Can this be done in 7 hours?swk06 3-4pgs

5

NASW Code of Ethics

Kiara Bonds

Capella University

SWK 5006

4/28/2024

Addressing Discriminatory Issues in Policy through the NASW Code of Ethics

In examining a policy or program that contains discriminatory issues, we can consider the criminal justice system in the United States. One specific issue of discrimination is the over-incarceration of Blacks and Hispanics about Whites within the United States (Stober, 2020). This kind of gross racial disproportion in incarceration rates is a violation of the core value of social justice in the NASW Code of Ethics. Social justice implies that all human beings have to be treated justly and based on equity without considering their color, culture, or economic status. In a real sense, the overrepresentation of people of color in the criminal justice system showcases systemic failures to put principles of social justice and equality into practice. Several factors may be considered as mechanisms leading to this discriminatory issue within the criminal justice system. One such key issue is racial profiling by police officers, who tend to target people of color unequally for suspicion and arrests.

Systemic racism in the justice system may result in harsher penalties for people of color. Disparities in access to effective legal representation may also contribute to African American and Hispanic incarceration rates. These systems sustain the criminal justice system's racial imbalance. Systemic changes are needed to fix discrimination in the criminal justice system and maintain social fairness. Anti-bias training for law enforcement to combat racial profiling, culturally competent judicial practices, and equal legal representation for all citizens, regardless of race, may be among these measures (Hardwick, 2022).To establish a fair and just criminal justice system, legislative reforms that address the root causes of racial disparities in incarceration are needed. Poverty, education inequality, and mental health care shortages are the causes. We can create a more equitable and inclusive society if we confront discrimination and maintain social justice.

Evolution of Affirmative Action Policies in Higher Education

Affirmative action policies in education have changed over time to address alienation, injustice, and prejudice. The policies were initially implemented in the 1960s to address historical inequalities and structural barriers that most people faced. These guidelines have been criticized for promoting bias and weakening the merit-based admissions process. In response to criticism, affirmative action policies have become more refined and targeted. According to Wong et al. (2021), colleges and universities are considering not only test scores and grades but also personal experiences, the ability to overcome obstacles, and diversity contributions. All of these programs aim to eliminate disparities and impediments for underrepresented groups while retaining merit-based admissions.

The changes in implementation of these affirmative action policies follow some of the core values, such as social justice, diversity, and equity. Adaptation and refinement in reaction to criticisms and challenges of these institutions of higher learning are aimed at creating more inclusive and equal learning environments for all students. At the bottom of it all, what the changing face of affirmative action policies constitutes is a recommitment to dealing with issues regarding oppression, alienation, and discrimination within higher education systems and towards the promotion of diversity and equal opportunities for all concerned.

Specific Population Impacted by Criminal Justice Policies

One of the specific populations affected by such policy-based discrimination in criminal justice is the Black community in the United States. Blacks are overly represented in policies like the "war on drugs" and mandatory minimum sentencing, resulting in higher imprisonment rates and harsher sentencing compared to Whites (Exum, 2021). Systemic racism and bias against Black people within the system of criminal justice augment the overrepresentation of Black people in prisons and continue the cycles of oppression and discrimination.

Real-life examples of such racist policies would be disparities in the sentencing of Black and White people for the same crimes committed. There have been claims that Black people get longer prison terms than White people for similar crimes. For instance, in cities like New York, stop-and-frisk practices targeted Blacks and Hispanics to a much greater extent than their White counterparts, leading to higher rates of arrests and incarceration within those communities. Discriminatory criminal justice policies impact directly on the lives and future opportunities of Blacks involved in the system. The regulations thus legitimize racist nature of policies on which they are based, thereby enhancing injustice in society. They fuel poverty, trauma, and disenfranchisement, thus contributing to marginalization and alienation. These policies disproportionately affect black populations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the impact of discrimination against the Black population in the United States by the criminal justice system's policies reminds us of the systemic operation of racism and bias in the criminal justice system. Many factors contribute to the continuous oppression and alienation that people of African descent have to undergo. This covers disparity in the rates of incarceration, disparity in the lengths of sentences, and disparity in the use of enforcement techniques. Using these real-world cases points out the necessity of reform and changes within the criminal justice system in addressing prejudice issues and attaining social justice and equality for all persons. To create a more just and fair society for marginalized communities, some processes of perpetuating these practices must be acknowledged and done away with. We can advocate for reform and hold institutions responsible in the journey toward a criminal justice system based on principles of fairness, equality, and dignity of the individual.

References

Exum, J. J. (2021). Reconstruction Sentencing: Reimagining Drug Sentencing in the Aftermath of the War on Drugs. American Criminal Law Review, 58, 1685. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/amcrimlr58&div=52&id=&page=

Hardwick, L. W. (2022). Justice for All: An Overview of the Supreme Court of Missouri’s Commission on Racial and Ethnic Fairness. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 67, 111. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wajlp67&div=9&id=&page=

Stober, E. (2020). The Race Warfare and the United States Justice System. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Studies, 2(6), 01-14. https://doi.org/10.32996/jhsss.2020.2.6.1

Wong, A. A., Marrone, N. L., Fabiano-Smith, L., Beeson, P. M., Franco, M. A., Subbian, V., & Lozano, G. I. (2021). Engaging Faculty in Shifting Toward Holistic Review: Changing Graduate Admissions Procedures at a Land-Grant, Hispanic-Serving Institution. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(5), 1925–1939. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_ajslp-20-00383