Outline

Argumentative Topic: Is Justice for All Possible in America?”

Research Paper Outline

1. Introduction

1. “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal” (Aristotle). Injustice driven by inequality is inevitable and deeply rooted in different social systems and institutions.

1. It can therefore be argued that it is not possible to deliver justice for all as evidenced by the broken justice system, climate change and loss of biodiversity, increasing pollution and common social problems that permeate the society.

2. Body

0. 2.1. Argument #1:

· Argument: Justice for all is not possible because the criminal justice system is broken, fails to deliver criminals and rarely deters criminal (Howell, 2015). Most cases are defined by money, which, the poor do not have.

· Counterargument: It might be argued that the law is meant to be applied fairly so all parties receive justice

· Rebuttal: Most of the jail population is made up of the unfortunate members of the society and minority populations underlining the law, is partially applied (Ogletree Jr, 2015).

· Adjustments: Judges are mandated to be provide authentic oversight of the legal system but the criminal justice system has been marred by fighting, wrangling and shameful scandals that have made the society to develop suspicion, distrust and doubt in the system

0. 2.2 Argument #2

· Argument: Inequality is predominant in the society in almost all sectors (Dorling, 2015). Access to employment opportunities, justice, health care, education, housing and other social amenities are disproportionately skewed based on various socioeconomic, gender, cultural and ethnic determinants.

· Counterargument: On the contrary, it can be argues that there are laws and amendments to protect equality and advance justice to all (Ogletree Jr, 2015).

· Rebuttal: The minority and people of color are unfairly disadvantaged.

· Argument adjustment: Social inequality persists in the contemporary society lowing efforts to eradicate poverty, improve the economy and deliver justice for all (Dorling, 2015).

0. 2.3. Argument #3

· Argument: Animals’ rights are violated by humans (Milligan, 2015).

· Counterargument: It might be argued that animals are not moral human beings and thus do not deserve to enjoy the same rights as animals (Armstrong & Botzler, 2016).

· Rebuttal:Animals are denied rights of movement when confined in zoos, live to live free from harm when used in agriculture and their right to live and be free from indecent treatment subverted when animals are used in scientific research

· Argument adjustment: Humans do not have the right to use and exploit animals and this is unjust to animals (Milligan, 2015).

0.

1. Conclusion

3.1. It is not possible to deliver justice to all and there is rich evidence to support this.

3.2. Societal inequality denies justice to many while dysfunctional criminal justice system unfairly disadvantages the minority and the poor. On the other hand, unjust treatment of animals causes unfair suffering to animals.

References

Armstrong, S. J., & Botzler, R. G. (Eds.). (2016). The animal ethics reader. Taylor & Francis.

Dorling, D. (2015). Injustice (revised edition): Why social inequality still persists. Policy Press.

Howell, K. B. (2015). The costs of Broken Windows policing: Twenty years and counting. Cardozo L. Rev., 37, 1059.

Ogletree Jr, C. J. (2015). A new juvenile justice system: Total reform for a broken system. NYU Press.