Forensic Entymology: How far does it take us?

Entymology—The study of insects. This practice has been used for years by forensic scientists to help solve the mysteries of crime scenes. This method was popularized even further when Gil Grissom, the CSI Las Vegas television series, emphasized the use of bugs found at the scene to help reveal mysteries about the body.

I found an interesting article, "The tell-tale grasshopper: Can forensic science rely on the evidence of bugs?"(mentioned in both news@nature.com and WIRED magazine) in which the identities of four bugs (along with other evidence) were used to convict a man with murder.

In this article, Vincent Brothers was tried for killing his wife, mother-in-law and children in Bakersfield, California. The main evidence used against him were the four bugs that Lynn Kimsey, an entomologist at the University of California, Davis, revealed during the trial. "A grasshopper, a paper wasp and two 'true bugs'...[showed] that Brothers' rental car had been well beyond St Louis" (Ledford's article). The scientists argued that these insects were indigenous to areas found only west of Missouri, thus indicating the car had traveled west of St. Louis.

Even though the accused said that he drove the car no further west than St. Louis, Missouri, the enymologic evidence said otherwise. Although, one has to question: how accurate can this type of investigation really be? When working with dead bodies, it is reasonable to scrutinize the developmental stages of maggots found around the body to estimate how long the body has been dead. However, when looking at insect carcasses that are plastered on a rental car's radiator and air filters, there is so much uncertainty about how and when the bug got there along with the transportation mehtod, that it is hard to imagine such evidence would actually be looked at seriously in court.

It is true that investigators have been using "insect informants for centuries, typically focusing on the flies that colonize dead bodies, [and] if the conditions are right, such bugs can reveal how long a body has been dead, if the victim was poisoned, or wheter the body has been moved. Bugs can also help to track movement -- a squashed bug plucked from somen's shoe treds or a revealing insect bite form a geographically limited pest can all be clues of where a suspect has been" (Ledford's article). But this type of detective science is based on the geographic location of where bugs are normally found, and there are no distinct lines that can be drawn, as they did in this trial with the boundaries of various insect's habitats.

Sure, an approximate area could be estimated, but the fact that an exact line was drawn to divide where one species of grasshopper or wasp was found seems flawed. With migration and climate changes, along with the reliance on outdated maps of these insect’s natural distribution, such claims can not be rightfully presented in the courts.

Forensic science is the application based on the analysis of evidence to answer questions of interest for the legal system; however, as the article also states, the clues scientists use can be uncertain. Thus, even Kimsey, one of the 137 witnesses that took the stand in this case, worries about the skills entomologists employ to determine the identity of bugs.

With modern technologies at investigator’s disposals, having claims of any uncertainty or dependence on an outdated map is unacceptable to have as evidence presented in the courts. As Jeffrey Wells, a forensic entomologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown, declared, “"We have classic publications about bug distribution from maybe 50 years ago that are quite good, but some things have changed. Some distributional records are out of date." Thus, with the idea that insects may wander outside their areas through either natural or unnatural (by hitching a ride on a truck, etc) means, a jury couldn’t possibly consider this when decided on a murder case.

Such evidence, I think, should stick to describing dead bodies; otherwise, the system will convict the wrong man for murder because the fact of bug migration and climate change are being overlooked.

This article brings out an uncertainty that scientists need to address. As one blogger noted, “Maybe I just haven't seen the right episodes, but wouldn't it be nice if CSI did a show on just how unclear forensic technologies can sometimes be?” This is a valid point, as the reliance on technology to identify the species increases, the reliance on natural intuition and classical morphology disappears, and investigators look at the bugs only through a machine, rather than through their own eyes.

Although, with the reliance on genetic sequencing, scientists are using only a small database, as all the genes of various insects have not yet been sequenced nor do I think they will ALL ever be. So that means it's back to the basics--learning the morphology of insects the traditional way, rather than waiting on a machine or an archaic map to decide the correct identity and location of an insect.

I Spit on Your Grave (Day of the Woman)

I Spit on Your Grave (Day of the Woman)

Day of the Woman (the title preferred by its director Meir Zarchi), also known as I Hate Your Guts and The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hill, was controversial enough to earn an X-rating upon its original U.S. release in 1978. Since it was poorly received at the box office, distributor Jerry Gross renamed the film I Spit on Your Grave (after the Stateside title of Michel Gast’s 1959 controversial French drama, J'irai cracher sur vos tombes) for its re-release in 1981. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the more offensive and exploitative title led the film to greater publicity. Shocked by the harrowing images of rape and revenge, conservative critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert launched a campaign against the film. In addition, the film was branded with the label “Video Nasty” in the United Kingdom; it was also banned in many countries, including Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.

