Recent orders
Race, Ethnicity, & the U.S
Race, Ethnicity, & the U.S
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor’s Name
Due Date
Race, Ethnicity, & the U.S.
Chapter 1
In the book “The Third Option,” Miles McPherson talks about the importance of understanding and respecting people of all races and cultures. According to McPherson, it is acceptable to recognize the color differences because not seeing the color is typically ignoring the existing racial tension. However, despite the color of an individual, all people should be treated equally (McPherson, 2020). Pastor McPherson further argues that we should see people as individuals, not group members (McPherson, 2020). He believes that this is how Jesus saw people and that we should follow His example. McPherson begins by talking about how we often see people in terms of “color.” He says that we often judge people based on the color of their skin and that this is not right. He argues that we should see people as individuals and respect them for who they are, not for their appearance. He then talks about the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. He points out that Jesus did not judge the woman based on her race or culture. Instead, he saw her as an individual and treated her with respect. McPherson argues that we should follow Jesus’ example and not judge people based on their race or culture.
Chapter 2
In his book The Third Option, Miles McPherson outlines three expressions of racism. The first is “individual racism,” when an individual believes one race is superior to another (McPherson, 2020). I have experienced this expression of racism in my personal life, where people comment negatively about another race or engage in discriminatory behavior. People of color are discriminated against in schools and healthcare facilities. The second expression of racism is “institutional racism,” which occurs when institutions or organizations promote or perpetuate racist beliefs or policies (McPherson, 2020). I have seen this happen where we have segregated housing or schools or hiring practices that favor one race over another. The third expression of racism is “structural racism,” a system of inequality that gives advantages to one race over another (McPherson, 2020). In real-life situations, this can be seen in socioeconomic disparities between races or the overrepresentation of people of color in the criminal justice system.
I favor racial in-group solidarity because it allows us to advocate better for our shared interests and values. I prefer racial in-group cohesion because it strengthens our community and makes us more resilient in the face of adversity. Finally, I favor racial in-group pride because it affirms our worth and dignity as individuals and a group.
Chapter 5
My answer is false. According to The Third Option by Miles McPherson, everyone has racial blind spots. We all have biases and prejudices that we are not aware of. The implicit association test can help us understand our racial biases and prejudices.
Chapter 6
In the past, I have been hurt by someone’s blind spot, specifically a lack of awareness. I have had friends who were unaware of how their words or actions affected me. Sometimes, this hurt my feelings and negatively affected how I perceived them. Since we’re from different backgrounds, they could forget that we do not share similar cultures and speak ill of my cultural practices.
One of the nine blind spots that McPherson talks about is the need for acceptance. This is something that I can relate to. I have always been a bit of an outsider and have always felt like I needed to prove myself to others. This has led to me being quite a people pleaser and constantly needing to be liked. I am also a perfectionist, which sometimes makes me quite hard on myself. I am always striving to be better and to be accepted by others. This need for acceptance can sometimes be a bit of a burden, but it also motivates me to be the best I can be.
Chapter 7
The type of people whose opinion about race-related things differs from mine is the “racist camp .”According to McPherson (2020), this racists camps comprises people who believe that race is a natural and essential societal factor. They think that white people are superior to other races and that whites should be in control of society. I am an anti-racist camp, and I believe that race is not an accurate or essential factor in society. In my opinion, all races are equal, and that race should not be used to discriminate against people. I harbor some feelings of hatred in my heart towards the racist camps. I believe people who leave wounds on other people’s hearts deserve less in life. They are enemies of humankind, and society should unite against them. They have no room in our community.
To stop discrimination due to color, I think we should go back to the drawing board and look at where racism emerged. Racism started when we started to judge creations. It is not our will and power that one person is more beautifully created than another. Black or white, we are all created by some supernatural being in His will. We only have the power and will to appreciate the creations as they are not rated. Let us all start by teaching kids at school that racism is unacceptable. We have to teach our kids that humanity is based in our souls and that person-to-person love, caring, and unity are what they should be taught, not just how to be successful in life. Educating kids to live in harmony with everyone will be a culture that will wipe out our racial abuse forever. Think of why you are a Christian or Muslim or any religion. Most of us are because we grew up in families that have certain faith, and we were taught to believe, and when we became conscious minds, we embraced the teachings and passed them to our kids. Therefore, to end racism, we teach the next generation the right way of life. Also, It is so important that we communicate with one another to bring our hearts one step closer. We need to be willing to share our thoughts and feelings and listen to the other person’s words. We also need to be patient and understanding and give each other the benefit of the doubt. When we do these things, we will find that we can connect on a deeper level and that our relationship will become stronger.
