What I Want My Words to do to You

What I Want My Words to do to You

The reflections of reality that progress throughout the film, What I Want My Words to do to You composed by Eve Ensler, personally creates three main questions. First, “How do we as a society define repentance?” There must be some point where we deem a person to be repentant. The second question is “Did these women receive bias and unusually harsh sentences due to media and/or social standards that ignored many mitigating factors?” These women stepped out of the female gender role and into the criminal role. The social temperature at the time of the trial is fostered by public opinion and creates a backlash in support of sentencing that is applied in an unfair and unjust manner. There seems to be very little consideration given to the women’s individual situations. The final question is “Does repentance indicate a suggestion of an offender’s rehabilitation?” If so the debt to society has been repaid, it would be considered, to a cynical person, to be a violation of the 8th Amendment’s provision for prevention of cruel and unusual punishment to detain these women after they have been rehabilitated. There are many other factors to consider when assuming the previous thought such as the victims, the victims family’s and the harm the women caused to society.
The use of writing in the prison such as in this particular forum helped the women identify with the factors of the crimes they committed and provided for a validation of victimization that in most cases precipitated the crime. These women, for the most part did not carry the sole legal responsibility of the crimes committed. Some cases share the blame with the actions of others such as husbands, friends or family, yet, to a degree society holds blame in all of these cases. Society creates the female gender prison and then punishes these women too harshly for lashing out at the victimization through their crimes and for taking a role often perceived as male. The writing helped them come to terms with the offense and to identify the guilt they live with daily. This creates a repentance that is imperative to the rehabilitative purpose.
Repentance
The first question created as a response to the writings and the film about defining repentance can be observed with skepticism or compassion. The society at large may view repentance with skepticism due to the view of the women as hardened criminals. The compassionate response of repentance looks at the words and emotions displayed by these women. Who they are and what they are composed of individually is being expressed in the words they write. Repentance of a crime can be based on acknowledgement of involvement and guilt over the actions. These women for the most part displayed guilt. Some women displayed so much guilt that it took on an individual form of self-hate. This is displayed by Cynthia Berry who was molested by her uncle in her childhood. She defends the victim with aggression wards herself and states that she will not have atonement until she dies. This is her own view of herself that demonstrates hopelessness; she is stating she will never be forgiven no matter how she repays her debt to society.
The definition of repentance is to feel remorse for what one has done or failed to do. These women do show repentance for the crimes they committed. Some women in this forum are avoiding the repentance to the crime by avoiding the culpability in the crime and admit blaming their situation on external factors instead of looking at the internal cause. Pamela Smart admits that the writing has caused her to look towards her responsibility in her situation instead of the circumstantial factors such as the judge, jury and trial. The essays create her progress towards repentance. Some women have reached repentance, some appear to be far from accepting their part in the crimes and some have taken the quest for repentance to extreme and have reasoned it to be unattainable. The film demonstrates that redemption is possible after committing a crime with repentance.
Bias/ Social Standards / Mitigating Factors
These women received bias and unusually harsh sentences due to media and/or social standards that ignored many mitigating factors. They have made mistakes and they were judged on the finality of the crimes, not on the life that lead to these crimes. Jan Warren was “Desperate, she made a mistake: She agreed to sell cocaine for her cousin. It was the only time Warren had ever sold drugs, and it turned out to be a police sting. Under strict New York drug laws; Warren was given fifteen years to life” (Perl, 2003). The penalty for this one mistake seems excessive and did not consider the lack of criminality in her previous life. She was not a hardened criminal, she did need money and turned to drug sales - If she had sold her body to get the money she would have received a slap on the wrist even though they are both crimes against morality. The reality is that prostitution hurts society as much as drugs, if not more and for a first time offender the fifteen to life is too punitive. Jan Warren did not go to the low of selling her body to make money; some may feel she was trying to keep at least few morals and self-respect as a desperate woman.
Cynthia Berry was molested by her uncle. Her pain was the fuel for the motivation of her crimes. The victimization created who she became, a prostitute. It appears that she was hollow and numb. When she snapped, she snapped big. She killed an old man who wanted companionship. The impression that she may have seen her uncle in her victim is taken from her writings. Other analysis of her essays leads to the assumption that at the time of the killing she was insane. Her anger expressed at the compassion of her peers indicates she may be coping with insanity presently. A cynical person could conclude she is in the wrong place. She would have been better served by the court if she had been committed to a therapeutic mental setting. The impression that her mental state caused by the victimization she suffered was overlooked by the system and even though she is a murder she is receiving injustice because she is in need of many years of therapy.
. Many of these females seem to be saying from their criminal actions "I am NOT a victim anymore". But, they are speaking in the wrong (violent) language and compiling it into one moment of rage (mistake). Most of these women became so numb they did not even realize that they were a victim.
Keila Pulinario was raped by her best-friend, she did not even see that that she was in need of victim services; if she had reported the rape, she would have received help. Abused women often do not see police officers as their allies. In some cultures, the woman is in more danger if she involves the police. Her best friend mocked her when Keila confronted him about the rape. She was searching for an apology and validation. Rape is not cause for justifiable homicide, but is a serious event that should have been considered by the prosecutor and judge. The roles would not have been considered the same if a man killed another man who raped him. The punishment would have not been so severe. This is a bias that is against women. The point is made by Jan Warren after the statement that she was raped and they found the guy, she hoped it was not because it was of her color. It is a noted disparity in cultures and races on reporting crime. The siege mentality is present in many neighborhoods and prevents reporting crime (Siegel, 2009, p. 171). This could be the case with Keila Pulinario, the confrontation went wrong and her offender precipitated his own murder. This supports the reverberation within the victim/offender cycle. She did not receive any validation or justice from the victimization and became an offender because of it.
Rehabilitation
Repentance indicates a suggestion of an offender’s rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is supported in the film by the changes the women have undertaken since incarceration. The women in prison are not the same creatures who committed the crimes. The woman, who demonstrates this best is “Judith Clark, a 1960s and 1970s political activist, has spent 30 years in prison for her role as a getaway driver in a 1981 robbery that left three people dead. Now 61 years old, she has undergone a profound transformation, from an unrepentant radical to a respected educator and caring role model. The only way she'll ever be released from prison is if the Governor grants her clemency (J.Clark, 2011).” Why is she not being released? She is no longer a threat to anyone and she displays a positive reformation. If this is not the goal, then what is the whole point of corrections?

Conclusion
Final summation, the film supports the belief that we all create our own prisons and serve as our own jailers. The women build a jail of guilt and some find peace and some do not. The film makes one wonder about one’s own created prisons. The past haunts all of them and is another restriction of the mental prison. The women in prison wrestle with the same guilt issues as free people do, just on a deeper level due to the crimes. There is a point where guilt, repentance, remorse and self-realization merge to offer the humanity and kindness that is surprisingly, found in prisons. These women are not heartless and coldblooded as perpetuated by the media. The film causes even the most skeptical person to reassess preconceived notions about our sisters in white. All people, including males can benefit from the enlightenment given by the film.
















Bibliography
J.Clark. (2011). Judith Clark. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from Friends of Judith Clark: http://judithclark.org/
Perl, R. (2003, November 24). The Last Disenfranchised Class. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from Center for the Investigative Reporting: http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/tags/prison
Siegel, L. (2009). Criminology. In L. Siegel, Criminology (pp. 388-389). Belmont, CA, U.S.A.: Wadsworth.