by Lawrence Kaplan

My friend Irv is a ridiculously careful driver. His wife and children nag him about speeding up to make the next light. When he drives only the speed limit (always), drivers behind honk, flash their lights, finally pass him screaming obscenities and resorting to sign language. Irv gets good driver discounts, never got a ticket, and, g-d forbid, certainly never had an accident.

Irv drove me home on a rainy and moonless night with his usual caution, crawling his way down poorly lit streets with parked cars lining both sides of the roads. As my friend passed an illegally parked truck, the man in the black raincoat, an intoxicated father of two, hidden in the darkness, staggered into the path of our car. The collision destroyed the body in the raincoat and the spirit of my friend; One mangled on the outside, the other hollowed on the inside.

The legal decision, at least as far as the insurance companies were concerned, seemed simple enough. Irv’s insurance took care of one of the victims; death and bodily injuries are fully covered. My friend was pleased they blamed him for it: he knew it provided for the children of the man in the black raincoat. But Irv’s suffering in silence was unrecompensed.

He was assured by all that this was not his fault. Surely the alcoholic bears most of the blame. What about the bartender that served him? The truck for parking illegally and blocking his view. The city for not providing better street lighting. There may be moral responsibility in all. A lawyer would argue contributory negligence, and a reasonable man would take none of the blame. But Irv was compassionate, introspective, caring, responsible, concerned and in the eyes of the law, most unreasonable. He was a man you wanted as your friend but never as your lawyer. He sat at home, took a few weeks off of work, then months, then years. His children suffered as greatly as the children of the man in the black raincoat did.

As viewed from my perspective in the passenger seat, the real tortfeasor was the man in the black raincoat, but legally Irv could never state a claim for his pain. Nor would this unreasonable man have ever considered it.

In a world of moral justice, there would be forums and time for victims to express their grief and to tell their stories. But where is the forum for this well meaning and unintentional tortfeasor who suffers with guilt, shame and hollowness? Where is there a court that will let him explain his guilt and reassure him he does not bear all the blame?

By: M.J.S.

Despite the lack of a legal duty to rescue, people will usually at
least think about helping a fellow man in need, the moral twinge of
conscience nagging them to do the “right” thing. While the average
person will typically give no more than this fleeting thought and
casually move on with their day, some people, affectionately known as
Good Samaritans, act on their moral compulsions and assist, often in
the face of danger.

Several weeks ago, one of these Good Samaritans encountered the fate
of the victim he intended to protect, and was stabbed, ultimately
dying as a result. Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax was attempting to intervene
when a knife-wielding man threatened a woman nearby. The fact that
Tale-Tax was injured, fatally at that, should come as no surprise; it
is one of the central reasons that people choose to remain uninvolved
(and of course, the desire to avoid subsequent litigation). However,
it is hard to extend the same rationale when a man is lying in the
street bleeding to death, with the assailant long since departed. Over
the course of an hour, passerbys witnessed Tale-Tax dying on the
ground and instead of calling for help, elected instead to take
pictures with their camera phones.

Only a week or two after that incident, a man in Yonkers was viciously
stabbed in the stomach and robbed after he attempted to help what
appeared to be an injured cyclist. Although the sight of someone
sprawled on the ground next to a bicycle might evoke feelings of
sympathy and even possibly the notion to help, the majority of people
would choose to mind their own business. An example like this
illustrates the mentality behind such a sentiment. In many ways,
people only have something to lose by helping another out. The
intangible moral rewards are inadequate in the minds of most, and the
risk of being injured themselves will almost always outweigh these
feeble positives. Having to stitch up an 8-inch gash in your
midsection is simply not worth it.

