Living in a Republic
We live in a republic governed not just by majority rule but also by law. We use law in our country to limit the power of majority rule. The basic reason that we do this is because society can be flawed. This "flaw" can come from a variety of areas, but the one that I would like to focus on is sexism. In criminal law the courts are blind to the ideas that people are different. Every person is given the same privileges and limitations as the next person regardless of sex or race. We do not live in a system were there is a set of rules for men and a different set of rules for women. The application of these laws can be flawed however, because the means in which law is applied is done through human eyes. In theory law should protect every person in the same way, but the application of our laws falls short of this ideal.
We live in a system where the law treats every person in the same way. The major argument against this is that race and sex do come into law because we use people to implement the law. This idea that the problem with law is that the people implementing it are sexist should not lead to the idea that law is sexist. Instead we should face the real problem that people are sexist. The law does not say to a police officer to treat one group of people different, but rather the law states that all people should be treated the same. Does that mean that if a police officer treats people different that there is a fundamental flaw in law or does that mean that there is a problem with this officer?
The same situation can be brought out in the courts. Jury members not only decide a case on the facts of the case, but also from their own opinions. If there is a sexist jury member that jury member's opinion will affect the outcome of the case. Once again this should not lead us to believe that the law is flawed; instead that that jury member is. Our court system tries to make sure that any person that sits in the jury box can be impartial and fair.
Australia is a monarchy of the United Kingdom. It always has been, and yet this does not seem to have significantly and adversely affected our development and growth towards our country. Thus, there seems no legitimate purpose to change this; since a republican Australia displays a lack of conclusive benefits towards our economy and ‘way of life.’ An Australian republic would cost billions to undertake and is simply unnecessary as there are more important issues facing Australia; and if the Australian citizens are not calling for a referendum, then any serious discussions from politicians or other related public figures are irrelevant and meaningless.
The essay under critical analysis is entitled, “Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus That Propelled Pennsylvania to Independence and Democracy,” written by Gary B. Nash. This analytical essay consumes the fourth chapter of the book Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation, edited by Alfred F. Young, Gary B. Nash, and Ray Raphael. His essay, along with the twenty-one other accounts in the book depicting lesser-known individuals, whose contributions in securing independence from Great Britain and creating a new government in America rival that of the nation’s more notorious and beloved founders, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Dr. Nash focuses his efforts on Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus of the 1770’s and 80’s and the lasting influences of the 1776 constitution it created within American politics as well as several nations around the world. Within his analysis and interpretation of Pennsylvanian politics during the American Revolution, Dr. Nash utilizes a pro-whiggish, radically sympathetic stance to assert the Radical Caucus’ remarkable ability to gain support from and bestow power upon the common working man, take political power from conservatives within Pennsylvania’s public offices, and revolutionize democratic thought through their landmark reformations of the state’s constitution. Respecting the fact that Dr. Nash’s position on this subject required extensive research through first hand accounts, pamphlets, newspapers and the analysis of countless preserved records, indicates that the account he has given is very credible. Complying with his presentation of facts and the significance of the topic within early American history has prevented a well-rounded counter-argument ...
Sexism is the ideology that maintains that one sex is inherently inferior to the other. Sexism or discrimination based on gender has been a social issue for many years; it is the ideology that one sex is superior or inferior to the other. Sexism does not only affect females, but also males. Men are very often victimized by social stereotypes and norms based on gender expectations. Sexism has appears in almost all social institutions including family, the media, religion, sports, the military, politics, and the government. However, although both genders are affected, men have benefited from sexism the most (Thompson 300-301.)
Imagine Kirsty and Marc, a young couple who resort to robbing a house in a desperate attempt to make money. They are caught, charged with the same crime and given the same sentence, except for one thing: the male dominant world we live in does not stop at the courtroom door. Marc is sent to a medium security prison one hour from his family with every opportunity to earn his way into a minimum-security facility. He spends his days learning to cook in the kitchenette and has access to basic necessities like aftershave or hairspray. Meanwhile, Kirsty walks into her frigid six-by-ten foot cell with bars for a door, a toilet in plain view and not a trace of sunlight. She is twelve hours from home with no hope of changing location since there is nowhere else to go. The stories of rapes, beatings and riots told by her new neighbours are endless. Kirsty realizes that the only way for her to survive this place is to oppose nature and forget what it is to feel. This is discrimination against women as they are penalized more severely than men for committing less crime. How can women strive for equality when they cannot attain justice in the justice system itself? The controversy over the gender bias goes beyond the "too-few-to-count" syndrome as Sally Armstrong calls it, it is a question of women's constitutional right to be treated equally.
