Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Racial discrimination in the judicial system
Significance of justice
How is the justice system racially biased
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Racial discrimination in the judicial system
Madame Justice
What is justice? This may seem like an easily answered question today’s society makes it quite the task. People throughout society have their own distinctive definition of justice. It is a word in which, to every person, has a different meaning. Although "Justice" has a massive list of meanings, it can somewhat be defined. Roughly, it can be defined as “the principal of fairness and the ideal of moral equity.” There are many places that justice is and is not practiced. These include the criminal justice system and everyday places like home or work.
First, justice is the center of every debate, involving our criminal justice system, because of its vast majority of definitions. While the definitions are vast and complicated, my
…show more content…
This is how our laws work now, for the most part. Justice is usually set up and carried out by our police, courts, and other law making officials in our society. Although this system has worked for our society thus far, situations do occur in which our laws are not so clear on. When cases like this happen the court system takes over and then a trial takes place for the offender. A trial is a very good way to ensure that an offender will be treated fairly and they will not be unjustly convicted. Sometimes justice and fairness can be misleading. For example, a trial’s jury members can cause a person to have unjust penalties and or sentences. Jury members may have a personal opinion that conflicts with the case such as racism, their religion, or just pure emotion. Not everyone who participates in this system acts in a just manner. For instance there was a case involving an African American man by the name of Rodney King. This man was allegedly beaten by L.A.P.D. officers while they were attempting to arrest him. Although the beating was caught on tape, it was deemed necessary to be appropriate amount of excessive force by twelve all white male jurors, who found the police not guilty of assault. I would like to see cases like this excluded from happening again. It is important for everyone to get there day in …show more content…
Immediately we run into “the fallacy of doing good,” which is the tendency of a person to act contrary to the purpose and role of their vocations in their attempts to “do good,” which ends up making things worse than they were. One example may be a chef at a restaurant who gives away dozens of free meals every night out of the kindness of heart. However, it is not his restaurant, nor his food, and the owner has not given him permission to do so. In this case, the chef’s generosity is right, but his actions are not. Using justice at work is being there for the people who work for you. Which mean believing that they can do great things and contribute to the community, even when few others can see it. Also, it using your impact to give them opportunities and, advancing their career whenever you have the
In “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman he offers a detailed explanation of many different ways to define justice and allows the reader to fully comprehend the meaning of it. Before he even began explaining justice he gave his own experience with crime as way to convey to the reader how his rights had been violated and he had been filled with anger at the criminals instead of the justice that failed him. This first hand encounter with crime allowed Reiman to prove to readers that justice is what is what protects us and it is the criminals who are the problem. To see that even a man who had thought and written about nothing but crime for thirty-five years could still become
Due to such limitations within the jury selection process, it is hardly said to be a fair and just system. In Europe, defendants are always tried by judges and assessors which I believe to be a much fairer way in deciding the innocence or guilt of a person.
While having a judge may seem like it is more effective, while calculating time spent on the case, money used, and the education in the field of justice that a judge has, using a trial by jury is the best way to preserve the American ideal of democracy. In the Jury system mini Q document F, Mark twin mentions that the jury system doesn’t want educated people because they would make the trial too easy for one side. Rather than insulting the jury system it seems like this is more of a good thing because it shows that the jury system doesn’t want people who know too much about the subject already and could sway the decision based solely on their bias. Another way that the system is fair is the fact that rather than having one judge decide the fate of a person, rather it is 12 other citizens that have no ties to the person. In the Jury system mini Q document B The letter states “a reasoned and professional judgment should be replaced by blanket verdicts or pretty well any twelve men and women … I had taken my leave of sense.” While this man is insulting the jury system what he says should still be looked at. The people that come together for a jury will have much less bias towards the accused person that a judge who has either seen the person before, or could just not be looking at it with multiple points of
There are many ways to define injustice and many examples can be put forth to show what injustice is. John Updike ' short story A & P gives an example of the injustice of the bad treatment of others and general disrespect. It also gives another example of a phenomenon known as "White Knighting" especially with the intent of a reward. Another story that gives some examples of injustice is Laura Blumefield 's story The Apology: Letters from a Terrorist. I 'm the story; we are given the example of an injustice of how an innocent bystander was shot because of a long war between two groups of people. It also shows the injustices of prisons and how people who are incarnated are treated in other countries. Injustice is very prevalent on this planet,
By definition justice means the quality of being just or fair. The issue then stands, is justice fair for everyone? Justice is the administration of law, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments, "justice deferred is justice denied.” The terms of Justice is brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s writing, “Civil Disobedience.”