Zarchi claimed that the inspiration for this film came from a personal encounter with a woman who was raped by two men. When he brought the traumatized woman to the nearest police station, the police officer, described as “not fit to wear the uniform” by Zarchi, tied the woman up in police red tape and forced her to file a report. Instead of treating the woman with compassion and understanding, the officer delayed taking her to the hospital. Zarchi decided to re-tell the woman’s story through a film. However, this time, instead of going to the police, she would take her own revenge (IMDb).

I Spit on Your Grave seems to offer brutal shock therapy to middle-class ennui; in the film, Jennifer Hill (Camille Keaton), a sophisticated writer from New York City, is raped by four men when she temporarily moves to the country for the summer. However, it seems to me that she asked for it. When she first arrived at the local gas station, she got out of the car and walked back and forth in front of the gas station manager, Johnny. She was wearing a short skirt, thereby exposing her “damn sexy legs,” as Johnny described them. She did not seem to be oblivious to the male gaze upon her.

Then, when Matthew, the village retard, delivered a bag of supermarket groceries to Jennifer’s house, she was also wearing exposing clothing. When she noticed that Matthew seemed to be interested in her, she flirted with him:

Matthew: Do you have a boyfriend?
Jennifer: I have many boy friends.
Matthew: Can I be your friend?
Jennifer: Sure.

The final match was struck when Jennifer sunbathed in a bikini. She obviously knew that the four men (Johnny, Matthew, Stanley, and Andy) have been driving their motorboat in that lake all their lives. The men decided to teach her a lesson. First, they circled around Jennifer’s canoe in their motorboat. Then, they chased her in the forest while whooping like Indians. Johnny, Stanley, and Andy challenged Matthew’s masculinity when they dared him to rape her: “You wanna be a man, don’tcha? Don’t miss your chance. You won’t regret it!” The traits of stereotypical masculinity are shown through the men’s “guy talk” and their constant bragging. At one point, one man even declared, “Total submission. That’s what I like in a woman.”

After the prolonged scenes of gang-rape, the film reached its turning point; Jennifer, wearing all black, knelt down in the local church and asked for God’s forgiveness. Her black clothes served as an obvious contrast to the pure white interior of the church. From then on, the film was all about her revenge. First, she seduced Matthew, her easiest target: “I could have given you a summer to remember for the rest of your life.” As he became oblivious to his surroundings, she strung a noose around his neck and hangs him on a tree. She then cut the rope and dropped his dead body into the lake. Next, she seduced Johnny into taking a ride with her in her car. She drove to a secluded area, pointed a gun at him, and ordered him to strip off all his clothes: “Now, on your knees.” When he angrily stated that he did not women who gave him orders, she fired her gun on the floor to scare him. He attempted to give excuses for the gang-rape that were extremely offensive to men: “The thing with you was a thing any man would’ve done. Whether he’s married or not, a man is just a man!” She pretended to forgive him and let him take the gun from her. She lured him into taking a hot bath with her.

As Lawrence Diggs once claimed, “The weakness of men is the façade of strength; the strength of women is the façade of weakness.” Just when Johnny thought he had gained the upper-hand again, Jennifer castrates him with a knife hidden under her bathroom mat. She locked him in the bathroom and left him to bleed to death. When Stanley and Andy realized that both Johnny and Matthew were missing, they attempted to attack her. She killed one with an axe and disemboweled the other with the outboard engine of the motorboat. The movie ended with Jennifer driving the boat into the sunset.

Jennifer reminds me of Denesa Steiner in The Body Farm. While Denesa kills for attention, Jennifer kills for revenge. While Denesa turns the role of protector into murdered, Jennifer turns her role as a victim to a murderer. They are both beautiful yet murderous femme fatales who kill men after luring them through seduction.

The film seemed to be slightly offensive to lower-class men, who were portrayed as lazy, unsophisticated, and with poor or no jobs. Jennifer, a sophisticated, middle-class woman from New York City, ended up killing all four of them. In addition, this notorious film lacked sophistication; the plot unravels through a linear time-sequence, dialogue is minimal, music is almost completely absent, and the characters are clichéd and flat. These factors seem to prevent the viewer from becoming emotionally engaged in this traumatizing film.

