SAGA HAIKU

For those of you troglodyte philistines who don’t know,
haiku is Japanese style of poetry. A haiku is a short poem with three lines,
each lines consisting of five, seven, and five syllables respectively.  

In the bakery

Loaves and buns sit in darkness

The silence of jams

Supervisor Bob

You look like Wilford Brimley

Diabeetus boss

The great signage heist of 2011

Remember last year when some girl from ballard ran her truck
into the whitworth sign and demolished it? Good times. After that, people
started stealing the letters from the ruined sign, causing great uproar. The administration
sent letters out to all of us begging that the stolen letters be returned. None
were.

A few days after the emailm some friends and I were eating
in SAGA and disussing the missing letters. A cashier (one of the old lady ones
who can barely walk, let alone wipe down tables) had paused to join us in the
converstation. I remarked in jest that I had some of the missing letters
hanging above my bed.

Turns out lunch ladies have trouble detecting sarcasm.

The next day, I was surprised by a visit from a campus
security fficer, hoping to reclarin the letters that I had apparently stolen. He
told me that he had heard about my “vonfession” in the cafeteria, and I explained
to him that I had been joking. I invited him to serach my room, but he
declined. I asked him if he had any luck finding any other letters and he said
no, but he hoped to, because each letter had cost the college about 1000
dollars.

1000 dollars each? For the 18 characters in WHitworth University, that’s 18000
dollars. 18000 dollars of my tuition,
no less. Why in the name of all that is pure and holy did the sign have to cost
so much? That money could have gone to a scholarship for a deserving student,
or new computers, or a jungle gym in the fitness center. I was determined to
find out who was responsible for this overly expernsive sign.

First I headed down to the art department, since them artsy
types always know about this sort of thing. Scott Kolbo informed me that there
is a special design committee, cloistered and mysterious in nature, that decrees
the appearance of the entire campus. Nothing about the buildings or grounds can
be changed without their appearance. Apparently someone on this design
committee has a big thing for red brick and brass lettering. This committee has
mandated, for the sake of homogeneity,  that all university sign have brass lettering
in a special “Whitworth font”.  Hence the
letters have to be hand-crafted out of brass, making them more expensive.

I then headed over to mceachran hall, to see who approved
the funding for these cracker-jack handcrafed letters. Up in the financial
department, Luz Merkel told me that this sign had replaced a previous sign
about 15 years ago, the previous sign had been destroyed in a similar accident.
The last sign had been lit up at night by lights recessed in the ground, but
this new sign had a new lighting system: lights individualy wired into each
letters that backlit the text. Luz said that this innovation was another reason
that the sign cost so much more.

I ran into our dear dean of academics, Michael LeRoy, in the
hall, just when my anger at the atrocious superfluousness of the sign was at its
peak.  Micheal calmly explained to me
that the sign is whitworth’s “front door” to the world; it welcomes in new
students and gives people a good first impression of our school. Now, I
cetianly didn’t choose whitwwrth university on the basis of having a great
welcome sign, but I suppose there might be people who do. And of course, we
here at whitworht would do anything to squeeze more money out of the alums. However,
I do think Michaeal had a point. I take pride in my school, and I want the
appearance of whitworth to reflect the academic excellence we have here.

Impressive impressions aside,  

In this case there is no opportunity for physical restitution; the soldier can never give back the lives he took and he cannot reverse the perverse scheme he contributed to.

Radzik: to wrong another person is to incur a moral debt, and so to correct wrongdoing is to repay that debt.

retributive theories say that wrongdoers deserve to suffer some sort of loss or penalty because of their wrongfula actions. This principle is frequently defended in both popular and scholarly debates about criminal punishment. those giulty of criminal wrongdoing are said to deserve punishment simply becuase of their wrongful actions and not beuause punishment may achieve a net increase of of good consequences (such as deterrence of rehabilitation).

writings of Anselm of Canterbury talk about satisfaction theory. q- this theory incorporates elements of both retribution and restitution by requiring that humanity's debt to God be repaid with suffering, a form of moral currency contrived in such thoroughly economic terms that it can be not just measured but also saved in advance pooled among allies, and redistributed. ying vs yang i say

obedience and duty cannot make up for past sins; they can only be the means of avoiding future sin. "merit" is defined in this context as good works performed over and above one's duties.

the painful emotions of guilt, remorse, and shame are also sometimes characterized as forms of self-punishment. me- self punishment is a form of penance or atoning, motivated by the wrongdoer. but guilt is unavoidable, maybe. radzik say that michael s. moore in " the moral worth of retribution" says that guilt is an acknowledgement that one is derserving of suffering. giult results from beliefs; if the soldier does not acknowledge that he has done wrong, he has nothing to be guilty about.

kantian ethics talks about how one must punish a criminal wrongdoer becuase not to do so is to fail to recognize them as a responsible moral agent. similarly, a criminal's own self-deprecation and acceptance towards punishment acknowledges and (partially) redeems him as a moral agent.

