Criminal Justice and Deviance Issues - Essay Example

?I. Bankruptcy and Stigma This part analyzes whether or not there is a relationship between the mounting cases of personal bankruptcy today and the decreasing capacity of Americans to feel shame. In the past, there was much social stigma attached to declaring one’s insolvency. It means not being able to pay your debts. It means reneging on one’s commitments to creditors. The question now is whether or not it is true that there is diminishing stigma attached to bankruptcy and if this has been responsible for the rise in the filed cases of personal bankruptcy. The premise of this is a statement given by Congressman Hutchinson, stating that “Having lost its social stigma, bankruptcy ‘convenience’ filings have become a tool to avoid financial obligations rather than a measure of last resort.” (quoted in Thorne and Anderson, 2006, 147). This was also supported by Efrat (2005: 481), who attributed the lessening of stigma to the fact that “American society may have developed a more positive attitude towards the individual that was manifested by less anger and more sympathy with the plight of the individual.” Thus, if the theory is to be followed, there was no more shame to be had because of the acceptance of those who defaulted from debts. The findings of Thorne and Anderson, however, appear to suggest otherwise. In fact, instead of viewing personal bankruptcy as merely a product of rational economic choice and a strategy to stop payment of mounting debt, those who file for bankruptcy find themselves confronting stigmatization and discrimination. Proof of this is their desire to conceal their bankruptcy from family members and associates whom they feel would be critical of what they perceive to be their fiscal mismanagement. To quote: Virtually every debtor whose parents were still living tried to withhold knowledge of the bankruptcy from them. Older debtors whose parents had passed away commented that "if they knew, they'd spin in their graves." One woman, whose father was visiting when the researcher arrived for the interview, nearly pushed the interviewer off the front steps out of fear (as she explained later) that if her father saw the researcher, he would ask disconcerting questions and potentially learn of the bankruptcy. If one looks at stigma as the social devaluation or deliberate alienation of an individual who deviates from a behavioural norm, such behavioural norm being “a shared belief of a particular social unit that individuals should act in a certain way under certain circumstances” (Stafford and Scott (1986: 81), then it is fairly obvious that when something becomes common, or when there are enough individuals who file for bankruptcy, it ceases to be a reason for stigma. An analogy could be premarital sex. In the past, there were not a lot of people who engaged in premarital sex and hence it was a stigma. But now, because it had become fairly common, there was no reason to feel stigmatised or ashamed. Fay, Hurst and White (2002: 708) also suggested that households file for bankruptcy when it becomes economically beneficial for them to do so. This paper argues however, that stigmatisation still affects those who file for bankruptcy. The empirical data accumulated by Thorne and Anderson prove this, so do Sutton and Callahan who said that even firms experience stigmatisation. “The bankrupt firms we studied were often shunned by members of their organizational audiences. The leaders we interviewed were hurt and embarrassed.(1987: 406)”. The reason is simple: no matter how common poverty is, it still causes stigmatisation. Bankruptcy is an indication of poverty. It is an indication of inability to pay off one’s debts. Even if there are a lot of people doing it, it is still is a cause for shame when one admits in official documents that he or she is asking to be legally discharged from debts contracted. Since childhood, people have been programmed to aspire towards prosperity and a certain way of life. Bankruptcy is a signal that that aspiration has not been met and that, the person in fact, is a failure. Another point this paper would like to make is that there is a possibility that the rates of people filing bankruptcy did not in fact go up, but that poverty rates had gone up and bankruptcy rates should in fact have been higher if people had not held back from filing. Indeed, it is not enough to look at the numbers of individuals who filed for bankruptcy at the present time vis a vis those who filed it in the past. It is also important to look at the bankruptcy filers in relation to the poverty threshold. Bankruptcy rates were down then but it may be because there were not as many poor people. II. Is there a ‘terrorist’ personality? The question ‘is there a terrorist personality’ has surfaced time and again in the anti-terror discourse. People are eager to believe that there is a terrorist personality in order to justify profiling, as well as to eliminate themselves or their loved ones from that “type”. As Schmid and Jongman (1988: 241) stated, “The chief assumption underlying many psychological ‘theories’ . . . is that the terrorist is in one way or the other not normal.” However, the research has demonstrated that internal causes for terrorist behaviour is largely overestimated. (Arena, M. and Arrigo, B, 2005: 4). It