That’s so Gay

Hey guys, so in the book “Covering” Yoshino talks about how being gay was being succumbed to more a performance rather than a life choice. He discusses how “gays that act straight” are more likely to be accepted and how being gay becomes more of a role rather than a personal decision. He mentions how being gay, comes with a whole set of stigmas and characteristics that are attributed with it, and anyone who doesn’t adhere to those “norms” are ostracized and treated differently. He also discusses that when you come out as gay, you are expected to adhere to societal norms and conform to the roles placed on by society.

After reading this part, I immediately thought of the phrase “That’s so gay”, as a way of expressing dislike and dissatisfaction with something. For example, many will call something that they dislike “Gay”, in a negative connotation which is related to what Yoshino is saying. By calling something gay, you are making a whole group of people inferior and stereotyping certain behaviors and practices to them. This is wrong because you are essentially creating and promoting a stereotype and verbally abusing others, even if that is not your intention. This commercial displays the harms of calling something “gay” to express dislike and it promotes awareness of thinking before speaking.

Basically by calling something gay, you are attaching someone’s being to a physical role that is often stereotyped and created by society and media. You are contributing to the “character of being gay”, rather than someone establishing their sexual orientation, so this is one example of how Yoshino mentions that when one came out as gay, they were often stigmatized and grouped into one category of people.

http://www.thinkb4youspeak.com/GetInformed/

Covering Part 1

An Uncovered Self

Yoshino uses a poetic tone in his memoir about his experiences, in order to define his sexuality and how he came to terms with who he is. He mentions his college life and his feelings being a Japanese American and being a closeted homosexual.  Yoshino discusses his internal conflicts with identification and how he struggled to embrace the many different aspects of himself. Yoshino states “Until then, I had been splendidly noncommittal; neither Japanese nor American, neither poet nor pragmatist, neither straight nor gay” (7). This is the beginning of the “covering” process, which Yoshino describes as identifying and accepting a stigma, but keeping that stigma contained within one’s self (18). Yoshino goes on to describe his professional life, and how he had to “cover” himself in that because it was okay to be a homosexual, but he couldn’t necessarily talk about things relating to that, as that would be deemed as negative. In this chapter, Yoshino introduces the concept of covering and sets the tone for the rest of the book as he raises the question of covering being a civil rights issue and the negative effects of assimilation.

Part 1

1) Gay Conversion

In this part, Yoshino mention a brief history of Gay, and how in the past, it was diagnosed as a mental illness, and people would attempt to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. Surgeries were performed on homosexuals as a method for them overcoming their feelings towards other men, which is completely absurd and mind boggling. In the early 1900s, homosexuals were given shock therapy to “convert” them to the “normal standard”, which is heterosexual. Yoshino goes on to question these tactics of “converting an individual”, and how these forms of therapy were ineffective and that it is not something that can be changed by physical treatment, it is something innate. The literal mental illness model states that, heterosexuals spread homosexuality through bad parenting, and the Contagion model states that gays pass on homosexuality through their interactions. Yoshino mentions how after gay rights activism became more prominent, they seeked to “convert” the view of traditional psychologists and doctors, that homosexuality is not a disease or a mental illness. An interesting argument is when Yoshino writes “Although the idea of homosexuality as a literal disease (a mental illness) has faded, the idea of homosexuality as a figurative disease (a disfavored contagious condition) has endured” (45). I believe this is the main argument of this whole chapter, as it mentions that despite homosexuality being undeclared as a mental illness, it is still stigmatized into a behavior and a culture that seeks for conversion of an individual. Yoshino goes on to state that “Conversion is the ultimate demand for assimilation-while passing and covering leave the underlying identity relatively intact, conversion destroys it” (49). He concludes this chapter by stating that conversion destroys the identity because the ultimate goal is to assimilate within society and leave yourself behind.

