Meth in America

Methamphetamine has been a drug that I have known to exist my whole life, but it is interesting to think that it is a rather recent problem. Meth has grown to even rival cocaine in popularity and abundance but surprisingly prior to the 1990s it was a very minor problem ( Rodriguez et. al 16). The drug has exploded across the country which brings not only challenges to law enforcement but challenges for society as a whole. Usage has increased from a reported 1.8 million in 1994 to 8.8 million in 2004 ( Rodriguez et. al 16). In just a ten year span this is a pretty dramatic increase. It is reported that up to 12 million people in the United States have tried meth at least one time in their lifetime (Sommers and Baskin 3). Meth provides a legal battles in the United States and abroad, social problems as well as a high cost of cleaning up the toxic chemicals.

                Being a very recent problem, law enforcement and legislators have had to react to face this challenge. On a federal level, the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 was a good first step at identifying the issue on a national level ( Rodriguez et. al 16). Not only does increase the penalty for imply possessing meth, it also includes those who manufacture the substance. Unlike drugs such as cocaine, there is not a single ingredient to meth. It is made of a majority of readily available chemicals. Not only this, it can be manufactured almost anywhere from a mobile lab to a complex super lab. This has provided a unique issue that law enforcement have to face. Of the meth labs producing the product in the United States, one third are small local labs while two thirds are a part of Mexican criminal trafficking organizations (Oetjen 34). Not only do law enforcement have to deal with the trafficking and manufacture across international lines. Along with this, the chemicals that are used to produce the substance are another battle altogether such as pseudoephedrine. As a result, agencies such as the DEA have added regulation on who can receive large quantities of the substance as a way to not only target the manufacture but limit the availability of the ingredients.

                Methamphetamine also impacts a unique population that differs from past drugs such as cocaine. Meth is not bound by being a intercity drug, it actually seems to also prevail in rural and urban areas alike. The cliental is also different, the stereotypical meth user is a white male who holds a blue collar job ( Rodriguez et. al 18). It also has been widely used by a younger crowd as a party drug. Reportedly 14.8% of young Americans have tried meth at some time in their life, a higher percentage than the normal population (Sommers and Baskin 3). The substance all of these people are using is very addictive with some dangerous withdrawal symptoms that include aggressing, cravings and paranoia. There has also been some connections of violence related with meth. A study found that in of 205 people in the study in a three month period 55 of them committed some form of violence while high on meth(Sommers and Baskin 2). So not only is this drug highly addictive, and widespread it also has a relation to violence.

                Another big issue faced with meth is simply the cleanup of the substance. Methamphetamine is the result cooking chemicals together in a lab this does not come without its byproducts. Not only is the process of cooking meth dangerous, the material and labs left behind pose a serious health hazard. As a result  extra training has had to occur to train law enforcement with how to deal with it safely. All of this training and disposal is not without its costs. In 2004, the Drug Enforcement Agency spend 17.8 million dollars in cleaning up 10,000 labs (Oetjen 36). The costs in just cleaning up what is left as a result of meth are just another aspect of meth that provides a unique challenge to law enforcement that was not present with other drugs.

                Overall meth is a very dangerous substance being both highly addictive, readily available and used by many. It provides unique challenges in dealing with the violence, the trafficking and the cleanup of the substance. Law enforcement has been able to address the legal issues involved and continues to adapt to combat the substance as it continues to grow.

Issues with gang

Although gangs are not a new phenomenon but defiantly continue provide a unique challenge for law enforcement and the legal system. According to the Department of Justice in 1998, there were over 28 thousand gangs with nearly 800,000 gang members in the United States (2). This is a massive problem. There is a unique challenge with combating gang violence, trying to find unique ways of targeting gangs without trampling on people's rights. Two of the biggest legal issues I see with gang enforcement deal with the legality or gang specific ordinances and profile based policing.

                A very good example the issues with specific ordinances targeting gangs comes with the case of The City of Chicago v. Morales. The city of Chicago attempted to combat gang violence by passing a ordinance against gang members loitering (2). As a result they were able to cite people for failing to disperse. This ordinance eventually was challenged and was brought the Supreme Court which voided it based on the vagueness in the ordinance.

                The city attempted to pass a law which overall would be a good idea theoretically to combat gang violence but due to the way it was written it was not fully legal. Finding a effective way to combat gang loitering is a important thing that should be balanced. I work as a intern for the Kent Police Department. On a weekly basis, after school high school students who are gang members end up loitering in the shopping mall parking lot across from the school. This loitering almost always leads to very large group fights and even shootings but it continues to happen every week. Despite it continuing to occur, the police seem pretty much powerless to prevent it. There is no law or city ordinance against loitering in the city, if there was this problem may be able to be prevented. At the same time, is it really legal to cite people for simply being gang members who are present at a certain place. Another problem is loitering ordinances is that they seem to target gang members simply as their status as gang members.

                Another legal issue that comes up with enforcement against gangs is the protection of equal rights. There is a sad fact that frequent gang recruitment targets youth in poorer racially diverse parts of the country (5). This is not to say that minorities are the only ones who participate in gang activity, there are plenty of white gangs. Especially with laws similar to the loitering ordinances, it is very easy for law enforcement to simply profile gang members based on race (14). In the case of Morales, police targeted simply on the fact that a Hispanic person was loitering in a mostly white neighborhood. People have a right not to be targeted based on their race.

                Gangs are something that do need to be enforced in order to prevent but this enforcement should not come at the cost of the basic rights of people. The City of Chicago attempted to combat this with a loitering ordinance. Unfortunately the writing and application of this was too vague. I think that ideas such as the loitering ordinance are a good step in the right direction in trying to find the middle ground between effectively combating gang violence but also protecting rights.

                Discriminatory enforcement further adds to this issue of a balance that needs to be created. It is a good thing that police are proactively trying to stop gang violence. At the same time, the people who are target for the police cannot be target just for the fact that they are a gang member and a minority. The police cannot racially profile someone based on their background or status as a gang member. This practice is something I believe to be pretty widespread. Like the loitering ordinance and other gang related laws a balance needs to be found. Rather than simply targeting someone based on their race or standing the specific criminal behavior of the person should be the focus of them being targeted no their standing. This is important to protect the equal protection of all people from being targeted.

Issues with Domestic Violence

Domestic violence seems to be one of the oldest crimes yet it is so difficult to detect and prevent. There have been laws written to directly address the problem of domestic violence. This has helped with the identification and response to the problem by law enforcement and intervention groups. Despite the recognition, these attempts seem to be doomed to fail due to the underlying problem with lack of cases being reported all together. Domestic violence has existed behind closed doors since the beginning of time, I do not think it is something that we will ever see disappear.

                In the State of Washington, domestic violence has been defined by state code 26.50.010. The code presents a very broad definition of both the actions that constitutes domestic violence but also the groups of people who can be affected by it. I think the best part of the Washington law is that it includes not only physical harm, but also the simple fear of being in danger of harm (RCW 26.50.010). Just the fear of being a victim of domestic violence prevents some women from leaving, so creating a law that defines the fear of harm as just as bad as actual harm help from a legal standpoint resolve some of that issue.

