A Just Verdict?

source

A few days ago, Dharun Ravi, the college student who filmed his gay roommate, Tyler Clementi, with another man a few days before Tyler killed himself, was sentenced. Ravi faced up to ten years in prison because he was convicted on fifteen counts, including four counts of bias intimidation (a type of hate crime), and seven of tampering with evidence and witnesses. However, he was only sentenced to 30 days in jail. This sentence does come with a 10,000 dollar fine and three years probation, but he is still serving less than .01% of the maximum sentence.

This has led many to question whether or not the judge made the right decision. But before we get into that, it is important remember the details of the case. I myself had an inaccurate understanding of what occurred. I was under the impression that Ravi had put videos of Tyler having sex on the internet. However, "Ravi did not tweet or otherwise disseminate pictures of Clementi engaged in sexual activity." Ravi did post a tweet about the fact that he had seen Clementi with another man and said that he would post pictures the next time, but he did not follow through with the threat. And he did not record Clementi having sex, but rather just watched him kissing him for a few seconds.

While this is immoral and cruel, I'm not sure it warrants ten years in jail. And what's more, although his actions would probably have been subject to school disciplinary actions, "it is impossible to imagine Ravi being prosecuted on criminal charges were it not for Clementi's suicide." But, the state never tried to prove a link between Ravi's actions and Tyler's suicide. Although I find it hard to believe they did not contribute, I also do not think that they were enough to drive someone to suicide. While Tyler's suicide seems to probably be the effects of anti-gay bullying, it is not likely that Ravi's actions alone produced such a profound effect. Rather, Ravi was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. And while his actions were cruel and deserve punishment, he did not deserve ten years in jail and the full blame for Tyler's suicide.

Some people are claiming that this was a misapplication of hate crime statutes, saying they “are being stretched to go after teenagers who acted meanly, but not violently. That’s not what civil rights statutes are for.” I disagree with this view. While I do think that the prosecution of Ravi was overzealous and he did not deserve ten years in jail, I'm not sure that it didn't warrant hate crime status. And even if you don't think Ravi's actions deserved hate crime status, there are plenty of similar actions that would warrant it - such as if he had actually filmed and posted online videos of Tyler having sex. One possible misapplication of the laws that did not end up having much effect does not make the laws invalid.

The Rise of Can't-Help-Yourself Books

A while ago, I wrote a post called "The Ultimate Form of Storytelling" about how according to much research, our unconscious mind is in control of what we do and the role of the conscious is simply to narrate the actions into a cohesive story (more or less). Today, I found an article in the New York Times titled "The Amygdala Made Me Do It" (the amygdalae are groups of nuclei in the brain that play a large role in emotional emotional reactions), that discusses the explosion of many books that argue similar things.

The author cleverly titles them "Can't-Help-Yourself-Books" in contrast to the ever-popular self-help books. Books such as "Imagine: How Creativity Works," "The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business," "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and "Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior" all fall into this category, and have been topping best seller lists recently. All these books make an effort to demonstrate that most all of the time, we're not actually in charge of what we're doing. From there , some argue we can change through various ways - for example, just developing new habits because it's actually almost impossible to just stop a habit. They work to show how we can re-wire our brains so that everything we do that we don't have control over goes more in our favor.

But, the author asks, "Why now?" What has us suddenly deciding we would rather read about how difficult it will be to change but that we can change a little if we really try, and not super-motivational self help books? The author suggests that it stems from a new attempt to "scientize" how we think about the brain, using the new technology that has allowed brain scans and other such research tools.

But what he doesn't address is why we are suddenly interested in that idea? Why are these books successful? There are a lot of new fields that have not become immediately popular like this neuroscience (sort of, I hate to call it that, it's a little less legitimate than neuroscience) has, there is no reason that people would want to read three or four books on the subject just because it's true. There are a lot of true things out there. Why have we turned to Can't-Help-Yourself Books rather than Self-Help Books? Is it just because one has scientific research? I would say that the appeal of Can't-Help-Yourself Books is the ability to absolve oneself from guilt and to not feel so bad about continuing to give in to the temptation of cookies and chocolate, but at the same time, many of these books lead to the suggestion that there really is no such thing as free will. Are we ready to accept this?

