Some may say justice for all is possible in America and others may disagree. Justice can be best defined as the ability to being fair and reasonable and unbiased. In America today, there have been numerous discussions on being American. To be American is to be liberated to act naturally paying little heed to your race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or foundation.
Justice serves a major rule in today’s society. Its main purpose is to help people with minority groups who struggle with equality issues. Some of these minorities may include African American people, women, the LGBTQ community and different religious groups. Since these groups of individuals experience injustice in American it is important to understand why it is still happening in America today. As an African America Muslim woman, I always come across problems such as being dehumanized and inferior by the whites or men. Therefore, I do believe that justice for all is not possible in America. Furthermore, justice is not at all possible in America due to racism, sexism, sexual orientation discrimination and religious discrimination.
Racism
Justice is not all possible in America due to racism. Furthermore, some examples of unequal treatment in the criminal justice system include police brutality. In 1991 in Los Angeles, an onlooker recorded cops beating a black young man named Rodney King, after a vehicle pursuit. Although both of the officers were thus indicted in the government court, many African American and other minority communities have difficulty when getting justice from the criminal justice system due to racial discrimination. For many years African Americans have been treated unfairly in comparison to the Whites.
An online article states “critics who claim that racism taints the system have cited its treatment of African-American and Hispanic males” (Constitutional Rights Foundation). For example, a Bureau of Justice Statistics assessment showed that if current confinement rates remain unaltered, 32 percent of black males and 17 percent of male Latinos considered in 2001 had been in prison in any event once during their lifetime. This occasion takes a gander at just 6 percent of the white men who will go to prison.
African Americans make up 12 percent of the U.S. populace, yet today make 40 percent of all prison detainees and 42 percent of those sentenced to death. In a questionable 1975 article, titled ‘White Racism, Black Crime, and American Justice,’ criminologist Robert Staples fought that partition invades the value system. He said the real system was made by white men to make sure about white interests and hold blacks down. Staples charged that the structure was depicted by underneath normal legitimating help for dark respondents, one-sided hearers, and judges who segregate in condemning. Following twelve years, humanist William Wilbanks excused the isolation conflict. In his book, The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, Wilbanks investigated scores of concentrates that showed truthful disparities among whites and blacks in catch rates, confinement, and various zones of criminal value. He found that the imbalances started from factors other than racial isolation, for instance, poverty and the respondent’s earlier record.
A RAND Corporation study, nevertheless, uncovered some upsetting information. RAND looked at the treatment of whites and blacks at key choices focused on the criminal justice system. The analysts saw that black defendants appeared treated unfair when it comes to sentencing. Nevertheless, the analysts didn’t distinguish a reason for these disparities. Later investigations have given more understanding into this information.
Sixty-three percent of whites’ bolster capital punishment when contrasted with only thirty-six percent of African Americans and 40% of Hispanics. Whites are also progressively steady of other unforgiving measures, including attempting adolescents as grown-ups and ‘three-strikes’ laws. Blacks, on the other hand, are considerably bound to help open interest in instruction and occupation preparing as a wrongdoing anticipation measure. Since whites are, until further notice, most of the nation, our laws mirror their inclinations; American criminal law is ruled by compulsory least sentences, life sentences for minor offenses, and the broad surrender of parole.
A few people charge that whites use the criminal justice system as a continuation of Jim Crow by different methods. In any case, the Sentencing Project report makes an increasingly unobtrusive point. It finds that whites bolster harder criminal laws in any event somewhat because they overestimate Blacks and Hispanic crime percentages. Blacks and Hispanics carry out specific wrongdoings all the more much of the time, per capita, than whites, however not all. In any case, whites reliably overestimate the distinction, as indicated by one investigation, by as much as twenty to thirty percent. That recognition influences dispositions toward offenders and sentencing. Studies show that the more Whites credit higher crime percentages to blacks and Hispanics, the almost certain they are to help brutal criminal laws. It is short of what they are deliberately looking to subordinate racial minorities than that they neglect to treat the negative outcomes of high detainment rates as their concern.
Sexism
Another reason justice is not all possible in America is due to sexism. No nation imprisons a larger number of women than the United States. Besides, the number of girls in youth facilities keeps on rising even as male populaces recoil and expanding quantities of young girls and women with children enter the civil immigration detention system. However, due to the size and extent of the male jail populace in the time of mass detainment, the exceptional difficulties these women and young girls face when they engage with the justice system are frequently neglected.
In 1990, about 600,000 women in penitentiaries or prisons, on probation, or parole in the United States, the figure had ascended to more than one million women. Even though the pace of detainment for women keeps on being far lower than the rate for men, the quantity of women detained in the United States since 1980 has expanded at a rate of about twofold the rate for men. Broadly, the number of women in state and government jails expanded almost eightfold somewhere in the range of 1980 and 2001, from 12,300 to 93,031(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002; National Institute of Justice, 1998).
