Is this the last entry? Maybe?

This class was very intriguing. I do not feel myself rushing to read more about legal philosophy, but I am glad I have had some access to it. I felt learning the different tactics and perspectives on law, mixed with the relevance of historical ideas and their progression, has allowed me to see the world a little clearer. On a whole, I feel like I understand the judicial system a little better because of what we have discussed.

Although I was not at class today, I did find an article earlier today which sparked my interest. It was about a Pennsylvanian judge who was giving juvenile offenders maximum sentences to two prisons because of the illegal profits he could make off of them.

Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/us/09judge.html?ref=markaciavarella

This reminded me of Gideon's Trumpet. Apparently some of the kids didn't have lawyers, according to the article, which makes me wonder how some of these court cases went through at all. Another aspect was on the kids not knowing their rights. When our country's youth does not know their rights it makes it also makes it easier for a juvenile to just plea on what they have done, but this makes the court cases unfair because they are not being guided properly through the trial. It also gives the judge in power say to any verdict he would wish.

Problems like these make me think that everyone should know about legal practices. At least a little bit. This would be the only way to create a stronger system of law. People with knowledge of the legal system would then have a greater sense of autonomy when coming to discussions on forming laws, being on trial, or having a general sense of morality. Otherwise, people would fall under the will's of others; either by listening directly to a judge or not fully being able to work with or understand a lawyer. Without this autonomy within individuals, I feel corruption will ensue within America's legal system and with it the fall of morality within our country. This judge represents just one of the self-interested people who work within our legal system, but can show that America is not all it lives up to be. Only through the hard work of our citizens and the relationships we create with one another can we live up to our motto of "with liberty and justice for all." E. Pluburis unum. If not, self-interest and greed will take over the prized ideals which the United State attempts to represent.

Assimilating Ideas

Towards the end of class we mentioned assimilation. I have always found this concept to be vital in how people think and operate. Assimilation starts at birth. The relationships formed within early childhood development will have lasting influences over a person's life, although assimilation could occur at later ages, but often many of the ideas within one's psyche will root within their childhood. For instance, a person would not be a Catholic unless they grew up in a Catholic household or a society permitting the practice of such a religion. In general, this just makes me think it is horribly indecent to hold higher a particular belief over another. That is because no matter what someone's perspective is their actions or thoughts are responsible from the relationships around them.

Peerenboom writes about harmony of the state within the ideas of Confucianism. This places emphasis on the relationships of individuals apposed to individuals themselves. As the social order of Chinese ideology requires interconnection, assimilation is then merely the union of various influences that constitute itself. Assimilation is then a dynamic systems of relationships that seem to resonate the Buddhist idea of interdependency.

I don't know where I'm going with this . .  but maybe it can spark an idea or a thought.

Naturalism to the Extreme

Reading about show trials made me think about performance in general. The major purpose for these trials is to ultimately give a recount of the truth. This is very reminiscent of theatre, which according to Aristotle, tries to perform universals [within the action] which will then show the truth. These mass trials are in effect trying to present something to the audience, which they will hope, will create a form of impact of the audience of those involved. In this way, besides the outcome of the victim if charges are placed against them, show trials are merely a form of propaganda. This doesn't mean show trials are necessarily bad, they could be, but if done correctly and justly then it is propaganda for the good of humanity. This is the same dilemma theatre faces; if you are not philosophizing about the ultimate goal of the production itself then it could lead audiences astray, which is what most media today does anyway, but if it confronts and grips it audiences, challenges them, gives them a sense of novelty through a powerful experience, it can then lead to rationalizing actions in the future, which will lead to the well being of society and men. In a way the, these show trials are a form of performance which takes naturalism to a new level (naturalism being different than realism).

Enforcing Morals

Devlin seems to associate the collective conscious of a society on placing the morals of a country. Morality is then enforced through the laws that revolve around it. This is to say if society disagrees with something that it has the right to be 'eradicated.' Devlin quickly demonstrates that this is a rather extreme measure, but at the same time, he still gives eradication a sense of validity. This seems to be dangerous. As much as I'd like for people who I consider immoral to go away, if one is to reject them altogether it doesn't seem to fix anything. Instead it could create backlash. This is comparable to the United States using drones to quickly eliminate terrorist threats. An unknown danger is created through a new generation that fears and hates America even more. If someone's father was killed, as a suspected terrorist, the morally just thing to do in the eyes of their children would be to eliminate the evil within the world, a.k.a America. The 'good guy and bad guy' 'ideology, which also runs rampant through American society, is a very dangerous notion and also is associated to some degree with morals. Nations like Iraq or Afghanistan are then only being reinforced with diverse cultural views and the potential demise of anyone you know and love by the dystopian-like reality that drones create. Just because we think something should be eradicated or removed does not justify the act. Even if all Americans believed the Middle-East should be bombed because it is an 'active threat' does not create the incentive or rationality to do that act. Or if the act of trying to eradicate a potential threat was completely legal, it still would not justify such actions.

