All
too often people complain about the problems with this nation’s criminal
justice system. The words, “unfair, unreliable, racist, bias” seems to
correlate with it more than what it actually stands for. But it only seems that
way for the simple fact that we’ve done it to ourselves.
How
can we as a nation fix this ongoing problem within our society? The answer lies
within ourselves, as hatred and racism are a part of ones upbringing. It is
taught to people at an early age that just because someone else is of another
race or ethnicity, they should be treated differently from others.
The title of the first article is, Tyler and Trayvon, Continued… by Bill
Keller. The main idea of the article is to inform the reader of the emphasis
applied to a crime committed that is influenced by hate or bigotry compared to
one of the same stature that is not influenced by either, but solely out of the
intent to do so with no “valid” motive. Bill Keller believes that this is in no
way beneficial but instead undermines the history of a specific race, hence the
quote “But unless there’s some evidence that this actually works, it seems to
be mainly a way to make a guilty society feel better about itself”. During the
initial reading process, before the author clearly states his opinion, it would
seem as if he already maintains a position of his own implicit bias. However,
after progressing further in the article, Keller presents a highly valid reason
as to why he holds his position on the subject as well as providing
substantiating evidence that supports his argument. Hence, the first sentence
of the article, “My discomfort with hate crime legislation — laws prescribing
that a crime committed with a head full of bigotry can be punished more
severely than the identical crime committed out of, say, predatory greed or
plain old cruelty — has stimulated a lively discussion.”
I would consider the author to have
an eminently strong and compelling argument in regards to the issue being
discussed in this particular article. Why should someone who has committed the
same crime with no intentions of hatred being implemented towards the victim
during the actual occurrence of the crime, be punished less than an individual
who has done the same but with the intent of pure hatred caused by their own
bias? There would be no common ground that lies within the explanation of this
argument. For example, Trayvon Martin’s story is mainly recognized for the fact
that he is of African-American descent, but if he was a Caucasian male there
would not be as much attention as there was towards his case. However, Keller states in his article that
most readers would be in favor of the fact that the history of a specific race,
gender, or sexual preference would be a basis for justifying the strenuous
circumstances related to hate crime laws. Meaning that because of how that
specific race was treated previously in history, they should be treated better
now to make up for old times.
Realistically, a “justification” of
circumstances can also be perceived as a mockery in regards to the negative
aspect of the history of one’s gender, sexual preference, or race. How can a
specific category of people be treated equally compared to everyone else, when
a crime committed against them with a particular bias is not handled the same
as without one? This can only mean an indication of a fallacy, placed surreptitiously
behind hidden assumptions. Keller also states that those in favor of the
concept of hate crime laws can be classified as closed minded. I would concur
with this statement, for the simple fact that the gratification for commending
the consequences of a “hate” crime, simply undermines an entire race of people.
Article #2
In the second article I analyzed, Reviewing Criminal Justice, the author
discusses a brief summary of the criminal justice system and a bill proposed by
Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat of Virginia, to review the entire establishment as
well as what needs to be done to improve it. The author touches bases on
several problems of the criminal justice system that need to be attended to and
how the bill will affect those issues. According to the article, America’s
prison system is significantly diminished and is in dire need of improvements.
The very first sentence in the
article sums up everything one can expect to be informed about if not already obvious
enough about our criminal justice system, “America’s criminal justice needs
repair” simply speaks for itself. Then again, what exactly needs to be
repaired? According to the article, prisons are becoming overcrowded; sentences
for crimes committed are also highly irrational, gang violence has yet to
subside or minimize activity, and programs to assist convicted felons to
assimilate back into normal society are clearly not functioning as they should
be.
The author states that the prison
system keeping individuals imprisoned who do not need to remain there for a
substantial amount of time, is highly “unjust” and extremely expensive for the
state of California and also adds that “In
the last two decades, state corrections spending soared 127 percent, while
spending on higher education increased only 21 percent.”
However, what he does not elaborate on the subject of is the fact that private
prisons benefit entirely off of the incarceration of inmates. So a higher
numbers of prisoners equal a higher amount of profit for the prisons. It would
only make sense for the state not to utilize a larger amount of funds on the
education system when the profit margin return is extensively favorable for the
business of private prison systems. However, this is just from a business
aspect rather than what is actually beneficial to the community.
A commission of notable criminal
justice experts would be appointed the responsibility of analyzing policies
that have arisen throughout the nation in regards to the criminal justice
system and will facilitate improvements for them as well. Although not
precisely stated what needs improvement, it can be assumed that the panel of
chosen “experts” will administer a course of action that would address the 3
main problems previously discussed in this article. The real question is, will
this plan actually be effective? Or should the time and energy spent on this
particular resolution be directed towards another
Although I do not completely support
the author’s argument on this subject, everyone is entitled to their own
opinion, hence the basis of this article. I don’t believe a major problem such
as the nation’s prison system defects can be resolved by simply patching it up
here and there. A matter of this proportionate size should be addressed at the
root of the problem, which is our educational system. If you want to fix
something, start from the bottom.
Keller,
Bill “Tyler and Trayvon, Continued…” The
New York Times 03 April 2012
Editorial
“Reviewing Criminal Justice” The New York
Times 29 March 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment