Paradoxical Emily, one of the protagonists of the film, Havoc (2005) takes on the role of a wealthy teenage girl who runs into a Hispanic gang in East Los Angeles. Driven by her need of attention she seeks contentment through integration into the gang. However, the clash of the two social classes, the rich and the poor, hinders Emily’s complete merge. The film revolves around the superior treatment on behalf of the law Emily receives in comparison to the degrading treatment Hector who plays the role of the poor Hispanic gang member receives. Havoc exposes the inefficiency of the United States’ criminal justice system that generates a dichotomy in which justice discriminates the poor by silencing their opinions and favors the rich by prioritizing their needs.
The reason why the needs of the rich are prioritized by the law is because essentially the police department works for the rich. In “Media and Ideology” Antonio Gramsci argues, “[r]uiling by way of force requires the use of institutions such as the military and the police in an effort to physically coerce—or threaten coercion—so that people will remain obedient” (158). This goes to show, that the people in control, usually the affluent, in this case Emily’s family, maintain their power by using the police force to their advantage.
…show more content…
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
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.
Jacoby uses many claims about how crime in the United States has grown and the how faulty America’s justice system currently is. One claim said that citizens pay around “$30,000 per inmate each year” (Jacoby 197). This grasps the reader’s attention by connecting their life to the problem; it is their money, a lot of their money, being used to imprison these criminals. The rates have increased on inmates since the 1980s by over 250% (Jacoby 197). Jacoby declares that the prison system is terrible; he uses accurate and persuading evidence.
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
Jacoby can be easily perceived as an upset and alarmed individual who blames the rise of criminal activity in the United States on the failure of the criminal justice system. He cares about people and believes that the safety of individuals is decreasing because criminals are not punished effectively by imprisonment and that some even receive a “sign of manhood” from going to prison (197). Additionally, he is upset that the ineffective system is so expensive. His concern for his audience’s safety and his carefully argued grounds, which he uses to support his claim, create a persona of an intelligent person of
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).
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.
To look closely at many of the mechanisms in American society is to observe the contradiction between constitutional equality and equality in practice. Several of these contradictions exist in the realm of racial equality. For example, Black s often get dealt an unfair hand in the criminal justice system. In The Real War on Crime, Steven Donziger explains,
Menninger's ideas are directed toward a wide audience of generally law-abiding citizens. This article first appeared in Harper's Magazine, a general-interest magazine that provides collections of essays and fiction. The type of person who would read a magazine such as this would probably be an educated person who is interested in the affairs of the world around them. Menninger reveals his impression of the audience in his introduction, where he says, "And from these offenses the average citizen, including the reader, is deterred by quite different restraints" (537). Armed with this vision of his audience, he presents his argument in a logical, authoritative tone that invites the reader to make the inevitable conclusion that Menninger is right.
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will be serious consequences including the possible breakdown of that society. In order to have a fair and just society, miscarriages of justice must not only become exceptional but ideally cease to occur altogether.
“ ….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).
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
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.
There are many different aspects of criminal justice policy. One in particular is the different theories of crime and how they affect the criminal justice system. The Classical School of criminology is a theory about evolving from a capital punishment type of view to more humane ways of punishing people. Positivist criminology is maintaining the control of human behavior and criminal behavior. They did this through three different categories of Biological studies, which are five methodologies of crime that were mainly focused on biological theories, Psychological theories, which contains four separate theories, and the Sociological theories, which also includes four different methods of explaining why crime exists. The last theory is about Critical criminology. Their goal was to transform society in a way that would liberate and empower subordinate groups of individuals.
“I am convinced that imprisonment is a way of pretending to solve the problem of crime. It does nothing for the victims of crime, but perpetuates the idea of retribution, thus maintaining the endless cycle of violence in our culture. It is a cruel and useless substitute for the elimination of those conditions--poverty, unemployment, homelessness, desperation, racism, greed--which are at the root of most punished crime. The crimes of the rich and powerful go mostly unpunished.”
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.