I need help Genie

Genie: The Secrets of the Wild Child

SOC 200

Paper is worth 20 points, about one and a half single-spaced pages. The documentary is 55

minutes long.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/genie-secret-wild-child/

Socialization is how we learn to be human.

Based on the documentary “Secrets of the Wild Child”, detail how Genie's socialization was

lacking and then discuss whether you think Genie was a research subject or a patient.

Use at least three terms (total) from the chapter regarding socialization (chapter three) and

social interaction (chapter four) and sociology in your answers, and define them and discuss

them, citing a page number from our textbook in your writing of each.

This does not need to be like a full essay in terms of format. But, a couple sentences at the

beginning to explain the documentary, and a couple of sentences at the end, wrapping up what

you wrote about is fine. After the paper is due, you will have a chance to reflect on this

documentary in an online discussion board if you’d like to, so reflection should not be too much

a part of this paper, maybe 85% academic, objective writing and 15% reflection/opinion.

Week 6 notes

There is a discussion and quiz this week.

There are two different media sources (one on a true crime news story and one is a

documentary on juvenile offenders) with content, so I pared down the reading.

The quiz will contain questions from the chapter and the media resources in these notes. The

questions on the media resources will be fairly straightforward.

Note: On Friday May 3, I emailed you all in Gmail and that email included an explanation and

links to two surveys I’d like you to take by Tues May 7. They relate to our discussion this

week. The discussion will open Wed morning.

For convenience, here are the two links:

Ranking:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfyeGOcezVKVP7MU9PlQIOeTX0BpxJDNC4vVX

wCKaEoVoAVzQ/viewform?usp=sf_link

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdX9UZs3yRuvgYXj5x31YUGNGQ8z-

W821vuPKT1x4p0VLdsLg/viewform?usp=sf_link

Please read these parts of Chapter 6 of your textbook:

Read the content under: LO1, LO2, LO3, LO4, LO5 (roughly p. 154 to p. 166)

Read the content under LO6 through the writing on internet crime (so to around

171.)

Then read the section on “Juvenile courts” which has a purple heading, around

p. 179 and up to the section on the death penalty, around p. 180.

Lastly, please read the short section on challenges with juvenile offenders, p.

183.

Chapter 6 Deviance and Crime learning outcomes:

• Define deviance and explain when deviant behavior is considered a crime.

• Describe who is deviant and why.

• Identify and compare the key functionalist perspectives on deviance.

• State the key ideas of conflict explanations of deviance and crime that focus on power relations, capitalism, feminism, and the intersection of race, class, and gender.

• Explain these symbolic interactionist perspectives on deviance: differential association theory, social bond theory, and labeling theory.

• Describe how postmodern perspectives on deviance differ from other theoretical approaches, specifically identifying Michel Foucault’s contributions to the study of deviance and social control.

• Define the following types of crime: violent crime, property crime, public order crime, occupational and corporate crime, Internet crime.

Chapter 6 opens by defining deviance and explaining the theories of deviance. Types and

amount of crime are addressed. Finally, the criminal justice system is discussed. To supplement

that, some additional definitions and things to consider:

(Source Ferrante, 2011)

Consider this too....

(Source Ferrante 2011)

~Almost any behavior or appearance can be defined as deviant

depending on context~

Deviance is NOT just about crime, or seriously "abnormal" behavior.

Deviance is any behavior or physical appearance that is socially challenged and/or condemned

because it departs from the norms and expectations of some group.

Norms are rules and expectations for the way people are supposed to behave, feel, and appear

in a particular social situation. Norms exist for virtually every kind of situation: how many times

a day to eat, how to greet a friend, what to wear to school, how to handle the American flag,

and when to use a gun.

Norms can vary according to whom they apply and according to whether people:

1) know they exist

2) accept them

3) enforce them uniformly

4) think them important

5) back them up with the force of law

6) adhere to them in their public and private lives

Norms vary by group. Some people, depending on the groups with which they identify,

celebrate tattoos as a normal or expected rite of passage; other people treat tattoos as a broad

indicator of some character flaw and believe those getting them will come to regret it as they

age.

(source Ferrante 2011)

Let's discuss crime....

