5. Self Analysis - Too Close to Animals, Too Closed to Reality.

At the beginning, I felt that the link between animal abuse and human abuse really brought in a new perspective to look at justice in our society. However, as I tried to develop my argument, it became apparent that this link was not at all straightforward and easy. It required a great extent of detailed case comparisons as well as a very open mind to the ugliness of reality.

Throughout my research, I found difficulty in trying to find recent sources that laid out the punishment that were given to animal abusers as well as murderers. There was no apparent source that explored the discrepancy between the punishment given for these two crimes, although they are rather similar in nature. Hence, without many accurate examples, I found it hard to strengthen my argument. Even with a handful of relevant case studies, I still feel that there are many other factors that can affect the severity of punishment given. Just a case in point, could the media and apparent public humiliation have lighten the sentence of Michael Vic's case? Such details require more time and resources, which I did not exactly have in abundance. And my worry is that this limitation may have limited my own judgments and affected the credibility of my comparisons.

However, putting this problems aside, I feel like I have really benefited from exploring this issue. Having a very strong attachment to animals and nature, I find myself needing to be constantly reminded not to let emotions form the bulk of my argument. For example, it is so easy to simply argue that animal abusers should receive the same punishments as murderers, but when you really sit down and explore the issue, you realize that it is a very slippery argument - especially when it comes down to killing animals for food and game (culture).

Two interesting finds that was not included in my previous posts were the ideas of Louis P. Pojman, Jeffrey Reiman, and Otto Kiefer. Pojman and Reiman pointed out that even though Americans seem to be unsure about issues regarding the death penalty, it is because they are pulled between the noble desire to do justice and the equally worthy instinct of compassion. In the same way, why so many of us may be hesitant in insisting severe punishments for animal abusers could be because we are living in the 'real world' where issues are complex and often entangled in moral conflict. We are torn by questions like whether it go against human compassion to take a boy's life simply for committing one mischievous act that harmed his pet? Although disheartened at the injustice placed on animals till today, Otto Kiefer's words bring comfort as she moralized that: “Those orgies of hate and cruelty [by ancient Romans] were bound to produce the gospel of love… the whole of Roman sadism is a necessary step towards a new, a truly noble {Christian} state of humanity”. In other words, the cruelty of the past and the present is necessary to produce a better world for our children! Similarly, todays overwhelming leniency towards animal abusers eventually would spur the desire for positive change. For the beauty of human society is that we are morally guided to learn from the tragedies and violence of our past.

Finally, this process has allowed me to practice the technique of 'lensing' which is something like looking at an issue through another totally unrelated one. In this case, it was to look at the punishment for murder through the issue of animal abuse. This really created a whole interesting topic for me to explore, not just for this project, but also for my personal intellectual growth in the future. All in all, I had a great experience through this exercise, partly due to the informality and argumentative nature of blogging. Thanks to everyone for the positive learning experience!

Interview

Interview with Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. United States District Court

"I've provided informal answers to the questions as best I could, given the time constraints, and the limitations on what I can say as a judge. These are my personal thoughts off the top of my head and are not given in any official capacity." -Robert J Conrad,Jr.

1. Do you think the plea bargaining process is essential in keeping our
judicial system afloat? Why or why not?

Response: Trials are time consuming, so are appeals. It would be difficult if not impossible to try every case that was charged. Plea bargaining has been recognized as necessary and proper by the Supreme Court and is provided for by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It recognizes the resource issues of the system including the limitations on availability of courtrooms, shortage of prosecutors, demands on the jury system etc.

In short the system of plea bargaining involves the prosecution agreeing to pursue fewer charges or a reduced sentence or other concessions to the defendant in exchange for his agreement to plead guilty and not go to trial. Often other concessions are involved to such as the waiver of appeal rights. Frequently, defendants agree to cooperate in the prosecution of others in the hope of an even greater reduction in sentence.

3. What do you believe are the roles of the prosecutor in the plea
bargaining process?

Response: The role of a prosecutor is to disclose exculpatory evidence and other evidence required by the rules such as a statement of the defendant in the possession of the government. It is to be honest. The prosecutor is not required to plea bargain but if he chooses to do so he must do it with integrity toward the defendant, his attorney and the court. An excellent description of the duties of a federal prosecutor is found in an opinion by Justice Sutherland (link attached) many years ago in the case of United States v. Williams.

4. Most defense attorneys will argue that most of the power, if not all, lies within the prosecutor. Why or why not should they feel this way?

Response: The prosecutor has substantial power in determining what charges to bring and what offers to make. Congress has passed certain laws, particularly in the drug trafficking and illegal possession/use of firearms areas, that provide for statutory mandatory minimums. They can lead to harsh results with no discretion for the Court. This fuels the notion held by some that prosecutorial power is enhanced.

On the other hand, the defendant has the power to exercise his constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his peers, to have counsel, to call and cross examine witnesses, to exercise his right not to testify and to force the government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the unanimous satisfaction of all 12 jurors.

5. In general, what injustices, if any, come about with the plea
bargaining process?

Response: Potential injustices can occur as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective representation, bad choices by defendants, perjurious testimony etc.

Injustices can occur when mandatory minimum sentences and other sentences involving little discretion by the court are applied without regard to the unique circumstances of each defendant and each case.

6. Approximately 95% of criminal cases end with plea bargaining, one of the main reasons for this is because of efficiency. Do you feel as if defendants feel pressure to go along with plea bargaining because of
the long wait of a fair trial?

Response: A defendant has a constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. He/she should not plead guilty solely to avoid a long wait but should, through his lawyer, assert his/her right to a speedy trial if that is indeed what he/she desires.

7. How would you change our system to ensure that each defendant could receive a fair trial within a more timely manner?

Response: Take a look at the attached plea form that judges in our district use to guide their inquiry into making sure a defendant enters a voluntary and knowing plea of guilty. This is essential to the fairness and constitutionality of plea bargaining.

