Yesterday's class was intense. I think everyone can, to whatever extent, agree that everyone was frustrated. We all wanted to know the truth. We all wanted to know who's guilty. We all wanted to know what happened. We were all focused on finding out motives and reasons for this crime. We all wanted to analyze and scrutinize every single detail down to the color of the robes that the corpse was wearing. I think, although it might have been briefly mentioned, how do we know that any of these are objective? I can bet if we had continued to discuss and process the story we could have found reasons for the narrator to lie and to tell the truth. We all could have found losses and gains for each individual involved. How did our own points of view affect our interpretations of the narrator and of how reliable he or she was? And how do we define truth? Is truth based on your experience of a situation? Research shows that memory errors are rather common specially in high stress situations, like being a witness to a crime or trauma. So, how are we defining truth? Is truth really objective or (at least partially) subjective? If it's subjective... then what? Do we trust our own personal experiences and memories in order to be objective? What if others experience the same exact thing or event/experience totally differently. Do we need to put our perspective last on the list when doing this? Then what does that mean for research? If we rely on science to be objective what does this mean for the researchers interpretations and implications and limits. What about how they came up with the research questions and what possible perspectives lies behind that. How much do we trust the scholarly literature out there? Do we assume that these authors are objective, unbiased, and unprejudiced scientist? Can we, as humans, ever really be unbiased unprejudiced and totally objective? If this can be said about science, what could be said about the police departments or juries? These people aren't scholars or Doctorates. They may not have the knowledge that comes from being in academia. So are these institutions really just or fair? Do we really assume that "justice" is served? Can we walk away feeling secure and safe? I think it's safe to say that at the very least improvements could be made. So then what happens with our criminal justice system? How are our perspectives shaping our opinions on or about the necessary course of action? Do we believe this action is necessary? Even though it's flawed that doesn't mean everyone will think it needs to be fixed... Where do we begin to even tackle all of this? How can we start to make progress? How can we formulate answers to all of these questions? 

Boy, oh boy... 

P.S: on a less philosophical note: have a relaxing weekend everyone!  

Social Justice & Charity

First I would like to give a shout out to Nico! Not sure if you're going to read this, but thanks for coming and talk to us!

Second,  I would like to say I am mildly upset that we ran out of time today! I am sure I'm not the only one who wanted to talk about their agencies mission statement. So! I want everyone to put a direct link to their mission statement (if possible) in their comment. Summarize your opinion and what you would change in a paragraph or less.

http://www.jobpathnyc.org/about-us/our-mission/

Unlike most who spoke today, I really like Jobpath's mission statement. It really encapsulates the attitude and work we do. We aren't charity driven; we don't really provide "needs". Our organization isn't really changing any systematic deficiencies, social attitudes definitely. Of course nothing is perfect, I have some minor changes in mind. I would change the last line in the first section to read: to facilitate each person as they lead a full and active life. The change shows the individuals active role in the process. In the second part of the statement, I would change "We believe that" to "We demand that". I would also change all the "should"s to "must"s.  I would change "Everyone can play a role in community life" to "Everyone has the opportunity to play a role in community life" to emphasize that it is a personal choice that is completely up to the individual. Finally I would change "join the work force" to "provide for themselves".

In class, we did not get the opportunity to discuss the article on the Peace Corps. There were particular quotes from that piece that had me absolutely seething! Particularly, "Those countries are still poor. We were the ones who were enriched and sometimes I think that we reminded these people--as if they needed such a thing--that they were left out.", "Volunteers whose impact as volunteers may have been negligible but who throughout the course of their careers...went on to apply the lessons the hosting communities imparted unto them in settings where their impact has been more substantial.", and the worst, "Founding Director Sargent Shiver once recalled receiving a letter from a volunteer in East Africa that read 'People die here for want of so little.' and thinking to himself: 'How many Americans have the painful privilege of learning that lesson?"

I'm not sure y'all took it the way that I did, but to me these quotes all say the same thing: lets give privileged people from America money to observe and learn from the hardships of other people (under the guise of helping), so they can come back and make America better. I find this completely disgusting. Did anybody have a different take of the above quotes, and are there any different ones that spoke to you?

Adversarial system

 Hello everyone,

This week’s class was great. I am glad we are all together in this process.

I want all of us to revisit the subject of “Adversarial system”, but from our own perspective rather than Sturz’s or justice Sotomayor’s. What guarantee the victory of either the defense or prosecution? We could say that the side able to successfully present enough evidences to persuade the judge or jury to rule on that person’s favor. Would this mean that the chances of winning for a defendant attorney would depend on the size of the caseload and the time dedicated to each case?

           I can think of some scenarios that tell me there is an imbalance in the adversarial system.  Most of the time I hear from friends who have had an interaction with the criminal Justice system they tell me they have used plea barging. Some of the reasons they have given me are that plea bargain was an easy way to get a reduced sentence and that they were advised by their attorneys to take the deal. They all felt that whether they take the deal or go to trial the system will “screw them” anyways. I wonder if the people who can afford a lawyer have the same mindset when interacting with the criminal justice system. I am not criticizing the extraordinary job defense attorneys do. I just want to bring to the table how people who can't afford legal representation may have a different perception of the system from the ones who can.