what is inequality in criminal justice?
360388
anything involving courtrooms and attorneys.
1116597
We began this chapter's investigation of distributive justice in order to consider the claim that a state more extensive than the minimal state could be Justified on the grounds that it was necessary, or the most appropriate instrument, to achieve distributive justice. According to the entitlement conception of justice in holdings that we have presented, there is no argument based upon the first two principles of distributive justice, the principles of acquisition and of transfer, for such a more extensive state. If the set of holdings is properly generated, there is no argument for a more extensive state based upon distributive justice. (Nor, we have claimed, will the Lockean proviso actually provide occasion for a more extensive state.) If, however, these principles are violated, the principle of rectification comes into play. Perhaps it is best to view some patterned principles of distributive justice as rough rules of thumb meant to approximate the general results of applying the principle of rectification of injustice. For example, lacking much historical information, and assuming (i) that victims of injustice generally do worse than they otherwise would and (2) that those from the least well-off group in the society have the highest probabilities of being the (descendants of) victims of the most serious injustice who are owed compensation by those who benefited from the injustices (assumed to be those better off, though sometimes the perpetrators will be others in the worst-off group), then a rough rule of thumb for rectifying injustices might seem to be the following: organize society so as to maximize the position of whatever group ends up least well-off in the society. This particular example may well be implausible, but an important question for each society will be the following: given its particular history, what operable rule of thumb best approximates the results of a detailed application in that society of the principle of rectification? These issues are very complex and are best left to a full treatment of the principle of rectification. In the absence of such a treatment applied to a particular society, one cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it. Although to introduce socialism as the punishment for our sins would be to go too far, past injustices might be so great as to make necessary in the short run a more extensive state in order to rectify them.
108275
statistics describes real life with numbers. \nit is one thing to say: "there is discrimination", and another "females earn 20% less than males on average, but the gap had shrunk from 1960-s when it was 35%"
951159
yup criminal justice is diff in diff countries...but they all have the same goal...to catch the bad guys
1117760
racism is an opinion that often precedes a crime.
108888
It is proportional to what justice is being extracted for.
5883
Yes they do. That was the whole point of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The basic idea is that separate but equal is inherently unequal. This is true even in prisons, as California was recently ordered to end racial segregation in prison populations, even though they have a reasonably plausible reason to do so, to curb racial violence.
617943
There are no reasonable cons (pardon the pun).  Either a person makes a difference and contributes to society and the betterment of everyone or a person is a criminal and takes from others.  Unless a prisoner changes his or her attitude to respect others, society will lose.
739585
egalisation! 2 partout!
1078719
The rule of law is a principle founded on the plains of England in the Magna Carta.  It is exemplified by countries like the United States and Australia.\nIt simply means that all people within the citizenship are equal in the eyes of the law.  It is why the statue of Justice has a blind-fold, so that she cannot see how pretty you are or what color your skin is.  She cannot tell how much money you have, either.\nEqual rights under the law means that everyone is subject to the same treatment in court and by extension, in society in general.
284863
In America you are better off being a criminal.  That's how you get promoted and that's how you get elected.
988028
welcome to life.  Not all people are equal and life isn't fair.
491653
because as long as the so-called middle class is judgemental, fat, happy, uneducated, and unmotivated they don't care about anyone else's plight\n\n\n\nThe "we are not all equals" argument is specious to me.  The constitution was written with the idea that everyone, despite class, religion, landowner, etc is EQUAL before the eyes of the law oh, except blacks, and oh yeah, women...LOL\nBut indeed EQUALITY is what the american policital system strives for.  Frequently in law enforcement, hiring practices, access to healthcare, etc the equality of individuals is overlooked.  That's why each american should be politically active to eliminate the individual and institutional biases which prevent someone from being treated as EQUAL based on a little thing like gender or class...
376644
The system functions to maintain the status quo. Wealthy white males protect their station in drafting, enacting, and enforcing their ideology. Mainly, that wealthy, white males are the only ones capable and intellegent enough to draft, enact and enforce laws. Read the Reimen book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. If you are really interested in how the system works.\n\nIn prior years, I would have said that there is no consistency in the american judicial system; that, infact, it was the most arbitrary and capricious system ever developed. Now, with manditory minimum sentencing and all of the well intended groups getting their special laws and penalties for newly rewritten laws to set out with specificity their group, draconian sentencing seems to be a consistency in the law. \n\nYet, prosecutors still hide exculpatory evidence and misrepresent the facts to the jurors to ensure victory and reelection or to move to the next political arena. Through the unfortunate situation of mostly poor people getting arrested, the system grind on...Its like this: The case is tried by the Judge which is an elected position (popularity contest) and he/she acts under color of authority for the State; the Prosecutor, also an elected position is also a State agent; if the person arrested is poor that person will be represented by a public defender....you guessed it a State appointed attorney. The legal process is suppose to be a rigorous testing of the facts and an adversarial process. NOW, you tell if the state hears the case (judge) and it is prosecuted by the state (prosecutor) and the defendant is represented by the state (State PD), I ask you where is the adversarial process. I would say that the consistency of law is that it does not apply (normally) to wealthy white males.
976918
I think education will do a lot. Inequality is based on the ignorance and misconceptions people have about those who are different than themselves. If you can erase the ignorance by educating people and teaching them to see people as people (without feeling the need to think of the color, sex, religion etc. of people), we will go a long way.\n\nPersonally I don't assume or judge people in advance, I give everyone an equal opportunity to show me what they are like as individuals and what they are capable of. I also fight for and support laws that encourage equality.
830316
I haven't made a study of it nor looked up any, but if it were a factor, investigators/statisticians would look for a statistically significant difference in the rates at which people of different races are sentenced to death in capital punishment cases.  I believe such studies do exist that indicate such bias, though I haven't seen them myself - but they do get covered in the papers when they are released.\n\nYou sound skeptical.  I'd be curious to know why.
787480
if x is positive, then I x I is always equal to the value, but not less than it.\nif x is negative, then I x I will be a positive value which is never less than a negative value.\nso, the inequality holds good only for positive values of x.