The Allure of Crime

The Allure of Crime episode of “This American Life” was a very interesting view into criminal minds. Because I frequently watch TV shows such as Criminal Minds or Law and Order, I think that I have gotten stuck in the mind set that most criminals are really twisted and terrible people. I definitely don’t condone the things that were done in the three particular stories in The Allure of Crime, but I was surprised at how empathetic I felt when I knew the background of the criminals. I was particularly interested in the stories of the bank robber and of the woman who pocketed cash at her hotel job.

You almost had to feel bad for the bank robber. His childhood story was sad, his mother died when he was 9, his father was unable to cope with the situation, which left him as a minister that beat his two sons. When the bank robber was a teenager there was a particularly bad night of beating after the boy had told his father’s girlfriend that his father beat his brother and himself. His father stepped out of the house in the middle of the episode and in that time the boy hid a knife under his pillow. When the father returned and proceeded to beat him, he stabbed him in the neck. As his father was laying on the floor the boy told him that he had brought this on himself. In the interview he said that it was almost a religious thing for him, a “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” kind of situation. As he grew up he didn’t have the motivation for a job, but he had an impulse to spend a lot of money. So, he robbed banks, and eventually went on a 14-month bank robbing spree. It was clear in the interview that this man was using robbing banks as an outlet, to get all of the things he couldn’t have earlier in his life and much much more. As I said before, I felt empathy for him, knowing how terrible his childhood was, and how he felt like he had nothing to turn to except robbing banks, but I also know that no matter what, what this man did was not right. There are definitely other ways to take your feelings out rather than committing crimes.

Julia, the woman who stole money from the hotel she worked at, was a harder character for me to decipher. She seemed like the came from a pretty good family, and the only real hardship she described in her interview was her dream job at MGM falling through. This left her with a job working as an assistant bartender, handing out tickets for drinks, at a hotel. Her stealing first began in a way that she thought was justified. The hotel wouldn’t pay for her parking while she worked, so she stole the money to pay for her parking. Of course, the stealing escaladed because she got such a high off of it. But, what made the story more intriguing is that she had a very close relationship to God, and even thought of him as her sidekick in crime. She donated some of the money she stole to the church, which in some way I think acted as a penance for the crime she was committing daily. I felt less empathetic for Julia than I did for the bank robber. While I understand that she was going through hard financial and emotional times, I still don’t ever think there is a justification for stealing. But, knowing her story and her character definitely led me to feel a little empathy for her, and without this information I would have just written her off as another terrible person who turned into a criminal.

“This American Life”

The first story that affected me was the story of the abused bank robber. The boy’s father was abusive priest. The boy swore he’d stab his dad if he beat him or his brother again. The dad picked up on the fact that boy had told Susie, the dad’s girlfriend, about the abuse. The dad tricked the boy and the boy confessed to ratting out dad to Susie. After the boy confessed, the dad beat him so badly that he later ended up in the hospital. During the beating, the dad took a break and left the house. The boy took the opportunity and put a knife under his pillow. The dad came back into the room and started to disassemble weights. The boy stabbed dad in the neck with the knife and said “you did this to yourself” as the dad lay on the floor bleeding. The dad survived but lost sons to foster care. The boy stole instead of working because he didn’t want to. He went on a 14 month bank robbing spree because he wanted to spend tons of money. His reasoning for robbing was because his mom died and his dad was abusive. The robbing gave him power, was validating, and he could make people experience what he had to.

This story particularly affected me because it shows the background behind a thief. I feel bad for the robber because typically you think of a robber as a bad person but he had actual reasons for robbing. While they weren’t necessarily good reasons, they made sense. It gave him the power that he didn’t have when he was growing up.

The old woman was accused of stealing from a really crowded store. When the police showed up, she emptied her purse and they accused her of taking the aspirin. After a while, she finally owned up to taking the aspirin and had to face to consequences. She shoplifted her whole life and doesn’t see herself as a thief. When she was younger, she couldn’t wear hair up so she shoplifted bobbypins and she couldn’t wear earrings so she took whatever she wanted to. The shoplifting allowed her to pull something off somebody else couldn’t so she felt good. She kept the shoplifting a secret from everyone she knew. She shoplifted whenever she felt like it because it made her feel better. She did it to not be lonely and to be on her own and take her mind off of the pain and being lonely in the nursing home.

This story affected me in a similar way as the first one did. When most people see a thief, they see a terrible person, somebody who does it because they’re bad. This woman stole because it was one of the only things she could control in her life. I feel so bad and its hard to blame the woman after hearing her story and reasons for shoplifting.

Both of these stories make me question why I judge people so quickly. Once you hear that somebody is “bad,” most people immediately assume they’re just bad people. After hearing somebody’s story you make a different decision on what you think about them. Everything relates back to “judging a book by its cover,” and these stories are the perfect reason not to.

