Hey Bloomberg, Get Your Posse Outta My Comitatus

Anyone who has watched an old Hollywood Western or listened to a bit of Hip Hop knows what a posse is, but what about the Latin word comitatus? The always helpful Wikipedia tell us this: "Comitatus was a Germanic friendship structure that compelled kings to rule in consultation with their warriors. The comitatus, as described in the Roman historian Tacitus's treatise Germania (98. AD), is the bond existing between a Germanic warrior and his lord, ensuring that neither leaves the field of battle before the other. The translation is as follows: 'Moreover, to survive the leader and retreat from the battlefield is a lifelong disgrace and infamy.'" However, the simplest definition I've come across says that comitatus is the Latin word for county. Because I'm fascinated with words--their origins, evolution, and associations--I find it interesting, and relevant, that the old Latin word for Countess is comitissa, which likely tells us that the masculine form of the word means Count.

So how does a word that means an agreement between a warrior and his lord come to signify both a territory and a local aristocrat? Let us turn to Grendel for a possible answer: "Hrothgar met with his council for many nights and days.... They built roads. The kings from whom they'd taken tributes of treasure they now asked for tributes of men.... And now when enemies from farther out struck at kings who called themselves Hrothgar's friends, a messenger would slip out, and...the forest would rumble with the sound of Hrothgar's horsemen. He would overcome them: his band had grown large, and for the treasures Hrothgar could afford now to give them in sign of his thanks, his warriors became hornets. New roads snaked out" (Gardiner 38). By swearing fealty to THE king, the lesser kings received protection and tributes of riches, land, and titles. This is the basic process by which kingdoms like England formed. Here we're dealing with the material aspects of the process (riches and land, e.g.), but there was also an entire ideology that went along with it. As Tacitus suggests, honor came from protecting the King on the battlefield, with one's own life if necessary. In return, if one survived, one might become a Count and rule over a small piece of the kingdom, something that would one day come to be known as a county (comitatus).

Counts still exist in certain places, but they don't keep bands of warriors anymore, and they don't protect the King, at least not with force of arms. And importantly, the major territorial units of the so-called civilized world, nowadays known as States or Countries, are usually not conceived of as extensions of the "body of the king" (Kingdoms, i.e.), and the concept of sovereignty or ultimate power is not perceived to be derived from the diving right of kings. Now, we have democracies and republics based upon the idea of the social contract, the notion that we agree to invest sovereign power in the State in exchange for the State's promise to protect certain "inalienable rights" we have, like the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Jefferson) as well as certain civil rights like those outlined in documents like the US Constitution.

And we certainly have counties still. There are five of them right here where we all live; they're also known as the boroughs of New York City. We do not have a Count of New York City, but we do have a mayor. He's far richer than Hrothgar ever dreamed of being (a net worth of about 20 BILLION dollars), but he's not a King either. He does, however, claim to have his own posse. Here's what he said recently: "I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world." We have read Balko, Baker, and Stamper. We've seen the evidence. Right here in our own counties, the NYPD has tanks, grenade launchers, and a surveillance system that is downright scary. In other words, the mayor is exactly right. Well, I say, "Bloomberg, get your posse outta my comitatus." What do you say?  

 

 

DETAINED

On behalf of all the Verons, I want to give thanks to Peter Kiers, Richard and Kim for taking a moment to share their knowledge and expertise with us on the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA). For some of us, it was an eye opening experience and very imformative. For others, the visit to the criminal court building might have been simply a reiteration and a reminder of what really goes on behind the scenes within the Criminal Justice System that is contrary to many of the law and crime shows portrayed and viewed on television. I applaud the people of CJA for all the outstanding effort and work that they do.

In the past, certain people were being detained not necessarily because of the crime they were being accused of, but because of their financial status. I think that CJA's interviews with the arrested defendants are crucial and somewhat plays an intricate part in the outcome of an individual's case. Through the interviews conducted, CJA is able to determine the defendant's ties to the community. By using the point scale system, recommendations are made to release the defendant on their own recognizance. A great point was raised that I think is very important to mention. I think it is essential that the interviewers explain their function to the defendants (especially first timers) at the time of the interview. Many of the individuals may wonder if the interviewer is an adversary or an ally. Many of them do not bother asking and are left with the assumption that the interviewers are a part of law enforcement or the courts. I have known individuals to decline or even go as far as giving false information to an interviewer based on that assumption. Unaware that the disclosure of such information is used for their benefit, the defendants actually jeapordized their chances for release. While detained, it is difficult to obtain adequate legal representation, collect evidence, gather witnesses, all essential for formulating a proper defense. Denied access to these resources can lead to a conviction or a reluctant plea bargain on behalf of the defendant. I also like the CJA function of conducting interviews at arraignment court for individuals accused of committing misdemeanor crimes. The recommendation for community and social services is a great alternative to incarceration. The prison system is overcrowded, a large population includes those charged with non-violent crimes that pose no threat to society. So effectively reducing the prison population accompanied with rehabilitation and reintergration will benefit society as a whole.

What procedures or practices can be implemented at CJA that may reduce the amount of people that walk through the doors seeking assistance with reentry at an agency like the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO)?

