Genocide Is Often Done within the Confines of the Legal System - Coursework Example

Formative Essay Upon my visit to the Imperial war Museum and tour of both the Holocaust and Crimes Against Humanity Exhibit, I learned more about the relationship between human nature and law than I ever imagined possible. Genocide, the act of mass killings with the intent of erasing an entire group of people, I found is often done within the confines of the legal system. I found the antisocial mentality necessary to carry out such heinous crimes is often only held by a small group of individuals, while those manipulated to commit these crimes practically do so unaware of the immoral nature of their actions. The most valuable thing I took with me from this experience was how the duality of law could be manipulated to serve one’s ulterior motives for the better or for the worse. The use of the Holocaust Exhibition to educate European citizens, as well as individuals worldwide on the historical implications resulting from the First World War is undoubtedly an invaluable resource. As noted on the exhibition website, “Taking as its starting point the turbulent political scene in Europe immediately after the First World War, the exhibition traces the rise of the Nazi party, how anti-Semitism as a Europe-wide phenomenon made a fertile seedbed for Hitlers anti-Jewish beliefs, the perversion of science to support Nazi race theory, the isolation of German Jews, the refugee crisis and the advent of so-called Euthanasia policies in 1939 (london.iwm.org.uk).” These policies point to the deeper issue that caused the Holocaust, namely the policies that lead law abiding citizens to perform acts of genocide As Staub says in Zimbardo’s work in the course notes, “Genocide was not perpetrated by evil people of extraordinary, demonic characteristics. Rather by ordinary individuals in extraordinary social circumstances (Staub, 1989; Zimbardo 2004).” All of this shows how detrimental corrupt laws enacted by those empower can lead to horrific occurrences disguised in the form of policy. The powerful impact these exhibits have on its visitors is telling in its own right. As further noted on the site, one visitor cited “Moved, deeply… shocked. Although we all know the truth now, it is a shaking human experience to be confronted with it.” Another visitor noted that, “This powerful exhibit should act as a warning to our children.” My reaction to these exhibits was very similar to that of these visitors. I was appalled but also intrigued by the human nature and frailties in the legal system that allowed it to happen. The visitors that accompanied me on my tour of the museum had the same appalling reaction, but I couldn’t help but realize that while the education and appreciation for history was present now in society the vulnerability within the legal system still exists. The definition of “crimes against humanity”, as is course notes, is acts against people that degrade their humanity. Hitler and the Nazi party took doctors, lawyers, accountants, mothers, children and respectable working class people and turned them into the condemned. The law recognizes genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy an entire race or group of people. The main focus of the Crimes Against Humanity exhibit is a 30-minute film presented to the visitors. The film is cinematically captivating and delves not only into the horrific nature of tyrants and those who manipulate the masses through political powers entrusted to them to perform some of the worse crimes known to man on a global scale. On a societal level, the lessons learned from the Holocaust resulted in the UN Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28th April, 2006"reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (course notes)". This established that in the case of an event of such as the holocaust were to eve happen again, the U.N. would be held to an obligation to act in opposition to the crimes. Likewise, it must not be overlooked that national governments have a significant influence on the crimes of individuals, as Haslam and Reicher note, “People do great wrong, not because they are unaware of what they are doing, but because they consider it to be right (Haslam & Reicher, 2008)” This brings up the question as to who is legally responsible for the actions of individuals who contributed to the crimes of the Nazi party. Migram notes that, "The essence of obedience is that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another persons wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself responsible for his actions." (Milgram, 1964) This is the concept of peer pressure and obedience. Sherif calls it the auto-kinetic affect experiment and informative social influence, citing that “if no opposes the behaviour within an institution it is assumed that it is acceptable and justified (1954). This leads the U.N., as well as individuals within given societies with the responsibility to stop potential climates for genocide or crimes against humanity to exercise their civic duty to stop the epidemic at the source before it becomes such. In sum, these exhibits don’t just serve the community as a warning of past endeavors and a sign of what could come, but they educate us on the significance of now as it relates to man and law. Genocide is a crime that is usually committed within the limits of the law; in fact, this heinous act is usually legally mandated by those in power. Corrupt as these individuals may be, when they are performing acts of genocide, it is often those who oppose it who are breaking the laws of their nation, and those who rebel against it who are acting outside of the law. Work Cited Class Notes “Genocide” ."