                Another thing I like about the state’s definition is that it does not simplify the parties involved in domestic violence as just man vs. women. Although a male offender and female victim is the stereotypical example that people tend to think of in a domestic violence situation, in reality it is much more widespread than that. The definition includes anything from married persons, adults living together to relatives (RCW 26.50.010). I think that having a definition this broad helps encompass anyone who could be a victim of domestic violence.

                Having a broad definition I think is a good step to have in the fight against domestic violence. There are some problems I see with the enforcement and prevention of domestic violence situations. In Washington State a victim of domestic violence can get a temporary order of protection. On paper I see this as a very good solution to the problem. The temporary order is written to help protect someone from being victimized from more violent acts by setting rules of contact between parties and sets rules regarding having a perpetrator and victim from being near each other (RCW 26.50.070). This idea is very good and I support any situation where protection orders are helpful. However, I see a major problem in the false comfort a protection order might give. Without having the police constantly follow an offender, or track him through gps, there is almost no way to prevent any volition. The victim can report the violation after the fact at which time police can respond and deal with it, but in some cases this could be too little too late. Without taking away the privacy of both the victim and offender through tracking, there is no real cost effective way to ensure that orders of protection are followed.

                 Despite having their strengths and weaknesses having laws in place to protect victims does no good if there is no reporting victim. All of the laws in the world cannot protect someone who is being victimized yet has not reported it. Sadly I see this as the biggest obstacle in the fight against domestic violence. Domestic violence may seem like a huge problem, but it is actually much worse than what we know about. According to the text, the FBI estimates that only 10% of domestic violence is reported to the police (Olivero, 2005). Thinking about that in terms of scale, the reported amount of domestic violence is not even the tip of the ice burg. So despite all the efforts in creating good laws and having a swift law enforcement response, only a small fraction of the victims are actually being addressed.

                It is hard to fix a problem that on paper does not even exist because it is not reported. I think that until reporting of the crime occurs in the majority of the cases, domestic violence will still go on undetected for many years. Some attempts have been made to help detect the victimization. For example, the inclusion of mandatory reporting by hospitals (Olivero, 2005) helps increase the number of cases that are reported. Not all victims are given medical treatment therefore the hospitals cannot detect what they cannot see.

                I think that domestic violence will continue to be one of the most widespread undetected crimes forever. Even if reporting of the crime increases and a majority of domestic violence is detected there will still be cases of it that fall through the cracks and are not detected. This is not to say that the current enforcement and detection is bad. I think that any case of domestic violence that is prevented is a good thing. Unless there is a radical change in the behaviors of society that totally get rid of crime altogether, there is bound to be many victims of domestic violence.

Restorative Justice

Differences between Restorative Justice and Conventional Justice

Andrew Rosenthal

Central Washington University: Law and Justice- Pierce County Center

The History and Meaning of Restorative Justice:             

Restorative Justice is a branch of punishment that deviates from the conventional spectrum and takes a look at the underlying issue of crime including the parties involved. It is defined as, “Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible” (Zehr 37).  In essence restorative justice provides a alternate way of addressing both the bad act committed but also the resulting damage of the act caused to the victim and the community.

Historically restorative justice is not a new concept; it has taken place through a variety of forms. An early form of restorative justice was practiced by the Maori people, “restorative justice has its roots in the indigenous rituals of New Zealand communities where shaming of the offender was used as punishment for wrongdoings” (Gumz 1). This early form of restorative justice focused on targeting the bad act and making the offender feel responsible for the act. This is not the only early use of restorative justice; Native American tribes frequently practiced restorative justice through talking and sentencing circles (United Nations 219). These general concepts were able to take hold during the changes of society that occurred during the 1970s partially due to the feminist movement which called for raising awareness of the needs of crime victims. This idea took hold in Canada to a great extent and was able to progress to part of America, Australia, and New Zealand (Gumz 2). Although the American form of restorative justice is not as widespread and accepted as the Canadian form, it does have a strong place in the system.

Four Differences between Restorative Justice and Conventional Justice:

There are some distinct differences between how restorative justice and conventional justice operate. One big difference comes in the form which ‘punishment’ is implemented. In the regular justice model, punishment comes in the form of locking someone up, in turn having the person incarcerated acts as a way to punish them for the wrong they have committed. Restorative justice however, provides a system of meetings rather than simply incarceration to provide a more meaningful punishment (Zehr 21). These types of meetings are divided into victim/offender, victim/offender and family members, community conferences and community restorative boards provide a meaningful encounter to educate the offender.

Another big difference between the systems is the role of the offender. In the traditional justice system, an offender gets caught, and then is sentenced for the crime they committed and simply locked up to serve their time (Zehr 21). The restorative system, gives an offender a more active role in being accountable for the damage that has been caused, and repairing that damage as opposed to just being punished for breaking a law.

The victim’s role is also greatly changed between the systems. In the regular system, “many crime victims feel “left out” of their own proceedings, which causes them to feel frustrated and marginalized by the justice process” (Gromet 396). Traditional justice provides the victim with a minor role almost limited to a victim impact statement. In restorative justice however, the victim is a primary role-player with a similar importance as the offender with the ability to be actively involved with the meetings and directly confront the offender.

Almost absent in conventional justice is the role the community plays. Most of conventional justice occurs behind closed doors; the only real chance the community has to play a role is in the form of a jury trial, other than that the community is not really acknowledged as an important part. Through restorative justice, the community takes a more active rule, as being a party that has been damaged and needs to be healed. The community also plays a role in the process through being a part of community conferencing and community reparative boards.

Five Unique Benefits of Restorative Justice for Social Justice

To accurately describe five benefits of restorative justice in terms of social justice, first we need to gain a understanding of what social justice entails. In relation to social work it is described to include the ethical need to challenge injustice on a individual or group levels, protection those vulnerable to oppression, and provides equality and human relationships (Gumz 1).

                One benefit of restorative justice with regards to social justice is the attempt to save the offender from ostracizing themselves from society.  With restorative justice, the offender is able to maintain an active role in society and not be condemned as a person but have the act be condemned. It provides a way for an offender to have equal access to methods of rehabilitation and acknowledge the damage caused, and provides a method reintegrate into society (Gromet 2).

                The victim also sees some unique benefits, restorative justice allows, “Restore victims. Materially and psychologically, to where they were before the crime occurred” (Gromet 2). It allows the victim to have a equal and fair part of the process and confront the offender. It also works to compensate the victim for the damage that was caused which is not all that prevalent in traditional justice.

The community receives a few specific benefits from restorative justice that fits under the social justice tree. What was found in the Vermont study, the community is able to be more involved with the system and take up an active role. Restorative justice sees crime as not just a violation of laws but a violation of the public’s trust, and allowing the public to have a active role provides a sense of equality. It also allows the community to be compensated for the damage that was caused to them and move on in a positive direction as a result.

                The procedure of restorative justice provides a method which social justice principles are fulfilled.  Unlike traditional justice, restorative justice provides a means for all parties to be involved equally, “so that justice is provided to the offender, victim, and the community” (Gumz 3). Each party is not taken away from the equation and is given a fair opportunity to have an equal say in the process.

