“Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” is a book that discusses the theory of justice and the diverse ways in which it is perceived by different people in the society. The author, Michael Sandel, tries to force the reader to look into the circumstances that happen in real life and allows them to make the decisions on the right thing to do.
Sandel pushes his readers into tracking their personal moral obligations by laying a series of challenges based on everyday situations, which help them make the best resolutions on the right actions to take. In this essay, the first five chapters of the book are reviewed based on the main concepts.
Chapter review
In Chapter 1, titled “doing the right thing”, three cases are presented. Case one concern the laws prohibiting gauging of prices. Precisely, it refers to the price changes that came into effect subsequent to the Florida’s Hurricane Charley. As clarified by Sandel, the arguments in support to and in contrast to price-gauging laws are based on three concepts: well-being, liberty and virtue.
He then discusses about who is eligible for the “Purple Heart”. In determining this, people need to know precisely which qualities are necessary to deserve this honor. The final case is regarding the latest bailout that came after the financial crisis.
Specifically, he discusses about the feelings of different people towards the bonuses awarded to the executives of the companies involved. Even though some felt that the bonuses were justified, most individuals thought it was unfair primarily because they compensated failure rather than success.
The author describes three conceptions of justice that aids in understanding how decisions are made and he discusses them all through the book. Utilitarianism, also described as capitalization on welfare, is the first conception. This is followed by another conception regarding liberty and personal rights. The last conception discusses the idea that justice is associated with virtue and a decent life in general.
Before recounting the various concepts of justice, Sandel also discusses what are described as the moral dilemmas. These can be clarified by applying ethics in the reasoning process, which directs every individual in different ways dependent on their characters and the manner in which they deliberate and justify their decisions. In this case, clashes may result from partial reasoning or contradictory moral obligations.
Chapter two, labeled “The Greatest Happiness Principle or Utilitarianism”, deliberates over the idea of utilitarianism by relating two various attitudes. First is the idea of Jeremy Bentham. The idea concentrates on getting maximum pleasure and lessening pain so as to make the most out of the overall utility. In this notion, the rights of a person may be disregarded, like in the incident of torture.
The idea of John Stuart Mill presents the second concept of utilitarianism. According to Mill, people are at liberty in doing whatever they need to as long as it does not cause any damage to others. In addition, he is argues that there are superior and inferior pleasures (Sandel, 2010).
Chapter three, “Do We Own Ourselves or Libertarianism”, argues that there should be minimal supervision and every individual should have the freedom of choosing the right action to take in different situations. According Sandel, libertarians are against authoritarianism, moral regulation and redeployment of income.
For instance, libertarianism opponents claim that tax system is necessary since everybody needs to contribute towards the welfare of the society. Similarly, they argue that wealthy persons need to give back part of their riches since it was generated by the society.
The author then deliberates on the implications associated with purchasing and retailing of organs. Sandel then reflects on the market and moralities and ways in which an open market may be founded on either sovereignty or wellbeing.
In chapter four, “markets and morals”, Sandel talks about the morals of forfeiting persons to do various kinds of work, like fighting in wars and giving birth to children. The debate is whether there is need for market, where currency is involved, to the feature of morals. The best example presented by the author in this section is “remuneration for pregnancy”.
Deliberating through the moralities and injustices in this instance aids in clarifying the variations amongst the leading philosophies of justice. In his opinion, it is not necessary for an individual to demand pay for certain services because of morals.
Chapter five, “What Matters is the Motive”, the author draws the attention of the reader towards understanding why motive is necessary. He does this by explaining the idea of Kant. He argues that morality concerns with respect to people, regardless of who they are.
This involves doing the correct thing simply because it is right. Sandel then argues for the idea of egalitarianism based on the perception of John Rawls. Similarly, he clarifies how it is different from the concept of libertarianism and utilitarianism. According to Rawl, people need fairness with regard to fundamental freedoms and societal and financial life.
Reference
Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do?. London: Penguin Books.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the corner stone of military law in the armed forces of the United States. This code applies to all uniformed services of the United States which include the Marines, Air Force, Navy and the Army. Other branches that are governed by these codes include the Coast Guard and PHS corps. Soldiers in the National Guard will only be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they are activated through an executive order given by the President.
