The Case Of The Criminal Justice System - 3336 Words

The point of the paper is to inform the reader that the criminal justice system in the United States is far from perfect because we are convicting innocent men and women for crimes they did not commit. One of these many people are Rubin Carter, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering three people at a bar named, The Lafayette Bar and Grill the morning of June 16, 1966. Carter along with a man named John Artis both ended up being sent to prison, not once but twice for killing of those people that night at the bar. Only after appealing several times for many years, they finally were able to resolve the issue, they were cleared of the charges and Carter was released from prison. By the time they were cleared, Artis was already paroled and†¦show more content†¦Even though the United States does have one of the best criminal justice systems, there are many flaws to it. One of these flaws is that not everyone we are finding guilty in our criminal justice system is not actually g uilty of committing the crime they are being punished for. Every year in the United States, there are over a million of people arrested. According to the FBI, law enforcement made an estimated 12,408,899 arrests in 2011 (2011). Each of these people being arrested are bought in for a number of different reasons, but from those millions of people being arrested, not all of these people are going to proceed have go to trial. Many of these people during arraignment pled guilty so they can get a slap on the wrist or a reduction in their sentence, others are released because there is not enough evidence to hold them any longer. Within that stage, there are people who are innocent that have pled guilty just so they could be release from jail and go back home to their families, but not all are innocent, only a small amount of these people are. Then there are a ton of these people that end up proceeding through the criminal justice system, which pled not guilty at their arraignment, wanted t o proceed to have their case heard by a grand jury and for the most part their cases were indicted by the grand jury. After being indicted, some of these

Ronald Reagan on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day Pointe Du...

Before I get to the analysis portion of this assignment, the speech I have decided to go with is former President Ronald Reagan’s speech on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day that was delivered at Pointe du Hoc, Normandy, France, on June 6, 1984. This is the speech I wanted to use for my analytical paper because I have always been extremely interested in World War II and anything affiliated with it. Also, I actually had two grandfathers that served in the Philippines fighting alongside American soldiers as guerilla fighters against the Japanese invaders during the war. President Reagan was the one who presented the speech but to my slight disappointment, he did not actually prepare it himself. The speech was actually written by Peggy Noonan, the primary speechwriter and special assistant to President Reagan. After reading and watching footage of the speech, I found it to be a great collaboration between the speaker and the writer. President Reagan’s 40th Anniversary of D-Day speech was given exactly forty years after D-Day, the Normandy beach landings that took place on June 6, 1944 in Normandy, France. More specifically, he delivered the speech at Pointe du Hoc, Normandy, France where United States Army Rangers scaled the cliffs to take out German artillery emplacements that were raining shells on Omaha, Utah, Gold, Juno, and Sword beach where other Allied forces were landing. Despite the German artillery not being there once they got to the top, the artillery replaced byShow MoreRelatedFamous Speeches Of The Great Awakening3901 Words   |  16 Pagescontext and the occasion in which President Ronald Reagan delivered his famous â€Å"Boy’s of Pointe du Hoc† speech on June 6th 1984. The occasion of the speech was to commemorate the D-Day invasion that occurred 40 years prior on the beaches of Normandy and those who had risked and lost their lives. In order to effectively understand D-Day, it helps to first look at the events that led to its culmination. To really display an accurate picture of how D-Day culminated, it helps to begin with The Great