Another aspect of social justice that is prevalent among restorative justice and not conventional justice is human relationships. Restorative justice provides a sense to repairing harm done, not leave wounds to heal on their own. Restorative justice usually includes a face to face interaction between all parties involved (Gromet 2) which allows humans to directly confront and come to agreements about the harm that was done. The offender is able to come to terms with the actions they have taken and be involved in a direct discussion about the harm caused with the victim and community. This also allow the community to maintain its interest on healing wounds between its members and provides the victim the opportunity to deal with the offender as a human and confront them directly, empowering the victim. All of these aspects of restorative justice include human relations which is key part of social justice.

Juvenile Justive vs Adult Justice

Differences between Juvenile Justice and adult criminal justice

Andrew Rosenthal

Central Washington University: Law and Justice- Pierce County Center

Abstract

The Juvenile Justice system has gone through a series of evolutions which have made it vastly different from the adult system.  This includes a separate range on what ages someone is held responsible for the crimes they commit.  The role of punishment in the juvenile system has changes to reflect rehabilitation and diversion rather than punishment based that the adult system operates. In a further attempt to not label young offenders, the names of parts of the juvenile court process have been eased to reflect a less formal appearance. Judges also play a different role with juveniles, acting more as a guardian rather than a enforcer of the formal process. Another change is the role of police, with juvenile’s law enforcement is given a broader range of discretion to avoid formalizing punishment.

            The evolution of the criminal justice system has changed the treatment of juveniles from being treated exactly the same as adult offenders to having their own specific process. The early stages of this separation began with what are known as houses of refuge which came too existed in the early 1820s (Book 7). This was an early attempt to house juveniles at different locations than adult offenders. Further changes occurred that pushed help to establish the separation between the two systems, notably the first juvenile specific court which occurred in Illinois in 1899 (Cox, Allen, Hanser, Conrad 2008). This advancement gave juveniles a different standing when it comes to the criminal justice process. The system was helped to grow into what it is today through the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of 1967 which changes a number of things related to juveniles; Decriminalization of status offences, making court proceedings private, extension of due process rights, deinstitutionalization, diversification of striation and decentralization to a local level (Cox et al., 2008). Evolution to the Criminal Justice System has created specific differences between Juveniles and Adults which include; differences based on age, different forms of punishment, distinct court process, different role of the judge and different interaction with police in situations. While some differences are simply calling things something else, in some cases juveniles are a totally different set of people to consider.

                Unlike the adult system, the age at which time the offence was committed has an impact on the juvenile system. It varies from source to source on what age’s juveniles are considered responsible for crimes which they commit. One standard considers those under 8 unable to commit a crime, between 8-12 presumed incapable and over 12 capable of committing crimes. Once you’re an adult, you are responsible for committing crimes regardless of your age; the juvenile system does not do this. Generally until the mid teens, the juvenile process will try to work with kids and not waive their case to adult court unless they are near the age of an adult or the severity of the offence. I believe that this difference in being liable based on ages is in existence because of the maturity and growing levels of juveniles. Juveniles still have growing minds, they are learning about the world and what is right and wrong, keeping separate age brackets when deciding to charge a juvenile with a crime takes account the mental maturity of the juvenile and protect them from serious punishment when they did not know the severity of what they did.

                Another difference in the systems is what role punishment plays as a goal. The adult system is all about punishment and focuses very little efforts on rehab and other methods, the juvenile system however try to only use punishment as a last resort. In most cases a type of diversion program is tried first to help avoid the negative stigma involved with convictions. One huge example differences in punishments comes with the case of Roper v. Simmons in 2005, which the death penalty for crimes committed fewer than eighteen became illegal (Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, Banich 2009). I think that the difference exists to try to protect the juvenile from remaining on a bad path, using diversion as the main method rather than locking them up and forgetting about them plays to the idea that juveniles are still impressionable, and there is hope to rehabilitate them if the right system is in place.

                Similar to the punishment issue, the idea of having separate names for different process through juvenile court is another major difference. The juvenile court system is structured very similarly to the adult system but thing are wording is changed example, instead of arrest, juveniles are taking into custody, or indeed of trial it is an adjudication. I believe that this difference coincides with what is known as the labeling theory. Keeping the process seem less harsh, the juveniles do not get the negative stigma that would come with harsher wording of the process. Taking into account the labeling theory, if the process is more informal, then the juveniles do not get the criminalization pressure that is brought with the formal titles. This hopefully leads to the juveniles to not commit future criminal acts because of the changes in the labels, reducing their labeling as full blown criminals.

                The role of the judge in juvenile cases is also different than those in the adult system. The case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania in 1971, found that jury cases were not required for juveniles (Cox et al., 2008). Having more juvenile cases sought over by a judge, the role of the judge in the juvenile system is far different the adult system. The Parens Patrae idea can be applied here, juveniles are sought of as special, in cases which parents are not available, the state and the judge will work to act in the best interest of the child rather than just locking the child up. Although some judges are focused on the formal process, much work to try to serve what is in the juvenile’s best interests and this includes looking for alternative treatment. This difference exists because juveniles are a bit fragile, I believe that it is appropriate to use the system to nurture them a little rather than shipping them off to incarceration, having the judge have a more active part in treatment bring about the feeling of the system trying to help juveniles avoid delinquency rather than just punish them. 

                The role of police enforcement is different between juveniles and adults as well.  When making contact with adult offenders, the police tend have less discretion in some cases that those with juveniles. Rather than taking the juvenile immediately to booking, there are a number of different things officers can do which is not available in cases with adults. Some examples of this include verbal warnings, counseling the juvenile, and being able it involve parents in a informal solution rather than the formal process. This difference is another example on how the juvenile system is not there to punish but try to get the juveniles to do better, often parent involvement or informal processes can do just as much to solve the problem without all of the negative effects the formal system attaches.

                Overall there a wide variety of differences in the juvenile and adult system, many more than what are brought up here. The idea of different standards based on age, focus on diversion rather than punishment, avoiding the labeling of court proceedings, more informal supportive role of the judge and the discussion that is able to be used by law enforcement all help enforce the idea that unlike the adult system, juveniles should be rehabilitated and focus on avoiding delinquent behavior rather than just punishment.

A look at US Policy during the Cold War

Why and how did the United States chose to “fight” the Cold War and how did this strategy play out internationally and with what effects?

                The Cold War was the result of competing interest between America and the Soviet Union toward the end of the Second World War. The initial issue which brought the tension came about with deciding what to do with Poland after Germany had fallen. Truman had a problem with the Soviet Union creating a powerful communist government in Poland; ultimately Truman lost the issue at the Potsdam meeting (UN 701). Resulting from the Second World War, both countries had vast military might and with the research of nuclear weapons, which would have devastated the world if a direct conflict occurred.  As a result of this fear, rather than fight directly, a competition between America and the Soviet Union leading to a race to create spheres of influence became the battleground. American policy was adapted to help combat and ‘contain’ communism as a result.