(Milgram, 1964), (Haslam & Reicher, 2008), Myers G., David (2009) . Psychology in Everyday life. Quotes from Staub (1989); Zimbardo (2004). Worth Publishers Retrieved from> http://books.google.com/books?id=KUOpRA7iwZkC&pg=PR412&lpg=PR412&dq=Staub,+1989;+Zimbardo+2004&source=bl&ots=15jQNYJD_4&sig=eqMov_K0KMTIs4MpU9luETQdfro&hl=en&ei=kBL1TK2AH4O8lQfcg9C1BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Staub%2C%201989%3B%20Zimbardo%202004&f=false Summative Assessment I went to visit the Crown Court in Lancashire. The Crown court is the higher court of first instance in cases of criminal charges. While there are around 92 Crown Courts located in England and Wales across six circuits, Northern, North Eastern, South Eastern, Western, midland, Wales & Chester, I chose to visit the Lancashire location. The main legal activities carried out in the crown court are appeals from magistrate decisions, sentencing of those convicted in the Crown court There was a raised platform at the front of the court. The judge sat there. The clerk of the court sat facing the court, the same way the judge sat. There was a court reporter sitting in front of the judge’s platform and she was recording court proceedings on a stenograph. The usher was walking around the courtroom back and forth between the judge, the clerk and the barristers. The defending barrister sat near the jury. I sat in a section known as the Old Bailey, located above where the defendant was sitting. All of this was setup specifically to handle criminal as well as certain civil proceedings. “Law 4 of 1983; Parliament Penal Code, contained in Law 2 of 1988; the Law in Civil and Commercial Matters, contained in Law No. 13 of 1992; the Civil Procedure, contained in Law No. 12 of 1996; and the Code of Criminal Procedure, contained in Law No. 45 of 1999. A public prosecutor may dictate that a suspect be detained for as much as 21 days without being charged, and after this time, specifically in felony cases and misdemeanor cases authorities must obtain a court order for more time. A suspect can’t be detained without charge for longer than 30 days. Charges of murder or manslaughter In order to sustain a first-degree murder charge against a criminal defendant, it must first be established that the defendant has committed murder. Murder has a physical act requirement and a mental state requirement. Murder liability requires proof that the defendant is criminally responsible for a homicide and that homicide was committed with malice. To sustain manslaughter, it must be proven that the defendant intentionally intended to inflict bodily harm on an individual or to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death. This is largely due to the relationship between terrorism and organized crime. Terrorism and organized crime directly endanger the stability of states by targeting economic, social and political systems and that above all the links between these deserve considerable attention (Makarenko 2002). These links have recently received considerable attention, represented as a new and increasing phenomenon caused by the rapid developments in the past decade. This results in a situation where political and criminal motivated violence is often indistinct (Makarenko 2004). None of the individuals I saw being brought into the court for criminal proceedings appeared to be there for any involvement with terrorist activity. I say this because many of them were very young. They were mostly male and between the age of 15 and 20. This finding was compatible with the court report statistic that noted, “Over a period of four years, the very numerous sample members (82% of 10- to 25-year-olds) with a low propensity to offend accounted for around one-third (36%) of all offences. This is about the same proportion of all offending as that admitted by the small group (4% of 10-to 25-year-olds) described here as ‘prolific offenders’1 who committed a disproportionately large amount of offences (responsible for 32% of all offences). Many of the cases I saw brought into the court were for domestic conflicts. I also noticed they were not conflicts that arose between strangers but individuals who knew each other for a while. One case I witnessed involved a young man about 18 years old who had assaulted a police officer after the officer arrived at his place of residence for a domestic dispute. Cases dealing with murder as they relate to prosecution of those charged with the crime don’t have to be tried in front of a jury. Despite this, The burden of proof is still on the state. In order to sustain a first-degree murder charge against a criminal defendant, it must first be established that the defendant has committed murder. Murder has a physical act requirement and a mental state requirement. Murder liability requires proof that the defendant is criminally responsible for a homicide and that homicide was committed with malice. To sustain manslaughter, it must be proven that the defendant intentionally intended to inflict bodily harm on an individual or to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death. A homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being by the defendant’s act. Depraved heart. If a killing occurs as a result of conduct by the defendant that shows the defendant has acted with extreme indifference to human life, then the defendant will be deemed to have acted with the requisite malice for murder. Felony-murder rule. As stated above, a killing during the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony is considered murder under the felony-murder rule. In their study Networks among Elites in a Local Criminal Justice System, John P. Heinz and Peter M. Manikas analyze the state of elite relationships and their affect on the criminal justice system. The data is collected fro a survey of 211 criminal justice administrators, news paper reporters and interest group leaders in Arab regions.. In the study, the writers point how John Hagan (1989) has called for a "structural-contextual approach" to criminal justice theory because, in his view, existing theories "do not provide sufficient attention to the structural relationships that emerge from a joining of organizational and political forces in the direction of criminal justice operations." This very closely relates to the same elements that create a suitable climate for Crimes against Humanity. In sum, my experience at the courthouse exposed me to some subtle realities of the legal system that I didn’t expect to witness. I did not expect so many young people to be brought in on drug offenses, or domestic disputes. I thought there would be grander crimes such as bank robberies, or potential terrorist bombing threats. Instead I witnessed people being brought in on criminal charges such as assault, petty theft and larceny. The most telling lesson I learned was that many of those charged with crimes obviously had psychological disorders, such as anti-social behavior or addiction to certain substances that effected their behavior. Work Cited Ashworth, A. & Redmayne M. (2010) 4th Ed. The Criminal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heinz, John P. & Peter, M. Manikas (1992) Networks among Elites in a Local Criminal Justice System Read More