Roger Ebert called the film “a vile bag of garbage… without a shred of artistic distinction [that is] so sick, reprehensible and contemptible.” Zarchi denied that his film was exploitative; he claimed that the violent nature of the film was necessary to depict the raw reality of rape. Is rape ever justified? Do rapists deserve death as a rape victim’s ultimate justice? Are women empowered or exploited by the revenge fantasy? Is the film promoting immoral violence, or is it just trying to tell a story, as Zarchi claimed? And is the film ultimately feminist or misogynist?

passion and the unlimited human potential

more about GATTACA

GATTACA:passion and the unlimited human potential

Although Vincent eventually fulfills his dream of going into space with his own determination and effort, his success would have not been achieved without the help of other people. Whenever his true identity is at risk to be revealed, they help to hide his real identity so he can keep striving for his dream. Throughout the film, there are at least four people who have the opportunity to expose him. They are Irene, Anton, Lamar, and Eugene (the real Jerome Morrow). In Vincent, they see the unlimited human potential and his passion for space, the true superior quality of human nature that cannot be found in the inhumane environment of Gattaca. In a place where human spirits are isolated by shiny metallic walls and human bodies are subjected to the manipulation by science and technology, they see hope in Vincent to defy the fate set by science.

Although Eugene and Vincent are bound by their contract and their situation to cover up each other’s real identity, Eugene’s attitude toward Vincent changes from a belittling sneer to a complete admiration of his passion at the end. In the beginning, Eugene still lives in the bubble of his genetic perfection. When Vincent comes back from his interview, cheering that he gets the job, Eugene looks rather depressed and sends out a curt reply, “of course you get it.” Although he cannot tolerate winning only the silver medal, his belief in the perfection of his genetic composition is firm. However, after living with Vincent and experiencing his determination, such as the time when Vincent has to cut off and reattach his legs to become taller, Eugene expresses how glad he is that he has met Vincent. Eugene says, “I got the better deal of it. I only lent you my body. You lent me your dreams.” While saying that, the expression on his face is full of sincerity and admiration. Before his encounter with Vincent, Eugene’s goal in life is to meet the expectations people have for his genetic perfection. Even though he strives for the gold medal, it is highly questionable whether he chooses swimming because of passion. Most likely, rather than choosing swimming as his career, he is chosen to compete for swimming because of his gene, a gene which is believed to have been engineered for a superior physical strength. However, as the remark on the DVD cover of the movie says, “there is no gene for the human spirit.” No matter how advanced the technology is, even as in the movie where sequencing the entire individual’s genome can be done in few minutes, the human spirit cannot be manipulated or engineered. This is what Eugene admires Vincent for. With Vincent, they work toward a common goal. Vincent’s dream and passion become Eugene’s as well. Vincent lets Eugene experience what it is like to live for one’s dream, rather for one’s burden, such as Eugene’s own burden of fulfilling the expectation of his genetic “superiority”. It is possible that Eugene commits suicide when Vincent leaves for space because of his homosexual love for Vincent. Yet the more likely cause of Eugene’s suicide is his fear that he has to come back to his old life. In the next year without Vincent to provide the dream for which Eugene lives on, he cannot bear to go back to his old life when he is reminded everyday of his failure to prove the success of his genetic manipulation. Eugene admires Vincent’s dream and passion for space. With this admiration Eugene prepares the specimen for Vincent even though he has decided to commit suicide. The real Jerome may die, but Vincent’s dream can live on to keep inspiring others.
While with Vincent’s dream Eugene finds a new meaning for his life, Vincent’s belief that passion can overcome so-called physical defect shows the unlimited human potential to Lamar. While Vincent is supplying his own urine specimen, his conversation with Lamar reveals their common belief for the unlimited human potential.

Lamar: Flight got you nervous?
Vincent: There is a problem, Lamar.
Lamar: Did I ever tell you about my son, Jerome? He’s a big fan of yours. He
Wants to apply here.

Vincent: Just remember, Lamar, I would have gone up and back and nobody would have been wiser—

Lamar: Unfortunately, my son’s not all that they promised. But then, who knows what he could do.

