8/30

Today in class we did our first day of discussing research on statistical information of Jon Krakauer’s Missoula. While some groups hadn’t prepared correctly, it still led to an interesting discussion.

The first chapter, annotated by Sydney and Jackson, had a lot of good statistical information, which will definitely be useful in the future and for the annotated bibliography. Jackson brought up a good point that Krakauer uses some interesting sources, such as government websites and other fact-based websites; however, the strongest source of facts is from the stories being told on a first-account basis. I agree with Jackson that these accounts give detail no statistic ever could, and allow the reader/listener to understand the emotion and feeling a victim feels. Statistics are cold, scientific information, they do not tell emotions, they do not tell what it feels like, and they simply give us facts. When there is a story being told, a vivid image rushes through the reader’s head, as if they are there, listening to what is happening in real life, and they feel the emotion exploding from the page.

Sydney also made good points from a newspaper, The Missoulian, which led us to the discussion of reliable sources and finding sources based on the text. We learned it is important to search through the bibliography Krakauer lists and search for the source; however, if the source isn’t listed, it is wise to look up the fact online and compare a few reputable sources. When finding any statistic in the book, even if sourced, it is still a smart idea to look up the statistic online and compare sources, statistics, and confirm the fact being presented.

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 had a lot of personal accounts, and mostly just demonstrated what happened with a few different cases. Laden within these chapters was the process of a rape kit, and the facts of what happens when a rape victim visits the hospital. Chapter 5 however, had a lot of strong statistical information, along with information about how police react, information being reported, and the process of reporting. We also discussed watching the documentary, “The Hunting Ground” on Netflix, something I will probably do tonight!

Eventually we moved on to some deeper conversation, and through this conversation I asked myself asking a disturbing question. Why is it that someone can’t say they were “too drunk to make a logical decision” when they shot their roommate, but can say they were “too drunk and thought it was consensual” when raping someone? I believe this shows that the justice system fails us, because it is allowing assailants to use an excuse that would not be allowed as an excuse in any other context. The idea of this bothers me to my core, and is something that needs to change.

We talked about important rhetorical filters to use while reading part two, including: ethos, pathos, and logos. This is important when being applied to different people such as rapists, targets, police, attorneys, and judges/courts. It is important that I remember to ask myself things like how do these people present themselves? What are their arguments? What are they saying to make these arguments? What is the logic behind their arguments (if any)? What is the appeal to emotion that is happening? All of these questions are important when reading through part two, the rest of the book, and any other readings I do.

On a side note, we talked a lot about the standard of care in the medical field and medical malpractice suits. I especially enjoyed this conversation, as I plan to go into medical malpractice law. So learning more on the subject and discussing it in class added joy to my day!