Free Minority and Human Rights Discrepancies in America Essay Sample
|← Environmental Ethics||Normative Ethical Theory →|
Buy Cheap Minority and Human Rights Discrepancies in America Essay
The United States has made substantial growth over many years to ensure equal treatment for all citizens under its law; most people argue that some of these rights are functional today like the freedom to vote, public and housing, and liberty from discrimination in employment sectors. There is an increase in authority positions awarded to minorities, and they enjoy more educational and economic opportunities compared to the past times. However, in the criminal justice structure, racial inequality is still a national concern and the law, though constantly neutral, is imposed in a biased manner thus threatening to render many years of struggle for civil rights development irrelevant. Therefore, this paper will critically analyses minority and human rights discrepancies in regard to all races found in the nation of America.
The question on people’s mind is whether their justice system is on trial and if civil rights is a matter of concern in America. The Civil rights Act in 1964 prohibited acumen in employment opportunities but yet four in ten African American citizens are prone to serve time in prison under mysterious circumstances; this condenses their chances for a legitimate occupation or attaining professional licenses. The Voting Rights Act affirmed in 1965 saw 30% of black citizens in Florida and Alabama permanently alienated due to felony rulings and as a result, most of them lost their voting rights. In the same year, the Nationality and Immigration Act sought to eradicate the remnants of ethnic discrimination, but the Asian Americans and Hispanic were sometimes chosen for settlement enforcement. The Housing Act in 1968 is not effective because the existing housing facilities are not balanced; these facts reveal that the situation of racial discrimination in America is below the citizen’s expectations.
The system used to apprehend and punish law breakers is an important part of democracy; however, some citizens have questioned the viability of their judicial structure because they do not feel confident at some stages of its process. Thus, the law requires transparency from the primary interrogation of an offense by the police officer to the tribunal and punishment of that wrongdoing by judges and prosecutors. But looking at the most recent cases is this so? People in such circumstances are guaranteed similar treatment with consistency as the rule dictates; nonetheless, when it comes to practicing the law, the enforcers digress from this ideal offering prejudiced treatment to the minorities at every stage of the process. The minority groups are victimized by ethnically twisted verdicts accompanied by discriminative sentence practices, and the failure of this policy restores the inequalities that have become patent today. It is clear that racial discrepancies affect both the guilty and innocent less privileged citizens; they are apprehended by the police anywhere in the streets not considering the humiliation, inconvenience or the privacy invasion caused. Therefore, the motivation for such actions is the motorist’s or pedestrian’s accent or skin color which betrays them thus the overwhelming population of blacks in prisons. There is a policy report that examines the uneven treatment in the justice system also reviews its impacts on the same; the first chapter focuses on those issues concerning police officers and race. The second section focuses on prosecutorial preference and race addresses the charging decisions in drug cases and racial difference in the capital penalty administration. At every consequent stage of the criminal process, from the initial appeal with a prosecutor to the imposition of a judge’s sentence, the juries are not highly prejudiced, but the influence from the police always alters their judgment. California State reviewed by the San Jose Mercury media and revealed significant inequalities in some steps of the justice system. The findings uncovered 6% white compared to 4% of blacks achieved the apprehension of justice discharges in which attorneys dropped the case entirely; furthermore, 20% of white perpetrators accused of crimes provided a diversion option while only 14% of Africans were awarded the same privilege. The next chapter is race and sentencing; it describes the roles of legislative organs in shaping and implementing the criminal justice programs that do not conform to the law. The pronouncement to sentence a criminal was perceived as an insightful responsibility on entrusted to judges, but recently the decision to convict lawbreakers is controlled by other stakeholders in the judicial system like legislators and prosecutors. The transformation of the sentencing culture had a tragic effect on the minority issue in America. Between 1989 and 1992, there was a sentence discrepancy study conducted by the New York department of criminal justice amenities which analyzed the felony sentencing impacts in the state’s courts. In regards to that matter, the New York administration decided that a third of minorities condemned would have a shorter jail term only if they received similar treatments with their white colleagues.
The fourth part confers the court’s failure to address discriminations by restricting the data use to reflect the disparate effect on disadvantaged citizens. It emphasizes that the judicial system endures significant responsibilities for the injustices suffered in spite of the sentencing guidelines where judges have less power to influence the verdicts through the implementation of judicial discretion. Chapter five analyzes inequality in the juvenile justice system because the minority youths are always the targets for drug trafficking. Between 1980 and 1990, the drug sales arrest increased among the blacks recorded a 100% increase compared to the whites statistic which remained constant although the decade. Such bizarre figures reflect that the white youths do not abuse substances or they are swayed by their counterpart which is rather unfair. The last chapter discusses proposals to amend ethnic differences which have dominated the courts today. The suggestions include establishing authorizations and broadening for law enforcement division, death penalty suspension, improving sentencing guidelines, and revoking efforts to shift minors to the adult system.