Vincent wants Lamar to realize that he is always the best with or without his cover identity as Jerome. Lamar implies that he already knows Vincent’s true identity and he admires how Vincent strives for his passion. He states that “ Unfortunately, my son’s not all that they promised.” Who are they? They might be the genes inside Lamar’s son. Lamar’s son might be a “faith-birth” too and have some “genetic defects.” However, Vincent has inspired him to overcome whatever predisposition he might have to achieve his full potential or beyond.

While Irene and Anton each play a role in protecting Vincent’s identity, they act on different motives than simple admiration. For example, Irene is in love with Vincent and Anton shares the same bloodline as Vincent. However, Vincent’s courage and determination eventually expel any negative attitude they have toward his “ladder-borrowing.”

The Wellcome Collection... Mixing Science, Culture, and Art

Sir Henry Solomon Wellcome (1853-1936) is noted as a pharmacist, entrepreneur philanthropist and collector on the website for The Wellcome Collection. Not only did he have a large collection of medical and health related items, he was also one of the first people to introduce medicine in the form of a tablet and established medical research laboratories. Today the Wellcome Trust which helps fund biomedical research is the largest charity in Great Britain and some of Wellcome’s over 1 million medical and archaeological artifacts are displayed as part of the Wellcome Collection. This museum, which recently opened its doors to the public, was recently featured in the article Museum Portrays Medicine Through Art.

I really enjoyed looking at The Wellcome Collection’s website, and looking at some of the things they have on display. I found it especially fascinating that this collection doesn’t claim to be of strict scientific and medical value. In a world where there seems to be so many claims to the objectivity of science and the medical field, this museum aims to address the human fascination with the body. The website explains how objects are organized to help give viewers different perspectives on things,

“In 'Medicine Man' some objects are gathered by type and others by broad cross-cultural themes. Seven other objects are presented individually and are examined by a variety of commentators from different backgrounds, to show that one object can mean many different things and tell many different stories.” Medicine Man Exhibit

This therefore reflects the subjectivity of things in the medical world. By presenting objects from varying views, I believe that these exhibits will do a good job at evoking thought and encouraging conversations.

The collections contain a wide variety of objects as well. These include paintings and drawings that represent a particular view, Memento mori statues, a tattoo from an executed criminal, and a blown glass HIV virus sculpture that was created as a reaction to the artificially colored images of the virus portrayed by the media.

Phrenological skull, Europe, 19^th century

One current exhibit called The Heart looks specifically at this organ that has vital medical, cultural, and religious significance. This site goes on to explain the purpose of the exhibit.

“This exhibition looks at the evolution of our understanding of what the heart is, what it does and what it means. Concentrating primarily on Western medicine and culture, it brings together objects and images from the histories of both science and art, as well as from everyday life.

It follows the development of our anatomical knowledge of the heart, but also considers its far-reaching cultural and symbolic significance. Why is it that the pump that circulates our blood is so intimately bound up with the way we discuss our emotional and moral lives, and so central to the question of the relationship between body and soul?”

A donor heart about to be transplanted; Francis Wells, 2006.

In addition to the exhibits, the Wellcome Collection also hosts a variety of special events. These events include a wide range of activities, further reflecting the diversity that is present in the collection. For example, an event on July 1^st entitled From the Heart explores the heart and topics such as wellbeing, emotion, and heart rates in relation to music through an interactive workshop. This workshop will include “music, movement and projected images” along with “singing…live sampling and other creative and rhythmic exercises inspired by your own pulse.”

Another event four days later will include a Live Surgery. This event will allow people to view a live open-heart surgery via video-link. The event will also be moderately interactive as viewers may question the surgical team during the “complex reconstruction of a heart valve” and also be able to handle some of the same equipment used by the operators. The event also will allow viewers to “learn more about the patient and the impact the surgery will have on their life. Find out why preserving the natural heart valve, rather than replacing it with an artificial valve, allows the heart to function more efficiently.”

I think the Wellcome Collection is a fascinating museum. Because it has only recently opened to the public, we cannot yet gauge the response of museumgoers to these exhibits yet. I believe this has the potential to be both a popular and useful learning tool. Because the exhibits aim to combine science and culture, I feel that people will be able to gain a greater understanding of both aspects when compared to a collection that only aims to take one or the other into account. Science and culture cannot be wholly separated from each other, though many exhibits make an attempt at this separation. By understanding the powerful connection between the two, I feel that the Wellcome Collection takes many of the same considerations that we have in this class and will therefore be most helpful as a learning instrument.