Decline and the Derby

After watching the Kentucky Derby today, as I do every year, I was wondering if everyone else also watches it yearly. I have always assumed that in general people do watch it, because it's so quick and easy to understand (unlike the Superbowl, which I tend to skip). But I definitely don't watch it because I like horse-racing. I like horses quite a lot, but right now it's about ten minutes after the race ended and I've already forgotten the name of the winner.

Horses racing at Belmont. Source

Well, it turns out that while I am not incorrect in thinking that the Derby is a big deal (though of course it can't compare to the Superbowl). Nearly a quarter of a million people attend, 100 million dollars change hands in the bets and over 14 million watch. This is a bit of an anomaly in a sport that has been rapidly declining.

The death of horse racing has been linked to the increase in other forms of legalized gambling and frequents scandals over the abuse of racing horses. With slot machines and other legal gambling increasing, there is less appeal to horse races, especially for the younger generation. Many horse racing tracks have opened casinos next to or in them, and these have become the main source of income, especially at the lowest levels of racing. Horse racing as a legal gambling option just doesn't have the pull it once did.

And rise in concern over animal rights and the poor treatment of racing horses has also put the industry down. As horses have become worth less than the possible prizes, owners are more and more willing to just pump injured or old horses full of drugs and hope for the best. This can often result in horses collapsing during races and having to be euthanized. And with more and more animal rights organizations and increased public concern over animal rights, this has not made the industry very popular.

Yet somehow, even after the collapse of Eight Belles in 2008, the Derby has remained just as, if not more popular as it used to be. Nicholson of the New York Times says we should blame this on the "nostalgia" and "timelessness" of the race. It's traditions of hats, roses, and mint juleps have kept the race popular - especially in times of depression. Some of the highest attendance occurred during the Great Depression, after Watergate, and in 2011. So Nicholson argues that rather than try to update the sport to appeal to a younger generation, the industry should capitalize on the tradition of it all.

I think that while the tradition has certainly guarded the Derby from the decline experienced by other races, it is it's singular status that gives it that appeal. I don't want to watch more than one horse race a year. And tradition also cannot really be manufactured. While some horse races may be able to pull a few more visitors based on a traditional thing, these people are likely to go only for nostalgia, and not become regular fans. But fans of horseback riding still exist. Searching "horseback riding lessons" brings up almost 5,000,000 hits on Google. And in my experience, most people who take horseback riding lessons are young, and only the true enthusiasts keep with it through high school or even middle school. The fascination with pony rides has not stopped for young children. So, why not market horse races to a younger audience? The emphasis on gambling and alcohol would have to decrease sharply, but that's clearly not working for the industry. And on-track horse deaths would have to pretty much disappear, but that's likely going to have to happen anyways, with animal rights organizations paying an increased amount of attention to the industry.

What do you think? Can horse races survive in their current form? How can the industry rebuild itself?

What a Wantologist Wants

In the New York Times, I read an opinion piece by Hochschild called "The Outsourced Life." But it's not about outsourcing as we normally think of it, shipping manufacturing jobs overseas. No, it's about the outsourcing of personal life - the commodification of everything from relationships to happiness.

To begin the story, he visits a Wantologist. Apparently, there is a profession (well, actually a subset of psychologist, it seems) where you can be hired to figure out for someone what they want. Are we becoming so insecure that somehow we cannot even trust our selves to figure out what we want? Even DeLillo could only come up with walking and sitting classes as the pinnacle of ridiculousness - how about a class on how to figure out what you want? Now, studying why we want what we want is a difficult and legitimate cause. And I am not trying to disparage psychology or anything like that.
But, as the author notes after detailing a case where someone was helped by the wantologist, it seemed like the "client just needed a good friend who could listen sympathetically and help her work out her feelings." People do need help with seemingly very simple decisions sometimes. Sometimes, I'll ask parents and friends for advice even when I've pretty much already decided what I'm going to do, just because I want reassurance that I'm taking the right path. I think that's normal. But what is odd, is that this woman paid somebody to do this for her.

Paid services like this have skyrocketed in recent years. The author notes that not only have services like psychologists gone from 2,500 in the late 1940s to 77,000 in 2010 - plus "an additional 50,000 marriage and family therapists," but entirely new jobs have popped up - from wedding planners to dating services to life coaches. But have any of these services actually made us any happier? Aren't divorces at an all time high, despite all those marriage counselors? Why have we turned what used to be the job of our social support network of friends and family into a paid service?