Justice And Social Justice: Valjean Vs. Javert

The Theme of Justice in The Crucible The crucible was set in 1692 in Salem, Massachusetts. The play is based on true facts about events that actually took place. It is about a small secluded town that relies strongly on their religion to keep them feeling safe. Their enemy is the devil and they are always scared of the devil and constantly looking for signs that the devil is there.

In the play The Crucible, the author Arthur Miller displays an unfair treatment of humans when it comes to justice. Characters who live in Salem, Massachusetts, receive improper punishments for their sins of witchcraft and are being accused of crimes they did not commit. The justice system in the play is based on the maxim “guilty until proven innocent” which portrays unjust human rights due to executions of individuals without evidence. The accused characters attempt to defend themselves in court but it is ineffective because the only way to survive is to confess to witchcraft. Miller presents a cruel approach in justice systems and proves them to be unjust through the characters Giles Corey, Tituba, and Rebecca Nurse, who all suffered

policies that are currently in place to reduce tension between police officers and the minority groups that they serveLaw enforcement officers and the community have been disconnected. Violence and brutality of any kind, particularly at the hands of the police who here to protect and serve our communities. When Ferguson, Missouri exploded after the police shot an unarmed black teenager, the tension between the community and its protectors was laid bare. Ferguson is not the first and certainly not the last community forced to bridge that chasm. In South Carolina a policeman shot an unarmed black male who was stopped for a seat belt violation. The cop asked the male for ID, who then reached under his seat to retrieve his wallet, but was shot in the leg by the cop before he could take out his ID. When the body cam video was reviewed it shows that the trigger happy cop probably was in fear of his life, however it is also obvious that the cop shouldn’t have felt threaten as the behavior of the black male involved nothing unusual. Many would say if the driver was white the cop would have not reacted the way he did.

The beating of Rodney King from the Los Angeles Police Department on March 3, 1991 and the Los Angeles riots resulting from the verdict of the police officers on April 29 through May 5, 1992 are events that will never be forgotten. They both evolve around one incident, but there are two sides of ethical deviance: the LAPD and the citizens involved in the L.A. riots. The incident on March 3, 1991 is an event, which the public across the nation has never witnessed. If it weren’t for the random videotaping of the beating that night, society would never know what truly happened to Rodney King. What was even more disturbing is the mentality the LAPD displayed to the public and the details of how this mentality of policing led up to this

With situations such as this one as well as the Rodney King incident in Los Angeles, Blacks have become to fear the police. When a police car approaches them, they can't decide whether justice will be served or if the cop's intentions are to harm or even kill them. The integrity of a police officer is not guaranteed to the citizen. In past cases police have been known to plant fake evidence simply to have a reason to arrest a "suspect." As a result, African-Americans make up about 12% of the general population, but more than half of the prison population (Cole 4). With so much injustice being done to minorities in general, how can you expect minorities to respect a system that doesn't respect them?

The law of this world tells one to get rich but kills you when you try to make ends meet, one is told to stand up straight and be loud but sets your skin against you when your pride gets a little too loud. Over the past decade, police brutality has been an extremely controversial issue as it is a serious violation of the basic human and civil rights of American citizens. These actions of severe beatings, fatal chokings, and unjustified shootings have caused an outburst from the minority communities which has made it easy for many to be fooled through the language of persuasion.

Analyzing some of the previous incidents to happen in the last couple of months, they tend to escalate when law enforcers give a command to the person, then refuses to comply, and questions the reason for the command Which in turn law enforcers Believe they are in full justification to enforce the law as they see fit. To prevent these usually non-serious incidents from escalating, The action of educating blacks and minorities on how to deal with law enforcers should be considered, instead of protesting, which in my belief hasn’t accomplished much and has been seen to turn violent riots and looting in at least three occasions (L.A. ‘Rodney King’ riots, Ferguson, Baltimore’s Freddie Gray riots.) An education on their rights, The enforcement powers of the police and how to simply “remain silent (unless questioned), comply now and contest later”. Consider the scenario: if Miss Bland had complied with officer Encinia to put out her cigarette without protest, would the situation Have escalated? Would he have handed her the routine traffic violation warning he initially wrote, and let her go even if it was racially

