What Is The Right Thing To Do?

What Is The Right Thing To Do? If someone, in an attempt to exercise his right of self defense coerces anyone else into defending him then that would mean that the defender himself is a criminal invader of the rights of someone else. So, if X is aggressing against Y, Y may not use force to compel Z to join in defending him, for then, Y would be just as much a criminal aggressor against Z. This immediately rules out conscription for defense, for conscription enslaves a man and forces him to fight on someone elses behalf. Is it always wrong to lie? Consider the case whereby A sets out to murder B and although C knows where B is but C lies to A in order to save Bs life. Under such circumstances would we still render the act of lying wrong or would it be justified to lie in such a case? What do you think is the Right thing to do? Are moral values absolute or are they subjective? Are they universal or are they social conventions instead? Do natural laws exist or do they evolve with time? Who decides between Right and Wrong? Without speck of a doubt, the ability to evaluate reasons for belief is one of the most fundamental critical thinking skills. It is the ability to reason indeed that differentiates human beings form other living organisms. However, one of the biggest dilemmas of moral reasoning remains to be its contradictory nature. We have the mental capacities to reason our belief in something; however, we are just as capable of analyzing it critically at the same time. Question of what is right and what is wrong are not always black and white. At times it seems like the societies are governed by natural laws and social conventions whereby there is a distinct categorization of right and wrong. On the contrary, however, it occurs to us on a great many reflections that problems of morality are relative, and subjective. To re strengthen our belief that reasoning about morality and the problems of morality are themselves contradictory in nature, we are going to cover a few case studies and then see if we reach any conclusion. A many in history nevertheless have made attempts at defining moral ethics and an effort to address to its problems too has been made. According to Protagoras, a Sophist, Man is a measure of all things. The implication is that right and wrong or good and bad, according to Protagoras, must always be considered in relation to a persons needs. Sophists had travelled around the globe splendidly. It couldnt have been anyone better but them to have realized that laws governing the city states and also the norms of a society could vary massively across boundaries. Hence their observation led them to raise questions based on morality and ethics that had to do with conception of what was natural and what was socially induced. Moreover, Sophists believed that there were no absolute norms for what was right and wrong. For instance the idea of natural modesty, to a Sophist who had travelled the world, was a matter of social convention. Had it been natural, it would have been something innate, something humans are born with. Since its seen to be taken differently across different places, not everyone everywhere is afraid or reluctant to show themselves off nakedly, that is not the case. Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.  [1]   However, other philosophers such as the legendary Socrates were of the view that some such norms were in fact absolute and universally valid. According to Socrates, He who knows what good is will do good.Hereby he meant to imply that a right insight will lead to right action and that the virtuous is one who does right. Therefore Socrates proposed that peoples reason and not the society, differentiates between right and wrong. Aristotle had a slightly different take on the issue. He propounded the Golden Mean whereby he emphasized the need to keep a balance. Only by maintaining balance and temperance, so the Aristotelian school of thought goes, does one achieve a happy or harmonious life. As seen hitherto answers to the problems of ethics and morality are not black and white in nature. There cannot be one absolute definition of Morals and Ethics and hence moral reasoning too cannot be chalked out in one specific manner. Moral Reasoning: We are discussing no small matter but how we ought to live.  [2]   One way of explaining Moral Reasoning is by categorizing it into two broad categories: i) Consequentialist Moral Reasoning ii) Categorical Moral Reasoning. Consequentialist Moral Reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act. Example of Consequentialist Moral Reasoning would be Utilitarianism according to which the right act is that which maximizes utility. Categorical Moral Reasoning on the other hand locates morality in certain duties and rights that have to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself. Therefore, according to Categorical Moral Reasoning, Murder is a Murder and the act of murdering is wrong irrespective of the circumstances of the act. Utilitarianism: This theory was proposed by David Hume (1711-1776) and defined further by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Utilitarianism stands by the slogan, the greatest good for the greatest number.According to Bentham the ultimate Moral Principle, namely the Principle of Utility, requires us to choose whatever action would have the best consequences. According to the utilitarian philosophy, we act in a way that maximized the overall level of happiness and pleasure over suffering and pain. In a nutshell, the right thing to do is to maximize utility. However utilitarianism is not as perfect a philosophical concept as it sounds. Some of the objections raised against utilitarianism are that it fails to respect certain individual rights and fails to acknowledge the rights of the minority (lesser number of people).Hence it is argued that certain individual rights of the minority cannot be traded off for the sake of utility. Secondly, it is not possible to aggregate all values. For instance, how would you assign monetary terms to values such as the value of life, respect, etc? Even if we could measure such values then how possibly could we have captured them according to a single uniform measure of value? Let us look at some of the cases concerned with morality in the light of Utilitarian approach and see for ourselves whether utilitarianism befits it: Case1: Euthanasia Mathew Donnelly, a physicist, had contracted cancer perhaps due to an over exposure of X-Rays. It cost him his jaw, upper lip, his nose, left hand, and two fingers from right hand. As if this wasnt enough, he was also left blind. Donnellys physician told him that he had just about a years time left to live. Donnelly, however, was in excruciating pain already, and he thought against better judgment that he would rather die than continue life in such a state. In an urge to free himself of misery and pain, he asked his three brothers to kill him. Two of his brothers refused to do so while the youngest one, 36-year-old Harold Donnelly, shot Mathew to death with a 3.0-caliber pistol. The question in point is whether Harold did wrong. According to social conventions and moral traditions which essentially dictate that the intentional killing of innocent people is always wrong. Hence according to moral traditions, Harold was wrong. However, Harold is assumed to have shot his brother for a no ble cause; he loved his brother and wanted to end his misery. Moreover, Mathew had himself asked to die. Therefore, in consideration of the consent (of Mathew), and noble motives (Harolds love for his brother and wanting to alleviate him of the pain), the point in case asks for a lenient judgment. Utilitarianism would have gone by whichever of the choices available to Harold at that point of time, had the best overall consequences. Utilitarianism would support that action which maximizes happiness for all concerned. Killing Mathew, a utilitarian would think, would free Mathew of misery and pain hence in this case a utilitarian would conclude that the greatest balance of happiness will be achieved for everyone concerned here, by euthanasia. Hereby euthanasia is morally right and justified. Amongst the western States, Euthanasia is legal only in The Netherlands, Belgium, and Colombia. United States renders Euthanasia illegal and terms it as an act of murder hence Haorld Donelly was arrested and charged. A question then arises whether Euthanasia be made legal provided its taken to be morally right by a utilitarian at least. On that point, John Stuart Mill says; The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their member, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.  [3]   Thus utilitarian believes that laws prohibiting euthanasia contradict general welfare of the society, and restrict peoples right to control their own lives the way they wish to. When Harold killed his brother Mathew, he did so in order to end Mathews miserable life in a manner that Mathew had himself chosen. Since the consequences didnt harm anyone, it shouldnt be a problem for anyone either. Things are now changing, in 2005, 58% of Americans were of the view that doctors should be allowed to help patients die who are suffering from painful incurable disease. Case 2 : Case of Queens Vs. Dudley and Stevens: Queens Vs. Dudley is a 19th Century famous British Law Case. The case put a huge question on the validity of utilitarian doctrine. It involves the shipwreck crew of four. After being lost at sea for 19 whole days, Dudley, the Caption decided to kill the weakest among them, the young cabin boy Parker in order that rest of the