                After World War Two, another war would have not been the best option, especially amongst two superpowers. As a result, Truman adopted a strategy of beating the Soviet Union at their own game, and contain them from expanding influence. The ‘war’ then changed to become about places of influence rather than a direct American/Soviet conflict. Expanding from this, Truman pushed for the idea to support regions in defense of communism expansion. Using this idea, the Truman Doctrine was enacted, to help send financial aid to Greece and Turkey to prevent communism from taking over in 1947 (UN 703). Further adding to the containment solution, the Marshal Plan became a essential part of United States foreign policy (Un 704). This ultimately aided in strengthening pro-western European government from being pushed over by a wave of communist influence. This allowed America to maintain a hold of support in Western Europe while the Soviet Union imposed its will in the East. Adding to the competing spheres of influence, the United States sought to make a military alliance with Western European countries to help defend from possible future threat resulting in the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance which included twelve nations in 1949 (Un 707). NATO seemed to serve as a safeguard against a possible armed conflict with the Soviets. Similar to the Marshal Plan, and Truman Doctrine, NATO was a political move used by the United States to indirectly strengthen its position in the world against the Soviet Union.

                Along with the diplomatic measures to contain communism, the United States intervened in an effort to prevent communist expansion. Although tensions were high, the United States never fought the Soviet Union, instead fighting Soviet backed movements and aiding pro western governments, keeping up the idea expanding influence which helped America. The first of these conflicts occurred in Korea, where the communists north invaded the pro-western south in 1950 (Un 713). To support the idea of containing the spread of communism, the United States intervened on the side of the South. In essence America was able to save South Korea from being consumed by communist North Korea, but the involvement of China on the North’s behalf left the war as a stalemate. Surprisingly the Soviet Union never became involved in the conflict directly, but rather supported communist expansion indirectly. The next zone where influence became fought over came in Cuba.  Fidel Castro, a communist was able to take control of the Cuban government in 1959, America did not support the idea of a Soviet backed leader so close to its borders (UN 754). America continued its support of anti-communist forces with its backing of the Bay of Pigs incident which actually ended in complete failure. The situation in Cuba eventually escalated into the Cuban Missile Crisis which neither side moved the conflict to direct war.  Tensions were high, but America continued its support of containing communism.

                Vietnam became a test of how involved America would get in preventing the spread of communism. America put its support behind the south, “The United States helped establish a pro-American government in the south, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem” (UN 752). Continuing the idea of keeping a Soviet free world, America changed from financial support to military support of Vietnam in 1964 (UN 775). Again like in Korea, the American military was used in an attempt to stop communist expansion in a conflict between supportive nations rather than direct war the Soviet Union. After years of harsh fighting, American opinion shifted on the war, South Vietnam found itself alone in 1975 (UN 807). Despite a huge military effort, America actually failed to stop communism to spread in Vietnam, after American withdrawal, the communist north took control of the south.

                The overall stance America took in its confirmation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War followed the idea to contain communism and protect western spheres of influence. Truman set the stage of creating spheres of influence with the enacting of the Truman Doctrine and Marshal Plan, following along with the idea that communism can be stopped if anti-communist governments are supported properly. The containment even expanded to a more military containment, with America intervening in both Korea and Vietnam, one being a success, the other a failure. Ultimately America was able to compete with the Soviet Union for influence while avoiding a direct military conflict that could have been catastrophic because of the presence of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the biggest success of American containment policy was the prevention of Western Europe from being dragged into Soviet influence immediately following World War Two. America was able to ensure a strong position in Europe by not standing by and letting communism spread, resulting in the creation of NATO which kept the Soviet Union in check. Although it was an unorthodox approach, consisting of both successes and failures, America was able to compete with the Soviet Union and fight the Cold War though diplomacy and influence in the world.

A history of American imperialism

The start of American imperialism can be traced back to how the country progressed in the post Civil War climate. The idea of Manifest Destiny can be related to the idea of imperialism, but once we had filled up the space within our own country, America looked abroad. At the same time, Europe was busy establishing colonies abroad and carving up Africa amongst them, Americans felt left out of colonizing. There was a need for America to expand to allow further trade, “American feared that their nation would soon be left out of all these potential markets” (Brinkley 499). It was felt that out of necessity the country needed to keep up and to do this we were required to expand. Alfred Mahan builds upon this with a thesis he presented in 1890 emphasizing the need for a sea power to control trade (Brinkley 499). With the country bordered by two gear oceans, he was right, looking to our neighbors across the sea was the way to go. This idea would carry over and become one of the centerpieces of American foreign policy that following presidents would work from.

            The first administration that worked to implement American expansion was that of Rutherford Hayes. Under Hayes, America was able to put itself into running for influence and power across the Pacific Ocean. The first step that was taken was to secure a naval base in Hawaii, allowing the U.S. Navy to firmly establish its power and dominance in the Pacific. As a result, we eventually annexed Hawaii in 1898, and were able to basically island hop from there to other areas of the Pacific (Brinkley 501). Hayes also worked to compete with European nations with American influence in Samoa. Like Hawaii, a naval base was created to support sea control over the region and eventually acquired Samoa in a joint deal with Germany and Great Britain (Brinkley 502). These first steps by Hayes not only increased American naval presence in the Pacific, but also allowed us to become a national player when it comes to dealing with abroad territories.

Grover Cleveland worked on this to even expand American colonial influence further. Although Cleveland appears to be more reactive to what is going on around him, he did follow suite with imperialism to a degree. To start things off, Cleveland got involved in a foreign dispute between Venezuela and Brittan, siding with the Latin America country over the British Empire (Brinkley 500). This seems to be the first step in defying European empires to better American influence abroad. The next issue Cleveland dealt with was the revolt that was occurring in Cuba, in this instance, Cleveland seemed very hesitant in becoming involved in the war, Spain being a big empire was dealing with a internal problem, but Cleveland’s hand was forced as a result of being insulted in the Depute do Lome Letter and the blowing up of the U.S.S Maine (Brinkley 506). Those two events caused Cleveland to react and as a result further American imperialism by warring with Spain. Through the war, America was able to explain our colonial power by taking directly from Spain; this is seen with the occupation of Puerto Rico, involvement with Cuba and also the taking of the Philippians. Although not blatantly imperialistic, Cleveland’s responses to external events lead to America’s expansion which would be build up upon following his administration.

Following Cleveland, the McKinley administration, also supporting an expansionist agenda but like Cleveland was pretty moderate with enacting expansion. One of the first issues McKinley had to deal with was the American occupation of the Philippians, he remained strong and was able to keep the territory as a result of the Treaty of Paris in 1898 (Brinkley 510). The other big issue regarding expansionism that McKinley dealt with was the European influence in China. Although McKinley is very hesitant when it comes to actually intervention and occupation, he does want to be allowed to trade with the region. McKinley did not want to occupy space in the region like what Europeans were doing, just to be allowed to trade freely and have a ‘open door’ with the region. The outbreak of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 forced McKinley’s hand to act in the situation. American intervention in China helped support and allow the ‘open door’ policy to be accepted by foreign nations (Brinkley 515). McKinley’s administration like Cleveland took a moderate approach to expansionism by responding to events rather than causing them, this all changed under Roosevelt.