In addition, lawyers for the government and the defendant must be men and women of high character, intelligence and diligent in their work product. Prosecutors must be scrupulously honest and comply with the rules of discovery and other rules governing their conduct. Defense lawyers must zealously represent their clients in an effective manner. Judges must provide defendants with a fair trial or hearing, treat them with dignity, and make sure that their constitutional and statutory rights are protected. These pursuits in addition to the procedural safeguards that are statutorily and constitutionally provided are imperative if our criminal justice system is to perform as it should.

The 180

Alright, I think it is time for me to be honest with the readers of my blog with how I even came about writing about the injustice of plea bargaining. I could NOT think of any topic to write about for the blogs and I ran into a friend at the library, where I was stressing out because as usual I had waited till the last minute (yes, one hour before English) to narrow my topic down. Then he told me about how his sister was doing a project on the morality of plea bargaining at her high school. I nodded my head, agreeing with every word he was saying, while secretly thinking to myself “What the heck is plea bargaining?” I will admit I knew a little bit about it, but all I knew was that it helped out the defendant with sentencing as long as he/she gave more information about the case. So in other words, I knew the minimal of what I should. So why share this with you? Why am I admitting to the fact that I knew practically NOTHING about this process…to prove to you what I HAVE learned.

Throughout this entire blogging session I have been accusing the United States Justice System of injustice. Boy was I wrong. I had been reading source after source bashing the legal system for the incorrect justice that was being served because of checks and balances. “The prosecutor holds all the power!” was the main theme of most of the articles. But when writing my analysis post I knew I had to write an unbiased one…what a TASK! So I called up a family friend…last minute of course… to see if he could lead me in the right direction of possible sources for pro-plea bargaining. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. was the man I called. Why is he important? He has served as a defense attorney, a U.S. district attorney, and now he is a federal judge. What angle had he not hit, besides being a defendant of course! I went into the conversation bold and full of biased and in leaving I felt extremely enlightened. All I can say is WHAT AN ATTORNEY! He listened to every point I had to say about the anti-views of plea bargaining and in the end he opened my eyes to the one thing I was failing to recognize, the plea of guilt. I would love to write word for word what he said to me about the plea bargaining system…so I did…after the phone conversation I sent him an interview via e-mail, which he so graciously responded to. I found it so intriguing I had to put it on my blog and of course use him as a source!!

So okay, what did I learn through all of this? I found blogging to be just like our justice system. It was a long and tedious process, it might take days to get a point across, just like it might take months to get your fair and just trial, but at the end of the day if you were willing to wait for the RIGHT and JUST verdict you would receive it. The plea bargaining process is not meant to fool anyone within the system, only if we try and fool it do we get the unjust punishment. Just as the Constitution has made amendments over time, the prosecutors use their discretion to alter sentencing in hopes of getting more leads, in hopes of benefiting the society. We are the voters; we are the ones who decide who these people of justice are to make the judgment calls. If we do not do our research, we will be fooling ourselves into getting an unjust system. In short, if I had not done my research, I would be living with an unjust decision.

4. Analysis - Not Fully Violent: The Moral Rift Between Animal and Human

Coexistence is a violent misfortune, at least for those animals in urban areas today. Labeled as what we call pets, many animals are cuddled, fed and loved. However, many of these urban animals are hidden, and subjected to the cruelness of human domination as displayed Castro's - a man who kicked a puppy to death simply because he could not stand its yelping. Many of these crimes inflict so much suffering to the animal that they are often too gruesome to fathom, producing crime scenes comparable to that of a homicide. Yet, it is interesting to note how America's justice system treats cases of animal torture and death differently from the murdering of human beings.

From a simply research, I have looked at numerous sentences of violence and have noticed that abusive killings of animals always tend to 'deserve' a lighter punishment then manslaughter. For example, Jessie O'Neal and Rashawn Gill both received a 5 year probation and $2, 500 fine for involvement in dog fighting entertainment. An extremely lenient punishment when compared to Faisal Razzaq and his brother Hassan Razzaq who were charged for 11 years and 20 years respectively for manslaughter. Again, three boys who stole their neighbors dog, repeatedly flung it out of a second story window, broke its legs, hung, beat it like a pinata, decapitated it and finally showing no sign of remorse, could face a charge of only 3 years imprisonment. While a man with a "psychopathic personality disorder" was jailed for life after killing a stranger by stabbing her in the neck with a broken bottle. Comparing these examples, it seems disturbing to notice how the punishments for similarly violent acts, depend so greatly on who is the victim!

As mentioned in my earlier postings, such widely accepted discrepancy in punishments is most likely due to historical and social developments in moral reasoning. Historical and social factors have normalized the view that violence inflicted upon animals is not comparable to the violence inflicted upon another human. For instance, the understanding that human civilization originated from tribes of hunters and gatherers attempt to justify hunting for sport as an important component of culture, arguing that the killing of animals for fun is not a crime because that was how we survived in the past. Biblical writings and Christian writers have all endorsed the idea that man is made superior to other planetary creatures, unintentionally justifying the abuse of animals for entertainment and sport. In the past, Romans had long grown accustomed to regarding creatures of lowly status... without reason or rights, as legitimate objects of violence. In recent history, the Nazi army justified the massacre of 5, 933, 900 Jews because they classified them as not fully human. At this point, I would like to argue that no matter how normal the view - that we are different from nature - is, and how ingrained it is in American society and her judicial law, they should not at all be immune to change. By looking at history, we will see that they are founded upon ever changing moral reasonings. Our past moral philosophies have led to the normalization of anthropocentric views today, ultimately making us believe that there should be relatively lighter punishment for the crime of animal abuse as compared to manslaughter.

