Posing the debate in these terms narrows the range of options available and undermines the ability to raise questions about what responses to crime actually work. A question framed by these types of moral categories cannot be resolved using evidence-based procedures. Tough and soft are moral categories that reflect a moral characterization of the issue. Often, in the news and in public discourse, the issue is framed in moral terms and therefore, for example, the policy alternatives get narrowed to the option of either being “tough” or “soft” on crime. The political controversies that surround the question of how best to respond to terrorism and violent crime are difficult to resolve at the level of political rhetoric. Sociological research is especially important with respect to public policy debates. How would this understanding of the terrorist individual affect the drafting of public policy and public responses to terrorism? They were ordinary individuals caught up in extraordinary circumstances. In the case of the 462 suicide bombers Pape studied, not only were the suicide bombers relatively well educated and affluent, but as other studies of suicide bombers in general confirm, they were not mentally imbalanced per se, not blindly motivated by religious zeal, and not unaffected by the moral ambivalence of their proposed acts. However, in the research of Robert Pape (2005) a different picture of the terrorist emerges. The film Paradise Now (2005) tells the story of two friends who are recruited for a suicide bombing mission in Israel (Courtesy of דוד שי/Wikimedia Commons) Therefore, sociological analysis is not only futile in the former Prime Minister’s opinion but also, for the same reasons, contrary to the “utter determination through our laws and through our activities to do everything we can to prevent and counter ” (Cohen, 2013). In this framework, the terrorist is a kind of person who is beyond reason and morality. Behind the political and moral rhetoric of Stephen Harper’s statement are a number of densely solidified beliefs about the nature of a “terrorist” individual - “people who have agendas of violence that are deep and abiding, are a threat to all the values that our society stands for” (Cohen, 2013). In his position, there is a disjunction between taking a strong political and moral stance on violence on one hand and working towards a deeper, evidence-based understanding of the social causes of acts of violence on the other. In an unfortunate comment following the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013, the then Prime Minister Stephen Harper said “this is not a time to commit sociology.” He implied that the “utter condemnation of this kind of violence” precluded drawing on sociological research into the causes of political violence (Cohen, 2013).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |