Due 11/18
Wahonda7SEE ATTACHED
3 years ago
30
files (1)REPLIESANDFEEDBACK6.docx
REPLIESANDFEEDBACK6.docx
150 word minimum for each paper.. give your feedback(your opinion) on each paper.
SCOTT PAPER#1
Radical Criminology takes many of the components of the modern social justice movement and applies them in the context of our criminal justice system (Schmalleger, 2021). Many of these issues stem from the class warfare ideals espoused by communist philosopher Karl Marx. The general idea is that the system is controlled by the wealthy at the expense of the working class, creating a number of barriers by which the lower class, also known as the proletariat, is held in control by the power of the ruling class, also known as the bourgeois (Lynn, 2018). This relates to the criminal justice system through the formalized levers of power, which the bourgeois utilize to implement laws and regulations to their own benefit at the expense of the proletariat. Through this framework, criminological Marxists claim that the very foundation of our criminal justice system and legal processes are corrupted by the entrenched classism prevalent in American culture, especially as it intersects with race and gender (Belknap, 2015).
The question of whether Marxist ideology holds relevance in today’s American criminal justice environment is an important one. Although I disagree with several of Marx’s conclusions, I do believe that he asked many of the right questions. And I do believe that Marxist ideals play an important role in our current understanding and application of criminal justice. It is not only possible, but perhaps necessary, to critique and confront America’s past of racial and ethnic discrimination, including how it has fundamentally and demographically impacted our criminal culture (Crutchfield, 2022). And I believe this is possible without fully subscribing to all of the communist ideals espoused by Marx. Serving the needs of our disadvantaged and marginalized communities that have been ravaged by poverty, lack of opportunity, and inflated crime rates, is definitely a topic I would consider relevant in our current criminal justice environment. In fact, I believe it is something that may even be necessary for further emphasis if we ever truly hope to solve the issues of crime in certain communities. However, I also believe it is a dual effort, the burden of which falls both on society to recognize how and why these problems were created, and the communities themselves to recognize resources and opportunities for betterment.
MERRIT PAPER#2
Marxist Philosophies
Greetings classmates and welcome to week six of the course. Our studies this week focus on Marxist philosophies, specifically when advocating for change in the pursuit of social justice. We will briefly discuss the concept of radical criminology and the teachings of Karl Marx. We then discuss whether the Marxist perspective has any significance over contemporary American Society (Schmalleger, 2020
).
Marxism is considered a political, economic, and social theory of philosophy that is named after Karl Marx. The philosophy examines the effects of capitalism and its role in labor, productivity, and economic development of humans. The study of Marxism focuses on the constant struggle between the working class population and capitalists. Karl Marx believed that there was a motive behind all social and political activities in order to gain and keep social and economic power (Mepham, 1979
).
The idea behind radical criminology is that capitalist societies will always define criminal activity to suit the mindset of the higher class, which allows them the power to create and enact laws that will constantly control the working class population while repressing threats from the ruling class. The draw back to this overly used theory is that the overall focus will always be on street level crimes, which averts attention away from more severe crimes that are committed by higher-powered societal institutions (Valeria, 2018
).
While Marxism promotes the formation of unions and stands to protect the personal rights of people, it primarily protects those of higher power and social classes. Issues related to repression of freedom, arrogant behavior, and the mis-allocation of resources can result from the wrong individuals being in power. The Marxist theory suggests that poverty and inequality are required for proper functioning. While that may be true to an extent, the society in which we live today is heavily focused on changing the mindset away from the way things used to be (Valeria, 2018
).
DANA PAPER #3
Select one of the Supreme Court cases discussed in the readings and explain how they illustrate the fight for the legal rights of prisoners. Do you agree with the Court's decision in these two cases? Why or why not?
The Supreme Court case of Johnson v. Avery (1969) is a landmark decision that significantly illustrates the fight for the legal rights of prisoners. In this case, the Supreme Court held that inmates have the right to assist each other in preparing legal documents when professional legal assistance is unavailable. This decision underscored the importance of access to the courts for prisoners, a fundamental aspect of their legal rights.
