Sociological imagination Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Sociological imagination - Essay Example People see themselves merely as recipient of society rather than recognizing their dual roles as both creators and receivers of the artifacts of society and socialization. The film â€Å"A Better Life† demonstrates many of these characteristics. Its main characters, Carlos, and undocumented immigrant, who buys a friend’s gardening business only to have its main asset (a truck), only to have it stolen, and Luis, seem to only be able to brave the struggles that are thrown at them every day without being able to act to change the systems that oppress them. The film makers, thus, fall into the trope of creating victims of society and socialization, without giving them agency to actually be a force for change in the social fabric. The film â€Å"A Better Life† is certainly a heart rending story, with people working incredibly hard just to make ends meet, and who face an unfair system that tilts their struggle for life against them. One of its main problems, whoever, i s that it does not give its characters a great deal of agency beyond simply responding to one crisis after another – reacting to the things that are presented of them. This trope begins from the very opening of the film, when Carlos is (apparently for the nth time) offered his partner’s gardening business. He faces a choice foisted on him from outside circumstance: to buy or not to buy? When he hires someone who then steals his car, he likewise faces choices on how to deal with it, and eventually decides to steal the car back. Finally, when pulled over and deported, he has a choice of remaining in Mexico or of trying to get back in to America, and he chooses the latter. This sequence of outside crisis is certainly how many people imagine their lives, noticing only what Mills calls the â€Å"millieux† around them, that is, their circumstances, without recognizing that they have a part in shaping those circumstances. This is not at all to seem critical of the char acters – that they should be doing more to give themselves a better chance at life. This issue is the film plays into a problem with the way people imagine themselves in the world with being solely the receivers of society and culture, rather than the creators and recipients of it. This film could have been better if the main characters at least recognized that they had some ability to shift the dynamics that were occurring, and that if many people like them made likewise changes then long lasting, changes for the better could actually occur. As it currently stands, the film tells the story of a valiant fight against a society that stacks the deck against much of its own population, but is not critical of the dynamic and trope of the individual responding to crisis foisted upon them by an outside, distinct society that they have no role in creating. â€Å"A Better Life† is certainly a good film outlining many important issues in sociology, such as oppression, the inter action between race and culture, the situation of immigrants and acculturation to new cultures and so on. Yet it falls into a trap that is very easy to stumble in to,

CRIMINAL LAW Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

CRIMINAL LAW - Essay Example Rachel would win the challenge if she did not move her foot. Rachel accepted the challenge. The game started and Charlie was the first to throw a knife which hit Rachel’s ankle resulting in a deep cut and started bleeding. Rachel shouted at Charlie that she would get back to her, if she wasn’t in much pain. Seeing what had happened, Monica shouted to Charlie wondering whether she was crazy. Monica then lamented that she could not believe that Charlie had cut Rachel’s foot and asked whether it was because she hated her since she used to date Ross who still loves her. These comments infuriated Charlie, who grabbed the pair of scissors lying on the table and cut a large chunk of Monica’s hair. Charlie raised her hand again holding the scissors and Monica thought that she was going to cut her again, and so she rushed out of the house. On her way out, Monica met Joey who had heard the commotion and had come to check what was going on. Bumping onto Joey, Monica fell on the floor dislocation the right wrist which she had previously injured a day earlier while playing tennis. Rachel grabbed the frying pan and tried to hit Charlie at the time Joey was entering the apartment. Rachel missed Charlie and instead hit Joey fracturing his nose. In this case, the facts are that, Rachel was aware of the risk and danger she was putting herself into when she agreed to take the challenge that allowed Charlie and Monica to throw knives near her foot. Charlie threw a knife that cut Rachel’s foot resulting in bleeding; this was not intentional but an accident. As a result of infuriation, Charlie cut off a big chunk of Monica’s hair, this was not an accident, and it was intentional. Monica dislocating her arm as a result of bumping onto Joey was purely an accident. Rachel hitting Joey’s nose with a frying pan and fracturing it was not intentional. Based on the facts of this case, the question that arises is what criminal liabilities for the said parties in this case are. Parties Criminal Liability It is very clear, from the facts extrapolated above; the issues of Grievous Bodily Harm, Accidents, and Transferred Malice in relation to injuries are significant to these parties’ liabilities. Neither Rachel, Joey nor Monica, did anything wrong. The harm caused to Rachel by Charlie, the deep cut in Rachel’s foot, is considered involuntary. The potential criminal liability that faces Charlie is the Grievous Bodily Harm statute under section 18 of the 1861 Act, Offences against the Person. According the external elements of the offence-actus reus-a defendant must unlawfully cause any grievous bodily harm or wound1. The deep cut on Rachel’s foot caused by Charlie may constitute a grievous bodily harm or wound, under the rule found in Eisenhower, the continuity of the whole skin be cut rule2. The deep cut on Rachel’s foot caused by Charlie can also be explained under really serious bodily harm as seen in the case DPP v Smith3, but would, however, be up to the jury. According to the mens rea4, for such a liability to accrue, there is a requirement that an act needs to be malicious and with intent. Charlie would most probably fall under section 18 of the 1861 Act, Offences against the Person, which does need intent or malice5. It may be argued that cutting someone’