Recent orders
ethical implications in Racial discrimination
Name:
Institution:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Ethical Implications
Racial discrimination is a contentious issue in the United States that has lead to crimes against the inferior races. The most affected race in the United States is the African Americans who are also known as Negroes. Hate crimes against them and injustices done to them by the public and the judicial system including the police can not go unnoticed. Racial discrimination has major ethical implications in the society and is the root of many crimes and social problems present in our societies today. In this essay, the crimes and injustices against African Americans will be discussed at length with reference to a story highlighted in the New York Times that involved the death of African American children after a bombing in the church. I will seek to support the statement “African Americans are not fairly treated in the society due to their racial difference.”
In the story highlighted in the New York Times “Birmingham Bomb Kills 4 Negro Girls in Church; Riots Flare; 2 Boys Slain”, a bomb destroyed a Negro church where four Negro girls were killed and others injured during the riots that erupted after the incidence. During the riots that followed, two boys were shot dead; five whites and one Negro were brutally injured. The governor was pressurized by the local government to deploy the police, the sheriff’s deputies including other law enforcers to maintain peace. They patrolled African American neighborhoods in a bid to maintain peace and calm down the riots. Most blacks were captured and no white could be seen wandering the streets. In my own opinion, I can honestly say that the blacks had a right to be angry due to the bombing of the church and the killing of innocent children. However, the action they took to take the riots to the streets was not a sober one because it led to more deaths especially African Americans. At this point, the issue was to stop the riots and not catch the perpetrators involved in the bombings.
Bombing of a church and the killing of innocent children is a crime that should not go unpunished in accordance to the law. In this situation the African Americans felt discriminated against and worse yet, felt as if the person responsible was out to deny them their freedom to worship by bombing the church. They also felt that the crime was not treated with the seriousness it deserved and the police were deployed only when riots erupt where five whites were seriously injured.
During the riots, the police shot at angry demonstrators who were throwing stones at them in the end two boys aged sixteen and thirteen were shot and killed by the police who claimed that they were in a group of people throwing stones at them and also at the whites who were driving by. The sheriff later confessed that there was no specific reason for the killings, but it was possible that it was linked to the racial disorder that was threatening in the country. He offered a reward of $5000 for the detention and conviction of the perpetrators, but till to date no one has been arrested. In fact, none of the bombings against African American property has been solved since the Second World War. Justice for the blacks does not prevail where racial discrimination against them has been an issue of contention for decades now. Most cases are closed by the police department before they can be investigated.
The same thing happened in after the assassination of Martin Luther King. During the riots, many African Americans lost their lives and the government deployed troops in order to contain the situation. Most blacks were shot by the police while others were viciously beaten and left to die. They fact that martin Luther King had been killed was not the issue that the police were ready to deal with because up to date the killers of Martin Luther King have not been arrested. It is therefore certain to say that, when it comes to blacks, justice is delayed and at the end it is denied.
Approximately 11% of African Americans make up the total population in the United States. They are oppressed, enslaved and discriminated against and this has been their position in the society for a long time now. Most of them are unemployed and those who are employed receive minimum wages almost half of those earned by the whites doing almost the same or even less jobs. In other states, they are not allowed to go to the same schools, go to the same church or even share the same buses with the whites. African Americans are beaten up and killed willingly by the United States authority at various levels.
Conclusively, the blacks are oppressed by the whites who are the superior race in the United States. The majorities of them are unemployed and are not allowed to go to the same schools, share the same buses or train or even go to the same churches as the whites. This has been the case since the Second World War and nothing has been done to ease this social injustice that has severe ethical implications. If African Americans are going to feel as though the matter or treated as equals with whites, then it has to begin by giving justice to those blacks that were deeply hurt by the death of Martin Luther King and other injustices that led to the death, injury and destruction of property.
Works Cited
Sitton Claude. “Birmingham Bomb Kills 4 Negro Girls in Church; Riots Flare; 2
Boys Slain.” The New York Times. September 15, 1963
Ethical Dilemmas. Situation 1 If am riding a motorcycle, and I think it is much more enjoyable to ride without a helmet
Name
Professor
Class
Date
Ethical Dilemmas
Situation 1: If am riding a motorcycle, and I think it is much more enjoyable to ride without a helmet. Apart from that if I also believe that my vision and hearing are better without a helmet yet my state has just passed a helmet law, and I have already received two warnings. I will not abide by the state laws. However if my child were also riding on the motorcycle I would advise him or her to abide by the state laws. This is because I believe I am competent enough not to cause accidents. However, my position would have been different if I had any previous accidents and had been hurt. This is because the discussion of morality should not be limited to human behavior rather this discussion should be based on behavior that comes from free action and free will (Pollock 244).
The reason why I will let my child put on the helmet is because moral culpability cannot be assigned to individuals who are not adequately aware of the world around them in order to rationally decide the good from the bad. Two cohorts that are conventionally exempt from liability in such a scenario are young children and the mentally handicapped. This is synonymous with the case scenario when ascribing legal responsibility. Arguably the morality of their behavior cannot be judged because it is perceived that they do not have the ability to reason. Consequently they lack the capacity of making a rational decision of being either moral or immoral. Although a two year old may be punished for striking a baby. This is done in an effort of socializing or educating the kid rather than punishing him or her. In the case above I rationally knew that I cannot cause an accident given my visual impairment while cycling I had to make a rational decision to avoid accidents (Pollock 244).
Situation 2 Being a legislator who believes absolutely and strongly that abortion is a sin, I have polled my constituents and am surprised to find that the majority believe that the government should legislate the private decision of women to have an abortion. I have decided to vote with my conscience rather than the will of the majority of my constituents. This is because; actors in every justice system have the capacity to make moral or immoral judgments. Their decisions can be judged by the public as either ethical or non ethical (Pollock 244).
However, decisions made by these actors who range from the legislators that write the very laws that supervise ethical conduct to the law enforcing agencies could be different. This stems from the fact that they experience varying degrees of power, discretion and authority. Being a legislator I have the power to define behavior as unlawful and therefore punishable. I have the moral responsibility of criminalizing behavior if I perceive that it is likely to threaten people’s safety. I also have the authority to set the amount of punishment. Ethically, abortion is wrong and I have the mandate morally to criminalize it as a law maker in spite of my constituents’ attitude towards it. However, there are set moral definitions that define which behaviors are lawful and which ones are not. The underlying principal behind all laws is the protection of public morality and this should inform all decisions in relation to the abortion law (Pollock 244).
Situation 3 Being in the position of a district attorney prosecuting a burglary case and I find a defendant who is willing to plead guilty in return for a sentence of probation. I get to believe that this is fair punishment because I realize that my evidence may not support a conviction. However, the victims are upset and want to see the offender receive prison time. They insist that I try the case. Being a person of moral standing I cannot continue with a case that has no enough evidence to incriminate the defendant (Pollock 244).
I have to exercise a great amount of discretionary in my authority to avoid being seen as an interested party in any case .This is so because of my calling as a district attorney whose moral obligation is to enforce laws that have been created by the legislators. I also know that a case could turn out against the state if the defendant is found not guilty by the jury due to lack of incriminating evidence. Such a scenario could not only be heart breaking for me as an individual but it is also the lowest moment in the profession of a district attorney (Pollock 244).
However, as a district attorney I do not face a lot of public scrutiny compared to other criminal justice professionals. This essentially is paradoxical since I have more discretion when it comes to making decisions on which case I should target for prosecution and how I should prosecute such cases. I also have the liberty to decide which charge to pursue and which one I should drop. Since I have the ethical obligation to follow justice instead of prosecution I will not be influenced by the victims or any other factors other than the objectives of justice (Pollock 244).
Situation 4 Being a prosecutor with the unwelcome task of prosecuting a 12- year old for a particular brutal assault. I personally believe that the child basically went along with the older brother in the assault. Apart from that, I think that he should have been left in the juvenile system. However, the juvenile court judge waived him to the adult system. The media and the victim’s family are now demanding that he be tried as an adult. I am faced with making a decision on whether to try him for attempted murder, assault, or some lesser crime. I could deny the waiver and send the case back to the juvenile court (Pollock 245).
However, I have decided to let the child be tried as a juvenile and not as an adult. This is because I do not determine my duty to please the victims or the society rather I do everything in relation to my own conscience. Being a prosecutor I hold considerable power over other individuals and in most cases I usually face a lot of dilemma. This stems from the fact that I hold the power to make decisions that could deprive people their property, life or freedom. However, since my professional calling as a prosecutor is to enforce the laws I have the moral and ethical obligation of doing so without fear or favor (Pollock 245).
In my decision to let the 12 year old boy be prosecuted in a Juvenile court and as a Juvenile and not an adult I in essence accept the fact that in my duty as I prosecute any case I must as a law enforcing agent protect the constitutional provisions that are the basis of any legal system particularly as far as due process is concerned. This is because due process protects every citizen from errors made by any state’s denial of property, life or liberty (Pollock 245).
Situation 5 Being a judge I believe that individuals should be allowed to choose when to die. I personally had to watch both my parents die long and agonizing deaths because my state does not have a right to die statute. Before me is a doctor who is being prosecuted for giving a lethal dose of morphine to a patient dying of terminal cancer. The family of the patient did not want him to die. The prosecutor believes that if there is a law in place, it should be enforced. The doctor has opted for a bench trial. My conscience being clear I would prosecute the case in accordance with the law and not in accordance with the compassion I have for my deceased parents (Pollock 245).
