The concept of access to justice embodies the formal conception on one side, and substantive conception on the other. The formal conception of access to justice is considered to indicate abilities of people to have access to courts of law and other tribunals in a reasonable and effective manner coupled with the opportunity to receive legal services from qualified professionals. Access to justice in this way embraces the concept of the equality before the law which is the foundation of human rights protection, and protects the poor and the vulnerable from deprivation and violation of their rights. The substantive conception of access to justice, on the other hand, refers to people's ability to attain a substantive legal outcome. The substantive …show more content…
They state that access to justice directs at the impeachments of barriers that confront people living in poverty from utilizing the legal system in the form of three “waves”. The first wave entailed the emergence of legal aid in the developed countries in the period after the Second World War. This wave intended to provide direct legal services to economically disadvantaged persons involved in the justice system. More recently, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (Knaul, A/HRC/23/43, 15 March 2013) state that legal aid seeks to eradicate the barriers which impede access to justice by providing assistance to those who would not otherwise have been able to afford legal representation and access to the court system (Knaul, A/HRC/23/43, 15 March 2013, para. 27). To be more specific, the right to legal aid refers to both a right and an essential guarantee for the effective exercise of other human rights including the right to an effective remedy, the right to equality before the courts and tribunals, the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial (Knaul, A/HRC/23/43, 15 March 2013, para.
When people say they “want justice”, what do they want? How can we achieve justice as a community?
From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.
Even though employment rates are still down therefore the state can still hire qualified candidates. Keeping qualified candidates promotes the wellbeing of our state and citizens because Georgia experiences some of the highest turnover and employee are leaving to go to the private sector for better money.
"If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free. If in other lands the eternal truths of the past are threatened by intolerance, we must provide a safe place for their perpetuation." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1938 (Isaacs 66)
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights are two terms that are often used interchangeably in America. Since the founding of our nation there has always been the debate of the limit of government and what rights were guaranteed to each individual. Many of the architects of our government feared that national government could one day become too powerful and begin to infringe on the individual rights of the citizens. As a result, a Bill of Rights was added to our constitution. The Bill of Rights serves as a guide of what the government cannot do. Civil Liberties simply establish precedent on what rights the United States government cannot abridge on. Civil Rights, on the other hand applies to the rights of individuals. Over the history of our nation the question of civil rights has found itself becoming a pillar of our legal system and has been very instrumental in our quest to become a “more perfect union”. In recent history one civil liberty that has caused a continual controversial debate is the second amendment, in addition to how it applies to gun control measures that are being proposed in order to decrease the level of mass shootings. The second amendment clearly defines the intention of individuals to have the right to bear arms. In order to understand why gun control advocates have failed to secure effective gun control legislation, we must explore the reasoning why the second amendment is interpreted the way it is and should Americans be allowed to own guns?
More than ever people are losing access to justice. Even though the global economic crisis affected everyone, and every jurisdictions budget there needs to be a minimum level of funding for legal aid to protect the rights of those that cannot afford legal aid (Hainsworth, 2010). According to Hainsworth, (2010) the Canadian Bar Association has asked for national standards for legal aid, just like there are standards for health care and education. The CBA believes legal aid reform is needed to ensure access to justice for low income people, it also believes funding must be increased and national standards for eligibility and civil coverage are necessary to make the system function properly again.
What has society done about reforming sentencing laws in order to reduce the incarceration population? The fair sentencing Act which was signed by president Obama has helped reduce the number of inmates impacted by mandatory minimum sentencing by “reducing the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, it also increases penalties for major drug traffickers” (White House 2010). What the Act did was changed the ratio of Crack cocaine v Cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (U. S. Department of Justice 2010). This Act is beneficial because it
In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.
Television shows such as Dateline, 60 Minutes and 20/20 have often aired segments on discrimination within the justice system through hidden cameras recording police behavior towards minorities, interviews with minorities falsely accused or mistreated, and by referring to capital punishment statistics seemingly biased especially towards blacks. The Justice Files has produced several biographies on minorities who were subjected to some atrocity by the American justice system. General interpretation of nationwide statistics seem to give the public the feeling that minorities are more likely to be incarcerated or subjected to capital punishment and more frequently experience racism by police officers, juries or
There comes a time, in most citizens’ lives when they must stand against their government to produce change. Change can only be acquired if people take the necessary actions for it to take place. Nelson Mandela was a historical revolutionist who helped his people in Africa, to revolt against the government, in order to bring about change. As a result, he was sentenced to prison for 27 years for trying to overthrow the government. Many revolutionist, such as Arundhati Roy and Martin Luther King Jr., explain in their essays how the role of the citizen is to stand against injustice, and how the government labels them as anti-national because of it.
The term justice is used in some of America's most treasured and valued documents, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Everyone wants to be treated justly whether it's in the courtroom or the local bar. Most people would feel confident giving a definition for justice, but would it be a definition we could universally agree to? Given that justice is a very common term, and something we all want, it's important to have a precise definition. For hundreds of years philosophers have argued, debated, and fought over this topic. Justice can clearly be defined as the intention to conform to truth and fairness. This is true justice.
Is there structural inequality in the criminal justice system? When we watch the news or read our newspapers, we can see that most of the criminals portrayed are of African American or Hispanic descent. Being a fan of true crime novels, they even depict more Black male criminals than White males. Are African American males committing more crimes than White males? What factors are involved for Blacks to be more involved in crime? How do African American stereotypes play a role with possible racial profiling from the policing force? Are Blacks treated fairly in the criminal justice system? After much research, I hope to answer these questions and determine if African Americans
Over the years in our country’s history it has been apparent that the idea of same sex marriages is becoming much more popular, however in most states there is still one thing stopping them. That one thing stopping two people from the pursuit of happiness which they desire is a social injustice. Social injustices are situations where a person or group of people is treated unfairly due to certain factors for example discrimination, prejudice, racism, heterosexism, sexism, and so forth. In the case of same sex marriages, the factor playing a major role in this social injustice is where most people believe that opposite sexes attract, but in the case of a same sex couple wanting to be married, this brings about many topics to be discussed by
American prisons have a disparity of minority inmate population, and one of the reasons this is so is because of the manner the judicial system operates. The investigator chose this topic because there are many African Americans and Hispanics that have been incarcerated for crimes they committed, as well as for crimes they didn’t commit, and because of their cultural background they were given severer sentencing. After performing the research the investigator found that many factors played a big part in the incarceration of minorities that included, ethnicity and gender. Although there is a high crime rate in minority areas, there are more
Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces