At the end of Chapter 6 of Queer Injustice, "False Promises," Mogel, Ritchie, and Whitlock conclude, "Ultimately, as in the case of homophobic and transphobic violence, the flaws and false promises of reliance on criminal legal approaches to LGBT domestic violence are becoming increasingly apparent, challenging us to envision new approaches that more effectively ensure our safety in our homes and neighborhood" (140).
First, in your own words, explain their critique of criminal legal responses to the violence that LGBTQIA+ folks face. Then, using examples from the preceding discussion in chapter six (and five, as you see fit), explain how their analysis supports and illustrates the larger point they're making. Last, explore whether you find their discussion persuasive and why you do or don't. Aim for 250 words.
First, in your own words, explain their critique of criminal legal responses to the violence that LGBTQIA+ folks face. Then, using examples from the preceding discussion in chapter six (and five, as you see fit), explain how their analysis supports and illustrates the larger point they're making. Last, explore whether you find their discussion persuasive and why you do or don't. Aim for 250 words.
ReplyDeleteThe authors explain thoroughly how much the legal system mistreats LGBTQIA people. The archetypes given for LGBTQ people calling them criminal, violent and more are upheld by the examples given in the later chapters of lawsuits and legal cases involving LGBTQ individuals. Examples like the transgender man from Colorado or the woman named Mata show how people will not only use cases like these to make conclusions about entire groups of people but will also let these prescriptions about people determine their futures and well being. The examples of treatment of LGBTQ people in prison show how these stereotypes affect real life behavior. Ideas that all LGBTQ people are violent or dangerous are especially problematic because LGBTQ people are some of the most likely people to experience violence against them. This was especially clear with the battles over bathroom bans. These preconceived notions that we allow to spread become real policy that affect people’s lives. I don’t think the authors are wrong about it being widespread. I agree that these cases are horrible but not every LGBTQ person will be involved in one of these types of cases. However, the ideas that these cases are driven by or stereotypes affect LGBTQ people on a daily basis. I believe it is possible they affect every day interactions so it is worth arguing that these ideas are pervasive and unjust.
Mogul, Ritchie, and Whitlock are using this quote to tell people how mistreated the LGBTQIA+ community is under the legal system. Even with laws in place that are supposed to help the LGBTQIA+ community, there is still archetypes that officers and the court have against them.
ReplyDeleteAn example of this can be through April Mora’s story in 2002. Mora was attacked by two white men while being verbally assaulted for her sexuality. The police then questioned Mora and her partner’s sobriety and tried to find evidence that she was not attacked. (118-119). Instead of the police protecting her and finding the two men responsible for this hate crime, they blamed Mora and her partner instead, thinking that these two white folks would not do such a thing.
Another example is Marc Kajs. Kajs former partner shot and injured him in 1998. He reported his partner before to the cops, but nothing was done. When he went to the police station while running away from the partner, the officer “gave him an incident number and sent him back out on the street with his abuser, telling him to return the following Monday.” (135). Kajs died before the day he was supposed to go back. Abuse in any relationship should be taken under investigation immediately, and the officer that Kajs encountered failed to follow that procedure.
The authors’ argument is valid. I agree that these situations are horrible, and at the same time, it especially happens more often to people of color than white people. The stereotypes and archetypes are there for anyone in the LGBTQIA+ community, regardless of race, and people who are not white have even more that the legal system puts against them.
The authors Mogel, Ritchie and Whitlock critique the systemic oppression seen through criminal legal responses that leads to violence. They explain that this violence not only hurts individuals but also destabilizes the whole entire communities such as the LGTBQ community (140). We are called to challenge and help develop bolder justice visions and agendas for naming, analyzing, and confronting the countless forms of injustices seen through how these communities are portrayed through stereotypical archetypes written about in earlier chapters. According to the in 2008, there were over two thousand instances of homophobic and transphobic violence reported to thirteen local organizations across the country. It is important to think of the amount of instances that go unreported.
ReplyDeleteAnalysis that supports the author's points is seen with examples that is parallel to the current political climate. "With appalling frequency, LGBT victims of violence are subject to further homophobic or transphobic verbal or physical abuse at the hands of law enforcement authorities that are charged with protecting them. This reality is even harsher for LGTBQ youth of color. An example of this is introduced on page 129, where the AVP reported a case in which several youth in car saw a Latina transgender woman beaten and stabbed but LAPD refused to accept her ID which stated female and which paramedics on the scene insisting on examining her genitals and inquiring about her immigration status. Examples such as this one allude to the bigger theme of injustice faced by powerful authorities. The author's examples reach every realm of diversity and intersectionality which the LGBTQ community embraces which thus allows us to explore legal approaches of violence within our community and call attention to it.