The Allure Of Crime

Julia Sweeney moved from Spokane, Washington to Los Angeles to pursue her dream of being an accountant. When her job at MGM fell through, she began working at a hotel bar as an assistant bartender. She was upset that the hotel wouldn't pay her parking fees, so she began to steal the three dollars it cost to park. Soon this escalated into her stealing as much 1000 dollars on her most prolific night. Throughout this she was very religious and donated a lot of money at mass. She said god was like her "pimp," she had to pay him off since he was the only one that knew about her crimes. She says she got a "high" from the thefts, she became a slave to the rush. It got so bad that she would park her car in a dark spot in a dangerous neighborhood just so she would have to run fearfully through downtown L.A. and she would risk dangerous roads to get back to her minimum wage job just to steal. This story was intriguing because she seemed to be a fairly innocent person. I was surprised that it got so bad so quickly, but it shows that even small crimes can be dangerous roads that lead to bigger things.

Joe Lawya was a bank robber. He claims to have robbed upwards of thirty banks. Joe grew up in a very religious family, his dad was very well read in the scriptures and had even learned Latin and Hebrew to better interpret them. Joe's mother died when he was nine, and his father soon became violent even going so far as to put joe in the hospital after he told his girlfriend that he beat his kids. These frequent beatings eventually lead Joe to stab his father in the neck and then he was placed into foster care. Once Joe got older, he started stealing cars and went to jail for a couple of years. When he got out, he began to rob banks. He talked about how different types of tellers were easier to rob, stating that "Asian and Black women were the hardest to rob" and "middle class White women were the easiest to rob." He said that he was sometimes even embarrassed by how easy it was. His story surprised me less than the Julia's, as this seems like more of the stereotypical "criminal upbringing." The troubled family and a lack of a good role model being major things that are often connected to criminals.

The Allure of Crime

The Allure of Crime

1. Julie was a young assistant bartender who stole the money from the drink tickets she sold; she made about $10,000 to $15,000 for her whole career. She did not believe she was doing anything wrong, because she was just at first stealing for what she thought the hotel owed her, like parking or lunch. But, soon it was just stealing for things she needed like extra money to pay for car insurance or to make up the rest of the rent. Finally she evolved into just stealing to steal like she did on New Years. The most interesting part of her story is when she talked about her close relationship with God and the Roman Catholic Church. Julie believed that God was her pimp or wing and she was doing him a service by stealing the money and donating it. I thought most criminals had “abandoned” God and just put themselves as the most important part. The other factor that contributed to her stealing was the high it gave her, like when she parked her car farther away just to run to it. The greatest example to get insight to Julie’s mind was the New Year’s theft where she went through so much trouble just to make it back and steal when she did not need the money. The biggest thing I got from the story is how many criminals turn to god even in their sprees because he provides a rationale for their ways.

2. Joe was a banker robber from Oakland, California who threatened tellers to give him money; he stole from over thirty banks. Joe had a very religious family including a father who was a priest, but when is mother passed when he was nine, Joe’s father became violent and beat his kids. Then Joe learned to pick locks and started stealing from the church, where he started crime. Than when Joe was in high school, his dad was angry that Joe told his girlfriend his Dad hit him, so he beat nearly to death, but Joe had a knife and stabbed him in the neck. After going to foster care and dropping out of Bible College, Joe turned to robbing banks. He said he loved the putrid smell of money and it made him happy. The reason he liked robbing white middle class women was because they were easy and he felt like he was sharing the violence and shock with them like when his mom died and his dad started beating him. He thinks that God and the hypocrisy he saw with God caused him to rob people. He has a much more tragic and twisted tale, where the roots of his crime come from a demented childhood, which I believe contributed to the violent nature of his crimes.

This American Life

The first story we heard on the “This American Life” episode was about a woman who pocketed money while selling drink tickets at a hotel. She was young and being paid minimum wage, and it all started out “innocent” as she thought, because she only stole three dollars in order to pay for the parking that the hotel did not cover. She thought this was unfair and that they should provide parking for free, and so this was how she first rationalized her theft. She began to steal greater amounts and rationalized it by saying that she was using it for good things, not to buy drugs or anything. She began to get a thrill from stealing, as she described it, and it drove her to steal greater amounts. I found it most interesting when she was describing her rationalization, was that she said that she felt like God was her “accomplice.” I also found it interesting that she said that she felt like she didn’t even feel like she was describing the same person when she told this story. She talked about how she liked spending time with God and how she felt like this time in her life actually drew her closer to him. Even though she was talking about stealing, I found her to be a likeable character somehow. I think that this just reinforced the fact that you cannot let yourself slip up and do even the smallest crime that you don’t think is a big deal, because it is still wrong and it can easily escalade.

