Adrianna Leys October 3, 2017 Legal Studies 206 Reaction Paper #1 Idealistically, the criminal justice system is enacted to maintain social control, protect the rights of individuals, and sanction violators of crimes. In practice, however, the criminal justice system often falls short of these intended goals and occasionally, unfair practices on individuals occur. The case, State of Alabama v. Kharon Torchec Davis’ case is a good example of how the current U.S. criminal justice system follows Weber’s Rationalization in some regards and how other portions of it remain substantive in practice. Weber’s Rationalization Model helps explain how Davis is a subject of hierarchical authority and strict conduct laws, however, fails to explain why …show more content…
some of Davis’ basic rights have been violated while he has been awaiting trial. Weber’s Rationalization Model is an oversimplified version of the criminal justice system and fails to address the many “loopholes in the constitutional protections” of the victims and accused, as seen in Davis’ case. According to Weber’s Structure/Rationalization theory, “rationality is a primary motivator for human behavior” and modern law is more “driven by logic and calculation” than emotions. Weber’s Rationalization model categorizes law as a method of domination that reflects forms of authority. Weber believed there were four ideal types of laws- substantive (based on circumstances), formal (based on rules), rational (based on logic), and irrational (un unstructured system). Weber also stated that this Rationalization Model is the most predictable and therefore the best for capitalist societies. Additionally, Weber’s “ideal” type of leadership of rational/legal authority involved complete loyalty to the system and belief in legally enacted rules. The idea of rational/legal authority is present in Davis’ case as he is loyal to the system’s rules and regulations. He falls under however, it is more so forced than by choice. Weber’s idea of the nature of leadership is also consistent in Davis’ case in terms of the bureaucracy, meaning that there is a hierarchical authority over Davis, meaning those individuals who serve as prison guards. Overall, Weber asserted that we need formal rational law in order to maintain formal legal authority. An example of the use of the importance of formal rationality is in sentencing guidelines- a process that needed to be streamlined in order to achieve the most just outcomes for individuals.
Prior to this method of formal rationality, sentencing was decided based on individual circumstances and lacked consistency, as in the case of the Salem Witch Trials. Redefining this process to make it formally rational was an attempt to avoid the sentencing disparities that occurred when judges based sentencing on individual circumstances and situational contexts. Even with this formally rational system, however, disparities still often exist in sentencing as seen in Davis’ case. Kovaleski’s article discusses how even in 2017, there are still disparities in terms of sentencing guidelines as in Kharon Davis’ case. Weber’s Rationalization model helps explain how law reflects forms of authority and domination; however, his theories of formal rationality to reduce disparities in sentencing, fail to explain why Kharon Davis is still awaiting trial after ten years. In practice the rationalization model is effective, however, there are many instances in which substantive rational law is used instead of formal rational law in …show more content…
sentencing. In an ideological sense, laws are created to protect the rights of the individual in a society.
Formal rational law is needed to maintain legal authority and justice, when more substantive laws replace that process, more disparities occur. For Mr. Davis, he has not been guaranteed the right to a speedy trial and has already served half of the minimum sentence for murder even though he has not been found guilty. Mr. Davis’ trial process has not followed a formal rational model and neither has his treatment while in jail. Ms. Davis argues that her son has not been properly receiving his prescribed medication for depression and anxiety while in custody and that he has been
abused.
The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status.
Robinson trial; (2) prejustice and its effects on the processes of the law and society; (3)
Whenever an author is creating an argument, they must appeal to whatever grabs his or her selected audience’s attention. When given the topic of Michael Fay, an 18 year old American citizen who was punished in Singapore for vandalism by being caned, two sources appealed to their audience in two contrasting ways. In “Time to Assert American Values,” published by The New York Times, the author tries to capture his or her audience by stirring up emotion. In “Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs up a Fierce Debate about Crime and Punishment,” Alejandro Reyes presents factual evidence throughout the entire article to support his claims. After carefully analyzing both texts, it is apparent that Alejandro Reyes gives a more convincing and sufficient argument due to his use of indisputable facts.
