Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Chapter 11: Denial and Acceptance

[Being Wrong]

Chapter 11 on denial and acceptance in Kathryn Schulz's book Being Wrong is one of the most gripping that we've read so far. She shares a story about a woman who falsely identified her attacker only to learn many years later that she was responsible for sending the wrong man to jail.

What aspects of the story, and more specifically, what aspect concerning the processes of denial or acceptance of error was most compelling or notable to you? Why or how so?

14 comments:

Aliyah B. said...

The most notable aspect of this story was the fact that Steven Avery was proven innocent and that he committed such a heinous crime later on in his life. He was lucky enough to be proven innocent for a crime that he didn't commit, yet he went on to commit an even worse crime. You'd think he'd make better choices. However, Beerntsen's acknowledgement of the impact of her mistake was admirable. I think she is brave for accepting the facts presented to her.

Adryan B. said...

The issue of DNA testing is what really got to me because we think oh because its DNA and they use all these scientific gadgets that its always correct, There is no way it could possibly be wrong. The statement "Any process controlled by human beings can be derailed by human error and genetic testing is no exception." That is really crazy to hear considering the judicial system uses it a lot in rape cases, paternity testing etc.

Peyton D said...

I agree that this chapter was the most interesting of them all. The Denial portion of this chapter really stood out to me. On page 228, Schultz states, "Denial is not, after all, a response to the facts. It is a response to the feeling that the facts evoke-and sometimes those feelings are too much to bear." Denial can be provoked by any type of trauma or grieving process- it truly depends on the individual and the situation. It was astonishing to find out that "at least 20 percent of seriously ill people who are told that they are near death actually forget the news within a few days." An outsider may look at this statistic and think that the people are crazy but we all go through denial of the facts. The number one example that applies to all people, especially college age students, is relationships. There are countless signs, facts, ect. that show we should not be dating someone but emotionally the thought is too much to bear so we continue to be in denial that the relationship is unhealthy or failing. Denial is the number one defense mechanism of human beings

Brianna B said...

I guess the strongest aspect was the rape victim and her reaction to the man she thought attacked her. She felt to her core that he was the right guy only to learn that she made a mistake was so compelling.

Kellsey H said...

The aspect of the story that I found most compelling occurred on page 243 of the text. A certain quote stood out to me: " It helped me, finally, to come to grips with it-with the fact that making a horrible mistake does not make me, or anyone a horrible person." I completely agree with what is being said. Just because a person messes up, despite how severe the mistake may be, it does not define who he or she is as a person. The mistake can be judged, but the identity of the person should not be.

Deborrah Blackburn said...

One concept that stood out to me is when the author talks about the second type of denial, which she says "is not a type of denial". she stays that although denial is it in mechanism this case it is used to keep us from being wrong. This stood out to me because we often see people take denial to a whole other level just so they don't have to admit they were wrong. Most of the time we use this form of denial to keep ourselves "happy". However, without accepting the truth we can never fix the problem.
Deborrah B.

Lindsey McCall said...

As Schulz began to discuss science being wrong it really intrigued me. Considering the fact that people have begun to base an entire religion on science. People actually put all their faith in science and never really question it.

Fiona H. said...

Like Adryan B. said, the issue of DNA testing was the most compelling to me. I didn't know DNA testing was subject to human error: I thought it was one of the most accurate and foolproof forms of testing. SO that part was most interesting, especially because they use DNA testing as a very important part of court cases and paternity cases.

Breanna B. said...

This chapter was absolutely striking in its narrative content. To wrongly convict a man, and then be confronted with the error many years later... I can't even imagine the bounds of denial I would harbor. Accepting my error and its consequences would be tough. That woman is admirable.

Alexandra D. said...

I agree with Adryan and Fiona, the issue regarding DNA testing was the most interesting to me. I did not know that errors like that were made with such serious cases, like the one presented. It just shows how you can't completely rely on certain testing to convict people of crimes, because it's not as reliable as we think it is.

DuAuna C. said...

For someone to be wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't come to only commit an even worse crime later on surprises me. Also the fact that Penny was able to own up to being wrong for something so serious is almost a tough pill to swallow. She's proof that people can learn from their mistakes.

Tameah F. said...

The aspect of the story that was most compelling to me was the fact that Penny was "absolutely sure" that Avery was her attack to the point that she felt the same feelings that day she was assaulted, although, he was falsely convicted.

Anonymous said...

The most compelling part of the story is that Steven Avery was found innocent of a crime he was convicted of but later on in life he committed an even more serious crime. You would think that he would be less likely to do anything that would actually end up with him in trouble
-Monet E

Courtney said...

What was stood out most to most was that not only was the victim wrong but so were the scientist who tested the DNA, the jury, and the judge. He was in prison for two years because of someone being wrong.