being VP... Something where I have basically all the control, but am rarely the fall back guy (or the one who gets blamed if something goes up in flames). On a more tangible note, I would love to have my fingers all through an organization that respects its employees, respects its share holders and partners, and is an honest firm that provides something to the community. (no fudging books, no secret agenda, no sexy (or sexy-time) scandals)

Adler: Early Recollections

"When rightly understood in relation to the rest of an individual's life, his early recollections are found always to have a bearing on the central interests of that person's life. Early recollections give us hints and clues which are most valuable to follow when attempting the task of finding the direction of a person's striving. They are most helpful in revealing what one regards as values to be aimed for and what one senses as dangers to be avoided. They help us to see the kind of world which a particular person feels he is living in, and the early ways he found of meeting that world. They illuminate the origins of the style of life. The basic attitudes which have guided an individual throughout his life and which prevail, likewise, in his present situation, are reflected in those fragments which he has selected to epitomize his feeling about life, and to cherish in his memory as reminders. He has preserved these as his early recollections." (Alfred Adler, from "Significance of Earliest Recollections," International Journal of Individual Psychology, (1937) Vol. 3.)

1. Jot down brief descriptions of 2-3 of your earliest memories.

I am very young... I am upstairs in a hallway and then in the bathroom. There is three or so tiered metal hanging basket and I think some soaps are in it. I remember my mom telling me they were avocado (or she may have told me this part at a later time). The soaps were from her mother, in Germany. She used to send us boxes of cool stuff every so often.
I am laying in bed between my mom and dad, looking at the ceiling. There are a lot of bugs. Crane flies, probably mosquitoes, that kind of bug.
I am in the downstairs of one of our old apartments laying on some blankets on the living room floor. I am watching Dumbo- the kind with people in costumes, not the Disney movie- and I look over to see a giant spider under the chairs to my right. I think that it is either going to stay there or it has some agenda to get me. At that point the spider moves quickly out from under the chair right at my face. (Did I mention this spider is huge?) I ran out to the front cement block (porches in the slums) where my mom and her friend are looking at little kids clothes in boxes. I tell my mom and I am pretty sure she goes and gets the spider.

Note who is present in the recollection, what the world is like, and your own primary feelings, motivations, and behaviors.

In all three of my recollections my mom is present, one which my dad is present, and another where a friend of the family is present. I remember this friend to be the mother of one of my friends around the complex; I do not think we ever hung out much.
In all three recollections I am surprised at the amount of internal dialogue that took place at such a young age. Two memories, the one with the bugs and the second with the spider, are ones that I detect a faint sense of fear from. Interestingly enough I did not cry at the bugs at the ceiling, nor after asking my mother about the spider incident was I terrified or hysterical. I do remember though feelings of potential persecution. I am not sure how to make that make sense... The spider was coming to get me and the fear of the bugs was from my suspicions that they were going to notice and get me.
The first dream in which I ask about the objects in the wire baskets is a recollection of curiosity. I was learning about my environment and was trying to commit facts, such as type of soap, to memory. I also remember the smell of the soaps. It is not one that I have encountered since my younger years, but I am willing to bet that I would know it again in a heart beat.
I could suppose that a motivating undertone to all three recollections is one of curiosity and imaginary thinking. What is the spider going to do? Will the bugs get me? What did I do to make the spider or bug get me? What are these soaps? Where did they come from? Each scenario seems to have another story to it.
I can remember details about each situation that do not directly take place in the memory and each recollection has been confirmed by my mother.

2. Now examine these early memories for themes. How do themes relate to your current personality, or style of life?

What is this theme of my mom? What does that mean?

It would be just too easy to connect this to how I am a mom now, but according to Adler that would make sense. I would be more likely to
have recollections with my mother present because being one is so important to me right now. The scenario where my mom gets the spider
so I can go back to watching my movie is very relevant. I need to be that mom who helps "save" her child from harm and fear. My mom
was there to answer my question about the soaps, just how I want to be there to answer Brander's questions about the world even if the
questions seem trivial to me.

Theme's of curiosity and imagination.

At this point in my life I am full of questions. Not only is it part of my philosophy to always be filled with wonder and questions, it is also most
relevant to my current situations directly. I am moving in with David, this will be my first real apartment, I will not have Trinity to hold me up,
I will be completely on my own! Just like in my recollections though, I am not terrified. I am not hysterical. I am curious and my internal
dialogue continues just as it has since those early times. Just as Adler mentions, I can even use my recollections to learn things for today. I will
not get up and run if something scary is prowling on the outskirts of my mind or my situation. just like in the memory with the spider I can wait
to see what the situation really is like before I judge it or take actions that are not thought out.

Themes of suspicion?

I have no idea why I thought like this when I was younger. It really makes me wonder! This is applicable to my style of life/thinking. Although
it may not be obvious I am most often worrying about other people's motivation behind their words and actions. If I am in an awkward or out
of the ordinary encounter with a friend or professor I immediately wonder what I did wrong or why they were acting so odd towards me. I
suppose in this sense, internally I am very me centered. Let's not jump to any external conclusions though : ) I usually feel like I did something
Or that the other has judged me incorrectly. Again, Adler's advice can be used. I can look back and realize that those thoughts were very
radical. I doubt the Crane flies were plotting against me and I doubt the spider was debating to charge me for any sort of reaction or because
of a feeding instinct. If someone is acting odd it probably has nothing to do with me. People all have abnormal encounters every once and a
while. This does not mean, however, that I need to expend my sanity in such a way as to spend hours wondering what I did wrong or who said
what about me.

Round 2

Kayla.Rose — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:47:43 CDT

Should Serious Sex Offenders Be Castrated?
Yes: Lawrence Wright
No: Kari Vanderzyl

The first article, written by Lawrence Wright, describes how castration should be treated not as a punishment spurred by pure revenge, but as a form of treatment to reduce the recidivism rates of serious sexual offenders. Based on research (uncited, question mark) the majority of sex offenders (esp. pedophiles) will offend again. Half of them will be arrested for similar charges in under three years! Some sex offenders have asked for surgical castration as a means to eliminate their urges to offend again- they do not want to continue these acts; they desire a permanent lifestyle change that is offered, as Wright claims, by this painless, inexpensive procedure.
The second article describes the inhumane and unconstitutional practice of the substitution of jail time for castration. Vanderzyl supports this perspective by mentioning the invalidation of the eighth Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment under this substitution. The fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Claus suggests that we are to be, “free from unwanted governmental intrusions”. In this case the Amendment’s suggestion addresses the involuntary sterilization and castration of offenders and its incongruity with a person’s innate right to procreate.
I agree with the quote from Justice Homes: “[It is] better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…” Although I do not believe in ridiculously cruel punishments I doubt that castration in the cases of those repeated offenders is unusual in anyway. I truly question why we as a society are so focused on the rights of those who have left behind them a trail of screwed up lives. Our little girls, wives, daughters, and sons cannot sleep at night because of these people. The parents of our generations fear to let their children play outside because of kidnappings, rape, and random sickos who would attempt the same. Why does this country jump to arms when some molester wants his balls cut off? What are we even fighting for?! I say cut ‘em off. They gave up their rights when they violated ours.
On the side of research however… I still say cut ‘em off. If the research in these two articles is to be trusted then it would seem that castration is the most reliable way to ensure the lowest rate of recidivism. For those who argue that rape is power-based and not sex-based I would usually agree. To say that rapists and other sex offenders will continue to offend because of this, even without their full anatomy, is refuting obvious evidence; this stance can be placed in the category of denial (some feminist must have said that- burn).