Another reason why I think punishments differ depending on whether the victim is an animal or a human, is likely due to the different level of deterrence desired by the courts. Maintaining the socially constructed divide between animal and human species is a natural way of preserving one's species from self-destruction. In other words, providing a heavier punishment for killing a human is a means of deterring the killing of one's own species, thus preserving human society.

Yet, no matter how one argues for such a variation in the two mentioned crimes, one cannot deny that both crimes share very similar levels of violence and motives - such as the desire to attain pleasure from domination of weaker subjects. A blogger writes about Michael Vic's crime: “The methods of killing these poor dogs seem to have been selected to inflict the most pain and distress possible.” As explained in my implications post, Dale Bartlett mentioned that, “[a]nimal cruelty rarely occurs in a vacuum”, and hence should not be looked upon lightly. If such mentality is not clammed down in animal abuse crimes, the violence graduate hypothesis predicts that animal abusers are expected to work their way up from harming animals to harming people.

I strongly believe that one should be judged on the nature of his crime (the means) and not by the outcome or to whom (the ends) he/she harms. The human brain is a complex and ever-learning entity, and if it's harmful appetites are not guided using significant punishments, it will continue searching for more intense acts to satisfy its growing urge. Furthermore, if our punishments reflect what our society values, then aren't we sending out the ambiguous signals? Because by observing trends found in the punishments given, while one can easily deduce that humans are valued more then animals, one can also make the twisted assumption that violence is more acceptable when inflicted upon animals then when inflicted upon humans. Similar to the issue of abortion, if we do not pin down and enforce a clear definition to violence, we will never be able to rid it from society.

Just like how our moral judgments have changed in the past, our decisions on the severity of punishments sentenced on animal abusers today can change too. And they should, if we want to be the noble stewards of animals we envision ourselves to be, as well as to ensure safer human societies for our children to grow up in! Let us first begin with criticizing our judicial laws, that possess the potential to be so effective, but today sadly fail to be so due to fundamental contradictions and leniency.

Growing through Blogging: Self Analysis

I think writing this blog has really shed light on a new form of writing and communication, and has taught me to make my argumentative writing more logic based. Writing for a blog and having people comment on my ideas, as I formed them is something new and required additional planning from my part. I liked the comments because usually I'm unsure if I'm going in the right direction but Yeo!!! really helped me out. As I continued to study and form opinions about racial disparities in the criminal justice system, I began to understand that the court system like most things has room for error. This supports the name of our blog "grayjustice."I think I have broadened my views, and I have opened my mind to the other side of this debate and am now pro death penalty. Before undergoing this blog, I was very close-minded and had given up on this issue and felt that it had been reduced to dealing more with political issues than human rights.
In the case of racism in the criminal justice system, I am no longer sure whether black people are treated unfairly, and I don't know if this is still an issue when dealing with the death penalty. I took a side, and tried to stick with it, but it became harder and harder. I have found that DNA evidence and sophisticated gathering of evidence reduces most of the margin of error. Now that our society embraces this technology when deciding if someone is guilty of murder and should die, I think that its fair. I have found that most people sentenced to death aren't so innocent and that we shouldn't protect them, and could have never come to this conclusion without over researching for this topic on the death penalty. Though I discarded most of these sites, I read through all of them and then formed my opinion, with both sides layed out in front of me. This is what I feel education is all about, having substance behind what you believe, but always keeping an open mind. I think some of the exploratory articles I found towards the end of my journey hint that the world is changing, and maybe I will too. But not without strong credible sources and a good understanding of the issues thanks to my experience blogging with my fellow classmates. THANK YOU GUYS!

A Change For the Better

While going through this blog, I think I have really been exposed to a new form of writing and communication, all while being exposed to researching and focusing on a new topic. As I continued to study and form opinions about socioeconomic status in relation to criminal sentencing, I began to understand more what our court system is truly like. I think I have broadened my views, and I have opened my mind to more possibilities for reform. Before undergoing this project, I hadn’t thought about this issue very much, and I felt kind of uninformed and close minded, but now I am able to think more for myself and understand the issues which are prevalent today.
In the case of socioeconomic status versus criminal sentencing, I still think there is a great bias taking place. While many people argue that there is little evidence to prove this, results don’t always come from statistics. Just by looking at the court room and the results based on certain social factors, it’s easy to see how much of an issue this is.
I feel relieved to complete this area of focus, ending my topic of discussion on socioeconomic factors in criminal sentencing, but at the same time, I feel priviledged to have this experience. I was able to branch out of my normal routine, expose an issue which I learned much about, and interact with other people sharing or opposing my ideas. While this issue still isn't resolved, I am glad to have at least shed some light on this problem of today's court system, and learn more about it myself. It has begun my effort to start a life of my own thoughts and ideas, inspiring me to take a stand for what I believe in. This blog may be over for me today, but the striving toward justice will still prevail.