I encourage you to take a look at the site and exhibits... or visit if you're ever in London. How does this collection help mediate the fields of science and technology with culture and art? Compare this collection with others such as Bodies: The Exhibition. What can we learn from one exhibit that wasn't found in the other? Also, how are the exhibits similar and different in their claims, goals, and effects?

Gattaca—What Defines Natural?

A few terms that I think should be clarified when approaching this topic are found below, along with a link to other variations of the words:

Genetics = “the science of heredity and variation in living organisms”

Determinism = “the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes”

Natural = “of or produced by nature, not made by men”

In Gattaca, the term “natural” referred to the “heteronormative nuclear family-making”, whereas “unnatural” meant an offspring was created through “cloning or genetic manipulation (falling within the realm of science)” (Briggs 94). Although it is quite ironic how the individuals that resulted from an unnatural birth (or birth in a bottle) were featured as "valid" and someone such as Vincent was categorized as an "invalid." In this film, technology plays a major role in deciding the quality of life a person will have based on the unnatural birth process parents go through.

Reproduction = “the process of generating offspring”

Technology = “The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives”

By combining these two terms, the idea of reproductive technology emerges, in which the article we read describes it as the process in which making genes and children are manipulated.

Reproductive technologies = “a term for all current and anticipated uses of technology in human and animal reproduction”

One of the major frustrations I experienced when watching this film was that which was described in the reading quite well: “genetic technology is made to stand for science, which is imagined as something done only by men, and contrasted with ‘natural’ maternity, in which women (who do not do science, and presumably stay home to act as good mothers) bear good children, enclosed within a heterosexual nuclear family” (Briggs 94). First off, how is it that the future reverts to the historic past of the placing women in the domestic role? Although one could argue that the role of Irene Cassini, played by Uma Thurman in this movie contradicts this point, I would say it only furthers this claim, as she is not allowed to advance in her career, and is told to do mundane work which is not in the description of her position. Additionally, if one were to argue that women should have no role in genetics in the future, then they most certainly have forgotten that Rosalind Franklin played a critical role in discovering the structural nature of DNA. She was a highly dedicated scientist and rose to the challenge of trying to single-handedly find the double-helix structure of DNA by utilizing X-ray crystallography techniques She is often overlooked because of her gender; however, as we progress in society, more attention is given to her as a contributing member to the discovery.

I think it is also interesting how Robin Roberts suggests that “more than other genres, science fiction is obsessed with the figure of Women: not only as potential sexual partner but, more interestingly, as alien, as ruler, and as mother” (Briggs 95). This article goes on to describe the dual roles women play in the films Alien and Aliens, with their implicated cultural problems with respect to the way they represent the mothers. I want to bring into question this idea of how women represent this dichotomous role. This reading also focused on analyzing Jurassic Park; however, my main interests were the scientific and gender claims presented in Gattaca.

After viewing the film, not only do I wonder about genetic manipulation of child-birth, in order to create a superior-being (as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World), but also about the possibilities involved with cloning. Cloning is a heated topic of debate as it not only applies to people, but to organs, animals, and other organic compounds as well. With respect to cloning currently, there is a problem of certainty and knowing if scientists are truly capable of cloning human beings. The ethical problems of justifying cloning dominate the debate among the scientific community, government, and the general public. Additionally, there seem to be many limitations with the process of cloning, because there are so many regulations against its progression; hence, some advancements or experiments are carried out secretly, and not published until the government actually allows it. What are some of the many implications and problems that might arise if human cloning was permissible in the future?

The main focus of the reading today was on the futuristic idea of childbirth, and the difference between “faith-births” in-vivo vs. the genetic contributions of the mother in-vitro. It is inspiring in this film that a character such as Vincent, who was a product of God, rather than scientific manipulation, was able to deceive the system and achieve his goal. Additionally, as the text puts quite eloquently, “Vincent, as [a] hero, is never figured as particularly masculine in the Schwarzenegger mode, but is slightly built…appears androgynous or even feminized” (Briggs 106). This text argues that the film conveys him as gay and his secret identity is analogous to his secret sexual orientation, although I beg to differ as he has both a physical and emotional relationship with Cassini. The coddling and attention Vincent received as a child because he was thought to be sickly can easily explain this confusion.

