Since the show is based on reality and real police officers it has more of a stance on showing what police officers do and how they actually go about catching bad guys. While the show isn’t entirely accurate or reliable it does give some scene for what the job is like. The TV show does some false ideas that people tend to fall pray too. Idea such that African Americans are more likely to be arrested than white Americans and that all the people arrested end up charged with some kind of crime which isn’t the case. Since the goal of the show is to provide an idea for what cops do, one would think that the depiction of who is arrested and what goes on is accurate to at least some degree.
Racial profiling also is unethical and can raise racial tensions, it is unethical because it targets specific groups, while this may help narrow down a suspect pool, it also can target people who have committed no crime at all. Racial profiling can raise racial tensions in areas where racial profiling is most prevalent by law enforcement. Animosities tend to run high which results in those most likely to be profiled against won’t cooperate with law enforcement when necessary even if they have not committed any
The inquiry focused on the case being an issue of racism within the Justice System due to an unconventional fact of systemic racism, which is a society structured a certain way that then causes the system to treat minorities different than they treat the majority. There were many different points through Donald Marshall Jr.’s journey with the Supreme Court that led the inquiry to view the conviction was the cause of racism and simply not just a wrongful conviction, main reason being that there was no substantial evidence that could have placed Seale’s death in Marshall’s hands. Also that Donald Marshall Jr. was a Mi’kmaq Native man who was “worth” less in the community than the majority race (white). The main reason that the Inquiry was
Authorities often pre-judge others by their race and/or appearance, without first having any actual evidence that makes their suspicion true. A report from 2011, showed that Hispanics as well as African Americans are more likely to be stopped and searched by policemen. Although they are less likely to have illegal possessions compared to white drivers, who are twice as likely to possess illegal contraband. (Natarajan)This causes police officers to accuse people and put them in a position that they shouldn't be in,
Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as the “guardians” of the United States Constitution thought that reasoning is flawed. Afterall, actions do speak louder than words and although these Jacksonian “Democrats” had sometimes maintained their intentions, there were also multiple instances when they actually contradicted these original objectives. All things considered, Jacksonian Democrats were not the “guardians” of the Constitution but rather the epitome of an utmost failure to uphold their beliefs. These reasons include but are not limited to the support of (1) the development of a “herrenvolk democracy”, a system where minorities were disenfranchised, (2) the veto of rechartering the National bank—leading to disastrous consequences (3), and the lack of political freedom through media censorship. The darker unseen side of Jacksonian Democracy was its pro-south and pro-slavery bias, showing favoritism towards southern
DuBois also wanted it to be recognized that high unemployment among blacks was not because they were lazy it was because whites did not want to employ them. (PP. 241,242) Slide 6 Most contemporary sociologists agree with Weber’s view of ethnicity Most contemporary sociologists also favor DuBois’ position The reason why most contemporary sociologists will disregard Weber’s view of race is because most contemporary sociologists think we may even have a subjective perception of biological similarity. (P. 242) Slide 7 Historically race has mattered more to people than ethnicity did Ethnic groups face discrimination as well but they do not not experience it to the degree that race does Racial categories are basically given to people while ethnic groups are usually chosen by people for themselves (although it wasn’t always this way) (P. 242) Slide 8 The textbook mentions a lot that many different sociologists find that they see race and ethnicity overlap in many places which makes the differences between the two so hard to
An example of a symbolic threat would be like not having the same values and beliefs. According to Stephan et al. based on the first study, “Neither the symbolic threat nor the realistic threat by themselves caused more negative attitudes than the control condition, but then realistic threats and symbolic threats were combined they did lead to more negative attitudes” (5-6). Most racial and ethnic groups do not have the same cultural values and beliefs. A good example that projects a clear image of both realistic and symbolic threats combined would the current immigration issue in the U.S. President Trump has persuaded enough people that undocumented immigrants are a threat for our socioeconomic standing.
