Questions On Legal Mobilization And Oral And Anal

The book Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court written by Amy Bach reflects upon “ordinary injustice” that members of society fall victim to by the American criminal justice system. In short, the phrase “ordinary injustice” comes from the improper acts that have become second nature to court officials but has yet to be explained and resolved by other actors in the court. It is noted in the text that “ordinary injustice results when a community of legal professionals becomes so accustomed to a pattern of lapses that they can no longer see their role in them” (Bach 2). This recurring pattern has been easy to identify by outsiders but difficult to handle by insiders of the court. Bach supports this idea by making clear that, “proving mistakes, both visible and invisible, [is] very difficult in the criminal justice system, even for those who are insiders” (258).

This issue, and the injustice surrounding it, was first made evident in the case of Dietrich v the Queen, the high court recognised the need for adequate legal representation. In an attempt to redress inequalities of access to the legal system, the Australian Government enacted the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Act 1977, which established cooperative arrangements between the Australian Government and state and territory governments, under which legal aid would be provided by independent legal aid commissions, to be established under state and territory legislation. However, Legal aid is not offered to everyone. In order to qualify for legal aid individuals must pass means (level of income or assets) and merit (matter is serious enough and likely to win) tests. This establishes justice and equality for defendants of low socioeconomic status, upholding procedural

There is often unfair advantages in the trial process as not all members of society have the same access to legal representatives or availability of

In the book Just Mercy: A story of Justice and Redemption by Bryan Stevenson, there are several topics discussed regarding the American Justice system. One of those many topics discussed is regarding how a person’s race, social status and income, may influence the outcome of a court trail. In present day America, many years after the era of Jim crow and segregation the Justice system still seems to be more lenient towards white Americans, especially those with high income and a good standing in society. The American justice system has become unjust in the trials deemed to be fair, due to an evident prejudice against minorities, their social status and whether or not they receive a well off or poor income.

Justice issues go far beyond the symptoms we can see and reach deep into the structures and symptoms

Injustice is a concept that can be defined as the violation of the rights of others, or the unfair action or treatment of an individual. Society in particular sees unjust actions all the time, and most people would even go as far as describing society as biased. Sometimes, there are specific instances that occur that can teach society as a whole a lesson of righteousness and justice; and in this case, these instances are landmark Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court of the United States is a powerful judiciary decider that can grant justice to someone who is in desperate need of protection. The Supreme Court cases of Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and Roper v. Simmons have

Justice is a concept that takes into account the inalienable rights of all individuals to equal protection before and under the law regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religious belief, age, disability or income. The justice system of the United States was founded on the principles that everyone has the right to receive a fair trial with equal representation. Racial disparity exist whenever there is a vast disparity between the proportion of a group represented in the overall population and the proportion of the same group at any given point within a system. Structural inequality affects an entire class of people by granting them special access to assistance as a result of their race, ethnicity, gender, class or wealth. Racial disparity is an ever growing problem within the criminal justice system partly

265. 2014). This is because there are differing views on the relationships between wealth, inequality and disorder and on how people of different classes are judged. Certain groups within society have the power to define what is order and disorder, whilst the vast majority do not. Consequently, as Harvard and Clarke state ‘There are numerous examples of distinctions made between similar behaviours all judged differently depending on social identities’ (Harvard C & Clarke Pg. 265. 2014). Therefore, according to Patrick Allen of Hodge, Jones & Allen Solicitors, (Bowcott,O. 2015) “It comes as no surprise that those in the lowest income bracket have the least trust in a legal system that appears unfair, confusing and inaccessible’, in contrast to the wealthy who have no difficulties in paying for such access. Thus, indicating that the poor and middle classes have little or no chance of having ‘equality before the law’. Thus, Inequalities in law persist, only changing slowly over time. However, laws are never static, always changing but not always for the betterment of

While prostitutes and sodomites, or those that engaged in anal sex, most likely homosexuals, held similar status among those of the same gender, sodomites could not be redeemed and thus received the harshest punishments. If proven to be a sodomite in court, you could be fined, imprisoned, and sentenced to stand in the public pillory, where you chanced being stoned to death.

In addition to providing an impressive amount of empirical data regarding justice systems across the world, this study demarcated the theoretical underpinning of the movement through interdisciplinary methods and comparative analysis . In the general introduction, Cappelletti and Garth argue that “access to justice” is a useful lens through which we can evaluate the health of contemporary democracies. The expression “access to justice” refers to the two main goals of a judicial system understood as a means for people to defend their rights and resolve conflict in a state-sanctioned manner: first, the system must be equally accessible to all; second, it must aim for results that are both individually and socially just. Although the authors point out that research focuses on the first objective, they highlight that the two are intertwined: a system that aspires to social justice, as modern democracy demands, must provide all its citizens with equal chances to lay claim to and protect their rights.

Elaborating further on each individual’s pursuit of happiness, what about those that are subjected to an unfair justice system? The current justice system could easily be another case for being the civil rights issue of our time, because of its unjust means. It is a system that targets more of America’s poor, than the rich. Not just because the poor commit more crimes, but because the rich are more likely to escape imprisonment due to their status. It is an illusion that exists in which we believe the poor commit more crimes. But, in reality, they are just punished harsher, subjected to more criminal influences in terms of survival needs, or unable to obtain worthy defense representation in the courts. But, why all this? Because our education system as of now does not provide equal means of class ascent as we assume it to be. The education system is disproportionate in terms of

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.

The essence of the mobilization approach is to bring people together to confront their own problems, to organize people with respect to the quality of their lives (Cardora 2003). A perfect example of the mobilization approach is the neighborhood watch program.

Therefore, the reduction of publicly funded legal aid and the current costs of lawyers and courts has resulted in no access to justice for some, and compromised access to justice for

And so today, it is needed to rely on socio-legal research for law reform, which serve the various purposes such as it suggests a reform in the existing law, socio-legal research, collect, search and make available the legal principle which are useful for society, it suggests a set of rules where no rules exist at all.