Deviant Behavior TR
6 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Marcus Irving!

Driver arrested in Southern California crash that killed 6 had previous DUI

Driver arrested in Southern California crash that killed 6 had previous DUI | Deviant Behavior TR |
A 21-year-old woman arrested for investigation of drunk driving and manslaughter after a crash that killed six people had her license suspended as a teenager for driving under the influence, according to state Department of Motor Vehicle records.
Marcus Irving's insight:

This story raises the question, is drinking excessive amounts of alcohol a disease that should be treated as such, or is it a poor choice made by the individual, in which their actions while under the influence should be given no special considerations. This tragic story is about a 21 year old woman from Diamond bar C.A. who had a previous dui from when she was 17,and just recently was involved in a drunk driving accident that took the lives of 6 people, including her own sister. The woman responsible for the accidents’ name is Olivia Culbreath and she is the mother of a newborn. If a person has a newborn baby that they are responsible for and decides that drinking and driving and putting people’s lives at risk is more important than being safe for the sake of her child, how should they be punished? Do you believe she should be seen as someone who made a mistake and given the opportunity to be rehabilitated (like the boy in the affluenza case), or tried and punished as a criminal offender?

Melissa Denetdale's comment, April 15, 2014 1:11 AM
This was seen as deviant behavior since it was a car accident that had alcohol involved. A person who drinks while pregnant is also seen as being deviant. In the eyes of criminal justice system, depending on the state, the unborn child is also considered an individual and is made an additional charge of the offender that caused the accident. I also think that women are labeled more severely than men when it comes to drinking and driving car accidents.
Ryley Wyrwitzke's comment, April 15, 2014 10:59 AM
This rises questions of what kind of a drinker she was. Was she a heavy drinker who did this all the time? Or made one decision while under the influence? A binge drinker who happened to get behind the wheel? Or a teen who was with friends and was headed home after a party? I feel there isn't enough info to put this on a scale. Sure, heavy drinking and always driving drunk would be seen as more deviant then one teen who made one wrong decision. No matter what the case however, this is an extremely deviant act involving alcohol. Not only that but it killed multiple people. In this case, I think that in the end, in response to Marcus's question, I believe that it should be prison time. Possibly (if it exists) prison with the rehabilitation during the sentence.
Scooped by Marcus Irving!

Melissa Nelson: Dental Assistant Fired For Being 'Irresistible' Is 'Devastated'

Melissa Nelson: Dental Assistant Fired For Being 'Irresistible' Is 'Devastated' | Deviant Behavior TR |
After working as a dental assistant for ten years, Melissa Nelson was fired for being too “irresistible” and a “threat” to her employer’s marriage. “I think it is completely wrong,” Nelson said.  ”I think it is sending a message that men can do whatever they want in the work force.” On Friday, the all-male Iowa State Supreme Court ruled that James Knight, Nelson’s boss, was within his legal rights when he fired her, affirming the decision of a lower court. “We do think the Iowa Supreme Court got it completely right,” said Stuart Cochrane, an attorney for James Knight. “Our position…
Marcus Irving's insight:

It is presumed that attractive people are more competent and socially graceful than their counterparts. Well what happens when that same beauty that draws admiration from so many becomes a negative aspect in one’s life. Here we see Melissa Nelson, who is the married mother of two children and a dental assistant of ten years, being fired from her job for being too pretty. Her boss claims that her beauty was too tempting and felt like their working relationship would have led to an affair if she remained employed with his practice. During the final year of her employment her boss (male) sent her some sexually inappropriate text messages that were discovered by his wife, which in turn led to Melissa’s termination. An all male supreme court ruled in favor of her boss stating, “he was within his legal rights to fire her, because it wasn’t a matter of gender but a matter of inappropriate behavior.” I think one issue that is being overlooked here is the fact that her boss assumes that just because he might be the type of person that would commit adultery that Melissa would partake in it as well. Where does he have the right to say that they would have an affair (based on what), and shouldn’t his wife be more concerned with his behavior and not Melissa’s, who has been nothing but a professional in the workplace? How would feminist theory look at this as a case of gender bias, and what is the stigma against attractive women who are considered to dress provocatively in the workplace?  Also, how are patriarchy and aesthetic norms of attractiveness relevant to this case?

Erin Madden's comment, March 11, 2014 1:21 PM
Good commentary, Marcus. You've raised some great points! We read in our text that attractiveness gets people benefits in society and are often seen as less deviant people. Yet here we see the reverse: when a woman is too attractive she becomes deviant. She is "too sexy." Yes, I imagine she was wearing scrubs to work since she was a dental tech, so I'm not sure how much less attractive she was supposed to look. Most people don't look particularly attractive in scrubs! It is interesting that she was deemed liable in this case, exactly for the reasons you bring up. It seems like the boss' behavior should have been categorized as deviant, not the dental tech's.
Scooped by Marcus Irving!