crew members survive feeding on his blood and body. On the 29th of September 1884, 1300 miles away from Cape, Mignonette was found. Richard Parker, 17-year-old cabin boy was the youngest of all crew members on Mignonette. He was an orphan and had no family. It was Parkers first voyage to sea and had gone against the advice of his friends. A wave hit the shaft, and Mignonette went down. The only food that the crew members had on them was two cans of preserved turnips. What was worse was that the crew members did not have any fresh drinkable water either. For the first three days, the crew members did not eat. On the fourth day, however, they opened one of the cans of Turnips and ate it. The next day, they cut a turtle and together with the second can of turnips, the turtle enabled them to survive for the next few days. For eight days, then, they remained of food and water again. The cabin boy Parker had by now gotten ill as he had drunk sea water. His condition was such that he appeared to be dying. On the 19th day, the captain Dudley proposed an idea that they should all draw a lottery to see who would die to save the rest. Brooks refused to do so and hence lotts werent drawn. Next day, there still wasnt a sign of a life boat , and it was in the midst of harsh conditions that Captain motioned Stevens that boy Parker better be killed. Dudley told the boy his time had come and killed him with a pen knife, stabbing him in his jugular vein. For four days, the three of the crewmembers fed on the blood and body of Parker. At last, on the twenty fourth day of the shipwreck, they were rescued by a German ship which took them back to England where t hey were arrested and tried. Dudley and Stevens went on trial while Brooks turned States witness. It turned out that the captain and his companion werent guilty much, they claimed to have acted out of necessity. They defended their stance by saying that under dire circumstances better that one should die so that three could survive. The prosecutor wasnt influenced; he said a murder is a murder hence the case went on trial. This leaves us with following questions rather objections to the doctrine Utilitarianism: Do we have certain fundamental Rights? If yes, then individual rights shouldnt be traded off and need to be valued. Does a fair procedure justify any result? What is the moral work of consent? Would an active consent at either the time of drawing lottery or at the point of death make so much of a moral difference that an act that is considered morally wrong, taking away someone life for example, would turn morally permissible after the consent? Shall the rights of a weaker being or a minority (in terms of count or numbers) be traded off for the sake of general welfare? Case 3: Baby Theresa: Publically known as Baby Theresa, Theresa Ann Campo was an anencephalic child, born in Florida in 1992.Anencephalic children are sometimes termed as babies without brains as important parts of their brain including the cerebrum and cerebellum are missing and so is the top of their skull. There is however a brain stem, present in such infants, that allows for their autonomic functions such as breathing and heart beat. Even on accounts of survival (from stillbirth), such infants do not live long and for whatever time period they live, they would still never be conscious due to malfunctioning of brain components. Thus Baby Theresas parents volunteered her organs for transplant thinking other needy children could perhaps benefit from the eyes, kidneys, liver, heart, and lungs of Baby Theresa after the transplant. Physicians too thought that it was a good suggestion forwarded by the babys parents that her organs be volunteered so that other children who are in need may benefit. A huge num ber of children need transplants each year but there are never enough organs available. Since Florida law does not permit organ removal until the donor is dead, Baby Theresas organs werent taken. Nine days later, Baby Theresa expired and it was too late by then to use her organs for other children as her organs had been damaged. The newspaper stories of the time opened up a heated debate whether it would have been right to remove the babys organs in order to help other children. If we probe arguments for and against the case, we would come to realize that the problem of removing Theresas organs in order to help other children is not as simple as it sounds. The debate was boiled down to three main line of arguments namely; The Benefits Argument, The Argument that we should not use people as Means, and the third line of Argument from the Wrongness of Killing. The Benefits Argument: Knowing that baby Therese is an anencephalic infant who is incapable of being conscious and is going to die anyway, her parents proposed the idea that Theresas organs be used for transplant in order that other children be helped. Apparently, they reasoned as follows: If we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs.  [4]   It is interesting to note how this very line of thinking has a division of opinions. On one hand, the contention that Therese wouldnt be harmed is a mere assumption hence the act of removing her organs, based on a mere assumption that she wouldnt be harmed, while she is still alive would be unjustified. On the contrary, however, under such circumstances her parents were right thinking that mere physical existence wouldnt benefit Theresa much provided that she would miss out on thoughts, feelings, connections with people and other normal human activities. Being an anencephalic infant, they must have thought, she is only virtually alive, and that being alive for a few days would not do her any good than ending a miserable life to save the lives of other children. Whereas those children who are in dire need of organ transplants would benefit greatly. Therefore, The Benefits Argument supports the proposition that Theresas organs be used for transplant to help other children. We should not use people as Means: This line of argument opposes the stance that Theresas organs be removed to help other children. It stands by the principle that people should not be used as means to benefit others. Using people is usually used in the context of violating peoples autonomy. Either through manipulation and deceit or by forcing people to do something against their wish, using others only to get our own personal benefits is wrong as it thwarts others autonomy. In Baby Theresas case we wouldnt be deceiving or manipulating anyone by removing her organs for transplant but we would indeed be using her organs to benefit others. In case you are thinking, that happens every time transplants are carried out, you are wrong. Transplants are carried out with the consent of people, and certainly not against their permission. Baby Theresa, however, is incapable of voicing her opinions or expressing her wish by any means hence the complexity of the case remains. Moreover, it can be argued that Baby Theresa does not have wishes in the first place and she is incapable of making any decision for herself therefore she is not really an autonomous being. Thus her parents decision on her part wouldnt really be a violation of anyones autonomy. This leaves us with two ways of thinking about the problem. One, by questioning what would possibly be in the best interest of Baby Theresa, and secondly, if she could have told us what she wanted what would she have said ? Unfortunately, Theresa does not have any preferences, and her interests, even if there were any, wouldnt be affected much since she would die soon after birth no matter what. It all boils down to only one option then which is to do whatever we think is best. Wrongness of Killing: According to most Western traditions, killing someone is absolutely wrong. Since most western states are dominated by the religion of Christianity whereby intentional killing of an innocent being is out rightly wrong and punishable, ethicists who believe in traditional morality would disapprove and condemn an act of killing. To them, killing is always wrong. Nowadays, however, consequence of the act and the circumstances under which the act was committed too is taken very much into consideration. So, according to this way of perceiving things, killing might not always be wrong such as in the case of Baby Theresa. Another approach to the problem would be to think of Baby Theresa as already dead. This might not be as awkward as it sounds after all Brain Death is now accepted at large as a criterion to pronounce someone legally dead. Eventually, Brain Death came to be accepted as real death because such people couldnt live conscious life due to malfunctioning of their brain cells. If brain death is redefined, to include anencephalic since they too lack any hope of conscious life as they do not have any cerebrum or cerebellum, then we would in effect regard anencephalic infants as born dead. Then removing their organs would not be regarded as killing them and hence the argument for wrongness of killing then stands void. Conclusion: In the light of the cases mentioned above, we may conclude that solutions to the problems of ethics and morality are not black and white. As we proposed and opposed line of arguments for the cases under consideration we noticed how reasoning about such matters is often contradictory in nature. Moral Reasoning seems to fluctuate between being definite to vague. One of the biggest dilemmas of human ability to reason is that much as it helps them reach a decision, it engrosses them too at times with contradictions and recessions thus rendering the decision-making process all the more difficult.

