Contextual : Analysis of Gansbergs Texts about the Life Story of Kitty Genovese - Research Paper Example

? Contextual Research Essay Part I The beginning scenario is like a scene from a suspense thriller: A young woman comes out from a long night as bar manager and rides her Fiat to park along the side of the railroad. Her name is Kitty and she has been living in her apartment with her partner, also a young woman, for almost a year. As soon as she has parked her car, she starts to walk to her apartment. But she notices that somebody is watching. She walks fast proceeding to a call box to alarm the police. But the man, her would-be killer, grabs her and pushed a knife to her chest. She screams to alarm the quiet neighborhood. “Oh, my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!” The witnesses just slid open their windows and did nothing. The first account is a thrilling narrative about a neighborhood witnessing the brutal killing of twenty-eight-year-old Catherine Genovese. A display of apathy is seen among the bystanders. “Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead.” The succeeding paragraphs continue the horrifying scene wherein Kitty is left alone because her assailant is destructed by one of the bystanders. He returned twice to give her the fatal blow. The police could not believe what happened, not because it was murder but because the indifferent bystanders let the incident pass without stopping the killing. A few-seconds call could have saved Kitty, but only after she was dead did someone call the police. The chief of detectives Frederick Lussen was baffled of the incident. “The assailant had three chances to kill this woman during a 35-minute period. He returned twice to complete the job. If we had been called when he first attacked, the woman might not be dead now.” The police report tells us of the indifference of the bystanders who knew what was going on. Kitty realized that she was not getting any help, and so she screamed to announce of her horrifying state. She was warning and alarming her bystanders. Her last words were “I’m dying!” It was only after thirty minutes from the start of the stabbing and Kitty’s struggle to live, did one man call up the police who arrived just two minutes after the call. There are some descriptive words we can find in the text about the crime’s bystanders, which can give reason why the neighbors did not bother to help. These are: “afraid,” “indifferent,” “lazy,” “don’t like to be involved,” “we thought it was a lovers’ quarrel,” or simply, “I don’t know.” These words add context to the meaning and purpose of the author in publishing the news. One of the reasons why Kitty’s neighbors did not help her when she was attacked is because they were too lazy to know who was being attacked. When Winston Moseley was arrested as the prime suspect to the killing, there was little attention given by the public about this man. Author Martin Gansberg’s aim in capitalizing on the 38 witnesses to the crime is to reveal the apathy of the Kew Gardens neighborhood. They did nothing despite the fact that Kitty’s assailant left or abandoned the victim and he came back to continue his crime. This essay-story became popular but controversial in 1964 because it tells of how bystanders in a Queens’ neighborhood let the killing pass. It is a connecting story not because it is a series of events, but newspaper columnists, talk show hosts, and psychologists kept talking about it and their interest focused on why the bystanders did it, not why the killer did it. This incident happened in 1964. But more than forty years after, the crime is still being talked about in the internet and also a subject of discussion among psychology students. Psychologists explained about reactions of bystanders in a crime scene; people asked why they let a young woman die; and talk show hosts and columnists blamed the public. We can draw several meanings from our analysis of Gansberg’s texts. Some new contexts can be gathered through several studies conducted long after the incident occurred. The essay did not mention everything that happened in that night of March 13, 1964. It was sensationalized and there were inaccuracies in the report. Some accounts have it that there could have been less than 38 residents at Kew Gardens who witnessed the incident and many thought that it was a lovers’ quarrel (Rasenberger par. 5). The life story of Kitty Genovese and even how her Italian family moved to Connecticut can tell some of the contexts about what happened and why Kitty lived in that apartment. Kitty’s father was a businessman who found success in Connecticut but decided to move to expand his business. Kitty asked that she remain at Queens as she was accustomed to the place. She decided to live there which her family granted her request. Part II The area at Queens is a middle-class neighborhood. We can surmise that the people are peace loving, and there is not much criminality except for a few petty crimes. Kitty was a sociable person in that anyone in the neighborhood knew her. About a week after the killing of Catherine Genovese, a suspect was arrested. His name is Winston Moseley, an ordinary worker with no criminal record. He is charged of the crime and later committed to Kings County Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Psychologists explained that the bystander effect worked in the Genovese slay. Bystanders, also called social audience, affect the commission of the crime or the gravity of the offense. Bystanders are potential witnesses and their presence can deter the criminal to further hurt the victim. But bystanders can aggravate the situation and force the assailant to hurt the victim more. (Hart and Miethe 637) A study on bystander presence and intervention in violent crimes was conducted with the help of data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Analyses of case configurations were conducted to determine the most common situational contexts wherein a bystander is present in violent crimes and how the presence helped the supposed victim. (Hart and Miethe 638) It was found in the literature that most violent crimes have a social audience as witness, contrary to common belief that witnesses in violent crimes are hard to find (they are only hard to find because they don’t want to testify, or they don’t want to get involved). Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in the 1990s revealed that bystanders have witnessed to about two-thirds of violent crimes. There were bystanders in about 70% of assault cases, 52% of robberies, and 29% of the rapes or sexual assaults (qtd. in Hart and Miethe 638). Bystanders can choose whether to ignore the situation, call the police or other people, or directly assist to prevent the criminal from doing more violent acts. But previous research tells us that the most common response of bystanders in potentially dangerous situations is inactivity. There are times that bystanders help but this is done only when there are serious injuries and excessive bleeding, or in intense verbal altercation. Most people do not want to intervene in such situations. In an NCVS study, victims were asked about third-party involvement and about half of the respondents said that the bystanders did not help. The results also revealed that “inactivity is the typical reaction of bystanders who witness violent crimes” (Hart and Miethe 638). Bystanders were thought to have worsened the situation “by making the offender angrier,” or bystanders overreact and say something that escalates the situation. Offenders may inflict greater injury to victims in front of bystanders to show that they are really tough (qtd. in Hart and Miethe 638). Sociologists and criminologists have provided normative explanations for criminal behaviors. “Normative rules of appropriate behavior” explain various aspects of many of life’s situations. This can be applied to criminal behavior. For example, violence is usually the response to threats and other anger-provoking stimuli (qtd. in Hart and Miethe 639). A normative behavior is the belief that one should mind his/her own business. People do not want to help because they do not want to meddle. Most bystanders consider themselves as outsiders who are not aware of the situation, or the quarrel between victims and offenders. Part III Martin Gansberg was 40 years old when he wrote this essay. But the investigations that followed about the contents of his essay found that there are inaccuracies or overreactions to his report. The essay was written two weeks after the incident and it could not have reported accurately as residents of Kew Gardens stood by their statement that there were fewer than 38 who were present during the stabbing incident. Gansberg could not have conducted a thorough investigation as he had no detailed account as to how he reached the number. The author could have some hidden motive in providing the exact number of bystanders and he was successful in drawing the attention of the public; it became sensationalised even years after the incident. The assailant Moseley was not as controversial as the news; the public focused their attention on the bystanders who did nothing. The psychologist’s explanation of the bystander effect could have given a new meaning to Gansberg’s texts. Several experiments were conducted after the Genovese story appeared in national newspapers. Bystanders help to prevent further injury to the victim, but third parties tend to worsen the situation by “overreacting or saying something foolish that escalates the violence” (Hart and Miethe 638). In Genovese’s case, one witness shouted “to leave that girl alone,” which could be one of the reasons why the assailant left and then came back to inflict further injury on Genovese. Moseley, the killer, was challenged when one man called and warned him. What the witness should have done was only to call the police; nobody did. Moseley returned twice. This leaving and returning is explained by psychologists as a challenge to Moseley because of the reaction of one of the bystanders. We have provided outside context in our analysis of this essay and we can conclude that there are different meanings that can be found in applying outside text and free association. For example, several investigations of the Genovese story were conducted and applied to Gansberg’s texts. The findings are: Gansberg’s report was written two weeks after the crime was committed; the number of witnesses is inaccurate; Moseley was not given a fair trial by the lower court; and, the psychologist’s point of view on the bystander effect only came too late. Works Cited Hart, Timothy and T. Miethe. “Exploring Bystander Presence and Intervention in Nonfatal Violent Victimization: When Does Helping Really Help?” Violence and Victims. 23.5 (2008): 637-651. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 7 Dec. 2013. Gansberg, Martin. “38 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police.” Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide (Twelfth Edition). Ed. Laurie Kirszner and Stephen Mandell. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. 232-235. Print. Rasenberger, Jim 2004. Kitty, 40 Years later. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. . Read More