The next story was about a man who committed a variety of crimes, such as grand theft auto, strong-armed robbery, bounced check, and multiple bank robberies (roughly 30). He said that he grew up in a religious household-he said that every decision was based on God in his family. From a very early age, his mother predicted that he would be involved in mission work. His mother died when he was still young, and his father became abusive. He began to resent his father, and with that, he also began to turn from God. His crime history began with stealing from his father. His father began dating a woman, and the son warned the woman about the father. The father sensed that the son had told Susie about his violent actions, and confronted the son. He admitted to it, and then said that it was the last time he would ever admit to a crime. After this, the father beat him, and then one day, the son stabbed the father. While I felt sympathetic towards the man at first, because his mother died and his father was abusive, my opinion changed when I heard his tone when he was describing the stabbing of his father. Also, when the woman said that he stole from his friends. What stuck out to me about this story was how sad it was, hearing about this boy go from having religious parents, and his mom feeling as if he was going to be a missionary to a major criminal. It made me sad to think about how things may have been different if the mom hadn’t died.

The American Life

I found the story about Julia Sweeney very interesting. What I found most compelling was that she viewed her crime as an opportunity, not a sin. I found it interesting that she thought she was further developing a person relationship with God through committing her crime. She said she thought of God as her ‘pimp’, and she was paying him off with the money she stole, which I found very odd. She made it sound as if stealing could be justified. At first she would steal in order to compensate her parking fee; this was her way of righting this injustice of having to pay for her parking. She also justified theft with the reasoning that she was using the money for good acts. She wasn’t buying drugs. She was donating money to her church, and paying off her college loans and other expenses. Even though stealing is wrong, she did not have evil intent. Her basic intention was to right a wrong not steal money from her employer. This did not change my mind about the act of robbery. It showed me a different perspective on theft, and how it can be justifiable to an individual.

In Joe’s story, I found it interesting that he felt validated from evoking terror in the individuals he robbed. He felt that it was his job to educate these individuals that life can seem perfect until something comes along and messes it up. This is how he felt when his mother died and his father started beating him. He was educating people about how the world really was and that life can go downhill very quickly. Joe’s story made me feel sympathetic. His mother dies at an early age then his father starts beating him. He went through several traumatic events that inevitably shaped his life, and the person that he became. His reasoning for robbing banks was very simple. He didn’t work and needed money. He wanted to wine and dine his friends and this was the way he did that. Also at the same time, he could educate people about life, while feeling validated at the same time. I found it very interesting that before he robbed banks, his body would shut down. Its like he knew what he was doing was wrong, and his body was trying to stop him from committing these acts. His story didn’t make me change my mind about the crime of robbery. It just reinforced the fact that people commit crimes for different reasons, and that traumatic events that occur during childhood can have a long term impact on an individual.

"This American Life"

Story #1: This story was about a woman that worked as a ticket seller for drinks at the bar of a hotel. What began as stealing a couple dollars every day, turned in to stealing hundreds of dollars a day. Ultimately, she stole over 10,000 dollars. There were two things that specifically struck me about this character. First of all, she never really seemed remorseful. She believed that she was owed this money indirectly through her services to the hotel, and that since she was using the money for good reason, that it was alright. Secondly, I couldn't believe that she thought she was an accomplice to God in doing this. That might have been one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Although her story was extremely selfish and ridiculous, I found myself changing my mind about what the typical thief is like. She was never intending to hurt anyone, and I think that's what we generally think about a person committing a crime.

Story #2: This story, about a senior citizen woman that gets a thrill out of shoplifting, was definitely the most compelling and shocking to me. We have this stereotypical image of a thief, and a sweet, old lady just does not fit that description. However, in this story, you learn that senior citizens shoplift more than most groups of people, and often, it is simply out of boredom. The thing that struck me the most about this woman was that she seemed to miss shoplifting. It had become an addiction to her, and she seemed to feel as if she could stay young by stealing. At one point, she says that she would much rather be out shoplifting than be in a home for seniors playing bridge. I honestly felt sorry for her that she depending so much on stealing as a source for happiness. This story really made me think of stealing as something that can be addictive, like a drug or alcohol for other people.

I thought this was really interesting because it made me think about the motives behind crime. Often we think of thieves as being these "bad" people that have no feelings or good intentions, but the people depicted in this show seem to be the complete opposite. I was surprised how often that these people felt as if the earned what they stole, and it made me question whether or not stealing could somehow be the result of an emotional disorder instead of a lack of morals.

When the Law Goes Pop!

Points:

1. There is a continuous cycle of pop culture’s influence on law. Pop culture is every changing in respect to storytelling styles and technologies. Pop culture, public opinion, and/or the media all have a profound influence on individuals. Lawyer must adapt their current persuasion, or storytelling techniques in regards to what cultural changes. They must do this in order to maintain their effectiveness on the audience they are trying to persuade. This includes both jury members and judges.

2. The extent to which law is converging with pop culture is a significant issue. Law is too easily influenced by public opinion and the media, which affects its stability and continuing legitimacy.