A Journey Through Blogging: Analysis

The nature of the different parts of racism towards blacks in America is complicated as is the relationship between the parts.Even the term "black" people is relatively new and some might feel that African-American is more appropriate, which I now agree with the latter term. The term African-American is more "politically correct." No matter what you refer to these people as, the point is that they are sentenced to the death penally at statistically disproportional rate.
For inspiration I looked to quotes from the late Martin Luther King Jr. His injustice quote, was the one I found that stood most relevant. Martin Luther King Jr. saw these problems first hand during the civil rights movement, a time when racial tension was at its highest. Content towards African-Americans then, and throughout history, is the root of this problem.
I then had to address the distinction between racism being a social issue and not a biological issue. A social issue is created by society. This social injustice was addressed by one of my colleagues, kelly , in her blog.
The McCleskey v. Kemp case provides substantial evidence to support my case that African-Americans are treated unfairly. The "raw numbers" were collected by Professor Baldus for his article entitled "Equal Justice and the Death Penalty." "The Baldus Study" indicate that defendants charged with killing white persons received the death penalty in 11% of the cases, but defendants charged with killing blacks received the death penalty in only 1% of the cases. Baldus also noted that "the raw numbers also indicate a reverse racial disparity according to the race of the defendant: 4% of the black defendants received the death penalty, as opposed to 7% of the white defendants." These statistics provided support for my position.
After reading about these studies I looked into any measures that would resolve these issues, in order to see this issue with more unbiasedness, and maybe see this issue in a different light. DNA testing is believed by many to eliminate any claims to racism in death penalty cases. DNA evidence is very accurate and sophisticated crime scene analysis provide clear information. This seemed like a viable answer, but does DNA evidence protect against racial bias any better?
Then I realized, the real unanswered what rights are we protecting in the first place? What specific constituional rights were these courts in volation of? I saw that it was the 14th amendment that entitled all people to have "equal protection under the law."
I stumbled on the "Racial Justice Act" and before the McCeskey v Kemp case and after it. This act was proposed as the "Racial Justice Act of 1990" before, but not until a similar case came up in Kentucky did the Georgia ruling in the McCeskey V Kemp case change. This act supported my view, and felt that it protected
against racial bias.
This isn't to say that racial bias is the only problem with the death penalty. There is the differences in the support of the death penalty by different races, or Why White People Support the Death Penalty?do. Imran points out that there are other elements, such as economic and social status, that are involved. He also notes the injustices that we watched in the documentary film Paradise Lost: the Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills. This proves that theres all kinds of problems with the death penalty, and that racial issues are just a specific issue.Without socioeconomic problems, what many feel was the West Memphis 3 mistrial, could not have happened.

The overall process in researching for this blog involved learning about different analysis on racial disparities in legal cases, and then putting the parts together to form a thesis..I feel that race in criminal justice system should be further studied because there should be more information made available on this topic. Some interesting research is being made that suggests that one day the death penalty will be abolished.

The TRUTH Behind the Plea

Throughout United States history plea bargaining has been a controversial issue. Plea bargaining is used to settle 95% of criminal cases in the U.S. Court System. Though seen by many as a means of efficiency, others see it as an imbalance of checks and balances within our system. Specifically, it is sometimes viewed as an injustice on the part of the prosecutor. When both members of the court system and the defendant uphold their responsibility toward the honesty of the case, the plea bargaining process can be a highly successful and expedient one.

Some believe that the high percent of cases being dealt with by plea bargains is due to the time it takes to go to trial, the costs, harsh verdicts, etc. The plea bargaining system is used within our judicial system to create efficiency and has been recognized as an essential component of the administrative justice. When asked if plea bargaining was essential to our justice system, Chief Judge, Robert J. Conrad, Jr., stated, “Trials are time consuming, so are appeals. It would be difficult if not imporrible to try every case that was charged.” There has been some speculation on whether or not some judges attempt to force defense attorneys toward the acceptance of a plea bargain, threatening longer sentences if the case comes to trial. There have also been cases where a defendant pleaded guilty because of the lengthy wait before the trial, example Robert H. The purpose of the plea bargaining arrangement is to filter out those who readily admit their guilt, thus skipping the processing of reaching a verdict and moving directly to sentencing. Plea bargains are obviously efficient. Are they always handled fairly, though?

The prosecutor is seen as a representative of the law and must do his part to see that justice is served. However, some argue that prosecutors upset the system of checks and balances. John Langbien, a professor of law and legal history at Yale Law School, describes the prosecutor in a plea bargain as, “a single officer, the prosecutor, now in charge of investigating bringing formal charges, evaluating that evidence, (deciding) whether or not in his or her judgment you’re guilty or not and then basically sentencing you.” When seen in this light one might conclude that most of the power remains in the prosecutor’s hands. The only “check” might appear to be the defendant’s consent. However, when looking at the whole process one might beg to differ. Conrad states, “the prosecutor has substantial power in determining what charges to bring and what offers to make. “ He continues, “the defendant has the power to exercise his constitutional right to trial by a jury of his peers, to have counsel, to call and cross examine witnesses, to exercise his right not to testify, and to force the government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the unanimous satisfaction of all 12 jurors."

Plea bargaining is intended to bring the prosecution and the defense together to negotiate a mutally satisfying resolution of the case. The court and the defendant must approve of any settlements. The Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that, “Prosecutors will now have to specifically spell our what is expected of both parties in a cooperation agreement.” Also in the case of the United States vs. Williams, Justice Sutherland gave his opinion on the roles of the federal prosecutor very thoroughly. Although this process might be widely agreed upon, is the defendant getting the punishment he or she deserves? Speculation exists of what is happening behind closed doors. . John Kavanaugh views the plea bargaining process as one that “promises gentle treatment”, and to refuse would mean that the defendant would be placed in an exhausted court system. This speculation may be fueled by the Department of Justice’s recent actions to rid internet access to plea agreements in criminal cases. The Department’s claim is that this offers protection for the witnesses. With the Department of Justice trying to close its doors even further on the public, it leaves room for wonderment. Some believe that there should be a public representative present when the plea agreement is hammered out, and that the public should be allowed to see how the justice system is handling the law breakers of our society. WWhy, some would argue, does there need to be a public representative if the prosecutor is supposed to represent the U.S. courts? For some cases like, Michael J. Kooper , Joe Mortorano and Michael J. Fortier one may s pleas bargaining seems to have worked in their favor. Their punishment may be seen as light for “ratting” out their accomplices. One might question what lesson was learned by such action. However, for cases like Adam Kidan, leads others to confess, allowing the process of justice to speed toward conclusion, freeing up our court rooms to focus on trials less straight forward, such as in the case of the falsely accused..

