Module 5
I enjoyed "Beyond the Supreme Court: Alternative Paths to the Control of Police Behavior" because it discussed several important issues in law enforcement as the use of lethal force and weapons. In considering the court's role in social reform, I thought about the Warren Court's decision regarding Miranda rights. Though this could be seen as the court implementing social reform, the fact is that the case was determined by our constitutional rights. It just so happened that the Warren Court decided not to overlook those rights in making its decision. Samuel Walker offers a positive perspective regarding the Court's decision as well as the administrative measures applied to police work in an effort to justify any use of deadly force. As Walker points out, in many cases, such administrative measures were already in place among different law enforcement agencies prior to the state's involvement in directing such measures. He also discusses domestic violence and high speed pursuits, as well as the effectiveness of law enforcement and guidelines for law enforcement in such areas. I agree with his perspective and statement that: "Another important development has been the growth of civilian oversight of the police." This is a positive move and to my knowledge, a beneficial one as well.
Much related to our essay question, Vago's chapters regarding law and social change examine both perspectives on law's ability to implement social reform. Judging by length alone in Vago's second chapter, the argument may be more realistically seen from the perspective that law is not able to alter the social structures on its own. He presents sound arguments on both sides and certainly, the courts and social change are not completely separate. However, it seems that the push for social change must be already in motion before the courts become involved. The courts then may help to reinforce the public consciousness by its decision.
What is unfortunate, as Cornel West points out, it the increasing influence of corporations on the policies that are implemented. He writes "The sheer power of corporate capital is extraordinary. This power makes it difficult to even imagine what a free and democratic society would look like (or how it would operate) if there were publicly accountable mechanisms that alleviated the vast disparities in resources, wealth, and income owing in part to the vast influence of big business on the US government and its legal institutions." He is correct. Perhaps, in the wake of such disasters as Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and the pending investigations into mutual funds improprieties, the public consciousness will move into a state of increased awareness and begin demanding justice. I feel, however, that Eliot Spitzer (the NY attorney general) absolutely deserves some credit for his relentless pursuits of corporate misdeeds. He has far outpaced the SEC and hopefully his actions will prompt others in his field to follow suit.
SO WHAT?
We need to concentrate on what policies are being passed and why those policies are considered over others. Is the current system where wealthy corporations that can afford powerful lobbying to promote their agendas a fair system? Will anything change on its own or do we need a significant public awakening as to who is benefitting from our current policies?
Much related to our essay question, Vago's chapters regarding law and social change examine both perspectives on law's ability to implement social reform. Judging by length alone in Vago's second chapter, the argument may be more realistically seen from the perspective that law is not able to alter the social structures on its own. He presents sound arguments on both sides and certainly, the courts and social change are not completely separate. However, it seems that the push for social change must be already in motion before the courts become involved. The courts then may help to reinforce the public consciousness by its decision.
What is unfortunate, as Cornel West points out, it the increasing influence of corporations on the policies that are implemented. He writes "The sheer power of corporate capital is extraordinary. This power makes it difficult to even imagine what a free and democratic society would look like (or how it would operate) if there were publicly accountable mechanisms that alleviated the vast disparities in resources, wealth, and income owing in part to the vast influence of big business on the US government and its legal institutions." He is correct. Perhaps, in the wake of such disasters as Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and the pending investigations into mutual funds improprieties, the public consciousness will move into a state of increased awareness and begin demanding justice. I feel, however, that Eliot Spitzer (the NY attorney general) absolutely deserves some credit for his relentless pursuits of corporate misdeeds. He has far outpaced the SEC and hopefully his actions will prompt others in his field to follow suit.
SO WHAT?
We need to concentrate on what policies are being passed and why those policies are considered over others. Is the current system where wealthy corporations that can afford powerful lobbying to promote their agendas a fair system? Will anything change on its own or do we need a significant public awakening as to who is benefitting from our current policies?