While these examples indicate why most people usually do not (and
possibly even why they should not) help out others in precarious
situations, the cinematic image of the heroic Good Samaritan still
exists. Recently, Steve Loverde witnessed a driver run over four
teenage girls and then attempt to drive away. Instead of allowing the
hit-and-run suspect to escape, Loverde chased down the driver in his
own car, which allowed the police to make the arrest. Even more
recently, Jessica Oshita, a young photographer fainted and fell into
the subway tracks in Union Square. While lying bloodied and
unconscious in the path of an oncoming train, an unidentified man
jumped down to help and placed the woman’s body in the well between
the tracks. He was just one of many people witnessing the scene, but
the only one to act. The gesture ultimately saved the woman’s life.

Given the dangers of helping those in similar situations, it is
remarkable that stories such as the last two still occur, albeit on
rather rare occasion. Despite the absence of any legal duty and the
inherent risk associated with taking action, some people are just
compelled to rescue others. Many, like the man in the subway, do not
even seek recognition for their acts of courageous kindness. In
reality, these tales are, and are likely to remain, the exception to
the rule. The film and television industry loves romanticizing these
heroic efforts, despite their incredible infrequency; then again, who
wants to watch such potential tragedies actually unfold? Most people
are simply content being thankful that it is not them.

by Lawrence Kaplan

Growing up in the 1950’s t.v.’s Divorce Court was my first exposure both to divorce and courtroom drama. Yes, Perry Mason was on the air in those years but it was on too late for an 8 year old.

As I remember the Divorce Court cases were rather mild. Couples arguing over who should take out the garbage and troublesome Mother-in-laws. Remember the 50’s were the time when the favorite TV shows were “Father Knows Best” and “Lassie”. Jerry Springer and DNA paternity tests were decades away.

Then in the 1980’s The People’s Court with Judge Wapner publicly aired real small claim cases.
I was an avid car freak at the time. I recall several cases about supposed faulty car repairs where the disgruntled car owners were suing their mechanics. With my automotive background I realized Judge Wapner had absolutely no idea of the issues involved. Yet it didn’t really matter. He was quite willing to pass judgement without understanding. It wasn’t until law school that I found out that facts don’t matter to judges. Cardozo established that precedent in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Despite misunderstanding the case completely, he ruled and established a precedent lasting a hundred years. Zipursky thinks the holding of the case deals with product liability. The real holding is justice is blind to facts- doesn’t matter which party gets shafted as long as your opinion gets cited.

Now we have Judge Judy raising the standards for t.v. Judges. Even Judge Wapner is shocked, “Judge Judy is discourteous, and she’s abrasive. She’s not slightly insulting. She’s insulting in capital letters”

I had never understood the great appeal for these shows. Simply voyeurism and a soap opera alternative? That may explain the viewing audience, but why would the parties agree to appear knowing that at least one will be humiliated on National TV? (They only get $100 for their appearance on the show.)

Maybe the attraction is the opportunity to be heard. Telling your story, venting your anger, having someone to listen (Judge Judy at her peak had 10 million viewers). And timeliness. No endless delays for your attorney’s personal problems. No motions designed to up his fees.

The audience wants a judge who is emotionally involved, not a frigid automaton in black robes. If a party’s story lack credibility, Judy’s temper will flare. She wags her finger and proclaims “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” (OK, so she’s not Holmes) The parties love the possibility of real vindication. Having your opponent publicly trashed by Judge Judy’s sarcastic words and biting tongue is a victory far sweeter than a simple cash settlement.

That’s what I want to be part of. Not pushing papers around and making arguments I don’t believe. Real justice. Moral Responsibility. I want to clerk for Judge Judy.