Chapter 14
I have much internal dialogue about race. I think about race in class, talking to my friends at work, and watching the news. It’s hard to have an honest conversation about race because I feel like I’m always walking on eggshells. I do not want to say the wrong thing and offend someone. I think our society is too quick to judge people based on the color of their skin. We need to have a more honest conversation about race. Still, I’m unsure how to have that conversation without offending someone. We need to learn to see people as individuals and not judge them based on the color of their skin. We must come together and have an honest conversation about race and learn to respect and honor each other.
I could choose to engage in a dialogue about race with someone of Indian ethnicity. I would love to learn about their experience living in North and South America. I admire how this ethical group maintains tribal affiliations. Their culture and community attachment make them amazing people. The benefit of engaging with such ethnicity is that it would help me as a person to have a good relationship and be open to discussing with anyone in life. This conversation helps people learn about different cultures, which is the beauty of life. Having a moment to share my own experiences with racism and discrimination and then asking if they have ever experienced anything similar will help everyone to end racism and enjoy each other’s company. Expressing thoughts and feelings on race and racism and how other people think with open minds affect our society positively.
Chapter 17
The cultural practice that hinders me from getting to know or honoring those who are different is my habit of viewing people different from me as a threat. I do not take the time to get to know or understand their perspective. I judge them harshly, and I am quick to anger. This attitude keeps me from seeing the good in people who are different from me. It also keeps me from being able to learn from them or grow as a person. I need to know to see people who are different from me as an opportunity to learn and grow instead of a threat. Only then will I be able to get to know them and honor them for who they are.
One cultural practice that has enriched my life, according to “The Third Option” by Miles McPherson, is the concept of ” Ubuntu.” This African philosophy emphasizes the interconnectedness of all humanity and the importance of community. This philosophy has helped me to see the value in all people, regardless of their backgrounds or circumstances. It has also helped me to be more compassionate and understanding of others. This philosophy has enriched my life and made me a better person.
Conclusion
The Third Option by Miles McPherson is a book about race relations in America. I have learned much from this book, including how to improve racial relations. McPherson argues that the only way to improve race relations in America is for blacks and whites to work together. He argues that the current system, in which blacks are seen as inferior to whites, is not working. I have also learned from this book that the black community needs to take responsibility for its problems and that the white community needs to be more understanding and accepting of black culture. Also, from the book, I have learned that the most equipped person to refill one’s racial blind spots is someone willing to have difficult conversations about race and racism. This friend should also be someone you feel safe and comfortable discussing these issues with.
References
McPherson, M. (2020). The third option: Hope for a racially divided nation. Howard Books.
The Impact of Miranda Annotated Bibliography
The Impact of Miranda Annotated Bibliography
Student’s name
Institution of affiliation
Instructor
Course
Date
The Impact of Miranda Annotated Bibliography
Vidal, S., Cleary, H., Woolard, J., & Michel, J. (2017). Adolescents’ legal socialization: Effects of interrogation and Miranda knowledge on legitimacy, cynicism, and procedural justice. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(4), 419-440.
The study’s goal was to determine how detained youths’ opinions about the involvement, equality, and reliability of police are affected by their actual interactions with the law, such as how often they come into contact with the police and whether or not they are aware of Miranda warnings and interrogation practices. As a result of these encounters, people had a lower regard for police legitimacy, were less inclined to follow the law, and had a more pessimistic view of the justice system overall. Interrogation techniques experts felt less obligated to follow the law and the rules of procedure, while Miranda warnings experts felt more bound by the rules of procedure to follow.
Adolescents at risk may benefit from programs that promote positive interactions between them and police officers in order to reduce negative attitudes toward law enforcement and foster a sense of trust and fairness. This period is when an individual’s attitudes and views toward various societal institutions and values are formed. Law education can have significant effects on how adolescents respond in different legal contexts and behave, while also encouraging a more long-term and comprehensive view of the law.
Knowledge of and fully comprehend the processes and techniques used during the interrogations, as well as dialogues with law enforcement agencies, as we’ve learned from detained youth, can influence how criminals interpret legal procedures, which, in turn, influences how they see and perceive police and the law.