OC Cop Gets Off in Court after Masturbating on Stripper During Questionable Traffic Stop

OC Cop Gets Off in Court after Masturbating on Stripper During Questionable Traffic Stop | Deviant Behavior TR |
Last week an Orange County jury saved a former cop from
Marcus Irving's insight:

Once again, we see how labeling and stigma can play such an important role when determining who is right, and who is wrong. Here we have a case of a woman with a sexually exploitative job, and a police officer, who is suppose to serve and protect the public. This particular incident reminds me of the class reading we did last week, in which the cop arrested an innocent girl and persisted that she to had to be guilty of something, stating, “You know how these girls are,” (referring to her promiscuity) Officer David Alex Park, whom I might add is a married man, gets awarded the verdict of not guilty on 10 accounts of sexual abuse. The officer was said to have had a prior incident with the woman in which he pulled her over and found drug paraphernalia in her car but decided to let her go only after getting her phone number. Would this type of behavior have been tolerated if the woman had been a politician or a doctor, and not a stripper, who’s label comes with the notion that they are all sexual deviants who enjoy a good time? Do you see this falling under the routine activity theory, in which there has to be a motivated offender,  a suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian for a deviant act to take place? Let me know what you think, as well as how you feel about this specific act of deviance. 

Jason's comment, February 4, 2014 10:54 AM
This act of deviance puts all blame on the police officer Mr. Parks who sounds like a repeat offender of these sexual encounters with female strippers. He had every right to serve his 10 year sentence, he was used all illegal tactics to pull the stripper over and take advantage of her being an "overtly sexual person." In no way is this the womens fault. The officer shouldn’t belong on the force if he is exerting this kind of sexual deviant behavior. Even when his Sgt. already warned him to stay away from the strippers, maybe the commanding officer should have been keeping a closer eye on his patrol cars activity. I think officer Parks was very lucky and used the last bit of public authority to get himself off. The ending verdict was very wrong but in today’s society, you can pay 400,000 dollars to the victim and they think that justice was done. Not to mention the 11 man and 1 women jury they had didn’t have any effect on the end result of the case. I wonder what would happen if the case went to civil court…
Erin Madden's comment, February 4, 2014 5:01 PM
Great discussion, Marcus and Jason! You guys are hitting the nail on the head here. The theories that jump out at me given what you two are saying are the feminist perspective on deviance and parts of the conflict theory. Marcus mentions the feminist theory: remember in the Chesney-Lind article she talks about how young women are given less credit and believed less than older men (especially their fathers, uncles, and other guardians). When it comes to young women seen as "overly sexual" and "promiscuous" this problem is even worse. They are not taken seriously when they make complaints about sexual and physical abuse. Given this young woman's occupation as a stripper, we can see that her ability to be taken seriously as a victim in unfairly compromised. The feminist perspective explains that because of our patriarchal society that places women below men in society, this woman is "less credible" as a victim compared to the male police officer. Also, in terms of Conflict theory, remember what this says about the enforcement of laws: who makes and who breaks a law matters, and if a higher power/status person in society breaks a rule, they are less likely to face consequences. Clearly, police officers have higher status in society than strippers. So, the police officer's pretty minimal punishment for his action? Well, conflict theory would basically say "duh, of course this happened."
Scooped by Marcus Irving!

ABQjournal: Doctor: APD Cops Beat Me

Marcus Irving's insight:

As the saying goes, there is two sides to every story. For this particular story I happened to be visiting Albuquerque on a vacation before I became a resident, when this incident took place. What the article reads is that, while on a two month sabbatical to perform surgeries on Native Americans in Gallup, African American NY city heart surgeon and member of the Army reserves, received a dislocated shoulder, among other injuries while being subdued by police officers in front of a downtown liquor establishment for showing aggression towards APD officers. As the incident occurred the Dr. claims to have been called a “boy”, mocked and had the relevancy of his profession scrutinized. While the Dr. sais he was just having a conversation with the bar owner about poor treatment from the businesses employees that sparked the altercation with the police, the bar owner sais it was the man’s hostility and manner that caused the officers to act accordingly. The Dr. attributes his handling to race, leaving the question: would there have been the same level of force administered by the officers if he had been white and identified himself as a heart surgeon? I personally don’t go to the bar in question because of complaints from friends I have that are of Hispanic, African American & Native American backgrounds, who have also spoke of a lack of service and shitty attitudes from some of the wait staff. Was this a case of a patron being out of line who got what any other person would had received in the same situation or a case of being guilty by way of color? Is there any relevance to the reading Saints and Roughnecks that might give some insight to this particular incident?