It is evident that most of the policies discussed advocate for operative law enforcement system and security for the public but do not promote a just nation. The key concern with minorities is not being tough on the crimes as most political leaders assume but ensure transparency in all sectors which guarantees effective policies to treat all citizens humanely and impartially. For instance, it does not help much to depend on imprisonment as a way of addressing social problems by reducing the humiliation and stigma of convicted criminals and siphoning limited resources from the required educational and health programs. It may seem tough to promote more prisons; on the other hand, it may also sound lenient to support transformation in sentencing regulations which would permit non-fervent drug addicts to receive rehabilitation services. Sadly, the leaders’ eager to confront the incompetence and biases of the modern crime situation is considered non-cooperative, but those who insist in the same old story of detaining innocent people with no clear outline for the offense mostly acquire the judicial power.
Though the concept of human rights is still non-concrete in the United States, its application has a direct control on the daily lives of the disadvantaged citizens; most of them labor solely to earn a living because, in the past years, the dictatorial rule denied equal political and civil rights to the blacks. Prompted by the United Nations, most governments not only in America were determined to promote human rights; the supposed need to safeguard people’s rights and maintain a civilized environment has contributed to the humanitarian involvement. The government is changing from the conception that administrative systems have not had a negative mandate to respect people’s freedom but a positive role to defend the rights and prevent privileged citizens and other civil servants from violating the minorities’ rights. The humanitarian intervention involves autonomous involvement by one state or collective participation by many states. People argue that multilateral intervention is the acceptable solution because comparatively few states have adequate force to intervene independently but modern involvements are also combined. However, there is a dispute on what to scope nations can engross in such interferences and the efficiency of using military force to safeguard citizens from other nations which stems from a pressure between individual rights and state sovereignty. Most leaders tend to support the opinion of nation control and suggest that since most nations are independent, they should be allowed to determine which rule favors its people. Additionally, different countries have diverse concepts of justice thus international cohesion is dependent on multiple ethnicities in which every nation defends its notion of what is good.
There is a reflective cynicism about the prospects of understanding notions of collective justice; some states believe to judging is termed as a defilement of rights in one country affects another’s freedom to self-determination. Doubts are further raised by the varying opinions for sovereignty, for example, the members of the United Nations Security Council who have a stake in the claim of international principles. The need for a state’s constitution to respect civil rights can cause abrasion thus the intervention acts may lead to prolonged disagreements and even greater human suffering if states abandon the rule of nonintervention. Humanitarian intervention purposes to restore equality among all citizens regardless of one’s nation and restore the rule of law but critiques feel that it threatens the state’s political freedom and territorial honor. Besides, judicial leaders who support the humanitarian approach maintain that the international community can observe international standards to benefit their citizens. They uphold that the substantial violation of human privileges like crimes against humanities and genocide guarantee international involvement though it provokes tension but it is universal and inalienable. If a nation is reluctant to commit resources and martial forces to defend civil rights in other nations, using violence stop this violation instigates a dilemma thus imperative to use the least force needed to achieve humanitarian goals. Every nation should ensure that their participation with other states is valid and the grievances of citizens from the participating countries are aired and discussed to find a lasting solution that will curb racial disparities. However, if the involvement‘s risks are high, it is improbable that nations will involve themselves unless their interests are represented thus the debate whether humanitarian issues are driven by self interests or genuine concerns. Nations that stress on the violation of human rights ought to first evaluate the reasons that led to the violations. That is if the reasons revelve around issues such as economic pressure and social problems. Thus, the foundadtion for this vice springs from much more complicated political, social and economic glitches. Any government’s law system should attempt to understand the actual causes to strengthen civil society and democracy in their respective territories and promote a balanced lifestyle.
The judiciary and the government should join forces and bear the responsibility to observe and safeguard their citizen’s well-being; the process should concentrate on areas weakened by the concept of prejudice like California state in unites states which is famous for biased police administration and judicial system. People propose that it is difficult to heal psychological scars like those inflicted on citizens from California and commencing a reconciliation process in such areas seems like an impossible mission especially if those who caused the suffering do not acknowledge their mistakes or show any remorse. Nonetheless, to solve issues of cruelty and enhance forgiveness, matters of racial discrimination must be addressed and law practiced; in such a scenario, the United Nations should play an integral role of support and encouragement to the restoration of peace and harmony in the tensed states. The organization also introduce other social norms to replace the old ones and establish programs to help them focus on the future because human rights restoration is not just another labelled recovery aspect but should be infused into all peacebuilding undertakings.
In summation, irrespective of how vigorously the American people decide to impose the criminal law, both ethnic and racial neutrality will remain imperative for a long time; clearly this is an issue that will never cease. For instance, if two correspondingly situated but ethnically divided individuals possess similar traits either good or bad, the law should be affirmative and ensure that both people receive the same treatment because after all the constitution balances their rights and freedoms as American citizens. Therefore, the expansion of human rights act is a developing consensus that resolves conflicts related to defilement of human freedom; with the mechanisms identified to establish a friendly environment where everyone’s opinion is respected.