The United States Justice System has paved the way to a fair and just system. Although one might view the plea bargaining process with the checks and balances misplaced, when looking at the overall workings of the courts, they seem present. When looking at a plea agreement form, one is able to see the knowledge the defendant has when giving his/her plea of guilt. We, the people of the United States, have elected the officials in the justice system to place judgment. By doing so, we have placed our trust within the justice systems rules, which are clearly defined as just. It is shown that only through the power of the people's honesty, will the process of plea bargaining be successful and in return be an efficient and expedient tool for our justice department.

So, what's the deal?

In today’s society, the issue of social justice seems to weigh heavy on the minds of young scholars and social activists. It seems that in the 21st century, America would have most of its problems solved by now, but unfortunately, there are many areas of our country which are in need of great reform. One of these areas is our court system. Citizens can often times be oblivious to the truth of what takes place in America’s courts, where justice is supposed to prevail. However, this is not always the case. One particular problem within the criminal justice system which hinders accurate endowment of justice is the influence of socioeconomic status in criminal sentencing. Certain factors may blind the jury, or affect the representation of the defendants, providing for unequal treatment and sentencing. One particular case which clearly expresses this issue occurred in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993, when three teenage boys were wrongfully convicted of murder.
One area of prejudice prevalent in our society today is the issue of socioeconomic status influencing criminal sentencing, including factors such as educational status, employment, family characteristics, income, poverty, social class, and others. This issue can be seen in our court system through two main aspects; the representation given to defendants, and the views held by the jury. I want to point out the injustices of separating criminal defendants by socioeconomic factors, resulting in unfair sentencing.
If a defendant is unable to afford a lawyer, the government provides them with representation. While most people see this as beneficial, it can often times result in the opposite effect. In most cases, a person who cannot afford a lawyer can be classified has having a low income, and possibly a low educational status and social class. Based on this, the defendant is automatically classified. The representation provided to these individuals is not of the same quality as hired lawyers, and in turn, produce less desired results. They work less hard, care less for their defendant, and don’t put the effort in required to prove innocence; they simply meet their quota and call it a day. This unequal treatment of defendants based on their social status results in numerous wrongly convicted individuals.
At the same time, a jury can view a defendant based on their socioeconomic status, giving them a prejudiced and impartial mindset, ultimately resulting in an unfair sentence. In some cases, the defendant may act a certain way based on low educational status of family characteristics which provide the jury with inaccurate views of the defendant, also resulting in false ideas and a wrongfully imposed sentence. This could easily have been true in the case of the “West Memphis Three”, as the jury was filled with inaccurate ideas based on low education and unusual behavior of the defendants.
While socioeconomic status can greatly affect the resulting sentence of a defendant, some critics believe there is only weak correlation between these two factors. This presents a problem in the issue as people seem to be blinded by the presence of prejudice in today’s society. While certain people try to cover up the issue, it will only continue to get worse. Just recently, certain racial issues have started to come about like they have in the past. The major case in the news right now, the case of the Jena Six, deals with a new rise of racial prejudice. Along with that, there have been certain references to an item which represents racial intimidation. In the New York Metropolitan area, there have been at least seven incidents in which nooses have been draped around towns, referencing racial hate.
This rise in prejudice in our society is something which needs to be addressed and taken care of before anything gets worse. Thankfully, after following the case of the West Memphis Three, there has been a turn for the better. This case sums up everything I have been arguing into one example. These three teenage boys, convicted of committing the crime solely based on their gothic appearance, low social status, poor income, and a biased jury, are the victims of the injustice set forth by our criminal justice system. They were found guilty, justified by poor evidence and witnesses, but due to recent breakthroughs in the case, the truth may now have a chance to be revealed. After years of fighting for justice, the defendants have finally been granted a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
While some cases like this are finally beginning to receive justice, other issues are on the rise. Whether old or new, the issue of socioeconomic status in criminal sentencing raises awareness of the injustices which continue to occur today.

3. Implications - Patterns of Distress

Ok, so humans are egoistic and therefore view animal abuse as less wrong then the abuse and murder of human beings. But what does this mean for society? You may be thinking that animals have been treated as lesser beings for a long time and nothing really devastating has happened. Well, if you are harboring this thought, recent psychological research might get you thinking. As mentioned by Dale Bartlett, “[a]nimal cruelty rarely occurs in a vacuum”, and violence to any creature should be a signal of violent tendencies towards human beings too.

Again highlighting the case of Rome, appreciation of animal violence as recreation and spectacle very easily slipped into the cold blooded massacre of early Christians. As history have shown, the satisfaction derived from watching violence inflicted on animals can also be conveniently also provided by watching the torture of human beings.

As researched by Arluke et al (1999), there is some kind of link between animal abuse in a household and the chances of abuse of women and children. Ascione (1998) found that "71% of battered women in a shelter who owned a pet reported that their assaultive male partners had threatened to harm or had actually harmed the family pet" (965). Acts like hunting stirs up worry about its effects on society because, as claimed by Joy Williams, “Hunters kill for play, for entertainment... They kill for the thrill of it, to make an animal ‘theirs.'... The animal becomes the property of the hunter by its death." In the same way, if a human being harbors this mentality, it is not hard to see how such thoughts and desires can lead him/her to inflict the same cruelty to other living creatures, including humans.

According to the social learning theory, "violence, like any other form of behavior, is learned from very early in childhood" (260). Although the link between animal abuse and abuse to humans have not been scientifically proven, research in the field of child psychology and sociology is already suggesting that society creates individuals, implying that violent tendencies can be bred, sustained and justified.

Are we going to sit back and allow our societies to be breeding grounds of violent tendencies? Are we going to say "it is not that bad" to commit gruesome animal torture and abuse, by refusing to explore deeper into our judicial laws?towards animal abuse? Are we going to continue justifying violence based only on a historically and socially constructed foundation of reasoning? Are we going to keep silent until a love one of ours is brutally murdered by a fined animal abuser? I think these are questions we all need to ask ourself, and stop waiting for the blatant link between violence to animals and humans to be proven. Do let me know whether you share my same sentiments about what is at stake here.

