Module 5 blog
MODULE 5
Reading Content
Much of the Module 5 reading was relevant to the essay question posed by Dr. Mentor, regarding whether the courts and law (in general) are an effective tool for social change. Based solely on the reading, a constructive argument could be made for a "yes" OR "no" reply because the reading presented the reader with sufficient information and explanations to support both sides.
The first reading, presented by Walker, talks about administrative law pertaining to police departments' policies and procedures and their effectiveness in controlling the behavior of police. He also talks about how pressures by the public and police department administrators pressure police officers to "get the job done" and make arrests, obtain evidence and secure confessions. This pressure to produce, in turn, causes officers to bend and even break the rules of law in order to get an arrest. Specifically, Walker talks about restrictions and limitation of discretion which have been put on police officers in order to avoid rule breaking and possible overturned convictions and law suits. References to Supreme Court cases such as Garner, Mapp, and Miranda are made to support his claims.
Lee and Visano, in "Official Deviance in the Legal System," define official deviance as "deviant actions taken by officials which violate the law and/or the formal rules of the organization, but which are clearly oriented toward the needs and goals of the organization, as perceived by the official, and thus fulfill certain informal rules of the organization." In stating this, they remove the focus on the individual official who misuses their office for personal gain and shift it toward the official who violates the law solely for the sake of his/her organization. They talk about "dirty tricks," which they define as "illegal break-ins and wiretappings, kidnapping, theft of documents, faking of documents, and even arson," and how these actions are practically expected of officials in agencies such as the CIA and FBI, stemming from pressures to produce. Viscano and Lee also mention that if an official is caught violating the law in the process of producing, and the violation becomes public, pressure by the public for the agency to "fix" the problem usually results in damning and ridding of the single official, ultimately "fixing" nothing.
Lee and Viscano also present their view on how lawyers are also participants of official deviance, but are not under the same scrutiny as law enforcement officials. They talk about how lawyers, in a sense, illegally misuse plea bargaining instead of serving their client, in order to keep up production norms of the court system and quickly "legitimate all the prior steps of arrest, detention, and interrogation."
Judges are also guilty of deviance, according to Lee and Viscano. They mention that the structural condition most relevant to judges is "the production and norms of the court system," and process cases as quickly as possible, in an effort to control the escalating number of caseloads. One of the things judges are said to do is make comments to juries about the case in question, in order to influence and hopefully speed up their decision. Judges are also said to be particularly cooperative with police deviance in obtaining evidence.
Finally, Lee and Viscano also talk about how they believe due process is a myth. They say that due process is not available "on a rational and egalitarian bases, but according to power, resources, social norms and values such as bigotry." They say that "there can be no 'due process' when the kind of trial people get depends on the amount of money they have or upon their membership in a marginal or economically disadvantaged group."
The reading by Wald talks about the violence of law in the sometimes "unfair" punishments. This reading focuses primarily on the injustice caused by mandatory actions or sentencing guidelines (esp. when considering the death sentence) and inactions (such as failure to intervene in cases of family violence), and the added punishment convicts face while serving their sentence in our "inhumane" prison system. He argues for the "law's violence to be rationed fairly and not denied to some individuals who need its protection."
The reading of Black's "Social Litigation" shed new light for me about the different ways sociology may be used by lawyers and applied to measure the "strength" of a case. Sociology is useful in screening cases, determining the type of fees to charge, designing a case, pretrial decisions, case preparation, managing trials, and appeals. Specifically, sociology is used by determining social characteristics of all major players involved in court cases, including the lawyer, and manipulating these characteristics to "increase the odds of 'winning' the case."
The Vago reading (CH. 8a) explained how, through legislative or administrative responses to new social conditions and ideas, law (in general) is able to set the course for major social change. Some specific institutions law is able to change are "education, race relations, transportation, energy utilization, the protection of the environment, and crime prevention."
Vago explains two elements necessary for law to bring social change as being "institutionalization" and "internalization." He explains that, "institutionalization of a pattern of behavior refers to the establishment of a norm with provisions for its enforcement (such as desegregation of public schools), and internalization of a pattern of behavior means the incorporation of the value or values implicit in a law (for example, integrated public schools are 'good')." He also says that the law in question and its penalties for violation must be clearly known by those who it affects, and also enforced.
