Grimm

Grimm is a new tv series that involves a Detective  that can see fairy tale creatures for what they really are. Nick (the detective) must find all the "bad" fairy tale creatures and take care of them before they kill him. He does this with the help of a creature known from the story of Little Red Riding Hood, a wolf who has turned vegan because he realized killing little girls wearing red got his relatives no where.
I find this crime show pretty interesting because it brings in a new genre of crime media that has yet to be studied to an extreme degree and it's creative in the ways Nick tries to stay within the law to get his "man". I can't wait to see what kind of scholar papers this new show will bring out.

Silence of the Lambs

I had never seen this movie before this class, honestly I was scared to watch it. However, I am now glad that I did. I absolutely LOVE it. Hannibal was portrayed in such a way that I was literally intrigued enough to go and watch the rest of the movies. I have to say the only one I didn't really like was the Rising of Hannibal. I also did not get around to watching the Red Dragon.

I wish they had gotten Jodi Foster to continue in the role Agent Starling, I feel Hannibal would have been a better movie with her.

Enough

I remember watching this film a few years and really liking it then, to me it was a motivation to never let a man get away with abusing me. Watching it again this year, I find that I still like it. It is a bit far fetched but the message still remains the same, if you're put into that type of situation, you don't have to stay there. You can get out, you can get help, and you can fight back.

Because it was mentioned in class, I also watched Sleeping with the Enemy and I think it is a more realistic story of what someone might do to get out of abusive relationship. I also liked how the only one putting any blame on Julia Robert's character is her husband, no one was asking her what she had done to get hit or yelled at.

Jewkes - Surveillance

Jewkes talks about how the advances in technology has allowed monitoring  of others to be much more easier and now it's not just in closed and confined environments where devices are being put up to watch people. How people feel about surveillance is still a big debate and especially with the constant advancements that are being made. Either people think it's a good thing or a bad thing. Surveillance can be used as deterrent to crime being committed but it doesn't always work, people have found ways to work around these kind of systems.

I'm not really a person who cares about the surveillance one way or the other, I think it's good to have the ability to advance such things in case it can help the justice system in some way.

Shawshank Redemption and Rafter Chapter Six

Shawshank was a good movie but not one of my favorites. The exaggeration in the film was a little too much for me, I don't really get why it's considered a classic other than Morgan Freeman is a freaking awesome actor and anything he touches turns gold.

Rafter talks in this chapter about the "classic" prison film, the identification with the "perfect" man, the perfect friendship, the worst criminal you can think of, the happy ending where the good guy who got put away for some stupid reason escapes either by actually escaping or dying in the end.

It's pretty easy to catch these types of characteristics in all genres of films because when a recipes works well, you don't throw it away, you use it again and again. Making a film, is a lot like baking, you want everything to turn out as good as possible so once you or someone else has figured out what brings the best taste to people's mouths, you use it all the time.

Mason - Prison

Mason explains to us the structure of prison films and how they appeal to the audience with things such as the deterrent effect, the extreme graphics and sadism that occurs. Prison films also make sure to show the dehumanizing process that all prisoners have to endure for their crimes. These films also like to constantly remind the audience of the strict routine that continues throughout prison life, lining up for food, going out to the exercise yard when you're told to. The life you lead is the life that the guards allows you to. It's like being a teenager all over again.

Besides, Shawshank Redemption, the most recent experience I've had with prisons in the media involved watching the series Prison Break last year, which fyi, it is a most excellent to watch! If I recall, it does much of what Mason talks about. Dehumanizing process, strict routines, nothing done without permission.Corrupt guards that would sometimes look away when certain things were happening, especially if they had been bribed to. Mistreatment of prisoners was a common occurrence, however, if you were on the Warden's good side, it was rare that you were mistreated and it was rare to get on the Warden's good side

Presumed Innocent and Rafter - Chapter Five

Where a District Attorney is framed for the murder of a fellow coworker and ex-lover by his wife.
I love this film, I felt that it could go either way in the end and found myself guessing every which way.
This is definitely a film I would recommend to other people for a good movie night in.