Genetic Discrimination Essay Sample free essay sample

Secret familial testing at Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) to register a favoritism jurisprudence suit against the company for potentially utilizing the information obtained in these trial against their employees. The Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) referenced the American Disability Act’s statement that â€Å"it is improper to carry on familial proving with the purpose to know apart in the workplace† Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad claimed that the testing was a manner of finding whether the high incidence of repetitive-stress hurts ( carpal tunnel ) among its employees was work-related. Besides proving for HNPP. company-paid physicians besides were instructed to test for several other medical conditions such as diabetes and alcohol addiction. In 2001 the instance was settled in Federal tribunal in the favour of the EEOC. New Torahs have emerged sing familial testing and the inform ation derived from it. Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ( GINA ) . Wed. . May 21 2008 President Bush signed into jurisprudence the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ( GINA ) that will protect Americans against favoritism based on their familial information when it comes to wellness insurance and employment. The measure had passed the Senate nem con and the House by a ballot of 414 to 1. The long-awaited step. which has been debated in Congress for 13 old ages. it took consequence on November 21. 2009. The jurisprudence forbids favoritism on the footing of familial information when it comes to any facet of employment. including engaging. firing. wage. occupation assignments. publicities. layoffs. preparation. periphery benefits. or any other term or status of employment. to boot under GINA. it is illegal to fire. bump. harass. or otherwise â€Å"retaliate† against an applier or employee for familial intents. The consequences of a familial trial are usually included in a person’s medical records. Therefore when a individual applies for life. disablement. or wellness insurance. the insurance company may inquire to look at these records before doing a determination about coverage. An employer may besides hold the right to look at an employee’s medical records. As a cons equence. familial trial consequences could impact a person’s insurance coverage or employment. Peoples doing determinations about familial testing should be cognizant that when trial consequences are placed in their medical records. The consequences of a familial trial are usually included in a person’s medical records. Although these Torahs appear to supply extended protections. it’s possible they could hold missed certain state of affairss under which favoritism could happen. Not to advert these Torahs do non cover life insurance. A genome is the full Deoxyribonucleic acid in an being. including its cistrons. Genes carry information for doing all the proteins required by all beings. Familial favoritism occurs when people are treated otherwise by their employer or insurance company because they have a cistron mutant that causes or increases the hazard of an familial upset. Peoples who undergo familial testing may be at hazard for familial favoritism. Although I do experience familial testing has its benefits for medical grounds such as upsets that are preventable or treatable from an individual’s personal position. every bit good as for diseases with no preventive steps. Since familial prov ing provides critical information on the possibility of developing certain diseases in the hereafter. people may desire trials ( particularly if there is a household history ) to assist find the opportunities of such diseases developing. Family medical history may be acquired as portion of the enfranchisement procedure for FMLA. However I do non believe familial testing has any benefits within the work environment outside of Genetic information may be acquired through a familial monitoring plan that monitors the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace where the monitoring is required by jurisprudence or. under carefully defined conditions. where the plan is voluntary. Familial information should neer be requested by an employer or possible employer for familial profiling state of affairss outside of utilizing the familial information to supply preventive medical attention. and should entirely be voluntarily. For illustration. if a familial trial revealed that an employee was at hazard for developing diabetes. an employer could mention the employee to an employee aid program that could urge preventive steps that might really diminish the odds of the employee developing diseases such as diabetes. In add-on to If employers were able to place employees with familial traits that make them remarkably susceptible to developing diseases if exposed to workplace toxins or if engaged in specific activities. employers could do occupation assignments that would cut down these employees’ exposure to the suspect toxins or activities the possible benefits of proactive plans are obvious. It is besides possible that insurance companies would dismiss case premiums for employers who implemented these types of plans. Public frights about familial favoritism mean that many persons do non take part in of import biomedical research. Many persons fear that they will lose their wellness insurance if it is proven that they are genetically pre-disposed to a disease. There is presently no statute law that gives comprehensive protection against all signifiers of familial favoritism. Although now that the Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ( GINA ) has been enacted. Since the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ( GINA ) went into consequence in November 2009. it has been of import for employers of 15 or more people to understand and follow with the part of GINA that applies to employers. Therefore the most portion scenarios such as the 1 in the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad instance have been lawfully abated.