Recap- my favorite quotes:

Dr. Luis Girard: “A lot of crime is based on high levels of testosterone”. How little research did you do? Are there any other contributing factors like maybe environmental factors, SES, peer pressure, low levels of testosterone (low arousal)...?
“Some say it’s hard. You have to fight”- Butler the molester on going to jail. Wow, that's too bad...

Is Criminal Behavior Biologically Determined?

No: Robert Merton
Some people chose to go against institutionalized means and some fight to stay within those bounds; Merton’s theory does not explain why some members of society fail to restrain themselves against those un-institutionalized means that obtain them certain rewards. When discussing Ritualism, Innovation, and Retreatism, Merton suggests that these outcomes are affected by personality [and thus by culture]; at some point in our evolution humans began making choices based not on impulse, but on something else. At the earliest stages of human history there was no social order, what then would Merton say, did we based our judgments on? We had no cultural rules or guidelines (other than that of survival) per se and we had not developed an institution by which means we were pressured to adhere. Merton’s theory lacks explanation for this period of time. It also fails to explain how babies can be born with certain dispositions. Is the difficult baby so because of its biology or prenatal environment, or is it so because the culture and institution has already secured its claws into the mind of the newborn?

Yes: Adrian Raine
The first article does a better job of covering all of the bases as far as reasons to commit crimes and reasons for the initial crime of an individual. Although I usually cringe at picking the biological model over a theory from a socio-cognitive view, I believe this article was far more persuasive than its counterpart. Raine does a fantastic job of constructing her paper under specific headings and writing concisely (it was so nice to read after the articles that were due earlier this semester). Raine covered MZ twin studies, adoption studies, EEG and arousal studies, nutrition, neurotoxicity and pollution, birth complications, and so many others thing that I was truly impressed!
My big question from the other article was how that first crime became tempting to commit. Here, if the research is to be believed, that first crime may not have been an act of evil at all. This may sound ridiculous, but here is my thought process:

A little cave boy chases small animals around for sport. He loves the rush, the thrill of getting close to that speedy animal and being in control of whether it escapes or not. I will also assume that cavemen had higher rates of testosterone for hunting and protecting purposes (also research in anthropology if I remember correctly also shows that male bone structure and skull shape indicate something to this extent). Maybe one day this boy begins to chase a cave girl. This could be a rush because of the chase (similar to the animal chase) which would release chemicals such as adrenaline, and because this happens to be a member of the opposite sex. In the heat of the moment he catches her tumbling to the ground. Assuming that cave people do not have the same upward social structure that we have he may assault this girl, maybe even killing her. This is not because the cave boy wishes to quench his blood-lust; perhaps the chase is the only thing that stimulates him in this way. For modern criminals this may be true as well. For repeated offenders an addiction to this thrill (maybe just feeling anything) can cause a lack of judgment in these situations.

Do Women Get Lighter Sentencing?
“Any self-respecting feminist should still oppose [double standards] in the name of equal justice”
-Cathy Young

“Women and men do occupy separate places in the collective psyche of society”, says Jonathan Last in the Weekly Standard (1998). Does this mean that women should be treated differently than men for identical crimes? This first article titled License to Kill: Men and Women, Crime and Punishment clearly depicts the US as a country who gives is female criminals lesser punishments and shorter jail sentencing even in crimes that involve murder of children and mates. Young uses the case of Brenda Workings, a woman who lured her husband away from their home to murder him. She shot several times hitting him in the shoulder and the arm. Workings then beat him in the face with her gun until he managed to run away… What was her sentence: one day in jail and a separate sentence of five years for her use of a gun! The article continues with other examples of similar cases; women committing crime and generally getting off. The article states that this trend happens because of the old views of women that still thrive in our society. Women are more often seen as being aggravated or “forced” to do out of self-defense or in response to a threat (real or perceived). (Feminists think that all female violent crime is the product of our patriarchal society. We as women do it because made us this way and put us in this position…?)

“If you believe in capital punishment for one, you believe in it for everybody...”
-Karla Tucker

The second article, Feminism and Punishment, didn’t make as much sense to me as the other one did in respect to the question of whether women get lighter/different sentencing than men. The author seemed to be proving a point with the Karla Tucker story until, I felt, it also went on too long and never really was wrapped up. The article also delved deeply into the issue of lesbian relationships, lesbian pregnancy, and lesbian marriage. The author also wrote on how a woman on death row could be seen as a feminist narrative- she is at the epitome of patriarchal liberation- she has no kids, husband, or housework… I am not sure how this applied.

I agree that women do get lighter sentencing than men do. I have also not formed a complete stance on this topic. I do get very frustrated at the radical feminists who think that a woman who commits a violent crime is fighting against the system. Why aren’t women fighting for equal sentencing? I would respect them more for that rather than trying to come up with ways to view a killer as a heroine because on death row she supposedly is not bogged down by the rusty chains of man. I do agree, however that women should be considered in a different manner than men do in court. Biologically they are different, emotionally they are different, and their perceptions to the core are almost directly opposed to that of the male gender. This does not mean that if a man says that he is going to beat his wife that she can get away with premeditated murder.

Recap; Best quotes!
“Perhaps it would be heresy to concede that “patriarchy” has sometimes worked in women’s favor” – second article

Does IQ Significantly Contribute to Crime?

Yes: Richard Herrnstien and Charles Murray
The first article addresses the infamous bell curve and Sutherland’s theories about overall cognitive abilities having nothing to do with potential criminal behavior. The laity suggested that the prison populations were possibly not representative of what the question was really getting at. Eventually the whole thing was dropped and the debate about IQ and criminal intent was left behind. By the 1980s though Hirshi and Hindelang conducted many more effective/efficient/valid studies that indeed proved that there was and is a significant gap between the intelligence levels of teenage offenders and non-offenders. This article did raise the possibility that the “smart ones” just don’t get caught; the author said that this seemed to be untrue, yet there was no support to this end. The article also addressed issues such as SES, education level, and broken home-ness.

No: Francis T. Cullen et al. X

My Opinion: If IQ tests are directed at middle or upper-class white children than I do not see how it is fair to determine that because a low income child or minority, upon arrest or detention, cannot adequately pass a biased test that the two are causal of one another. If we keep the poor people poor and only provide them with certain areas of housing, as we have observed, those areas become polluted with drugs, guns, and violence to the core. Now add on to those neighborhoods poor schooling systems, lack of transportation, relatively no job availability, and sometime not even one grocery store for miles. Finally glaze that with the ever watchful eye of the police and you have the perfect combination of low IQ and no way to fix it, and the admiration of crime as a way to survive. These too are related, yes, but it is unfair to box these common situations as evidence to a causal relationship.