3. In the past, there was a print-based culture, one which used words to convey meanings. Today’s culture is image-based or associative cognitive. Visuals can be more power than print-media, because the public may take fiction as reality. As we discussed in class, viewers of Law & Order may take the show as reality, when in fact it is fiction. The show’s purpose is to provide entertainment not facts of legal processes.

4. I agree with the points provided in this book. The media and pop culture have a strong influence on the opinions of individuals. Pop culture’s influence on law has also become too strong, affecting its stability and legitimacy.

Group Project

We were thinking about doing it on some of the recent affirmative action votes that have been passed recently but we are not sure yet. The idea of state to overturn the affirmative action bill passed by JFK, and now state have decided not to give privileges with jobs or universities. It is still a rough idea, sorry for the delay I had a rough day with some stuff back home, and this slipped my mind.

When Law Goes Pop

When law goes pop!

1.Sherwin states the law is influenced by the media and vice versa, and that it has always affected media by know the media is affecting law to a great extend.

I agree with this because it is possible to see more people believing that what happens on Law and Order is what happens in the court room. With the line drawn more blurry in all forms of media of what is entertainment and what is facts, people have accepted television knowledge as good enough for them and this influences them in the courtroom.

2. He also makes a point about derealization of the trials, how they become a crazy media fiasco, where they are TV dramas made about real trials and movies that affect the courtroom.

I agree with this as well, when he talked about the case using Pulp Fiction as a method for persuading the jury or how the Buttafucco case became a TV show it shows how there is a disconnect between real-life and imaginary. When John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson play major roles in a trial through their movie, it is time to be concerned.

3. Sherwin talks about how we have become a visual society, where picture and movies that flash quickly can persuade us more than a well thought out argument.

Again I agree with this point, a flashy movie or a quick but striking picture can influence us more than a well thought out speech full of rhetoric. Similar to how Socrates thought people should try to take fancy and just state the fact, Sherwin makes the point that speech has lost its place in the court room, where the new forms of media have become king.

Group Presentation

Virginia and I have decided to focus our project on the display/availability of nutritional information in restaurants, including lists of ingredients in each dish in order to accommodate people with allergies or food intolerances. The question we will be investigating is, is it unethical and should it be against the law for restaurants to deny customers access to nutritional information and ingredients? There have been many books, such as “Eat This, Not That!” that deal with nutritional deception in restaurants, and shock readers with the nutritional information of various dishes in popular restaurant chains. If the restaurants had to display their nutritional information to the public, would it drive them to make their food healthier? These questions are examples of the ideas we will be exploring for our presentation.

P.S. Niko! You are welcome to be a member of our group!

When Law Goes POP

Three Important Points:

1)In chapter 1, Sherwin makes the point that "law is everywhere" (10). This might seem obvious, but I think that it help sets up the book, so that the reader is focused not only on law and it's fictional aspects, but also on the influence of law on our daily lives.

2)In chapter 2, Sherwin connects the idea that law is apparent in our daily lives, with the fact that visual mass media has an even stronger influence on our daily lives. Because of this, “law is not only collapsing into the popular, it is collapsing into an increasingly popular form of cultural postmodernism” (37). Therefore, lawyers increasingly have to tailor the content of their arguments to the medium that is most common to the jurors, visual mass media, in order to gain control over the reality of their cases.

3)In chapter 3, Sherwin gives a number of real-life examples of legal storytelling, showing that “truth is not easily divorced from fiction” in law, and that often times the truth is constructed at trial through a story, in order to connect the reality of the facts to the feelings (such as sympathy or antipathy) of the jurors towards the person on trial.

Discussion:

Honestly, I agree with each of the points that I picked up from the first three chapters of this book. Our society is so ingrained in the mass media, that it would be senseless not to believe that it has an effect on our justice system. But, I also think that in some situations, legal storytelling may not be as effective at finding the real truth, and may lead some juries to make the incorrect decision.

When Law Goes Pop!

Media affects American culture in general.

I agree with the point Sherwin is making with this idea. “Media” can be defined as newspapers, radio, television and the internet- all of which are widely available to and used by the general American public. The vast majority of Americans use at least one of these forms of media each day to inform themselves of the latest news concerning society. Whether this news is political, educational, entertainment, etc, most Americans consider it important. The news that Americans keep current on defines the way Americans act and live, thereby affecting and changing the culture of America. Since the media is the only way news is spread to Americans, it has the biggest affect on how the stories are told and how American culture is defined and affected.

Affect of media on the laws of society.

I also agree with Sherwin’s view of the Laws of society being affected by the Media. Here, Sherwin is talking more or less about how entertainment media affects the way Americans perceive social laws and norms. The common belief that violent TV shows and video games are causing an increase in crimes and violence is a perfect example of this point. Popular media is teaching the youth of America that violence is commonplace, diminishing the intimidation factor of consequences. Therefore some people would argue that certain offenses shouldn’t have legal consequences. That is a direct example of the media changing societal laws.