One thing that really struck me was the authors description of how LGBT+ people are treated when they come forward about violent crimes committed against them. One way they are discouraged from coming forward is that the police and investigators are quick to call into question the validity and legitimacy of the victims accounts. The authors tell us that many LGBT+ people report that police often focus on the victims rather than their assailants. They then go on to tell us that the LGBT+ community doesn’t necessarily find comfort, safety, or agency in our criminal justice system, especially not LGBT youth or people of color. I think that all of this works together, partnered with the story of April Mora’s assault to work into their overall argument that LGBT people are actively criminalized and dehumanized by our current criminal justice system. One example of this is the way that the police refused to believe that April’s injuries were not self inflicted. The fact that they so quickly chose to disregard her statement and as a result her experience, was very dehumanizing.
ReplyDeleteRitchie and Whitlock criticize the criminal legal responses to violence against LGBTQIA+ individuals to be arbitrary, oppressive and serve as venues to further incite/promote violence against queer individuals. As discussed extensively in both the book and classroom discussions, archetypes are predominantly used to the advantage of those against the LGBTQIA+ community; these archetypes are the means by which legal responses are so appalling and unjust. The demonization and disease spreader archetype directly relate to the way in which those in power respond to housing and placement as well as hate crimes. Non-conforming gender identities are punished through the housing and placement process; placement of individuals relies on genitalia. They are assigned to placement based on the gender assigned at birth. Individuals are denied their identity and are more likely to face sexual violence or may be further punished by being taken to special units, a.k.a. solitary confinement (pg. 108-109). Placement in prisons is based on the kind of crime and need for disciplinary while also working in the effort of the prisoner, trying to keep them safe. They are instead singled out and unvalidated; this is oppressive and arbitrary, which in turn justifies and incites further violence.
ReplyDeleteI find their discussion persuasive. They not only focus on a single aspect in which this behavior and response is oppressive and arbitrary; they provide numerous instances in which their points are clear and understandable. Rules, regulations and people find ways to use the laws against the oppressed rather than seeking to address root and continuing problems. The demonization and criminalization of non-confirming gender individuals is at the root of some problems and we instead focus on hate crimes rather than addressing these same root causes.
The quote that is used is saying that the LGBTQIA+ community is severely hurting and getting no justice in the place they deserve it the most, the legal system. Along with that, the police force and the judicial system aren’t keeping the term queer in their mind. They still are going about these cases and incidents with the ideology of social norms. That even though a transgender woman was born a man, that she can’t be a victim in a domestic violence case. There are many examples if this in chapter 6. One of them that stuck out in my mind was page 139, where a 55 year old white lesbian was explaining her violent partner and her hesitance to call the police because, “I’m a butch lesbian, I worked at a factory most of my life. Tammy is a tiny little Avon saleswoman.” Even she knew that because she was more masculine than her partner, the police were less likely to take her concerns seriously. The justice system seem to have a pattern with this, as shown in chapter 5. This includes, transgender people not being allowed to stay with the gender they identify as, which leads in sexual assault and rape. Then, when they are raped they’re told they should like it because they’re gay and in a room filled with men. Another way this brought about is when people in LGBT relationships that are violent are denied protection from their abuser because the police think what’s going on is just “kinky sex”(pg 137). I believe this discussion is persuasive because these accusations fall into that “box” that the LGBTQIA+ community is put into. The one that says they’re sexually forward, so that must mean they’re always kinky and always asking to be raped.