By Robert Soriano-Hewitt

Any celebration that seeks to legitimize and romanticize the history
of the Confederacy during the American Civil War is profoundly
insensitive and offensive to African Americans.  In early April of
this year, Virginia’s Governor, Bob McDonnell, issued a proclamation
declaring April “Confederate History Month.”  The proclamation states
“it is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth’s
shared history, [and] to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate
leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War.”[1]
To add insult to injury, the original declaration made no mention of
the oppressive and inhumane status of African Americans during that
period.  McDonnell explained that he did not include a reference to
slavery because the Civil War involved issues other than slavery, and
he wanted to focus on “the ones [he] thought were most important for
Virginia.”[2]  Only after much criticism and public outrage did
McDonnell issue an apology and amended the statement to include a
reference to the atrocity of slavery.[3]

            The history of the Confederate States is inextricably
linked to slavery.  While President Lincoln may not have waged war for
the sole purpose of freeing slaves, the major policy disagreement
between the north and south was the expansion of the domestic slave
trade into the country’s new territories.  The Constitution of the
Confederate States of America makes several references to slavery,
including a clause that expressly prohibits the government from
“denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.” [4]  The
undeniable truth of the Civil War is that one of the main goals of the
Confederate States was to preserve the institution of slavery.  The
undeniable truth of slavery is that it involved the physical, mental,
and spiritual degradation of African American people for over two
centuries.

            The absurdity of celebrating Confederate history becomes
even clearer when we analogize it to other instances of immorality.
For example, imagine if the Mayor of New York gave Bernie Madoff an
award for his achievements in finance and his contributions to
charity.  This would be a sure way for the Mayor to lose the next
election.  Consider another hypothetical: Germany’s President declares
April “Third Riech History Month” for the purpose of recognizing
Germany’s most powerful period in world history, and understanding the
sacrifices of the Nazi leaders, soldiers, and citizens during the
second World War.  In the first hypothetical, society would rightfully
condemns Madoff because many people and institutions lost large
amounts of money.  No city, state or municipality would dare
“celebrate” the legacy of Madoff regardless of his benevolent acts
towards society.  In the second hypothetical, it is easy to understand
why the legacy of Nazi Germany should never give rise to government
sanctioned celebration of the Third Reich.  Whether the immoral act
led to purely financial loss, or something far worse, it is absolutely
absurd to separate the immorality from the actor.

Denying or obscuring the occurrence of atrocity creates further harm
on many levels.  It ignores the humanity of the victims, inflicts
further pain on the survivors, impedes the healing process, and
conceals the immorality of the perpetrators.  Governor McDonnell’s
romanticized portrayal of the “sacrifices of the confederate leaders,
soldiers and citizens” casts a pall of historical inaccuracy over one
of the most important periods in American history.  Including a
reference to slavery in the proclamation does not make it morally
acceptable.  Celebrating Confederate History month in any form gives
the false impression of a benevolent confederacy, and trivializes
centuries of suffering that African Americans experienced.
Condemnation is the only acceptable form of recognizing Confederate
history.

________________________________

[1] The full text of the original proclamation is available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704411.html

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/bob-mcdonnell-leaves-out_n_528733.html

[3] The revised version of the proclamation is available at
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/OurCommonwealth/Proclamations/2010/ConfederateHistoryMonth.cfm

[4] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

There is a lot of speculation, especially from the conservative right-wing, that morality in this country is crumbling, and we are entering a era of unrivaled hedonism.  From certain perspectives, this is undoubtedly true.  As a member of the generation on the cusp of assuming leadership of this country’s future, I also often wonder about the content or importance of morality in today’s world, usually from a vantage point of self-created aloofness, choosing to judge instead of acknowledging the truth of my inclusion and shared moral outlook.  From that tower, I feel that perhaps there is a crisis of morality gripping the nation, but it also signals an evolving, or to some devolving, concept of what is moral.  While I clearly cannot speak for the entire, or even most, of this country, I can speak as an individual bombarded with pop culture and advertising that more or less shapes the modern world.