On the basis of the data collected here, it appears that legal socialization principles are closely linked to offending adolescents’ real-world experience, familiarity, and comprehension of legal procedures and processes are obliged. Unfair treatment and case outcomes for juveniles by police can have a negative impact on the lives of everyone involved even when those interactions are not always irrational.Therefore, increased knowledge and experience with juvenile justice processes may not always result in more positive attitudes and beliefs towards law enforcement and the legal system. Despite this, our research indicates that criminals who lack social support may benefit from legal socialization as a strategy for intervention. Encouraging better relationships between young people and law enforcement can help combat negative public perceptions of the justice system while also helping to build trust and respect among the general public.
Thomas III, G. C., & Leo, R. A. (2002). The effects of Miranda v. Arizona:” Embedded” in our national culture?. Crime and Justice, 29, 203-271.
It was mandated that police inform suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning them while in custody after the Miranda v. Arizona case. Before any confession could be used against them in court, suspects had to knowingly and intelligently waive their Miranda rights. Since the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Miranda, suspects have been informed that they have the right to resist police interrogation instead of being urged to do so. To better reflect American law and culture, the Miranda ruling protects a suspect’s “free choice” of whether or not to answer police questions during interrogation.
There has been no discernible impact on police ability to obtain confessions or prosecutors’ ability to secure convictions after two generations of empirical research on Miranda requirements. Neither the decrease in confession rates nor the increase in criminal justice system costs can be demonstrated with certainty thanks to Miranda. Miranda’s benefits to detained suspects may be non-existent as well. Miranda and the rules that govern its citation have been violated numerous times by police officers who have devised ways to avoid, circumvent, nullify, or simply ignore Miranda. Whether or not police interrogation rooms should have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination can be debated by scholars and historians.
Instead of the culture believing innately in Miranda’s requirement for notice, the opposite is likely to be true. So police were allowed to question the suspect because Miranda did not forbid or demand the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation. There was some information provided to presumed self-sufficient agents about the consequences of answering or refusing police questions. Miranda’s criticisms were taken seriously by Fourth Circuit judges, but the Supreme Court ultimately saw Miranda warnings as a matter of basic fairness rather than a safe haven for criminals, despite Fourth Circuit judges’ sympathies. In light of what Miranda Dickerson said, this explanation makes sense. Cassell, Grano, and the other Miranda dissenters were heard by a conservative court of appeals. Warnings were mandated to be fair to suspects by letting them know they did not have to convict themselves, even if the Miranda Court was correct. This right to protect oneself from coercion may allow a small concession to be made no matter how guilty someone is found to be.
Cassell, P. G. (1996). Miranda’s negligible effect on law enforcement: Some skeptical observations. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 20, 327.
“Miranda has no effect on law enforcement.” many of the nation’s top criminal procedure academics have told and retold this story. some individuals argue that the Miranda requirements actually help in the efforts of law enforcements. However, this is inappropriate since it is strikingly opposed to the history of the nation. Miranda restricts police from interrogating criminal suspects to the extent of hurting or misusing them just because they have been accused of whatever it is they are being interrogated about. Therefore, the suspects are encouraged to keep quiet until the time when it is appropriate for them to talk about the questions they are being asked maybe if there is a lawyer or it is the police post offices or in a government facility. Therefor if a criminal suspect states anything during the period of transportation to the questioning area it is treated as part of evidence and when they are in the questioning area the criminal suspect is expected to have a lawyer as they talk.
This is skeptical about this wisdom considered conventional. The myth of Miranda’s benign effects is unsupported and unsupportable in the available empirical data. To the contrary, there are a lot of reasons to believe that intuitions speak honestly as they suggest Miranda has impeded the law. Miranda’s costs should be given more consideration as we owe the responsibility to those harmed by un-convicted criminals and unsolved crimes. Before turning specifically to Miranda’s harms, let me note that this article develops in no length any other attack on Miranda. There is nothing in the 5th amendment that gave permission for the court to create such set of rules. That sort of conclusion seems almost preordained. It is very difficult to establish how Miranda follows the traditions and culture of this country. Professor Grano’s thorough book Confessions, Truth and the Law’ explicates this point brilliantly. Indeed, one of the other participants in this Panel, Professor Stephen Schulhofer, recently acknowledged that the Miranda holding was “a radical departure. from the assumption of the times” and that In light of then-current precedent, Miranda’s attorneys decided not to pursue the Fifth Amendment claim because the approach to regulating police interrogation proposed by the Amendment seemed so out of step. The characterization that the moderator of this Panel, Professor Ely, has given to Roe v. Wade seems equally applicable to Miranda. The decision, he wrote, is bad “because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
While Miranda’s social costs are significant in themselves, what makes them an undeniable tragedy is that they are in large measure avoidable. Interrogation regulations consistent with the historical understanding of the Fifth Amendment include many approaches, and Miranda is only one example of such a strategy. Before Miranda, a wide range of options were under consideration, such as taking arrested suspects to magistrates for questioning or tape- recording police interrogations, as the American Law Institute proposed around the time of Miranda.” The longstanding, pre- Miranda “voluntariness test” must also be regarded as a constitutionally viable, less-costly approach to regulating police questioning.” All these alternatives would lead to many more confessions, and thus more convictions, of dangerous criminal suspects. Some of them, such as videotaping, would undoubtedly provide better protection for innocent suspects.” Yet Miranda’s supporters seem uninterested in finding the least restrictive constitutional means of regulating society’s agents of law and order. Instead, Miranda seems to have petrified the discussion about how to regulate police questioning.
