Literature Review On Injustice Of Justice

By this time Detroit had become the epicenter of the American automobile. Detroit’s grand boulevards, were now lost in this ever expanding industrial Mecca. Detroit was home to some of America’s biggest names in automotives, including Walter Chrysler, The Dodge Brothers, and the outspoken Henry Ford. Workers in these factories often earned more in wages than many unskilled labor positions around the country. As news of the high-wage jobs in the up-and-coming motor city made its way around the country, migrants began to flood the city in hopes of a better life. Overcrowding among blacks and the have-nots of society was a harsh reality in Detroit’s inner city ghetto, which went by the name of Black Bottom. Several families would cram into single family flats, often grateful to even have a place to stay. Many made due without luxuries like running water, and disease ran rampant along the dirty over-crowded streets. This migration was not often welcomed among white Detroiters. A message of “One Hundred Percent Americanism” was being spread and upheld by the Ku Klux Klan, and Negroes were not Americans. Many white Detroiters, whether they were with the KKK or not, felt that segregation was the way it should be. They feared that if blacks were to breach the color line into white neighborhoods then property values would plummet, real estate agents would not show the houses and the neighborhood would be ultimately

Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a

There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.

Diametrically opposed to hard determinism is a philosophical viewpoint with which free will is closely compatible: libertarianism. Proponents of this position, such as philosopher William James, maintain that humans are all free and therefore, liable for their actions. When making a decision, people “choose which path to take, and (…) are as a result responsible for that choice”. With this in mind, “the testimony of our direct, lived experience” is what offers “the most compelling grounds” for this argument; according to James, evidence of free will cannot be found through scientific study. Rather, the existence of free will should be determined by the average person’s “assumption that personal freedom and responsibility are valid concepts”. In short, the argument that libertarians assert is that free will should be believed in simply because the majority of the population believes in it. The existence of freedom will most likely never be definitively proven or

In The Republic, the great philosopher Plato attempts to reveal through the character and dialogues of Socrates that justice is better when it is the good for which men must strive for, regardless of whether they could be unjust and still be rewarded. His method is to use dialectic, the asking and answering of questions. This method leads the audience from one point to another, supposedly with indisputable logic by obtaining agreement to each point before going on to the next, therefore, building an argument.

Throughout years in the criminal justice system, women being incarcerated has increased drastically. Since the amount of women offenders increased above male offenders, equality is sought out. There is an expand amount of gender disparities in federal cases. With women seeking equality through justice over the decades, changes should be made within the justice system to provide impartiality, acknowledge the gender difference and it’s importance.

The question that the textbook poses at the very beginning of chapter four is, “Are you Free” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 172)? Most people would look at this question as pretty cut and dry and would answer a resounding yes. Philosophically speaking, it is not that easy of an answer. You have to be willing to look at the question with an open mind, and ask yourself if the choices you make are truly free or if they are governed by forces outside of your control.

The problem of freewill concerns whether it is possible to retain agency in a world where events are necessitated. For the sake of clarity, my definition of freewill is “the power of acting or not acting without constraint”. Universal causation or hard determinism (both terms I shall use interchangeably) is the belief that “events in the future are fixed, as a matter of natural law, by the past”. Indeterministic theories such as libertarianism preserve freewill by maintaining that not all events are determined by preceding causes. Both indeterminism and determinism are incompatibilist theories as they imply that universal causation erodes the prospect of freewill. Compatibilist theories, like agent-causalism assert that causation doesn’t necessarily mean we do not have free will.

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.

The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will

In response to both determinists and libertarians’ argument, compatibilist believe that both arguments are compatible. In other words, compatibilists believe that belief one and two can be true and can exist together. Compatibilists argue that since there was a misunderstanding of the concept of free will by both determinists and libertarians, it created the idea that the two beliefs were incompatible. This mistake is associating freedom in terms of cause, rather than “freedom” as something different from “uncaused”. In fact, free actions can be caused if a person acts on their own free will to do something. Therefore, actions can be free and caused.

For years philosophers mauled over mankind 's free will and its connects to moral responsibility. In such discussion they have come up with multiple theories. The three I’ll address today are determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism; are we products of our past unable to choose another course, or are our actions free from the chain of causality and thus our own? I believe that you can’t take these two questions as black and white. In my opinion compatibilism - which attempts to merge free will and determinism - explains our situation as humans, with a sense of moral responsibility, more clearly.

When considering studies in corrections on a global scale it is important to understand how to utilize the most applicable method to gather knowledge. Comparative studies are often used to explore methods for explicating or developing knowledge and attitudes. Comparative research examines cases with the intention to reveal the structure and invariance or unchanging relationship for an entire group or population. In this case, and for the purpose of this paper, the comparative research is suggested to be used in corrections on a global scale. Several problems arise when using comparative research studies on a global scale. Some of these issues are cross-cultural research between countries, selecting a compatible research design whether

Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)

The neoclassical theory is a revision of the classical school when it comes to factors that might inhibit the exercise of free will. The theory defines criminal behavior as a rational choice; however, the theory didn’t examine every type of crime. Neoclassical focuses on crimes that are often violent or uncontrollable, and committed by offenders who appeared incapable of remorse. (Bohm & Vogel, 2011 pg. 21) They believed that in order to deter, reduce, or eliminate crime, it needed to begin with stricter child practices, enhanced punishments, and increased surveillance and security. When it comes to the punishment of crimes, the punishment needs to fit the crime.