Journals 5-10 (2nd Set)

tristianleigh — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:18:32 CDT

Is Criminal Behavior Biologically Determined? YES: Adrian Raine, “The Biological Basis of Crime” NO: Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and Anomie” Adrian Raine makes an excellent argument for biological determinants predicting criminal behavior. He first looks at studies conducted on both identical and fraternal twins. Of all 13 studies, the findings reported identical twins were more likely to both be involved in criminality than fraternal twins were. Between the sets, identical twins shared a tendency to behave in antisocial and aggressive behaviors more than fraternal twins. This held true for adoption studies as well. Even if the twins or children of criminal parents were adopted, they were still more likely to become criminals. This shows that the different families, environment and child rearing processes didn’t change the fact that genetics can predispose an individual for criminal behavior. Raine also looked at studies examining psychophysiology. These found when criminals were tested for psychological state; there was a correlation between criminals and antisocial and psychopathic behavior. Criminals tended to have lower arousal states than a normal human. This is important because they are then under aroused individuals who seek for that arousal elsewhere, criminal conduct. Antisocial and aggressive individuals also have been tested for lower resting heart rates. No other psychological condition has been associated with low resting heart rates. This lower heart rate has been concluded as an independent factor of violence. Along with low arousal and heart rate, criminals have low levels of fear. With a lack of anxiety and fear, they must seek for thrill to reach a normal level of arousal. They use antisocial behavior as a form of stimulation-seeking. These stimulating behaviors can range from theft to murder. A study examining functioning in the frontal lobe of murders showed poorer functioning when compared to the control group. Prefrontal damage can impair decisions in risk-taking, responsibility, rules, and can effect emotions and aggression. It is harder for one with a lower functioning frontal lobe to create nonaggressive solutions to problems. There have also been connections between birth complications, marital rejection and criminal behavior. However, both birth complications and marital rejection must be present to predict the criminal behavior. Malnutrition has been studied during pregnancy, and resulted that the child is more likely to antisocial personality disorder when malnutrition is present in the mother during different stages of pregnancy. Along with malnutrition, protein and zinc deficiencies lead to aggressive behavior. These deficiencies can lead to brain impairments related to violent behavior. Lastly, Raine mentions environmental factor which can biologically alter an individual. Heavy pollutants can lead to brain impairment and predispose and individual to antisocial and aggressive behavior. Also extra testosterone has a causal relationship with aggression. Raine briefly touches on the subject of castration and has that has been found to have a lower relapse into crime. Robert K. Merton argues that it is not biologically determined and that it is a social structure which leads one to criminal behavior. The concrete situations one finds themselves in and the choices they make based on social pressures and culturally defined goals leads criminals to behave in the manner they do. Merton explains that society places an emphasis on goals, purposes, interests, and standards of livings that one feels obligated to meet. There is never an absence of some kind of social coding in this manner. Therefore there is also that pressure to obtain such status through material means of living. By obtaining this, one becomes successful. However, not all have the means to achieve these goals. Individuals in low paying, manual labor jobs have to work much hard to achieve these goals, if able to at all. This creates a strain and is much more difficult to compete with the standards of high income jobs. This creates a strain between groups. It has a self-propelling effect. Failure to attain the goal in the legal, morally correct manner leads to frustration and almost forces them to take other measures to reach the goal. The demands are presented without any way to acquire it. Antisocial is called into use along with violence. Those in the group without a means to achieve socially constructed goals tend to have lower levels of formal education and fewer economic resources. Merton then goes on to explain the connection between crime and poverty based on the issues mentioned above. Only when these socially constructed levels of success, complete with goals and a need for material objects is present, is there a high association between poverty and criminal behavior. Merton believes it is a completion between individuals to better themselves and to achieve a higher status. My opinion is that criminal behavior is a result of both biological factors and social structures. Biological factors alone cannot be blamed for criminal behavior. There are certain individuals with the biological determining factors mentioned by Raine who do not feel the urge to behave criminally. Without the social pressures, they are not being pressured to commit crime. They may be more aggressive and violent, but that does not necessarily result in theft or assault. It could, but does not automatically mean they will become criminals. However social pressures alone could result in criminal activity. I feel like the likelihood is higher when both factors are present. Like it said in the postscript, perhaps it is more an issue of nature-and-nurture rather and nature-versus-nurture. You have to take both arguments into consideration. With this the two arguments can stand on their own and I tend to believe the social structure more than the biological determinants. However I do not feel it fair to say one is more valid than the other because they both make such valid points with studies to back up their opinions. However, with all that we’ve learned in class, I’m going to say I side with the social structure side. I believe an individual can be forced to do anything through cultural and societal forces. Once an individual becomes desperate enough, they will do anything to stay afloat in the game of life. Does IQ Significantly Contribute to Crime? YES: Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, “The Bell Curve” NO: Francis T Cullen et al., “Crime and the Bell Curve: Lessons from Intelligent Criminology” Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray write on a study they conducted called the Bell Curve. In the study they test individuals in jail looking for a correlation between IQ and criminals. They found that the average IQ of a criminal is 92, compared to the average IQ of a normal, non-criminal person is over 100. They go on to explain that the IQ of criminals who have been caught does not differ in IQ from criminals who have not been caught. They admit there are other factors to be considered, such as family life, socioeconomic background and education, when considering causation for crime, however focuses on IQ to be the biggest determinant. They explain that low intelligence can lead to a failure in school ultimately causing failure to obtain a good job. With this frustration they are more likely to direct their efforts into criminal activity rather than obtaining status in the ways non-criminals might. When they tested for IQ and controlled for the other factors mentioned above, they found that IQ and number of offenses by an individual had a negative correlation. As IQ decreased, the number of offenses an individual had committed increased. There was also a gap in IQ between the levels of criminal involvement. Francis T. Cullen et al. argued that IQ did not have an impact on criminal activity. He pointed put multiple holes in Herrnstein and Murray’s study. Their study was conducted on groups of minorities and low income groups. There tends to be a lower IQ in these groups. He also mentions the magnitude of IQ in criminals, he says that criminals may have slightly lower IQ’s but questions magnitudes effect. Cullen et al. examines Herrnstein and Murray’s analysis of data and explains the method used can inflate the effect of IQ. In reality IQ is not the overriding factor for criminals. He also goes on to state that rather than predicting crime, IQ can be used to predict the likelihood of a criminal getting caught. Smarter criminals are better at avoiding arrest. Cullen’s underlying message is that IQ is merely one predictor of many for criminal behavior. I side with Cullen in this argument. IQ cannot be used to predict criminal activity, it is merely a coincident. The types of people who are criminals predominately come from backgrounds whit lower IQ, such as lower class socioeconomic groups. We have already seen multiple times that there are strains on these groups that cause crime. Also, in Herrnstein and Murray’s study, they assume that there is a general intelligence. Who is to say what the general intelligence consists of and how is this to be measured? Different knowledge is used in different areas. I do not agree with the idea of a general IQ test. There are different ways to measure IQ. Also different people test differently. There should be different measures and methods to assess an individual’s IQ. They should be assessed individually rather than all taking the same test. The B.I.T.C.H. (Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity) test comes to my mind. Different test to measure knowledge that one group might score poorly on because it is not “common knowledge” for that group. I took