Today’s pop culture is literally consumed with references to criminals and (like batman) rouge vigilante’s achieving real justice of the kind a court never could.  Pop Culture phenomenons like The Sopranos and The Wire focus on the lives of successful criminals sometimes forced to address such issues as a moral code.  In those instances, the characters often attempt to express a set of ideals that focuses on protecting family and close friends, and doing what is necessary to achieve those goals.  What they are not portrayed as is completely evil.  On the other side of the spectrum, heroes like Batman and Officer John McClane (Bruce Willis in Die Hard) often go outside the law to administer justice in lieu of a broken court system that can’t or won’t address the problems itself.  The days of heroes like Eliot Ness, who takes on and defeats evil while staying within the contours of the law, seem to be gone forever.  While individuals will almost certainly feel the real life versions of either set of characters should be punished for violating the penal law, as an ideal we root for them to succeed in their endeavors, even when they are in clear contravention of the same laws we claim to cherish.

While this shift in hero and villain construction can be partly attributed to the evolution of story telling and the effect of turning the movie industry into a cash revenue service, it is also a result of clever writers tapping into an emerging morality system within this country that is most akin to wild west morality.  What we love about these characters is their individuality, and their ability to make the world right on their own, without having to beg for mercy from a justice system that will seemingly shift the focus of the case to an illogical “legal issue,” and then dispense what it calls justice but really solves nothing.  With the criminal heroes, we give them, even if begrudging, respect for their ability to exist beyond the confines the rest of us deal with everyday.  For the vigilante heroes, we admire their resolve, and power to force justice where the system could not.  The theme that emerges is one of a new morality, or perhaps the digging up of an older moral code, taking hold of the nation’s mentality.    Under this moral code, acts outside of the law, even egregious ones, can be justified by appeals to family and individuality of the kind that many Americans feel they should enjoy but no longer exists.  In short, we seem to be becoming more libertarian (I wont say anarchic for everyone knows Americans really do love systemic order of some sort).  If this shift is indeed true, it is interesting to ponder how this emerging morality will effect future jury verdicts and policy decisions.  More than that, however, it leaves one wondering if this trend represents the death of morality in America, or a transformation that will allow this country to realize its true desires as never before.

-David Beach

Professor Thane Rosenbaum’s Human Rights class spent a lot of time focused on the philosophical underpinnings of our government. Two prominent philosophers were extremely important to the foundation of our country: John Locke and Jeremy Bentham. Locke, a 16th century Englishman, laid the foundation for what we view today as a individualistically charged view on one’s role in society. Locke believed that labor produced property, and that property was essential to one’s identity. This view shaped the founders in their fight against a tyrannical English crown. Founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson saw the importance of personal identity and property ownership, echoing Locke. However, at the opposite end of the spectrum is Bentham’s view known as “utilitarianism”, which seeks to maximize the “utility” of society as a whole. The morality of an action will therefore be measured by its impact on an entire group, ignoring the potential devastating impact said action may have on an individual. This distinction is important because although there should exist a careful balance between the individual and the group; corporations (legal “persons”) have hijacked our government and are imposing their wills upon the populace. We measure our wealth by measuring the nation’s GDP. However, we do not focus, as much as we should, on where the wealth is being produced. Historically a country that produced high quality steel and automobiles, we have turned into a country that acts as a legal and tax haven for corporate entities.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/

The above links to a CNN article detailing how GE, one of the largest corporations in the world (and an American corporation) paid 0$ to the US federal government.

“This is the first time in at least decades that GE has reported negative U.S. pretax income and it reflects the worst economy since the Great Depression,” Anne Eisele, GE’s director of financial communications, said via e-mail.

But what about the $10.8 billion profit overseas? GE is “indefinitely” deferring income tax payments on those profits, Eisele said.

It may seem like accounting magic, but it’s completely legit.

Via holes in the tax code, corporations can claim domestic losses and international gains and pay nothing to the US government. Corporations claim the cover of Utilitarianism when they engage in corporate mergers, close factories to save money, and so forth. Regardless of one’s philosophical views, this practice runs afoul of the basic notions of Locke’s Social Contract theory. It is wholly immoral for a company to claim the protections of the US flag but not contribute a dime to the US treasury come tax time. While “utilitarianily” speaking, we require their economic output for our GDP, they have subverted the laws of a nation they are supposed to be citizens of as well.