Karl Marx and Alienation Essay

Karl Marx in his time was known for his research on the alienation of the employees in the workplace. It was during that time in the Industrial Revolution did Karl Marx publish his book Das Kapital which not only criticized the system of capitalism but also the state of the workers working at long hours and under small amounts of compensation. Alienation for Marx is considered to be a cause of a decrease in productivity and entails to a much larger problem among the working class. According to his theory, the worker is subjected to various forms of alienation at the workplace. First one is the alienation to himself. The particular worker in the office would oftentimes consider himself a different person (Marx, 2006). This is brought about by the particular thinking that he alone exists and no one else does. Same can be said for the students in universities who often think a lot, write a lot, and do sorts of things that sometimes, he detaches himself from his inner capabilities. The student who also experience rejection, failure, and embarrassment is also alienated to himself. For instance, if one student fails a subject although he knows for a fact that he did everything he could just to pass his subject, he would resort to do other things that seem to worth nothing because even if he did what he could, he still failed the subject. This results to certain forms of depression and also sometimes to even suicide. Another form of alienation that Karl Marx explained is the alienation from other people in the workplace. For example, in particular workplace or office, employees commonly have cubicles wherein they do their jobs throughout the shift not necessarily minding the other people he works with. Applying this form of alienation to students in the university, students often most are alienated from one another in so many ways. First, students are separated from one another in classes in various buildings. Second, students are, in a particular class, not allowed to interact with one another during a lecture. They are alienated with one another by the existence of that certain notion of fountain of knowledge that most professors have. The fountain of knowledge is that one person acknowledges himself to be the only source of information. This certain act further contributes to the alienation. This is even more substantiated by the pressure the studies bring in the thinking that the only way to get a job is to have a degree in a university. With that particular way of thinking, the recognition of the various forms of intelligence are ignored and only the academic intelligence is recognized. The last form of alienation that most modern workers experience is the alienation from society. This form of alienation causes the individual to think that he is separate from society and works as an island. Modern office workers experience this by the schedule of their work. For instance, in a lot of business processes outsourcing (BPO) workers, graveyard shifts are a common thing to have. Graveyard shifts are working hours that are not the conventional type of working hours. They work at night when everyone is supposed to be sleeping and getting ready for the next day ahead.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Students on the other hand, also experience this kind of alienation. First, alienation from their love ones is exhibited by leaving their families to live in dormitories inside the campus and thus learning to live on their own (Salerno, 2004). Second, by having the pressure that not studying enough would cause rejection. This thinking often leads to the reasoning why students are often studying hard at night when everyone else should be resting. Also, student in universities does not want anyone to disturb them and this is explained by the fact that as they are alienated, their behaviour changes as well. References: Marx, K., Engels, F., & Jones, G. S. (2006). The communist manifesto. 119 p. Salerno, R. A. (2004). Beyond the enlightenment : lives and thoughts of social theorists. xi, 242 p.

Women in the Great Depression

The Great Depression was a time of extreme hardship for many around the world especially within Australia. It began before the market crash in prices and lasted until World War 2. Many people became unemployed with a record at 29%. Many lost their houses forcing families, women and men to relocate to alternative accommodation. Women were especially affected by the disastrous depression. The importance of their roles within the household increased. Women were kept busy finding food, providing for their family, working and Juggling between children.Food What was the most common food available? Food In the Great Depression was very limited and scarce. Flower gardens were converted to vegetable gardens, mushrooms and blackberries were collected and fishing or rehabbing also became important if one lived in an appropriate area. The men usually took on the role of hunting, while the women stayed at home and cooked. For women It was particularly difficult, It was hard to create filling meal s due to lack of ingredients. Bread and dripping, mince and soup was the most common food served in a variety of ways, it was the staple diet of many unemployed.Another common and popular meal known throughout many Australian households was Golden syrup and treacle. Housing How did housing styles and architecture change through the great depression? During the great depression, there was a shortage of tradesmen. Ceilings of houses were lowered and the paneling became larger. The floor plan was much more simple and houses were smaller. Most