The Lonesome Death Of Hattie Carroll Sparknotes

Content Analysis of “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll” By Bob Dylan In “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll,” Bob Dylan discusses the murder of Hattie Carroll by William Zanzinger and resulting legal proceedings, which were dictated by the defendant and victim’s social characteristics. Zanzinger killed Carroll at a social gathering at a hotel in Baltimore, Maryland and was initially charged with first-degree murder, but the legal sentencing did not match this initial charge. Zanzinger was a 24-year old man who had wealthy parents, owned a large tobacco farm, and had a diamond ring. He also had “high office relations in the politics of Maryland”, and his parents quickly got him off on bail following his arrest. Hence, Zanzinger had high

On the other hand, Carroll was a 51-year old who had 10 children and worked as a kitchen maid. She “carried the dishes and took out the garbage” and did not sit at the head of the table due to her status. She also “didn't even talk to the people at the table” and had not previously had any negative interactions with Zanzinger. Therefore, Carroll had low vertical status because she was an older woman, worked as a kitchen maid, and had many children to provide for financially. Although it is not directly stated, Dylan implies that Carroll was not very wealthy and had worked as a maid for a long time prior to her death. While Carroll had a job and children, she had relatively low horizontal status because was not well integrated into the community and did not interact with

Law reacts in the opposite direction of deviant behavior, and this was a case of downward deviance, since someone with a higher rank committed a crime against someone with a lower rank. Since law is more lenient on wealthier offenders, upward law is more compensatory and therapeutic and there is a lower quantity of law applied. Moreover, the murder exemplifies centripetal law because Zanzinger was more integrated than Carroll, since he had influential parents and connections to politicians, while Carroll was not well integrated with the guests she served and likely did not have ties with many community members. This is also opposite to the direction of deviance, which in this case was centrifugal deviance because the murder was committed by someone who was more integrated against someone who was less integrated. Marginalized individuals like Carroll are more vulnerable to law than people who are integrated like Zanzinger. This is because marginalized people are more likely to be defined and labeled as deviant, and when integrated people are deviant, people are more likely to look for alternative explanations. Because this is a case of upwards and centripetal law, the eventual quantity of law would likely be minimal and the style of law would probably be more therapeutic than