Summary Of Rough Justice By Alejandro ReyessTime To Assert American Values

When a writer presents an argument in a piece of writing, readers want to hear facts that support said argument. The readers want hard evidence and facts to support whatever you are trying to get them to believe in. In “Rough Justice”, by Alejandro Reyes and in “Time to Assert American Values” the authors described what happened to Michael Fay and give their opinion on the matter. In the article, “Rough Justice” by Alejandro Reyes, the author uses logos and unbiased writing to have the most sufficient and relevant argument.

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.

The Justice system seeks to prevent crimes and to capture those who have committed crimes. But what are the causes of crime, maybe poverty, or greed, or is sometimes caused by the system. Is the risk worth the reward and is reward the worth risking the punishment? Power and influence is threaded deeply into the Criminal Justice System. Are all offenders caught and processed with the same demeanor and given the same punishment? The system needs to be impartial to all offenders regardless of the offender’s social position, job or yearly income. The general punishment for most crimes is incarceration in most states with a difference in duration to adjust per each crime. This is the deterrent against crime. This is what should be keeping

For my analysis, I decided to read the 2006 book Punishment and Inequality in America by author Bruce Western. The book takes a look into the relationship among crime, incarceration, and inequality and what really connects them together. Western shows that although there was a decrease in crime rates about 20 years ago, the reason behind this decrease is not what it may seem and that the decrease may of even come at a significant cost to those effected by the prison boom. Through my analysis, I hope to explore and convey what Western has claimed and examine if his arguments hold truth or not in dealing with our prison systems. On top of this, I will attempt to connect a few theories we as a class have learned about throughout the semester to what Western has has claimed in his book.

The book "Arc of Justice" written by Kevin Boyle is a story that detailed the life of a negro man living in Detroit Michigan during the 1900s. Ossian Sweet suffered an extreme racial discrimination during his life. In that era Detroit was in the middle of an racial tension. Ossian Sweet lived with his family in a mostly white neighborhood. Most of the migration that grew into Detroit was because of the steel and automobile business boom. The industry shifted attracted many immigrants during that time. With a high immigration level also came with a price. Racial tension between the whites and blacks also grew. Since Detroit's population was growing in a rapid pace, the demand for work and competition also grew. This led the whites to fight

The reader realizes the the article, “Rough Justice,” is the most relevant and sufficient article to support it because of the way of the author's strategies he/she uses throughout the text. The writer uses comments from a variety of reliable people from different places. For example, “The U.S. government, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. media took the opportunity to ridicule us, saying the sentence was too severe” (Reyes 181). Most quotes that are also explained emphasizes the comments from other credible people by demonstrating it from their perspectives.

Unfortunately, the criminal justice in America is corrupted, and of course, not everyone or everything they do.

Stephen Glass has a degree in law from Georgetown University Law Center but he may never practice law in the United States ever. Glass has passed the bar exam in New York and California, both states have denied him admission to the Bar. Glass removed his application to become licensed in New York and the California Supreme Court decided he lacked “the good moral character” to be a lawyer. Lacking morality in any profession is unacceptable because it proves one cannot make proper ethical decisions. Glass was a great writer with a very vivid imagination, but he was not a fiction writer he was a news media writer for a magazine that was nonfiction.

From the Atlantic, In the article “One Judge Makes the Case for Judgement”, the article discusses about how one Judge named John Coughenour rebelled against the sentencing guidelines. In great detail, the article talked about a case that Coughenour was working on and how an almost terrorist got thrown into jail for more time than needed. By the end of the case Coughenour’s points and validation about guidelines sentencing came through and the almost terrorist only got 22 years in jail, and not a lifetime. Now the judge travels around the United States visiting prisoners, who he has sentenced, discussing how life has been for them. Throughout the column only two sources were used to write the article,The New York Times and an essay from The

How Justice Works In the novel, The Known World by Edward P. Jones, right and wrong is determined in a way that is much like ours. Society determines between right or wrong and those people in society are mostly white people who own land or slaves. Lawmakers control what people in society can and cannot do, but sometimes laws aren’t enough to stop people from doing as they please. Some exceptions are made such as Augustus being allowed to stay in Virginia after 12 months and being able to claim his family members as part of what he owns.

The very first purpose incorporated into the preamble was that the government is required to establish a sense, and system of justice in the nation. A nation cannot function without the justice system as persons within the nation quickly fall apart due to chaos of crime, and rampant bigotry as people form their own social enclaves. A lack of justice in society will lead to discrimination, which is of course unjust most of the time, this then will lead to resentment of the mistreated which lead to civil unrest at the worst, and lack of economic participation at the least. Both are not beneficial to the nation, and will only lead it to degenerate into a failed state. This was all very relevant back then as the people of the colonies did not like

In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than

John Rawls in his work, “A Theory of Justice,” aims to make up a theory that will rivals intuitionalists and utilitarianism, which seeks truth in morality that cause results in maximizing utility for the maximum number of people. Rawls’ theory of justice is a distribution theory that maximizes primary goods for the worst outcome an individual could be in. By primary goods, Rawls informs us that all rational and reasonable individuals will want to have certain fundamental goods that should not be denied anyone. These goods include liberty, autonomy, self-respect, and wealth, as I will later discuss in Rawls’ principle of equal liberty. To provide an argument that will combat utilitarianism, the philosopher uses a revised social contract theory that is to a tune of “higher abstraction” (Rawls, pg.10) than its predecessors John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant.

In the context of international relations and economic development, the demands of global justice remain controversial in terms of the relationships between affluent societies and less well-off ones. Many questions have been raised in regard of what distributive justice entails, what duty of assistance it requires, how much is owed, and to whom. In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls attempts to identify what principle of justice rational agents would choose if they were placed behind the “veil of ignorance”: they were deprived of all knowledge regarding their personal characteristics (sex, race, physical shape etc.) as well as social and historical circumstances (class, generation, etc.). Rawls concludes that rational agents in such positions would embrace the Difference Principle, the idea that inequalities are acceptable only insofar as they operate to benefit the least advantaged in society. This implies that inequalities can actually be justified as long as they are to the benefit of the least well off, and morally arbitrary factors should not determine one's life chances.

In my discussion of this piece of text I will attempt to present an argument which suggests rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance would assent to the two primary principles of justice found in Rawls’ ‘A theory of justice’. I will also analyse the extract, in particular debating whether various propositions made by Rawls in this extract are true. Initially it is important to situate the extract of discussion. Section 3 of ‘A theory of justice’ is the opening of Rawls’ argument in ‘A theory of justice’, where he introduces his ‘original position’, stating how rational individuals in a hypothetical scenario, behind a veil of ignorance, would agree to two principles of justice which would determine the way social institutions would be organised and how primary goods would be distributed. This section also shows Rawls’ agreement with the idea of ‘hypothetical consent’, an idea which suggests that because free and rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance would agree to Rawls’ two principles of social justice; they hypothetically consent to the principles of the ‘social contract’.