On July 26, notorious (at least in Cambodia) Khmer Rouge jailer Kaing Guek E=
av was sentenced to 35 years in prison for his role in the deaths of 14,000 C=
ambodians. Eav’s conviction was met with widespread dismay and disappointme=
nt (See Seth Mydans, Prison Term for Khmer Rouge Jailer Leaves many Dissatis=
fied, The New York Times, A4, July 27, 2010).

One of Eav’s victims stated, “We are victims two times, once in Khmer Rouge t=
ime and now once again … His prison is comfortable, with air conditioning,=
food three times a day, fans and everything … I sat on the floor with fil=
th and excrement all around.”

Eav has something else that his victims did not have, certainty. He has cer=
tainty that he will not die at the whim of another. Certainty that he will n=
ot face torture. And certainty that he is free from persecution by those he=
harmed. And he doesn’t even have to apologize. Not a bad deal at all.

But atrocity is different. This punishment should be different. Eav’s sent=
ence amounts to just under one day per death. Not what Cambodians view as f=
air and just punishment. We can’t sentence genocide perpetrators to death, t=
he U.N. won’t allow it. But life in prison doesn’t seem to cut it. Too muc=
h ability for the wrongdoer to “put things behind them” and get on with thei=
r lives (if even in prison).

How can we remind them, every day, of what they have done? In a way, perhap=
s, that would make us want to keep them alive, so they will not forget.

Visitation. Yes, I said visitation. Why can’t the survivors, and even the f=
amily of Eav’s victims visit, every day, overstaying their welcome (perhaps e=
ven staying through lunch) to remind him of what he did, again and again, ov=
er and over, every day for the rest of his life.

Catharsis for the victims and their families, daily uncertainty and remembra=
nce for the perpetrator of genocide. Moral justice?

-Dave.=

I was having dinner with friends a few weeks ago and, for better or worse, the conversation strayed into the land of politics. Someone relatively new to the group (or at least new to me) asked me something about a recent political event — I don’t particularly remember the topic — and before I could muster a response, another group member (a closer friend) blurted out “don’t you know, he’s a republican!” This led to exasperation and about five minutes of questioning. I let them know that I am, in fact, not a republican or a democrat and that I run with who I think will do the best job running the country. I am conservative but also believe in gay marriage and stem cell research, am pro-choice, etc. Ultimately, frustrated, I changed the conversation, and that was that.

Later, I got to thinking how being a republican/conservative (or at least not being a liberal/democrat) in New York City is now deemed morally reprehensible. Despite being an obvious part of the U.S., our NYC culture — or at least my NYC culture — has become a one-trick political pony and the great citizens of NYC seem to think it is acceptable. Obviously, I disagree, but feel like I’m in the minority.

-Colin F.

Racial discrimination.  I know, that’s not a complete sentence.  But
it is a term that can fill the mind with a multitude of ideas,
experiences, stories, historical dates, etc.  A term that opens the
door to so many levels of ignorance.  It is amazing that in a
civilized society with nothing but mixed races this still exists.
Even more amazing, is that grown men and women in political roles that
manage such a society continue to use this as a way of political
manipulation.

Maybe I’m idealistic, or just absolutely insane, maybe even
idealistically insane, but I have never understood how the labeling of
one’s skin tone was ever to be an indicator of one’s race.  Especially
in a country that has evolved into one of immigrants from all over the
world, with different skin tones, accents, and physical features.  I
can’t remember the last time I looked at someone and said “Oh, they
must be Mexican.” Yes, I said Mexican on purpose.  That is one of my
favorites, because I am consistently confronted with people in the
restaurant business who think Mexican’s have specific skin tones and
physical features.  I speak Spanish, and many of the employees who
work in the “back of the house” are at least second generation
American, or Peruvian, or Guatemalan, or Ecuadorian, or human being.
Yet, even people in an authoritative position will call “them”
Mexicans.  Even I have to separate “them” to make this point.

It is absolutely ridiculous to consider a group of people separate
because of the way they look.  The common thread between them being
what again?  Because if I remember correctly we all have the same main
components.  The reality is you can have a fair skinned or dark
skinned Mexican, Guatemalan, Peruvian, African, French, Chinese, all
of the above, or again, just simply a human being.  Absolutely
shocking to consider that we are all human beings who simply have
different skin tones, hair types, eye colors, heights, and
geographical locations that we were born in.

Now, I hope it isn’t too obvious that I distinguish skin by tone and
not color considering the fact that black is not a color, and although
white is a combination of all colors in the color spectrum and has
been argued as technically being a color, I have never met someone who
actually matches the Crayola crayons of white or black.  We were all
born on the same planet.  I know it sounds hippiesh, but it is
nonetheless a fact.  And yet the separation of land is a
distinguishing factor of laws, culture, living standards, and skin
color?  Does skin color have anything in common with the words laws,
culture, living standards?  Did I mention that skin color does not
actually exist, but instead what people are referring to is skin tone?
 This is important because when you start realizing that there is no
skin color, but only skin, that has different tones you realize that
we all have the same thing, coming in one package that is either
lighter or darker, with freckles or without, hair or no hair, rash or
no rash, etc.