this test and scored poorly, meaning I am not smart. When really it just mean I am not knowledgeable on that subject. I will say that I agree through mere opinion that when it comes to petty crimes, I tend to believe that the offender’s IQs lower. This is opinion based off the types of people who tend to commit these crimes. They are lower scale crimes, mostly commonly committed by minorities and youths/ young adults. However, when it comes to most murders and big crimes, I believe the offenders to be very intelligent and have a higher IQ. Many crimes take much planning and skill to organize and carry out. Some criminals committing the huge crimes and serial murders are geniuses. Should Serious Sex Offenders Be Castrated? YES: Lawrence Wright, “The Case for Castration” NO: Kari A. Vanderzyl, “Castration as an Alternative to Incarceration: An Impotent Approach to the Punishment of Sex Offenders” Lawrence Wright argues that the system in place currently for sex offenders is a failure and corrects nothing. Too many sex offenders sit and jail and get out early on parole. Only a few of these criminals actually get treatment. Most sex offenders are likely to commit another sex crime within three years. Jail-time does not reduce crime, yet these crimes have life-long effects on society. It was proposed that sex offenders be castrated to help with sexual urges as a form of treatment. Researchers have found that castration reduced sexual drive and sex acts in 75% of the cases studied within six months of having the operations. The likelihood of a re-offense dropped to 3%. Without castrations, the likelihood of a sex offender to commit another sex crime is 46%. Wright writes of a case in Texas where an offender requested castration instead of jail-time. He would have rather had castration with freedom, then to go to jail for his crime. Wright argues castration would provide a sex offender with the opportunity to live a normal life while protecting society from that person as well. Studies done in Canada, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark reported that the likelihood of offenders to commit sexual assault again dramatically decreased and most self reported satisfaction with the outcome. There are other options such as therapy, chemical castration, and prison, but none compare to castration. Castration should only be used on men with uncontrollable sexual urges. It should be used as a voluntary treatment rather than a sentence or punishment. Kari A. Vanderzyl argued that castration is cruel and unusual punishment which violates the Eighth Amendment. Castration can be linked to hormonal, psychological and physiological imbalances. Government cannot interfere with ones decision related to childbearing. Individuals have the right to choose whether or not to have children or use contraception. This applies to all individuals, married or single. By promoting castration, the government is taking away that right. Castration would be making that decision for males by making them sterile. Vanderzyl also states three guidelines the government uses to identify cruel and unusual punishment: “inherently cruel punishment, disproportionate to the offense, and exceeds the extent necessary to achieve the legitimate governmental objectives” (Vanderzyl, 1994). She argues that castration is a cruel punishment, and exceeds necessary extent. Castration is degrading and fails to serve as a treatment. The anger and aggression present during sexual assaults will still be present and motivating men to commit crimes against women. The source of this violent behavior is likely to remain even after castration. Also most rapes go unreported. The numbers used by Wright to describe likelihood of reoffending may be skewed. I believe castration will not solve the problem. Many may thing the offenders deserve to be castration but they do not deserve to get out of jail-time. They should serve all their jail-time and if they request the castration as an additional treatment, it should be allowed. I agree with Vanderzyl when she says the driving behavior will still remain. The violence behind the sexual assaults will still be present in the sex offender’s mind. If they cannot act out in the same manner, they will find other ways to act out this aggression. Humans are not the same as animal, such as cats or horses. We cannot castrate a man to stop him from peeing on a rug or getting into fights over women. Castration is a novel idea of justice, but does not solve the underlying problem. What would we then do for women offenders? There are numerous female sex offenders. We cannot provide a solution for one race without offering an equal counter for the other sex. Castration is an inhumane solution we cannot force on people. It takes away rights and freedom that can never be earned back. However, something should be done to help treat sex offenders. The system in place now is not working. More offenders should be receiving therapy and new treatments should be developed. Vanderzyl, K. (1994). Castration as an Alternative to Incarceration: An Impotent Approach to the Punishment of Sex Offenders, The Northern Illinois University Law Review. Does Gender Affect Criminal Sentencing? YES: Cathy Young, “License to Kill: Men and Women, Crime and Punishment” NO: Barbara Cruikshank, “Feminism and Punishment” Cathy Young makes her argument by supplying the reader with cases of women who received light sentences for murders or assaults. She claims that women receive preferential treatment from judges when being tried. Women receive reduced sentences for the same crime that men commit. Studies during the 1980s show men are more than twice as likely to be charged for a crime the same as women. Women get off on lighter sentencing, while I man may receive 17 years of prison for killing their wife, the average sentence for a woman who killed her husband is seven years. Barbara Cruikshank argues gender does not play a role in sentencing. She claims that women in prison are just as likely to be sentenced to death as men. She also states that women on death row tend not to use gender as a plea because it will not work. Getting of on charges is a strategic contest in which you have to pick issues likely to work. In the case of Karla Faye Tucker, she did not use her gender as a factor in the crime because she was afraid Bush would hold that against her. I agree with Young, gender plays a huge role in sentencing. Judges are more likely to let women completely off the hook or award lighter sentencing because of gender. The history of women cases tends to show a huge lack of jail-time. This biggest common factor is gender. Women get off easier simply because they are women. They are less likely to be blamed for their actions. Society likes to make up romantic stories about the situation explaining why they did it and how they are truly not to be blamed for their actions, be it insanity or outside pressures. There is the notion that women commit crimes for different reasons then men. While this may be true and their motives are different, their intentions are usually the same. They commit the same crimes men do and get punished less. Perhaps the judges feel women should not be punished as harshly, maybe they feel sorry for them; I’m not sure what their reasoning might be. Any story can be retold to make the woman look powerless. This places more blame on others in the situation. Women are also said to be needed at home more than men. Perhaps the judges keep women out of jail so they can go home and take care of the family. This is unethical, men can take care of the house and family just as well as women can. There are countless families run by men all over the world. They make it just fine. Women are not a necessity in the home. In reality women are as guilty as men, they are simply better at projecting an innocent image. It’s not right, but women do get treated differently in the judicial system and get lighter sentences. Is Crime Always Functional? YES: Emile Durkheim, “The Rules of Sociological Method” NO: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Defining Deviancy Down” Emile Durkheim speaks of crime as if it is a necessary part of society. He argues that without crime there would still be crime. Even in a perfect world, there will always be some part of society that does not fit in correctly and that would be considered the replacement for crime. Not all individuals can be exactly the same; therefore there will be those that stick out, and ultimately those who behave in different manners. These actions would take the place of crime. Durkheim also states that crimes create boundaries. Crimes divides people socially, this creates groups: criminals, normal society. It also establishes moral boundaries. Crime is also essential in social changes which can be necessary. Daniel Moynihan does not agree with Durkheim. Moynihan agree that crime is inevitable but states that Durkheim does not put a limit on how much crime is good. Too much crime can lead to a failing society. This would also lead to desensitization, leading to more crime. We already hear about so much crime in the news, we are becoming desensitized. Rather than normalizing crime, the community needs to recognize crime. I agree with Durkheim that crime is always present. We could never abolish all crime, mainly because laws create crime and we keep creating more laws. It would also be impossible to catch all criminals and prevent new ones. Crime will always be present, with social pressures and societal needs, there will always be some sort of crime to succeed or compete with others. However, I also agree with Moynihan that rather than becoming desensitized to criminal behavior we should do something to lower the rates. We can't ignore crime because small amounts may be good for society (which is not how I feel).

