Inequality paper

INEQUALITY PAPER

The Paper will be an 8 page double-spaced paper (1-inch margins, 12-point Times New Roman font).  Any text beyond 8 pages will not be read!  First, let’s review what you should have completed already:

In Step 1, you thought of a social inequality topic, and one example of how the ‘haves’ come out ahead from your own experience, a case or statute you have read, the newspaper, current events, or from research/reading you have done.

In Step 2, you used 3 empirical social science sources you found outside of class to show that your example is part of a broader pattern of ‘haves’ coming out ahead rather than an isolated incident.  Your 3 additional empirical sources are works of social science that are published in peer-reviewed journal articles or academic book presses (NOT law reviews). These sources must be written by social scientists who conducted original empirical research.  Therefore, you showed me your sources to confirm that it will count as one of your 3 empirical sources.

In Sept 3, you found 1 Law Review Article to help you develop your own legal reform.

Now, it is time to write your completed paper!  First, you will take the summary you wrote in Step 1 and use that as the beginning of your paper.  By doing this, you will clearly be introducing your chosen social inequality and the specific real example that illustrates that inequality at the beginning of your paper.

Second, you will use the summaries of your empirical sources from Step 2 to build your argument.  Your use of sources will be assessed by how relevant the sources are to your chosen topic and how effectively you are able to use the empirical findings in those sources to support your example.  Each time you explain a source, you also want to explain how that source connects to the micro-example you used at the beginning of the paper (i.e., you want to make it clear that the results of that research article are showing that your micro-example is not an isolated incident but actually is representative of a broader pattern in society).  Using a source to report a simple statistic will not earn as many points as explaining the topic, methods, and results of the sources. (Note: You also may use any relevant readings & materials from class if you think they strengthen your argument that your micro-example is really a macro-level problem, but those materials will not count among your 3 outside sources).

Third, you will use your summary of your Law Review Article in Step 3 to help you develop your own legal reform.  You will use your Step 3 summary to show your reader what one scholar has said, but you ultimately should be using that scholar’s work to help you make your own normative argument.  The key question you are answering is: What legal reforms would you propose to alter this advantage, if any?  The novelty of your proposed legal reforms will be assessed by how thoroughly your reforms address and challenge the systematic advantages of the ‘haves’.  Your proposal should show how you intend to minimize the differences between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ and should be innovative, comprehensive, and detailed. Your reforms also should illustrate creativity, originality, and awareness of how you would handle obstacles to your reform.  You must rely on at least 1 scholarly opinion in a Law Review Article, but do not merely reiterate the normative views of the scholar. Instead, use and cite the author’s work to further your own reform agenda.  If you decide either that there is no possible legal reform for your chosen topic or that nothing should be done to alter the advantage of the ‘haves’, you still must explain your position in light of relevant readings & materials from class plus your 3 other empirical sources described in the prior paragraph.

You must cite the scholarly sources appropriately in your paper and include a bibliography at the end of your paper.  The bibliography will not count as part of the paper length.

If you choose to submit a first draft for my comments, you must submit your draft by the deadline written in the Checklist of Due Dates.  The optional first draft must be submitted on Canvas under the link in ‘Assignments’ titled "OPTIONAL: Inequality Paper ROUGH DRAFT".  The required final draft must be submitted on Canvas under the link in ‘Assignments’ titled “Inequality PAPER: FINAL DRAFT”, as instructed in class.  Have fun!

Point assessment:

4 points: Relevance and description of the chosen example

12 points: Novelty of the suggested legal reform

10 points: Quality and quantity of use of sources

4 points: Style (Clarity of Writing, Use of Section Headings & Paragraphs, Grammar, Spelling, etc.)

______________

30 points: TOTAL

MY STEP 1

For my Inequality Paper Topic I chose the question I would like to discuss, whether wealthy criminal defendants receive better case outcomes than poor defendants? I picked this because it struck my interest and I felt like I could find lots of research to support this topic. For example, Rahman Bethea who had one chance at gaining his life back after his first ever criminal charge was just $800 short. “In March 2016, Bethea, an audio-visual technician working at the Sheraton hotel near uptown, was charged with embezzling components and electronic devices. He says his first-ever arrest cost him his job, his home, his car and his son, who had to join his mother in Pennsylvania because Bethea says he could no longer afford to take care of him. Bethea was homeless for more than a year.” If this was a wealthy man he would not have lost so much because he would have the money to support his actions. “Bethea had one hope. Under a longstanding policy by the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office for first-time offenders of certain crimes, he was offered the chance to enter a “deferred prosecution” program that could lead to a complete dismissal of his felony charge in two years, if he met all conditions.” The problem here was that Bethea could not afford the required $1,000 down payment.

Source:

Read more here: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article174707216.html#storylink=cpy

MY STEP 2

3 ARTICLES TO COMPLETE THIS TASK ARE ATTACHED TO COMPLETE THIS.

MY STEP 3

Article Review

The title of the article for review is “Simplicity as equality in criminal procedure” this is an article authored by the Harvard Literature review. This article is published by the Harvard Law Review in conjunction with JSTOR which is a digital library originally containing digitized back issues of academic journals, books, and other primary sources and current journals such as the article of focus.

In-text Citations and References

In-text Citation: (Harvard Law Review, 2019)

Reference: Harvard Law Review. (2019). Simplicity as A Equality in Criminal Procedure. Vol. 120, No. 6, April 2007

Article Evaluation

The article utilized in this assignment was assessed in 2019, but it was published originally in 2007 with three updates the latest being 2018. It is notable that this study does not need the latest update for this article for purposes of achieving the objective of the research. This is because the updates revolve around the current cases when it comes to the financial aspect of receiving justice. The second criteria deal with relevance. This article provides data regarding how much complicated the judicial system is and the recommendations for making it even simpler for the common citizen. Lastly, it is published in a renown platform; the Harvard Law Review. This publication commands some attention in the legal arena.

Article Summary

In the recent years with numerous landmark cases, numerous studies including the “Simplicity as equality in criminal procedure” have documented the plight of the indigent defendants still trying to secure equal treatment when it comes to trial and judicial representation. This study opens up by focusing on inadequate funding of the indigent defense systems across the nation and the issue of judicial services or justice for the people with better financial statuses in the society. The article reasserts the words of Justice black that “there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has" (Harvard Law Review, 2019). This means that the current society is inclined to providing justice for the people with a name in society while the common citizen with less money is left to follow complicated procedures to receive the same services.

It is notable that the author focuses on the ability of the court to achieve equality by eliminating money or cost related issues (Berk et al., 2018). In other words the courts discriminate indigent defendants from the rich in society. In simpler terms judicial services are etched on the ability to cover these costs. This means that complexities must arise for the poor or indigent defendants resulting in even longer sentences as opinionated by the legislative responses.

In the same context, the article reiterates the concept of minimum resources and procedural protections. This is etched on the Supreme Court ruling that poverty should not be a disadvantage for the criminal justice system. This is termed the ambitious principle. This called for the provision of resources for the indigent defendants. In summary, the article argues that complex criminal procedures, convert the judicial system and the conviction of defendants more likely and costly at the same time. As a result, the legislative response is focused on increasing the sentences for complex criminal procedures. The article concludes that the recognition of complex procedural protections poses a hidden cost to the indigent defendants. This means that the courts have more power to reduce the costs and streamline the complex procedures achieving overall simplicity (Berk et al., 2018).

References

Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2018). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research, 0049124118782533.

Harvard Law Review. (2019). Simplicity as A Equality in Criminal Procedure. Vol. 120, No. 6, April 2007.