For some reason the words skin and color together have a place in many
people’s minds.  I don’t get it.  I never will understand how people
can be so ignorant to how the world has evolved, how people have mixed
together, how a person can have European, Asian, African ancestry and
yet have the lightest to darkest skin tone.  Maybe I’m rambling, and
this has no place on this blog.  But when I think of culture and the
law I can’t help but make the mistake that so many others make and
fall into the race card.  I can’t help but notice how culturally we
are constantly bombarded by this idea of skin tone being a color that
distinguishes race.  For me, I’ve never seen black, white, light,
dark, those factors are not an automatic trigger to any thought
process I have ever had.

I appreciate culture.  I don’t just appreciate it, I eat, drink, and
experience culture.   But I don’t get why so many are unable to
appreciate these differences and instead have a fear of these
differences to the extent that labeling them is a necessity.  To the
extent that our own white house hears a dark skinned woman talking
about a light skinned family and doesn’t take the two second click of
a button to pull up the entire video and hear her say it’s about the
poor vs. those who have, and not about black or white.

Liana E. Reyes

Goldman Sacs purchased insurance against the Abacus fund in hopes that when the fund did fail they investment firm would recoup more capital on the insurance then what the fund was initially worth. From Goldman’s perspective their success depended on the demise of their clients investments; the more money that was invested in the fund from the clients the higher the insurance payout to the firm if and when it collapsed.

Goldman Sachs wasn’t the only corporation during the subprime mortgage to take advantage of other people’s misfortunes it was merely one of many that have gained billions of dollars by relying on the failure of others. In the housing market there was a large public outcry against the “misery profiteers” but the housing market isn’t the only sector affected by this form of profiteering. More and more companies are seeking ways to exploit the misfortune of other human beings and citizens.

It seems as if society has acquiesced to the fact that it is an accepted business practice for companies to profit from the downfall of the general public. There are even companies that have started to develop trading practices in life insurance policies. Companies purchase life insurance from elderly and ailing people at a discounted rate to collect the full amount of insurance policy when the policyholder dies. This type of profiteering from misery is becoming all the more common in today’s society with little objection from the public.

The professionalization of society has reached a point that there are arguably no sectors of business that are considered immoral to the general public. It is this form of degradation of society that makes human rights violations much easier to occur in a modern world because general public’s detach themselves from a moral mindset when it involves areas of business.

The concept of having life insurance is to ensure that those who care for you are taken care of after you pass away. Instead life insurance policies are now being used to benefit big businesses. A point of concern for the general public is that businesses may start targeting some of the elderly sellers of life-insurance policies because they are more vulnerable to being persuaded.

There was a time when there was no separation between the individual’s morality and what they did for living. In pursuit of money society has separated what we do for money and our morality but are we sacrificing just the notion that morality is attached to a profession or are we sacrificing our society’s morality as a whole?

By: Andre Philogene

There is no question that Polanski is a cinematic poet and perhaps on the surface it is hard to reconcile his talent with his admission that he plied a young girl with alcohol and then sexually assaulted her despite her protestations. Polanski accepted a plea agreement and plead guilty to the lesser offense of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but that doesn’t change the fact that what he did constituted rape. Just because Polanski gave his victim Quaaludes and champagne and assaulted her in a posh Los Angeles mansion rather than violently in some dark alley, doesn’t change the inherent brutality of the offense itself. Dismissing the crime as a minor blip on one’s moral radar fails to acknowledge the serious emotional and psychological effects of sexual victimization.

While Polanski’s celebrity status may have influenced Switzerland’s decision to set him free, the Swiss are pointing the finger at US courts regarding ambiguity over whether Polanski already served his sentence.Polanski had been interned in a state prison for forty-two days for psychiatric evaluation prior to formal sentencing but fled before his punishment could be meted out so wherein lies the ambiguity? Forty-two days is hardly a punishment befitting the severity of his crime-a crime that was further exacerbated by his escape and ongoing absentia.

One of the tragic ironies in all this is that Polanskireceived the plea bargain not as a result of administrative convenience as is usually the case, but rather because the victim’s mother did not want to subject her daughter to the scrutiny and turmoil of a public trial. In the end, however, Polanski’s self-serving escape served to drag the drama out over the course of over three decades, robbing the victim of closure- one of the key things initially bargained for.