Theodore Roosevelt was an avid supporter of America being a imperial empire. Before he was in power he was able to even work to make this reality when ordering the occupation of the Philippians during the Spanish American War (Brinkley 506). When he became president, his ideas became policy. Roosevelt wanted America to be able to compete, he saw it as our duty to spread our ‘civilization’ to those who were ‘uncivilized’ (Brinkley 553). Although he did not further expand, Roosevelt’s actions in ending the Japanese, Russian war helped to preserve a open system not dominated by any single country. The ultimate goal was to keep the Pacific not out of America’s reach, even sending a fleet near Japan as a show of force (Brinkley 554). Further, Roosevelt increased American influence in Latin America by following a policy of protecting the countries from European influence while furthering American investment. Roosevelt further worked to expand American control but orchestrating the Panama revolt from Colombia while constructing the Panama Canal to better America’s trade (Brinkley 556). In this situation, Roosevelt both served to influence politics of other nations but also work to expand America’s overall power and trade ability. Overall Roosevelt’s administration was the one that focused directly on spreading American influence abroad rather than reacting to events abroad.

The administration following Roosevelt, lead by William Taft also supported an American expansionist agenda but not to the extent that Roosevelt did. Overall Taft was limited to following up on keeping American influence up in the Caribbean and intervention in Nicaragua (Brinkley 557). After Taft, the expansionist agenda died off quite a bit, only being seen in a limited number of instances.

The administration of Woodrow Wilson did work to expand American influence but the times were changing away from colonialism. He continued policies to protect American influence in the Caribbean with intervention in Haiti and the Dominican Republic as well as purchasing the Virgin Islands (Brinkley 557). With the unrest in Mexico, Wilson seemed to continue pushing for American influence in the region but unlike other administrations, he did not jump in to the conflict head on, instead relied on supporting different regimes. American troops were sent to intervene slightly but Wilson never used them to push the issue, just to provide stability and prevent war (Brinkley 559). Wilson follows a different set of goals, rather than flexing American’s might, he rather uses it to provide peace and stability. This is further seen in America’s delayed involvement during World War One. Wilson does not enter the war until it is deemed necessary to, as a result of damaged trade and direct attacks by German u-boats (Brinkley 560).

These administrations saw the rise and fall of direct American imperialism. Resulting from the climate post Manifest Destiny, after sitting back and watching Europeans expand freely, American expansion came to effect. The Hayes administration set the groundwork for America to be a naval power in the Pacific. Cleveland and McKinley followed with policies that responded external events allowing for America to gain influence and power as a result. Imperialism peaked with the Roosevelt who was one of the biggest supports of the idea, leading to long-term American presence in Latin America. The movement changed by the time Wilson came to power, the world had changed. The actions of administrations leading up to that point were quite successful in achieving American dominance in foreign affairs and the global economy each in their own way of supporting that practice.

Genocide: The Outcome of Inaction

Genocide: The Outcome of Inaction

The term genocide is not something that is thrown out easily when it comes to defining the mass killings of people. For something to be considered genocide, a specific groups needs to be targeted and attacked on a massive scale, this is exactly what has happened numerous times through history. Specifically, these genocides occur either during wartime or right after, this is evident in the specific genocides of which I have looked. The Armenian Genocide which is the subject of Forgotten Fire takes place in Turkey during World War One. Similarly, the Holocaust occurs during World War Two and is the basis of Ordinary Men. Slightly different, When Broken Glass Floats occurs in war torn Cambodia during the fallout as a result of the Vietnam War. The documentary Worse Than War takes a look a genocides as a whole, and the reasons for them to keep occurring in the world. The existence of genocides during the 20^th century such what occurred in Forgotten Fire, Ordinary Men, When Broken Glass Floats and Worse Than War were allowed to remain uncheck because of limited local resistance and almost nonexistent intervention from the international community.

The Armenian Genocide which took place during World War One became one of the early examples which a specific group of people became target and killed in mass. The Ottoman Empire was able participate in the Great War and also commit mass murder at the same time, “Between 1915 and 1918, according to many historians, half a million Armenians were deported to Mesopotamia, while more than a million were murdered outright or died of disease and starvation during forced marches across desert regions”.[1] These events are captured in the novel Forgotten Fire by Adam Bagdasarian. The story recounts the fictional experiences of Vahan Kenderian, an Armenian living in Bitlis, Turkey who deals with the struggles of genocide first hand.[2] Through this story, the failure to act by the international community who was busy waging the First World War comes to light. Not only on an international level the failure for Armenians ability to stop the genocide accept for minor resistance and aid with the Russians.

The only big resistance put up by Armenians against the Turkish murders came in the form of Armenian units in the Russian Army and the uprising in the city of Van. “The Russian army’s counteroffensive included a division of Christian Armenians, who reportedly massacred the inhabitant of several Turkish villages”.[3] Armenians served in the Russian army during the World War One trying to win independence, as a result Turkey turned on Armenians who lived within its borders. Some of the fiercest of the fighting took place around Turkish city of Van where Armenians fought back, “From the providence of Van came hundreds over Armenian women and children whose husbands and fathers had been killed and whose villages had been destroyed, not by the Russian army, but by the Turkish army, our own army”.[4] In this instance Armenians could do almost nothing in the wake of the Turkish slaughter. In the novel, Vahan has to deal with witnessing the murder of almost his whole family before his eyes. There simply was nothing that could be done, his village was a part of the Ottoman Empire, and there was no force that could stand in the way of the Turkish army from going after their own people.

Moving from what happened in the local scale, the international reaction to the Armenian Genocide failed to provide any major help to end the murder. The Armenian Genocide occurred at the same time the world was embattled on multiple fronts in the conflict known the World War One. Despite the international community being distracted by war, the mass murder that was occurring in Turkey was not unknown to them, even being run on American news papers such as the New York Times.[5] Despite knowing exactly what was going on, the international community did little to actually step in and stop the violence. It was only the end of the war and regime change which ended the violence, “The Turkish Parliament is dissolved. A newly formed government has decided to create a general court-martial for all functionaries responsible for the massacre of Armenians”.[6] Vahan was able to escape the violence by making it to Constantinople where Armenians were not persecuted. There was no help for his fellow Armenians, the only reason the killing stopped was the government change that occurred after the Ottoman Empire collapsed following its withdrawal from the war.

Similar circumstances are associated with the mass killings collectively known as the Holocaust during World War Two. These were the result of the implementation of the Final Solution by Nazi Germany which’s goal was to eradicate all persons sought unfit, “By the end of the war nearly six million Jews had perished from gas, brutalization, malnutrition, exposure and disease in what later became known as the Holocaust”.[7] The killings took place during war time, in conquered countries that Germany had defeated years earlier. The implementation of the mass killings is captured in Christopher Browning’s novel Ordinary Men. The book follows a group of German reserve police from Hamburg from their first acts of violence to post war investigations of war crimes for what occurred in Poland. Overall the Holocaust is another instance which the target population fought back too late and where intervention from other nations did not occur as a result of wartime distractions.