I must say that the last part of our visit to central bookings provoked the most structural examination on my part. (After proofreading my original blog post, I had realized how it was written with extreme subjectivity. So everyone is now reading the revised, edited and self-censored version of what I had originally written Thursday night.) I recall one of our class discussions in which we discussed viewing individuals while they were confined behind the bars of a jail cell. We questioned if that would be like observing animals in cages at a zoo. For me, it is definitely a totally different experience than viewing the old (unoccupied) cells at Eastern Penitentiary. Ironically, the first clear statement I heard from within one of the cells was "Yo, they looking at us like we animals, son!" Is that what we were doing? Was these defendants being observed like they were on display for us? We recently engaged in a lesson/discussion on if it is moral to benefit from the suffering of others. Were these individuals subjected to some level of suffering behind those bars? If so, what were we benefiting by bearing witness to their situation? Some refer to the detainees' behavior as sometimes animalistic. This raises a question. Is that particular behavior a result of the environment and conditions they're currently confined to? Or, are those individuals currently confined to that enviornment and conditions because of that very same behavior?

I later heard of the offensive remarks the detainess made towards several people. "We like our victims a certain way" resonates with me once again here. I personally did not expect any of them to give friendly greetings to any of us under those circumstances. When I heard of the "monstrous" things that was said by the detainees, I thought Grendel. Hrothgar and his men treated Grendel as a monster. In time, Grendel internalized the "monster label" and acted as such. Can the same be said for these detainees? Are they only internalizing how they are being treated? I think what is also interesting is that some of us expected to be the spectator. Instead, we became the ones that were being spectated, analyzed and critiqued, to our dismay.

Let's Justify Suffering?

The main argument of Eternal Treblinka is that the human domination of animals started from the rise of agricultural society. Charles Patterson argues that the agricultural society and the domestication of animals produced the first hierarchical society and laid the foundation for patriarchy, racism, sexism, slavery, and other systems of violence and power. Do you agree with his argument? Is the hierarchical structure of a society a part of nature? If there is a difference between “hierarchies” in nature (e.g. survival of the fittest) and the kind of social hierarchy constructed by the advancement of society, how are they different? The reason that I decided to discuss these issues is because I feel that how we treat animals is indicative of how we treat others.

One of the issues we talked about was the idea that in order for man-kind to survive, we need animal experimentation. But the question that this raises is “can a society benefit from the suffering of others, animal or non animal, and call itself a “just” or “moral” society?” Can animal testing be justified morally or ethically?

During the activity, we gave more power to those that were “closer to white”. Why do you think that is? I think that this placement is indicative of how our false assumptions of superiority operate when we construct hierarchies. Why is a white man more important than a black woman or an immigrant laborer? And why is a white man, black woman, immigrant laborer all more important than a dog? Because we have false assumptions about usefulness, intelligence and aesthetic pleasure.

Remember, we are all connected, humans, non-human animals, the environment. We cannot live without the trees or the bees and the animals that pollinate them. Humans exist in a complicated interdependent relationship that calls for ethical responsibilities. The Lion King was right, tis the Circle of Life!

Thanks for everyone’s participation in class! Happy Valentine’s Day!

Grendel

Welcome back everyone, and thanks for an interesting seminar discussion. I want to use the blog this week to revisit four ideas we touched upon in class (never enough time!). Feel free to address any or all and definitely check back to respond to one another's points.

1) Heroism. Is Grendel the hero of this novel or is he the monster that makes the hero possible? Some of you seemed to see him as a hero (identified with him, rooted for him), and yet, given the undermining of the "hero story" at work in Gardner's tale, this is also a problem. Is he a hero? a monster? both? neither?

2) Ethics/violence. Grendel is both a victim of violence (he is assaulted while trapped in the tree, he is punished for alleged familial crimes in the distant past) and a connoisseur of it (he experiences joy, he makes observations about and evaluations of violent acts). How do we understand his violence? And if he is killing killers, does that somehow make his killing different?

3) Causes. Much of our discussion in the Vera seminar revolves around theories about why people are they way they are/do the things they do (because of poverty? because of the "culture of poverty"? because of family?). In the following passage about his continued war with/on Hrothgar, Grendel seems to offer of a whole bunch of different explanations. Read the quotation and then talk about what makes sense to you: "How, if I know all this, you may ask, could I hound him -- shatter him again and again, drive him deeper and deeper into woe? I have no answer, except perhaps this: why should I not? Has he made any move to deserve my kindness? If I give him a truce, will the king invite me in for a kiss on the forehead, a cup of mead? Ha! This nobility of his, this dignity: are they not my work? What was he before? Nothing! ... I made him what he is. Have I not a right to test my own creation? Enough! Who says I have to defend myself? I'm a machine, like you. Like all of you. Blood-lust and rage are my character. Why does the lion not wisely settle down and be a horse? In any case, I too am learning, ordeal by ordeal, my indignity. It's all I have, my only weapon for smashing through these stiff coffin-walls of the world" (122-23).

4) Your agency. We asked you to write in your journal about how you might "Grendel" one of the assumptions made in your agency (or about the population your agency serves). So even more generally, where in the novel did you "recognize" your agency/population/yourself as intern? Was there any particular line, or event, where you had an "aha!" moment about issues relevant to the work done by your agency?