Allen and Simonsen (2018) delve into this subject and examine the impact of Johnson v. Avery on the prison system and the broader legal landscape. They discuss how this ruling recognized the necessity of "jailhouse lawyers" to meet inmates' legal needs, especially in facilities lacking adequate legal assistance resources. The decision reflects a recognition by the Court of the fundamental rights of inmates to access the justice system, a critical component of civil rights within the correctional context.
I agree with the court's decision in this case. Ensuring prisoners have the means to access legal counsel and the courts is fundamental to maintaining justice and upholding the rule of law, which are crucial for a fair and functional society. It is imperative to ensure everyone is held accountable for their actions and that the law is applied equally to all individuals, regardless of their status or societal position. This decision acknowledges the unique challenges faced by incarcerated individuals in exercising their legal rights and provides a practical solution in environments where professional legal services are not readily available.
STEVEN PAPER #4
"Ex Parte Hull" was a significant United States Supreme Court case in 1941. The ruling stated that prison authorities could not interfere with a prisoner's right to petition the court for a writ of habeas corpus (Carlson, 2014). To understand the significance of "Ex Parte Hull," it is crucial to understand what a writ of habeas corpus is. In the U.S. legal system, a writ of habeas corpus is a judicial order that commands a prison official to bring a prisoner before the court to determine whether the prisoner's detention is lawful (Harvard Law Review, 2022). This fundamental legal right checks the government's power to detain individuals. In the "Ex Parte Hull case," the Supreme Court ruled that prison authorities could not censor or otherwise interfere with a prisoner's attempt to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Carlson, 2014). The prisoner in this case, Hull, had his petition rejected by the prison authorities because it did not comply with its rules. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of Hull's rights.
This case is vital in illustrating the fight for the legal rights of prisoners for several reasons, the first being that the ruling emphasized that prisoners do not lose their fundamental legal rights upon incarceration (Harvard Law Review, 2022). They retain the right to access the courts to challenge the legality of their confinement. Additionally, the ruling ensured that prisoners could directly access the judicial system without interference from prison authorities (Harvard Law Review, 2022). This is critical for maintaining a fair and just legal system. Also, the decision serves as a check on the arbitrary power of prison officials, reinforcing the principle that every individual, regardless of their status, is subject to the rule of law (Harvard Law Review, 2022). The benefits of the "Ex Parte Hull" decision are significant. It ensures that prisoners are not denied their legal rights and can challenge any unlawful detention (Carlson, 2014). This benefits prisoners and the broader society, as it upholds the principles of fairness, justice, and the rule of law.
Prison and jail officials need to be familiar with contemporary corrections law for several key reasons, the first being that knowing and understanding the law helps officials ensure that they are operating within the bounds of the law (Driver & Kaufman, 2021). This includes recognizing and respecting the rights of inmates, such as the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to due process, and the right to access the courts. Also, violations of inmates' rights can lead to lawsuits, which can be costly and damaging to the reputation of the correctional institution. To avoid such lawsuits, officials must know the law and ensure they and their subordinates comply. Additionally, understanding contemporary corrections law helps officials define and protect the constitutional rights of those incarcerated, including rights to freedom of religion, access to healthcare, and protection from discrimination (Driver & Kaufman, 2021). Although there are several other important reasons for correctional staff to know and understand contemporary corrections law, overall familiarity with contemporary corrections law is essential for prison and jail officials to ensure the legal and ethical treatment of inmates, effective operation of the institution, and avoidance of legal issues that can arise from non-compliance.
JONES PAPER #5
The three ethical theories covered in this week’s chapters are Stoicism, Hedonism, and ethical egoism. Stoicism is the philosophy of being indifferent to life and living with the understanding that one does not have any control over what is already destined to happen and therefore, a person should not be affected by anything good or bad that happens in their life. Hedonism advocates the pursuit of pleasure in life and contends that all people, in some way or another, act in a way that brings pleasure to themselves. Lastly, ethical egoism contends that a person should only be concerned with what benefits them and the pursuit of their own self-interest (Banks, 2020).