The importance of communication in law.

I agree with this point. In the common American courtroom, the jury is the entity that decides the verdict of the trial. Lawyers and attorneys use the jury to their advantage. They play to the jury’s emotions, dramatizing events and emphasizing certain things to make their point of view more appealing. Another side of communication is detail. Details add much more credit to stories and arguments. In my experience, I’m much more likely to believe a story in which small, seemingly unimportant details are included because they add dimension to the story. When lawyers, witnesses, and the accused communicate these details, the jury would probably be much more inclined to believe them and understand.

When Law Goes Pop Main Points

1. Our society and our perceptions of the world around us are affected to a great degree by media...."And where do they come from? For most people the source is not difficult to ascertain. It is the visual mass media: film, video, television, and to an increasing degree computerized imaging. This vast electronic archive provides us with the knowledge and interpretation skills we need to make sense of ordinary reality."

I agree with this point; I spend at least an hour each day, if not more on the internet. I get a lot of exposure to media whether that be through television, movies, facebook, or even twitter. Media affects my life to a large degree, and I would say that this is true of most the rest of our society.

2. The media also affects the laws of our society; both are very powerful forces in our society, and they both influence each other.

I also agree with this idea; just like one of the first days of class when we were talking about if media affects law and if law affects media. We applied this to law and order and decided that yes, this was true. Law affects media through this show, obviously, because it provides the foundation for the storyline. Also, the television show may affect real law, because the people that watch it may get skewed views of the real legal system and think that it functions the same way that it does on tv (maybe jury members) Law and order aside, I do think that both of these things, law and media, play a large role in our society, and because of this, they also do affect each other to a degree. Since the emersion of mass media, cases also get more coverage; we hear about more legal issues in more parts of the world than we would have in the past.

3. Pop culture and law are similar in some aspects..."Simply stated, popular culture, like law, helps to police conventional meetings and social practices."

I do think that because these two things are so powerful in our society, they do share some similarities. On the one hand, law is what our government uses as a standard of action and punishment. On the other hand, media shows us what is currently popular in society, and it in a way could be taken as showing us how to act or dress.

Group Idea - Laura and Kendall

Our issue: drug tests for welfare recipients.

Reasons for this: By issuing drug tests for those on welfare, we would be able to make sure those that are receiving welfare are in fact deserving of this money. For example, we don't want to waste money on someone who is a drug addict when there are others in greater need.

When Law Goes Pop!: Important Points

1) American culture is influenced by poplar media.
Americans are constantly influenced by what they see on T.V., and this carries over into the court room. Americans expect information more quickly, they are not as willing to wait around and dig for it in a lengthy opening statement and the quick images of television also make jurors more comfortable with visual aids than with simple explanations. Lawyers can us popular topics to connect to the jury.

2) Law affects and is affected by popular culture.
Americans have preconceived stereotypes and beliefs that they bring into the court room as jurors. Lawyers must be aware of this to be successful, and they use these beliefs to their advantage when presenting their case. The findings in each case can set precedents which can affect the culture and beliefs of Americans, such as the segregation laws eventually leading to racism being culturally unacceptable (in the United States as a whole).

3) Communication is important in law.
The way lawyers communicate with the jury is very important. A great example that Sherwin talks about in chapter three is storytelling. Attorneys can use their knowledge of the local mindset and beliefs along with the facts to spin a tale that, although it contains the right facts, may lead the jury to lean more in their favor. Take for example the story that Mr. Spence told about Randy Weaver. He took the facts and presented them to the jury in such a way that it made them sympathetic towards his client.

In looking at these three points, I agree with them all. American culture is affected not only by television but all forms of media. This is true as we see it everyday, especially with the prominence of the internet in today's society. Law is of course affected by culture and, in some ways, Law also affects American life. Finally, communication is extremely important in law; the way one presents his evidence will undoubtedly win or lose him a case.

When Law Goes Pop

Three important points:

1.Popular culture and law help to police conventional meanings and social practices.

-I agree with this statement. Popular culture demonstrates to us what is socially acceptable at a given point in time. Similarly, laws are there and are even adjusted to fit with a particular culture and their practices. Without both of these, social norms and meanings within a society would not be evident or in any way measurable.

2.TV and other forms of media serve as the measure of reality most people know.

-I agree with this statement. TV and other forms of mass media elicit emotional responses from the viewer, often resulting in them believing what they see or hear. As a result, what the viewer sees or hears from these media sources effects and determines what they consider to be real, even if it isn't true.

3.What we regard as truth is often what we want to believe.