Reserve Police Battalion 101 was stationed in Poland through the war; as a result they are exposed to not only the Jews who were hunted down, but also the local Polish population. Poland was where most of the actual killing took place; there were a total of six extermination camps in place in Poland which conducted gassing started in 1941.[8] The police battalion basically herded millions of Jews to their deaths. The Jewish race at the time were not a nation, they were all citizens of separate countries therefore did not have any military to cling to other than that of nations which they were previously part of which has been defeated by Nazi Germany. As a result, there was little to nothing that Jewish civilians could to in the face of armed German soldiers or police. Jewish resistance only appeared when it was too late, “over the past six months Jewish resistance had arisen in Warsaw (April), Treblinka (July), Bialystok (August), and Sobibor (October), when the Jews in those places saw no further hope of survival”.[9] Civilians basically had no chance trying to defend themselves against a professional police and military force; there was nothing Jews could to do by themselves.

The oppressed Jews of Poland were not the only group involved; Poland itself had to deal with German occupation. Poland had been defeated by the Germans, and now with occupation became the center of the Final Solution. Poles played roles on many levels including helping the Germans, “Virtually no account for the “Jew hunts” omitted the fact that hideouts and bunkers were for the most part revealed by Polish “agents,” “informants,” “forest runners,” and angry peasants”.[10] Under the watch of German Police, Poles even went as far as helping the Germans find Jewish civilians to send to camps. This does not indicate the majority of Polish people as being collaborators but does not make them look innocent either. The fact is that Polish people were under fire as well, having no protection from the Germans, there was little they could do and cooperating with the Germans was a way to survive.

Turning from the local scale, internationally not much could be done to stop the killing. When the Final Solution began, World War Two was still in its pinnacle, the nations that had the military might to step in and stop the killing were bogged down with defending themselves. Not only this, the killings were kept very secretive by the German government; it was not known what had happened until the camps were uncovered as Germany crumbled. The only international response came in the form for war crime trials such as the famous Nuremburg Trial. Ordinary policemen from Reserve Battalion 101 went back to their homes and moved on with their lives after the war despite what they had done. It was not until the 1960s when the German Central Agency for the state Administrations of Justice began to investigate the mass murders closely, “It was in the course of investigating various crime complexes in the district of Lublin that Ludwigsburg investigators first encountered several witnesses from Reserve Police Battalion 101”.[11] In essence, nothing was done to prevent or intervene in the Holocaust by the international community accept for the ex post facto investigations and punishments.

The genocide in Cambodia brought by the Khmer Rouge lasted from 1975-1979.[12]  The Communist lead Khmer Rouge party gained power immediately after the Vietnam War in which Cambodia had been involved. The new regime effectively murdered one fifth of the country’s population, “Over the next few years, according to outside estimates, up to two million of Cambodia’s seven million people may have died in this genocide slaughter”.[13] The novel When Broken Glass Floats by Chanrithy Him accounts the author’s own experiences growing up in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge before escaping to America. Genocide was allowed to continue in Cambodia because of weakened government that lost power to radicals along with an international community that was hesitant to intervene in the region after the Vietnam War.

            Unlike genocides that occurred during major wars, in Cambodia, the genocide was the result of radicals gaining power after a civil war. Chanrithy was able to witness the fall of the Cambodian government firsthand, “There is news about fighting with the Khmer Rouge, about Prince Sihanouk, the “god-king” whom many Cambodians elders believed to have the divine touch, which has somehow lost power and joined the Khmer Rouge”.[14] It was not until after the civil war had ended when the killing started to begin. Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge, emptied out the cities in an effort to create a perfect society.[15] Unfortunately, Chanrithy and her family were from Phom Phen and with no one left to stop the Rouge, were also sent to work camps. However, there was a limited resistance to the Khmer Rouge across Cambodia, Chanrithy runs into some of them near the fall of the Rogue, “I’m not going to harm you. I’m a good soldier, a PARA soldier”.[16] Despite the Khmer Rouge having almost full control of the country and being able to commit mass murder unchecked, there was some internal resistance which aided into toppling the Rouge.

            Internationally, the Khmer Rouge as able to commit mass killings of their own people for years without facing any recourse. It seems like that after spending almost ten years in the region during the Vietnam War; America did not have the stomach for any further dealings in Southeast Asia, even if it meant the murder of millions. The world community sat back and watched, as people continued to be killed. It was not until the invasion of the Vietnamese that the Khmer Rouge was toppled effectively stopping the killing. Chanrithy deals directly with the disappearance of the Rogue as a result of Vietnam intervention, “I’m relieved, thankful that the Vietnamese soldiers are here tonight to oppose the Khmer Rouge.”[17] It had been Vietnam, a neighboring country who brought down the Rouge because of political motivations; there was no international force which went in to prevent genocide. The world failed the people of Cambodia with their inability to act, if Vietnam had not sought to change the countries regime, the killing would have continued without any end in sight.

 The fact is that genocide is something that keeps occurring regardless of steps taken to try to stop it. The documentary Worse Than War by Daniel Goldhagen discusses the preconditions and fallout that have occurred as a result of mass killings. Goldhagen not only discusses the reason genocides continues but he also speaks about the failure for intervention to occur. According to Goldhagen there are three choices that are made; First the choices made by leaders to start killing, second are the choices made by ordinary people to participate, and third is the choices of people who have the power to step in and do not do anything.[18] The argument is that it is not only the people who order or commit the murder that are at fault, but people who go along with it and those who do nothing to stop it. Particularly, Goldhagen points to the U.N, an organization who clearly defines genocide and is supposed to work to prevent such instances from occurring. Goldhagen points out the inability for the U.N. to act in a strong enough way to put down genocides before they grow out of hand. He describes it as a moral standard those countries that are able to act, should to save innocent lives.

            Focusing on a specific instance, Goldhagen points out the Bosnian War which lasted from 1992-1995.[19] The war started as a result of Serbs under Slobodan Milosevic trying to ethnically cleanse Muslims of Bosnia. The Serbs were able to follow up on their plan being unopposed and committing mass killings in Bosnia with no one to stop them. The war went on for three years, and the Bosnian military had struggled to keep up with the Serbs. It was not until 1995 when NATO forces began to bomb Yugoslavia that peace talks commenced and the conflict ended.[20] International intervention was able to be successful in putting a end to the Bosnian War, but look how long it took them to act. Serbia we able to continue with the killings unchecked for three years, if intervention had come sooner, there is no doubt that lives would have been saved.

            The fact is that genocide is something that has continued to happen regardless of how evil it is. The international community has failed to hold the high moral ground and act in cases which they could save lives. The only reason the Armenian Genocide ended was as a result if the government losing power after World War One, if that had not happened, the killing would have continued without anyone stepping in. Similarly with Nazi Germany during World War Two, the murders went on without the rest of the world knowing. If Germany had not been defeated militarily and the camps uncovered, they would have been able to continue with the murders with no one stopping them. In Cambodia, the killings went on for years without an international reaction; the only thing that saved face was the result of Vietnam pushing the Khmer Rouge out of power. The only instance where international countries have united and acted militarily was in Bosnia, but this still only occurred three years after the conflict started, something that came too late. It has happened time and again, when murderous regimes are able to take power and neutralize local resistance, they only way to stop the killings is with intervention, and until now, the world has failed to act quickly every time.                