Implications of Racial Divides: Racial issues in the Criminal justice System-Implications post

Equality for minorities, specifically black people facing the death penalty will remain a major issue until something is resolved. I feel that measures need to be put in place to protect minorities 14th Amendment rights. Specifically black people's rights to have "equal protection of the laws." One of the projects that covers this issue directly is the Kentucky Racial Act. In the McCleskey v. Kemp case the Supreme Court admitted to the existence of statistical differences between races in capital sentencing. Why is this important? For years, people debated over the "Racial Justice Act of 1990" and whether it should be approved. Ultimately, it ended up being written out of a bill because it the topic was controversial. Huge progress was made later with the "Kentucky Racial Act", however the Supreme Court still declined to recognize these cases of statistical evidence as evidence of discrimination. I think that this is a clear example of civil rights given by the 14th amendment not being honored. What does that say about our American society as a whole?

American's progressive values are put on trial and our role as leaders of the free world are questioned. Other countries have stopped using the death penalty altogether, though we continue to use the death penalty, and now theres evidence that we use it unjustly? Patrick Henry once said "give me liberty or give me death," which meant that he was ready to die for liberty. Have we taken the idea of liberty for granted so much that when we see a violation of it, we do not object? How progressive can American society be if we are still barbaric enough to execute people using the death penalty and then do so unjustly? Measures such as the Racial Justice Act and DNA testing are steps in the right direction but what happens if we never truly see equality on this issue? No, the world will not stop turning, but we will never reach our potential as a society and that will be the greatest failure of all.

Fixing the Plea

When preparing for this blog, I was having a hard time coming up with something to intrigue y’all and to be honest, persuade y’all into seeing that the plea bargains need to be fixed, there needs to be more checks and balances. Well, I just so happen to come across this article that I found mighty interesting. Have you ever had a friend who has withheld information from you about some incident because they didn’t want to hurt your feelings? From experience I would have to say they did this because they knew that in some way you would be disappointed. WELL it just so happens that the Department of Justice is trying to be “that” friend. The Department of Justice has asked the federal judiciary to eliminate public Internet access to plea agreements in criminal case files and all related docket notations. Okay so what does that mean right? They are trying to take the easy access away from the public…what are you trying to hide? Why would the Department of Justice be trying to do this? They claim it is for protecting witnesses and so to eliminate retaliation, intimidation and harassment. But don’t the witnesses already fear those things when the case is handled inside the court room? My fear is that the prosecutors are trying to make it so we the people will not become disappointed with the outcome of the way they are handling sentencing these criminals. With approximately 90% of our criminal court cases being held outside of the court room, it only seems right to have the information of these cases available to the people not only through the courthouse, but also through the internet. Albert Alschuler , a professor of law and criminology at the University of Chicago, believes that the plea bargains keeps the truth from coming out, making it so the defense does not get to give their side of the story. He sees one way in fixing the system of plea bargaining is to “simplify our trial procedures, and thereby make trials more available to defendants who want them.” Making the trial procedures more available to the defendants would alleviate some of the pressure from the innocent in taking plea bargains because of the time they would have to spend in jail before they were able to be tried. Case in point is Robert H. (unidentified man) , who after serving six months in jail was told that if he pleaded guilty the prosecutor would say his sentence was the six months of jail time he already served or he would have to wait at least a year until his trial. Robert took the plea bargain. It was not until later did the police find that they had mistaken him for someone else and he should have never been arrested in the first place. What a scary thought!! Was he poorly represented?! Why plead guilty if you are not?! Are these not the reasons why we SHOULD have access to these files?! All the more reasons for the American public to be educated!!

Another look into the plea bargains faults is through the sentencing of the so called “guilty”. Norm Pattis believes that there should be a public advocate in on the process of plea bargaining. Pattis voices that the when the state [Connecticut] constitution was amended, allowing the victim to be heard at all critical stages of the hearing, the prosecutors have changed their ways, instead of fighting for society, they are fighting for the victim. Pattis says, “If we are going to let victims muck up the proceedings and hold prosecutors, and now judges, hostage, then I say appoint a public advocate.” This is only one example of the influence the prosecutor might have when dealing with a plea bargain. The point of these cases being held outside of the court room is to speed up our judicial process. But why are we trying to sprint through a marathon? Our court system is being judged by the people as having flaws, but most importantly flaws in an area that is taking care of 90% of our criminal cases. With the case loads being overwhelmed outside of the court rooms, would it hurt to try and simplify our trial process or simply adding a public advocate? Justice is supposed to be blind, but it seems that our justice system currently has on blinders.

Splitting America

So what? What if this inequality against social classes were to continue in our court system? Wouldn’t it be okay? After all, it has continued for decades. The answer is no. If a change does not take place, things will only continue in this direction, which is not towards a state of reform. In the case of socioeconomic status determining criminal sentencing, the implications of the future are very serious, including prejudiced actions and separations in our society. If America begins to realize the social injustice taking place in our court room, as it continues, people are going to become more violent and more prejudice. On the one hand, people often like to rebel against things they disagree with, and in cases such as these, there are many chances for this to occur. As trials progress, onlookers like to wait outside the courtroom with raging comments and actions enforcing their viewpoint. Although these riots do not always get out of hand, we should strive to fix the problem before there is a chance of danger. Rebellions and strikes are things which can get very dangerous very fast, and if people feel drawn to oppose our court system in this way, the result could be devastating. There are many groups joining together which aim to increase awareness of this issue. After the case of the West Memphis Three, the group Arkansa Working to Achieve Revolution united together to fight the case. While this group focuses on peaceful resolutions, others might take it to the extreme. I think we need to avoid any conflict such as these whenever possible, and providing equal justice for all social classes is one way appease the public.
Along with this injustice in our court rooms comes a rise in prejudice. As people begin to realize what’s going on, they will truly see how prejudice still occurs in today’s society. One would hope that this realization might spark a positive reform, but if the opposite occurs, we could end up with a newly realized prejudiced society. What are people to think when they see the court room separating by social class; isn’t it okay for everybody to judge based on prejudices? Personally, I would hate to see America become an even more separated, prejudiced place to live. With growing reform in our court system, we can aim to fight this ominous future.