The UCMJ early roots can be traced to the “69 Articles of War that were established by the Second Continental Congress on 30th June 1775 to govern the conduct of the Continental Army’ (Department of the Army, 2007, p 101). These were later increased to 101 Articles through an act of Congress in 1806. With this enacting, Congress now had the power to control the Army and Navy. The UCMJ was finally “signed into law by President Harry S Truman and it became effective on 31st May 1959” (Department of the Army, 2007, p 101).
The guiding principle for the Code is to bring consistency in the execution of military justice in all the branches of the armed forces. It gives strict guidelines on the kind of conduct and behaviour that would not be tolerated in the uniformed services. These vary from failure to obey orders given by a superior officer to acts of murder committed by soldiers. It also outlines the procedures to be followed when carrying out a court martial on suspects who have broken this code. As explained before, the UCMJ is the foundation of military justice and without it the chain of command might break down leading to an army with no discipline.
Article 91
Article 91 addresses “insubordinate conduct towards a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or a petty officer” (Stjepan, 2008, p 88) The conduct of the accused who is an enlisted member or a warrant officer is called into question if he violates three major elements of this article. The first one is if the accused “strikes or assaults a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office.”(Mickey et al, 2001, p 445)
It should be noted that both parties must be enlisted members of the respective uniform service and the accused was fully aware that he was striking an enlisted member or warrant officer who was carrying out his duties. Such an offense has serious repercussions in not only military justice but also in civilian courts. The key to prosecuting such cases successfully lies in proving that the accused had actual knowledge that he was striking an enlisted personnel and all of this can be proved with circumstantial evidence.
The maximum penalties for “are dishonourable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 445) A similar act towards a superior non-commissioned or petty officer carries similar penalties but confinement is reduced to 3 years. The same also applies to other non-commissioned or petty officer but confinement is only limited to one year with the other penalties still binding.
The second element is violated when the accused “wilfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer’. (Mickey et al, 2001, p 446) The same guidelines are followed as in the first element whereby both parties are enlisted members and the accused had actual knowledge that he was receiving an order from a warrant, non-commissioned or petty officer; he was obligated to follow that order but he chose to disobey it.
The penalties being handed out depend a lot on the level of contempt of the accused with maximum penalty of “dishonourable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for 2 years” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 445) if you knowingly disobeyed an order from a warrant officer. For the case of a non-commissioned or petty officer, the punishment is a “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year”. (Mickey et al, 2001, p 445)
The third element is violated when the accused treats with disdain or is impolite in his speech or behaviour towards a “warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office”. (Stjepan, 2008, p 89) Such an action towards superior non-commissioned or petty officer results in “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months” (Stjepan, 2008, p 89) the penalty reduces “forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months if it is other non-commissioned or petty officer.” (Stjepan, 2008, p 89)
Article 92
This is violated when the accused fails to obey a lawful order that was issued by a member of the armed forces or is derelict in the performance of his duties. This legislation is divided into three elements. The first element is violated when the accused had a duty to obey an issued order but instead disobeyed it. The punishment is “dishonourable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years.” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447) The second element is violated when the accused had actual knowledge that the order was issued by a member of the armed forces and he had a duty to obey this order but instead disobeyed it. The maximum punishment is “bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447)
The third element is violated when the accused is fully aware of the duties that have been assigned to him but his performance is found wanting either “willingly or through neglect or culpable inefficiency while executing these duties.” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447) If the shoddy performance can be blamed on neglect or just plain inefficiency, then the accused will be handed a “3 month confinement with forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447) However, if the accused was willingly derelict in the performance of his duties, then a “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months will result.” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447)
Article 98
Article 98 looks at non-compliance of procedural rules on the part of the accused. It has two elements. The first one is if the accused is deemed responsible for any delays that might arise during the execution of a case of a person who committed an offense under the military code of justice.
The penalty is “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months”. (Sliedregt, 2003, p 231) The second element is broken when the accused knowingly and deliberately fails to “enforce or comply with provisions of the code before, during or after a trial”. (Sliedregt, 2003, p 231) His failure to enforce the provisions was intentional even though it was his duty to do so. The punishment in this case is much stiffer with dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years being handed out.