A fascinating aspect of this film is the ability to learn about the body and its importance in this futuristic society. Ranging from the fingerprint, to blood samples and hair follicles, the innate naturalness coded to the body battles technology’s necessity for cleanliness and unnaturalness. The fact that Jerome is literally selling his body parts, and not the typical arm and a leg, rather the material that defines his genetics is what makes this futuristic society so absurd. No longer is an individual’s outer appearance of any concern, but really, technology forces everyone to look at what literally makes-up the individual. The investigators, as always, go straight to the body as evidence after the murder, following the traditional method of investigation.

One last thought the movie evokes is the idea that the future is not as glorious as people envision. “Gattaca wants the viewer to be very afraid of a technological future that includes genetically engineered children and the abandonment of leaving things to chance, because it means an end to humanistic valuing of the individual” (Briggs 106). Reproductive technologies and science in general are seen to destroy the natural order of things in this film, thus creating a sense of panic in what individuals will become and how they will make decisions in the future, since their entire birth was a manipulated and exact process.

"O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here!

How beautious mankind is!

O brave new world

That has such people in't!"

(Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Act V, Scene I)

Let us expect that such philosophy holds true, as this idea seemed to dissolve in Gattaca with the reliance on technology to run society. What does the future hold for us in terms of genetics and what we perceive as natural and ethical? Where do the boundaries occur and who gets to make this decision? Would the role of women be set back to the traditional domestic sphere or advanced because of further intellect and collaborative efforts they can create? These are questions we must answer before we can hope to move forward.

Where to begin with Briggs and Kelber-Kaye....

Starting out reading Briggs et al, I expected an interresting take on the issue - having seen the relationship between Jerome and Vincent as very fraternal, I thought it would be interresting to see how the homosexuality theme fit in.... especially since Vincent has a romantic relationship with a woman. Turns out this article is based on loose logic, and weak argumentation - and is written by people who appear to be slightly obsessed with homosexuality. They talk not about what the film evokes, but what they brought into it.

As for the Jurrasic park bit, I skimmed most of it and didn't find it that interresting... I haven't seen the movie in years, though they were convincing with their bashes on Crighton, but I think they inferred too much out of his Playboy quote.

Vincent, we all know, isn't the stereotypical macho-man, "Vincent as hero, is never figured as particularly masculine in the Schwarzenegger mode, but is slightly build, severely nearsighted, and constantly fearful that his identity will be revealed; he appears.... gay" (Briggs 106). OK, first of all making Vincent look like Arnold "The Terminator" would be ridiculous... as the Terminator is pretty much the definition of a techno-man. Secondly, that he's nearsighted being an implication as to his sexual orientation is absurd. It just highlights that he's not what society would consider the ideal person, and runs with the theme that what can be seen or measured doesn't necessarily prove a person's abilities - almost a parallel of anti-sexist and anti-racist theory. Because someone has a different type of chromosome does NOT determine their worth, though society historically sees it differently. Just like being near-sighted has nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

Moving on, on page 107 they talk about the tubes, "Evoking contemporary anxieties about AIDS". What popped to my mind was kidney problems, or cancer.On page 108 they talk about a sharing of body fluds indicating "rampant homosexual behavior". Or, maybe, a brother saving his borther's life with a blood transfusion? To me, the penis comment was not homosexual - merely highlighting Lamar's observational skills and also joking about the societal notion that having a larger penis makes you more "manly". The fact that the physician has a daughter, and is married, is ignored. The term "excited" can have sexual connotations, but doesn't always. I'm not even going to go into the logistics of having a homosexual relationship with a disabled man. Just because the two men share an unusual (almost brotherly) relationship - which Vincent eventually outrgrows - doesn't mean the movie is condemning homosexuality.

Notice on page 109 how the authors use "clearly" THRICE before making claims that aren't that clear. The effect is to try to make readers ignore the fallacies of the arguments, and succumb to the views of the "experts" - if you didn't see that which was "clear" then you must be blind... so don't even admit to yourself that this wasn't clear all along. The authors use the uhh... "brilliant" "clearly..."-argument a total of 6 times in the article.

