An eye-opening experience

The double-murder trial we saw on our fieldtrip was definitely a criminal case loaded with felonies. Schuning allegedly violently murdered his mother in an argument, used her credit cards to call over three escorts, and then murdered one young woman after she spotted the bloody knife used in the first murder and called for help. The accused was a white and male, which supports the Feminist Theory of deviance in that men are more likely to commit more severe crimes than women. The prosecutors were the first to present evidence during our time in the courtroom, and their questions were very detailed; the most obvious of details were not missed. The case we watched would be at the step of the justice system when evidence is presented. The evidence I saw suggested that Schuning killed the victims in an attempt to gain control over them, which supports Conflict Theory of deviance because the increasing amount of conflict led to more deviance. Phenomenological Theory of deviance could explain Schuning's behavior in using the servies of the escorts, as he probably didn't view it as being wrong.

The fieldtrip to the DuPage County courts and jail was an eye-opener for me. The videos and notes we saw in class somewhat prepared me in terms of what to expect a jail to look like, and the cells and dayroom of the newer part of the jail looked exactly like the ones in 30 Days, but now I have a more realistic view of how unpleasant jail is. There wasn't much natural light, the halls smelled strange, and having nothing but concrete walls and criminals to look at was pretty depressing. Despite the large number of people there, I imagine prisoners feel extremely lonely and become depressed rather easily. I could never think of committing a crime even knowing a little what kind of punishment jail is. The despondent setting of jail is a deterrence in itself in my opinion, and people are definitely paying retribution there for their crimes. I think the absolute control and deprivation of freedom in jail is effective in preventing deviance for most people, but more focus should be put on rehabilitation for criminals who are safe enough to be let back into society after they serve their time.

Is it deviance to kill certain people?

I recently read an article in the Chicago Tribune discussing how to approach the subject of Osama Bin Laden's death when talking to children. Many people celebrate Bin Laden's death, hailing it an important justice to both the people of America and the Middle East, and some t-shirt companies have even taken it upon themselves to create shirts just for the occasion. However, parents who just started teaching their children that it is not okay to hurt people are struggling to explain to their children the happiness and relief surrounding Bin Laden's death. Suddenly parents and teachers with children who just learned "thou shall not kill" are in a pickle trying to figure out a way to explain to them when it is and isn't okay to kill someone. Depending on one's point of view, killing Bin Laden may or may not be considered deviance. We live by the consensus that it is immoral to kill someone, but we also execute people who can't conform to our norms to an extreme. I still can't decide whether or not I think it should be considered deviant to kill or if one idea of deviance and morals can even be applicable to all situations, but I know for sure I'm at a loss for words on how to explain it to children.