Chenelle Ridgway's comment, March 27, 2014 5:08 PM
APD police officers have a problem with the feeling of being power hungry and also feeling "threatened". So many officers have used the excuse they felt threatened for them to get away with something. Sometime I just walk with my hands balled, what if I'm just mad and I'm walking out <br>Wal-Mart but I happen to pass an officer. Is he going to feel threatened by me so he starts attacking me. Police officers use the best excuses for everything they can get away with and it's unfair to Albuquerque that this is who is supposed to be protecting us when in reality, they're the ones who are hurting us and putting us in danger of being attacked, or even killed.
Erin Madden's comment, April 3, 2014 1:18 PM
Good discussion! Obviously there are police who want to strengthen our communities and prevent violence, but police are also people and some people are dicks. Perhaps this is a case of a police officer who is bad at his/her job by unnecessarily disciplining someone for pretty minor issues? Some people give police the benefit of the doubt and say "well, I'm sure the officer had a reasonable motivation for his/her actions." It is up to you to think about whether this case is "right" or "wrong," but it's GREAT that everyone in class (and Chenelle and Marcus here) are critically analyzing the actions of police, or formal social control, in our community.
Scooped by Marcus Irving!

Son ‘kills mom with ax’ then smiles for the cameras

Son ‘kills mom with ax’ then smiles for the cameras | Deviant Behavior TR |
A young man allegedly hacked his mother to death with an ax — then grinned for the cameras at his Long Island arraignment Friday. Deranged suspect Sean Farrell, 24, called…
Marcus Irving's insight:

The story of 24 year old Sean Farrell, who murdered his own mother by way of ax and then avoided police by admitting himself to a mental hospital brought me back to our in class discussion on mental disorders. The question I ask is should Sean face the same level of punishment for his crime as someone who is considered “normal” or “sane”? Are the results of pain, anger and loss not the same to the victim’s family as those in any other instance? Also the fact that he had the awareness to check himself into a hospital after committing the crime may lead one to consider that there is a possibility that Sean knew he was doing something wrong, but insisted on doing it anyway despite the consequences. In the case of a crime by way of mental disorder, is there any sociological theories that may explain or help us understand the motives behind the action, such as free will theory, routine activity theory or labeling theory, or is it just a case of a person who is not in their right state of mind, under no circumstances to be evaluated the same way as someone who is perfectly coherent? Is there a level of subjectivism (bias on how you see something) when it comes to how we punish crimes that are committed by someone who is considered mentally ill? My personal opinion is that the type of crime and who it is committed against can sometimes persuade our judgment when deciding what level of punishment to prescribe. Also is there any instance such as, selling drugs, doing drugs, hate crime and etc. where a mental disorder should not lead to lightened sentencing or hospitalization?

Jay Callison's comment, February 13, 2014 9:37 PM
Yeah, I wanted to kill my Parents, but I trusted Kharma to take care of it. Kharma still owes me
Kristy Gipson's comment, February 15, 2014 9:56 AM
I think that guy should be held completely and totally responsible for what he did. Murder is insane no matter how it is done and who it is done to. I also think that he should be slapped with a label and left to face what his consequences. Of course there could be many reasons for what he did and why questions should be asked. Does his answers really apply to the insanity that went through his hands.
Carol Maes's comment, February 17, 2014 9:43 PM
This reminds me of the "afluenza" case.
Scooped by Marcus Irving!

Japanese man stole $185,000 to feed 120 cats gourmet food - The Japan Daily Press

Japanese man stole $185,000 to feed 120 cats gourmet food - The Japan Daily Press | Deviant Behavior TR |
We've heard of people stealing money so that their family can eat, but this Japanese man took this took this to a whole different level – he went on a y
Marcus Irving's insight:

add your insight...

I found this story interesting because it illustrates how someone could break a social norm (burglary), not in an attempt to satisfy one’s own needs but rather to benefit the lifestyle of one’s pets. This article details an unemployed male who acquires $180,000 over the course of 32 home thefts in an attempt to feed his cats gourmet quality meals (LOL). It led me to ask the question: what kinds of social bonds may have been absent in this mans life to allow him to put his own freedom and well being at risk for the adoration of animals? Also what theory would best explain this mans behavior? Could this be a example of Routine Activity Theory. in which all three elements just lined up for deviance to occur, or possibly another explanation fits the situation. What would lead a person to commit crimes against other human beings just to provide such luxury for pets? From a macro level analysis I wonder, does mass media play a role in this mans behavior. Is this a case of Anomie, where television depicts such a glamorous portrayal of how people pamper their pets that the man felt he couldn’t provide a suitable level of pleasure for his companions with the means he had available and decided to turn to a life of crime out of frustration. What do you guys think about this, I’d like to know?

Erin Madden's comment, January 23, 2014 6:57 PM
Very good analysis, Marcus.
Ashley Vigil's curator insight, January 26, 2014 9:42 PM

This article intrigued me, not only because it was for his cat, but because the man was unemployed. I think that free will or rational choice theory can be applied here. Although to some people this may not seem like a rational choice, the deviant may have thought his chances of getting caught were slim.

Kayla Streit's comment, January 28, 2014 12:32 PM
I find it intriguing that, like Marcus said, he engaged in deviant behavior not for selfish gain, but for the animals . Again with the social bonds theory: what was missing in this poor guy's life that he feels the need to feed 120 cats? And gourmet food? He's also Japanese, so possibly a cultural difference?