Is there liberty and justice for all in the judicial system? (ARGUMENTATIVE) Essay | Online Homework Help

attached the previous essay that should be worked from. I also attached the rubric with all of the requirements. This is a 150 point paper with no revision allowed so please read everything thoroughly and take your time. PLEASE :)))) This paper also requires an abstract which does not go toward the word count.

Primary goals:

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Is there liberty and justice for all in the judicial system? (ARGUMENTATIVE) Essay | Online Homework Help
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Identify flaws in the argument made in Essay 3
Argue and support a thesis opposed to the thesis from Essay 3
Determine what the most effective counter-argument is
Propose a new solution that solves the problems of Essay 3
Support your argument with evidence

In this essay, you will support and defend an argument for an opposing point of view to the one that you argued in our last essay. You will not be supporting your original thesis. In this assignment, you should argue as though you were a member of an opposition party.

You have some choice as to how you argue a counter-argument. It might be the most straightforward to argue the opposite point, but that might not be a very strong position. Instead, you should aim to argue what you think is the most effective alternative to your original thesis. That might be the opposite, but it might simply be something different.

Just as a good argument often involves a solution, your counter-argument should include a counter-solution if it is appropriate.

Time estimate: 8 hours to rough draft, 15 hours total

Length guideline: 1500 words, not including abstract, title page, references page, etc.

Use at least 8 sources
At least 5 must be academic
At least 2 must be new for this essay

Tips and Things to Consider:
Remember that your job in this essay is to argue for an opposing perspective. Your grade for this essay will be based on how well you can support an opposing point of view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

The ideas of liberty, law, and justice and the way they are practiced within the courts have raised several questions among many citizens. Many political and legal theorists have argued that justice is part of the law and not just a form of moral judgment made by the courts. However, not so much liberty has been achieved among most Americans, especially African Americans. This because there still exist various forms of injustices that are still witnessed by people in the way courts give verdicts on some of the cases presented before them. Many citizens of the United States have not been assured of their total liberty concerning the continuous police brutalities and unequal resource allocation that people continue to face. However, the courts have not been ready to protect the people from the various problems they continue to go through. This calls for the need to make the courts a better place that can offer equal judgments to ensure that people are protected from such injustices and all costs if they still have to enjoy their freedom. This can only be achieved by guaranteeing fairness in resource allocation and reducing police brutality, which are the most significant problems they face almost all the time.

 

Is there Really Liberty and Justice for All?

There are many ways suggested that are considered essential in the fight for justice and liberty; these include promoting gender equality, fighting for employment rights, supporting diversity in the workplace, fighting against racism, among others (Global Initiatives, 2019). Marley, in her article, states that America does not provide liberty and justice to all citizens and never has. She further indicates that America’s actions against Africa Americans and America’s statements have been causing direct conflict towards one another. People of color, especially African Americans, have never enjoyed liberty and justice as Caucasians do for Caucasians supremacy have never known that the African American deserves justice too just like any other citizen. In 1964, President John Kennedy signed an act that would end segregation of the public. Even though the implementation of laws by Kennedy, activities such as racial discrimination have caused hindrance to the exercise of liberty and justice. This paper seeks out whether there are justice and liberty for all, some solutions to this problem, the implementation of this solution, and the reasons why the chosen solution is better than other alternative solutions.

Judicial System

The U.S. has been struck by incidences of injustice, especially in the court system, which is criminally unjust (Swanson, 2015). Ironically, the court system where people would opt to seek justice is the very first place where truth is not for all. Unsettling studies into the courtroom psychology decisions indicate that the outcomes are determined more by individuals’ background, gender and appearance, race, and time than the law itself (Swanson, 2015). Adam Benforado published a book titled “Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice,” which examines the unfair practices by jurors, judges, and attorneys.

The government has encouraged the practice and widespread of unjust acts and denied the freedom to the minority groups in the united states as it never takes the lead in enforcing justice to the oppressed based mainly on race and background. Initially, there has been an incident where the government failed to give justice to an innocent black male who was shot and killed in his home by a police officer. Recently, Google corporation has been supplying grants aimed at supporting a national movement that is against systemic racism, tied to the trending murder of blacks (N.J. Spark, 2016).