Vago (CH. 8b) talks about limitations of law in creating social change. One of the major limitations of law in which Vago talks about is the idea that very few people have a say in the formation of new laws and legislation. Vago states that this is because, "individuals with the control over ownership of material goods are generally favored by laws because economic interests are among the strongest factors influencing the creation of law." Another limitation that law has in creating social change lies in the difficulty of changing morals and values of mainstream society. This is especially true when trying to change morals and values which have been deeply rooted and accepted for extended periods of time. He also writes about a number social factors or forces that act like barriers to social change. Those social factors include "vested interest," in which those with power don’t want to give up any power, conflict of interest in social classes, "ideological resistance," and "organized opposition" through organizations. Also included as "resisters" of law and social change are obvious economic, moral development, and psychological factors such as habit, motivation level, ignorance, selective perception.
The reading by Thomas Stoddard discussed the idea of "rule shifting" and "culture shifting." Stoddard used an example of the expansion of gay rights in New Zealand and how even though gay's rights have "expanded" (rule shifting), they haven't necessarily been accepted and practiced (culture shifting). He also talked about the different factors influencing whether laws will bring a culture shift or merely a rule shifting. Most of the factors he describes have been discussed in the previous readings.
The last reading, by Cornel West, discusses the few avenues that the "less fortunate" have in influencing change in law. The two major ways discussed are "social chaos" and "organized participation" of groups. The reading also explains how lawyers play a crucial role in defending the rights of those with less political influence, money and power (resources).
So what?
Significant social change does not seem to stem directly from the laws, courts, administrative law, or those who enforce the law. "Social change" seems to be a product of a machine produced by the many branches of law which, only by working together, can be an effective TOOL for significant social change. Even so, the product (or law) that is produced from what is "fed" into this machine must be socially "digested" (discussed and recognized) and then accepted by mainstream society in order to bring significant social change. This entire process may take many years before any law attempting to bring significant change is realized, if it is ever realized at all.
Reading Content
Much of the Module 5 reading was relevant to the essay question posed by Dr. Mentor, regarding whether the courts and law (in general) are an effective tool for social change. Based solely on the reading, a constructive argument could be made for a "yes" OR "no" reply because the reading presented the reader with sufficient information and explanations to support both sides.
The first reading, presented by Walker, talks about administrative law pertaining to police departments' policies and procedures and their effectiveness in controlling the behavior of police. He also talks about how pressures by the public and police department administrators pressure police officers to "get the job done" and make arrests, obtain evidence and secure confessions. This pressure to produce, in turn, causes officers to bend and even break the rules of law in order to get an arrest. Specifically, Walker talks about restrictions and limitation of discretion which have been put on police officers in order to avoid rule breaking and possible overturned convictions and law suits. References to Supreme Court cases such as Garner, Mapp, and Miranda are made to support his claims.
Lee and Visano, in "Official Deviance in the Legal System," define official deviance as "deviant actions taken by officials which violate the law and/or the formal rules of the organization, but which are clearly oriented toward the needs and goals of the organization, as perceived by the official, and thus fulfill certain informal rules of the organization." In stating this, they remove the focus on the individual official who misuses their office for personal gain and shift it toward the official who violates the law solely for the sake of his/her organization. They talk about "dirty tricks," which they define as "illegal break-ins and wiretappings, kidnapping, theft of documents, faking of documents, and even arson," and how these actions are practically expected of officials in agencies such as the CIA and FBI, stemming from pressures to produce. Viscano and Lee also mention that if an official is caught violating the law in the process of producing, and the violation becomes public, pressure by the public for the agency to "fix" the problem usually results in damning and ridding of the single official, ultimately "fixing" nothing.
Lee and Viscano also present their view on how lawyers are also participants of official deviance, but are not under the same scrutiny as law enforcement officials. They talk about how lawyers, in a sense, illegally misuse plea bargaining instead of serving their client, in order to keep up production norms of the court system and quickly "legitimate all the prior steps of arrest, detention, and interrogation."