2) Gay Passing

This is sort of the next phase in the covering theory, and Yoshino uses his experience of falling in love and coming out to his parents to describe and summarize it. His coming out to his parents was a rather profound experience in which they were supportive and expressed their love for their child, though they weren’t been necessarily happy with the choice. He mentions the concept of an “open secret”, kind of like an elephant in the room, that people were aware of his sexual orientation but no one seemed to acknowledge it or even mention it. He mentions how many times being gay just passes through conversation and people would rather ignore the fact than face the idea head on. Thus he introduces the concept of “passing”, in which though homosexuals are allowed to be gay, they can’t really acknowledge it or everyone stays silent, and thus they “pass” through life. Yoshino mentions the “Dont Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in which homosexuals cannot be discriminated in the army for being homosexual, but they can be excluded for coming out. His argument in this chapter, is that if someone has a right to be a certain kind of person, then they have the right to verbally and physically express who they are without any repercussions (70). He also states the First Amendment should protect anyone who identifies as gay, and that it is a civil rights violation for people to have to hide who they are.

3) Gay Covering

In this chapter, Yoshino introduces the third phase, which is the “covering”. Basically, despite coming out to most of his friends and family, Yoshino still was constricted as he couldn’t be expressive of his relationship, as a heterosexual couple would be and that would be deemed as acceptable. The covering stage, deals with how much an individual assimilates into the mainstream and how they have to “act straight” in order to fit in. Yoshino mentions how gays acting in a normal relationship such as public displays of affection is seen as questionable, even though it is accepted in a heterosexual relationship. Yoshino states in his main argument “Covering is a strategy of assimilation available to all groups, including but not limited to the classic civil rights groups of racial minorities, women, religious minorities, and people with disabilities. These four axes are the fundamental dimensions along which we all mute or flaunt our identities” (79). Yoshino argues that in the “covering” process, it is okay to identify as gay and be publicly known as that, but you cannot reveal personal aspects of yourself, so essentially you are covering yourself from the outside world. He mentions his first relationship, as an example of this. He basically states  that homosexuality is a form of selective uptake, and that people pick and choose what aspects to be accepted and reject notions that seem contradictory to them. For example, gays in fashion is something that is not only accepted but praised, but any gay relationship is rather silenced and secluded. Covering is another form of the “Dont ask, Don’t tell” policy because you cannot really discuss your personal life, as a heterosexual would. He relates “gay” as being a performance, and that people judge the authenticity of yourself if you do not adhere to those stigmatized norms restricted by society. Yoshino ends this part with calling for change and reform, and calling for a resistance to assimilation, by mentioning the harms of it.

Overall, I really enjoyed the reading. I like how Yoshino broke down the process of covering by referencing his personal memoir and instances in the law, to show how homosexuals are constrained by society despite being somewhat accepted. I do believe that his covering theory can be applied to all “minority groups”, because to a certain extent there is a degree of selective uptake, in which people pick and choose what aspects of the culture or the people they like, and silence the other ones. What do you guys think about part one? Do you agree with Yoshino’s arguments?

The Fergueson Injustice

Hey everyone, as you all know tonight was a much anticipated night, as it held the decision for the Michael Brown case. The Jury declared that Police Officer Wilson will not be indicted for any crimes related to the shooting of brown. This was extremely horrifying news, but honestly I don’t find it shocking. I believe that the contents of this case and the results, hold extreme relevance to the topics discussed in class as well as the readings. This is just another example of how, a clearly guilty officer is not charged with any crime, even though he shot and killed a man. I believe this goes back to Alexander’s argument, that justice is only served when a white man is the one who had a crime committed against. This NPR publishing shows the timeline of events leading up to the current trial and the results

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/24/364103735/ferguson-timeline-grief-anger-and-tension

This timeline is extremely helpful because it breaks down the events leading to the trial, and it really explains how tainted this whole situation is.

This case caused severe uproar and various protests ignited across the country, but it still seems that justice was left unserved. We can easily relate this back to the issue, that because it was not a white man who was killed, it was not taken seriously. This goes back to the whole idea that the law system serves as a method of power, in order to control the population and keep certain races in control while others are deprived of life chances, and in this case, human rights. It is disheartening to think that in the 21st century, a man is unsafe just because the color of their skin, and inherently that the law works against them. There isn’t a great disparity between the number of white people and black people that commit crime, but why is it that white people have greater protection under the law? Why is their life valued more? This is beyond a power struggle, and I believe it is a form of “preservation” that Alexander mentioned in The New Jim Crow. Though the Jim Crow laws are not enacted, they are still carried out through the skewed justice system and the disadvantages and setbacks that are facing African Americans.

What do you guys think?