---

Don Quixote and Hamlet

The question of who would be considered a better knight comes up as we discussed Don Quixote and Hamlet. Using information from both Don Quixote and Hamlet, I will discuss what Don Quixote’s evaluation of Hamlet as a knight would be.  Based on the ideals of what a knight should be Don Quixote will take at Hamlet’s use of arms, pursuit of a lady and overall behavior in tough situations.  Using information from how Hamlet conducts himself, I believe that Don Quixote would classify Hamlet as failing to upholding the standards of good knight.

                First we take a look at Hamlet’s use of arms through the play. It is very clear that Hamlet is very skilled in the use of weaponry through the play. I believe that Don Quixote would admire his ability to use a variety of weapons with great skills. Quixote would state that his ability to use weapons effectively would help him fair better in combat as a knight. This is particularly seen in Hamlet’s duel with Laertes, he is able to use his skills successfully despite being poisoned and wins the dual. Don Quixote seems to be a fan of dueling other knights so Hamlet’s role in the dual would win him some admiration from Quixote. Hamlet, however does seem to have a certain degree of carelessness with use of weapons and a civilian population. The scene of him stabbing of Polonius who was hiding behind the tapestry is a perfect example. Hamlet is quick to act, doing so he takes an innocent life without remorse. Don Quixote would be highly opposed to Hamlet’s behavior in this situation; no knight would so carelessly take a civilian life and not be remorseful of his action. In no way would Quixote ever imagine killing innocents, he has read too much on the rules of chivalry to allow this to happen. When it comes to the use of weapons, Quixote would have a neutral opinion of Hamlet due to the positives and negatives of his actions.

                Apart from usage of weapons, we can also take a look at the dealings with a mistress. The main goal of Don Quixote is to find his lady, Dulcinea and win her affection. He attempts to do this by tracking her down and freeing her from any enchantment she is under.  It is clear that Don Quixote places great importance on serving his lady, I think he would have a problem with Hamlets actions.  First of all, Hamlet confuses Ophelia in his plot to seem crazy. Don Quixote would not approve of his deceit especially of the lady that he supposedly admires. Don follows proper chivalry and does everything in his power to try to win the affection of his lady; Hamlet does not seem to care about trying to win Ophelia.  On top of causing her grief and confusion, Hamlet even allows her to take her own life without doing anything to stop it. Quixote would have a big problem with this, Hamlet could have stepped in and made things right with her but instead did not care and let her die. Quixote would not be able to support this at all, his whole quest was to save his lady while Hamlet caused the death of his. The fact that Hamlet is more focused on his own goals of avenging his father’s death, he is quick to disregard the health of his mistress. In Quixote’s eyes this is a huge failure. Quixote has read and learned that in the end, a proper knight comes to the rescue of his lady and is there to save the day. Hamlet seems to do the opposite of this therefore; Quixote would not look upon him favorably when it comes to serving his lady.

                Another thing that Quixote would need to consider when evaluating Hamlet is his day to day actions. Quixote lives by the philosophy of trying to help anyone he can through his travels. He is a knight errant, not attached to any lord but rather to the quest to do well in the world. He would take a look at Hamlet and be disappointed with his involvement with royal matters. Through the whole story, Hamlet is only worried about his stake in the court and avenging his father’s death. Nowhere does he attempt to make time to go out and do good deeds. Quixote would have a problem with this, if Hamlet truly called himself a knight he would make an attempt to proved justice for the world not meddle with personal affairs. Apart from daily travels, Quixote would also look at how Hamlet conducts himself when he converses with others. According to Quixote, a good knight should be a good listener and excellent at telling stories. Quixote’s excellence in this category is seen through the story as he retells stories of knights with great success. Don Quixote would take a look at how Hamlets used his speech but also how it affected his audience. From the extravagant speeches Hamlet makes, I would say that Quixote would admire his ability to use words and entertain. While in the graveyard for example, he gave a extravagant speech about life to his friend Horatio, who was left in awe after Hamlet’s discussion of death. Hamlet has a great ability to be dramatic while delivering an excellent performance; this would prove to be helpful in his consideration of having knightly attributes.

                Taking a look at Hamlet at a whole, there is no doubt that Don Quixote would take a fair look at his attributes and would make a good assessment of how he would fair as a knight. Quixote would look favorably upon Hamlet’s ability to use weapons with great skill. He would also admire Hamlet’s skill with speech and moving a audience. The problem that Quixote would have would be the misuse of weaponry on civilians, lack of chivalry towards his lady. He would also point out how Hamlet seems to just be in things for him and personal gain rather than serving the world for a greater good. Weighting the positives and negatives, Don Quixote would seem to see Hamlet to be a bad representation of what a knight should be. Hamlet fails to fit well in the criteria that Quixote has learned from his readings and would not fare well in a world following chivalric code.

What defines me? A philosophical look at identity

What defines me?

                The philosophical topic that I believe is the most important to understand is personal identity. There are multiple theories that attempt to define identity. To better understand what these arguments are trying to prove, we need to define what personal identity is. Personal is defined as, "of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private", according to Dictionary.com.  So what we are talking about is the self, who you are as a person. Identity is defined as, "the sense of self, providing sameness and continuity in personality over time". This tells us that the term 'personal identity' refers to a particular person's self and how it is affected by time.

          There are four main theories that explain the 'personal self'. These are commonly known as the illusion, body, soul and memory theories. Through time, each has had support and popularity with strong arguments being made in support. I believe that the memory theory is the strongest argument for 'personal identity' because it follows logical premises that make sense.

                To better explain and compare the theories of personal identity, I will use a situational example to place them all into. In class, we watched a video which brought up the case of the World War Two officer. During the war, this man was a SS officer who committed a number of war crimes which he was not tried for. Later in his life, charges were brought on him for his past crimes. He argued that he can no longer has memory of what happened and cannot be held responsible for what he does not remember.  I will use this example to help explain what each argument would say regarding this case and if should be found guilty or not.

The memory theory is pretty simple to understand. When applied to a subject, it seems logical. I like to keep things simple and prefer to use logic to explain things, rather than pondering something such as the existence of the soul. This reasoning leads me to support memory theory as the best approach when it comes to 'personal identity'.

                The memory theory bases identity on the recollection of past memories. Memory is defined as, "the mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions or recalling previous experiences". The key point is that it relies on remembering things that happen in the past. 

                Based on this theory, we are the same person today as we were in the past as long as we have memories of the person we use to be. Our current self is connected to the past by memories, when a bond exists; you are the same person as you were in the past.  As time goes on, your self will be the same as long your can remember back. The memory theory believes that it is the recollection of past memories that make the self.

                If the self is made from memories, it is not a physical thing; therefore your self is a psychological entity.  The reasoning I really liked this theory is because it takes into account memories and experiences into determining who you are. I can remember my experiences from elementary school. It seems logical that for however long I remember my past, I am still the same person I can remember. The memory takes a very important role in life, take a look at the example of choosing losing your memories and becoming a king, or keeping your memories (Rauhut 129). Most people choose to keep their memories. They value them because memories are what make up who they are.  They are correct, based on the memory theory, memories are what make up the self and when put into that context of the king, a person would tend to agree.

