Social Stratification As A Main Theme In
The Brothel Boy And Other Parables Of The Law Essay, Research Paper
& # 8220 ; Justice is your occupation, non mercy. & # 8221 ; This is a really strong statement coming from The Brothel Boy and Other Parables of the Law by Norval Morris. This sentence portrays a outstanding subject in the determinations made in this book. Sent to Moulmein, Burma to move as a police officer, prosecuting officer, and justice, Eric Blair discovers that the jurisprudence is non every bit clear-cut as it may look. Constantly plagued by his moral and legal values, Eric Blair finds himself seeking the advice from the local physician, Dr. Veraswami. Blair has a sum of eight separate brushs in which he battles for the right reply. He shortly finds out that there is non one right reply, but many different replies that could be right or incorrect depending on the state of affairs. Many sociological and socio-legal issues are seen throughout the book. My primary focal point will be on societal stratification and the function it plays with the legal issues and determinations. .
The survey of societal stratification is the survey of category, caste, privilege, and position that is characteristic of a peculiar society. It varies harmonizing to how society is organized particularly in footings of production and work. This thought is a sociological issue that seems to predominate throughout Blair & # 8217 ; s brushs. There are many different group and single positions that made up the small town of Moulmein, Burma. The English were finally the superior group because they governed Burma and because they were white. Each individual among the English did hold his or her ain single position every bit good. Blair for illustration had high position in the community because of his occupation. After the English came the Burmese villagers. Some of these people were more of import than others based on their cultural and educational degrees. Even though Dr. Veraswami was non Burmese, he still was integrated into their society because of the colour of his tegument. He had high position
in this society because he was a physician with the best certificates. The issue of societal stratification is of import because it is a prevailing subject. Ultimately societal stratification plays a major function in the result of the single instances. In this paper I am traveling to reason why portion societal stratification plays a outstanding portion in a three of Blair & # 8217 ; s legal determinations.
Blair & # 8217 ; s first brush is the whorehouse male child. The whorehouse male child was a kid born to the local whorehouse and maintain on to work as a fanner for the cocottes. Having no instruction and hardly any communicating accomplishments, one would see him retarded. The male child, non cognizing of any wrongdoing attempts to pay a local miss to hold sex with him. She refuses and he proceeds to ravish her, she ends up falling and hitting her caput on a stone, which leads to her decease. Blair is faced with the undertaking of penalizing the male child. The villagers want him executed because of his ghastly offense. Blair on the other manus, finds himself in a hard state of affairs because he feels the male child did non cognize any better. Taking into history Dr. Veraswami & # 8217 ; s advice to make what the villagers would desire, Blair decided to put to death the male child.
The function of societal stratification plays an of import function in this instance. The whorehouse male child held the lowest position in his society. Due to his deficiency of instruction, and his occupation in the whorehouse, he was held at about the slave degree. It was easier for the villagers to hold to an executing because the male child held no topographic point in society. It was difficult for Blair to hold to this because he felt sorry for the male child, but because the other villagers were of higher category, Blair made the determination on executing. Blair made the right determination even though he was non certain of himself. The male child was at the subsistent degree in society. Even if Blair had acquitted the male child, he would travel back to a life that was non deserving life. His occupation that kept
him existing was revolting. It was non his mistake that he held that occupation, but that was where society had placed him. He had no formal instruction nor communicating accomplishments so he could non acquire out of his state of affairs. He would go on to work at the whorehouse until he was let travel. Where would he travel from at that place? The Burmese society would eschew him. The European society would eschew him even more. Peoples would likely seek and do injury to him because of the miss & # 8217 ; s decease. This would stop up being more anguish than his executing. Blair thought the male child deserved some clemency because of the conditions. He was right, but put to deathing him likely could hold been the most merciful thing to make. He satisfied the villagers, even though he was non satisfied himself. If Blair would hold thought more about the male child & # 8217 ; s state of affairs and the society in which he was imposed in, Blair would likely hold came to the same decision. In the terminal justness prevailed every bit good. Even though the offense of decease was inadvertent, another offense, colza was committed that resulted in the miss & # 8217 ; s decease. The offense deserved a rough penalty, and the male child was given one. Therefore, even though Blair did non acknowledge this, justness and clemency prevailed. Justice prevailed because he did what was allowable by jurisprudence, and clemency because he saved the male child from the barbarous society in which he would hold returned.