Rafter is telling us that law films are just like every other type in film in that it produces movies that fit within the changing times of society. It takes what how society currently feels about something and turns it out in an entertaining production. When it first started, films showed the law as a system that worked well with an "impartial process". However, as this image of the justice system faded, the movie system produce the same image that society was feeling.  Mistakes and prejudices in the system that made it unreliable and untrustworthy.

Without going back and watching some of the older movies, it's hard for me to say whether or not Rafter is on the right track but it all sounds good to me, she seems to know what she's talking about. It's really been interesting reading everything about how things in work in the movies and why it seems to be done all the time.

Greenfield and Osborn -Lawyers

Some of the things that Greenfield and Osborn point out in their article include how lawyers are almost always at the center of the law films and not much thought seems to be given to the judges and juries of the case. They also tell us about a recent trend that is happening within the films, "the ethical dilemma or the tension between law and justice that is played out as a battle between right and wrong or the quest for justice".

Out of all the law films I've watched that have focused specifically on a trial or something, I would definitely say that the trend suits most of them, one film I can think that doesn't is Jury Duty with Pauly Shore. Also there are some Law and Order: SVU episodes that do allow to take a glimpse at the Judge's life and some of their background.  It's a very interesting way to let the public see things as such, maybe making the way the trial goes all in the Lawyer's hands instead letting them know how important the Judge and Jury really are to the system.

Cavender and Deutsch - CSI

This article brings to our attention how CSI brings forensic science into the world of media through crime. What CSI does is use the forensics at a crime scene to solve their crimes, mostly murder. The show allows the audience to feel as if they can understand what exactly is going in the scientists heads as they look over the evidence and determine what it all means in the scheme of things. The show also portrays the fact that the perp is always going to be caught and put away without question because science has proven the victor over and over again.

I don't really watch CSI, but I do watch Bones which is another crime show that involves the use of science to get the bad guy, that and the gut of Booth. And much like the article describes, they always catch their guy by the use of science. So I'd have to say that what is being presented to us in this article is simply telling everyone what they know point blank about the show without saying it out loud.

Walking Tall

A soldier returns home to find that the town's biggest source of income has been closed down and in place a casino has been built. When his friends take him to the casino for a night out on the town, he confronts a dealer about loaded dice and ends up in a huge fight with the security, after being knocked out, he is taken to a back room and has his stomach cut up. The law does nothing but allow an in house investigation. The line is finally crossed when drugs that the casino has been dealing out to kids ends up in the hands of the Chris's nephew and  places him in the hospital. When the law again does nothing, he goes into the casino, beats up half the security staff with a plank of wood and ends up in court. After winning the case, he runs for Sheriff and is elected. He then proceeds to fire each and every one of the officers there and brings in his best friend to help him clean up the town in which he succeeds and gets the girl in the end as well.

I love this movie, I've seen it countless times and I think it displays the feelings of society very well when it comes to what they want to happen when a town is full of corruption. Everyone wants a real life hero to come and  save the people when no one else can stand up to the villains.

Dirty Harry

Dirty Harry is a movie designed to show us the good cop who likes to go outside his boundaries in order to get stuff done. Instead of waiting for the laws of the land to work their magic, he performs his own tricks. Going after Scorpio to seek the answer of where the teenage girl lies, however, these tricks do not always work out in the best way because due to Harry's actions, the DA decides they cannot charge Scorpio with the murder and therefore he is let go and is able to kidnap a whole bus full of children which leads Harry to again disobey the orders he has been given to stay away from the case and Scorpio in specific. In the end Harry kills the man and walks away from the Justice department.

I think this movie is trying to show just how slow the justice department is at working everything so that things are going according to the laws we have set up in our country and that sometimes it's necessary to take a step out of the lines in order to get things done.

Kasinsky - Cops and Media

Kasinsky offers us somewhat of an insders view about what actually occurs between the cops and the media people as opposed to what the films and tv shows us. In real life, the police work continuously with the press to come together on some of the stories about crimes that are being released to the public. They also know that if the press displays them in a bad light, everyone is going to think of them in a bad light because people get all of their information today from what the media decides to show us. Whereas in films, either the police use the media to help them solve a crime by "leaking" information or they find them completely annoying, useless, and hindering to any police work. Cops are placed into a few categories for the use of media. Good cops that use ulterior methods of getting things done. Good cops that follow all the rules. Corrupt cops that abuse their position in the system in order to get ahead, also related to criminals. Or the cops who just cannot get anything done.