Historically, females have been discriminated against in the United States based solely on their gender. Gender or sex discrimination may be described as the unfair treatment of a person in their employment because of that person's sex. It is illegal to discriminate based on sex and it may result in negative effects on employment include pay, position and title, advancements and training opportunities or whether or not an individual is hired or fired from a job.
In today’s technological society it is hard to imagine that trivial things from the past like discrimination or prejudice are still present, but they are. Yes we still have racism, but for the most part this is only a problem of the less educated and vocal minority. There is a different prejudice that is deep rooted in this land of freedom and prosperity. This prejudice is sexism.
In the United States, true equality has never existed. From the Declaration of Independence to modern times, the U.S. legal system has failed in any attempt at equality. The ideology of "all [men] are equal but some [men] are more equal than others" has been present throughout the history of the U.S. (Orwell). Inequality has always existed in the United States legal system and continues to exist today; however, the inequality presently in the system is not as blatant as what it once was, but the system has come to depend on inequality. Since the very beginning of a legal system in the United States, there has been inequality.
“The Republic One and Indivisible of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death.” This statement is best known as the slogan of the French Revolution and is mentioned as a popular quote in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. The French revolution, (as told by Wikipedia) was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France from 1789 to 1799 that had a fundamental impact on French history and on modern history worldwide. This war, that lasted 10 years, is the main focus of A Tale of Two Cities. The Slogan of The French Revolution, that was frequently mentioned in the book, is completely filled with Irony.
Throughout the course of history, mankind has been recorded to corrupt itself. Men have grown tired of simply surviving; they have had to take and conquer others. Absolute monarchies control wealth, land, and even lives of men. The conditions of the people were solely dependent on the conditions of the one who was in power in that particular place and time. History has proven that most men rule unwisely in their kingdoms. To avoid tyrannical rule, some make an attempt to set up a government in which the people ruled themselves. This form of government is called a democracy, or “rule of the people.” History has also revealed through the Greeks and the French Revolution, that a democracy that gives complete power to the people, “absolute democracy”, is nothing more than a short prelude to tyranny.
The Fall of the Republic was more than a solitary man or occasion. It was a perfection of a few individual activities or accomplishments, combined with social conditions that weighed vigorously on Roman culture. Furthermore, gigantic and quick development from Rome 's establishment as a juvenile city 700 years prior until the mid first century BC, made fantastic openings in the political and administering capacity of the Senate. Times of security were blended in with those of close fall while effective commanders or inciters of the Roman horde maneuver for position. Starting with the Punic Wars and Roman success outside of Italy, trailed by huge importation of slaves, the substance of Roman life was changing much more quickly than the administering
"With the Gracchi, all the consequences of empire - social, economic and political - broke loose in the Roman state, inaugurating a century of revolution." (The Roman Revolution, Ronald Syme, p16).
The discrimination of a person based on their sex has always been prevalent in society, and even though both genders can be affected by sexism, it is typically associated with females. Throughout history, women have been expected to avoid competing with men in regards to education, employment, politics, and the media.
Gender Discrimination is a topic that has been going on within our country for a long time. Women have never been treated equality as men. Women are living in a society that they are known as property. Many men are unprejudiced discriminators since they do not see women as equal values to themselves:
Before the jury stands the defendant. There is overwhelming evidence in the favor of the prosecution. The verdict comes back from the jury, not guilty. Why? The defendant is a woman. In our era of equal rights and civil liberties women have made great strides in their advancement and role in society, yet it seems that gender segregates when it comes to crime. There have been countless cases where women and men have been tried for the same crime, yet when it comes to verdict and sentencing, the results don’t necessarily match. If one commits a crime one should be punished accordingly regardless of gender. In our society we seem to have two separate rules for our criminals, one for men and one for women. The key issue is are men and women treated equally by the criminal justice system. Another issue in gender biased sentencing is in its is its severity. Are women sentenced heavier for certain crimes then men.
Inequality and prejudice has been around for as long as the country has been founded. Beginning as a social construct, arbitrary differences, be it sexual orientation, age, and or handicapped status, have been pointed out and discriminated against. Many advocate for stricter guidelines to be placed on new laws that might seem offense and or discriminatory. This is referred to as Strict Scrutiny and it is deemed as a necessity by some in order to remain a progressive society. This means that before a law can be made it must undergo carefully inspection by the Supreme Court. (180-181) I believe that this argument does have merit and should be the standard for these types of laws, as well as in general.