Is Criminal Behavior Biologically Determined?

YES: Adrian Raine, “The Biological Basis of Crime”
NO: Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and Anomie”

Adrian Raine makes an excellent argument for biological determinants predicting criminal behavior. He first looks at studies conducted on both identical and fraternal twins. Of all 13 studies, the findings reported identical twins were more likely to both be involved in criminality than fraternal twins were. Between the sets, identical twins shared a tendency to behave in antisocial and aggressive behaviors more than fraternal twins. This held true for adoption studies as well. Even if the twins or children of criminal parents were adopted, they were still more likely to become criminals. This shows that the different families, environment and child rearing processes didn’t change the fact that genetics can predispose an individual for criminal behavior.

Raine also looked at studies examining psychophysiology. These found when criminals were tested for psychological state; there was a correlation between criminals and antisocial and psychopathic behavior. Criminals tended to have lower arousal states than a normal human. This is important because they are then under aroused individuals who seek for that arousal elsewhere, criminal conduct. Antisocial and aggressive individuals also have been tested for lower resting heart rates. No other psychological condition has been associated with low resting heart rates. This lower heart rate has been concluded as an independent factor of violence. Along with low arousal and heart rate, criminals have low levels of fear. With a lack of anxiety and fear, they must seek for thrill to reach a normal level of arousal. They use antisocial behavior as a form of stimulation-seeking. These stimulating behaviors can range from theft to murder.

A study examining functioning in the frontal lobe of murders showed poorer functioning when compared to the control group. Prefrontal damage can impair decisions in risk-taking, responsibility, rules, and can effect emotions and aggression. It is harder for one with a lower functioning frontal lobe to create nonaggressive solutions to problems.

There have also been connections between birth complications, marital rejection and criminal behavior. However, both birth complications and marital rejection must be present to predict the criminal behavior. Malnutrition has been studied during pregnancy, and resulted that the child is more likely to antisocial personality disorder when malnutrition is present in the mother during different stages of pregnancy. Along with malnutrition, protein and zinc deficiencies lead to aggressive behavior. These deficiencies can lead to brain impairments related to violent behavior.

Lastly, Raine mentions environmental factor which can biologically alter an individual. Heavy pollutants can lead to brain impairment and predispose and individual to antisocial and aggressive behavior. Also extra testosterone has a causal relationship with aggression. Raine briefly touches on the subject of castration and has that has been found to have a lower relapse into crime.

Robert K. Merton argues that it is not biologically determined and that it is a social structure which leads one to criminal behavior. The concrete situations one finds themselves in and the choices they make based on social pressures and culturally defined goals leads criminals to behave in the manner they do. Merton explains that society places an emphasis on goals, purposes, interests, and standards of livings that one feels obligated to meet. There is never an absence of some kind of social coding in this manner. Therefore there is also that pressure to obtain such status through material means of living. By obtaining this, one becomes successful. However, not all have the means to achieve these goals. Individuals in low paying, manual labor jobs have to work much hard to achieve these goals, if able to at all. This creates a strain and is much more difficult to compete with the standards of high income jobs. This creates a strain between groups. It has a self-propelling effect. Failure to attain the goal in the legal, morally correct manner leads to frustration and almost forces them to take other measures to reach the goal. The demands are presented without any way to acquire it. Antisocial is called into use along with violence.

Those in the group without a means to achieve socially constructed goals tend to have lower levels of formal education and fewer economic resources. Merton then goes on to explain the connection between crime and poverty based on the issues mentioned above. Only when these socially constructed levels of success, complete with goals and a need for material objects is present, is there a high association between poverty and criminal behavior. Merton believes it is a completion between individuals to better themselves and to achieve a higher status.

My opinion is that criminal behavior is a result of both biological factors and social structures. Biological factors alone cannot be blamed for criminal behavior. There are certain individuals with the biological determining factors mentioned by Raine who do not feel the urge to behave criminally. Without the social pressures, they are not being pressured to commit crime. They may be more aggressive and violent, but that does not necessarily result in theft or assault. It could, but does not automatically mean they will become criminals. However social pressures alone could result in criminal activity. I feel like the likelihood is higher when both factors are present. Like it said in the postscript, perhaps it is more an issue of nature-and-nurture rather and nature-versus-nurture. You have to take both arguments into consideration.

With this the two arguments can stand on their own and I tend to believe the social structure more than the biological determinants. However I do not feel it fair to say one is more valid than the other because they both make such valid points with studies to back up their opinions. However, with all that we’ve learned in class, I’m going to say I side with the social structure side. I believe an individual can be forced to do anything through cultural and societal forces. Once an individual becomes desperate enough, they will do anything to stay afloat in the game of life.

Does IQ Significantly Contribute to Crime?

YES: Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, “The Bell Curve”
NO: Francis T Cullen et al., “Crime and the Bell Curve: Lessons from Intelligent Criminology”

Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray write on a study they conducted called the Bell Curve. In the study they test individuals in jail looking for a correlation between IQ and criminals. They found that the average IQ of a criminal is 92, compared to the average IQ of a normal, non-criminal person is over 100. They go on to explain that the IQ of criminals who have been caught does not differ in IQ from criminals who have not been caught.

They admit there are other factors to be considered, such as family life, socioeconomic background and education, when considering causation for crime, however focuses on IQ to be the biggest determinant. They explain that low intelligence can lead to a failure in school ultimately causing failure to obtain a good job. With this frustration they are more likely to direct their efforts into criminal activity rather than obtaining status in the ways non-criminals might.

When they tested for IQ and controlled for the other factors mentioned above, they found that IQ and number of offenses by an individual had a negative correlation. As IQ decreased, the number of offenses an individual had committed increased. There was also a gap in IQ between the levels of criminal involvement.

Francis T. Cullen et al. argued that IQ did not have an impact on criminal activity. He pointed put multiple holes in Herrnstein and Murray’s study. Their study was conducted on groups of minorities and low income groups. There tends to be a lower IQ in these groups. He also mentions the magnitude of IQ in criminals, he says that criminals may have slightly lower IQ’s but questions magnitudes effect.