Kansinky seems to nail it right on the head about everything involving cops and the media. Almost every film involving cops makes it almost too easy to place what category the cops belong in. For example, we can look at Detective Stabler from Law and Order: SVU, clearly he is one of the good cops that relies on using motives just barely inside his limits. He has no issues with using physical force to get a confession out someone he believes is a perp. Especially if the suspect could be a child molester. Whereas his partner Detective Benson belongs in the good cop category, while she'll go along with lying to the perps, rarely is ever do you see her use physical force unless a life is in immediate danger and even then she's hesitant.

Rafter- Chapter 2

Here Rafter is telling us about how films are giving us stories which allows us to think about everything surrounding a crime. The nature, causes, and consequences of it. Usually there is a theory of crime involved but it is only done so to avoid promoting a specific interpretation. Instead of looking at how movies could possibly cause crime, Rafter wants us to look at how they help us prevent crimes in the real world. She actually says the movies provided a bridge to connect the real world and our imaginations.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this article as I'm not entirely sure if movies can really prevent crimes in society. Yeah, a movie can evoke certain feelings but those feelings don't generally last longer than a few minutes. If the movie is good enough, I can see someone taking the time to at least think about how the world is working but it is a rare person indeed that seems to be moved enough to actually change their lifestyles after watching one movie.

Menace II Society

A film about growing up in a life full of crime, it tells us the story of several young man and their struggles in the streets, although there is some hope given that maybe just maybe Caine can get out of his life in the urban area, all these hopes are dashed in the end of the film where Caine is shot and the screen blacks out.

I wasn't really a big fan of this film, I felt it was too dark, while I understand that the point of the film was to try and get something done about everything that was currently going in the world at that time,  I didn't really see this film taking things anywhere but making people afraid of the urban life style or even encouraging some to continue their lives in the same manner.

Surette - Predator Criminals

What Surette is telling us that media likes to use the predator criminal to create fear, weaken social networks, increase dependence on the media while encouraging social isolation and polarization. In times of uncertainty we turn towards the media to give us the answers that we're seeking. When a criminal doesn't fit into the normal stereotypes, we turn to the media to tell us what is so special about this one guy.

I have to agree here with Surette simply because of what happened at the beginning of the semester with the Assistant Professor, one of the things that kept me interested in the case was the fact that there was something unique about him and why he acted the way he did. Media taps into the natural human curiosity and uses it to their advantage.

"Confession" Law and Order: Special Victims Unit

In this episode of Law and Order, a young man walks into the SVU to confess that he was thinking about molesting his five year old step brother.
The way the story is told, you sympathize with the young man for being courageous enough to seek help for his thoughts before he actually commits any crime from the beginning of the episode to his step father trying to frame him for pedophile (to get him out of the house) right up to his death.

I especially thought this episode was worthy to write a little something about because it is indeed a rare thing for the audience to want feel sorry for someone who thinks about molesting a child. Especially if you're a parent yourself, usually episodes containing such things make me want to punch the perp. However, the young man had yet to do anything, you simply feel sorry for him because he could not stop himself for thinking the way he could even though he tried so hard to do it. I also wanted to scream at the District Attorney in this episode because she refused to do anything to help the young man even after he confessed about "loving" his step brother in all the wrong ways.

Chermak - "Crime in News Media"

In Chermak's article he explains to us the importance that media and crime have to one another and how they both fit together to explain the public's perspective of what is going on in our world. While we do not exactly choose to be exposed to so much crime in out infotainment, it is put there by those in charge of writing the stories for us to see.
He goes through the four types of stories that media list crime stories under in order to determine where in importance they lie and just how much coverage they will receive.
4. Tertiary Crime Stories - These are the types of crimes that appear in your everyday newspaper, little more than a way to fill a small empty space while allowing the media to say that they are still keeping up on crime going on in the city. Not much effort is put into them as they are viewed with very little importance.
3. Secondary Crime Stories- Basically a tertiary story with potential. The media sees these stories with the possibility of it becoming something more. More research is done though can hardly be verified and more space is given for the piece. Usually ends up nowhere, also appears in your everyday news.
2. Primary Crime Stories - These are the stories that take up the best spaces in the paper such as the front page. Not as common as secondary and tertiary stories. Ends up covered in a variety of media and can be connected to a larger community issue. Also has good visual aids to go along with it.
1.Super Primary Stories- Stories that typically involve someone of notice and can be seen in news media world wide. These stories are known for having two or more articles concerning them written up on the same day. Over time they become Primary stories.
 Chermak concludes his article by stating that crime is an important thing for the media to keep track of and therefore they have determined an organizing process around it.

