The Various Forms of Control in Our Society - Essay Example

& No Theory and Ethics (Picking Cotton) 08 March Introduction Man is a social animal and normally would prefer to be in a group rather than be alone himself. Early societies, even before the advent of civilization, imposed certain norms so that everybody can work, live and stay in harmony with everyone else. Conformity had a premium back then and even until today. Conformity is judged best on how people accept the norms in a society as part of their internalization process. In this regard, anything out of the norms will be considered as a deviation. In psychology, it is deviant behavior. Because of the hostile and often precarious existence of man in the early times, deviance was punished because it puts a society at risk. At worst, it threatens the fabric that holds families and society together. Psychologists, sociologists and behavioral scientists have postulated several theories in their attempts to explain why deviant behavior exists and how to mitigate or control it. This paper discusses these various theories briefly in relation to the book which I chose to discuss which is “Picking Cotton” by authors Thompson-Cannino, Cotton and Torneo. This book is a story about a young black man wrongfully convicted based on erroneous eyewitness accounts of a rape victim and the gross miscarriage of justice that followed from that error. More importantly, this paper discusses how theories of deviance can aid to explain the actions of criminals and social misfits so they can be helped. In today's enlightened society, it is the belief that criminals and deviants are often the victims of society themselves rather than just being perpetrators of a crime. Reforms in the judicial system, the police system and even the science of penology now emphasize rehabilitation rather than just purely for punishment. This paper also delves briefly into the more weighty issues of morality and ethics. Discussion Various theories had been advanced to help explain deviant behavior. Deviance is best understood within the context of social norms, which are references to the expectations of the people in a group as to what is acceptable conduct or behavior. Deviance is therefore simply a deviation from what is considered as normal in a society (social norms). Deviance is also a bit relative in terms of society and the times in which the social norms are in place. Practices that were normal in the past could be considered as deviant in today's context or vice versa. Theories of Deviance – prominent theories of deviant behavior are anomie by Emile Durkheim (French sociologist), social learning theory and social control theory. Durkheim's anomie assumes people engage in deviant behavior whenever there is a mismatch between personal standards and society's expectations of them. In other words, there is the feeling of the lack of social norms, or perhaps more specifically, the norms are not applicable to them. This feeling of the lack of norms (or normlessness) usually happens during a period of stress in a society, like during revolutions, great prosperity or severe depression resulting in poverty. In short, people feel alienated in times like these and tend to be more deviant. The so-called strain theory by Robert Merton is just a variant of the anomie theory by Durkheim. The strain theory is more specific with regards to the potential causes of deviance than the anomie theory which is more general as pertaining to sociological factors that cause deviant behaviors. Merton ascribed deviance as the result when socially-accepted goals and a means of achieving them do not match, putting a strain on an individual to deviate. The social learning theory postulates that people learn social norms within social context or situation. A failure in this regard leads to deviant behavior because people do not learn what is acceptable behavior and which behaviors are frowned upon by society. In other words, all people learn from one another by observation, imitation and modeling (Ormond, 1999, p. 25). This theory suggests people learn deviant behaviors based from their association with various groups of people. Further, the theory suggests varying degrees of association based on such factors as age, gender, kinship, ethnicity and social or economic class. Other factors may include the intensity, frequency and duration of the relationships people have with others. The individual learns deviant behaviors through an exposure to various groups of people and learn from them their attitudes, values, viewpoints, motives and rationalizations or justifications. A person's place or role in society plays a big part in deviant behavior (Clinard & Meier, 2008, p. 43). A good example here is membership in a criminal juvenile gang. The social control theory attributes deviant behaviors to the failure of society to have adequate controls that force people to comply or conform to the expected social norms. In this theory, deviance is put squarely on the individual rather than as a failure of society itself. The overriding concern therefore is to have social controls in place to enforce compliance among the members of that society. There are several layers of social control to make sure the laws and regulations in a society are complied with. Among these are controls exerted by a family (parents, siblings, relatives, grandparents, etc.), a spouse, the legal system (through the court), the police system (arrests and detentions), the formal controls imposed on a profession (such as code of ethics for doctors, lawyers, accountants, nurses, etc.) and government action (such as imposition of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, prison or death). At any rate, social control mechanisms are broadly categorized into two classifications which are internal (individual learns to control himself through the socialization process by observing, imitating and modeling) and external, through negative sanctions imposed by the State using its police powers and then further enforced through the judicial and penal systems (Kendall, 2008, p. 178). Although there are still other subsequent theories on deviance, two of most