Clockwork Orange Paper

1. “The question is whether such a technique can really make a man good. Goodness comes from within, 6655321. Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man” (Burgess, 83). The priest would later say that Alex ceases to be a wrongdoer and a creature capable of moral choice. The priest is talking about the new rehabilitation program for which Alex becomes the first participant. Reflect on the priest’s statements. What does he mean? In regards to our society, do we take away the act of choice for juveniles? (Think about the theories that we have discussed. Are juveniles “driven to” delinquency or do they make a conscious choice between right and wrong?)

The priest’s first statement is accurate in my opinion. If you cannot choose, you are only left with animal instincts. An animal does not choose anything, but instead acts on its “born-with” instincts, such as fight or flight. I think that what he really meant by this was that God give man the gift of choice and if you are stricken from that then you are not a man at all. You are just a puppet.

As for the second statement, he says that Alex is a creature capable or moral choice. But in fact Alex really has no choice anymore and morals are something that are instilled into you by outside social forces, not something that is chosen by yourself. Though as I said before, you are just a puppet.

In our society, we do not take the act of choice away we can just try and limit the opportunities a juvenile has. Every person can make their own choices and each choice can lead you down a different path. One could choose to conform and make decisions according to what society wants of you, opening the opportunity for less direct controls and more choices. If you are to make decisions against what others want of you, you will be under much more strict direct controls and your opportunities to make other choices will be reduced.

I believe that some juveniles can be labeled as a bad person and are “driven to” act accordingly. The individual’s self-concept, as well as their behavior, can be altered into a negative image.

2. Some of Alex’s “droogs” and other acquaintances followed a different path than he did, but perhaps with certain similarities as well. How would life-course theory explain the various paths of these individuals? How would actions and behaviors define these individuals as criminal or not? Reflect on the entire book. Were there any life-course offenders? What about adolescent-limited offenders? What controls were in place, or not in place, to allow for those individuals to act as they did?

As for Dim, Georgie, and Billyboy they all followed the life-course model. Georgie had an untimely death when breaking into somebody’s house and was overpowered and killed. Though his life was not long, he did show signs of being very irritable and having low self-control. Even early in the book Alex’s “droogs” were beating up men walking home at night for no apparent reason. This could also be applied to Dim and Billyboy as well. Also, the book never spoke of any direct controls in any of their lives and I am assuming that their parents were not exactly setting any good examples.

Dim and Billyboy though, more specifically, found a life of crime in a high authority position. This life that they had taken on gave them the power and authority to continue on the life-course of crime. They picked up Alex, after he had gotten released, at the library when Alex was completely innocent. They then took Alex into a rural area to beat him up and leave him out there in the rain and cold. When Alex arrived to “HOME” F. Alexander mentioned that this sort of thing happens quite often