were only one storey In height. The style of roof construction also changed. Many houses In that era had a â€Å"sleep out. † A â€Å"sleep out† was an outside patio or area allowing people to sleep on, on a hot summer night.It was also used for a healthy alternative to fresh air, as a common disease known back then was Tuberculosis and there was no cure. The front bricks were usually a very dark blue/black brick with brown â€Å"co mmons† on the side. The houses were very functional and well built for their time. Many people were evicted of their homes because they were unable to pay the landlord. The houses were left empty which then resulted in most situations becoming vandalized and damaged. What was the most common type of housing known throughout this time and seen In many suburbs across Australia?The most common types of architecture included the California Bungalow, Agrarian, Spanish Mission and the Old English. Clothing Where did women shop and what did they wear during this era? The clothing of women during the sass's reflected highly upon their social status and the levels of unemployment and poverty. Many high-class women shopped at large department stores including Grace Brothers and Meyer. They were influenced upon the high-end fashions seen throughout films. Charity balls were a perfect occasion to show off their new outfits.In an autumn catalogue called Sears, It quotes â€Å"Thrift Is th e spells of he day, reckless spending is a thing of the past. † For the poor, clothing was usually hand-me-downs make from simple fabrics like cotton and wool. Women also began to 1 OFF How did women in particular entertainment themselves through the great depression? Much of the entertainment was centered within the home. Evenings were spent singing round the piano or playing cards. For those who were unable to afford outings, the radio was extremely popular. Sporting events became a main activity for many including Cricket and horse races such as the Melbourne Cup.For the wealthy r those who were able to source full time work, charity balls and parties were held on Friday and Saturday nights in the city or middle-class suburbs. The poor did not attend these events; however for those who could, enjoyed the luxurious scenes, lavish food, tasteful drinks and extravagant dancing. Another popular source of entertainment included going to the cinemas. For many it was a place to es cape their everyday life and sit back and relax. 95% of the films came from Hollywood. Live theatre was a cheap and effective source of entertainment. Many attended a performance by the comedian the clown Roy Rene.Work How was finding work difficult for women? Throughout the great depression many women struggled to earn income and provide for their families. In 1932, the level of unemployment in Adelaide, South Australia was 29% according to http://aura. Anis. Du. AU/R/? Fun=dobbin-Jump- full=unisa25993 written by Rosemary Green. For women it was particularly difficult to find employment, wages were low and many found it hard to make a living. Most married women were expected to devote themselves to household work and caring for children, while on the other hand men worked to earn an income.They also received a greater burden even after working all day they were expected to cook dinner and maintain house order. Loss of Job could've been disastrous, unemployment was a major issue cau sing poverty and the government did not fund women during the depression. What was the most common area of employment? Most women were restricted to only certain areas within the workforce. Women were still concentrated in traditional Jobs, the major area of employment being domestic service, industrial work in clothing and textile manufacturing, consumer goods, commerce and fiance and public and professional administration.

African Americans And The Criminal Justice System Essay

There are many ways the criminal justice system plays a huge role in the discrimination against all people of color. Mostly, there are a wide range of studies within the African American communities that expresses concern, prejudice, and even racial profiling in the criminal justice system pertaining to blacks. Judges, jurors, police officers, and even marriages are key roles of the societal disadvantages African Americans have. African Americans are even being arrested more than any other race in America. With societal disadvantages, how can African Americans be striving citizens in America? One way African Americans have a disadvantage in the criminal justice system is the arrest rates. Per chapter 4 in the Color of Justice book, it states that â€Å"66 percent of African Americans are more likely to be arrested before the age of 30† (Samuel Walker; Cassia Spohn; Miriam Delone, 2012, p. 172). Based on the statistics given, African Americans seem more likely to be targeted fo r an arrest. The population for the African American community only makes up for 13 percent of the United States, and out of that statistic, most them will be arrested. There should be a justification to the judicial system for this outrageous arrest rate on the African American community. Another way on how African Americans have a disadvantage through the criminal justice system is by the judicial system. Chapter seven in the â€Å"Color of Justice† book briefly describes the racial differences on howShow MoreRelatedAfrican Americans And The Criminal Justice System1542 Words   |  7 PagesIntroduction African American males are overrepresented in the criminal justice and many times are subject to harsher sentences than their Caucasian counterparts. African American males also experience