Summary
The above mentioned articles are a part of other codes that are known as Punitive Articles. It is mandatory that these articles are enforced to the letter because they have a direct relation with the level of discipline in the service. While military hardware and tactics can swing the tide of victory in a battle, it’s commitment, morale and discipline of each of the members that will win you the War. (Stjepan, 2008, p 93)
References
Department of the Army, 2007, The Soldier’s Guide, Skyhorse Publishing Inc, pp 101-112.
Mickey R. Dansby, James B. Stewart, Schuyler C, 2001, Managing Diversity in the Military, Technology and Engineering, pp 445-449.
Sliedregt E. Van, 2003, The criminal responsibility of individuals for violations of international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press, pp 223-231.
Stjepan Gabriel Me’strovic, 2008, Rules of Engagement? Algora Publishing, pp 88-93.
The article “Justice Department Ends Era of Pushing Police Reform” by J. Brian Charles aims to discuss the recent changes to the Department of Justice’s approach to the law enforcement. On 15th September 2017, the Department of Justice announced that a decision had been made to reduce the efforts linked to the Collaborative Reform Initiative, started back in 2011 (Charles). The initiative was originally designed to provide federal support to local police departments in building community relations. The article was published in Governing and thus targets people who are interested in politics and public safety matters.
The piece focuses on the announcement made by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on the 15th September, which introduced significant cuts to the Collaborative Reform Initiative (Charles). The author explains that the initiative was first undertaken by Obama in an effort to help police departments to build strong community relations: “Launched in 2011, the Collaborative Reform Initiative has been a voluntary program in which local departments could seek assistance from federal officials to help build community relations” (Charles).
The program allowed police chefs to request federal officials to investigate the agency and suggest possible ways of improving relationships with local people. However, the recent changes to the DOJ’s approach to law enforcement, which is now in line with the President’s views on community policing, caused the department to review the initiative.
There are two key lessons to be learned from the event. First of all, public safety is highly influenced by politics, including the decisions made by the Congress and the President. Throughout his run for the presidency, Donald Trump has been calling for the law enforcement to adopt a harsher approach to policing. Similar views are also endorsed by many Republican politicians.
Therefore, the decision made by the DOJ to cut the Collaborative Reform Initiative, instead focusing on training departments in “gang suppression, disruption of drug markets and policing mass demonstrations” (Charles), is clearly influenced by politics. Secondly, The case also shows the possible motives for and impacts of such decision. For example, one of the fundamental motives for reducing the initiative was that it promoted adversarial relationships between federal and local agencies.
Some of the key impacts of such a decision, according to experts, would be impaired policing and community relations (Charles). A feasible alternative to the DOJ’s decision would be to incorporate guidance on building community relations into additional training on gang suppression and other public safety issues included under the new policy.
The DOJ’s decision and the response to it shows the relationship between public safety organizations and politics. Furthermore, it also shows the diversity of opinions and motives that are taken into account during the political decision-making process. Even after the decision was announced, there was a significant divergence of opinions on the matter among the local police chiefs and officers. The key stakeholders impacted by the new policy are law enforcement officers and communities; however, like many other public safety decisions, the policy is part of the overall political landscape.
Moreover, the article presents an example of behind the scenes political activity, as the announcement was made to the public only after the decision has been made. Overall, the article provides a useful example of how political choices affect the law enforcement and similar organizations, thus highlighting the importance of political awareness for public safety leaders.
Work Cited
Charles, J. Brian. “Justice Department Ends Era of Pushing Police Reform.” Governing. 2017. Web.
Because of the convoluted and often ambiguous policies of the American government, the very state seems to have gained a rather notorious reputation in the eyes of millions of people all over the world.
According to Arundhati Roy, there is a logical explanation for the phenomenon in question; as the author of the article The algebra of infinite justice claims, by instilling the principles of the “American Life,” which the U.S. government officials believe to be the only reasonable system to serve as the basis for any state, the former belie the very essence of the American culture.
The reasons for this enmity are quite understandable; the idea of changing some aspects of people’s lives may seem sacrilegious to them, even if these changes are supposedly made for the greater good. Due to the very clever use of tones, themes, imagery, and vocabulary, Roy manages to prove his point in a rather convincing manner.