common are either structural in nature (due to society) or processual (from processes). Ronald Cotton – his behaviors can be best explained by the anomie theory. This is due to his feelings of inadequacy regarding his ambitions and the means of attaining them. In his own personal recollection, he had originally wanted to be a policeman but his family's status in life (social and economic levels) did not allow him to finish his schooling. His family is a big family composed of several siblings plus his father and mother are separated. In fact, his mother has been dating another guy regularly. He once had aspired to be a cop himself while he was still a young boy of twelve years old (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton & Torneo, 2009, p. 67). His failure to finish his high school can be attributed to poverty plus the fact his father has another family (Ronald has many other half-siblings from this second family). It means their father was not able to provide everything for them financially in terms of schooling. In this regard, the strain theory could be considered more appropriate in his case. Ronald has so many brothers, some of whom he got to know much later only (ibid. p. 91). His downward spiral can also be explained as a failure of the social controls to make him adjust his behavior and conform to societal norms (finish his studies and get a good job). The most immediate proximate failure is the failure of familial controls, specifically parental control. His sisters also tried to dissuade him from engaging in any more juvenile delinquent behaviors but they also failed (Thompson-Cannino et al., 2009, p. 69). He had already served some eighteen months in prison while he was still sixteen years old and then got into trouble again after he just came out; this time around, for breaking and entering. To a certain extent, the absence of a father figure in their family resulted into dysfunctional behavior. His siblings were not able to substantially change his deviant behavior, partly to the influence of his own elder brother Calvin. Ronald had looked up to this elder brother as a role model and tried to imitate his ways as well, by going along with Calvin’s plans such as stealing money from the cash register. They were raised as Baptists but admitted slipping along the way (ibid. 95). The social controls of his family failed to rein in the deviancy of Ronald early on. He was always a carefree young man and did not think much of the consequences of his actions. This was exemplified when he was charged for his first offense regarding the case of Evie. It might be partly because he was one of his father’s favorites among so many siblings. Perhaps the other social controls which also failed to rectify Ronald’s deviant behavior were his stints in the prison while still a juvenile. He had already served prison two times before he was even twenty years old and yet the penal system failed to rehabilitate him in some way. It was due to perhaps getting off quite lightly before that he continued on with his ways. In other words, the two social controls which failed him were his family and the juvenile justice system. Jennifer Thompson – she was always a strong-willed and independent person. She had gotten used to walking the three miles going to the school campus. She even refused the offer of a ride by Ms. Sadie (the rape crisis counselor) which Sadie was able to remember twenty years later (ibid. p. 32). Jennifer had always seemed very determined about her goals in life. She was also trying to be fiercely independent by living alone in her own dorm (ibid. p. 24). Although most students can be like that (to be independent), she could have considered taking in a roommate considering that she is a young woman alone in a big campus. The compound where she had lived prior to the attack did not offer her any protection. Although she had seen some indications before (such as the cigarette light up in a tree), she gave it no further thought whatsoever (ibid. p. 14) when it was already a warning sign for her that there was a stalker. There were many other instances in which Jennifer showed her independent streak. By her own admission, her family called her “little momma” even while she was still a youngster because she loved to take care of her siblings (ibid. p. 31). She would buy coloring books for them or bring some fruit juice if ever one of them got sick. Later on when Ronald was finally exonerated, Jennifer made the final decision to appear in the PBS TV show (ibid. p. 184). This personal decision of Jennifer to do the television interview was also against the conventional wisdom of exposing her identity again to the public; as a mother, victim and an eyewitness. Both her sister Janet and Detective Mike Gauldin advised against it. So in a way, her decision to go ahead with the interview was also a deviant behavior, something that was against common sense wherein most victims would rather hide in anonymity after suffering it. Her sister could not dissuade her from the interview and neither could the good cop. Her original reluctance to let information about the rape case go public through that television interview is the fear of ridicule and gossip. She had overheard a couple of girls who were talking about the rape victim having had gone to Elon also (ibid. p. 46) while in a party. Rape victims are almost always at the losing end of gossipy people who do not realize what they talk about is oftentimes very hurting to the victims (much more so when heard by them). The fear of ridicule and ostracism is the common reason why most female rape victims are afraid to go forward, file a case and testify (it must be noted there are male rape victims too). The opprobrium that usually follows a victim of rape or sexual assault is the often unstated view that the victim somehow was at fault. In the case of female victims, the general opinion is that she somehow brought it upon herself by dressing inappropriately or conducting herself in a coquettish manner that invited the attack, which results in additional trauma to a victim. Colleges and universities are normally hosts to a large number of women but female concentrations