Since I am a public servant and my salary stems from their purse, I have more than a job. This is because I have been entrusted special duties that involve public trust. In prosecuting this case I will therefore strive to free myself from conflicts of personal interest. This can only be done through being diligent in following the provisions of the law concerning euthanasia and being accountable where I would endeavor to uphold open and democratic decision making. This is because the ethical and moral demands placed upon my office as a judge are very high and I cannot let my personal interests ruin my job and reputation (Pollock 245).
Works Cited
Pollock, M. Joycelyn. Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice Seventh Edition. (2007): 244-245.
Policy Formulation in Presidential and Parliamentary Systems
Policy Formulation in Presidential and Parliamentary Systems
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Governments are tasked with making policies that govern the operations of any country and to ensure that the citizen’s interests are represented and taken care of. A policy can be defined as a set of rules and principles that define the goals of a particular organization or government, and outline how such goals will be achieved. The government of any country has different arms of government, which are the executive, legislature, and judiciary. The executive and judiciary are the central bodies in charge of making government policies in collaboration with other entities such as non-governmental and international organizations. Some of the most important policy areas in government are economic affairs, criminal justice, healthcare, education, environment, social welfare, culture and society, and foreign affairs and national security (Birkland 2015). Depending on whether a government system is presidential or parliamentary-based, there are different factors that determine policy formulation.
A presidential system of government is a democratic type of rule where the head off state is directly elected, and their powers are spate from those of the legislature. The elected president is the head of state and is in charge of the executive. The executive and legislative arms of government are independent of each other in this case, and the legislature has limited powers over the president. Except in rare instances where the president breaks the law, he or she usually leads the executive independent of the legislature, and the legislature cannot dismiss the president. Some of the significant characteristics of a government in the presidential system are that the executive can veto legislative acts, presidential terms are fixed, the president has the authority to pardon criminals, and the executive arm is unipersonal. Unipersonal decribes a situation where the president appoints individuals to the cabinet who serve at his or her pleasure, although some senior government appointments require legislative approvals. This system of government is common in the Americas, Central Asia, and Central and South Africa.
In the parliamentary system of government, the position of president or head of state is mostly ceremonial. In this case, the executive obtains its authority from the legislature and is answerable to it. The head of state and the head of government are usually different, with the head of government a member of the parliament. Parliamentary democracies may be of two types; the first is a constitutional monarchy characterized by a monarch as the head of state, and the head of government is from one of the houses of parliament. The second type is a parliamentary republic where the head of state happens to be a ceremonial president while the leader of government is also a part of the legislature (Hicken & Stoll 2017). Given the distinct differences between the two systems of government, the methods of policy formulation also share differences but also some similarities.
In the presidential system of government, the president is directly elected by the voters. This means that the executive does not depend on the legislature, but each can carry out its own tasks. There can be some difficulty when it comes to passing laws and policies for this reason. The legislature is usually tasked with proposing the majority of polices in different areas in government (Birkland 2015). When the executive and legislature are composed of different parties with opposing ideas, it can be quite difficult to pass a new policy. The legislature votes on proposed bills, which then have to go to the president for final assent. The president has veto powers which can be total or partial, which means that he or she can refuse to sign a bill into law and send it back to the legislature for amendment. Such a situation can result in a stalemate, making the presidential system a challenging one for policy-making. The presidential system concentrates power on the president, and this can make it difficult for the legislature to pass laws. An advantage of the presidential system over the parliamentary system is that a president can declare a bill as urgent and force the legislature to vote on it within a short time. In addition to this, the president also has special privileges and powers that allows them to pass policies on special areas, known as executive powers that do not require the approval of the legislature.
Parliamentary systems pass their policies in a different way. Similar to the presidential system, members of the legislature first propose policies and bills. The parliamentary system can be unicameral or bicameral, which means there are either one or two houses of parliament, respectively. The president is only a ceremonial figure separate from the head of state to is usually a member of the legislature. Because the head of state is a member of the parliament, it is much easier to pass a bill or law. The parliamentary system allows the legislature to debate on relevant policy issues and then vote on them (Hicken & Stoll 2017). In this case, it is much easier to pass a policy or law because it only requires a majority vote, and it becomes law. The executive depends on the legislature therefore, what the legislature decides is passed.
In conclusion, the presidential and parliamentary systems have several similarities and differences. The main similarity is that in both cases, policies and laws are proposed by members of the legislature and then deliberated upon. The divergence comes after this where, after voting, the presidential system requires the president’s signature for the bill to be signed into law. The present can either assent or dissent based on their political views and other considerations. The parliamentary system, on the other hand, is different because once the bill gets a majority vote, it becomes law with no president who can dissent.
References
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Routledge.Hicken, A., & Stoll, H. (2017). Legislative policy-making authority, party system size, and party system nationalization. Electoral Studies, 47, 113-124.