The table shows the rms voltage VC across the capacitor and the rms voltage VL across the inductor for three series RCL circuits. In which circuit does the rms voltage across the entire RCL combination lead the current through the combination? (a) Circuit 1 (b) Circuit 2 (c) Circuit 3 (d) The total rms voltage across the RCL combination does not lead the current in any of the circuits.
CLJ Week 12 Notes Police violence v Data v Hard to find v 2012 450 or so v 123 Blacks; 326 whites v 2013 461 v 2014 593 v 2011 163 v 2010 222 v 2009 69 v 2015 thus far 111 v 2014 127 officers killed v Explanations v Racism v Perhaps. v Too simple an explanation v Probably. v What about from a law and society perspective v Police culture: highly militaristic culture v Bureaucratic structure v Paramilitary – Bureaucratic structure and Recruit Training v Command hierarchy v Explicit rule systems v Complex division of labor v The above produces an “us” versus “them” culture v What is culture v An central component of all definitions: difference v Parmilitary v Physical training v Performing under stress v Weapons v Use of force v Strip individuality and embrace the group or collectivity v War Stories v Chasing bad guys v Real police work v Recruits highly receptive to this aspect of organizational culture v “bad guys” v “good guys” v Us v them builds social solidarity v Real police tied to v Crime fighting v Car chases v Arrests v War stories significant part of the academy training v Captures attention of recruits better than anything else v War stories v Emphasize the physical side of policing v Foot chases v Car chases drug busts v Shoot outs v Shows what is truly valued in police work and police culture v Through these stories recruits being to understand the nature of policing and how they’re supposed to act. v Other instruction is considered “boring” v Loyality v We’re in the same boat v Break ties with old friends v Problems stay within group/unit v Paramilitary culture reinforces that separation v Classic on police culture John Van Maanen v “The asshole” v Category that is part of every officers vocabulary v suspicious person (those who commit offense) v “assholes” those who disrespect the police v And do not accept the police definition of the situation v Etc v Assholes are the most important of these for our purposes. v Why v They tend to be treated harshly on the basis of their failure to meet police expectations from the nature of the situation itself. v This is the individual that the police often feel deserves “street justice” or a physical attack designed to rectify what the police talk as a personal insult. v Not granted status as worthy human beings v An affront is a challenged to the police officers’ authority, control and definition of the immediate situation. v This is part of the officer’s or police culture and you can begin to get a handle on police violence that goes beyond run of the mill news media etc v Real Police Wrok v Most police time (99%) involves boring, repetitive paper shuffling etc. v Service work v Cruising etc v When the officer gets a chance to engage in real police work it gets their blood circulating. v It’s a rush (like in the military) v In essence police see themselves as representatives of the moral order. v They view themselves as protectorates of that order v Situations in which their face is challenged are likely to be responded to in unequivocal terms. v Physically attack offender v Swallow pride and ignore offender v Manufacture false excuse to arrest offender v While you might take a very personalized view of the police they view their position as one of morality and responsibility and when citizens disregard the wishes of the officer it can be viewed as a profane (remember Durkheim) violation of the social and legal system itself (not just the officer). v That’s part of the sociocultural order in which police work is embedded. v Goes back to Everett C. Hughes classic study v “Good People and Dirty Work” v Also check Frank Zimring’s “The city that became safe” v Guess how just about all the stop and frisk “victims” are Right. Minority males v Terrorism from a Law & Society Perspective v Terrorism as social control v We’ve already hinted at this from Gottfredson and Hirschi’s work on the General Theory of Crime or Theory of Self Control v (remember that) v Violence is the use of force right v And quite a bit of violence is social control in one fashion or another (even gang violence) v Moreover, a lot of this violence is self – help or the handling of a grievance with aggression (even beating a child who misbehaves or the killing of a spouse who is unfaithful or rioting of prisoners against their guards etc) v Terrorism is a type of self help by organized civilians who covertly inflict mass violence on other civilians v (just to use an ideal type from Weber -- yes he doesn’t go away) v And pure terrorism is social control v Why do you say that v It belongs to the same family as law, gossip, ostracism, ridicule that we talked about in class v Remember our definition of social control v Terrorism defines and responds to deviant behavior (that’s where G and H come in: “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter) v Terrorism is collective violence like vigilantism, rioting, lynching, feuding and so on v Moreover it isn’t just collective but well organized too or like war v In many respects too it’s like guerilla warfare (small scale, hit and run tactics etc) v But while guerrilla warfare has military targets, terrorism