2. Theory - Thought For Humans By Humans.

As explained in my previous post, the issue that I am exploring is regarding the huge rift between the punishments for the murder of human being and that of pets. I am very aware how many would argue that human beings are different from animals, justifying this stand by comparing intelligence and biblical quotes from genesis. Statements written by influential philosophers, like Saint Augustine (A.D. 354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), argue that animals have no capacity for reason and immortality. Therefore, since we are different, killing a fellow human being cannot be compared to that of an animal. However, if we recognize the anthropocentric nature of the above mentioned justifications and trace their historical development, we would eventually come to realize that why we think so, is very much the construction of how, for centuries, humanity has distinguished itself from nature. Throughout history, humans have continuously justified our actions and morals with philosophical thought that teach us to believe that the abuse and killing of a human being is more 'punishable' then the abuse and murder of an animal.

Our judgments are often socially constructed because they vary across space and time. For example, Cock fighting is an acceptable sport in Southeast Asia but is look down upon by Western societies. In ancient Rome, societies enjoyed the violence and gore of animal tournaments because animals were seen by virtually all Romans as a sub-human part of nature. However, much of today's societies are disgusted by such forms of entertainment. During the Jewish Holocaust, Jews were seen as 3/5 human and hence justified the cruel treatment and murder of almost 6 million Jews. In other words, our treatments towards animals change over time. As done in the past, by identifying animals as lesser beings, judgment passed on their abusers are often less severe. Then, why should our views towards animals and their value remain stagnant today, if almost every other aspect of modern society has seen some form of change?

Therefore, in sum, why I think our society’s judicial sentences for animal abusers are relatively lighter than those for a human murderer, is probably due to (1) how human societies have developed a philosophical hierarchy that places human beings above animals; and (2) that by doing so, justify cruelty and abuse of animals. Such anthropocentric ideologies have become so normalized and ingrained in society, that we become numbed to the weight of violence and cruelty behind some of these animal abuse cases. With such thinking present in judges and jury and law makers, it is hard to set equal punishment for both animal and human abusive killers. My fear is that without a change to our judgment towards animal abuse, how can we possibly justify that we are the morally superior species we claim to be? Therein lies a fundamental contradiction!

Racial issues in the Criminal justice System-Theory Post

Is the concept of “blind justice” always served in America? Is the determination of innocence or guilty made without bias or prejudice? I would like to believe that our criminal justice system treats people objectively and that the supreme court motto “Equal Justice Under Law” is more than words, but I am convinced that there needs to be more information available about some of the problems in the criminal justice system. I feel a specific issue that should be put into light is that black people are treated unfairly in all types of cases, but more specifically in serious cases that deal with murder and the death penalty.
There are two sides to this issue, there are those that feel that DNA testing solves the problems of the past. And then there are those that feel that an act, a “Racial Justice Act” should be in place. I agree that an act to further protect people of different races should be in place. Finally, I feel that a lack of information, and racial tension have lead to this issue becoming contentious in the first place. These problems date back to the civil rights movement, and continued through desegregation and the reconstruction period to where we are today.

It's Simple, Read the Constitution!

Why are we arguing something within our legal system that is LEGAL? There has been an ongoing debate over whether or not the prosecutor holds too much power within our judicial branch when dealing with plea bargains. Why so heated though? I think it’s because checks and balances are fundamental to our judicial system, “By distributing the essential business of government among three separate but interdependent branches, the Constitutional Framers ensured that the principal powers of the government, legislative, executive and judicial, were not concentrated in the hands of any single branch." The Founding Fathers found it essential and valuable that the decisions of this government were not based on one person’s opinion. Plea bargaining, according to Justice William Erickson, have always been a part of our criminal justice system. But it was not until the seventies when the Supreme Court sanctioned plea bargaining. It made sense to do so, their case loads were huge and jails were overflowing. Nothing much has changed there. However, their necessity brought scrutiny and questions of fairness. Approximately 90% of criminal cases are happening outside the court room. Even though these plea bargains happen outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to make certain that these agreements are a reflection of the judicial branch and an official court ruling. To insure balance, the Supreme Court ruled that, Prosecutors will now have to specifically spell out exactly what is expected of both parties in a “cooperation agreement.” However, according to Angela J. Davis, American University law professor, the prosecutors are, “the most powerful officials in the criminal justice system.” A plea bargain is a negotiation based on conflict resolution rather than fact-finding. In judge must find truth within the plea. However, the judge’s decision results from a verbal presentation given by the prosecutor. "What replaces jury trials as the check on the executive branch is not judiciary scrutiny of evidence, but defendant’s consent." It seems that we’ve lost some of the balance here, but it could easily be regained. It is a reality that plea bargaining is what is helping our court system stay afloat, however just because a defendant gives up his/her right to a fair trial, does not mean that they are giving up their rights to receiving a just punishment. I propose that in order to fix this imbalance, smaller juries might be put in place, or a neutral party put in charge of the whole plea bargain process. This would take the might from the arm of the prosecuting attorney and place it back in the hands of the people.

