Post by Leslie on Feb 17, 2021 16:39:47 GMT
C. Use your critical thinking skills to respond to the following:
• State the problem as clearly as you can.
A woman who was convicted of selling $200 worth of heroin, was sent to prison. She escaped after serving less than 1 year of a 10–20-year sentence. The woman, Doris Drugdealer lived free; got married; had a family and was captured after 34 years. Doris was extradited back to Michigan to serve her original prison sentence. Friends and family are requesting clemency because Doris has been an upstanding citizen during the past 34 years.
• The values and point of view of Doris Drugdealer.
As a youth Doris appeared to be reckless regarding her behavior and the company she kept. Doris hopes her former mistakes will not negatively impact her current life. She has become acclimated to the "norms" of a law-abiding society. She has gotten married, raised a family, is involved in community activities, and has attained home ownership. It appears she values a peaceful life and quiet existence. There is not enough information to tell me what she values...only what she has acquired and become during the 34 years of evading the police.
• The values and point of view of her husband, children, and neighbors.
The husband appears to respect traditional values such as a peaceful home life, home ownership, hands on parenting and the importance of parents modeling appropriate behavior for children to emulate. He may value "good citizenship" and his wedding vows and appears not to hold his wife's illegal behavior against her. There is not enough information given to formulate a position on the POV of her children. The neighbors are petitioning for clemency because they believe her past criminal behavior is not evident in her present life. The neighbors value a fair system of justice and believe society would not be "best served" by Doris going back to jail. They also believe there is greater value having a wife and mother remain at home with her children/family.
• The legal and societal issues.
There are several legal and societal issues at play:
* Doris was a fugitive for 34 years. She broke the law and continued to break the law by evading capture.
* The original punishment seems excessive
*The suspicion that Doris was involved in drug dealing on a leadership level has not been substantiated
* The amount of money recovered seems inconsequential, making the suspicion of her high-ranking status more questionable.
* Societal issues include:
* Equity in crime and punishment, most criminals would not have the chance to "slip" away and remain uncaught. Most would have no choice, but to do the time
* There appears to be no need to rehabilitate her (the purpose of imprisonment)
* Sentencing guidelines for a young adult woman with no prior record appear harsh
After thinking critically about the situation, what is your point of view?
My reasonable point of view is society is not best served by returning Doris to prison. However, I am very concerned about her ability to simply walk away from the prison and immerse herself into "proper" society without consequence. The scenario also brings up inequities in sentencing and exposes how the Rockefeller drug laws created as many problems as they solved. My values and lived experience of seeing friends and family members receive harsher treatment in a variety of situations impacts my perspective on this case. I value honesty and fairness and the need for second chances. What clouds my value system is unfair playing fields. It's frustrating to watch the rules of the game change at the discretion of people who stand to benefit. I believe the Governor should grant clemency. I do not see the value of sending Doris back to prison now. My rationale is, if prison is intended to rehabilitate then, sending Doris to jail is unnecessary and would cost taxpayers money that would be best used providing preventive services to youth at-risk for criminal involvement through education and prevention services. The questions I asked myself are: What action would be in service for the greater good of Doris, her family and society? Is rehabilitation necessary for Doris? Could there be an alternate explanation for Doris’s original involvement with selling narcotics? Would the cost of achieving 34-year-old justice be worth it? How might this case be used as a teachable moment in the prison reform movement?
I have examined how several of my own biases have come into play regarding how I formed my opinions about the case including: a framing bias, which for me was played out with respect to the 34 years that elapsed between her original crime and her capture. I was also influenced to some degree by bandwagon bias, the fact that Doris had neighbors and family who believed she was no longer a risk helped sway my opinion. Finally, both status quo and positive feature effect biases showed up in my thinking; it was easier for me to make assumptions about the current “value” Doris adds rather than to reflect on the possible damage her actions caused in the past.
• State the problem as clearly as you can.
A woman who was convicted of selling $200 worth of heroin, was sent to prison. She escaped after serving less than 1 year of a 10–20-year sentence. The woman, Doris Drugdealer lived free; got married; had a family and was captured after 34 years. Doris was extradited back to Michigan to serve her original prison sentence. Friends and family are requesting clemency because Doris has been an upstanding citizen during the past 34 years.
• The values and point of view of Doris Drugdealer.
As a youth Doris appeared to be reckless regarding her behavior and the company she kept. Doris hopes her former mistakes will not negatively impact her current life. She has become acclimated to the "norms" of a law-abiding society. She has gotten married, raised a family, is involved in community activities, and has attained home ownership. It appears she values a peaceful life and quiet existence. There is not enough information to tell me what she values...only what she has acquired and become during the 34 years of evading the police.
• The values and point of view of her husband, children, and neighbors.
The husband appears to respect traditional values such as a peaceful home life, home ownership, hands on parenting and the importance of parents modeling appropriate behavior for children to emulate. He may value "good citizenship" and his wedding vows and appears not to hold his wife's illegal behavior against her. There is not enough information given to formulate a position on the POV of her children. The neighbors are petitioning for clemency because they believe her past criminal behavior is not evident in her present life. The neighbors value a fair system of justice and believe society would not be "best served" by Doris going back to jail. They also believe there is greater value having a wife and mother remain at home with her children/family.
• The legal and societal issues.
There are several legal and societal issues at play:
* Doris was a fugitive for 34 years. She broke the law and continued to break the law by evading capture.
* The original punishment seems excessive
*The suspicion that Doris was involved in drug dealing on a leadership level has not been substantiated
* The amount of money recovered seems inconsequential, making the suspicion of her high-ranking status more questionable.
* Societal issues include:
* Equity in crime and punishment, most criminals would not have the chance to "slip" away and remain uncaught. Most would have no choice, but to do the time
* There appears to be no need to rehabilitate her (the purpose of imprisonment)
* Sentencing guidelines for a young adult woman with no prior record appear harsh
After thinking critically about the situation, what is your point of view?
My reasonable point of view is society is not best served by returning Doris to prison. However, I am very concerned about her ability to simply walk away from the prison and immerse herself into "proper" society without consequence. The scenario also brings up inequities in sentencing and exposes how the Rockefeller drug laws created as many problems as they solved. My values and lived experience of seeing friends and family members receive harsher treatment in a variety of situations impacts my perspective on this case. I value honesty and fairness and the need for second chances. What clouds my value system is unfair playing fields. It's frustrating to watch the rules of the game change at the discretion of people who stand to benefit. I believe the Governor should grant clemency. I do not see the value of sending Doris back to prison now. My rationale is, if prison is intended to rehabilitate then, sending Doris to jail is unnecessary and would cost taxpayers money that would be best used providing preventive services to youth at-risk for criminal involvement through education and prevention services. The questions I asked myself are: What action would be in service for the greater good of Doris, her family and society? Is rehabilitation necessary for Doris? Could there be an alternate explanation for Doris’s original involvement with selling narcotics? Would the cost of achieving 34-year-old justice be worth it? How might this case be used as a teachable moment in the prison reform movement?
I have examined how several of my own biases have come into play regarding how I formed my opinions about the case including: a framing bias, which for me was played out with respect to the 34 years that elapsed between her original crime and her capture. I was also influenced to some degree by bandwagon bias, the fact that Doris had neighbors and family who believed she was no longer a risk helped sway my opinion. Finally, both status quo and positive feature effect biases showed up in my thinking; it was easier for me to make assumptions about the current “value” Doris adds rather than to reflect on the possible damage her actions caused in the past.