Many may question the idea that a law is unjust if it is inflicted on a mass population who had no part in enacting and devising the law. In the United States, citizens would consider that predicament as a violation of democracy. However, many minorities, particular black American were inflicted by laws that were passed without a fair consensus due to simulations that limited their rights as American citizens. As a result, many black Americans risk their lives fighting for justice for the black community. Although it is one’s moral obligation to abide by the laws for the sake of humanity and harmony amongst the nation, it is unconstitutional to not hold all accountable to the same standards of this nation’s constitution.
"While I do believe being tough on crime is a good thing in general, it's the role of the judge to determine it." Mandatory minimum sentences often tie a judge's hands, robbing them of their right to tailor sentences to a specific situation. I suppose tough-on-crime laws “worked" if success is only measured by the increase of prisoner populations. However, one of the unbelievable little details of this new tough-on-crime stance is how differently the federal government views crack cocaine and powder cocaine. I am thankfully not an expert on cocaine or its use, but a cursory Google search tells me that crack cocaine is just powder cocaine mixed with baking soda.
One of them even had a research in it of a mock trial that showed the bias of white jurors against black defendants. What ever one sources lacked the other had plenty of. For example the policy report missed things that had to do with the Supreme Court like the “stop and frisk” decision of Terry v. Ohio, this is talked about in the law review though with several pieces of data about the usage of it by the NYPD. The law review lacked more modern information focusing more on different Supreme Court cases, the other two sources in the other hand looked at what things are like now. The peer review lacked information on things like unequal prison rates instead focusing a lot on the death penalty, still the fact that it had a legit experiment helped prove my point a lot.
One concern is that BWP leads to over incarceration, which Kelling and Bratton respond to this by admitting that, yes, it does; however, the crimes people are being imprisoned for are far less serious than those that are being prevented by BWP and their sentences are thus much shorter. But, the main concern is that SQF, and therefore BWP is inadmissibly discriminatory towards minorities. Once again, Kelling and Bratton give ground by not defending the abhorrent results of the 2011 SQF’s, which resulted in over 700,000 stops and only a 6% success rate. They instead talk about how much their methods have improved with far fewer stops and a higher success rate. This may seem like an odd way to address the claim of discrimination, but the point is that they now are making much more calculated decisions when stopping people, and not just frisking minorities at random.
This argument, although not the most peaceful, is undoubtedly the most fair way of going about things, assuming of course there are no outside factors that would make the results biased. Gandhi once stated that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Clearly, our current judicial system cannot handle capital punishment, as it is too racially biased. It’s for the best that we end this senseless targeting of minorities before it’s too late and must endure Gandhi’s prediction. On the bright side, if we do all go blind, at least capital punishment trials may experience less racially-charged
The fact that bond deals are an efficient cog in a systematically unfair system that specifically targets to oppress and jail certain communities is not some newly found phenomenon. That is not to say that the case of Kalief Browder is insignificant due to the fact that his case is one of many. His case of unjust imprisonment is important in the manner that the media 's coverage of it brought widely undiscussed issues to a broader public audience. But I digress, when I say “certain communities” let me be clear that I mean the communities built up of black, latinx, and other people of color. These communities are those who are at a disadvantage due to not only the fact that they face prejudices, but also the fact that, statistically, they face
The officer was forced to react.. The assailant should have just given up, but he didn’t. Even though most people think that the penal system is not racist some people, like congresswoman Maxine Waters, say that “the color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment (“Is the Criminal Justice System Racist”). Even at a 2008 debate ”Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences ... for the same crime” (“Is the Criminal Justice System
A study by the California Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts found that the justice system gives little attention or resources to investigating crimes against minorities and that minority defendants receive harsh treatment compared to white defendants in similar circumstances. The study also found that black-on-black crime or Latino-on-Latino crime is not taken as seriously as crimes against whites. Judges seem to believe that violence is more "acceptable" to black women because they are viewed as coming from violent communities. Minorities were judged by white, middle-class values in family law matters, and were the victims of racial and cultural stereotypes, which affects the courts '