Though some of the arguments that Roy makes can be viewed as debatable, the incorporation of the near-apocalyptic picture of the world that Roy creates in his article, combined with a rather eloquent manner of getting the message across, a succinct manner of laying the aforementioned message out, a realistic tone and the themes related to globalization, intercultural conflicts and world power, make the idea that Roy’s article carries gargantuan and, quite honestly, adds reasonability to his argument.
Although the United States seems to have been handling the economic and financial issues that the entrance into the global economy and the redesign of the healthcare triggered, a major social issue seems to have come into being. Over the past few decades, the reputation of the United States among the rest of the world countries left much to be desired, yet it was not until the second half of the 20th century that the foreign policy of the state was considered downright aggressive towards the cultures and traditions of other countries.
According to Roy, the United States have become notoriously known for their attempt at foisting the principles of the “American life” on the rest of the nations, and that the American people have been turning a blind eye to the issue in question in their attempt to retain their patriotic spirit.
In other words, Roy makes it clear that the government of the United States treads a very dangerous territory by using violent measures as a response to the acts of terrorism or the threats thereof and justifying these measures in the eyes of the American people as necessary and adequate ones.
More importantly, the U.S. state authorities have been making endeavors to inhibit the self-control of other states under the pretext of keeping the American citizens safe.
More to the point, Roy concludes his argument by stating the necessity for the United States government to alter their approach towards developing foreign relationships and shaping the attitudes towards other states among the American citizens by acknowledging the differences between countries and embracing these cultural differences to locate the existing similarities:
Terrorism, as a phenomenon, may never go away. But if it is to be continued, the first step is for America to at least acknowledge that it shares the planet with other human beings, who, even if they are not on the TV, have loves and griefs and stories and sorrows and songs and, for heaven’s sake, rights. (Roy, 2002, p. 337)
By incorporating a range of compelling themes, a clever use of literary devices and a stunning array of images in his argument, Roy tricks the audience into assuming the correctness of his research without further scrutiny; however, a closer look at the article will show that it may lack objectivity and offer a slightly biased way of looking at the attitudes towards the threat of terrorism in the U.S. society.
Though not all the points that Roy makes can be deemed as valid, one must still give the author credit for using the tools of persuasion that he has at his disposal in a rather efficient and effective manner. Roy expatiates on the subject manner rather glibly, yet every single sentence written serves its purpose and affects the overall impression of the article greatly.
Breaking the text down into its key components, one must pay an especial attention to the vocabulary that Roy uses in order to create a specific atmosphere in his article, the imagery that the author restores in the audience’s minds so that the key points could be immersed into the readers’ memories, and the themes that Roy renders, relating them to the subject matter.
The realization of the article being very eloquent and very well put together is, perhaps, the very first idea that comes into the head of the reader with the very first line uttered. Indeed, Roy appeals to the rational and, perhaps, to the self-indulgent aspects of the reader’s personality by assuming that his audience is just as well-read and educated as he is and, therefore, is capable of understanding the key argument that Roy makes.
In order to exacerbate the groundbreaking effect of the message that he tries to convey, Roy uses a range of images, which an American citizen can relate to.
For instance, in order to render the unsettling feeling of fear, Roy pictures the images of a happy American family that infiltrated the American media long ago: “Will my love come home tonight?” (Roy, 2002, p. 336)“Will my child be safe at school?” (Roy, 2002, p. 336). These images allow every reader to feel personal about the topic of insecurity raised in the article and, therefore, prevent the audience from taking Roy’s words with a grain of salt.
As it has been stressed above, the theme of blooming insecurity, which has been persistent in the United States since the 9/11 tragedy, is obviously the focus of Roy’s attention: “But who is Osama bin Laden really? Let me rephrase that. What is Osama bin Laden?” (Roy, 2002, p. 337). However, apart from the insecurity issue, the topics of multiculturalism, cultural acceptance, terrorism, warfare, and peacemaking are touched upon.
As far as the veracity of the study carried out by Roy is concerned, one must admit that he clearly did his homework on the subject matter. The facts that the author of the article brings up are doubtlessly true, and the sources that he uses to support his opinion can be regarded as quite trustworthy: “Some have suggested that terrorism fears have been stoked for political advantage […].” (Sinclair & Antonius, 2012, p. 90). Overall, Roy’s interpretation of U.S. history can be deemed as very credible.