Judges are also guilty of deviance, according to Lee and Viscano. They mention that the structural condition most relevant to judges is "the production and norms of the court system," and process cases as quickly as possible, in an effort to control the escalating number of caseloads. One of the things judges are said to do is make comments to juries about the case in question, in order to influence and hopefully speed up their decision. Judges are also said to be particularly cooperative with police deviance in obtaining evidence.
Finally, Lee and Viscano also talk about how they believe due process is a myth. They say that due process is not available "on a rational and egalitarian bases, but according to power, resources, social norms and values such as bigotry." They say that "there can be no 'due process' when the kind of trial people get depends on the amount of money they have or upon their membership in a marginal or economically disadvantaged group."
The reading by Wald talks about the violence of law in the sometimes "unfair" punishments. This reading focuses primarily on the injustice caused by mandatory actions or sentencing guidelines (esp. when considering the death sentence) and inactions (such as failure to intervene in cases of family violence), and the added punishment convicts face while serving their sentence in our "inhumane" prison system. He argues for the "law's violence to be rationed fairly and not denied to some individuals who need its protection."
The reading of Black's "Social Litigation" shed new light for me about the different ways sociology may be used by lawyers and applied to measure the "strength" of a case. Sociology is useful in screening cases, determining the type of fees to charge, designing a case, pretrial decisions, case preparation, managing trials, and appeals. Specifically, sociology is used by determining social characteristics of all major players involved in court cases, including the lawyer, and manipulating these characteristics to "increase the odds of 'winning' the case."
The Vago reading (CH. 8a) explained how, through legislative or administrative responses to new social conditions and ideas, law (in general) is able to set the course for major social change. Some specific institutions law is able to change are "education, race relations, transportation, energy utilization, the protection of the environment, and crime prevention."
Vago explains two elements necessary for law to bring social change as being "institutionalization" and "internalization." He explains that, "institutionalization of a pattern of behavior refers to the establishment of a norm with provisions for its enforcement (such as desegregation of public schools), and internalization of a pattern of behavior means the incorporation of the value or values implicit in a law (for example, integrated public schools are 'good')." He also says that the law in question and its penalties for violation must be clearly known by those who it affects, and also enforced.
Vago (CH. 8b) talks about limitations of law in creating social change. One of the major limitations of law in which Vago talks about is the idea that very few people have a say in the formation of new laws and legislation. Vago states that this is because, "individuals with the control over ownership of material goods are generally favored by laws because economic interests are among the strongest factors influencing the creation of law." Another limitation that law has in creating social change lies in the difficulty of changing morals and values of mainstream society. This is especially true when trying to change morals and values which have been deeply rooted and accepted for extended periods of time. He also writes about a number social factors or forces that act like barriers to social change. Those social factors include "vested interest," in which those with power don’t want to give up any power, conflict of interest in social classes, "ideological resistance," and "organized opposition" through organizations. Also included as "resisters" of law and social change are obvious economic, moral development, and psychological factors such as habit, motivation level, ignorance, selective perception.
The reading by Thomas Stoddard discussed the idea of "rule shifting" and "culture shifting." Stoddard used an example of the expansion of gay rights in New Zealand and how even though gay's rights have "expanded" (rule shifting), they haven't necessarily been accepted and practiced (culture shifting). He also talked about the different factors influencing whether laws will bring a culture shift or merely a rule shifting. Most of the factors he describes have been discussed in the previous readings.
The last reading, by Cornel West, discusses the few avenues that the "less fortunate" have in influencing change in law. The two major ways discussed are "social chaos" and "organized participation" of groups. The reading also explains how lawyers play a crucial role in defending the rights of those with less political influence, money and power (resources).
So what?
Significant social change does not seem to stem directly from the laws, courts, administrative law, or those who enforce the law. "Social change" seems to be a product of a machine produced by the many branches of law which, only by working together, can be an effective TOOL for significant social change. Even so, the product (or law) that is produced from what is "fed" into this machine must be socially "digested" (discussed and recognized) and then accepted by mainstream society in order to bring significant social change. This entire process may take many years before any law attempting to bring significant change is realized, if it is ever realized at all.