is also important to note that: Misconceptions and prejudices born in the wake of the amorality of terrorist acts-the wanton destruction of property and the suffering of victims pervasive enough will go on to influence the policies used to combat terrorism and can have a powerful influence on official attitudes on how to deal with terrorists. (Silke, 1998: 52). I argue that the question as to whether or not there is a terrorist personality requires looking at the divergent approaches of “consensus” and “conflict” approach. Many experts believe that this is most appropriate lens with which to understand crimes today, with the debates evolving to meet more modern and complex contemporary problems. It is imperative to begin by defining the concepts. Reid (119) defined the consensus approach as one that “views the emerging norms and laws of society as representative of the common feeling about what is right and proper; that is, they represent a consensus of views—a mechanism for maintaining social order.” It looks at society as a homogenous whole, without factions or frictions, and making a collective determination on what is right and what is wrong. In contrast, the proponents of the conflict theory look at society not as a homogenous whole, but as one wracked by class fault lines. Therefore, laws are not simply collectively-agreed upon rules that establish social order and ensure the efficient and harmonious functioning of society, they are a means by which those who have wealth and power ensure that existing hierarchical arrangements are perpetuated. On the other hand, conflict theorists critique the consensus approach and claim that the criminal justice system as presently structured is a means by which the dominant class wields its power over the dominated class. Argues Horowitz, “the wielding of such power to a new social class is the purpose of the State, which in turn enters the historical picture as the central agency of coercion while posing as the agency of social consensus.” (1962: 178). Using the conflict perspective therefore, these terrorists are responding to their environment and society not because they have something within them that demonstrates a propensity towards terrorism, but because they have been routinlely taught that their actions are understandable and for the greater good. There are many things – external things –that were the result of the environment. That is why there are an increasing number of terrorists in this day and age – the environment has pushed them to fight back and since the means for them to fight back is minmal, they rely on what is already there: terrorism. To quote Arena and Arrigo again (page 11): This organization of reality takes place through the interpretations for, perceptions of, interactions with, and ascribed meanings regarding the symbols in one’s environment. In this context, identities are formed through one’s personal experience, history, and stock of knowledge, as well as the views that others have about one’s self-concept as delineated over time. What this means is that no one is born with a terrorist gene. No one is born with a chromosome that that turns him into a suicide bomber. People are born into circumstances that compel them to make terrible decisions, and while it does not mean that we can do away with human accountability, it does mean that we have to take into consideration the socio-economic structures and context that have given rise to violent behaviour in people and the willingness to kill innocent victims and sow fear in populations. The massive poverty and inequality that are produced and reproduced over time, the alienation and racism that they encounter as a result of arbitrary markers such as the colour of one’s skin or one’s ethnic origins – all these come together and create the desire to strike back in a violent way. (word count: 1520) References Arena, M. and Arrigo, B. (2006). The Terrorist Identity: Explaining the Terrorist Threat. NY: New York University Press. Efrat, R. (2006). “Bankruptcy Stigma: Plausible Cause for Shifting Norms”. Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal. Vol. 22. 481-520. Fay, S. Hurst, E., and White, M. (2002). “”The Household Bankruptcy Decision.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 3. 706-718. Horowitz, I. (1962). “Conflict and Cooperation: A Sociological Inventory”. Social Forces. 41 Soc. F. Reid, S.T. (2008). Crime and Criminology. New York City: Oxford University Press USA Schmid, A. P. and Jongman, A. J. (1988). Political Terrorism (2nd Edition), Oxford: North Holland Publishing Company. Silke, A. (2008). “Cheshire Cat Logic: The recurring theme of terrorist abnormality in psychological research.” London: Routledge. Stafford, M. and Scott, R. (1986). “Stigma, Deviance and Social Control: Some Conceptual Issues” in Stephen Ainley (ed.) The Dilemma of Difference: A Multidisciplinary View of Stigma. NY: Plenum Press. Sutton, R. and Callahan, A. (1987). “The Stigma of Bankruptcy: Spoiled Organizational Image and Its Management”. The Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 30, No. 3. 405-436. Throne, D. and Anderson, L. (2006). “Managing the Stigma of Personal Bankruptcy.” In Thio, A., Calhoun, T. & Conyers, A. (eds.). Readings in Deviant Behavior (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Education,Inc.  Read More