-I agree with this statement. Whether something is true does not determine whether or not we believe it to be true. In the novel, for example, Sherwin uses the example of the movie Jaws. Even though people know that there is a small risk of being attacked by a shark, after this movie many avoided the ocean. If we view a shark attack and then believe we are at risk, our new truth will be that we are at risk.

Group?

I don't have a group for the project, and I was just wondering if there was a group that wouldn't mind having me. Let me know!
Here's my phone number: (701) 509-1920
and email: jallend@clemson.edu

Niko

Law & Order Episode Corresponding Blog Post

Identify:

I chose to analyze the insurance company representative’s decision using IAJD. The prominent ethical issue was whether or not the representative should have notified Daniel of his communicable disease (syphilis). The other issue was whether or not the representative reported Daniel’s communicable disease to the health department. This is against the law. The stakeholders in this case are Daniel and his family, the insurance company, the health department, and those who may be directly, or indirectly, affected by the disease. The representative could notify Daniel of his communicable disease. He could notify Daniel and the health department of his disease. He could solely notify the health department of Daniel’s disease. The representative could notify no one of Daniel’s disease.

Analyze:

Using the consequentialist approach, the representative should notify both Daniel and the health department of his communicable disease. Under this course of action, both the health department and Daniel are informed of the disease. Therefore, Daniel will inevitably be informed of his disease. The consequences of not informing Daniel may include the spread of syphilis to others, and the deterioration of Daniel’s brain, which would have detrimental affects on Daniel’s life. The costs of informing Daniel and the health department of his disease my include loss of time (for filling out paperwork), and cost of possible postage to send Daniel a notification. The benefits may include the prevention of the spread of syphilis to others, the treatment of syphilis for Daniel, and a better informed health department which can include Daniel’s information in a number of statistics and studies. In this course of action, the benefits outweigh the costs, as well as, eliminate future consequences.

Using the deontological approach, the representative should notify both Daniel and the health department of his disease. Daniel has the right to know of his condition, and why he was turned down for health insurance. It is the respectful thing to do regarding Daniel’s situation. Using the virtue ethics tool, the representative would demonstrate the most admirable character by notifying both Daniel and the health department of his communicable disease. It is his responsibility to notify the health department and he would exhibit good character by notifying Daniel of his disease.

Justify/Decide:

I have reached notifying both the Daniel and the health department of his communicable disease as the best course of action to be taken in this situation. The cost outweigh the benefits, and prevent future consequences. The representative would be showing the greatest amount of respect, and the best character by informing Daniel of his disease. He is required by law to report the condition to the health department. This course of action prevents serious consequences, and can only benefit Daniel overall. Knowledge is power, and Daniel has the right to know of his life-threatening, communicable disease. This course of action met convergence with all three tools.

Ethics of Law & Order: Episode

Identify:
The stakeholders in this case are the child's mother and the second victim's roommate, who want justice for the crimes against their family and friends. The police and the city, who want justice and to not look incompetent in the eyes of their citizens. Paula, who wants her husband to be freed because of his mental illness, and Daniel, who wishes to avoid prison. Also the insurance company which does not want to be made to look bad in the eyes of their customers. The ethical issues faced in this case include: Is it alright to give the death penalty to someone who is insane/suicidal? And should insurance companies be responsible for events that occur due to their failure to release information to a client? The possible choices in this case for Alex include: Should I go for the death penalty on someone who may be mentally ill? Should I attack the insurance company that may have indirectly caused Daniel to be in this mental state?
Analyze:
In looking at this case through the consequentialist approach, it seems that Alex should choose to offer Daniel a deal by which he can be placed into a mental health facility, and then either reach a deal with the insurance company to assure no incident such as this will happen in the future or go after the company in court so that no future families can be harmed by a company withholding information. This will provide the most good for the most people. Looking at it through the deontological approach offers a different conclusion, however. It would seem that it is the prosecutor's duty to try to get the maximum penalty possible for such violent murders. Therefore, Alex should try for either the death penalty or a lifetime prison sentence. As for the insurance company, it is her duty to assure that this does not happen again, thus she must either cut a deal or win in court to force the company to release information to their customers. This follows the Kantian aspect of deontological thinking, that is, treat people as people, not things. Using virtue ethics Alex must again decide that it is best for Daniel to be in a mental health facility, and ask that he be granted this opportunity. Also, she must attack the insurance company (legally, not physically) in order to ensure that no future persons are harmed by a similar event. These are the most virtuous choices.
Justify & Decide:
After looking at these three tools, it would seem that the choice is simple as there is convergence on all three with one choice and two with the other. The best choice for Alex as far as prosecuting Daniel is to gain him admittance to a mental health facility, this provides him with the help he needs while keeping others safe. It had convergence with two of the three tools. The best choice as far as whether or not to take legal action against the insurance company is undoubtabley yes, Alex should take action to ensure the safety of customers in future years. This choice had convergence with all three tools.