                I agree with the position memory theory would take on the World War Two example. This officer, now old, has lost his memories that connect him with his past self. He has no recollection of what he did in the past. Taking this into account, I determine that he would not be responsible for his actions because he not the person who committed those acts. His memory of that person is gone, if you're "self" is your recollection of your past memories. Then he is no longer the person he cannot remember.  Some would argue that he still needs to be punished, but based on the memory theory. He does not deserve any punishment because he is not the same person.

                When I take a look at different situations, the memory theory seems to be a good choice. I agree that the memory is the factor that determines what your 'personal identity' is. There are, however, strong arguments that disagree with what the memory theory proposes.

                While the memory theory describes the self as a physiological entity, there are two arguments that define the self as a substance that actually exists rather than just something in the mind. This vies is divided into the body and soul theories which are relatively popular especially in religious points of view.
                The body theory focuses on the existence of the physical form to define the self. Body is defined as, "the physical structure and material substance of an animal, or plant, living or dead". So the body theory deals with physical things that you can actually touch to verify existence.

The body theory believes that we are the same person as long as we have the same physical body.  I can see how people would like this idea, it is pretty easy to understand and relate to. Take a look at modern science and there is many popular applications of the body theory; dna testing, fingerprints, ect (Rauhut 123). In America's legal system, these things have become paramount in proving guilt or innocence in criminal court. I can agree with some of the things the body theory is able to accomplish. There are, however, some problems that arise when I look at the body theory.

Let's take a look at the World War Two example again. There is no doubt that he is the same physical form today as he was during the war. The body theory would argue that he is guilty because he is the same person that committed the crimes; his physical form has not changed.  Although Dna testing and fingerprinting would prove this to be correct, I do not believe that is what makes up the person. This man has no memory of what occurred in the past, no connection to it besides being the same physical body. I would argue that regardless of him being the same physical form, he is not the same person because of the lack of memories connecting him to the event.

Another example which relates would be that of someone who has amnesia or becomes a vegetable. Based on the body theory, a person would still be the same self even after experiencing these conditions. That seems like a pretty weak argument to me. If someone had lost all memory and even mental function, I cannot believe that they can possibly the same person they use to be. I would argue that after the events, their past self ceases to exist when they lose memory of it, regardless of having the same physical form.

When taking into account the examples I described, the body theory has some holes in it's argument. It is unable to account for things beyond the physical form like the memory theory can. This leads me to support the memory theory over the body theory because it can fulfill situations where the body theory would not work to define the self. The other theory within the self as substance tree is the soul theory.

Prior to presenting and arguing the soul theory, I would like to state my personal bias when it comes to souls. The soul theory has a large connection to religion and the afterlife. I do not believe in the possibility of an afterlife or a soul, therefore I would not even consider the soul theory a valid argument. For the purposes of providing all sides, I will present the soul theory like any other.

The soul theory is all based on the existence of this thing called the soul.  Soul is defined as, "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body". So were talking about something that exists but is not verifiable, you cannot see or touch your soul. It is something that is separate from the physical form; therefore it does not end when the physical body dies.

The soul theory holds a similar view to the body theory of "same body, same person" (Rauhut 117), but instead it is "same soul, same person" (Rauhut 117). Where the soul is what defines who the person is and this is an eternal entity. In a way, soul theorists argue that the person survives beyond life into something else. They argue this because they believe the self is tied to a thing called a soul, which endures the passing of the physical form. This is a view that is commonly accepted in many of the world's major religions.

Using the example of the Officer a soul theorists would say that he is indeed guilty. This is seen as the case because he posses the same soul as he did when he committed these acts regardless of remembering. Based on soul theory, it is the same soul doing these things; therefore he is guilty because within his soul, he is the same person who did those things.

Although the soul theory is widely supported and makes sense to most people, I have a few problems with it. The first thing that jumps out is the possibility of the soul theory to exist. It seems hard to prove something that there is no physical or mental connection to. Memory is a physiological thing, but you can connect to it by simply thinking about past memories.  There is no way to do this with the soul. I find it hard to believe in something that is not easily proven with evidence.

Another question with the soul theory is; how does it change over time? Is it possible to lose your soul or does it ever changes? There is no way of knowing if the soul changes along with the person.  With the memory theory however, your 'self' changes as your memories change. You are whoever you can remember back to be. There is an alternative to the body and soul substance theories.

The other major theory used to argue 'personal Identity' is the illusion theory. Illusion is defined as, "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality". In essence, the illusion theory is talking about something that is not real and only appears to exist. This is the stance this theory takes when it comes to the self.

According to Illusionists, there is no self that is present through time. The self changes from one moment to the next and is constantly turning into something new. If the self is going through constant change, there actually is no self. There is only an illusion of a self. This point of view was described to be like a river according to Heraclitus, "It is not possible to step twice in the same river…It scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes"(Rauhut 119). He uses the analogy of a river to describe the self. It is always changing and flowing and will never be the same from one moment to the next.

The illusion theory would find the World War Two officer not guilty. This happens because if they believe the personal self is always changing. You cannot be held responsible for things in the past because it was not done by you. This is a big problem when it comes to the criminal justice system. If people are not responsible for their actions; why is that we have so many people incarcerated in jails for their actions? That is a similar argument to that of the memory theory but there are a few differences that separate the two greatly.

On the surface, the idea of the illusion theory makes sense because humans are constantly exposed to new things but there some very big issues when it comes to practicality in life. If you are always changing and you are never the same, why do humans put so much into their future and life? Look at college for example; I am one of many college students in America. The reason I want to get my education is to have a better chance of getting the job I want in the future. Under the illusion theory, it would not matter what you are doing in the future because you are not the same, this contradicts most people's life choices. Memory theory however, argues that you are still the same person in the future as long as you can remember things from the past. If this is true, then the memory theory provides reason to go to college and look forward to having a future unlike the illusion theory.

There are many points of view when it comes to arguing the existence of a 'personal self'.  Each has their own strengths and weaknesses but I believe it is clear that one is more logical and applicable than the others.

A lot of people want to accept the soul theory to be right; it has too many unknowns that cannot be accounted for. It is hard to justify believing in something that you can never really prove to exist. As much support as it gets, it is destined to never be provable until a connection between the soul and person can be made, this however is not likely to occur.

The body theory is a very simple argument that uses some basic logic to explain. The problem with the body theory is that it is too simple; it does not take into account the mental state of the person, just the physical form. I find it hard to follow unless some of those issues are dealt with.

The illusion theory does seem to make sense with their view that the person is always changing over time. The problem comes with how they connect the self with the self of the past, they do not. This poses a big problem, if this were to be true, the reason for existence and living would be hard to support.  Illusion theory does not apply to practical life.

This is why I believe the memory theory to be more correct than other ways of describing the 'personal self'. It makes sense that you are made up of your past and it will always influence who you are in the future as long as you can remember it. The argument about losing connection with your past is simply solved by stating, if you lose the memory connection with your past, you are no longer the person you were in the past. Although the memory theory is not perfectly sound, for the most part I believe it to be the best way to understand what the self actually is.

Works Cited:

Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC, Web. 12 Nov 2009. <http://dictionary.reference.com/>.

Rauhut, Nils Ch. Ultimate Questions: Thinking About Philosophy. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, 2007. 113-136. Print.