The conclusions that the scholar makes so that his argument could be interpreted as adequate, however, may seem somewhat questionable. It looks like Roy tends to generalize the phenomena and facts that he observes and, as a result, make the claims that lack support.
Calling these statements half-baked would be unfair to the researcher, seeing how ample the study that he carried out is; nevertheless, it seems that Roy’s position on the subject matter is somewhat prepossessed and that the current policy of the United States can be viewed from a more objective standpoint. In fact, the citizens of the United States have all reasons to fear terrorism, and ensuring protection against the latter is the least that the government can do (Nikbay & Hancerli, 2007).
Although most of the devices that Roy uses in order to convince his readers in the veracity of the points that he makes are beyond transparent and can be viewed as rather naïve, one must admit that there is a grain of truth in the overall manipulative tone of his narration.
Indeed, there are numerous problems in the current status of relationships between the United States and the rest of the world; more to the point, there is an obvious tension, which often results in military conflicts erupting as a response to the aggressive policy of assimilation, which the United States seems to have adopted.
On the other hand, claiming that the U.S. government has, in some way or another, inhibited reasonable considerations regarding the threat of terrorism, by exaggerating the threat and, therefore, creating the premises for the resurgence of its totalitarian reign would be quite a stretch. There is obvious evidence that the fear of terrorism rejuvenates trust to the state government among the citizens, according to recent research (Sinclair & LoCicero, 2010, p. 57).
Nevertheless, the actions that the U.S. state authorities have been taking in regard with the infamous instances of terrorism resembles over-protectiveness rather than an attempt to seize control over the minds of the American citizens and dictate them a specific modality of perceiving other nations and people.
As far as the economic hegemony is concerned, though, the actions of the U.S. government can be interpreted as quite aggressive, though. However, in the realm of the global economy, building a hegemony seems a hardly plausible concept. Therefore, the fears of the U.S. taking control over any aspect of other states’ lives, be it the economic, cultural, or political one, hardly seems plausible.
While providing admittedly compelling arguments and utilizing a range of literary devices as the tools for improving the credibility of his study, Roy still fails to prove the efforts of the American government to be entirely malign for the rest of the states. Instead, Roy depicts a rather somber image of the U.S. government making desperate endeavors to indemnify the American citizens and, instead, only contributes to the deterioration of its foreign affairs sphere.
True, the topics and issues that Roy raises are rather reasonable, and the manipulative techniques that the American government has been using in order to fuel the post-nine-eleven fears are a requite legitimate reason for concern. However, most of the concerns that Roy raises seem to be farfetched, especially the ones concerning the U.S. government foisting the American lifestyle on the representatives of other cultures and ethnicities. After all, America itself is the cross-section of a variety of cultures, which makes a claim concerning the United States taking over the cultures of other nations absurd.
Reference List
Brück, T. (2007). The economic analysis of terrorism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nikbay, O. & Hancerli, S. (2007). Understanding and responding to the terrorism phenomenon: a multi-dimensional perspective. New York, NY: IOS Press.
Roy, A. (2002). The algebra of infinite justice. The new world reader (pp. 333–338). Ed. G. H. Muller. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Sinclair, S. J. & Antonius, D. (2012,). The psychology of terrorism fears. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, S. J. & LoCicero, A. (2010). Do fears of terrorism predict trust in government? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2(1), 57–68.
The speaker was Alfonso Gonzalez. He is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehman College of the City University of New York.
He was launching at book tour for “Reform without Justice: Latino Migrant Politics and the Homeland Security State”, on December 4, 2013 at a small independent bookstore in Manhattan called Bluestockings. The purpose of the event was to sell books, to inform the audience about migrant issues, to persuade the audience that these issues are very important, and to advocate for constructive change with leaders and legislators. (Gonzalez)
Reform without Justice
Dr. Gonzalez framed his speech as covering the period between 2001 and 2012. During this deportations have increased greatly, as well as policing by Homeland Security and other forces, asylum efforts, detention of migrants, and deportation of families, all of which he characterized as state violence.
