1. First, listen to Sentencing, Act One, from the podcast This American Life: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/143/sentencing
(The whole podcast is very educational and interesting, listen to the rest if the topic intrigues you).
In this case, Dorothy was sentenced under the conspiracy laws, something discussed in lecture. The prosecutor’s reasoning for being steadfast about her sentence was due to his concern about the impact drugs have on families. With that line of reasoning, how does enforcing conspiracy laws on women impact their children and families? Is the enforcement of conspiracy laws helpful (as the prosecutor argues) or harmful (as Dorothy argues)? Support your contentions with materials from lecture, the readings, and the podcast.
Respond to student(jamaya)
Enforcing conspiracy laws in women affect them and their families. It takes away from their children’s upbringing for long periods of time. These laws should definitely be seen as too harsh. How is it that rape first offense has way less years than these drug crimes? Although both are crimes, rape can be seen as much worse than drug offenses; mentally and physically. Gaines was sentenced to 19 years even though there was no physical evidence of any drugs. “If you have knowledge of a conspiracy, or benefit, or have some tiny role in a conspiracy, you can be accused of all the drugs in the conspiracy” (Sentencing, Act One). Just by listening to this part in the podcast, I will say that enforcing conspiracy laws are harmful as Dorothy argues. The fact that if a person is unknown of carrying around drugs or didn’t know anything about what was going to happen and still being punished- sentenced these long amount of years is too harsh.
This podcast overall was interesting and the lecture from this week definitely boosted my knowledge about conspiracy laws. “Once a conspiracy is established… every participant in the conspiracy to commit a drug offense can be held liable for actions… or existence of others” (Lecture). This stood out because it is not only harsh, but takes women away from their families. What kind of example does this set for their children and upcoming generations ?
Respond to Student(Courtney)
Enforcing conspiracy laws on women impacts their children and family alot of course. Especially in single parent house holds this would take a major toll on the family dinamic, seperating childing, and possibly placing them in the foster care system. I also think conspiracy laws can take an effect on male criminals just as much as women. I would say the conspiracy laws are harmful to the offender and their family then it is to the public. If other drug dealers see the reprocussions for crimes like these we can only hope that people involed with drug dealing will stop and will not encourage others to be apart of this life style of quick money. I understand many people will look at federal charges like this as harsh, but we must look at the bigger problem with how if effects people across the country, and families across the country. Someone may get a lengthy prison sentence but I am certain so many lives will be saved due to punishments like this.
2. Using one of the two articles from the readings for this week, explain why a gender pespective is important to the issue(s) raised in the article.
Respond to student (Ashley)
After reading the article about pat-frisks, gender perspective is super important regarding cross-gender pat-frisks. The article states how “no regard was paid to the psychological effect this procedure would have on the female inmates” (Weiser 2002). We know women are more likely than men to be sexually abused and most of these incarcerated women were. Gender perspective is important in this situation due to these women having experienced sexual assault and them feeling uncomfortable having a male officer touch them in such ways. After reading this article, it’s actually shocking that male officers are allowed to do this to women knowing it can be traumatizing to them.
Respond to Student(Amber)
The issue being addressed in the reading by Weiser is cross-gender pat-frisks. These pat-frisks allowed male guards to search female inmates and touch their breasts, crotch area, and upper thighs. A gender perspective is important to this issue because this policy affects these womens lives tremendously. Weiser says that this policy was put into place with no regard to the psychological effects it would cause to these women. At the time of this being implented, 85% of the female inmates had been victims of physical or sexual abuse. Having male guards do this is an invasion of privacy and can lead to even more trauma. The courts still have not declared this policy unconsitutional under the Fourth Amendment. I don’t think this policy should have ever been implemented due to the invasion of privacy and the damage it causes. Weiser even states that one female had to have her fingers pried loose from the bars she was holding onto during the search and then she vomitted afterwards.
