Justice 2013

8.21.13

Define justice. Jake Nyquist: a decision that contributes to the general well-being of society
Crech: utilitarianism
Sam Elkins: a system of punishment to make bad people not do bad things, implemented by the people in power
Celia Lewis: an idea or ideology that brings people to the same playing field, but doesn't necessarily make it fair
Max Melcher: whose justice?
Clay Hatcher: consequences to make things fair, implemented by the leaders of society (fair = equal)
Will: a system of laws implemented to provide a safe and regulated society
Jack Kaplan: proportional punishment for a crime, implemented by some sort of judicial system

Is the world of Clockwork Orange a just system? Yes: IIIIIIII No: IIIIIIIIII
Not everyone agrees on what is right or moral, so the problem with Sam's definition of justice is that someone has to decide what is wrong or right. Jake's answer avoids the issue by allowing for actions that are either "good" or "bad", as long as they contribute to the well-being of society. Celia's definition explicitly states that justice isn't necessarily fair. A legal system can ensure equality of one of two things, opportunity or outcome, and Celia's definition states that justice is (or should be) focused on equality of opportunity - the "level playing field".
To create a civil society where definitions of morality differ, a system of laws is necessary to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. Moreover, you also need an enforcer to enforce or formalize those rules, to ensure that people abide by the rules, even if they don't agree with them. The more nearly homogeneous a society is, the better it will function without a lot of rules. For example, even though the youth society and the adult society in Clockwork Orange are relatively internally homogeneous, it is the clash between them that causes the central conflict in the book.

What is needed to create a good, functioning society?

• Enforcer

Handbook--Either you accept the handbook rules, you don't care about them, or you don't feel that they apply, based on your prior experience with those rules (do you care about the rules if your teacher doesn't?). Most of the handbook rules don't concern most people or are common courtesy.

Unwritten rules + traditions (learned, so they differ from person to person, because of personality, environment, etc.)

We have rules so that we can demonstrate what happens when we break them. (?)

08.23.13

Chaplain: most moral, but ineffectual: “forced good” < “chosen evil”

Prison: totally amoral, pragmatic approach to the Ludovico treatment

External (both parties)—election or re-election ploy

World view:

How do you have to look at justice if you feel CO is a just world? • Pragmatic • Focused on society • Utilitarian

If you consider it’s unjust, you might be concerned with “fairness” or morality

August 26 The most striking thing about the first chapter is that he is arrested but it does not change his life at all. We are really reading a combined effort because it is a translated work, so we are getting the translators interpretation of the original work. The interpretation comes from: a) Word Choice: some words don't exist in other languages, few words are actually interchangeable in English. b) The humor changes between languages due to cultural differences. c) Syntax can be very different, i.e. in German the main verb comes at the end of the sentence d) The paragraphs are very long in The Trial e) The idioms in languages vary, and do not translate

Another striking thing about the first chapter is that "someone must have been telling lies". Dwight on board: Modal Verbs transitive and intransitive verbs

                     auxiliary verbs- modal verbs is a subclass (ie the mood), ie would go, might go, must go
                     analytic verbs
                     synthetic- make tenses by adding verbs

Transitive verbs have direct objects, intransitive verbs do not have direct objects.

Back to "someone must have been telling lies" There is no doubt about it in the writers mind. Implies people are normally arrested after they have done something wrong. Therefore, there is some problem with the Justice in this case. This is important because it sets up the mood of the book with respect to the notion of Justice in the book. Also: someone had to mess with the system to make this happen.

The view is that only the bad will be punished and the good will not be. We supposedly share this view in the US currently. Justice breaks down because people lie.

The arresting officers are introduced on the second and third pages, who interestingly do not know why he is being arrested but assure him that his arrest will have no impact on his life. K. tries to talk the inspector out of arresting him, but this does not work. K. is very arrogant at the beginning, and feels that he should not have to deal with these problems. His arrogance comes from position and intellect, but not wealth. The narrator appears to be on K.'s side, we are getting his perspective. K. clearly cares more about himself than other people: he fails to notice the people from work. Why does it not give K's last name? This gives a more general or universal message, this is less specific. Because there is a discussion of a verdict of innocence, the justice system clearly does not assume the accused is innocent. This is the exact opposite of "our" justice system. At the end of the chapter: K. has a very unusual sense of perspective. He is also introspective because he thinks about his own feelings instead of what is actually going on.

August 27 Chapter Two is the interrogation. K. feels that he should be told why he has been arrested, but we don't know for certain that he is required to be told by law. The narrator's description of the length of the hearing indicates that they will do pretty much whatever they want. Dr. Raulston clarifies that he as still never been arrested (since yesterday). Innocent people can still be arrested and sometimes convicted. For example, people on death row have been proven innocent by dna; however, they are legally guilty but not morally guilty. K. sees the three people from work who were involved in the case on his way to the courthouse, and he thinks this is pretty weird. K. does not want to be punctual to the meeting because he interprets it as a social event more than a formal event. He is trying to put himself into a position of dominance in a situation where he clearly is not. Therefore, he is not taking the situation seriously and he is very arrogant. His arrogance shows itself again when he gets angry that they did not give him good directions to the location of the hearing. Furthermore, K. should be very uncomfortable that the people do not seem to want him there but he instead gets angry.(p26)If he thinks there is an attraction between the court and guilt, then he should have chosen the stairway that would not lead him to the court because he says that he is innocent. He should realize that he must be guilty, and realize that he has bought into their mind game already. (p26: "The court is attracted by guilt") He wants to try and establish power over a group of children; however, he should be trying to do this over the court. He only wants to take action with the kids. K. is showing an "avoidance behavior." (p26: "afraid of what noise they would make by shouting") He invents a guy to look for and feels proud of himself. This is another avoidance behavior. The atmosphere in the apartment: It is clearly a courtroom. Everything is squished; for example, you cannot stand up straight in the balcony. This cramped space makes peoples' minds break down before their body. This makes people subconsciously accept that they are lower than the judge. The physical surroundings now play into the mind games. The implication of having the door closed after him makes K. believe that the door is his personal door. (p27). K. Decided he "would do more watching than talking" (p28). This is after he realizes that the room is divided between being for or against him. However, within 3 sentences he reverses his strategy, and he decides to rant for the duration of the hearing. He cannot make a clear plan. They tell K. that he is the house painter because it is a form of intimidation. He worries about the reputation of the house painter, and he thinks that they do not really know them. This is a power game played by the Judge. K. assumes that the notebook has all of the information, so he assumes that the notebook lists what is going to happen. K. claims that he does not care that these hearings must happen all of the time because it is not a big deal. However, he must care because he showed up to the meeting. Additionally, he tells the groups that he is trying to stand up for the other people who are charged in this way but cannot defend themselves. The subsequent applause notes the switch from a courtroom appearance to a theater act. Then, when he claims he is not trying to be an orator it becomes almost a political speech (page 31). Next, he lies about what happens. This type of speech makes it sound like his arrogance makes him not know when to stop talking. He looses the self-censoring voice to prevent him from seeing stupid. All of this leads to the judge saying that he has used his one chance. If he is telling the truth, the fact that he even found the courtroom means he has been setup. This would mean that there is some type of conspiracy. Alternatively, there is an unreliable narrator and he was able to guide himself to the meeting. The unreliable narration may come from K. corrupting the narrator or the narrator himself having bias.

August 29 <p> Reading for weds. is a really short story.