It is time for a new Miranda narrative not the myth that it is costless to indulge this Warren Court invention, but an accurate account of real-world consequences from unprecedented shackles on the police. As common sense told us all along, tradeoffs inhere in the Miranda regime no less than in other controversial social policies. So far, legal academics (or the Court itself, for that matter) have failed to offer a convincing explanation of why we should ignore the human suffering Miranda inflicts. From the top of the ivory tower, these human costs may not seem important. However, the countless victims of Miranda’s crimes would undoubtedly have a different perspective.
Race relations and ‘the other’ in justice debate
Student’s name
Instructor
Course
Date
Race relations and ‘the other’ in justice debate
Restorative justice has been on the rise and in so many discussions and researches over the last 30 years. There is still a need for it to inculcate into its discussions and primary concern about cultural in-consideration and racial consideration. This should be done focusing on the victims and members of the justice system who are still looked down upon because of their skin color or origin from cultures and places that are not fully recognized and respected as of importance.
One of the significant reasons Theo Gavrielides gives as a causative reason for this issue is that most of the promoters and those who came up with the restorative justice re-insurrection are whites. Their role in coming up with this was based on trying to bring in success and correct the flaws that had existed before in regards to restorative justice and thus make society better by bridging peace discussions and reconciliations among the members of the society. However, with all these efforts, most of the proponents of restorative justice are whites, and cultural and racial bias never came first to them. Therefore this was not considered very important, which explains why it was not considered (Theo, 217).
Theo Gavrielides points out the issue of restorative justice not recognizing certain aspects that affected the justice system, like cultural and racial backgrounds, as making the restorative justice not fully functioning and acceptable among all the members of the society. This is because it seemingly favors some and pushes away other members of the community.
This article refers to the other refers to a reference to the minority groups in the society who are generally not considered when making decisions about anything in the society. The other relates, therefore, to two aspects of this issue of groups not appreciated. It means those groups in society that are not of importance to the power structures that form the restorative justice system, and these are racial disparities or racial groups considered low class. This also refers to the groups within the society which are not deemed necessary due to their lack of a voice in matters that concern the general society. As Theo Gavrielides states, these two others are the primary cause of the ineffectiveness of the restorative justice system and therefore are not to be ignored or put away as before if justice is to be recognized appropriately (Theo, 218).
Theo Gavrielides gives three significant reasons justice has ignored the issues of racial inequality and disproportionality. One of the reasons most governments are considering issues is their promotion towards the ending of much spending and thus less expenditure of the government. Therefore the issue of racial inequality and disproportionality does not bring this to the government. The second is that this has never been considered an essential aspect of restorative justice but only as side issues of various problematic implementation areas. The third is that for this kind of debate to happen, there is a need to recognize that it is needed, and therefore to most people, this discussion has never been considered as required thus lacks in effect when it comes to these two issues.
Race-related barriers towards the realization of restorative justice are many. They include the fact that people of less critical or less considered racial groups are never supposed to be important in need of urgent justice. This leads to unfairness, and justice towards a black person cannot be emphasized like that of a white person. The structured restorative justice system tends to consider the unrecognized groups of the society to a certain extent; however, that un-structured restorative justice system tends to forget almost entirely about these minority groups (Theo, 219).
In conclusion, therefore, the talk about minority groups of the society and the racial consideration needs to occur. Thus, those not provided with justice to get it as a first option as the other people do get it.
Works cited
Gavrielides, Theo. “Bringing race relations into the restorative justice debate: An alternative and personalized vision of “the other.” Journal of Black Studies 45.3 (2014): 216-246.