Goldilocks Affirmative Defense

Affirmative Action is one of the many social issues facing America today. Affirmative action was signed into place in 1961 by President Kennedy and allows minority groups or people who face discrimination to become employed or get an education that is equal to that of a white male. Groups that Affirmative Action aims to help are women, blacks, Latinos, and people with disabilities. While these policies were signed to slowly rid the workforce and schools from discrimination, it hurts people who do not face discrimination, specifically whites. Many white men and women lose special opportunities to work or go to college because of certain standards that the Affirmative Action laws require. Universities and the military require a certain number of minorities in order to meet the standards and have a more diverse atmosphere. An example of this is the California V. Bakke supreme court case of 1978.

When a defendant is convicted of a crime, arrested, and stand trial there are multiple ways that they can defend themselves. The criminal justice system has a variety of types of criminal defenses that one should be familiar with, if ever in the position of being charged with an offense. Within this paper, I will be talking about seven different types of criminal defenses, starting with: insanity, automatism, duress, self defense, intoxication, necessity/ lesser harm, and mistake of fact.

On May 13, 1990, an eager yet serious Shelby Steele claims that affirmative action is “reformist and corrective, even repentant and redemptive”, in the New York Times. Despite the different political views, Steele does not want to insult these sincere intentions despite the conflicts that will arise once these policies take effect. Steele believes that affirmative action is similar to a “...Faustian bargain” as it creates more moral problems rather than fixing them. Shelby Steele points out the flaws of affirmative action and hopes to bring awareness to affirmative action by using appeals to logic, credibility, emotion, and other canons of rhetoric. Steele’s plan is to persuade the readers into believing the harmful effects of the policy.

Generations of families have suffered due unequal laws or prejudices set in place to prevent minorities from growing. Slavery, segregation, separate but equal laws, the trail of tears, failing ESOL classes, unequal pay and so much more effect today's youth and causing history to change slowly if at all. Affirmative action has good intentions and is very much needed in today's world however it sometimes fails doing what it was created to do.

According to Newman, affirmative action is a “program designed to seek out members of minority groups for positions from which they had previously been excluded, thereby seeking to overcome some institutional racism” (Newman, 536). Affirmative action made its debut with a piece of legislature passed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and continues to this day. However, the concept of affirmative action is a controversial issue that continues to be hotly debated.

The purpose of affirmative action is to ensure equal opportunity for minorities. But it has strayed from its original intent and has become largely a program to achieve not equal opportunity but equal results. It is a system of quotas forced upon American businesses and working class by the federal government. A law which forces people to look at race before looking at the individual cannot promote equal opportunity. Affirmative action continues the judgement of minorities by race; it causes reverse discrimination, and contradicts its purpose.

Affirmative Action began in 1965 when President Johnson signed the Executive Order 11246 in to law. The Executive Order prevents federal contractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The phrase “affirmative action” was first coined, when federal contractors were required to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants were not discriminated against in anyway. When affirmative action was created, it only included minorities. In 1967, Johnson decided to expand the program to include women because women were discriminated against much like minorities. In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, affirmative action was a method used to stop

Affirmative action has been around for decades. Some believe it isn’t fair but others do. Those who believe and agree with affirmative action tend to say, “The principle of affirmative action is to promote societal equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people” (Bidmead, Andrew pg 3). Others that disagree with it and find it unfair simply see it as another form of discrimination, giving one group extra advantages based upon nothing but their skin color (Cline, Austin pg 1). I believe that affirmative action is indeed fair because it gives minorities a better chance at having a successful career in their near future.

Affirmative Action is an employment legislation protection system that is intended to address the systemized discrimination faced by women and minorities. It achieves this by enforcing diversity through operational intrusions into recruitment, selection, and other personnel functions and practices in America. Originally, Affirmative Action arose because of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s desire to integrate society on educational, employment, and economic levels, yet it was John F. Kennedy who issued Executive Order 10925 to create the Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, a commission that evolved into our modern Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

“After a few more glimpse, she picked up her pace and was soon running in earnest. Within second she disappeared into a cross street”(Staples, Brent 301) and “I often witness that “hunch posture” from women after dark on the warren-like streets of Brooklyn where I live. They seem to set their faces on neutral with their purse strung across their chests bandolier style, they forge ahead as though bracing themselves against being tackled” (Staples, Brent 302), both show the approaches people take to protect themselves from harm. They are trying to either protect themselves from a possible attack or trying to swerve away their traducer, which can be termed as self defense. But, while self-defense is simply the protection of oneself, under what circumstances is it appropriate and what actions can be termed self-defense is a debatable topic. Self defense is a subconscious or conscious action taken by an individual to protect himself or someone else from immediate threat of physical harm or verbal threat of physical harm(given the possibility of the attacker to inflict the damage),which should not exceed the amount of physical damage that the assaulter has

Affirmative action is an action taken by an organization to select on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity by giving due preferences to minorities like women and races being not adequately represented under the existing employment. To make the presentation of all these compositions almost equal in proportion to do away the injustice done in the past. The Supreme Company need to design an affirmative action program in the light of recent Supreme Court judgment passed in favor of affirmative actions to be adopted by various companies.

One of the controversial topics and philosophical questions that really sparked my interest was affirmative action. The author of text that I will be drawing connections from is Tom L. Beauchamp and his publication is titled “In Defense of Affirmative Action”. The theme behind his work is self-explanatory from the title. Beauchamp states the strong arguments as to why people want to abandon affirmative action, but also gives his own insight and support to defend its existence and continued implementation. He understands that there is flaws with affirmative action, but the policy does more good than bad, thus it should be continued.

When a person is charged with a crime the type of defense that they choose could ultimately determine their fate. There are many different types of defenses that exist in our criminal justice system. In this paper I will be taking a brief look at two different cases that have implored two different types of criminal defenses. I will look at the nature and types of defenses used in the cases and what evidence was used to demonstrate defense. I will describe how justification and excuse played a role in the cases and I will also be describing the outcome of each case.

Although, when people think of self defense they tend to think that means killing someone if they were to break into their home, but the castle doctrine specifies that, a person may not use deadly force upon another person unless: he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson or any forcible felony (Senate). You may use excessive force if a person who illegally enters, remains after illegally entering, or attempts to illegally enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle legally occupied by such person. A resident does not have to retreat from his or her home or vehicle when a burglar is breaking and entering.

I have located the following cases and statues that I believe can be used as Affirmative Defenses for our client, Anheuser-Bush in the case of Justin King. Further, I believe the statute of limitation has expired for filing this auto accident claim for negligence, the Plaintiff is more than 50% negligent in his own injuries, therefore, modified comparative negligence, further, the plaintiff failed to wear protective headgear as is required in his resident state of Missouri.