When using these theories and relating them to criminal justice, all three have different perspectives that can give a unique view of the criminal justice system. Stoicism is the concept of being neutral in life and realizing that outcomes are already written and therefore one should not be affected by whatever happens. In criminal justice, this can be associated with being fair, impartial, and making rational decisions based on facts and not emotions, regardless of the crime committed. Stoic individuals do not prioritize practical reason in life because of the idea that nothing really matters in the big scheme of life (Reydams-Schils, 2010). Hedonism is about pleasure and happiness and can be related to criminal justice to rehabilitate and reform those in our society who chose a path of crime. When it comes to ethical egoism, there is the concept of “ourselves vs. everyone else” which could be society’s need to protect ourselves from the criminal-minded individuals in our world. These are just some of the ways that these ethical theories can be related to the criminal justice system.
PAPER #6 ARIEL B
Within this course, key ethical theories have been discussed and displayed through our own opinions. However, three very important philosophies have yet to be introduced. Those have now been identified as stoicism, hedonism, and ethical egoism. While they all represent different viewpoints, they have impacted the criminal justice system at some point throughout history. For instance, hedonism is a theory that helps explain the actions of criminal behavior. According to Roberson and Mire (2010), “hedonism is a concept that describes the process of maximizing one’s pleasure while minimizing one’s pain. Therefore, pleasure is the ultimate virtue, and one should only engage in actions that result in pleasure” (p. 59). With this explanation, it comes with ease to comprehend why individuals commit crimes. More specifically, a drug addict commits to buying and using drugs to further their pleasure. Ethical egoism also assists with explaining behavior that most deem unacceptable. According to Banks (2020) this theory explains that “egoists think only of themselves, and if they think about others at all, it is merely as a means to their own ends” (p. 357). The best example of this would be a police officer making unethical decisions that benefit only himself. A better explanation of this process would be the officer accepting compensation for providing confidential information to a private attorney to assist in his defense of his clients. Finally, stoicism differs completely from the former theory. Banks (2020) explains “the stoics assumed that good or evil depends on the self” (p. 355). Simply put, it is only up to the individual to ensure that their life is good and to do that by acting morally. Again, a police officer can be used to display this ideology. If the officer is following the police ethical code, they are doing so because they choose good rather than evil.
image1.gif
REPLIESANDFEEDBACK6.docx
150 word minimum for each paper.. give your feedback(your opinion) on each paper.
SCOTT PAPER#1
Radical Criminology takes many of the components of the modern social justice movement and applies them in the context of our criminal justice system (Schmalleger, 2021). Many of these issues stem from the class warfare ideals espoused by communist philosopher Karl Marx. The general idea is that the system is controlled by the wealthy at the expense of the working class, creating a number of barriers by which the lower class, also known as the proletariat, is held in control by the power of the ruling class, also known as the bourgeois (Lynn, 2018). This relates to the criminal justice system through the formalized levers of power, which the bourgeois utilize to implement laws and regulations to their own benefit at the expense of the proletariat. Through this framework, criminological Marxists claim that the very foundation of our criminal justice system and legal processes are corrupted by the entrenched classism prevalent in American culture, especially as it intersects with race and gender (Belknap, 2015).
The question of whether Marxist ideology holds relevance in today’s American criminal justice environment is an important one. Although I disagree with several of Marx’s conclusions, I do believe that he asked many of the right questions. And I do believe that Marxist ideals play an important role in our current understanding and application of criminal justice. It is not only possible, but perhaps necessary, to critique and confront America’s past of racial and ethnic discrimination, including how it has fundamentally and demographically impacted our criminal culture (Crutchfield, 2022). And I believe this is possible without fully subscribing to all of the communist ideals espoused by Marx. Serving the needs of our disadvantaged and marginalized communities that have been ravaged by poverty, lack of opportunity, and inflated crime rates, is definitely a topic I would consider relevant in our current criminal justice environment. In fact, I believe it is something that may even be necessary for further emphasis if we ever truly hope to solve the issues of crime in certain communities. However, I also believe it is a dual effort, the burden of which falls both on society to recognize how and why these problems were created, and the communities themselves to recognize resources and opportunities for betterment.