Reform from Socioeconomic Injustice

With ever changing and continuously improving aspects of society, we would hope some of the focus could be geared toward improving our criminal justice system. Until we reach “equal justice for all” there are many reforms which can continue to be achieved. Many people look back on history and think those problems are behind us, but the truth is, most issues are still prevalent in some sort of fashion, even in today’s society. The issue of prejudice and social classes can still be seen in many areas, but the court system is one area which needs to be cleared of this injustice, for everyone’s protection. Looking back on history, it’s easy to speculate why this issue first came to be. Perhaps socioeconomic status became an issue in a time when white, upper-class men dominated jury deliberations, presumably due to their higher status outside of the jury room. As times changed and people fought for equality, this prejudiced idea never fully left the court room. There is no time better than the present to start aiming for change. My theory on how to reform this aspect of our court system is to focus on the equality of the jury and the defendant’s representation. One key to eliminating prejudices against socioeconomic status is to eliminate prejudices within the jury. While this is obviously not completely attainable, it can be aimed for with an impartial jury. In order to eliminate this problem in our court system, I propose more rigid standards for juries, striving to incorporate equal numbers of genders, races, and ages, to the best of our ability. A second suggestion for reform is to monitor state administered representation. By requiring certain criteria for lawyers, there may be less room for slacking and more effort to work. Perhaps better pay or more incentives may also invoke hard work and accuracy. These reforms, while seeming abrupt and hard to achieve, can lead to change over time, aiming to eventually eliminate the injustices received due to one’s socioeconomic status.

Plea Bargaining Alleviates Courtroom Load but Adds Pressure to Society's Conscience

Plea bargaining is a process whereby the prosecutor and defense attorney negotiate a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case. The court and the defendant must approve of any settlements. Why is this term so important that I just spent two lines defining it? Because with plea bargains, which became clearly authorized in the late 1970s by the U.S. Supreme Court, the courts are able to settle a majority of criminal cases outside of the court rooms, making case loads much less. However these cases being settled by plea bargains are seen by many to be lacking checks and balances. John Langbien, a professor of law and legal history at Yale views the prosecutor as having all the power in the case saying, “he is the investigative officer, the prosecutorial officer, the determinative officer and sentencing officer.” If the power lies in one person’s hands then is justice truly being served? In the case of Joe Martorano, one may beg to differ. Also, are sentences being handed out that are harsher then needed? Sometimes prosecutors overcharge grossly so they can wring heavier plea bargains out of defendants. These questions posed are a scary thought when looking at the statistics with what is dealt in and outside of the courtroom and the amount of power the prosecutor holds.

1. Introduction - How Much Justice Is Justice For Abused Animals

Since the beginning of humanity, animals have always played a part in great human civilizations. Whether for transport, agriculture, companionship or biomedical research, animals shape civilization and are often succumbed to the consequences of humanity's ever changing moral attitudes. With pressure from organizations, like the Louisiana SPCA, America's justice system and society have laid down rules that help govern and guide our interaction with animals. However, there still exist many gray areas of debate in regards to how animal abusers should be punished.

After reading about the cruelty that humans have inflicted upon dogs (in the case of Michael Vick), I could not help compare the the severity of punishments given to human murderers, to those given to animal abusers. In many cases of animal abuse that lead to the death, I find that the amount and kind of violence present is very similar to those inflicted by serial rapists and killers. There have even been cases whereby humans actually rape animals, torture them and then kill them slowly. Can we be satisfied with only giving fines for animal abusers, while many homicide criminals receive punishments like the death sentence? If the violence is very much the same, then why shouldn't the punishment for them be too?

Much academic thought about the role and rights of animals in society have been given, but no agreed conclusion has yet been derived. Opinions that range from those of Walter E. Howard (who supports the stand that animals should be used because it is justified by the ambiguous "laws of nature") to the fervent objections of Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger (1994), hint to great ambiguity and inconsistencies in our justice system regarding animal abuse cases. As American societies struggle toward more rights for women, homosexuals, the disabled and even the psychologically disadvantaged murderers, shouldn't we begin to think more about the rights that animals should rightfully posses? Do let me know what you think about this issue...

Socioeconomic Status in Criminal Sentencing

In today’s criminal justice system, while society expects authority, accuracy and professionalism, there are many aspects of justice not being carried out. The court system in America still has many flaws, despite its ongoing reform and improvement. One of the problems within the criminal justice system which is in need of discussion and amendment is the sentencing of criminal defendants in relation to their socioeconomic status. Poor defendants who are not able to pay for legal representation are often provided with unwilling or incompetent lawyers by the state, proving to be an injustice based on wealth. Recently in Alabama, it was concluded that “13 innocent people had almost been executed, in some cases because of dismal defenses mounted by incompetent, poorly paid lawyers”. Other times the problem may not lie within the lawyer, but in the jury which is deciding the conviction. In a study done by students of the University of Albany’s School of Criminal Justice, it was revealed that “defendant attributes affect punishment decisions and perceptions of guilt…negative perceptions of defendant attributes (e.g., low socioeconomic status) can bias juror decisions. Defendants may be evaluated not on the evidence presented, but on whether or not the defendant possesses negatively perceived attributes”. While some individuals try to refute this idea by claiming a weak relationship between socioeconomic status and criminal sentencing, there is clearly no argument in favor of this proposition. I am focused on raising awareness for this unjustice, aiming to spark a change for reform.
One particular issue which represents the injustice given to people based on socioeconomic status is the case of the "West Memphis Three" which occurred in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993. I will be focusing on this issue as a whole, while explaining the issues represented in this case.

Justice for Some?: Racial issues in the Criminal justice System-General Intro Post

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Though times have changed and people are seen as more open minded in today's society, one has to wonder if Martin Luther King Jr. would feel that there are still racial problems within the criminal justice system today. I am convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. (and any other person interested in equality) would find that there needs to be more information, specifically when dealing with high stake's court cases involving black people and the death penalty. Although there have been some writings about this issue, I feel that there needs to be more. Especially writings that are easily accessible and digestible by the common citizen, so as to bring about an increase awareness of this issue. I feel that not only is it a matter of moral justice, but for many black people the quality of life is at stake. I hope that this blog will make people more socially conscious, because I feel that racism is a social problem and we can make the United States truly a country of liberation if we gain a better perspective of some of the issues.