The Ethics of a Law and Order Episode

Identify:

The stakeholders in this episode were Daniel, the murderer, Daniel’s family, the people of New York City, the Insurance representative, and the New York City Health Department. The ethical issue is whether or not the Insurance company, because they withheld information about Daniel’s health and did not inform the Health Department on his disease, is the reason the people were killed. In this case, Daniel would not be sent to jail, but would be sent to a mental institution, and the Insurance company would be forced to lay claim for the lives that were lost due to Daniel’s illness. On the other hand, Daniel did murder these people and could be tried as so, with the ultimate punishment of the death penalty looming over him and his family. But, this way, the people of New York City would be happy because Daniel would be punished for the deaths he caused, and for the terror he caused all over New York City.

Analyze:

The consequentialist approach is focused on doing the greatest good for the greatest number. In this situation, the consequentialist approach would tell us to try Daniel for murder and have him sentenced to death. This would make the people of New York City happy, would leave Daniel’s family without a father, it would suggest that the Insurance company representative had no fault in this situation, therefore the health department would have no place in this decision.
The deontological approach is focused on treating people as they deserve to be treated. Therefore, in this approach, the Insurance company representative should take all of the blame for the murder because he withheld important information about Daniel’s health, he didn’t inform the health department of Daniel’s disease, Daniel and his family were unaware of his syphilis, Daniel wasn’t treated for his illness, which led him to kill those people. In this case, the Insurance Company representative would have to pay reparations for choosing to to inform the Health Department, Daniel would be put into a mental institution in order to be taken care of properly, the people of New York City would not be satisfied, and Daniel’s family would be happy.
Under the virtue ethics approach, the aim is to figure out what the person, in this case Daniel or the Insurance company representative, truly wanted to be, and if they had bad intentions or virtuous intentions. Under this approach, the Insurance Company representative would be deemed as not virtuous because he put his company’s well being before the health of Daniel, which in turn resulted in Daniel’s killing of the victims. In this case Daniel would be put into a mental institution, the Insurance Company representative would be given fault for the deaths because he did not inform the Health Department of Daniel’s condition, the people of New York City would not be satisfied, and Daniel’s family would be happy that Daniel was being properly taken care of.

Justify/Decision:

Using the three tools, I conclude that the Insurance representative is at fault, and Daniel is mentally ill and should be put into a mental institution. I can justify this decision because both the deontological approach, and the virtue ethics approach lead me to this conclusion, and although it is not the greatest good for the greatest number, it is ethically the right thing to do, because Daniel is mentally ill, and should not be tried for murder. The Insurance representative should have reported Daniel’s illness to the health department, so they could have informed Daniel’s family of his illness, Daniel could then have been treated, therefore none of the murders would have ever occurred.

Virginia Bruch Episode Ethics

The ethical issues at hand were whether or not the man who killed the different people throughout the episode should be put to death or if he should be instead placed in a mental institution because his condition made him not fit to go through a fair trial. Once his condition was pinpointed, there was a new ethical issue of if it was the insurance company’s fault that these people were killed as a result of withholding information from the patient. The stake-holders in the case were the man, the man’s family, and the insurance company. The two main possible courses of action for this case are that a) the man could be sentenced to the death penalty for his actions, the insurance company would not be charged, and the man’s family would suffer the loss of a father, and b) that the insurance company be charged for withholding information from the patient, inadvertently causing the death of these people, the man would be put in a mental institution because he would be considered not fit to stand trial, and the family would be more at peace knowing that their father was still alive and was being taken care of. The consequentialist approach would agree with option a, because it would say that the man should be sentenced to the death penalty because it would be for the greatest good for people to not be put in the danger of having somebody alive that could potentially kill more people. The deontological tool would agree with option a as well, because it would not be ok for this to be applied to the entire world. The line between what would be considered “fit” and “not fit” to trial may become blurred, and this would not be ok, especially if it were to apply to all people. The aspiration tool would agree with option b because it would sympathize with the man, and it would think the insurance company as not virtuous. I agree with the aspiration tool because while the man did kill people, I do not think he is fit to trial and it would not harm people to have him in a mental institution. Also, it would be impossible to judge whether or not he would have killed these people had he insurance company informed him of his illness and he was mentally healthy. According to his wife, he was a very loving father and he would not have done these things had he been healthy. I think that Alex should prosecute the insurance company and that the insurance rep should agree to settle, because it would be some compensation for the family. Also, I think that the insurance company should have to inform the public health department of these communicable illnesses.

Law and Order: March 8

Identify: In this episode of Law and Order, the ethical issue was whether or not Alex should prosecute the murderer who was mentally disabled by Syphilis. While he killed many people in cold blood, he was mentally unable to separate fact from fantasy and followed the “voices” in his head. The stake-holders in this issue were the murderer and the citizens of New York. Either Alex could have chosen to go forward and prosecute the killer as a cold-blooded killer or she could have allowed to put him in a hospital and claim mental instability.