Blair & # 8217 ; s 2nd brush dealt with parental rights. A half Burmese, half European male child was born to a retainer in one of the European families. Trying to salvage the adult female from any embarrassment, the household agreed to raise the male child. At the age of seven the household decides to go forth Burma and take the male child. The existent female parent of the male child wanted the male child to remain with her in her small town. Blair is so faced with the determination of which household to allow detention. He ends up allowing detention to the English parents. This
trades with two different civilizations and two different categories of people. The English household is affluent and wants to raise the male child in their European civilization, as opposed to the existent female parent who is hapless and portion of the Burmese civilization. The male child has the chance to turn up in a rich environment as opposed to village life. Who has more of a right to rear the male child? This was the issue that Blair dealt with. The natural parents normally have a higher claim to the kid than adoptive parents. Blair even admits this as he debates. In the terminal though he gives the male child to the English household. Blair felt that being raised in the English household would be better for the male child. The English household was wealthier than the Burmese female parent, and could give him more of a formal upbringing than the small town. Was it the societal stratification that decided Blair & # 8217 ; s determination? I would state yes. Blair ne’er stopped to believe that the Burmese kid may be shunned in the white English society, or that the household may be shunned by raising the kid. Blair already knew that the male child was accepted into the Burmese society because his existent female parent would take him with her to the small town for frequent visits. What Blair saw was a high-toned household that could offer the male child more than his native small town. On the other manus, who is to state that he would non acquire offerings merely as rich if he stayed in the small town? He may non hold gotten what our society would see rich, but what the Burmese society considers rich. Blair would non cognize these things because he is of the & # 8220 ; rich & # 8221 ; European society. Did Blair do the incorrect determination? I excessively would hold chosen the English household for the exact grounds I merely discussed. I feel that the English household could offer the male child more than his small town in Burma. But so once more, I am from the same European society as Blair so my sentiment could be viewed as colored. As one can see, societal stratification intersects with cultural
neutrality doing it really hard to set up the right solution. But it is of my sentiment that it was societal stratification that made the determination for Blair irrespective if he was witting of it or non.
Blair & # 8217 ; s 3rd brush dealt with a European adult male and his Burmese kept woman. During one of their meetings, the adult male dreamt that his kept woman was fornicating with one of the Burmese small town work forces. This made him angry and in hastiness he shot the adult male. He awoke to happen that he had shot and killed his kept woman in his slumber. The tribunal held that he was guiltless of any offense because he was non in a witting province at the clip he committed the offense.
This scenario incorporates societal stratification with racism. The European adult male is in the higher socio-class than the Burmese adult female. Since it was taken through the English tribunals, his acquittal was based on the societal stratification. One could reason that this could be a covert signifier of racism. If the state of affairs was reversed and a Burmese adult male had murdered an English miss in his slumber, would he hold been acquitted of the charges? No he would non. Due to the socio-class that the Burmese belonged to, and the clip epoch, the adult male would likely hold been executed. The fact that the charges were dismissed shows an unequal balance between the two societies. He was responsible for the miss & # 8217 ; s decease even though it happened in his slumber. He may non hold deliberately meant to make it, but there are some indicants that this could hold been a foolhardy decease. One facet to believe about is the gun. Why was it so easy available to him to be able to perpetrate this offense? Besides there had been some past history of him moving out his dreams and he could hold received aid. His complete acquittal of all the charges was morally and lawfully
incorrect. Blair even expresses this sentiment in the book.
In decision, & # 8220 ; To endeavor for justness, one must be a individual of rules. There is no individual rule that one can utilize to accomplish justness in the declaration of legal disputes. & # 8221 ; This is true because one must utilize a broad array of rules that come from moral and legal positions in order to derive a declaration. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to integrate societal stratification into some of these rules. The jurisprudence tends to hold more leniences to those who have higher places in society. With as many categories as our society today, it is impossible to happen a jury of equals. Each individual has their ain thought of cultural norms, legal and moral rules, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that societal stratification, whether it is between races, or economical degrees, will ever hold some function in legal determinations.