"if the agents are to retain their commitment to morality at this point rather than rejecting morality in a misguided effort to defend themselves from their own negative judgment, they must condemn their own actions."

AHORA- Justice and forgiveness by Bash

for, one one hand, 'justice' seems to demand that we should somehow hold wrongdoers accountable for the wrong that they have done and not allow them to 'get away' with doing wrong. accoutability, if it to mean anything, includes punishment when appropriate.

forgivness is evil cuz it can seem like condoning, make he victim feel devalued and demeaned, or insist that athey forget or get over something that they are still coping with. desensitizes to evil.

we cannot forgive and forget as they saying mandates because if we forget the wrong there is nothing to forgive. and an easily forgettible wrong is apparently not that harmful in the first place.

there is another way that peole deal with the dilemema of justice and forgivness and that is to distinguish between the wrongdoer and the wrong. this contradicts the nietzchean idea that people cannot be separated from their actions. love the sinner hate the sin and whatevs.

nothes that as north obseves there may be some cases in which it is terribly difficult to separate the right from the wrong. she suggests that this may be so in in cetain horrifying crimes where the wrong is of such magnitude as apparently to define understanding.

one might say that forgiveness withour repentance is morally irrespionsible because it leaves the wrongdoer free to accept that the action was wrong and so free to repeat the wrongdoing.

it is an unforced expression of contrition to the victim, an expression of contrition for incidental harm caused by the wrongdoing, lastly, it is critical moral self-appraisal and realignment to demonstate that the wrongdoer has returned to moral responsibility for his actions, disapproving of former behavior.

by forgiving unconditionally a victim may model an act of unconditional love and mercy that stimulates a wrongdoer into repenting. forginves appeals to human solidarity and recognizeds that the wrongdoer is equally human. it is an opposite reaction to ill will. it is goodwill.

the idea of atonement attemps to take to take serioulsy moral responsability for the wrongdoing and attpmts to put right both the fact and the effect of the wrongdoing. it attpmts to give justice to the victim. kant sez we can never really make things right. we cannot undo the past, yo. but it may make forgiving the wrongdoer a morally responsible act - not kant. vitims will not be compromising the fact that thw wrongdoing was wrong if the forgive. They will not be ignoring it or making light of their suffering

MOAR BASH, but nao forgiveness and wrongdoing.

 bash in forvinesss and structural wrongdoing sez

group apologies often express that the group has moved on and gotten a new identity. they denounce.

Companies and groups can be separate legal entities with special characteristics

“they do not have a moral “self” in an organic sense. One cannot therefore speak of groups ‘forgiving’ or ‘being forgiven’ because integral to forgiveness are ideas to do with personal moral agency and responsibility, such as ‘intentional action’, ‘acknowledgemnt of resposibility’, ‘repentaance’ and so on.

A single member cannot speak for a whole group. A group cannot confess, repent, or forgive unless all members are of one mind in the action, but in this case the reality of the grioup is ibnapt because the indivduals are agreeing.

“there may be a link, -confessional, and spiritual- but that does not involve transferred moral liability.”

 MA STUFF

I will argue that Simon Weisenthal was justified in his unforgivness of the SS officer. He did not have the right to forgive the officer of his crimes against the Jewish people, and in no position to forgive him of his personal offences. However, although the officer was undeserving of the forgiveness, he demonstrated true repentance, and therefore simon was justified in forgiving him.

Weisenthal evidenced his concern for the young soldier.

 Schutztaffel Karl

Josek said- I feared at first that you had forgiven him. You would have had no right to do this in the name of people who had not authorized. What people have done to you yourself, you can, if you like, forgie and forget. Thsat is your own affair. But it would be a terrible sin to burden your conscience with other peoples sufferings.

Dnepropetrovsk.

He had repented this massacre, but maybe not all his involvement in the system.

Radzik ideas for atonement: repentance – morla improvement, address the victim- communication, capture the restitiution, reparations

Truth-telling is important to make  clear what is apologized for, and exonerates the victim from giult.

Full atonement is not possible with self-hatred. 

The sinner can only do all he can, he is not trapped in giult by an unforgiving victim

Outght implies can principle. Sometimes it is impossible to forgive therefore forgivnes is not a duty. It can be a process. Visiting mother an shataaaat.

Themotif of the sunflower represents the memory og the dead. We cannot “forgive and forget’ because of their memory.

Value for weisenthal, value for soldier

Can groups be forgiven and can groups forgive= need

Has he demsonstrated contrition?

Griups exist as moral agents- bible tells me so in Ezekiel. Group association, loegal shityat, public apologies.