In an investigation of female pretrial prison prisoners, most of the subjects were nonviolent offenders who had been imprisoned because they couldn’t pay bail for misdeeds (Teplin, Abram, and McClelland, 1996). Another investigation found that, of the ladies who had been utilized before imprisonment, many were on the lower rungs of the financial stepping stool, with only 37 percent working at a genuine activity. Also, the U.S. Enumeration Bureau reports that ladies in the U.S. gain 74 percent of what men win for comparable employments. For African American women, the figure is even lower, at 67 percent (U.S. Registration Bureau, 1996). At the point when bail is set similarly for women and men, it is along these lines progressively hard for ladies to make bail than it is for men.
Studies show that in-state detainment facilities, 40 percent of women versus 32 percent of men report medicating use at the hour of their offenses, while liquor use was higher among the male prisoners (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). Women in detainment facilities utilized a greater number of medications than men and utilized them all the more much of the time (National Institute of Justice, 1998). Women are more probable than men to have perpetrated violations to get cash to buy drugs. Although it is usually expected that female addicts will no doubt take part in prostitution to help their medication propensities, it is significantly progressively basic for these ladies to be engaged with property-related misdemeanors. Although Americans women contain only five percent of the all-out worldwide female populace, we represent almost 33% of the world’s female detainees.
Sexual Orientation
The next reason justice is not all possible in American is due to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Yet, that administering didn’t address all the ways LGBTQ people experience segregation in their regular day to day existence. Same-sex accomplices can now lawfully wed, yet in a majority of states, a person can, in any case, be terminated for being gay. Many US citizens face termination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. For instance, The Justice Department under President Donald Trump has descended on the organizations that terminated the offended parties, fighting that government social equality laws don’t ensure laborers dependent on sexual orientation or gender identity. A Michigan transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, said she was fired from the funeral home where she worked for six years as Anthony Stephens because of her transition from male to female. All in all, justice is not all possible in America when it comes to the LGBTQ community.
Practically, 50% of Americans accept government law shields LGBTQ people from separation dependent on sexual direction, as indicated by a Reuters/Ipsos survey discharged in June. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is the LGBTQ community keeps on confronting separation. About portion of LGBTQ people in the U.S. live in a state where they legitimately can be terminated, nixed for an advancement, rejected preparing or badgering at their occupations all due to their gender identity and sexual orientation. But contrary. Just 21 states, including D.C. also, two domains have laws on the books expressly prohibiting a predisposition in the working environment dependent on sexual orientation and gender identity. Meanwhile, the 29 other states do not have that law. Furthermore, one-fourth of LGBTQ people revealed encountering separation dependent on sexual orientation or gender identity, as indicated by a 2018 report from the Movement Advancement Project.
Over 90% of Americans accept gays and lesbians ought to have equivalent rights as far as job opportunities, as indicated by a 2019 Gallup survey. The greater part accepts new social liberty’s laws are expected to diminish victimization lesbian, gay, indiscriminate or transgender people. Four years prior, the Supreme Court legitimized same-sex marriage over the United States, and numerous Americans accepted the battle for LGBTQ fairness was at last won.
Religious Discrimination
Lastly, justice is not all possible in America due to religious discrimination. Religious discrimination is treating an individual or gathering diversely because of the specific convictions which they hold about a religion. This event incorporates examples when disciples of various religions, groups or non-religions are dealt with inconsistent with their specific convictions, either under the steady gaze of the law or in institutional settings, for example, employment or housing. As opposed to defending protections for religious people, religious liberty has rather been abused to strip away the privileges of assorted networks. The Trump organization keeps on organizing a specific arrangement of religious beliefs to take part in prejudicial exercises across government offices and administrations. Previous Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ guidance on ‘Administrative Law Protections for Religious Liberty’ cases to explain the current protection for religious liberty, “yet it establishes for the federal government an overarching license to discriminate in the name of religion” (London).
Many people have faced religious discrimination for years. “Anti-union groups are hailing a religious discrimination lawsuit filed in federal system court by a Muslim electrician against an association and Boston College” (The Associated Press). A Wyoming organization has settled a federal lawsuit by a previous representative who asserted she was forced to take Scientology courses as a state of her business. Julie A. Rohrbacher recorded the claim in 2018 against Teton Therapy, which works physical and occupational therapy offices in four Wyoming areas. Rohrbacher asserted that proprietor Jeff McMenamy declined to advance her and afterward constrained her to leave in 2013 after she wouldn’t enroll in the Church of Scientology courses. She sued under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which restricts religious harassment and discrimination at work.
Conclusion
In conclusion, equity isn’t at all conceivable in America because of prejudice, sexism, sexual orientation discrimination, and religious discrimination. America has people from numerous cultures, origins, nations, dialects living and right now is viewed as equity for one probably won’t be equity for another. It is hard to get equity for everything except legitimate legal executive frameworks and government can help in getting equity for everybody. Solidarity must be developed in everybody even in differing circumstances and everybody must be dealt with similarly under the steady gaze of the law. Laws must be made giving equivalent significance to everybody independent of their race or root or culture or some other factor. Taking out segregation can assist with getting equity for all in America and henceforth, it is conceivable.