Interdependency

The section on Japanese property law I thought was pretty interesting. It made mention to the Japanese government promoting and protecting its economy even when there is no type of malfunction or crisis within it. It seems they take away the idea of individual self-interest and try looking at the bigger picture of interconnectivity which inevitably makes an economy successful. In America, private enterprise seems to see people as a means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. This self-motivation and independence can not lead to success in the long run, for it is not sustainable. The clearest example of this can be seen in agriculture or more abstractly ecological principles. Monocultures are dependent on human fertilizers, mainly oil, to create a linear means of production in food. This ends up destroying more than it creates although it is a great way to make profit when energy is readily available. In non-idustrialized farming, resources are recycled because they replicate natural processes which are sustainable. This deals with interdependency, which Japanese government and law tries to emphasize in its practice. I feel America needs to start looking to these lessons of relying on the group rather than the individual in some respects.

Biological Patents

I felt like bringing up my SLAP question from this week, especially after what was being talked about towards the end of today’s class. My question was whether patents can be arranged on something that is already found in nature. With science starting to alter agriculture, corporations are now being able to modify crop DNA. This genetically modified seed can then be patented. Biological patents were first introduced in the 1970s and increased in the 1990s. Corporations can then hold farmers liable if they haven’t bought the seed directly from them or if they are caught having traces of their crops DNA on their land if they are a commercial operation. This then starts the need for new types of property law. In the past patents were only for material objects that were constructed, but what if all vegetables in the future are patented? This opens up many ethical questions. I feel that biological patents should not be given out. In the end these legal protections are doing more harm than good.

Some of the results of industrial monocultures are loss of biodiversity, decline in bee populations (due to pesticides and other factors), destroying fertile soil, contributing to global warming, and having mostly unknown effects towards the health of our citizens and environment. 10% of bee populations have declined in the past 2 decades on a global scale. It costs about 10 calories of energy in oil to produce 1 calorie of edible food. Our farming is dependent on pesticides and oil, which is not sustainable. The European Union has enacted policies such as the Precautionary Principle when it comes to their agriculture, while Americans just throw what they make in the fields and sees what happens. 85% of the corn related products, mostly processed foods, etc. high fructose corn syrup, glucose syrup, maltodextrin, unmodified starch, lecithin, and ascorbic acid to name a few. Japan is watching America’s youth, our generation, as GMO guinea pigs essentially. These are some of the things biological patents, owned by big corporations which support these kinds of profitable agriculture, are protecting now in America. (Taking the Future of Food course if you’re interested in more information) 

Sex and Society

Reading the article by Lois Pineau, I found myself thinking that these cases involving date rape are usually not fair and very difficult to prove. I already assumed this, but my beliefs were confirmed. In class today, I found the biggest problem within these cases may not necessarily draw from law, but the perspective of society around these issues of date rape and other forms of aggravated sexual assault. It seems that we are a society that is ignorant to the fact of recreational sex especially within informative media. Today if something is not exposed through ABC, Fox, or CNN I feel little is done to culturally progress the nation, no matter how many group minorities are trying to address change on the issue. Thus, progress is slow in terms of development of our culture when it comes to rape and other mainstream issues that usually remain ignorant to the larger public. It is rather paradoxical because so much of our entertainment media seems to endulge itself in the form of sexual humor, sexual issues, and other ways of conveying sexuality, so it is not necessarily a taboo in the movie theatre, yet it remains so in the kitchens and living rooms of America (where sex is probably happening anyway). If one in six women by the age of 18 are being involved in some form of sexual harassment or assault I feel it is time to bring ideas not only to females in preventing rape and other sexual atrocities, but to men too. This is stemming from the fact that men, it seems, are usually the aggressors and do not take into account a female's cognitive process, but only their own in the given moment. This awareness of not only the self, but also the potential partner could hopefully, in time, progress into a more understanding culture that does not necessarily see a woman as what they are, but as who they are, which could then be extended to how we could view everyone as an equal individual.