racial profiling and have more negative interactions than any other population in the United States. Ibie, Obie, and Obiyan states, â€Å"African Americans have continued to be the repository for American crime and to be treated as amalgamation of presumed group trait rather than as individuals†. ThisRead MoreAfrican Americans And The Criminal Justice System1500 Words   |  6 PagesThroughout American history, the African-American population has been in the minority, and has been persecuted for hundreds of years. What Taylor-Thompson is stating is that African-Americans usually hold the minority in court decisions as well, which poses a problem due to the majority overriding their vote. Due to the racial tensions, the judicial system ultimately changed in order to include more minoriti es in juries, however it was lopsided during the Simpson trial. During the tumultuous 1990sRead MoreAfrican Americans And The Criminal Justice System1394 Words   |  6 Pagesbiases within a myriad of institutions. One of these institutions which have policies which negatively affect minorities is the criminal justice system. There is an overrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos within prisons. Discrimination and prejudice have morphed throughout time to continue to keep individual without power. There are more African American adults in prison or jail, on probation or parole—than were enslaved in 1850 (Alexander. New Jim Crow.) Through the history of thisRead MoreThe Criminal Justice System For African Americans1874 Words   |  8 Pagesrisen over the past decade or so is the criminal justice system being against African Americans, but to be more specific is the criminal justice system being against African American males. The incarceration rate and the number of police brutality cases have been at all time high rises and t he overall treatment African Americans receive from the criminal justice system. There have been numerous amounts of cases that have come to face dealing with African Americans and law enforcement. The types of casesRead MoreThe African-American Male and the Criminal Justice System2725 Words   |  11 PagesAfrican American Male and Crime Justice System [Authors Name] [Institutions Name] African American Male and Crime Justice System Introduction The past quarter century has seen an enormous growth in the American incarceration rate. Importantly, some scholars have suggested that the rate of prison growth has little to do with the theme of crime itself, but it is the end result of particular U.S. policy choices. Clear (2007) posits that these policy choices have had well-defined implicationsRead MoreCriminal Justice System : A Social Problem Within The African American Community2025 Words   |  9 PagesAny criminal justice system reflects its society and its times. Currently, in my culture, the African American culture, people commit crimes for the number one reason being to feed their families. What is considered a crime? How does the Criminal Justice System work? How is the amount of time determined? Why do African American get more time than the white man? Why are more black men in prison than any other ethnicities? The Criminal Justice System is a social problem within the African AmericanRead MoreSocialization Te chniques Of African American Male Within The Criminal Justice System1325 Words   |  6 Pagestechniques of African Americans, in particular black males in the criminal justice system are vastly dissimilar in comparison to their white counterparts. The dominant socialization indifference is theoretically associated with Marxist Criminology schools of thought, in particular conflict theory. Qualitative, empirical, and historical data supports Marxist criminology based on capitalism, conflict, and the disparity treatment of the Afro-American male within the criminal justice system: police, courtsRead MoreThe Criminal Justice System : An Analysis Of Income And Racial Inequality Essay1586 Words   |  7 PagesRyan Williams English 102 Professor 6 May 2015 The Criminal Justice System: an Analysis of Income and Racial Inequality In the history of civilized communities, one finds that different structures and practices are relevant and necessary to uphold and maintain order within society—hence, the establishment of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system, according to the Oxford Dictionaries (2010), is defined as â€Å"the system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehendingRead MoreThe New Jim Crow : Mass Incarceration1199 Words   |  5 Pagesperceptions on the American criminal justice system? Michelle Alexander was able to accomplish that by altering some people s entire perception on the American criminal justice system by focusing on our most pressing civil right issues of our time for some of those who did read her book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration In The Age of Colorblindness. Michelle Alexander stated that The most despised in America is not gays, transgenders, nor even illegal immigrants - it is criminals. That was anRead MoreRacial Discrimination And The Criminal Justice System1512 Words   |  7 PagesAlthough saying the criminal justice system is racist is a controversial statement, there is evidence and statistics that prove it to be true. Research and evidence validate the issue of racism to be undeniable. Equality and justice are out of reach with the racism that takes place in our criminal justice syste m and our country. Racial discrimination is prevalent amongst the African American culture in issues regarding drug use, and incarceration which creates unfair inequality for this race. I will