-Daniel Rogove

By Patrick McKegney

I love Dancing with the Stars. I can’t get enough of it. Every
Monday night at 8 pm I watch semi-celebrities attempt difficult
ballroom dances to 90’s pop hits. What more can I ask for? After the
show I grab my iPhone (naturally equipped with the DWTS application)
and cast my vote for my favorite star. And when Tuesday night rolls
around I’m back in front of my TV, waiting with baited breath as Tom
Bergeron announces the castoff for that week.

I’m not alone here. Over 20 million people watched the DWTS premiere
in March, and millions of votes will be cast for the finals this Monday.

If you aren’t familiar with the show, allow me to give you this very
abbreviated overview: celebrities are paired with a professional
dancer who teaches them a new dance each week. The celebrities then
perform the routine on Monday night in front of a live studio audience
(and those 20 million viewers I mentioned). Three judges individually
score the dance from 1-10 based on technical skill, performance and
other professionally based standards. Those scores are then combined
with viewer votes to see who moves on to the next round.

But what are these viewer votes based on? It’s a dancing show, so
naturally some people vote for the best dancer. But that certainly
isn’t the only standard.

Viewers like me also vote for their favorite celebrities. I typically
cast my vote for whichever celebrity I think is the most entertaining
and charismatic to watch each week. As a viewer, I am shown
interviews with the celebrities and video clips of their week of
practice. By the end of an episode you feel like you know the
competitors on a personal level, and their back-story becomes as
fundamental a part of your decision as their ability to Samba.

When viewers eventually cast their votes to decide the fate of a
celebrity, they do so with a full picture analysis of the performer.
This is crucial – very often on DWTS (and American Idol, for that
matter) the popular will beat the talented.

If Dancing with the Stars understands the importance of back-story
when making an important decision, why do our court systems seem to
fail in that regard? Our courts are constantly concerned with
frontage and the material aspects of a case, often at the expense of
any internal back-story presented to a juror. However, the DWTS voter
understands that how an individual presents himself on their day in
court (or ballroom) is only one dimension of their situation. In the
eyes of the voter, the celebrity’s story is indispensible to reaching
the correct result. While an idiosyncratic performer thrives on
Dancing with the Stars by standing out from their peers, this same
individual will fail horribly in the eyes of the law. The legal
system forces these emotionally complex individuals into standardized
categories, unable to comprehend those who are strange or different.

Dancing with the Stars voters are presented with the entire field of
information for their consideration in order to decide who should win
a reality television program. If only jurors were given the same
opportunity when casting votes in a courtroom.

By Anne Kim

“So do you have a gun?” I doubt this is a question asked of most
people, but it is one I heard relatively often in my travels abroad.
Once people found out I was from New York, it was the inevitable
follow-up question. Guns are used on both sides of the law, but there
are more than two sides to justice. Vigilante justice strikes a chord
with many people because it speaks to their sense of what is right in
the face of a legal system fraught with deficiencies. See Michael
Kanatake’s “A Sympathetic Killer (12/27/2009); “Do Sinners Really Make
the Best Saints?” (12/9/2009).

I recently saw “Shooter,” an action movie based on Stephen Hunter’s
book “Point of Impact.” Bob Lee Swagger is a former U.S. Marine Corps
sniper who is coaxed out of isolation to help prevent an assassination
attempt on the President. The Ethiopian archbishop is killed instead,
and his death is masked as a botched assassination attempt on the
President, for which Swagger is framed. A U.S. Senator and a U.S.
Colonel authorized a conspiracy to kill the archbishop in order to
prevent disclosure of the village genocide that they spearheaded.