Social injustice such as discrimination found in employment, education, government benefits, and health care services. Despite the federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination in the United States, discrimination is still practiced and witnessed in many countries. Researchers at Brown University revealed that white people have a better stand of accessing and acquiring better neighborhoods compared to people from other races. Yet another study in the state of Arizona indicated that the highway patrol in the country mostly stopped black drivers more than it stopped white drivers on all studied highways (Honor Sociecty, 2016).

The government’s intervention on discrimination is one method of solving the discrimination challenge causing injustice to people. The state, through its powers, should also enforce laws rendering discrimination or discriminatory acts illegal. Promoting diversity is also an effective way of ending discrimination. Cultural diversity has increasingly enhanced learning from people of various cultures, ethnic groups, and races, thus making it essential in workplaces and schools.

 

 

Solving Injustice in the Judiciary

The judiciary plays a crucial role in the justice process of a country because the judiciary handles all matters of injustice. The government should invest in the appointment of independent judges with exemplary and exceptional professionalism. Employment of highly qualified staff and conscientious jurors should be the hallmarks of the federal court litigation. This would ensure that biasness in the court proceedings is reduced to zero, and chances of injustice minimized that are race and gender-based. The hallmarks would also include creating deliberation and giving much-needed attention to unjust issues affecting minority groups and the underprivileged. Addressing the issue of injustice in the court system would require the following strategies focusing on the improvement of the judiciary performance besides maintaining and controlling the functions necessary for administering justice effectively.

Strategy 1: Nationwide improvement of justice delivery

In the delivery of justice, it is essential to manage cases effectively promptly and more deliberately. Pursuing a national mechanism in the coordination of justice comprises of Judicial panel on multidistrict Litigation. The Judicial Panel is mandated to transfer specified pending civic actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Delivering timely justice to the oppressed is also as important, thus calling for a nationwide collaboration and coordination of judicial proceedings to eliminate backlogs caused by numerous pending cases.

High litigation costs have affected justice delivery by making the federal courts less accessible to people seeking justice. Such costs have the tendency to skew cases before the judiciary, thus subjecting parties to a settlement outside court due to pressure. The Federal Rules requires that trials and proceedings are determined in a just, inexpensive and speedy way with a goal of reducing unnecessary costs and delay. Having offices to conduct probation and pretrial have also given ample time to the judiciary in the provision of quality services, and this includes practices based on enough evaluated evidence.

Other efforts aimed at improving the delivery of justice should be increased, such as the use of technology in the judiciary, including the development and deployment of next-generation financial administration and case management systems. The integration of data from other agencies through the use of applications will enhance probation and pretrial services. This strategy therefore, will improve the affordability of well-qualified representation consistent with best practices for persons represented by federal defender organizations and panel attorneys. The strategy also aims at reducing unnecessary costs on litigants, reduce delay through the work of circuit judicial councils, judicial Conference committees, and chief judges and also enhance the supervision of offenders and defenders, thus reducing recidivism and improving public safety.

Strategy 2: Strengthening the protection of the judicial team and their families.

Sometimes, judges are unable to deliver their services due to their lack of safety or threats coming from parties involved in civil cases demanding forceful justice. Enforcement of close corporation between the judiciary and the U.S. Marshals should be considered to improve protection to the courts and individuals. Threats have a great impact on how judges handle criminal cases. This also calls for the protection of judges and assisting them in protecting themselves within court facilities, commuting routes, their homes, and travel destinations. This could be achieved by educating them on minimizing their personal information found on social platforms and the internet. The goal of this strategy is to improve security and protection of judges, judicial staffs together with their families within court facilities and other places, increasing training to judges and judicial staffs on a variety of security measure topics, tightening security of court environments and working closely with the U.S. Marshals and others to enhance the dissemination of information about judges.