Obamacare: Rights For The Government To Provide A Good Health Care
The Constitution of the United State of America grants the citizens of America many freedoms and liberties. Some Americans believe one of those rights is for the government to provide a good health care. The political battle of if the American government should provide its citizens with a good health care plan has waged because both parties do not agree on if the government should. A Washington Times editorial labeled, “Better Healthcare, State Style” believes it has found an alternative to end the so-called deadlock of the battle of healthcare. The editorial believes healthcare could be more effective if the state has the power to decide what they believe is important or needed regarding heath care.
The current form of health care, Obamacare, wants states to use it one-size-fits all plan instead of creating their own plan. Eight years after the introduction of the Affordable Care Act, it can be seen more flexible is needed in order for a plan to work. The plan currently is using a one-size-fits-all plan, and it has not worked as plan. Many states have avoided the bump of the Affordable Care Act by using waivers to opt out of using Obamacare as the primary healthcare plan. The allows the states get to create their own healthcare plan. In the article it looks at a paper published by the Heritage Foundation. The idea given forth by the paper was to have state collected the money which the federal government used to pay the insurance companies as premium subsides. State would add the money collected for the federal government and add some of their own state money to cover the costs of the large medical bills. This would allow healthy people and sick people to not be grouped up to avoid high premiums.
This year Alaska used a waiver and the results looked promising because it projected a decrease in premiums and increase in an enrollment of the program. As of now four other states have begun to use waivers to opt out of using the federal government created Obamacare. The shows a trend of state opting to use their own version.
The issue of healthcare is important according to many polls stated in the paper. A Fox news poll ranked healthcare as important as the state of economy at number one. Another poll by Pew Research Center found out that a majority of those involved in the poll to states it is the federal government’s job to provide the citizens of America with healthcare. In the same poll, it stated a small percentage of people wanted the government to be the sole organization to decide who will receive the provided health care and who does not.
The majority of people in America still strongly believe in a federal government provides a health care system even though the current plan has not made true on all the promises made by Obama. A strong majority, about 67 percent, of voter believe in having socialized medicine or having all of health and hospital care be payed by public funds.
The problem with that is for the Americans who do not receive employer-based healthcare coverage. They are forced to pay using Obama care and this situation has skyrocketed in the last couple of years. A way to avoid using Obamacare is to have an individual mandate to repeal Obamacare. This will let individual taxpayers to withdraw from Obamacare. This gives the citizens of America to not be forced to use Obamacare. If more and more states began to follow this trend, America could move away from using Obamacare or socialized medicine. This solution could be more effective than the current solutions being used.
Injustice Towards Refugees
The American Life podcasts portray the injustices that can happen to refugees due to poor immigrant policy. The United State had been a home for approximately over 45,000 refugees per annum this all changed when President Trump came into power and halted the refugee admission process for one hundred and twenty days. During that time there was a thorough vetting of the refugee immigration policy, yet the fact that many people who needed refuge were suffering cannot be ignored. For instance, think of refugees who were trying to escape war-torn countries like Somali only to encounter shut doors to a supposed haven. Such people suffered simply because of law implementation (This American Life, 2018). Putting such a factor into consideration it seems that sometimes social systems disregard ethics. Though the government knew that some people would be suffering during the period that the immigration policy was being revised they did not make any special provisions that are a disregard of ethics.
In other cases, refugees are given Temporary Protected Status which can be misused. Basically, immigrants are supposed to be housed in the US until things stabilize in their country after which they are supposed to go back to their countries. However, the Temporary Protected Status can keep on getting renewed when their time comes to an end. Though this serves the refugees well if their countries are not stable it could be unjust to other refugees who would lack an opportunity to be housed since there is a stipulated number of refugees that the US can assimilate every year.
In Palace of Justice Benjamin Ferencz narrates a scenario in which an action group which was responsible for the death of millions of Jews during the Holocaust almost escaped prosecution (Alexander, 2018). The people involved in the prosecution would have escaped justice simply because their cases had not been included in the budget. Again only twenty-two top officials were prosecuted for Nazi’s war crimes whilst over three thousand people had committed similar crimes. Justice was served but it could be argued only in part since some people who were as guilty as those executed walked Scott- free.
In the trial billed as the largest murder trial in history, fourteen people out of the twenty-two defendants were sentenced to death by hanging. This was in a sense a big blow to Benjamin Ferencz whose aim of the prosecution was not vengeance or simply justice for the offenders but to ensure that the law would make a provision for human beings to live peacefully and with dignity anywhere in the world without being discriminated because of their race, political or religious beliefs (Alexander, 2018). Benjamin Ferencz managed to win that ethical battle, he sought the good of all mankind over petty revenge on people who had done so much evil. The greatest murder trial in history is a good example of the link between social systems and ethics. Sometimes as the law seeks justice ethics may be ignored which paradoxically may cause justice to be undermined.