Cullen et al. examines Herrnstein and Murray’s analysis of data and explains the method used can inflate the effect of IQ. In reality IQ is not the overriding factor for criminals. He also goes on to state that rather than predicting crime, IQ can be used to predict the likelihood of a criminal getting caught. Smarter criminals are better at avoiding arrest.

Cullen’s underlying message is that IQ is merely one predictor of many for criminal behavior.

I side with Cullen in this argument. IQ cannot be used to predict criminal activity, it is merely a coincident. The types of people who are criminals predominately come from backgrounds whit lower IQ, such as lower class socioeconomic groups. We have already seen multiple times that there are strains on these groups that cause crime.

Also, in Herrnstein and Murray’s study, they assume that there is a general intelligence. Who is to say what the general intelligence consists of and how is this to be measured? Different knowledge is used in different areas. I do not agree with the idea of a general IQ test. There are different ways to measure IQ. Also different people test differently. There should be different measures and methods to assess an individual’s IQ. They should be assessed individually rather than all taking the same test. The B.I.T.C.H. (Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity) test comes to my mind. Different test to measure knowledge that one group might score poorly on because it is not “common knowledge” for that group. I took this test and scored poorly, meaning I am not smart. When really it just mean I am not knowledgeable on that subject.

I will say that I agree through mere opinion that when it comes to petty crimes, I tend to believe that the offender’s IQs lower. This is opinion based off the types of people who tend to commit these crimes. They are lower scale crimes, mostly commonly committed by minorities and youths/ young adults. However, when it comes to most murders and big crimes, I believe the offenders to be very intelligent and have a higher IQ. Many crimes take much planning and skill to organize and carry out. Some criminals committing the huge crimes and serial murders are geniuses.

Should Serious Sex Offenders Be Castrated?

YES: Lawrence Wright, “The Case for Castration”
NO: Kari A. Vanderzyl, “Castration as an Alternative to Incarceration: An Impotent Approach to the Punishment of Sex Offenders”

Lawrence Wright argues that the system in place currently for sex offenders is a failure and corrects nothing. Too many sex offenders sit and jail and get out early on parole. Only a few of these criminals actually get treatment. Most sex offenders are likely to commit another sex crime within three years. Jail-time does not reduce crime, yet these crimes have life-long effects on society.

It was proposed that sex offenders be castrated to help with sexual urges as a form of treatment. Researchers have found that castration reduced sexual drive and sex acts in 75% of the cases studied within six months of having the operations. The likelihood of a re-offense dropped to 3%. Without castrations, the likelihood of a sex offender to commit another sex crime is 46%.

Wright writes of a case in Texas where an offender requested castration instead of jail-time. He would have rather had castration with freedom, then to go to jail for his crime. Wright argues castration would provide a sex offender with the opportunity to live a normal life while protecting society from that person as well.

Studies done in Canada, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark reported that the likelihood of offenders to commit sexual assault again dramatically decreased and most self reported satisfaction with the outcome. There are other options such as therapy, chemical castration, and prison, but none compare to castration. Castration should only be used on men with uncontrollable sexual urges. It should be used as a voluntary treatment rather than a sentence or punishment.

Kari A. Vanderzyl argued that castration is cruel and unusual punishment which violates the Eighth Amendment. Castration can be linked to hormonal, psychological and physiological imbalances.

Government cannot interfere with ones decision related to childbearing. Individuals have the right to choose whether or not to have children or use contraception. This applies to all individuals, married or single. By promoting castration, the government is taking away that right. Castration would be making that decision for males by making them sterile.

Vanderzyl also states three guidelines the government uses to identify cruel and unusual punishment: “inherently cruel punishment, disproportionate to the offense, and exceeds the extent necessary to achieve the legitimate governmental objectives” (Vanderzyl, 1994). She argues that castration is a cruel punishment, and exceeds necessary extent. Castration is degrading and fails to serve as a treatment. The anger and aggression present during sexual assaults will still be present and motivating men to commit crimes against women. The source of this violent behavior is likely to remain even after castration. Also most rapes go unreported. The numbers used by Wright to describe likelihood of reoffending may be skewed.

I believe castration will not solve the problem. Many may thing the offenders deserve to be castration but they do not deserve to get out of jail-time. They should serve all their jail-time and if they request the castration as an additional treatment, it should be allowed. I agree with Vanderzyl when she says the driving behavior will still remain. The violence behind the sexual assaults will still be present in the sex offender’s mind.

If they cannot act out in the same manner, they will find other ways to act out this aggression. Humans are not the same as animal, such as cats or horses. We cannot castrate a man to stop him from peeing on a rug or getting into fights over women. Castration is a novel idea of justice, but does not solve the underlying problem.

What would we then do for women offenders? There are numerous female sex offenders. We cannot provide a solution for one race without offering an equal counter for the other sex.

Castration is an inhumane solution we cannot force on people. It takes away rights and freedom that can never be earned back. However, something should be done to help treat sex offenders. The system in place now is not working. More offenders should be receiving therapy and new treatments should be developed.

Vanderzyl, K. (1994). Castration as an Alternative to Incarceration: An Impotent Approach to the Punishment of Sex Offenders, The Northern Illinois University Law Review.

Does Gender Affect Criminal Sentencing?

YES: Cathy Young, “License to Kill: Men and Women, Crime and Punishment”
NO: Barbara Cruikshank, “Feminism and Punishment”

Cathy Young makes her argument by supplying the reader with cases of women who received light sentences for murders or assaults. She claims that women receive preferential treatment from judges when being tried. Women receive reduced sentences for the same crime that men commit. Studies during the 1980s show men are more than twice as likely to be charged for a crime the same as women. Women get off on lighter sentencing, while I man may receive 17 years of prison for killing their wife, the average sentence for a woman who killed her husband is seven years.

Barbara Cruikshank argues gender does not play a role in sentencing. She claims that women in prison are just as likely to be sentenced to death as men. She also states that women on death row tend not to use gender as a plea because it will not work. Getting of on charges is a strategic contest in which you have to pick issues likely to work. In the case of Karla Faye Tucker, she did not use her gender as a factor in the crime because she was afraid Bush would hold that against her.

I agree with Young, gender plays a huge role in sentencing. Judges are more likely to let women completely off the hook or award lighter sentencing because of gender. The history of women cases tends to show a huge lack of jail-time. This biggest common factor is gender. Women get off easier simply because they are women. They are less likely to be blamed for their actions. Society likes to make up romantic stories about the situation explaining why they did it and how they are truly not to be blamed for their actions, be it insanity or outside pressures. There is the notion that women commit crimes for different reasons then men. While this may be true and their motives are different, their intentions are usually the same. They commit the same crimes men do and get punished less.

Perhaps the judges feel women should not be punished as harshly, maybe they feel sorry for them; I’m not sure what their reasoning might be. Any story can be retold to make the woman look powerless. This places more blame on others in the situation.

Women are also said to be needed at home more than men. Perhaps the judges keep women out of jail so they can go home and take care of the family. This is unethical, men can take care of the house and family just as well as women can. There are countless families run by men all over the world. They make it just fine. Women are not a necessity in the home.