Swagger eventually proves his innocence, but when he produces evidence
of the Colonel’s involvement in the genocide, the Attorney General’s
hands are tied by the law. The Colonel laughs as he points out the
legal loophole – the genocide took place in Ethiopia, which is outside
American jurisdiction. As the Colonel saunters out, the Attorney
General says to him, “Your moral compass is so f***ed up, I’ll be
shocked if you manage to find your way back to the parking lot.” The
scene ends with the Attorney General saying that justice doesn’t
always prevail in the world they live in because, “it’s not the Wild
West where you can clean up the streets with a gun, even though
sometimes it’s exactly what is needed.” He then announces that Swagger
is free to go.

Movies and books reveal more than just the cold, hard facts and make
us sympathetic to the plight of a person forced to go rogue. One of
the themes we discussed in our Law and Literature class was the
inability and unwillingness of the court to look past frontage to a
defendant’s back story, which may have a palliative or exonerative
effect on a case. These underlying considerations do not always excuse
the legally criminal actions that ensue, nor do they give them license
to mete out their own form of justice when the systems fails, but when
true criminals escape through loopholes or on technicalities, we are
left in a moral quandary. While there is a constant struggle between
abiding by the law and going outside legally-sanctioned methods to
find justice, the popularity of vigilantes in television shows and
movies (Dexter, Taxi Driver) evidence support by the general
population. Whether ratings and ticket sales reflect approval that
transfers to real life is another question. When taken out of the
romanticized world of fiction, does vigilante justice still have a
proper place in the world?

MTV’s new hit show, the Jersey Shore, swept the nation this fall after
appealing to the nation’s “trashier” side of entertainment.  While
most people, especially in the tri-state area, would rather not have
an extra dose of “Guido” in their day, they felt compelled to watch,
it was like a train wreck, you just couldn’t look away.  The show
gained popularity almost immediately after characters like “Snookie”
and “the Situation” unabashedly let their “freak flags” fly for the
entire nation to see.  However, after only a few episodes, the show’s
appeal quickly turned from laughing alongside a few crazy New
Jersey/New Yorkers, to becoming full on violent entertainment.  After
the “punch heard round the world” episode in which Snookie was punched
in the face by a guy drinking with the cast at a bar, the show began
to air more and more violence in keeping up with the nation’s violent
demands.  The show continued to advertise and air fights between cast
members and jersey shore patrons, which has now netted the show with a
number of different lawsuits.

The most interesting set claims however, have come out of Toms River,
NJ, where a judge has let racketeering claims go forward.  The
plaintiff, Stephen Izzo,  was assaulted by the show’s Ronnie Magro.
The assault was taped and aired on the program.  Izzo is bringing
claims that MTV has violated New Jersey’s anti-racketeering statute
(RICO).  The allegation is that MTV is an enterprise profiting off of
illegal activity.  In order to succeed on the claims, Izzo must show
that MTV and its parent company, Viacom, was acting as an enterprise,
which engaged in a pattern of racketeering.  While the claim may be a
stretch, the New Jersey judge denied a claim dismissing the
racketeering charge, stating that the racketeering charge could go
forward.

RICO, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was
created in 1970 in an attempt to stop the Mafia and other criminal
organizations from infiltrating legitimate businesses.  The statute is
arguably very broad but has survived untouched even despite a number
of constitutional challenges.  RICO began as a tool to combat serious
organized crime, but recently has become a powerful weapon against all
sorts of conduct, criminal and civil.  RICO has been used against
environmental and anti-abortion activists, as well as white-collar
criminals, who arguably have only committed basic fraud.  It is a
statute which is quickly moving well beyond its original scope.

The statute is unique and is attractive to a client like Izzo because
Izzo stands to receive treble damages for his claims.  Additionally,
Izzo may be entitled to a portion of the show’s profits, if MTV is
found to be a “criminal enterprise.”  Izzo’s lawyer believes that if
his client’s claims are successful, he may be able to receive up to 5
million dollars.  Five million dollars from a simple assault.  This
blatant misapplication of the racketeering statute should not stand.
Victim’s like Izzo, who engage in the type of behavior which led the
fight in the first place, are not what RICO was intended for.  While
MTV has been under tremendous legal and public pressure to stop airing
and producing the show, it should not however, fall victim to a
frivolous RICO claim by a clearly greedy plaintiff.  Not only would
this type of RICO claim expand the scope of the statute to include
conduct never considered by Congress when the statute was passed, but
it would unjustly reward plaintiffs like Izzo, and encourage others to
engage in similar types of violent behavior.