Congressmen caught with Cocaine

Although this article was published in 2013, I believe that it holds great relevance to the topics that we discussed in class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/trey-radel-drug-testing_n_4305348.html

Representative Trey Radel voted that all food stamp beneficiaries have to take drug tests in order to receive food stamps, however in October of 2013, Radel himself was caught in the possession of cocaine which is extremely ironic and hypocritical. During the passing of these restrictions on the food stamp, Democrats argued that if receivers of tax-benefits should be tested for drugs, shouldn’t lawmakers be tested as well? That is exactly what happened, one of the people who was advocating for drug tests for food stamp beneficiaries, was charged for drug possession.

This is just one example of how lower class income people are being scrutinized and constrained by the government, whereas lawmakers and officials can get away with these sort of things. Radel was simply charged with a misdemeanor, whereas I don’t believe a lower class person would receive the same sort of treatment under the law. I don’t believe that most people would want to resort to food stamps as a source of nourishment for their families and themselves, so why put even more restrictions on them by drug testing them? Is drug testing a method of proving that they are not in need? Trey Radel was just one official who happened to be caught and convicted, what about all of the other officials who can easily get away from these charges or escape this kind of public scrutiny and restrictions placed on the government? This simply promotes the idea that wealthier people and higher status people, can afford to do drugs in their own privacy and that poorer people don’t have that opportunity, so they are condemned at a significantly higher rate.

What is your opinion on the case?

United States V. Windsor (2013)

The history of same sex marriage has been a long and withstanding debate in the United States. The debate has extended passed the idea of same sex marriage as it affects the privileges same sex spouses receive as opposed to hetrosexual spouses. This is seen in the Supreme Court case titled United States v. Windsor, in which Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was declared unconstitutional. This case is influential and significant because it redefined the definition of spouse in the law and it declared that the term spouse cannot refer solely to heterosexual couples. The case examined the constitutionality of DOMA and how it contradicts the equal protection stature under the law.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were a same sex couple who were legally married in 2007 in Ontario, Canada. In 2009, Spyer passed away and left her estate to Windsor, but Windsor was unable to obtain a exemption which allowed for tax deduction for a surviving spouse in property ownership. The IRS declared that this provision did not apply to homosexual couples and Windsor ended up paying over $300,000 in taxes (United States v. Windsor 3). In response to this Windsor filed a lawsuit against the government for a refund in the taxes that she paid and the injustices in the DOMA law. DOMA or the Defense of Marriage Act, was passed in 1996 under the Clinton administration and it recognized marriage as a legal union between a man and a women, so it also outlined for provisions such as social security benefits for surviving spouses, immigration and citizenship, and the filing of joint tax returns. However, this act was exclusionary to same sex couples so they were stripped of these benefits, as seen in the case of Edith Windsor, when her legal spouse passed away. The issue raised a lot of questions such as the status of same sex couples in the United States and the form of discrimination that they faced under the law.

The verdict in a 5-4 decision declared that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that it violates the Fifth Amendment. The opinion of the court, that was written dominantly by Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote “By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognitionent in the Bill of Rights” (United States v. Windsor 17). Kennedy was against section 3 of DOMA as it created discrimination for same sex couples and it did not protect same sex couples under the law, which is opposing the Fifth Amendment which allows for equal protection under the law. DOMA proved to be burdensome to many individuals as it left them lacking of basic rights and benefits that were granted to marriages between a man and a women. DOMA caused discrimination towards a whole group of people and it treats them as inferior to heterosexual citizens. According to the majority opinion, Section 3 was a blatant violation of basic rights granted through the Fifth Amendment and it spread scrutiny and disdain amongst same sex couples.

However this was still opposition to the majority opinion, though it was not sufficient enough to sway the vote in the opposite direction. Justice Scalia who was one of the main Justices against the majority opinion stated, “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition” (United States v. Windsor 24). The argument was that invalidating the DOMA law would influence the decision on same sex marriage in various states and that it calls anyone who is opposed to same sex marriage, an enemy of the human race.  He claimed also that the federal government didn’t necessarily have the right to interfere with certain state restrictions and regulations. However, the dissent clearly did not rule out the majority vote, and Section 3 was declared unconstitutional.

