Module 5
Reading Content:
The readings in module 5 all offered interesting views as to what exactly the role of law is. Clearly, the role of law is seen differently by various parties. It can be seen as primarily a tool for societal change, a political issue, or nearly anything else that one interprets it as. It is quite clear from these readings that law is interpreted quite differently by nearly everyone. For example, the Vago readings, which discuss law as a tool for social change, offers many examples of how law has altered society. For example, voting rights and racial issues have both progressed significantly due to the implementation of law into the causes. Vago seems to see law as very crucial in social change. I have to disagree with this idea slightly, though. While it is true that these issues have come to be seen in a more positive light after laws regarding them changed, it is not exactly overnight that those changes occur. The actual social change, including the opinions of the members of society, takes many years to develop. The society as a whole must change their opinions before a law is truly valid and accepted. Because of this, I think that the laws may emanate more from a general change in society. The laws, which can often be influenced by society rather than the other way around, may have been brought about by a change in society’s thinking. The change which we see after a law is altered or enacted is not solely a result of that law, but rather it is a continuation of the already occurring change in a society’s mentality. Also in the readings, Walker offered an interesting idea, one which I tend to agree with. I believe that in recent years law enforcement officers have lost much of their ability to take the law into their own hands, and are now significantly more law abiding than in prior years. I believe that this is true primarily because of high profile cases of police brutality and wrongdoings which the media picked up on and exposed. After cases such as that of Rodney King became public knowledge, police were under strict scrutiny and adopted much more public-friendly practices. The debate discussed in this article, that police discretion is an integral part of police work and can even be beneficial, seems a bit naive. While every now and again officers do need to exhibit their discretion, for the most part it seems like a much better idea to have some universal standard in order to avoid lawsuits or any other legal difficulties. I agree with Walker in that police discretion should be limited, and that alternate ways of accomplishing this, such as the fear of the media, can be very effective.
Internet Content:
I found one website which discussed the Rodney King beating. It gave the overview of what occurred that night in 1991, and then went on to discuss some of the implementations of the incident. Because of the negative media attention, many things changed for the Los Angeles police department after that day. Even though only two of the four officers involved received any formal sanction, the extent to which police are allowed to use their discretion has decreased significantly. The incident brought the practices of the LAPD to the attention of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who conducted an investigation of the department which showed rampant racism and sexism, and determined that the practices of the LAPD needed to be changed. Since the King case, the term of the police chief has been altered so that it is now limited, and community policing programs have been increased greatly. Also, a new position was created, the Inspector General, to oversee the practices of the police. These responses were achieved through the use of the courts, but it was truly through the use of alternate methods, namely media attention, that these changes were able to occur. This highly publicized case acts as an example of the necessary changes in police practices discussed in the Walker article.
Found at: http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/02/beating.anniversity.king.02/
So What:
It seems as though the primary theme in these readings, as well as nearly all the readings from this semester, is that law can be many different things. Some see it as helpful, while others view use of the courts to accomplish their goals almost entirely useless. Law can be a detriment or tool, dependant on the situation and personal opinion. Personally, I feel that law can be an extremely important aspect of society. If it is used to promote tolerance and order, rather than simply to enhance the capitalist society, it can be limitlessly important. Changes in law can and have altered general society’s thinking on some controversial and very key issues. Even if the law itself does not alter people’s thoughts on a topic, it does promote acceptance of forward views, and can often help to persuade members of a society to alter their own views. For example, laws regarding rights for African Americans came about at a time where only part of the population was prepared to accept these laws. However, it seems that through the implementation of the laws, even those who were previously against the issue were exposed to truths and enlightened enough to alter their views. In situations such as this, law is a beneficial and crucial aspect of society, we simply need to figure out how to use it to its best ability.
The readings in module 5 all offered interesting views as to what exactly the role of law is. Clearly, the role of law is seen differently by various parties. It can be seen as primarily a tool for societal change, a political issue, or nearly anything else that one interprets it as. It is quite clear from these readings that law is interpreted quite differently by nearly everyone. For example, the Vago readings, which discuss law as a tool for social change, offers many examples of how law has altered society. For example, voting rights and racial issues have both progressed significantly due to the implementation of law into the causes. Vago seems to see law as very crucial in social change. I have to disagree with this idea slightly, though. While it is true that these issues have come to be seen in a more positive light after laws regarding them changed, it is not exactly overnight that those changes occur. The actual social change, including the opinions of the members of society, takes many years to develop. The society as a whole must change their opinions before a law is truly valid and accepted. Because of this, I think that the laws may emanate more from a general change in society. The laws, which can often be influenced by society rather than the other way around, may have been brought about by a change in society’s thinking. The change which we see after a law is altered or enacted is not solely a result of that law, but rather it is a continuation of the already occurring change in a society’s mentality. Also in the readings, Walker offered an interesting idea, one which I tend to agree with. I believe that in recent years law enforcement officers have lost much of their ability to take the law into their own hands, and are now significantly more law abiding than in prior years. I believe that this is true primarily because of high profile cases of police brutality and wrongdoings which the media picked up on and exposed. After cases such as that of Rodney King became public knowledge, police were under strict scrutiny and adopted much more public-friendly practices. The debate discussed in this article, that police discretion is an integral part of police work and can even be beneficial, seems a bit naive. While every now and again officers do need to exhibit their discretion, for the most part it seems like a much better idea to have some universal standard in order to avoid lawsuits or any other legal difficulties. I agree with Walker in that police discretion should be limited, and that alternate ways of accomplishing this, such as the fear of the media, can be very effective.
Internet Content:
I found one website which discussed the Rodney King beating. It gave the overview of what occurred that night in 1991, and then went on to discuss some of the implementations of the incident. Because of the negative media attention, many things changed for the Los Angeles police department after that day. Even though only two of the four officers involved received any formal sanction, the extent to which police are allowed to use their discretion has decreased significantly. The incident brought the practices of the LAPD to the attention of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who conducted an investigation of the department which showed rampant racism and sexism, and determined that the practices of the LAPD needed to be changed. Since the King case, the term of the police chief has been altered so that it is now limited, and community policing programs have been increased greatly. Also, a new position was created, the Inspector General, to oversee the practices of the police. These responses were achieved through the use of the courts, but it was truly through the use of alternate methods, namely media attention, that these changes were able to occur. This highly publicized case acts as an example of the necessary changes in police practices discussed in the Walker article.
Found at: http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/02/beating.anniversity.king.02/
So What:
It seems as though the primary theme in these readings, as well as nearly all the readings from this semester, is that law can be many different things. Some see it as helpful, while others view use of the courts to accomplish their goals almost entirely useless. Law can be a detriment or tool, dependant on the situation and personal opinion. Personally, I feel that law can be an extremely important aspect of society. If it is used to promote tolerance and order, rather than simply to enhance the capitalist society, it can be limitlessly important. Changes in law can and have altered general society’s thinking on some controversial and very key issues. Even if the law itself does not alter people’s thoughts on a topic, it does promote acceptance of forward views, and can often help to persuade members of a society to alter their own views. For example, laws regarding rights for African Americans came about at a time where only part of the population was prepared to accept these laws. However, it seems that through the implementation of the laws, even those who were previously against the issue were exposed to truths and enlightened enough to alter their views. In situations such as this, law is a beneficial and crucial aspect of society, we simply need to figure out how to use it to its best ability.