Encyclopedia Britannica Defines Justice as the concept of a proper proportion between a person’s deserts (what is merited) and the good and bad things that befall or are allotted to him or her. There is a duality to the idea of justice because it acts as a reward and a deterrent. It makes sure the people who abide by rules get treated “justly” but also insures an example out of the people who break laws so that the amount of law-breakers dissipates. Judgment’s importance stems from its dual-concept base. Britannica defines it in terms of law and thought. Judgment in all legal systems is a decision of a court adjudicating the rights of the parties to a legal action before it. The Encyclopedia explains judgment in thought using multiple components:
What is justice to you. Justice is known to dictionary.com as, “the quality of being just; righteoussness, equitableness, or moral rightness”. So how do you define justice. Is it fairness or correctness, maybe it’s throwing all the bad guys in jail. In To Kill a Mockingbird and The Merchant of Venice justice is defined several times in several different ways that open to our eyes if we look through one of the character’s. When looking through a character’s eyes we must take a look at someone’s background hence absorbing their perspective and understanding their
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
Justice is seen as a concept that is balanced between law and morality. The laws that support social harmony are considered just. Rawls states that justice is the first virtue of social institutions; this means that a good society is one structured according to principles of justice. The significance of principles of justice is to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of the society and defining the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of the society. According to Rawls, justice is best understood by a grasp of the principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The principles are expected to represent the moral basis of political government. These principles indicate that humankind needs liberty and freedom so long as they do harm others. Rawls states that justice is significant to human development and prosperity.
Citizens of the United States are given the right to a fair trial. Over the course of the development of the American jury system, citizens are allowed to the right to meet one’s accuser, be represented by his/her peers and protection from being tried more than once on any convicted crime. The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
“South Africa ditched juries amid fears of racial prejudice among jurors and a reluctance on the part of many people to serve” (Fuchs), which most likely brings up the problem we have here in the U.S. Law professor Peter Van Koppen provides a perfect example of a common situation and compares it to our criminal justice system which sums up my stance on the ruling out of jury trials in the U.S., “Van Koppen pointed out that you wouldn 't want a panel of lay people acting as doctors. So, why would you want regular people deciding the fate of defendants? The work done by a jury isn’t that different from the work of a scientist like a doctor, he wrote. ““A scientist must make inferences about states of affairs that cannot be observed directly, inferring from the evidence that can be observed. And that is precisely what a jury must do: make a decision about the guilt of the defendant based on the evidence presented at trial. That is a scientific enterprise that surpasses the intellectual aptitude of most laypersons who are called to jury duty””
Is our justice system fair to all? Although the answer to this question is an opinion, there are pieces of evidence and commentary to defend this argument. The process of the legal system itself is all an opinion because in the end, the only person whose judgments matter is the judge himself. Over time, the wrong people have been arrested for the wrong things. Living in the United States, a country where crimes are committed constantly; we count on this system to make the right decisions. It is important that each case is treated equally when carrying out justice to keep the United States a safe place, to form a nation with good education, and to teach people from judging right from wrong. However, sometimes rights are taken from the wrong people. Our legal system is creating a dangerous path for African Americans in our country because of its’ highest per capita incarceration rate, its’ favoritism towards those in power, and its failure to carry out justice to protect people from the dangerous acts of those who are defined as criminals.
We must look at the facts and decide whether the American Jury System is still a good idea. How much is it costing us to pay for each individual to serve on the jury and does this out way the possible benefits that a jury system has in the court of law? The other important factor and feasible benefit of a bench trial is that there’s hardly any room for error. No one is perfect, but it’s a lot less likely that a judge would make a vital mistake impacting the rest of someone’s life versus twelve arbitrary citizens from the community. The United States court system shouldn’t allow any incompetency, unsupported bias, or negligence in the evaluation of cases. We must choose the system that is best for our increasing complex and refining society.
Without the understanding of what really happened in an event or place and time justice is not being sought out and can’t be dealt to those that need it. We all have felt wronged, at one time or another, in one form or another and I feel that is why we all have a common interest in seeking justice.
What is social justice? (Long, Tice, & Morrison) states “Social justice is based on compassion for people, and can be defined as the goal of all persons having full and equitable access to opportunities and services in a society.” There for the general concept of social justice incorporates the