The CNBC show "American Greed" most often tells the story of a white-collar criminal in each

episode. These are the "Bernie Madoffs" in our society. What's fascinating about these stories

is that the victims are lured in by promises of wealth, of, in fact "easy money." Some highly

intelligent and very wealthy people have found themselves "investing" in something that

"promises" big returns. So, while these cases are extremely sad (some people lose their life

savings) , it can be one person's fantasy of "getting rich" that allows them to put blinders on

and "believe" that a particular investment will make them rich. While we hear over and over

again "There's no free lunch," we are sometimes tempted to believe that maybe there is.

Below is a "snapshot" of a story involving deviant behavior. Below that are two links to content,

then my own synopsis, some questions for thought. questions I “may” address in the weekly

quiz and/or discussion.

While reading about this, consider the theories of deviance you have read about.

There is an option for the audio content from this tv episode, but if you are really pushed for

time, you can easily get by with the content in the box, above, and my synopsis, below:

45-minute American Greed show, audio only, on youtube: https://youtu.be/15jqM-9ZddE

2) Transcript from Dateline episode: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna30371375

Podcast of Dateline episode:

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7gLkzH4GfZn8j1eT6xUWR5

Apple:

https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/a-long-dark-stretch-of-

road/id1464919521?i=1000620634713

This is a case that involved sex, passion, money and murder. The two programs portrayed this

story in different ways. The "American Greed" story paints a picture of the man as the "master

of deceit" and focuses on his unethical (deviant) practices. The Dateline story approaches the

story from all angles and spends quite a bit of time interviewing his children and friends who

vow that he is innocent. In the end, I wouldn't say that the Dateline story attempts to persuade

the viewer that he is innocent, but the approach is more objective.

As stated above, Carlos was a defense attorney, and had been for about 30 years. He had had

ups and downs in his career, and for a few years, quite a while back, when business was very

lean, he moved his family to Puerto Rico where he worked as a lawyer.

According to family and friends, he loved his wife of 30 years immensely. From all accounts they

were two people in love and Carlos was a devoted husband. During the Dateline show, many

pictures of the two of them are shown. The children described him as a loving husband and

father. Not one person who was close to this family disagreed that they seemed like the

"perfect family."

There were some shady professional dealings and Carlos was disbarred. He was accused of

misappropriation of funds, basically fleecing desperate clients, taking their money and not

providing legal services as promised.

He apparently did not tell his family.

The police later discovered that on the night of the murder, he had about $300 to his name.

The incident: after spending a fun evening out with his wife in the city (several people

confirmed that via phone calls, the couple appeared to be having a very enjoyable evening out)

, they take the long drive home. Low on gas, but always out for a bargain, Carlos takes a back

road to a "bargain" gas station. During this secluded drive, he said he was forced to the side of

the road by a man in a car. He claimed the armed man ran up to his car, jumped in the back

seat, where they struggled over the gun. He claimed the struggle included him getting into the

back seat where they fought and the gun went off. He claimed his wife was in the front seat

asleep this entire time and the gun was fired and the built entered her head. During the

struggle, he was also shot on the side of his abdomen. He claimed the man got out and left in

his own car.

Carlos called 911 on route to the hospital, but when asked to pull over and wait for an

ambulance, in a sobbing, hysterical manner, he told them he had to get his wife to the hospital.

Video footage showed him driving up the ER and hitting a barrier wall and getting out and

running into the hospital for help.

His wife was barely alive but died that night from the gunshot to the head.

Police took his statement and the car was treated as the crime scene.

While Carlos focused on the likelihood that it was a disgruntled client who killed his wife, being

a defense attorney, he knew , as her spouse, he would at least be questioned for motive, etc.

He decided to tell the police that the day of the murder, he had sent flowers to his ex-mistress

of 10 years, since it was her birthday. He stated that the affair had ended about 1 and a half

years prior, but that they had remained in contact and since it was her birthday he sent her

flowers.