I believe that this case is one of many that showcases the government’s power and how law is used as a means of controlling populations. Relating this back to Dean Spade’s Normal Life, I think that this case and the DOMA law are examples of disciplinary power. Spade stated that norms are enforced through laws and policy making strategies which in turn influence thinking and socialization of an individual (Spade 106). We see this in the divide in same sex marriage. The law definitely has an impact as it decides which states legalize same sex marriage, and this does affect how people normalize others and how some individuals are isolated. Section 3 of DOMA, defined spouse as a legal union between a man and a women, and anyone outside of that definition was treated like an outsider. This was seen in the case of Edith Windsor and most likely many other cases that weren’t brought to the supreme level. When laws such as DOMA sets such solid constrictions, other people who don’t necessarily meet that criteria are disadvantaged in terms of the benefits they receive. By declaring Section 3 unconstitutional, the Supreme Court in a way, began the construction of new norms. Now that same sex couples are protected equally under the law, they can be seen as normal citizens and more accepted by society. Now that laws are supporting their rights and more states are legalizing same sex marriage, homosexual individuals are treated better and receiving the rights that they deserve.

*****************************************************************************************************************************

The Supreme Court found that section three of the defense of marriage act because it went against Fifth Amendment’s promise of equal protection for all of American Citizens. Since this section on the act has become unconstitutional many changes occurred with the federal tax law.
Same sex marriage couples as of December 2013 must file their federal taxes as a married couple. When filing taxes, they now have the same benefits (or penalties) as opposite sex married couples have. Same sex married couple are also allowed to gift money, equity and or their estate without any tax penalties. In tax law prior to this the Windsor vs The United States not all same sex marriages were seen as “legitimate”, and therefore these gifts to their spouses where considered taxable income and subject to hefty taxes. So if a same sex couple wanted to put some of their capital under your spouse’s name, under the law the receiving spouse would be considered as receiving income and therefore a taxable event. Opposite sex marriages, when they gift apart of their capital it is just considered a gift.
Prior to the Windsor vs The United States any coverage that was under an employer-provided plan, like accident insurance or health insurance was taxable to the employee. You could only add your same sex spouse on an after-tax plan making it a bit more expensive for you. Now not only can you add you same sex spouse to you pre-taxed health/ accident plans, but same sex married couples can now file amend tax returns and claim refunds on any money they have sent towards any type of employer coverage, where they were denied the benefits that opposite sex couples have.
Employer benefit plans, like IRAs, 401(k)s or annuities were limited for same sex married couples. Before the Windsor vs The United States same sex married couples were not allowed to claim any benefits with the right of survivorship. So if your same sex spouse were to pass away, you were not entitled to any of their capital. Anything left to the living spouse would be considered a gift and therefore it was taxable income. You were also not allowed sign up for any qualified joint retirement account or any joint account with the right of survivorship. Hardships withdrawals are early withdrawals on your retirement plans that you can take due to a misfortune in your life (disease, eviction, etc.). Opposite sex married couples had the right to take hardships withdrawals if their spouses were the ones going through the difficult time. With same sex married couples, even if your spouse was diagnosed with a terminal illness there were tax penalties for withdrawing the money out of your retirement account. Now, as of September 2013, same sex married couples have the same rights to inherit their deceased spousal’s capital and well as sign up of any joint account and file and make a hardship withdrawal based on their spouses status.
Same sex marriages are slowly becoming recognized as “legitimate” marriages. They are slowly starting to get the same benefits as opposite sexed couples, at least when it come to their finances. The problem is not all states are recognizing their marriage as real. So when they file federal taxes they will receive fair same benefits and equal protection, but what about individual state taxes. Although our country is evolving there are still a lot of changes needed to be made so that everyone has equal rights, Windsor vs The United States is a great start to help get them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7b6W6OLGJ0  A brief video detailing the case

Works Cited

United States V. Windsor. Supreme. 26 June 2013. Print.

Spade, Dean. Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law. Brooklyn, NY: South End, 2011. Print.

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/windsor-v-united-states-thea-edie-doma~Hibba Mahmud and Diana Sanchez

Rethinking Transphobia and Power- Beyond a Rights Framework

In this chapter of Normal Life, Spade defines power as a methods of overcoming discrimination and relates power to the functioning of society and as to why certain laws and policies are more effective than others. Using the framework of Michael Foucault, Spade identifies three modes of power relative to specific contexts including trans vulnerability and promotes reform through the definition of power. According to Spade, one must understand the idea of power in order to have a progressive society and combat discrimination (Spade 108).