The justice system is designed to protect the people that it serves but during the trials the accused witch had two choices, death or imprisonment.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
This research essay discusses racial disparities in the sentencing policies and process, which is one of the major factors contributing to the current overrepresentation of minorities in the judicial system, further threatening the African American and Latino communities. This is also evident from the fact that Blacks are almost 7 times more likely to be incarcerated than are Whites (Kartz, 2000). The argument presented in the essay is that how the laws that have been established for sentencing tend to target the people of color more and therefore their chances of ending up on prison are higher than the whites. The essay further goes on to talk about the judges and the prosecutors who due to different factors, tend to make their decisions
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
In modern-day America the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is controversial because there is substantial evidence confirming both individual and systemic biases. While there is reason to believe that there are discriminatory elements at every step of the judicial process, this treatment will investigate and attempt to elucidate such elements in two of the most critical judicial junctures, criminal apprehension and prosecution.
It is no secret that the American legal system is distinct from other developed Western nations in its practices and laws. This variation, termed “adversarial legalism” by Professor Robert Kagan in his book, Adversarial Legalism, has two salient features: formal legal contestation and litigant activism. In civil and criminal law, jury trials and a specific lawyering culture exemplify these traits. Though adversarial legalism responds well to the American desires of justice and protection from harm while simultaneously respecting the societal fear of a government with too much power, it leads to extremely costly litigation and immense legal uncertainty. To reconcile the American view of justice and the undesirable outcomes of formal contestation and litigant activism, the legal system has gone so far as to reform large parts of the system, including bureaucratic regulations and the plea bargaining process. However, as Kagan states, rather than reduce the costliness or uncertainty of the legal process, these procedural changes have merely lead to an increase in litigation and, therefore, an increase of adversarial legalism in criminal and civil law.
A great disparity existed between judges; some were lenient while others were stricter this inconsistency led to sentencing disparity between judges. In response to concerns that judges were introducing unnecessary disparities in sentencing mandatory Federal Sentencing guidelines were set in place to create a uniform policy containing a fair and consistent sentencing range for convicted Federal defendants regardless of race, gender or class.
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
In “Mistakes, Misunderstandings, and Misalignments” Jules L. Coleman argues, “there is an inconsistency in how the standard of care is set versus how damages are awarded [in the criminal justice system]” (). Meaning, the law does not abide by the same verdict when punishing as when protecting. When penalizing, the law usually targets the financially unfortunate in this case Hector. Conversely, when protecting, the criminal justice system seeks to defend the affluent, Emily. This creates a double standard in which fear is instilled in the poor while a sense of security is granted to the
In the wake of President Obama’s election, the United States seems to be progressing towards a post-racial society. However, the rates of mass incarceration of black males in America deem this to be otherwise. Understanding mass incarceration as a modern racial caste system will reveal the role of the criminal justice system in creating and perpetuating racial hierarchy America. The history of social control in the United States dates back to the first racial caste systems: slavery and the Jim Crow Laws. Although these caste systems were outlawed by the 13th amendment and Civil Rights Act respectively, they are given new life and tailored to the needs of the time.In other words, racial caste in America has not ended but has merely been redesigned in the shape of mass incarceration. Once again, the fact that more than half of the young black men in many large American cities are under the control of the criminal justice system show evidence of a new racial caste system at work. The structure of the criminal justice system brings a disproportionate number of young black males into prisons, relegating them to a permanent second-class status, and ensuring there chances of freedom are slim. Even when minorities are released from prisons, they are discriminated against and most usually end up back in prisons . The role of race in criminal justice system is set up to discriminate, arrest, and imprison a mass number of minority men. From stopping, searching, and arresting, to plea bargaining and sentencing it is apparent that in every phases of the criminal justice system race plays a huge factor. Race and structure of Criminal Justice System, also, inhibit the integration of ex offenders into society and instead of freedom, relea...
The definition of justice and the means by which it must be distributed differ depending on an individual’s background, culture, and own personal morals. As a country of many individualistic citizens, the United States has always tried its best to protect, but not coddle, its people in this area. Therefore, the criminal justice history of the United States is quite extensive and diverse; with each introduction of a new era, more modern technologies and ideals are incorporated into government, all with American citizens’ best interests in mind.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,