has civilian targets (at least in an ideal type or pure terrorism form) v And using 9/11 as the prototype v OK. You’ve stated that it’s social control but why isn’t it criminal v First, to call something criminal means the explanation should be criminological right v Like burglary, rape, robbery – acts with no moral component at all v Terrorism is not like these crimes and probably doesn’t deserve to be explained criminologically (of course you can but I don’t see what sort of analytic mileage you’ll get out of it) v It belongs in the same family as law and other forms of social control v Terrorism is highly moralistic and is also well organized and war like in character (isn’t war moralistic Think about Vietnam as an example etc) v So terrorism needs a law and society theory of social control, one that explains self help by organized civilians who covertly inflict mass violence on other civilians v They want a restoration of the past like political independence, lost territory or a customary way of life etc. v Here’s another way to think about it v Terrorists are an aggrieved collectivity (like ethnicity/religion or whatever) and attack civilians with another collectivity (ethnicity/religion or whatever) v And it usually has an “upward” direction or against a social superior v In that sense we might think of it as social control from “below” v Moreover there’s a physical geometry to terrorism v Violence historically requires contact v For most of human history physical separation prevented mass violence between civilians separated by the longest distances in social space v 9/11 couldn’t have happened a century earlier right v No Contact; no terrorism v That’s why terrorism is a relatively recent phenomenon v 20 century greatly increased the opportunities for terrorism: technology v Rapid transportation and electronic communications shrink space and time v But here’s the “funny” thing (and I’m just saying this simply and stipulatively) v While new technology creates all these opportunities for terrorism by shrinking physical space/time it also sows the seeds of terrorism’s destruction. v What How is that v Think about it v By increasing contact between folks separated by long social and physical distances modern transportation and communications increase global intimacy, cultural homogeneity and other forms of human closeness (right Durkheim again) v So you might think of this as a multidimension process that shrinks social space and physical space. v So technology makes terrorism easier and deadly in the short term but maybe in the long term it destroys the social geometry on which terrorism depends. v Terrorism begets terrorism v Or what we might think of as: Social control of social control (I like that!) v Terrorism is an aggressive form of justice and so is its social control (as we can see clearly). v What is counterterrorism Part warfare, part law. v It isn’t just ordinary criminal justice, right v You can also see how we’re not talking about ordinary criminal justice in another sense. v Counterterrorism is preventive or preemptive or whatever you want to call it. It strikes and kills terrorists before they can strike v Criminal justice doesn’t function this way, at least not in Western Democratic societies v So terrorism is an interesting species of social control, at least from a law & soc perspective th st v It’s limited by heavy implosions of physical/space and time in 20 and 21 centuries v And those conditions for its existence may lead to its eventual decline as we see the intermingling of people and cultures as the social universe shrinks and shrinks v Partisanship may weaken, enemies may disappear – I emphasize the “may” v Terrorism a la Goffman Explanation v How would you explain terrorism in a Goffman framework as symbolic action v It’s a form of political action, at least in one sense as we’ve seen from G and H, right v In democratic societies to achieve effects political actors must orient their tactics to address moral frameworks that encompass the broader population v Terrorism can’t do this. That’s why we had 9/11 v But terrorism is not just political but symbolic (maybe there’s no difference) v It aims not only to kill but to use killing as a gesture and it wants an audience to view that killing as a gesture v Consider a simple (ideal type) dichotomy v East v West as symbolic orders v Over the long course of historical time and often with tragic and terrifying consequences the East and West religio-political systems have become symbolically polarized v Sacred dramas of one side have been the polluting dramas of the other a la Durkheim v Each side embodies evil for each other v Sacred/good: peaceful, cooperative, honest, equal, rational, solidarity, ethical, honorable etc v Profane/bad: violent, antagonistic, decietful, dominating, irrational, corrupt, cynical etc v The Social performances a la Goffman have always been misperceived by the other. v Self v other, insider v outsider etc v Think about a concrete example v Jihad v For Islamic practitioners and key sections of Islam the modern Jihad is sacred and highly demanding performance of holy war. v For the non-Islamic West it is precisely the opposite right That is, it represents an authentic demonstration of polluted and demonic qualities of Islam itself. v Now think how the Gulf War etc get interpreted by Islam Right. Now you got it. (deceit/aggression etc) v Once again, just a way to start thinking about terrorism in another sense, a more law & society/theoretical perspective