In reality women are as guilty as men, they are simply better at projecting an innocent image. It’s not right, but women do get treated differently in the judicial system and get lighter sentences.

Is Crime Always Functional?

YES: Emile Durkheim, “The Rules of Sociological Method”
NO: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Defining Deviancy Down”

Emile Durkheim speaks of crime as if it is a necessary part of society. He argues that without crime there would still be crime. Even in a perfect world, there will always be some part of society that does not fit in correctly and that would be considered the replacement for crime. Not all individuals can be exactly the same; therefore there will be those that stick out, and ultimately those who behave in different manners. These actions would take the place of crime.

Durkheim also states that crimes create boundaries. Crimes divides people socially, this creates groups: criminals, normal society. It also establishes moral boundaries. Crime is also essential in social changes which can be necessary.

Daniel Moynihan does not agree with Durkheim. Moynihan agree that crime is inevitable but states that Durkheim does not put a limit on how much crime is good. Too much crime can lead to a failing society. This would also lead to desensitization, leading to more crime. We already hear about so much crime in the news, we are becoming desensitized. Rather than normalizing crime, the community needs to recognize crime.

I agree with Durkheim that crime is always present. We could never abolish all crime, mainly because laws create crime and we keep creating more laws. It would also be impossible to catch all criminals and prevent new ones. Crime will always be present, with social pressures and societal needs, there will always be some sort of crime to succeed or compete with others.

However, I also agree with Moynihan that rather than becoming desensitized to criminal behavior we should do something to lower the rates. We can't ignore crime because small amounts may be good for society (which is not how I feel).

Taking Sides 2

karlie.hill — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:21:04 CDT

Biological Factors
The argument saying that crime is biologically based focused mainly on the person as a whole and the genetic make-up of a person that would lead them to commit crimes. One area that the author looked at was twin studies. The author showed that when studying twins, there is a “greater concordance for anti-social and aggressive behavior in monozygotic twins relative to dizygotic twins.” The author also looked at adoption and the genetic influence of the adopted persons biological parts to commit crime. Even when taken out of the homes of parents with criminal history, adopted children still become criminal, showing that these children have the criminal genetic traits that their biological parents had. A lack of fear was also looked at. Those with a lack of fear tend to be more antisocial and violent, which would lead that person to violent and antisocial behavior. Since this group has low arousal rates, one theory suggests that they seek stimulation “in order to increase their arousal levels back to an optimal or normal level.” Though there are some discrepancies, the author also showed that many criminals have “functional deficits to the frontal lobe and the temporal lobe,” which in many studies shows affects ones ability to “regulate and express aggression.” The author also covered maternal rejection and complications at birth, iron deficiency, malnutrition, all of which lead to antisocial behavior, causing one to be more likely to commit crime.

The second argument talks about environmental factors and conformity being the main cause of crime. A person has impulses, but is also able to regulate these impulses through things like social order and social processing. This leads the person to conform and be conditioned not to commit crime. People are then led to cultural standards and societal norms. When a person strays from institutional norms and instead goes with the culture that has the greatest influence on them, they will then be more likely to commit crime. By societal standards and institutional norms, people see the “normal response” to an activity, but can be pressured to respond in a different way culturally, leading the person to commit a crime. With American standards being wealth and power, many people will strive to reach this wealth and power in any way that they can, causing criminal behavior.

One area of the first argument that I did not agree with was during the complications of birth topic. The author also spoke about maternal rejection. This would be an environmental factor, not biological. I could not grasp why this would be added if she were talking about biological issues.

I would have to agree with the second argument, that crime is not biologically determined. Though there are people are genetically predisposed to crime, the environment around them has a far greater influence than their genetics does. As the author of the second argument stated, American society has its own set of standards, but each cultural group each has their own as well. When the cultural groups standards do not coincide with the standards of the US, people are forced to break laws in order to fulfill their cultural norms. They see committing the crime as more rewarding than if they were to not, and punishment is overlooked. When we look at gang culture, we see a culture that has their own sets of laws and norms which go against many American standards. Many laws are set in place merely to regulate gang activity. Therefore, people in gangs are forced to break laws. It has nothing to do with their genetics or biological makeup. It is because of environmental factors like a possible lack of father or the neighborhood where they live. They could have a great genetic make up, but because of their environmental influences, cultural norms clashing with laws, they are forced to commit crimes.

Should Serious Sex Offenders Be Castrated?

In the article “Should Serious Sex Offenders Be Castrated?” the first argument from Laurence Wright defended why castration should be a viable option for serious sex-offenders. Wright says that castration should be used not as punishment, but instead as a therapeutic and humane approach. The author said that there are very little forms of treatment for serious sex-offenders, and that even therapists feel that working with sex-offenders can be a lost cause. By implementing voluntary castration, the offenders will have an option for fixing themselves and their sexual desires that lead them to cause crime.

The next argument, presented by Kari A. Vanderzyl, shows that using castration as a way to treat serious sex-offenders is both inhumane and unconstitutional. A convincing argument that the author presented was the reasons why sex-offender commits these crimes. Most sexual crimes are not committing for the sexual act, but instead because of the power, control, and aggression that fuels the desire for such sexual acts. By merely castrating a sex-offender, the judicial system is not dealing with the psychological issues, but instead merely looking at it as a physical problem.

After reading the article, I feel that both sides presented very convincing arguments. Castration is an option that should be allowed, but as an option. If the offender asks for castration, obviously they feel that they have enough of a problem that they are willing to physically change themselves and ultimately better themselves. Though statically one can see that after castration the offender will be far less likely to commit the same sexual acts again, only the physical sexual desire is being dealt with. The judicial system then should implement therapy with therapists who are trained in working with sex-offenders to allow the to work through the aggression and power which lead them to being sex-offenders.

One problem that I saw with the argument was castration was the lack of consequences for the offenders actions. I can understand using castration as a therapeutic approach, but what would the punishment be? After reading the two arguments, I believe that after castration and during therapy, the sex-offender should be put on some form of probation or house arrest. In doing this, the offender would have a) therapy to work through the aggression and power that provoked the person to commit the crime, b) punish them for the crime that they did commit.

An argument that second author brought up was castration being cruel and unusual punishment. I disagreed with her stance that castration is cruel and unusual punishment. Though castration may be quite cruel, the punishment is not disproportionate to the crimes of serious sex-offenders, nor does it exceed government objectives. If a sex-offender is volunteering for castration, then the punishment is no longer inherently cruel, and cannot exceed government objectives if the objective is to stop the sex-offender from committing such crimes. Another faulty argument was the right to procreate. All people have a natural born right to procreate, but it is also a right for the person to no longer choose to do so. If a man voluntarily chooses to be castrated, then he is choosing to give up his right to procreate. Though it results in less sexual drive, the man is choosing to accept this side effect, just as a person who goes on certain medications understand that they can temporarily lose their libido.

Overall, I believe that serious sex-offenders should have the option of being castrated, as well as mandated therapy and a form of probation if they choose this option. The recidivism rate is startling for those that are castrated, being between 2.2 percent and 4.3 percent, that it seems like a very viable option as a therapeutic approach to for sex-offender treatment and would ultimately create less victims.