On page 110, they appeal again to an objectivity when they say, "The slippage between nature, God, love, and utero births is UNMISTAKABLE AND DELIBERATE" (emphasis added). The intentionalist argument is bogus, because it could easily be subconscious (or non-existent). And, it is mistakable, sorry. I personally "mistook" the themes to mean that no matter whether you conform to society's superficial judgements of you, you can still succeed. On the same page, they say "all black men are the State" - since ALMOST EVERYONE is the state in this hypothetical society, I'm not really impressed with their observation. Maybe they would have preferred if the guy who set up the whole illegal thing were black? He wasn't part of the state, and that most certainly wouldn't proliferate any racist, essentialist views.

Homosexual or not, Jerome only has one friend, or even acquaintance, and is confined to a tiny appartment almost constantly. The fact that he gets jealous about his friend having a relationship probably reflects his own anxieties - not necessarily about losing a sexual partner. I've had many friends complain when their good friends get girlfriends and don't hang out as much. Are they all involved in homosexual relationships? Maybe, I don't know, but I doubt it.

Vincent keeps his desk clean because he doesn't want to leave any DNA evidence for "the Man" (read: government) to find. Then he says that cleanliness is next to godliness. The authors then say that "what makes him an individual, is God-given" (109). Somehow, the authors confuse Vincent's comparing himself to God as an agument of his talents being God-given. If I say "wow, i'm godly at pool" that is saying I dominate those around me at pool, not that God granted me the power of pool-playing. It is more of a denial of God.

The authors are, in my opinon, guilty of mixing an idea that even non-traditional masculinity has inherrent value with an accusation that "unmanly" men are homosexual. When Vincent refuses to test the girl's DNA, he is rejecting the societal claim that such testing is a viable means of judging, seeing, and knowing.

Finally, Vincent's "rejection" of Jerome isn't necessarily a bash on homosexuality in general, it could also be that he would rather spend his time with a talented, driven, happy person than with a suicidal, depressed alcoholic.... If anything, it's a rejection of the family structure, as the authors argue that Jerome is like the wife (which I can see... he does little but give his body to Vincent in exchange for money, never leaves the house, and whines a lot).

Jacob Riis: Nurture Not Nature

Jacob Riis took a different approach to identifying the criminal than did his predecessors or contemporaries of the late 1800s. He was “a newspaper reporter for the New York Tribune, and later, the Sun” (Phillips 25). Rather than looking to the individual for the basis of his criminality, Riis decided that an individual was simply the product of his environment. He did not believe that a criminal was born a criminal and that it was more common in certain gene pools. Instead, he believed that social circumstances were to blame and thus shaped the individual. In order to support this theory and convince the mass public, he began to compile photographs of the conditions that fostered crime. In the following picture found in Police Pictures: The Photograph as Evidence, convinced that the environment was responsible for producing criminals, Jacob Riis presents the conditions in which immigrants to New York City lived (Phillips 77):

Bandit's Roost, 39 1/2 Mulberry Street (1890)

In this photograph, the bodies are not the main focus. Instead, it is the location of these bodies that catches the eye of the audience. The careful lighting and the natural positioning of the bodies give this picture authenticity and give the audience the sense that maybe the idea of the criminal is not necessarily just based on biological anatomy or constrained to a certain "lower" race. If anyone was forced to live in the same environment, they would be privy to a similar fate. Below is another picture of the horrible conditions in which some grew up. Riis argued that their motives for committing crime must have a basis in their squalid environment:

Bandit's Roost, One of Four Pedlars Who Slept in the Cellar of 11 Ludlow Street Rear

Riis decided to promote his theory through photographs because "he found that words alone were not powerful enough to evoke the conditions he saw" (Phillips 26). Thus, the photograph proves yet again to be an invaluable tool to show the truth, even though it remains completely subjective to the whims of the photographer. What is interesting is that he did not just take pictures of actual criminals. He took pictures of single mothers, alley ways, and cramped living conditions. By simply taking a mug shot, the photographer removes the criminal from his background and because Riis felt that environment played such a large role in determining criminality, he decided to photograph the environment rather than just the individual. The majority of the photographs were taken in the neighborhoods of immigrant and minority populations in New York City, those populations that were deemed prone to commit crime by authors such as Cesare Lombroso and police inspectors like Thomas Byrnes due to their inferior biology. Riis wrote many books about his findings, the most famous of which was How the Other Half Lives. To see more of Riis' photographs, click here.

The Nature vs. Nurture debate is once again at odds and still exists when it comes to the basis of criminality. In present day, is there more of an emphasis on the biology or the environment of the criminal? What is the impact of that emphasis? How does photography today view criminality?