The victim, Samantha Geimer, claims that this latest development in the ongoing saga has resulted in a severe disruption of her life and that every headline causes her to relive an experience she has worked hard to forget. She has gone on record several times asking American authorities to drop the case against Polanski andperhaps this most recent development will mark the final chapter in this controversy. While I feel that Polanski should have paid for his crime and that no one despite their brilliance or affluence should consider themselves above the law, I feel compelled to give deference to the victim in this case. Too often the concerns, desires and expectations of victims are subjugated by our legal system and allowed to fade imperceptibly into the background. Now that Samantha Geimer is old enough to speak for herself, we owe it to her to listen.

By: Annette M. Juriaco

By Eun Jung Kim

Everyone should agree that this verbal and physical abuse are domestic
violence and unacceptable. Also, his words while attacking Grigorieva
indicate that Gibson is very likely a racist and misogynist.
Accordingly, his actions should be widely condemned. This is made all
the more true by the fact that this is not the first time Gibson has
behaved and spoken in an absolutely deplorable manner. Many may have
forgotten that back in 2006, Gibson was stopped for drunk driving and
while being questioned proceeded on an anti-Semitic tirade. It would
seem that Hollywood had largely forgiven him for this incident.

This time, no one should be quick to forgive or explain away his
actions. The message needs to be that you can’t hit a woman. You can’t
threaten her on multiple occasions. You can’t lace these threats with
racial epithets. These are simply unacceptable actions and a person
shouldn’t be able to continue as a respected public figure after
having committed them. But unfortunately, this isn’t the message that
is being sent. It is clear that multiple studios and production
companies have projects in the works with Gibson. Rather than
condemning his actions and saying that they will not work with someone
who is an apparently despicable person, these organizations have
remained silent.

There are times when silence may be acceptable in order to not
increase the drama surrounding an event. But in this case, silence
implies acceptance of Gibson and his actions. These were not mere
verbal gaffes that can be ignored or explained away. They indicate a
history of discriminatory thoughts and behavior, as well as a history
of domestic abuse. Studios and colleagues must step forward to clearly
enunciate that they do not believe this behavior is acceptable and
that they will not support Gibson by continuing to work with him.
Anything else simply continues the disrespect and indignity Gibson
began.

Too often we allow people who have behaved in an appalling manner to
be quickly forgiven and then we forget about their actions and
continue to allow them into our homes and support them in their
endeavors. While forgiveness may have its benefits, it’s also
important to realize that sometimes this can’t really be given, and we
most certainly can’t forget a person’s actions. To do so does not
honor those people who were victims and only sends the message that
the behavior is somehow acceptable. Those who have not stepped
forward to recognize the truth and condemn Gibson’s actions are
sending precisely this message.

By Nicole E. Wise

On May 16th, 2010, around 9:30pm, a 23-year-old Chinese woman was
raped and beaten by a sharp metal swing/pipe, and died one week later
in Flushing of New York. The woman came to USA as a student just two
months before her death, and worked in a nail salon to save money for
her law school study. A Mexican drunk man dragged her into an alley
along the road, smashed her head with a pipe and raped her. However,
several surveillance video cameras showed that at least 2 or 3 people
ignored the victim’s cry for help during the twenty minutes.

Here, I hope that the murderer will be punished as soon as possible.
He deserves the worst punishment in this world from the revenge
perspective. But what I want everybody to perceive today are that when
the murderer beat the victim’s head for more than 50 times, she cried
for help for 20 minutes, the attack place is just right by the busy
road, and the time is only around 9:30pm. How come only one person who
witnessed the scene called 911 after twenty minutes? Let us suppose
that other passersby were too worried about the safety of themselves.
But at least they can call 911 at once, and a young life might be
saved due to this call. Yes, these people might say what is wrong with
them because they did not do anything wrong. They are innocent even
though they witnessed the accident. The reasoning is that they did not
have any action. But no action doesn’t mean they did the right thing.
In the movie “The accused”, the bystanders witnessed and did not do
anything but applauded while the girl was raped. The court finally
confirmed applause is an action. So the bystanders were convicted. It
is the same thing as in this murder case, and there are two murderers
in this brutal case: one is the murderer, another are the people who
ignored the attack. I strongly recommend that the prosecutors not only
charge the murderer, but the passersby. Bystanders are not innocent in
this case. They should stand before the court with the murderer, and
they deserve to be charged. In USA, some states do have such laws to
regulate the bystanders, such as the Good Samaritans. But these laws
are not really enforced in these states. Therefore, the passersby,
bystanders have no duty to rescue the victims even they saw the crime
scene. “The legal system is only interested in the body in motion,…
the body at rest….. is paradoxically beyond the law’s reach, outside
the range of its radar.” “If [the duty to rescue] exists, it is
entirely a moral one, and not one that is mandated under the law.” 1
Therefore, whether or not the passersby want to save the victim, there
is no law to mandate them to do such duty to rescue, which means they
are not obligated to do the rescue thing. The only way they might feel
guilty is from morality and ethics.

Footnote:
1. The Myth of Moral Justice by Thane rosenbaum, chapter 15, p259