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.