Does Gender Affect Criminal Sentencing?

In the article “Does Gender Affect Criminal Sentencing?” two authors discuss whether or not being male or female would affect how long a convicted criminal is sentenced for. Statistically, it can be seen the in the U.S. women are given less harsh sentences than their male counterparts. Each author presents very convincing arguments, and offers a side for each argument.

Cathy Young argued that there is preferential treatment given to women when they are being sentenced. In the example of Brenda Working, it is clear that she is given a less severe punishment than if she were a male. She was only given a day in jail, which the judge said was because she had been suffering from depression. Young states that if she were a male who had attempted to murder his wife, his punishment would have been harsher, and the crime would not have been blamed on depression. The author also states that women can have their sentences dropped or reduced for things that males cannot, such as PMS or post-partum depression. She also presented startling statistics, showing that males are twice as likely to be incarcerated for more than a year than women. The statistics that the author used also showed that women typically have much lighter sentences than men.

Barbara Cruikshank took the side that the death penalty is not gender biased. She used the Karla Faye Tucker, a woman who brutally murdered a woman with a pickaxe, as an example. Tucker was backed by both fundamentalist Christians, as she was a born-again Christian, as well as feminist groups, as she was the first woman to receive the death penalty. Cruikshank presented the argument, how can a feminist argue for both equal rights, and say that a woman should not receive capitol punishment because of being a woman. This was one way that the author showed that any person who is in jail and convicted of a crime could use their body/gender to strive toward getting their life back. They are able to strategically plan a way to work for what they need in prison, as well as the connections that they need to make out of prison, by using their gender (male or female.)

The no argument seemed very vague to me. The author only focused on how the case of Karla Faye Tucker was, and neglected to look at any other cases that may not have included death penalty. The author focused on the role of feminists and women in jail, but did not give any clear reasoning for why they would or would not support a female offender. It is obvious in the case of Tucker that her gender did not make a difference in the outcome of her case, even though she did attempt to make a case using her gender. Cruikshank presents one case where gender did not make a difference.

It seems blatantly obvious to me that gender does affect criminal sentencing. Women, even if they commit murder, will receive much lighter sentencing than a man who commits the same crime would. As stated earlier, a man would be twice as likely to serve more than a woman for similar crimes, even when prior convictions are looked at. The argument stating that gender does affect sentencing presented facts that statistically proved that women are given favor over men when they are sentenced. Men are not able to use PMS as an insanity plea or post-partum depression. Men cannot have lighter sentences because their crime was motivated by masculinity. Women should not be convicted any differently because they have different emotions or hormones than a man.

Does IQ Significantly Contribute to Crime?

The first argument argues that IQ does contribute to crime. The authors begin with stating that when one has a lower IQ, they tend to have higher failure rates, leading to frustration in school and in finding a job. They are then forced to find means of living through crime. Having a lower IQ can also lead to less ability to have foresight; this meaning a person with a lower IQ seeks immediate gratification and does not see deterrents, only the gains from committing crimes. The author also shows the IQ of people who are in prison, and those who are not. On average, offenders have 8 point lower IQ’s than the average of non-offenders. The argument is also made that states people who have higher IQ scores are less likely to commit crimes, even when environmental factors could lead them to do so. This is also seen in people who are pulled over by police, as those pulled over tend to have lower IQs than those who are not. This leads to the foresight belief and that people with higher IQs are more likely to see the consequences that come with committing crime. The author says by making policies easier to understand, making the offences and punishments more clear, people with lower IQs would be able to understand them better and would be less likely to commit crime.

The second argument worked to prove that the first authors’ argument is wrong. He makes a good point in saying that the statistics from the first argument does not include white-collar crimes. The people who get incarcerated for money laundering or embezzling money have higher IQs and college degrees, but they are not included in the study, even though they still commit crimes. The author states that the first argument did not look at the effect, large or small, that one’s IQ has on their likelihood to commit crime. The author also states that other factors need not be ignored. Those factors would include a father being present in the home, religious participation, one’s employment needs, and academic goals. The author also says that low IQ may be seen in people who commit crimes, that is not the only factor causing them to engage in these acts. The author says that using one’s IQ to individualize treatment plan could be an effective way to treat offenders.

I believe that IQ does not significantly cause one to commit crime. The fact that one’s IQ is lower can lead a person to commit crimes because of the situations that a lower IQ can put them in. In school, a child with a low IQ may be placed with other children with a low IQ, and the teacher could pay less attention because they don’t feel its necessary to focus on those children. This leads the students to failure, and then leads them to finding means to survive outside of a typical way of life. The idea that people who have a lower IQ do not worry as much about foresight seems to be a legitimate argument, but the author did not use any evidence to prove this. Thus leading me to believe that a person with a lower IQ and a person with a higher IQ are equally capable of rationalizing punishment. The difference would be the factors which makes a person feel that committing the crime produces more pleasure than the pain of committing the crime.

I also believed that the second author was valid in saying that the first argument disregarded white-collar crimes. Its apparent that people who are capable of these big business crimes have degrees and high IQs, but are still just as capable of committing crime as a person with a lower IQ.
To say that IQ is the only reason people commit crimes would be to disregard environmental factors, genetic factors, or social factors. Only observing IQ would lead to labeling, and cause people to continue to commit crimes because they have deemed themselves criminal.

Is Crime Always Functional?
The first argument, presented by Emile Durkheim, begins with saying that crime has to be normal because a society could not exist without it. To end criminality would only be making room for new crimes. The author also points out that people would live in fear because there would be no regulation on violent crimes that put peoples life in jeopardy. This would also cause violent crimes to be more frequent because there would be a lack of respect for people. The author continues to say that even if you eliminate crime, there are still people who have criminal behavior. The author also points out times in history when law had to be broken in order for a society to grow or for movements to happen. He ends in saying that even if crime is a part of society that does not mean that society has to condone criminal behavior. It is a normal part of people who are criminal and who act on such deviant behaviors, but that does not excuse their crimes.

The second argument focused on what would happen if a society is to ignore crime. He says that by normalizing crime, something that our society has began to do with accepting certain crimes as normal, we are merely denying that crime exists. By normalizing crime, we have began to accept crimes that 30 years ago were an atrocity, and are getting used to behaviors that could be the death of us. The author also presented various examples that lead to crime not being at all functional. He points out that violent crimes or murder is never functional.

In the first argument, I did not understand why the author did not cover a more broad range of crimes. He only focused on crimes that can be legitimized and seen as functional. He neglected to talk about murder or child abuse.

In my opinion crime is not always functional. There are certain instances in which crime may be functional (ie: Martin Luther nailing the 95 theses on the door and going against the catholic church), but homicide is something that cannot be justified, not can rape. How rape would ever be considered functional for society baffles me. If as a society we continue to accept crime, it will not become functional. It will only continue to harm people and will end up hurting society. By normalizing crimes like car accidents, we begin to accept them and lose respect for victims.