Reasons for no- transfer of liability is false, 3^rd party forgivness is false, reducible to ind

in this case there is no opportunity for physical restitution; the soldier can never give back the lives he took and he cannot reverse the perverse scheme he contributed to.

Radzik: to wrong another person is to incur a moral debt, and so to correct wrongdoing is to repay that debt.

retributive theories say that wrongdoers deserve to suffer some sort of loss or penalty because of their wrongfula actions. This principle is frequently defended in both popular and scholarly debates about criminal punishment. those giulty of criminal wrongdoing are said to deserve punishment simply becuase of their wrongful actions and not beuause punishment may aceive a net increase of of good consequences (such as deterrence of rehabilitation).

writings of Anselm of canterbury talk about satisfaction theory. q- this theory incorporates elements of bothe retribuationand restitution by requiring that humanity's debt to God be repaid with suffereing, a form of moral currencey contrived in such thoroughly economic terms that it can be not just measured but also saved in advance,m pooled among allies, and redistributed. ying vs yang i say

obedience and duty cannot make up for past sins; they can only be the means of avoiding future sin. "merit" is defined in this context as good works performed over and above one's duties.

the painful emeotions of giult, remorse, and shame are also sometimes characterized as forms of self-punishment. me- self punishment is a form of penance or atoning, motivated by the wrongdoer. but guilt is unavoidable, maybe. radzik say that michael s. moore in " the moral worth of retribution" says that guilt is an acknowledgement that one is derserving of suffering. giult results from beliefs; if the soldier does not acknowledge that he has done wrong, he has nothing to be guilty about.

kantian ethics talks about how one must punish a criminal wrongdoer becuase not to do so is to fail to recognize them as a responsible mroal agent. similarily, a criminal's own self-deprection and gacceptance towrads punishment acknowleedges and (partially) redeems him as a moral agent.

"if the agents are to retain their committment to morality at this point rather than rejecting morality in a miguided effort to defend themselvesfrom their own negative judgement, they must condemn their own actions."

AHORA- Justice and forgiveness by Bash

for, one one hand, 'jusitce' seems to demand that we should somehow hold wrongdoers accountable for the wrong that they have done and not allow them to 'get away' with doing wrong. accoutability, if it to mean anything, includes punishment when appropriate.

forgivness is evil cuz it can seem like condoning, mkae he victimfeel devalued and demeaned, or insist that athey forget or get over something that they are still coping with. desesetizes to evil.

we cannot forgive and forget as they saying mandates because if we forget the wrong there is nothing to forgive. and an easily forgettible wrong is apparently not that harmful in the first place.

there is another way that peole deal with the dilemema of justice and forgivness and that is to distinguish between the wrongdoer and the wrong. this contradicts the nietzchean idea that people cannot be separated from their actions. love the sinner hate the sin and whatevs.

nothes that as north obseves there may be some cases in which it is terribly difficult to separate the right from the wrong. she suggests that this may be so in in cetain horrifying crimes where the wrong is of such magnitude as apparently to define understanding.

one might say that forgiveness withour repentance is morally irrespionsible because it leaves the wrongdoer free to accept that the action was wrong and so free to repeat the wrongdoing.

it is an unforced expression of contrition to the victim, an expression of contrition for incidental harm caused by the wrongdoing, lastly, it is critical moral self-appraisal and realignment to demonstate that the wrongdoer has returned to moral responsibility for his actions, disapproving of former behavior.

by forgiving unconditionally a victim may model an act of unconditional love and mercy that stimulates a wrongdoer into repenting. forginves appeals to human solidarity and recognizeds that the wrongdoer is equally human. it is an opposite reaction to ill will. it is goodwill.

the idea of atonement attemps to take to take serioulsy moral responsability for the wrongdoing and attpmts to put right both the fact and the effect of the wrongdoing. it attpmts to give justice to the victim. kant sez we can never really make things right. we cannot undo the past, yo. but it may amke forgiving the wrongdoer a morally responsible act - not kant. vitims will not be compromising the fact that thw wrongdoing was wrong if the forgive. They will not be ignoring it or making light of their suffering

MOAR BASH, but nao forgiveness and wrongdoing.

 bash in forvinesss and structuranl wrongdoing sez

group apologies often express that the group has moved on and gotten a new identity. they denounce.

 MA STUFF

I will argue that Simon Weisenthal was justified in his unforgivness of the SS officer. He did not have the right to forgive the officer of his crimes against the Jewish people, and in no position to forgive him of his personal offences. However, although the officer was undeserving of the forgiveness, he demonstrated true repentance, and therefore simon was justified in forgiving him.