Police officers continue to put their lives on the line to protect others. They don’t even know you and everyday they wake up, put on their uniforms, and set out to do whatever it takes to keep you safe. It is not their fault you or someone you know broke the law and got a ticket or was arrested – it's your own fault; you chose to break the law, that police officer was only doing his job. "Police officers take risks and suffer inconveniences to protect the lives, defend civil liberties, secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers."

His devotion to the law goes past mere morals, rivalling the revolutionary leader Enjolras’ devotion to the Revolution - like Enjolras, he does not take a wife or have children. By giving Valjean a child but not Javert, Hugo enforces the idea that love is higher than law. He spends a decent amount of time tracking down Valjean to bring him back into custody; in this time, a second offense would result in death. Javert’s turning point comes during and immediately after the insurrection of June 5-6, 1832. Javert is captured by the student revolutionaries, who wish to spare him until the moment that one of their friends, Jehan Prouvaire, is shot by the National Guard. Enjolras turns to Javert and says, “Your friends have just shot you,” sealing his fate. Javert fully expects to be killed at the barricades, and even more so when Valjean himself arrives to save Marius Pontmercy, the young man who is courting his daughter. As payment for saving the barricade, Enjolras allows Valjean to shoot Javert himself. Valjean not only lets Javert go, but tells Javert his address and says, “I do not think I shall escape from this place. But if by chance, I do, I live under the name of Fauchelevent, in the Rue de l’Homme arm, No. 7.” Valjean knows to be an honest man he must not kill, and he must be truthful, and he does exactly this. When Javert finds him as Valjean emerges from the sewers with Marius after the fall of the barricades, Valjean still acts courteous to Javert, requesting to help save Marius’ life before turning himself in. Javert accompanies Valjean to Marius’ house, and then to Valjean’s home, before disappearing. After these events, Hugo describes Javert as his whole demeanor changing; “his whole person, slow and sombre, was stamped with anxiety.” The guilt of being shown compassion by a man who should have every reason to oppose Javert is too

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.

Civil disobedience isn’t uncommon in America, but the modern idea of civil disobedience has become flawed and distorted from its original intent. Currently, there are thousands of causes and ideals that are spastically flung around and just as soon forgotten. This is because the guise of civil disobedience is often abused by people simply to attract publicity. These methods of claimed civil disobedience often do little to nothing in working towards the goal that they claim to stand for, or their intensions are vague and unclear. For example, in the news, the most popular recent controversial example of civil disobedience is the kneeling during the national anthem before a football game. At its manifestation, this movement was intended to protest the inequalities in the treatment of races by the police especially in Chicago. This effectively accomplished nothing. It raised awareness but the majority of intelligent civilians were already aware of the inequalities. The flaw of this example is that the form of disobedience

Though the concept of social injustice is universal in nature, the experience varies with each person. Factors like a person’ race, or gender can further influence the severity of the injustice; victims caught in the overlap between discriminations often go unrecognized by the law and society. Many people recognize the names Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice as African Americans who were murdered by local police. But names like Michelle Cusseaux, Tanish Anderson, and Meagan Hockaday often receive less feedback even though they are also murdered African Americans. The only distinction between the sets of names is gender. Even within racial injustice, discrimination is present between genders as some cases get national

The notion of justice is existence of proper balance of rights and its access under the laws of land. It refers to not depriving any person from availing privileges, opportunities etc. John Rawls writes, "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override"It means that the interaction in a society must be free from any sort of discrimination such as religion, race, color, caste or sex. It ensures fair distribution of assets and equal opportunity. José P. Laurel defines Social Justice as “Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.”

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

play in his opening speech. He sets the story that he is going to tell