Work Of Progress : Law Does Not Equate Violence

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

In the 1960s, many of the colonial nations of Africa were gaining independence. The ANC was encouraged and campaigned for democracy in South Africa. They were mild campaigns at first, but as the government became more hostile, so did ANC protests. In November 1961, a military branch of the party was organized with Mandela as its head. It authorized the limited use of arms and sabotage against the government, which got the government’s attention—and its anger! Mandela went into hiding in 1964, he was captured, tried, and sentenced to life imprisonment. It was a sad day for black South Africa.

Durkheim even argued that the penal law expresses a society’s “collective conscience” (Luckenbill, 1992). Therefore, it is seen as just and fair to all members. According to Michalowski, the law serves all people equally (Schmalleger, 2012). It is not biased and works with the people to protect them from what they feel endangered of.

Society has been subjected to many violent acts over the course of its history. Although violence is immoral and wrong, somehow people everyday condone and commit violence for countless reasons. Many Hollywood films glorify mindless violence to their advantage and captivate audiences through its entertaining shock value and rake large box office profits. Car chases, crashes and glorified gladiator sword fights are all familiar scenes in which violence is portrayed in an unrealistic glamorised manner.

What has America come to? Although the articles, “We’re No.1(1)!” written by Thomas Friedman, and the article “Violence is Who We Are,” by Steven Crichley, have different overall subjects, they have a similar arguments. The world isn’t as great as it used to be, we are lacking good leadership, and we happily invite wrong doings into our lives.

‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main

In a society governed by sometimes strict and sometimes barely acknowledged laws, we tend to turn a blind eye towards incidents where the law is supposed to swoop in and save the day. Take, for example, the Reconstruction era after the civil war from 1865-1877, when America tried to rebuild its country and bridge the gap between the north and south after the divisive war. White supremacy leagues were created and allowed to exist by the government during that time because the law did not do its job by protecting all its citizens. It didn’t enforce the acceptance of the free African-Americans and didn’t encourage much, or any social change. I believe that laws are not the most important factor in overcoming discrimination and creating social

Laws are created among society to maintain order, keeping the communities safe and controlled. In To Kill a Mockingbird, the trial of Tom Robinson is a textbook example of how law creates order among society. When Tom was accused of rape, he was taken to a court of law and prosecuted for the laws that he had broken. Atticus states, “There is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller… that institution gentlemen, is a court.” pg 274 When Atticus says that he is expressing that legally all men are equal in the court of law, and men that are proven guilty are demanded to serve the punishment that has been given to them. This shows that law is the ultimate decider over the people, and that the people should respect the law because it upholds the regulations of the nation.

How does the law create order within society? Do you think the law is fair? Why or why not?

Violence is preventable and extremely imperative for us to detect the early signs of it. We need to take all prevention strategies for an account. For example, primary, secondary, and tertiary preventions are an appropriate approach for this matter. Dating violence is the topic that is going to be discussed in this reading. I decided to write about this topic because many people are in the dark when it comes to dating violence, and the substantial effects of it. Allow me the opportunity to expand your horizon on this particular topic. There have been quite a few cases where women press charges on their significant other after being battered in unhealthy relationships. I always hear about situations like this through the media never in real life. It’s sad to say that a very close friend of mind was one of those women in a vicious relationship.

The dancers were employees of Circle C. In page 920-921 of chapter 35, it states that the Supreme Court in Community for Creative Non-violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) articulated thirteen factors in determining under the common law of agency whether an individual is an employee or nonemployee agent. Informally called the “Reid factors”. While the dancers did pay for their own costumes and padlocks, the amount varied from dancer to dancer. One dancer spent a total of 600 dollars per month while another only spent 40 dollars per month. Leading one to believe that this investment isn’t in fact a requirement. For example, most retail stores require it’s employees to dress appropriately for the job. This does not necessarily mean they

The books Child of the Dark by Carolina Maria de Jesus and Testimony by Victor Montejo describes the lives of two individuals from different societies. In both of these societies there was much hardship and violence. The two main characters who wrote these books describe life through their point of view and explains the hardship and challenges they had living in a society filled with violence.

Sociologists have many perspectives when it comes to the examination of our laws. Three out of many theories of lawmaking processes are the Rationalistic model, Functionalistic view, and Conflict perspective. Rationalistic models view laws as a rational way of increasing protection for members of society from crimes which are “socially injurious” (Vago 2012). Functionalist view look at where the ideas behind the laws come from and describes laws as “re-institutionalized customs”, where lawmaking is a reiteration of customs (Vago 2012). Conflict perspective describe laws as value the opinions of the elite, instill unequal access to economic goods which upkeep the social economical groups, basically keeps the elite on top (Vago 2012). The three theories are all similar but different at the same time. In my opinion, conflict theories captures the reality of law making process.

The function of the criminal courts in society is to control social order and protect the community. The criminal justice system is always changing because of updated laws. The criminal court has five components; the judge, the prosecutor, defendant lawyer, the defendant and the juror. Each component works together to provide the best result for both defendant and society. There are a few models inside the criminal court system that help depict the usefulness of how the courts work. Two of these models are the adversarial model and the second is the consensual model. The adversarial model is when the prosecutor and the defendant 's lawyer both speak before the judge and jury to show evidence pertaining to the defendant trying to prove innocence or guilt. In a consensual model, is where the prosecutor and defendant 's lawyer hash out the charges against the defendant and agree on an appropriate punishment. (Barken),pg 268 There are two more models inside the criminal court system that help portray the court 's efficiency this would be Due Process Model and the Crime Control Model, these solves the predicament confronted by the criminal courts to guarantee a person freedom and the need to protect the people. These two models comprise of analyzing crime and permitting the right justice to be conveyed. Due process method was intended to verify defendants had their rights ensured and that they had a reasonable opportunity to protect themselves in court. This model assumes that

Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. Rather than having violent movements and harming citizens, it is better to peacefully resist. Once a violence is used, the resistance to the law becomes nulled. People tend to not follow a violence protester. Once a violent riot starts, chaos is everywhere. People forget what they are truly fighting for. They unconsciously run away with the fear of getting harmed and dare not to go back. A peaceful resistance on the other hand leads citizens to join and support. People are able to see what they are fighting for and their real intentions. They are able to stand and cause no problem to people passing by as they are showing their support through silent voices. Many famous activists and leaders are for nonviolence. Mahatma Gandhi, a primary leader of India’s independence