The three modes of power are as follows:

1) Perpetrator/Victim Power: Exclusion and Subtraction

In this first category, power is seen as “violation requiring remediation” (Spade 102). In this instance, power functions as a form of “subtraction” because things such as property, health, etc are taken away from people because of the perpetrators themselves or their actions (Spade 103). However, this mode brings up lots of criticisms because it doesn’t seem to account for the inequality of the entire population. Foucault brings up the idea that power is just more than deduction, it is the ability to establish and enforce certain forces and make them stronger (Spade 103). Relating this back to trans, Spade asserts that certain bureaucracies give life chances and opportunities at the expense of others, but this is tolerable because it is under a legal standpoint that supposedly promote equality. In order for us to understands transphobia and other forms of discrimination, we must understand power.

2) Disciplinary Power: Norms of Good Behavior and Ways of Being

This mode of power constitutes how certain practices such as racism and transphobia formulate the “norms” within a society and how a person should act. These norms are enforced through laws and policy making strategies which in turn influence thinking and socialization of an individual. Through disciplinary power, individuals are taught as to what makes a person a “good” person and individuals acquire characteristics that are functional in society. This is also used to explain labeling and how people are labelled as certain types of people, based on their actions. For example, having labels such as gay, straight, and lesbian which seem to dictate a person, even though they just someone’s personal preference. According to Spade, these labels are what constitute the norms within a society and further enforced through the law and bureaucracies (Spade 106). Foucault also mentioned violence as a means of social control and formation of norms. Resistance to these concrete norms such as feminists, gay rights activists, etc promote alternative ways of being just as legitimate as a “standard norm” (Spade 108). Spade concludes this mode of power through criticism and states that law reform is ineffective in altering these established norms and it leaves these stigmatized standards prevalent.

3) Population-Management Power: The Distribution of Life Chances

This form of power is based on the idea of security and insecurity (Spade 110).Certain laws and policies are enacted that supposedly promote the well-being of the nation but according to Spade they just define the terms of normality and constitute who is is a normal person and who is a threat to society (Spade 110). Basic ideals such as social security, identity documentation, migration policies, property ownership, etc dictate social control and how a “normal” person is identified and how a possible “other” is seen. These concrete ideas are what set the framework for a “moral panic”, because the norm for a citizen is identified and anyone who defies that is seen as a threat which will cause moral uproar in society. This is specifically used in the cases of racialization of the law and how racial and gender exclusion is used as a method of targeting a certain group through legal operations. For example, reducing public assistance and welfare programs, as a way of targeting the black single mothers who “cheat” the system (Spade 112). The legality in this instance is just used as a means of expressing power, and controlling the population into what those who hold power want. Life chances are distributed to populations that display the ideal characteristics of those who have power (Spade 113). This method of power is used to explain the racial wealth divide, as life chances are offered to a small population of white people and the colored race is left with little opportunity for economic mobility, which leaves everyone in a limbo (Spade 114). Population control is one step above disciplinary power because it dictates what is normal for a whole population, rather than the individual. Population control is specifically seen in the cases of poor and colored populations as an exemplification of what is deemed as normal and what is seen as defying or challenging the system. Major criticisms of this model are the fact that this is not specific to the individual and it does not address how certain populations are disadvantaged because of these set laws and dictations.

Relating these methods of power to Trans 

Trans activists have studied how the formulation of disciplinary norms leaves trans people disadvantaged because it forces them to conform to certain gender standards and without that they are deficient in rights such as employment, social services, and medical needs. Spade also analyzes the trans issues in terms of population control. Spade states that altering the law such as decriminalizing sodomy, and making hate crime laws inclusive to sexual orientation, will not alter people’s mindset (Spade 125). Spade states that explicitly changing the law will cause a further race/class divide amongst lesbians and gays which is a negative effect of “reform” (Spade 125). Spade enforces the idea that power, control, and population distribution are essential for reform of trans politics, not just issuing anti-discrimination laws and inclusion laws. Law must be studied in the terms of power and what repercussions it has on the greater population, and this is the way that specific practices can be targeted, and better yet, improved.