MERRIT PAPER#2
Marxist Philosophies
Greetings classmates and welcome to week six of the course. Our studies this week focus on Marxist philosophies, specifically when advocating for change in the pursuit of social justice. We will briefly discuss the concept of radical criminology and the teachings of Karl Marx. We then discuss whether the Marxist perspective has any significance over contemporary American Society (Schmalleger, 2020
).
Marxism is considered a political, economic, and social theory of philosophy that is named after Karl Marx. The philosophy examines the effects of capitalism and its role in labor, productivity, and economic development of humans. The study of Marxism focuses on the constant struggle between the working class population and capitalists. Karl Marx believed that there was a motive behind all social and political activities in order to gain and keep social and economic power (Mepham, 1979
).
The idea behind radical criminology is that capitalist societies will always define criminal activity to suit the mindset of the higher class, which allows them the power to create and enact laws that will constantly control the working class population while repressing threats from the ruling class. The draw back to this overly used theory is that the overall focus will always be on street level crimes, which averts attention away from more severe crimes that are committed by higher-powered societal institutions (Valeria, 2018
).
While Marxism promotes the formation of unions and stands to protect the personal rights of people, it primarily protects those of higher power and social classes. Issues related to repression of freedom, arrogant behavior, and the mis-allocation of resources can result from the wrong individuals being in power. The Marxist theory suggests that poverty and inequality are required for proper functioning. While that may be true to an extent, the society in which we live today is heavily focused on changing the mindset away from the way things used to be (Valeria, 2018
).
DANA PAPER #3
Select one of the Supreme Court cases discussed in the readings and explain how they illustrate the fight for the legal rights of prisoners. Do you agree with the Court's decision in these two cases? Why or why not?
The Supreme Court case of Johnson v. Avery (1969) is a landmark decision that significantly illustrates the fight for the legal rights of prisoners. In this case, the Supreme Court held that inmates have the right to assist each other in preparing legal documents when professional legal assistance is unavailable. This decision underscored the importance of access to the courts for prisoners, a fundamental aspect of their legal rights.
Allen and Simonsen (2018) delve into this subject and examine the impact of Johnson v. Avery on the prison system and the broader legal landscape. They discuss how this ruling recognized the necessity of "jailhouse lawyers" to meet inmates' legal needs, especially in facilities lacking adequate legal assistance resources. The decision reflects a recognition by the Court of the fundamental rights of inmates to access the justice system, a critical component of civil rights within the correctional context.
I agree with the court's decision in this case. Ensuring prisoners have the means to access legal counsel and the courts is fundamental to maintaining justice and upholding the rule of law, which are crucial for a fair and functional society. It is imperative to ensure everyone is held accountable for their actions and that the law is applied equally to all individuals, regardless of their status or societal position. This decision acknowledges the unique challenges faced by incarcerated individuals in exercising their legal rights and provides a practical solution in environments where professional legal services are not readily available.
STEVEN PAPER #4
"Ex Parte Hull" was a significant United States Supreme Court case in 1941. The ruling stated that prison authorities could not interfere with a prisoner's right to petition the court for a writ of habeas corpus (Carlson, 2014). To understand the significance of "Ex Parte Hull," it is crucial to understand what a writ of habeas corpus is. In the U.S. legal system, a writ of habeas corpus is a judicial order that commands a prison official to bring a prisoner before the court to determine whether the prisoner's detention is lawful (Harvard Law Review, 2022). This fundamental legal right checks the government's power to detain individuals. In the "Ex Parte Hull case," the Supreme Court ruled that prison authorities could not censor or otherwise interfere with a prisoner's attempt to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Carlson, 2014). The prisoner in this case, Hull, had his petition rejected by the prison authorities because it did not comply with its rules. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of Hull's rights.
This case is vital in illustrating the fight for the legal rights of prisoners for several reasons, the first being that the ruling emphasized that prisoners do not lose their fundamental legal rights upon incarceration (Harvard Law Review, 2022). They retain the right to access the courts to challenge the legality of their confinement. Additionally, the ruling ensured that prisoners could directly access the judicial system without interference from prison authorities (Harvard Law Review, 2022). This is critical for maintaining a fair and just legal system. Also, the decision serves as a check on the arbitrary power of prison officials, reinforcing the principle that every individual, regardless of their status, is subject to the rule of law (Harvard Law Review, 2022). The benefits of the "Ex Parte Hull" decision are significant. It ensures that prisoners are not denied their legal rights and can challenge any unlawful detention (Carlson, 2014). This benefits prisoners and the broader society, as it upholds the principles of fairness, justice, and the rule of law.
