Author Archives: Sophie M

Interview with Dr. Sexton: Response and Reflection

Posted on by

I interviewed Dr. Jason Sexton, a sociologist who studies theology and the prison system, and the ways they intersect. We met before his talk on his new academic work that will soon be published; the prison and its eugenic logic. During our meeting, we discussed his thoughts and ideas on my research project, and touched on his advice for me regarding how to go forward in the field of law, specifically working towards post-conviction representation. 

During my meeting with Dr. Sexton, he told me a bit about his personal background and how he was formerly incarcerated. I won’t repeat what he told me about this, as I didn’t get his express permission to do so. I did, however, find what he told me very interesting, as being in any U.S. carceral system is sure to be an extremely difficult experience; making the things he achieved after being released even more admirable. He received a PhD from the University of St. Andrews, after which he became a professor of sociology at UCLA. 

He suggested a few pieces of literature to me which I’ve been looking into, and I’m sure will be helpful to the theory I will later use to justify my study’s findings: Discipline and Punish by Foucault, an academic journal titled Punishment and Society, which he mentioned discusses the length of exoneration processes of POC vs non-POC, Robert Ferguson’s work (specifically Inferno and Anatomy of American Punishment) and other broader sociological examinations of punishment and the prison system. He also suggested to me to look at an article titled “The Criminal Is to Go Free” by Johnathan Simon- which brings up the doctrine first written about by Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, “the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered”. This phrase and doctrine was recently brought up by Chief Justice Roberts and cited in Haring vs. U.S.; evidence obtained through a violation of one’s constitutional rights cannot be used against them. We discussed how this idea seems to be incongruent with the notion that the law can’t admit it’s wrong and maintain authority. This, along with the other theory and explanations for my findings we discussed, was one of my main takeaways from our interview. I think this idea of the constable and the criminal will be very important in my theoretical analysis, and I intend to read further into the topic. 

Dr. Sexton also made a few suggestions on how to analyze the data I have. He added that I should consider looking into class issues, and how financial means can greatly affect one’s experience in the justice system. He believes that class is also a very important demographic to look at, specifically examining who the law more readily punishes, in addition to race. One of my other main takeaways from our interview was that I can, and should, critique the system within my explanation of my results. Evidently I understand that there are many problems within the justice system, but I didn’t feel I had the authority to properly critique them. Dr. Sexton gave me the idea of adding his research findings and Griset lecture topic to my study; that the American prison comes from persistent eugenic logic. Additionally, he also mentioned something in our meeting that stood out to me; DNA and DNA exonerations will not change the system. Even though this may seem evident, I had not thought of prescribing remedies to the system in this way. DNA evidence truly does not prevent racial, gender, or class prejudice. I intend to look further into this, both for my capstone and personal interest. This felt like a big step forward to me in this research project, because I will now look into DNA vs. non-DNA exonerations, and possibly how race or class plays a role in who gets access to DNA analysis. Relatedly, Dr. Sexton and I discussed the exploitative plea bargaining system in the U.S., and how I could incorporate critiques of this system within my research. 

He also had some professional advice for me: to apply to UC Berkeley law, UCI law, and UC Hastings law. He also encouraged me to keep my GPA up, and continue to pursue work at the Innocence Project. 

Related articles on the “the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered”, and work by Dr. Sexton:

Continuing to Learn and Educate for Shared Humanity: Day 1; Conversations between Jews and Palestinians for a Better Tomorrow

Posted on by

Continuing to Learn and Educate for Shared Humanity: Day 1

Conversations between Jews and Palestinians for a Better Tomorrow

By: Sophie M

Since this event, I have been thinking even more than I had previously about the horrors occurring in Palestine. I follow independent journalists on the ground in Gaza named Bisan Owda and Motaz Azaiza, and I have been more frequently watching their videos. I find their journalism especially impactful because it is not filtered through American news sites with biases etc. I have been, but every day I become more appalled, disgusted, saddened, angry, and shocked. I don’t personally know anyone in the area of the conflict, but I couldn’t imagine how I’d feel if I did. I have so much empathy for those with loved ones in Israel-Palestine. I just felt it was right to start off with some of my feelings on the issue. I struggle to figure out how to word any of my opinions and feelings, or even format this piece of writing. I have no authority on the topic, and I think that the best thing for me to do, generally, is step back and support those who are affected and more educated than I am. 

I agreed with my classmates’ critiques of the talk from the brief conversation we had in class; I wish that Omar Dajani and Mira Sucharov had talked more in detail about what “shared humanity dialogue” looks like in practice. I really appreciated when they walked the audience through how they worked out their conflicts with the NYT sexual violence article. I agree with others that I wish they did more of this, because I think what students really need to learn during this issue is how to move forward in conversations with loved ones and friends, where there might be differing opinions and backgrounds. I know I have personally experienced this with friends and family, and I could use the advice on how to navigate these kinds of conversations. 

 From a peace studies perspective, something that stood out to me from the talk was the two speaker’s views on the call to “globalize the intifada”. I thought it was very interesting to hear about what each of them thought of this phrase and how they took it, given their cultural backgrounds. Hearing their differing perspectives, and in detail, was very interesting, especially when it is difficult to find and verify information on the issue as the conflict progresses. Dajani spoke about how the “intifada” (translating to “resistance” or “shaking off”), for him, means resistance, at its core. He said that as a Palestinian, he sees the call as a push for an expansion of the resistance against the horrors currently occurring in his home. Sucharov, however, had different views as someone who identifies as Jewish. She saw this phrase as more intimidating, and as encouraging the commission of violence against Jews, all over the world.

Something else I also liked that Sucharov mentioned was the different definitions of Zionism, and the perspectives Jewish people have on the concept when presented with the differing definitions. She spoke about how the majority of Jewish people support the theoretical, more idyllic definition of Zionism; a safe place for Jewish people. But, when given the definition of Zionism as it functions now, as the preference and privilege of Jewish people over other peoples, the vast majority of Jews are not in support. I had never really thought about these different definitions and their implications, and it’s interesting to read the news from the multiple sources I consume in this context now.  

 

Peace Sign Icon - On Our Sleeves