Perspectives on Justice PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay about several justice perspectives in the US...

Description

PERSPECTIVES ON JUSTICE Perspectives on Justice There are six types of perspectives on justice being the crime control perspective, rehabilitation perspective, due process perspective, nonintervention perspective, equal justice perspective, and restorative justice perspective. The three types of perspectives that are categorized as similar are: Equal Justice Perspective which has the capability to fair and equal justice to whoever comes before the law, Restorative Justice Perspective which promotes both a peaceful and just society; also aiming for peacemaking and not punishment, and the Due Process Perspective which provides a fair and equitable treatment/trial to those who are accused of crime. All three of these perspectives are similar because they all in some way support having a fair and peaceful trial without causing uprisings surrounding the cases. The other three types of perspectives that are categorized as different are: Crime Control Perspective which prevents crime through judicious use of criminal sanctions, Rehabilitation Perspective which is a form of expression of anger and frustration due to social inequality, and the Nonintervention Perspective which the ultimate effect of any involvement is harmful and will have bad, long lasting negative consequences due to whatever intervention is designed to punish or treat criminal defendants. These types of perspectives differentiate from the first category because they are all aiming toward a fair and peaceful trial while instead, this second category deals with more of the scenario going bad rather than being able to change into a peaceful trial with no disrespectful conflicts along the way. I personally align with the Due Process perspective. The definition of the Due Process perspective is that it “provides the basic rights of a defendant in criminal proceedings and the

requirements for a fair trial’. I align with this perspective because no matter what the case may be and no matter how serious the charges are or could be, everyone deserves to have a fair trial. Before being tried “innocent until proven guilty” was established, everyone who had criminal charges that needed to be tried in court was “guilty until proven innocent”. I believe that no one should have ever been tried as “guilty until proven innocent” from the start. As an example, during the time of Abraham Lincoln’s assasination and the entire conspiracy surrounding it, there were several trials that were held to get to the bottom of the case. Mary Surratt was convicted of complicity in Abraham Lincoln’s assasination and she was hanged in July of 1865. She claimed she was totally innocent and knew nothing about the plans to kill the president. The jury voted the death penalty but due to her age and gender, a recommendation was changed to life in prison. Andrew Johnson said he was never shown the plea for mercy which changed her punishment again to be hung to death. After further investigation, it was discovered that she was actually innocent while her son, John Surratt was at the main part of the conspiracy. He was tried in 1867 and the prosecution rarely had evidence against him and the case eventually ended because the jury could not reach a verdict. Soon after, the court system had then changed the law to be “innocent until proven guilty”. When truly in reality, his mother had no part in the plan to assassinate President Lincoln and was killed for something she didn’t even do. Her son, John Surratt should have recieved the death penalty because it was proven at his trial that he was apart of conspiracy and the planning to kill President Lincoln. This is a great example of the Due Process perspective because it shows why the laws should have always been “innocent until proven guilty” before making a decision on how to conclude a trial.

I align with the Due Process perspective because after reading and hearing about so many different types of criminal court cases, several of them could have both gone differently or ended differently due to being connected to the Due Process perspective, which is “providing fair and equitable treatment to those accused of a crime”. When you see the terrible crimes committed such as the recent school shootings that were done by young individuals you think to yourself, “these people should automattically recieve the death penalty no matter what the types of charges or senerio could be”. But this isn’t how the process works. Even though someone has committed a horrible crime they still have to go through the trial process to see what charges they have against them and if they are truly guilty for their actions. Socialization is the process by which you acquire your personal identity and how you learn the norms, values, and social skills appropriate to our society. I am categorized under what is known as the “standard socialization”. These are where laws are set around the white, middle class. I don’t really believe that just because I’m under the standard socialization category is actually connected to my choice. I stand by the Due Process perspective simply because I believe it is the only fair way to get a full outcome of a trial and to truly see if someone is guilty or not guilty of the charges against them....