Prison and jail officials need to be familiar with contemporary corrections law for several key reasons, the first being that knowing and understanding the law helps officials ensure that they are operating within the bounds of the law (Driver & Kaufman, 2021). This includes recognizing and respecting the rights of inmates, such as the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to due process, and the right to access the courts. Also, violations of inmates' rights can lead to lawsuits, which can be costly and damaging to the reputation of the correctional institution. To avoid such lawsuits, officials must know the law and ensure they and their subordinates comply. Additionally, understanding contemporary corrections law helps officials define and protect the constitutional rights of those incarcerated, including rights to freedom of religion, access to healthcare, and protection from discrimination (Driver & Kaufman, 2021). Although there are several other important reasons for correctional staff to know and understand contemporary corrections law, overall familiarity with contemporary corrections law is essential for prison and jail officials to ensure the legal and ethical treatment of inmates, effective operation of the institution, and avoidance of legal issues that can arise from non-compliance.
JONES PAPER #5
The three ethical theories covered in this week’s chapters are Stoicism, Hedonism, and ethical egoism. Stoicism is the philosophy of being indifferent to life and living with the understanding that one does not have any control over what is already destined to happen and therefore, a person should not be affected by anything good or bad that happens in their life. Hedonism advocates the pursuit of pleasure in life and contends that all people, in some way or another, act in a way that brings pleasure to themselves. Lastly, ethical egoism contends that a person should only be concerned with what benefits them and the pursuit of their own self-interest (Banks, 2020).
When using these theories and relating them to criminal justice, all three have different perspectives that can give a unique view of the criminal justice system. Stoicism is the concept of being neutral in life and realizing that outcomes are already written and therefore one should not be affected by whatever happens. In criminal justice, this can be associated with being fair, impartial, and making rational decisions based on facts and not emotions, regardless of the crime committed. Stoic individuals do not prioritize practical reason in life because of the idea that nothing really matters in the big scheme of life (Reydams-Schils, 2010). Hedonism is about pleasure and happiness and can be related to criminal justice to rehabilitate and reform those in our society who chose a path of crime. When it comes to ethical egoism, there is the concept of “ourselves vs. everyone else” which could be society’s need to protect ourselves from the criminal-minded individuals in our world. These are just some of the ways that these ethical theories can be related to the criminal justice system.
PAPER #6 ARIEL B
Within this course, key ethical theories have been discussed and displayed through our own opinions. However, three very important philosophies have yet to be introduced. Those have now been identified as stoicism, hedonism, and ethical egoism. While they all represent different viewpoints, they have impacted the criminal justice system at some point throughout history. For instance, hedonism is a theory that helps explain the actions of criminal behavior. According to Roberson and Mire (2010), “hedonism is a concept that describes the process of maximizing one’s pleasure while minimizing one’s pain. Therefore, pleasure is the ultimate virtue, and one should only engage in actions that result in pleasure” (p. 59). With this explanation, it comes with ease to comprehend why individuals commit crimes. More specifically, a drug addict commits to buying and using drugs to further their pleasure. Ethical egoism also assists with explaining behavior that most deem unacceptable. According to Banks (2020) this theory explains that “egoists think only of themselves, and if they think about others at all, it is merely as a means to their own ends” (p. 357). The best example of this would be a police officer making unethical decisions that benefit only himself. A better explanation of this process would be the officer accepting compensation for providing confidential information to a private attorney to assist in his defense of his clients. Finally, stoicism differs completely from the former theory. Banks (2020) explains “the stoics assumed that good or evil depends on the self” (p. 355). Simply put, it is only up to the individual to ensure that their life is good and to do that by acting morally. Again, a police officer can be used to display this ideology. If the officer is following the police ethical code, they are doing so because they choose good rather than evil.