Analyze: From a consequentialist approach, regardless of his reasoning, the murderer killed more than one innocent civilian in cold blood. Not once was he threatened by any of his victims and he was a hazard to society. His actions and killings threw the city of New York into upheaval as civilians turned on one another and accused each other of committing the crimes. Because so many people were affected by the murder’s actions, he deserved to be prosecuted and sentenced to death. Using the deontological approach, while the killer was in fact a murderer, he was mentally unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. Unbeknownst to the murderer, he had contracted Syphilis years before and it was slowly eating away at his brain. His cerebral cortex (the area of the brain that makes judgment decisions) had been almost entirely destroyed, leaving him incapable of knowing right from wrong. Because he himself was a victim, the murderer deserves forgiveness for his actions and deserved to be admitted to a hospital. The aspiration tool is a bit trickier. Because this case, according the aspiration tool, could be used to set a precedent, the murderer should be forced to go to jail and serve whatever sentence the judge deemed appropriate. If this murderer was acquitted, many after him would also try and use brain damage or other sorts of medical claims to get out of a murder accusation. The man killed innocent people and deserved to serve whatever punishment his was given.

Justify and Decide: Two out of the three tools lead to the conclusion that the man should have been prosecuted and sent to jail. While his brain damage was unfortunate, the man still must be held responsible for the lives he took and the families he tore apart. Alex should have prosecuted the man to the fullest extent of the law. For the citizens of New York who were scared for those weeks when the man ran rampant throughout the city, they deserve to have their time and worries recognized by this man serving his punishment. The victims whose lives were lost deserve to have their lives considered and the man pay for ending their lives. The families whose loved ones were murdered deserved to see the killer put to death or at least die in prison. His health situation was terrible and unfortunately could have been avoided, but since it was not, the murderer deserved to serve out his punishment.

Kendall Headden

Law&Order Assignment for 3/8/11

Alex’s decisions on Law & Order:

Identify: In this episode, Alex is faced with the decision on whether or not she should follow public opinion and give the death penalty to Daniel, or whether she should offer a lesser sentence after discovering that his rampage was a result of not having been informed of his tertiary syphilis. The stakeholders in this case are both Daniel and the everyday civilian. As a result of his rampage, civilians were faced with fear and a few even lost loved ones. Alex could choose to deliver the death penalty or opt to label him as mentally inept to go to court, and place him in a mental hospital.

Analyze: From a consequentialist perspective, the death penalty for Daniel would be the best option. This approach looks at the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and since public opinion expressed that they would feel safer with Daniel dead, the death penalty would be the best option. If Daniel were to stay alive, it would only benefit him and his family. Using the deontological tool, Daniel also deserves to die. He killed innocent people and as a result, he should have to pay for his actions. Using the aspiration tool, the best decision would be to not give Daniel the death penalty. He was not made aware of his syphilis, so essentially it is not his fault that it reached the tertiary stage and caused him to kill others. I don’t think Alex would be able to feel good about her giving the death penalty later down the road while knowing that Daniel’s situation could have been prevented if the insurance company had been more honest.

Justify and Decide: I think the correct decision was made not to give Daniel the death penalty. Although it doesn’t benefit the greatest number of people, Daniel was deceived by the insurance company and did not have complete control of his actions as a result of his illness. Morally speaking, I think this was the only appropriate decision. The insurance company should have told Daniel from the beginning of his illness, but I think Alex made the correct decision in the end.

Ethics

Alex was put into the position of prosecutor of Daniel, the serial killer, and was forced to try to give him the death penalty. She was walking the fine line of making the public happy by trying to execute Daniel, because he scared the public so much that they wanted blood. On the other had Dr. Wong had learned that Daniel had tertiary syphilis, which had caused holes in his brain, so he was mentally unstable. So she had the choice of either killing the murder, Daniel, or letting him be declared mentally insane so he would go to a mental institution. The people who had a stake in this are Daniel, Alex, Daniel’s wife, and the public. The consequentialist view would say the public has the most people, so they would be happiest if Daniel was given the death penalty. The deontological view would say it is not right to ignore the insanity to be please the masses, so he should be sent to a mental institution. The virtue ethics view would say if Alex wanted to be a good lawyer than she would uphold the law as best as she could, which would be institutionalizing Daniel. In theory, Alex should let him go to the mental hospital, this is because it is the right action to do, because the law says if someone did not know of their actions they should be put into a hospital, and Daniel’s case is a perfect example of this.

Works Cited on Paper

Hey just wanted to let y'all know that I asked about whether or not we needed to include a works cited page along with our paper. Dr. Fishman replied that as long as we identify our sources by author and title, we don't have to do a formal works cited page. This was only if we included texts we have discussed in class. However, if we include other material, we need to include a works cited on those sources. She wanted me to fill y'all in on that too.