I believe that though this was a heavy and complex reading, it provided a lot of insight for reform and change. By using the framework of Foucault, Spade successfully established the guidelines for progression and gaining a sense of stability.

Racial Discrimination in the Law

Since we we have been discussing law and the various types of “statuses” with the law in the Common Place of Law, I believe that it is important to study the various cases presented in the book. The book is divided into three principal parts regarding the law, “Before the Law, With the Law, and Against the Law.” Each division discusses concepts such as normativity, constraint, and capacity. I believe there is a strong correlation between social class and race, and a relationship with law.  The chapter on Before the Law defines the term legality in terms of reification and it is presented as a neutral and impartial entity with organizational structure. It explains law as a very structured system that does not vary amongst individuals. However, the cases presented in that chapter presented otherwise. I noted that people who are considered “before the law”, come from colored backgrounds and lower socioeconomic class, and this affects their relationship with the Law.  The people in “Before the Law”, never questioned the law and whatever convictions they were given, they settled for them. They were essentially powerless because they didn’t have the opportunity or the means to support a functional trial and this affected them in society. The next chapter which is “With the Law”, presents very different concepts. It explains law as something that does have partiality and self interest. There is a contingency in the constraint, and it differs based on the individual’s self interest and experiences. It presents legality and law, as something that can be manipulated like a chess game. While reading this chapter, I noted that the cases presented were that of mostly white middle class to wealthier class men and this affected their relationship with the law. They dealt with their situations much differently and they were given a more partial side.

http://www.asanet.org/images/press/docs/pdf/ASARaceCrime.pdf

Now, to go onto my argument, I have attached a research study from the American Sociological Association which is titled Race, Ethnicity, and the Criminal Justice System. The study details the findings of ethnic and racial disparities in the criminal justice system. I believe this presents relevance because, there is a disparity presented in the Common Place of Law, in terms of race/ethnicity and relationship with the law. The different divisions presented in the book, have different clientele. The statistics present that the Caucasian and African American drug rate is extremely close to eachother, but African Americans are charged and convicted at a much higher rate. My question is, Does the ethnic and racial disparity in the justice system affect how one person views the law? Are they before, with, or against the law? The statistics presented indicate the racial discrimination in the conviction and prison system. I think that this is not a coincidence, that the criminal justice system is so vastly divided and this in turn impacts how one person sees the law. Affluent white people have had it “easier” with the law, and they are more able to manipulate it than a Poor black person can, to put it in frank terms. The research study and the content in the Common Place of Law, have a reciprocative relationship because they both influence each other. Ones understanding of the law affects how they are treated, and how the justice system is to them. Obviously, the legal system is different for people who come from lower social class and colored background

The Impact of the Death Penalty

Hey everyone, after reading the Common Place of Law, I started looking into specific laws and how they affect society. In chapter 2 of the Common Place of Law, Ewick and Silby write “Although the law may appear remote from our taken-for-granted world, it also has a commonplace materiality pervading for here and now of our social landscape (16). Basically, the law has a large impact on society and specifically the functioning of individuals within the society. After reading this, I decided to look at the implications of the death penalty on society and see how this specific instance affected the social well being.

http://lawreview.richmond.edu/the-legal-political-and-social-implications-of-the-death-penalty/

This journal assesses the public opinion of the death penalty in the USA and the main reasons behind the enforcement of it. Two of the main purposes of the death penalty are deterrence and retribution, according to William K Wilkins (Wilkins 2). Based on this notion, the death penalty is supposed to “reduce” crime and set an example for the rest of society, however is it really effective in doing so? Apparently, the implementation of the death penalty is supposed to restore social order, but is this notion just another form of moral panic? The idea that publicly executing criminals will deter crime rates and serve as a form of retribution for those wronged is seemingly ideal but it has been proven ineffective in many instances (Wilkins 4). I am relating this back to the Common Place of Law, because chapter 2 seems to introduce the idea of the impact of laws on the social landscape, and I figured using a direct example will make the concept more visible and definite. The journal identifies the specific cases in which death penalty should or shouldn’t be imposed, in instances such as mental retardation. It also brings up the idea of innocent people being executed, which basically defeats the whole concept of the death penalty when a proven innocent man is executed and the guilty is living. This causes in a sense a moral uproar and a divide within society. My question to all of you is, What are the social implications of death penalty and do you believe it is effective?