Alexander, R., Smith, W., & Stevenson, R. (1990). Serial Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Pediatrics, 86, 581-585

Bools, C N, Neal, B A , & Meadow, S R . (1993). Follow up of victims of fabricated illness (munchausen syndrome by proxy). Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, St James's University Hospital, Leeds., Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10296

Ayoub, C. C., & Alexander, R. (1998). Definitional issues in Munchausen by proxy. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Advisor, 11, 7-10. journal Citation

Del Castillo, M., Ramos, P., & Antolín, A. (2003). Síndrome de Munchausen por poderes con sintomotología psíquica. llustración de un caso clínico. Cliníca y Salud, 14(1), 101-113. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Donovan, Katie. (1993, May 24). In the grip of munchausen . The Irish Times, p. 8.

Elwyn, Todd, & Ahmed, Iqbal. (2009, October 22). Factitious disorder. Retrieved from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/291304-overview

Eminson, M., & Jureidini, J. (2003). Concerns about research and prevention strategies in Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(4), 413-420. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00028-0.

Feldman, M. (1994). Denial in Munchausen syndrome by proxy: The consulting psychiatrist's dilemma. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 24(2), 121-128. doi:10.2190/1B42-9RD9-H1PE-7UVF.

Fraser, M. J. (2008). A mother's investment in maintaining illness in her child: A perversion of mothering and of women's role of 'caring'? : Journal of Social Work Practice Vol 22(2) Jul 2008, 169-180.

Jennens, R. (2009). Munchausen syndrome by proxy: Implications for professional practice in relation to children's education. Child Care in Practice, 15(4), 299-311. doi:10.1080/13575270903101399.

Keough, Caroline. (1999, July 11). Was mother culprit for girl's illness? trial for rare form of child abuse begins monday . Miami Herald, p. 1.

Laurance, Jeremy. (2004, June 7). Health: a sick child or a sick mind?; some parents believe munchausen's by proxy barely exists. The Independent (London), pp. 10-11.

Ludwig, S., & Rostain, A. (1992). Family function and dysfunction. In M. D. Levine, W. B. Carey, & A. D. Crocker (Eds.), Developmental behavioral pediatrics (2nd ed., pp. 147-159). Philadelphia: Saunders.

Nielsen, John. (26, January 2009). Mother may make up ills: is it criminal? prosecutors argue jurisdiction in possible child abuse case as doctors debate disorder . Dallas Morning News, p. 1A.

Precey, G. (1998). Assessment issues in working with mothers who induce illness in their children. Child & Family Social Work, 3(4), 227-237. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2206.1998.00085.x.

Prentice, Melissa. (2001). Prosecuting mothers who maim and kill: the profile of munchausen syndrome by proxy litigation in the late 1990s. American Journal of Criminal Law, Retrieved from http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/3501669-1.html

McClure, R. J., Davis, P. M., Meadow, S. R., & Sibert, J. R. (1996), Epidemiology of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, non-accidental poisoning, and non-accidental suffocation. Archives of Disease in Childhood75: 57-61. journal Citation

Rosenberg, D. (1995). From lying to homicide: The spectrum of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. In A. V. Levin & M. S. Sheridan (Eds.), Munchausen syndrome by proxy: Issues in diagnosis and treatment (pp. 13-37). New York: Lexington

Rosenberg, D. (1997). Munchausen syndrome by proxy: Currency in counterfeit illness. In A. E. Helfer, R. S. Kempe, & R. D. Krugman (Eds.), The battered child (5th ed., pp. 413-430). Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. (2002). Disease or deception: munchausen by proxy as a weapon of the weak. Anthropology & Medicine, 9(2), 153-156.

Schreier, H. A., & Libow, J. A. (1993a). Hurting for love. New York: Guilford. book Citation

Schreier, H. A. (1997). Factitious presentation of psychiatric disorder: When is it Munchausen by Proxy? Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 2(3), 108-115.1999-11895-003. journal Citation

Rose Prince

Argument map

The Mens Rea in the case of Munchausen Syndrome, and Munchausen by Proxy

Thesis: It is yet unknown whether Munchausen syndrome, and Munchausen syndrome by proxy, are actual disorders, or cases of malingering and child abuse, respectively. However, psychological motivations for munchausen and munchausen by proxy may be the same in both cases, whether or not there is indeed a mens rea. Therefore, an understanding of the disorders from a psychological perspective is important for identification and prevention from a criminal, social welfare, and psychological perspective.

Introduction

Controversy over Munchausen Syndrome

-definition and description

-malingering or an actual disorder? This is yet unknown.

-Relate to hypochondria, delusional parasitosis.

Controversy over Munchausen by Proxy

-definition and description

-Child abuse or an actual disorder? Also yet unknown.

-importance of understanding/preventing Munchausen by proxy

Suggested underlying psychological causes

-need for attention

-over-identification, lack of identity in perpetrator

-denial (likelihood of repeating behavior, resistance to treatment)

Application of this understanding in practice

-in social work

-in the legal field

-for psychologists

Conclusion