Who owns native culture Analysis Essay Example For Students

Who owns native culture? Analysis Essay Culture has been a great part of our diverse world. Culture has helped us understand why people behave in certain ways. Culture is used as a link to understanding many questions of peoples actions. In light of many debates of culture used as political controversy the question, who owns native culture? is brought up to the forefront. In the usual political arena, culture is used as an identity for a political claims. American politics tolerates and encourages differences so this may pose a big problem. Culture can make people separate as if they lived in a different world. Many people forget the interrelatedness and differences of culture. We will write a custom essay on Who owns native culture? Analysis specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Benhabib views social constructionism as the view of our world through our own perspective. A culture is a potential source of power and control. The definition of culture is a combination of many different narratives. A classic example is the control in the colonial situation that consisted of laws to govern people. Colonial authorities help to create an Indian culture. Indian culture is like mosaic pieces. Benhabib defines it as, the view that human groups and cultures are clearly delineated and identifiable entities that coexist, while maintaining firm boundaries, as would pieces of a mosaic. (Benhabib 8) Culture is defined in contrast to yours. We define culture with counter distinction to ourselves. The colonial rule over what Indian culture is an example of this phenomenon. Benhabib and Brown both have similar views to the answer of the question, who owns native culture? They both emphasize the fluidity of culture. They do this by recognizing the individual without dismissing the group. Culture is always changing and has many varieties. They try to reason a dialogue that recognizes individuality and not with artificial categories. Reification, making an abstract concept concrete, is an important aspect to remember. Benhabib and Brown warn us of this reification of culture in the emphasis on the fluidity of culture. They also emphasize that there is no longer a culture in the world that has not contacted with others. It shows us that when we exaggerate differences we dismiss the idea of interrelatedness of culture. Brown states, I wish simply to point out the risks of taking too rigid a view of cultural ownership, especially when technological and social changes are making cultural boundaries ever harder to identify. ( Brown 251-252) Benhabib uses the critiques Universalism, relativism, recognition, and redistribution. These are philosophical grounds to have a deeper appreciation of Brown. Universalism and relativism are tools to make judgments about policy with claims of culture. Universalism is a basic transcending value that applies to everybody. It is very hard to identify and suggest a stark difference between universal values and many different places. The problem with universalism is that it dismisses cultural differences too quickly and lock culture within artificial contact points. Cultural relativism is the idea that if a place is doing it then it is okay. It is essentially opposite of Universalism. Relativism emphasizes the differences between cultures and therefore reduces concern with the individual and focuses solely on the culture. The ideas of Universalism and Relativism can help us understand the constrictiveness of each concept, which in turn can help us understand culture. Redistribution and Recognition can also help us understand culture claims. Redistribution is the idea of moving resources to people who did not receive it. Recognition is giving someone something because of who they are. It doesnt have to be ethnic or religious with the example of the womens rights movement. These two concept can also be inflicting to cultural claims because of the changing and varieties of culture. Benhabib does not give a definitive answer yet emphasizes individuality rather than artificial categories. Benhabib urges us to rather dismiss Universalism and Cultural Relativism because emphasizing differences is unrealistic and undemocratic. There is no reason why you cannot hold (political dialogue) conversation that can overlap and give people who are victimized a chance to tell their story. .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c , .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .postImageUrl , .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c , .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c:hover , .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c:visited , .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c:active { border:0!important; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c:active , .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u5c3c8c5222799b2139f6bcf579cd9a3c:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Extraordinary means of treatme EssayProductiveness is produced when you start sharing notions of trouble and commonality rather than emphasizing differences. It is a careful balancing act of all these elements that can help us understand the complexity of the question, who owns native culture? Benhabib critiques analytical questions to then processing it, with the conclusion that culture is fluid and recognizes this as concrete rather than stigmatize it with undemocratic philosophies. Brown states, My account emphasizes the virtue of striking a balance between the interests of indigenous groups and the requirements of liberal democracy. This often leads to the awkward middle ground that Isaiah Berlin once described as a notoriously exposed, dangerous, and ungrateful position. My centrist stance is inspired by what I found in many of the places I visited; thoughtful people coming together to negotiate workable solutions, however provisional and inelegant. Their success, achieved one at a time, convinced me that grandiose, one-size-fits-all models of heritage protection are likely to hinder rather than encourage improved relations between native peoples and the nation-states in which they find themselves citizens. (Brown 9) Brown doesnt believe that heritage is all bad but that the power of belief is too hard to prove. Brown accepts that heritage exists yet when you make a decision to protect the place you must look at practices. As the example of the Navaho tribe. They did not base their argument on religious beliefs but the evidence of their practice. The question to who owns native culture can be answered in many ways. Brown states, instead of asking who owns native cultures, but How can we promote respectful treatment of native cultures and indigenous forms of self-expression within mass societies? The cases documented here suggest that the quest for dignity in the expressive life of indigenous communities will best be advanced through approaches that affirm the inherently relational nature of the problem. (Brown 10) Brown suggests that it would include, judicious modification of intellectual property law, development of workable policies for the protection of cultural privacy, and greater reliance on the moral resources of civil society. (Brown 10) In conclusion, Brown and Benhabib feel that theyre really no one that owns native culture. It is our common knowledge that culture has been a very porous and variable entity to be reified. People move and travel so much that all culture has been touched by other influences by some way or another. As Brown states in the above paragraph it is the question how can we promote respective treatment of native cultures that has captured another way of looking at the question, who owns native culture? Reference: 1. Benhabib, Seyla. The claims of culture: equality and diversity in the global era. 2002, New Jersey. Princeton University Press. 2. Brown, Michael F. Who Owns Native Culture? 2003, USA. President and Fellows of Harvard College.