-Kerry Rigas

Earlier this year, David Simon debuted his follow up to the critically
acclaimed series The Wire with a new show called Treme.  The show is
named after the historic, but little known district in New Orleans
that was home to America’s first African-American neighborhood and the
birthplace of jazz music.  It follows the lives of a number of
different Treme inhabitants as they try to piece back their lives in
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina’s destruction.  Somehow, even
within this dire setting, Simon has thus far managed to maintain a
more positive tone than he ever did in The Wire.  Treme does not shy
away from the morbid aspects of post-Katrina life, but focuses more on
the rebuilding and healing aspect of the tragedy.  Simon also
masterfully seizes the opportunity to showcase the incredible culture
of the district as well as New Orleans in general.

One of the more powerful scenes in the series so far was at the end of
the third episode as a group of Treme residents are mourning the death
of one of their friends.  Their unique process of mourning appears
more like a celebration, with dancing, singing, and drumming, but
their somber expressions make it clear that this moment is not a
joyous one.  Soon the singing is drowned out by the diesel rumbling of
an approaching bus bearing the words “Katrina Tours” above the
windshield.  As the bus halts in front of the group, the camera pans
to show faceless tourists behind tinted windows, their camera flashes
snapping like a fireworks display.  The group, visibly upset by the
imposition, can only manage to utter the words “Drive away from here.”

The desire to see humans living in horrific conditions is a curiosity
that seems to exist only in the civilized Western world.  In Rio de
Janeiro, tourists pay $10-15 dollars to be driven through the
“favelas” where the city’s most impoverished citizens call home.  In
Mumbai, there has been explosion of “slumdog” tours attempting to
capitalize on the success of the movie Slumdog Millionaire. However,
there are instances where turning a scene of human suffering into a
tourist attraction can be healthy.  Germany, rather than erase the
memory of the Holocaust from the country’s consciousness, chose to
preserve the most gruesome reminder of it’s role in atrocity.
Auschwitz survives as a museum and tourist destination, drawing close
to one million visitors a year.

Turning a site of human suffering into a memorial to those who
perished there can be therapeutic and help victims cope with their
pain.  Additionally, it can serve as an educational tool to those not
directly impacted, allowing them to empathize with the victims in a
way that inert words on a page never can.  However, the victims must
be given enough time to grieve and mourn those who died. Prematurely
“memorializing” the site of tragedy and treating it like Disney World
can interrupt the healing process and lead to personal offense, anger,
and additional suffering.

Sites like the favelas of Rio, shantytowns outside Mumbai, and
post-Katrina New Orleans present a different situation, however.
These areas are the sites of on-going, persisting tragedies in the
form of abject poverty.  This is beyond pre-mature, as the victims are
currently suffering from the tragedy that the tourists are coming to
observe.  It not only is incredibly insensitive and offensive, it
dehumanizes the inhabitants by displaying them like museum exhibits.
This is not a respectful gesture of remembrance, but an exploitative
practice that only serves to distance those inside the tour bus from
those on the outside.

These tours evoke the imagery more like an African safari than a visit
to Auschwitz: buses full of privileged Midwestern families, with Dad
snapping pictures to later upload to Facebook to show their friends
from book club how authentic of an experience they had, and Mom
keeping a watchful eye over Junior to make sure he keeps arms and legs
inside the vehicle at all times, lest they be touched by a wild
animal.  Good thing she has a fluorescent fanny pack full of Purell.

By Amit Aulakh