I find it interesting to know that  most of society accepts how the media handles all types of crimes. Unless something is personally affecting you, we are more than willing to sit back and read whatever the media writes for us and in the way they write it. The media uses the concept of peer pressure in a way that garners them a profit.They decide what is most important for us to know and we blindly pick up the paper each to read the headline of the day without giving more than a second thought the rest of the stories until after we are done with the first article presented to us.

Rafter - Introduction

The first part of the introduction, Rafter talks about film studies and Criminology, telling us that maybe one day, they will be brought together finally with the new studies going known as Cultural Criminology. Rafter explains how CC (Cultural Criminology)  actually refers to crime as a resource of information and how it influences the media in choosing images for causation and control of the crime that is going on. A fairly new area of study, it shows all the promise of extending the knowledge of the more traditional way of criminology.

My thoughts on the whole CC thing are ones that are hopeful, I think it would be more than interesting to see all the different links between crime and media to be found and affirmed. While I don't believe that watching violent movies will turn children into killers and rapists, I do think that everything teaches someone something, it's what that individual chooses to take from that film that counts.

The next part of the introduction, Rafter describes the four ways that she defines crime films. She brings in the use of boxes, which I find very useful, and how we can pretty much pick up a film, label it based on the characteristics of the film, and then throw it in the proper box.

It's hard not to agree with Rafter on this point because we constantly see film ideas being recycled over and over again, like baking a chocolate cake, you only change the ingredients when it tastes like coal in your mouth. The only question is, why do we as an audience find watching the same movie repeatedly entertaining? Are we really that simple minded?

Now we move onto crime films, ideology, and culture. The gist of what Rafter is telling us is that films provide us with a bit of cultural information that we keep in our head until it is needed sometime later. However, some of the information does factor into our beliefs and how we view the world as a whole. Which also affects how we mentally plan things to go about.

I definitely that Rafter knows her stuff when it comes to interpretation of the films and how the audience takes everything in. Instead of just telling people what she knows, she explains everything in a way to make sense.

Young

In Young's essay, we learn that images are a key point to crime in the media and Young makes the specific point that taking the images for granted is something that should not be done. Without such images, we can sometimes feel disconnected from what is really going on.  As Young points out with her example from Kill Bill, while we know she was raped in the hospital we do not actually feel that much of a connection to what has happened because no images were presented to us of the rape.

I feel that Young has assessed the use of images quite well because images are a gateway into another life. I know for a fact that I feel more sympathy for someone in a movie who has been tortured if I actually see the images of it happening but if the person is just telling the story, the impact just isn't nearly as great.

People respond to what they hear AND see,  everything is much more believable when the human eye can see what is going on. While there is the saying "have faith", it is simply human nature not to believe until the proof has been shown. Sure we gossip and such but gossip only brings about the curiosity. Once the curiosity is instilled, you don't just sit around and take it for what it is, you do what you can to confirm the story and that usually means seeing what the gossip is.

Yar

Yar is the one who introduces us to the three ways of dissecting the media.
Content Analysis- A self explanatory title, where someone takes the content of a movie/show/or any form of media and analyzes the content of it from their perspective. Recently it's been taken up by criminologists to study films that revolve around crime.
Personally I think this is the best option of the three because it allows one to get so many different perspectives of the film while at the same time allowing oneself to keep their own. While it may cause arguments amongst some, people are always pushing for individuality.
Next is the Marxist Approach-Films are either traditional or critical with no middle ground.
I think the Marxist Approach is too strict of a way to go because it allows no room for budging. You watch something and then you must decide between two options of what it is. In today's world, nothing so black and white that you have no grey area left.
Lastly, the Postmodern way of viewing films. Basically this way states it's impossible to have a clear cut view of any one thing, especially in films.
I have to agree with this one here, I also like to state that I think this goes along well with Content Analysis because it allows for several perspectives on films and the way people view them. To have more than one or two options about how you think about the media is really the only way to go because there are so many forms of it. Nothing about it is just plain black and white, not even the ink on the page anymore. We see colored pictures all the time.