The police also learned that he was in financial ruin and over the last few years, he had

gradually increased the value of his wife's life insurance policies to about $900,000. What they

found interesting was that he didn't have much life insurance on himself, yet he was the

primary breadwinner. The police determined that it seemed that the family did not know of his

disbarment and they did not know of his financial condition. From all appearances, including

the beautiful large home, one adult child already a successful lawyer, one a senior in college

and one a high school cheerleader, and a 30-year marriage, that things were going well. But

the truth was that Carlos knew things were unraveling. The police also learned that Carlos had

a previous history of clinical depression. They also learned that he had used escort services for

sex.

When the daughter (around 18 or 19 at time of the trial) was interviewed she said "Just

because you do all of these things, that doesn't make you a murderer."

When forensics revealed that Carlos' story did not fit the crime scene, questions of his

culpability were raised. Then, by some miracle, the murder weapon (gun) was found in a lake.

A witness then came forward and said he had seen that gun in the home of Carlos.

Carlos was found guilty of murder by a jury, sentenced to 25 years. One juror said "it was a like

a puzzle and the pieces fit together." She was referring to the whole picture, that included

different kinds of deviant behavior, things that seemed awry. Another juror said that the fact

that he was essentially "bankrupt" was important, that it caused people to think that his

financial ruin might have led him to kill for the life insurance money.

Also, consider the aspects of white collar crime here. He used his power and authority to steal

money from his vulnerable clients. Do you think this makes him more likely to commit a violent

crime? Do you think there is a connection between someone's willingness to commit a "money"

crime and their willingness to commit a violent crime to get what they want?

What does it mean that ALL of his family and friends who were interviewed stood by him, even

after the guilty verdict?

Is it "deviant" in a long term marriage for one party to have an affair? If we look at statistics,

while it is not the "norm", it is certainly relatively common that over the course of a marriage,

infidelity would occur (rates vary depending upon the research, but some cite male infidelity

rates as high as 40- 50% or more, and female rates from 25 to 40%.)

Consider his status as "husband." Carlos met society's expectation of being "successful" and a

"good provider" for quite a number of years. He was "within the norm." How much can the

deviation from that norm "push" a person in this society to violate other norms in order to

regain that? One person commented that he had "elevated his own self-interest above others"

and that allowed him to think that stealing was okay.

Carlos was also defined as a "ladies man, " very charming, well-liked, and even narcissistic.

What can happen to a person when his or her persona is threatened? And, when all that you

have built yourself up to be, is about to disintegrate?

When Kids get Life (about 87 min)

I am choosing a video for you to watch (free, link below) on juveniles charged with a life

sentence. It is an emotionally charged film that presents disturbing events and photographs

and with dilemmas that would undoubtedly evoke disagreement and discussion if we were to

have done this in a classroom setting.

When Kids get Life (about 87 min) -- According to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty

International, when this documentary was created, in the United States there were over 2000

inmates serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes that they committed

when they were under the age of 18. In the rest of the world combined, there were only 12.

According to SentencingProject.org in a 2019 update:

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without the

possibility of parole for juveniles; in a handful of other states, no one is serving the sentence.

There were 2,310 people serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed as juveniles

(known as JLWOP) at year end 2016. In its 2017 ruling in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme

Court invalidated all existing JLWOP sentences that had been imposed by mandatory statute. As

a result, youth sentenced to parole-ineligible life sentences in 29 states and the federal

government are now in the process of having their original sentences reviewed or have been

granted a new sentence. In a small fraction of cases, individuals have been released from prison.

The post-Montgomery years have surely included a decline in the juvenile life without parole

population, though there is not exact count as of yet.

Following the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama, states and the federal

government are required to consider the unique circumstances of each juvenile defendant in

determining an individualized sentence. Montgomery v. Louisiana, a 2016 decision, ensures that

the decision applies retroactively. For juveniles, a mandatory life sentence without the possibility

of parole is unconstitutional.

The justices considered the research on adolescent brain development.

(https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/)

This video features the stories of several young men who were sentenced to spend the rest of

their lives in prison for crimes they committed as juveniles. I do not know their current

situations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/whenkidsgetlife/view/

Questions to consider:

1. What do these boys’ stories (and the stories of those like them) tell us about how well the juvenile justice system is serving the four functions of prisons?

2. How has living in a total institution changed these boys? 3. Why do you think the juvenile lifetime incarceration rate has been so much higher in the

United States than in all other countries combined?