Author Archives: jaimie

In his essay “Underworlds and Underdogs” Daniel Czitron investigates the life of Tammany Hall member, Tim Sullivan. Tammany Hall is generally associated with coercing votes and the corrupt regime of Boss Tweed but there was much more to Tammany Hall and its members than shady activity.

Big Tim Sullivan was elected the New York State Senate in 1893 to represent the Bowery district. Tammany Hall and Big Tim organized weekend outings for citizens of the Bowery, a chance to escape crowded tenements and go out into the park. Most Bowery residents were given free tickets to the event. Throughout his career in the senate Big Tim worked to keep open popular urban amusements that could be enjoyed by all. Big Tim also started the tradition of feeding poor families Christmas dinner in 1894 and began to give away shoes and wool socks every February.

Tammany’s practice of forcing local constituents to vote was problematic for many because the outcome for national presidential elections was often determined by New York State. Big Tim was known to bail out men who had been convicted of election law violations and hiring gangs to police election polls. Big Tim was further accused of profiting from prostitution on the Lower East Side and serious gambling problems.

His familiarity with the underworld of New York City did not stop his commitment to clean up his district. Due to increased violence below 14th street Sullivan helped write The Sullivan Act which was the city’s first gun control law.

Despite the good he had done for the Bowery district and New York City Tim Sullivan was thought to be a chum to the underworld until his death. Sullivan’s involvement with Tammany and his association with criminal life made him a criminal by default in the eyes of many people. Although his situation wasn’t as serious as the people from Witch Hunt, who were wrongly accused, his believed criminality was something he struggled against daily.

This is only part one of three of an episode from the History Channel show Gangland and it focuses on females in gangs. The video really highlights a lot of what we’ve been seeing in the assigned readings.

The women interviewed are from Compton, California, a city known for poverty and violence. This plays into the stereotype that lower classes are more likely to become involved in crime. Slyvia Nunn, one of the main women intereviewed, lived in the area when it was still predominantly white and admits to being part of the middle/upper class, becoming involved with gang activity only after the Watts riots when her dad taught her to use a gun to protect herself. I think it’s really important that the shows creators made it known that this women turned to gangs not because of her economic status.

Susan Cruz, former gang member and gang expert, says that women turn to gangs out of circumstance. Women join in order to create relationships that they are missing out on at home or because someone they are already in a relationship with (brother, father, boyfriend) has joined. This goes back to Lombroso’s belief that women are lead to commit crimes because of an excess of feminine traits. Intimacy (sexual or emotional) is a trait commonly associate with women and it is exactly what they seek in gang membership.

Cruz also mentions that some of her coworkers would rather work with male gang members than female ones. Since it’s believed that women do not generally exhibit violent or aggressive behavior, when they do no one, in this case it is rehabilitation workers, is unsure how to deal with them because their actions are so unfamiliar and scary. Female gang members admit that they are more successful at crime for that very reason, no one suspects them.

Both Typecasting and Jekylls and Hydes have proven that before the technological advances of the 19th century, finding criminals and punishing them was neither easy nor fool proof.  The increased reliance of technology in the 20th century made DNA testing a household word and lawyers made it appear to be an infallible truth. But is it really?

The study and understanding of DNA and genetics is still far from complete. In 1993 scientists finally isolated the gene for Huntington’s Disease (HD), a hereditary genetic disorder which deteriorates the brain, after over 100 years of studying families affected by the disease. As the brain slowly deteriorates, so does the affected person’s ability to walk, talk, and reason.

When my Grandfather was diagnosed with the disease in 1995, he had already lost his reputation to the disease. He was arrested multiple times for DUIs and disorderly conduct but he never drank a day in his life.

Early HD symptoms look a lot like drunken/drug related behavior. The person undergoes physical changes; a lack of balance, frequent stuttering, an involuntary twitch in the hands. Cognitive abilities begin to weaken as well, creating lapses in short term memory and altering behavior.

DNA might be your unique “unquestionable identity” but just because someone can see and match DNA doesn’t mean that they can read it and understand its meaning, that much is clear just from the history of HD. I hate to quote a movie but Ian Malcolm tells John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” I think the same idea applies to using DNA in criminal investigations. How can anyone have faith in a system that uses anything without understanding or respecting its power?