Racial Disparities In Criminal Justice Essay

To be an equal citizen in a democratic state you must be free from many of the capacities of domination, many of which plague our society today. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system are not in line with a Relational egalitarian way of thinking. At many times racial disparities fuel hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths propitiating the inequalities that citizens have comparatively to each other. Relational egalitarians believe that individuals are to be treated equal with respect and value. This theory does not focus on the distribution of material objects and goods but in achieving “a social order in which persons stand in relations of equality” (pg313 Anderson). To do this we must abolish oppression this includes the relationships
individuals have that create hierarchy of exploitation, servitude, marginalization and things to that degree (Discussion). But egalitarians and I, oppose and denounce only inequalities that are not justifiable. Some are justifiable, for example many successful students go to top schools were others go to community college. My view of how justice should be, is that of Rawl’s principle of justice; first principle each individual must have a unjustifiable claim to full necessary set of equal basic liberties that complements our view of liberties for all, second principle is social and economic inequalities are to satisfy fair equality of opportunity and to benefit those of the least-advantaged members of society (pg42-43,jk).
Freedom and equality are one in the same. In hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths and hierarchies that are of dominating character people are unequal: they are subordinated, controlled and or dominated. Defining inequality in this way also in tales that you too are unfree. Freedom as non-domination is the exemption from a capacity for arbitrary interference on the part of others even the presence of the capacity for arbitrary interference is in some level still dominating (pg84 Pettit). This view of freedom as non-domination is an instrumental good. The beneficial outcomes are; reducing uncertainty about interference, reducing the need to exercise a strategy of deference and anticipation with others, and reducing the subordination with vulnerability. All of which are unable with freedom as a non-interference. This definition of both freedom and equality is compatible with a state and its institutions that exercise high level of arbitrary interference (Discussion). In the subject of justice there must be upmost diligence in its constrains and in its distribution.
I believe that in a democratic and or society that values liberties and freedoms a true indicator of its success is in how it treats the worst among us. In particular the people that society would gladly let burn but because we have inalienable rights and values we must give them that same respect. Also In giving the state the power to essentially put a constraint on the freedom of individuals their must not be a shadow of doubt. Furman v. Georgia (1972) displayed to a certain level that a veil of ignorance is present in our criminal justice system. They may not even no they are acting ignorantly but that does not excuse that behavior. In this case prosecutors were considerably more likely to reach for a death penalty for black suspects and white victims. But the really puzzling finding was that black on black and white on white had significantly less death penalty attempts by prosecutors. McClesky v. Kemp (1986) was overly broad displayed that even the court was aware of racial disparities but it could or was not willing to start a
change. I believe that a democratic society that values itself on liberty, freedom, individual and human rights for all cannot kill its own people no matter the crime. We need to strive to be better, to raise the standard. It is barbaric for us and government to sentence people to death. A situation where there is no going back once it is done. One it cost more than life sentence and it has made mistakes “26 out of 28 forensic examiners overstated evidence of forensic hair matches in 268 trials reviewed, and 95% of the overstatements favored the prosecution.” (wiki). I find that repulsive, aren’t we better than that? I believe life is a negative liberty so intrinsic to the nature of our morals and belief, something that no one even the state cannot interfere in. Punishments in law are intended to constrain the freedoms of the prosecuted, there is no constrain or limitation to freedom in death only absolute. We can avoid paternalism because what we owe others is unconditional, intrinsic, and that of respect for their humanity, dignity, and moral equality. In a relational egalitarian society there must be some certain things individuals have to ensure the greatest level of equality in the criminal justice system. Citizens must have effective access to certain goods over their entire life like access to health care, a sufficient level of education, good fair lawyers and etc (pg314 Anderson). Those certain “goods” need must have guaranteed accessibility through the whole lifetime. The principles of egalitarianism call for justice that remedies and is relational to the crime being corrected. There should not the punishment for cutting off your hand for petty crime. Principles of justice should be possible objections of collective will because we, in positions of power and authority must do things that are for the betterment of society not on the principle of appeasement. For a long period, slavery was popular, but it still conflicted with our rights, liberties and constitution. I believe one of the most important principles is in an, egalitarian, democratic, and free society we cannot uphold responsibility of individual actions for their entire existence (pg314 Anderson). That is why in an egalitarian society justice is given to “rehabilitate” not just “punish” and throw them back into society worse than they came in. We do this because we value that human being and they possess ability that redemption is possible. This fact illustrates the effect of the current system “An estimated two-thirds (68 percent) of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of release from prison, and three-quarters (77 percent) were arrested within five years, per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).”. How can we expect people to rehabilitate when once they convict a felony they can’t even get a job at Mc. Donald’s. Non-domination principles for freedom and equality can enter into this situation in criminal justice system. When an individual finishes his punishment, his constrains on freedom and even to a certain level constrains on equality are over. This arbitrary interference is objectable.
Racial disparities in the criminal justice system can be observed as a durable group inequality that is systematically done to create hierarchies where people are related to each other as superior to inferior, rather than social equals.
Some of the hierarchies of interest is ones of, esteem, standing, and command. The most frightening is that of command, where at many cases people can’t even exercise freedom of choice or in manifesting their own destiny. Many parts of the world still have indentured servitude. In Detroit public schools, in 2011 it had a 59% percent four year graduation rate (CBS). The state average is 78% (CBS). IT has been directly observed that there is a strong link to education in respect to mobility, choice, political influence, money. “Powerful evidence of the link include the fact that 46 percent of Americans who grew up in low-income families but failed to earn college degrees stayed in the lowest income quintile, compared to 16 percent for those who earned a college degree” (huffingtonpost). How can we expect citizens to have even the capability to function as an equal citizen, to participate in the democracy, to be educated voters, to work in the principles of fair play when they don’t even have the ability to function? Functioning in the contexts of being in “states of beings and doing that constitutes a person’s wellbeing” (pg 316 anderson). People are entitled to capabilities to empower them to deny these oppressive social relationships their
power and to function as an equal citizen in a democratic society.
Non-domination is more than an instrumental good, it is a primary good because it enables the environment and conditions necessary to have a society were persons stand equal in relation to each other: this means we must allow people to be “that cannot be dismissed without independent reason” (Pg 91 Pettit). This is cannot be achieved by “satisfactorily pursue by private, decentralized means”, that is why the state must be entrusted with this task. It can be done more effectively in a state top down approach then with the latter. The state with its provisions can promote and maximize this to the citizens. In achieving this rule utilitarianism, non-domination must be seen as a positive liberty. There must be something present like the state and institutions to achieve and have it. Another justification of why non-domination is compatible with certain features of legal and social institutions. But the double-edge sword to that is maximize this there must be institutions to endure this non-domination of freedom and of relational equality (discussion).