Strategy 3: Securing resources essential in the provision of judiciary services

Resources required by the judiciary to accomplish its mission effectively should be well secured, as this would enhance consistency in the provision of judicial services while maintaining judicial core values. The jurors have limited compensation, which creates a financial hardship for many of them, making it essential to secure resources. Despite efforts placed to securing needed spaces, a number of court proceedings are conducted in overcrowded court facilities that lack secure corridors. The judiciary must work with agencies that will ensure they meet their needs for resources. The goal of this strategy includes helping the judiciary secure needed resources, providing jurors with sufficient compensation, and facilitating secure facilities for court proceedings that are appropriately equipped, efficient and accessible (United States Courts, n.d.).

Justice in court superior to other alternatives

Going against the laws of a nation is not the appropriate way of seeking justice and freedom. Solving a problem by causing other issues would only escalate matters and might hinder chances of achieving such objectives of seeking justice and liberty by the minority.

Having in mind that the court procedure for seeking justice in itself is superior since all matters will be handled legally without infringing others’ rights while seeking justice. The precedents set in the court are always lasting. Therefore, it would be beneficial to the oppressed as the precedence set would last, and that would mean enjoying justice and liberty without or with minimal interference, especially by the police. Secondly, one of the main advantages of litigation is it is conducted through the courts and therefore becomes part of the public record. For this reason, the final judgment provides a clear line in the sand (Jones, 2019).

Conflict resolution is a two-way process, and unfortunately, there is no way of getting around that fact. This is especially problematic when another party is uncooperative. In cases of denied justice and oppression, the oppressors rarely do cooperate with the oppressed. African Americans have experience with this. Through court proceedings, the judge can always issue court orders whenever information is required or when issuing final judgments, which must then be adhered to.

Litigation helps solve this problem, with court-mandated deadlines and requirements being far more difficult to ignore. In some cases, the courts’ powers may even allow a dispute to be disposed of summarily. Litigation processes allow for appeals to be made mainly by the losing side. Appeals are an essential course of action where there are apparent mistakes made during proceedings. Using the litigation process is critical to the minority as it allows them to seek justice and liberty through appeals when not satisfied by the decisions made in court. Following legal procedure by going to the court to seek justice will eventually yield results. This is to say that whether the results are positive or negative, having the final results is essential in making the next decision on which method to follow precisely.

In conclusion, this paper has clearly indicated that indeed justice and liberty is not for all. This has been supported by several incidences of oppression towards African Americans and discrimination based on race, ethnic background, and gender. Even after signing into law by President John Kennedy in 1964, the implementation of the new acts that were meant to bring justice to all, especially to African Americans, has never been entirely successful.

References

Edwards, Frances L., and Grayson Bennett Thomson. “The Legal Creation of Raced Space: The Subtle and Ongoing Discrimination Created through Jim Crow Laws.” Berkeley J. Afr.-Am. L. & Pol’y 12 (2010): 145.

Global Initiatives. (2019, February 20). Five ways to fight social injustice. Retrieved from Responsible Business: https://www.responsiblebusiness.com/news/africas-news/five-ways-to-fight-social-injustice/

Honor Sociecty. (2016, April 14). Social Injustice: Discrimination. Retrieved from The Honor Society Magazine: https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/social-injustice-discrimination

Jones, D. (2019, April 23). 7 Advantages of Litigation in Dispute Resolution. Retrieved from Glaisyers: https://www.glaisyers.com/advantages-of-litigation-in-dispute-resolution/

K., M. (2019, April 15). Liberty and Justice Hase Never Been For All. Retrieved from Medium.com: https://medium.com/@marleyk/liberty-and-justice-is-not-for-all-db9d8253ccbe

N.J. Spark. (2016, March 14). 5 Recent stories to read on social injustice. Retrieved from N.J. Spark: https://njspark.rutgers.edu/2016/03/14/5-recent-stories-to-read-on-social-injustice/

Swanson, A. (2015, July 20). The U.S. court system is criminally unjust. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/20/why-the-u-s-court-system-is-criminally-unjust/

United States Courts. (n.d.). Providing Justice. Retrieved from United States Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/issue-1-providing-justice

Nolan-Haley JM. Court mediation and the search for justice through law. Wash. ULQ. 1996;74:47.

6 pages / 1650 words

 

8 sources required
Style:
APA

Place Order
Grab A 14% Discount on This Paper
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Try it now!

Grab A 14% Discount on This Paper

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.