Haywood

   Haywood begins the chapter by talking about images and how much more they have become a part of of our everyday lives. Now unless you live in an Amish community, I have to agree with with Haywood. The media has learned  quickly the ways to use the technology that surrounds us today. For example, on facebook, I find it impossible now to catch up on what my friends are doing without coming across some form of an ad.
   Talking about the images of the crime that are presented to us through many ways, from the video taken on a cell phone and posted on youtube to the picture of a crime scene printed in the newspaper, I feel like Haywood is not only trying to connect students studying crime and media but everyone that has dealt with technology in their life.
 

Crime in Media

Let's see on Tuesday night, I watched an episode of Bones, (A crime show about a forensic anthropologist who's partnered up with a FBI agent, based on a real person). It was about a bowler who was murdered and crammed up into where the pins are supposed to in a bowling alley.

Wednesday Morning, I did actually open my paper to read the story concerning Katy Benoit's murder, although I knew everything the paper had to say from other sources.
Thursday Morning, I again opened the paper to read more on the murder, and I would just like to point out that they have their facts wrong... Katy did not die at her place of residence, she died in the hospital. I have a friend who works there and when she left work that night, Katy was still alive.
I watched an episode of Teen Mom, it's relevant because there was some legal issues going on with one of the moms and her physically attacking the father of her child.
I have probably taken in some other media involving crime but I wasn't really paying attention to some of what I was watching due to the fact that I was doing other homework. But anyways, I still think it's amazing that crime is basically a common thing in our lives now. For instance, not a day goes by that I don't hear sirens.
People are no longer surprised at the violence that happens everyday, I mean sure they get shocked when it happens to them or someone they know simply because we chose to tell ourselves that something like that can never happen to us and then it does and we're like, what?
However, we watch it on TV all the time and are not shocked by the nature of the crimes anymore, sometimes we don't want to believe it but the shock still isn't there. We are a society that has accepted that crime will happen, hence all the punishments set into place by the legal system. Why prepare for something that won't happen?

I believe on Friday, I again watched another episode of Bones, but I didn't get too far into it because I fell asleep soon after it started. I didn't open the paper either because I was busy with getting Liam's birthday party into place.

 This morning, (Saturday) I opened the paper and again read more on the murder of Katy Benoit. I think it's ridiculous at how much the newspaper is milking this story for how much they're doing so. I understand that it's a big deal that a student was murdered but I absolutely do not like how the news is choosing to constantly remind students of the tragedy. Yes, none of us are likely to forget, but to have it shoved in our faces as much as it has been this past week is helping none of us.
I was watching Beethoven with my son, and in the beginning, the first crime appears where the two guys are stealing the puppies from the pet store.
On Sunday I kinda watched some Law and Order: SVU. What really happened is I was watching a movie on tv and then fell asleep and woke up to the show and I just left on there but I wasn't really paying too much attention to the show because I had seen the episode before.

C'est Moi!

Hey, well my name's Hannah. I'm a sophomore here at the University of Idaho, majoring in Sociology with emphasis on Criminology.

A  big part of my life involves being a mother to my two year old son William, mostly known as Liam. He's got red hair and momma's big brown eyes :) With the support of my family, I made it through High School and all the way here!! Yay!! Go me! 

I'm also a member of the Vandal Marching Band, I do colorguard, pretty much it's my job to make the band look good. Lots of fun but it doesn't come without work! I'm really thankful how helpful all the professors here at U of I are, and also how understanding everyone can be. In the past year alone, I have learned more than I thought possible and am just really glad that I don't have to be that typical teen mom who drops out of high school and never finishes her education.
Also if you notice the URL, you'll see it says sociology, that's because I set up this blog account for my soc class I took over the summer and I just deleted all of that and am now using it for this class... this is also not my gmail account, I couldn't remember my password so I used my exes.. which he is completely fine with.