in these areas are at a higher risk of rape and other forms of sexual assault than women in the general population or in other comparable age groups outside of these campus settings (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000, p. 5). This is often due to the close proximity of the male population to the female population. Many young women do not realize how vulnerable they are because they think living within a campus or a student dormitory gives them security. Jennifer had this false sense of security, compounded by a noisy air conditioner. Moral Principles – it is always incumbent upon the person who did something wrong to make the first move and somehow make amends to the one who was wronged. In this book, it was Ronald Cotton who got 11 years in prison for the mistake committed by Jennifer. So it is quite natural for Jennifer to seek him out and ask for his forgiveness and understanding. A normal reaction for her would have been just to ignore everything after Ronald was released from prison and pretend everything is now back to normal again. After all, it was not really all her fault she made a mistake in identifying her assailant; as what Mike Gauldin and Mr. Rob Johnson told her, they all made mistakes, including Mike, the entire Burlington Police Force, the justice system, etc. (Thompson-Cannino et al., 2009, p. 168). To use a legal phrase, the two women who made those mistakes in identification did so in what they really believed to be correct recollections of the real identity of their attacker; they did the identification in a “total absence of malice” as how Rob Johnson had put it. This is just a case of mistaken identity without prior intent to cause harm to anyone (ibid. p. 176). However, Jennifer felt compelled to reach out to Ronald because he (Ronald) had wondered often why he did not hear anything from her yet. Jennifer also felt challenged because of her extreme feelings of guilt, shame and responsibility when she heard “I would like to hear what she has to say – in her own words – to me,” Ronald had asked at the end of that TV interview (ibid. p. 186). I guess it was incumbent on Jennifer to ask forgiveness directly from Ron as it was the least she could have done (ibid. p. 191) and she was also seeking redemption. To the credit of Ronald, he had no longer been angry and was not seeking for revenge. All he wanted was for everyone to finally move on and have happy lives (ibid. p. 192). The same spirit of forgiveness was not forthcoming for Bobby Poole, who only confessed to the crime after being presented with incontrovertible DNA evidence against him (ibid. p. 168). In any case, forgiveness is given only to those who are contrite and truly sorry, like Jennifer. Conclusion Society imposes conformity to law and order so that stability is achieved and there are three usual mechanisms for doing so: socialization, profit motive and persuasion (Shaw, 2002, p. 76). For this paper, persuasion has been discussed more extensively because it pertains to the various forms of control in our society: family, inner circle of friends, peers, a professional group, the State itself (legal, justice and police systems) and even sanctioned violence (like a sentence for capital punishment). However, it must be noted none of these systems is perfect. In other words, there are instances when it can fail someone, like Ronald Cotton who suffered eleven years in jail (good that he was not executed by mistake) as the death sentence in North Carolina was abolished (ibid. p. 177). There are many other cases like his case. Ethical Issues - involved in this book is the restitution a State has to make to those it had wrongly convicted. As it is, the amount of compensation intended for Ronald was too small (before it was increased to a proportionate amount). The ethical issue is for Jennifer to ask for forgiveness personally directly from Ronald despite the misgivings of her family - her parents and sister Janet (ibid. p. 187). One can always rationalize that what happened was a thing nobody wanted but the fact was that grievous harm was done to an innocent person and that he spent time in prison. What is more hideous is that one cannot turn the clock back; once time is lost, it is lost forever along with the joys a person could have enjoyed with time. Ronald’s case is one more reason why capital punishment should be abolished in the country (the USA is one of the few countries still imposing it). If there is more than enough of reasonable doubt, then executions must not proceed as scheduled but the entire case reviewed (Vandiver, 2001, p. 135). Although the American justice system contains many safeguards, it can still fail at times and go awry. The right to be judged without regard to race or creed had not been applied in Ronald’s case and should not happen again to anyone (Huff, 2008, p. 59). Reference List Clinard, M. B. & Meier, R. F. (2008). Sociology of Deviant Behavior. Belmont, CA, USA: Thomson Higher Education. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T. & Turner, M. G. (2000, December). The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Retrieved from the National Institute of Justice at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/182369.htm Huff, R. C. (2008). Wrongful Convictions in the United States. In C. Ronald Huff & Martin Killias (Eds.), Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice (pp. 59-70). Philadelphia, PA, USA: Temple University Press. Kendall, D. (2008). Sociology in our Times: The Essentials. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning. Ormond, J. E. (1999). Human Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall. Shaw, V. N. (2002). Substance Use and Abuse: Sociological Perspectives. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R. & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking Cotton. New York, NY, USA: St. Martin's Press. Vandiver, M. (2001). More than a Reasonable Doubt: The Trial and Execution of Frank Ewing. In Saundra Davis Westervelt & John A. Humphrey (Eds.), Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives on Failed Justice (pp. 135-153). Piscataway, NJ, USA: Rutgers University Press. Read More