ReplyDeleteCrime is rooted in the concept of social deviance, leveraging various tools for enforcement to ensure social conformity on a variety of levels, the most sinister of which being the criminal legal system. As Mogul points out in Chapter 5, “Prisons have always been steeped in religious morality, seeking to curb those deemed immoral and instill in them the proper rigidly defined sexual and gender roles.” (94). This same process works similarly for other historically marginalized communities, enforcing social norms determined by the dominant group which alienate and ultimately criminalize others. This supports the authors’ overall claims that the multi-faceted criminalization of these groups serves only to support an oppressive culture and an inherently unjust criminal legal system which, no matter how it is reformed, until eradicated, will perpetuate injustice for all oppressed groups. As they explain, “People need to deeply question whether institutions rooted in the control and punishment of people of color, poor people, immigrants and queers can ever be deployed in the service if LGBTQ+ interests without abandoning entire segments of queer communities to continuing state violence.” (140). The roots of this system were formed around maintaining this social security for privileged groups, making it so any attempts at reform will simply allow for the partial upward mobility for the most privileged in the LGBTQ+ community, leaving the rest in the dust because of the other identities they hold. As is displayed in chapter 6 in the story of April Mora and others, the institutional and interpersonal tendency to victim blame when crimes are committed against the queer community refocuses the purpose of law enforcement on punishing or “caging” deviance, highlighting the problematic origins of this system. All of these realities suggest that reform is impossible, and in order to find a system that truly upholds justice for all, we may have to scrap what we know.
ReplyDelete-Cailin Osborne
In chapter 6, Mogul, Richie, and Whitock discusses the various way law enforcement have handled crimes involving LGBTQ+ victims. Through the various examples that is provided, it is clear that is it the LGBTQ+ victims themselves that are mistreated and arrested -- especially those of color. According to Mogul et al, “over the past three decades LGBT people have increasingly turned to police for protection, only to be met with responses that further devalue queer lives, sometimes placing victims in greater jeopardy” (Mogul et al, 129). An example is the case of Marc Kajs who was shot by his partner in 1998. Mogul et al notes that Kajs had contacted the police on six separate occasions and each time the police failed to offer Kajs assistance. Over the years, law enforcement have failed to provide and protect the LGBTQ+ community; because of this, people of the LGBTQ+ community are afraid to turn to the police for help. I think the argument that Mogul, Richie, and Whitrock are making is extremely persuasive. Mogul et al points out, “the realities of LGBT survivors points us away from reliance on the criminal legal system” (Mogul et al, 139). This chapter forces to me to asks: what resources are available for LGBTQ+ community who are victims of crime? If they can’t turn to the police for assistance, who do they turn to? This chapter also brings into consideration the notion of intersexuality and how being a LGBTQ+ person of color plays a role in the mistreatment and brutally by law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteWhat Mogul, Richie and Whitock are referring to when they say that we must ensure the safety of our homes and neighborhoods is the notion that the legal justice system does not protect LGBTQIA+ individuals, rather it discredits and invalidates the victims. LGBTQIA+ individuals that report crimes or commit them are disproportionately treated with aggression and the accusation that the crime against them is not enough for real attention, or the crime they committed is somehow more egregious. This thought comes from a stereotype of social deviance due to perceived sexual deviance. The authors show an example of stereotype and the damage it creates against LGBTAIQ+ people by explaining the prison system and how it treats them. Prison systems are based in some ideology of religion, and the perceived deviance of LGBTQIA+ people in combination with this religious aspect create even more tension amongst inmates, as well gay men are often feminized and victimized in prison at higher rates than straight identifying men. While it is true that LGBTQIA+ individuals experience higher rates of crime against them, the situation in which the police will be cruel to you is not always true. There are many people who have supportive experiences reporting the crime.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe critique that our authors have of the criminal legal responses to the violence that LGBTQA+ people face is that hate crime laws do not take into account the separation between oppressed communities and those in power. These laws express that no one should act out violently against people because of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, the laws do not take into account the historical and long standing archetypes that marginalized communities are characterized by. For example, the police are reluctant to respond to cases domestic violence between gay couples. The police often have the philosophy that two people of the same gender fighting is not an issue. If women get into a domestic dispute law enforcement dismisses the seriousness of this violence by calling it a “cat fight” and saying “work it out.” While if two men are in a domestic dispute then law enforcement often says “it’s a fair fight.” Further, in the case of April Mora, after she was beaten both her and her girlfriend called the police. The police automatically accused Mora of lying and said maybe her and her girlfriend got in a fight or maybe it was self-inflicted. The failure to believe Mora reenforces the archetype that gay people are prone to mental instability and/or violence. After reading this chapter I am completely convinced that our legal system is completely ineffective in protecting queer people. The authors have presented too many situations in which law enforcement fails to enforce the law. I agree with the authors when they say hate crime laws are not enough, we need to get involved with our communities. We can empower marginalized communities and give them space to empower themselves, this is more effective than vague laws that do not acknowledge a historically oppressive system.