He also characterized this period as a time when the Latino migrant movement and its allies have successfully mobilized, demonstrated, and organized politically. He said that he hoped to help people understand why and how both these trends occurred in the same time period. (Gonzalez)
He began by reviewing the literature of the Latino migrant issue, and Latino politics literature. He asserted that there were missing pieces and perspectives. For example, he felt that there was not work don’t on how these fields and others do not address all the important relationships between the state, and civil society, and neo-liberalism, the appearance of Latino elected officials, and organizing. (Gonzalez)
In conclusion, Gonzalez called for Latino electoral power, but cautions that it is does not automatically equal social transformation or social justice. He called on leaders to talk with elected officials, but to stay independent of political parties. He expressed optimism for the future of Latino activism as an effort that will improve democracy for everyone. (Gonzalez)
He then explained how he tried to fill in the gaps. He mentioned critical ethnography as a tool that he used. He described how he interviewed 60 Latino leaders on both coasts and in Mexico. (Gonzalez)
He also described a phenomenon he called anti-migrant hegemony. He asserted that it was created through the criminalization of migrants and immigrants. This, he said, was bad for democracy as a whole. (Gonzalez)
He listed and described the intellectual forces that supported what he called the anti-migrant hegemony, as well as celebrities that support this as well. These, he suggests, form what he calls a nexus with the contradictory group of charitable foundations. These foundations, like the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Foundation, fund groups that support anti-migrant, nativist, authoritarian, and free trade goals. (Gonzalez)
He made the point that trade agreements are a powerful factor in the whole problem of migrants. The militarization of the border security efforts, or border surge, represents a large amount of money. He makes the point that this huge amount of money spent on anti-migrant activities, what he calls the homeland security state, encourages an authoritarian state.
He says that things look as though they are democratic, and even neo-liberal, but are really restricting personal liberty. This, he says, reduces the difference between what are called conservatives and liberals. This also creates the appearance of racial integration, but conceals racial authoritarianism. (Gonzalez)
Conclusion
The speaker’s support for all these assertions was logical and academic. He drew on facts from the news. He also mentioned the ideas of other academics and social leaders. (Gonzalez)
He referenced a variety of scholars. He pronounced these names very fast. It was difficult to understand them. They were scholars in political science, ethnography, as well as activists, as he described their specialties. (Gonzalez)
Dr. Gonzalez dressed professionally but casually. He was confident at the podium. He gestured freely and smiled at the audience when appropriate.
His choice of words was very formal. It was also very academic. He used words like hegemony freely.
The audience was small because of the size of the venue, but it was enthusiastic and appreciative. They listened very carefully and followed his arguments. The speech was disturbing, enlightening, and inspiring to this listener.
Works Cited
Gonzalez, A. “Reform without Justice.” Bluestockings Bookstore. New York, NY. 2013. Live Speech.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was born in the year 1936, in California. He attended a variety of learning institutions such as Stanford and London School of Economics (LSE) thus receiving his B.A. He then joined Harvard Law School (HLS) and studied for an LL.B. He ran a private practice in San Francisco from 1961 to 1963, subsequently moving to Sacramento. He conducted legal business in Sacramento from 1963 to 1975.
Kennedy also taught law at the University of the Pacific for a period of 23 years, from 1965. He was nominated by Reagan as a Justice and took office in 1988. It is noteworthy that he is married to Mary Davis with three children. Justice Kennedy conforms to Republican ideals although he votes with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court at times. In recent times, he has been crucial in determining the outcome of some cases by the provision of the deciding vote.
Case with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion
In 2003, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by the government against a decision by the Supreme Court located in Missouri. A bench consisting of nine men led by Justice Rehnquist listened to the concepts of the case. Much as it was a close call, it ended in a 5-4 during voting.
The court accordingly upheld the decision of the Court in Missouri with Kennedy writing for the majority opinion. Other Judges who held similar views thus voting with him were Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter. The other side, led by Rehnquist had judges Scalia, Thomas, and O’Connor, with Scalia and O’Connor providing dissents.
The case titled State v. Simmons, involves Christopher Simmons, a minor who was sentenced to death after examination and conviction for murder in the first-degree (Gross, Roth, Stewart & Young). The Supreme Court located in Missouri has sole influence over death related cases consequently upholding the conviction and verdict.
He filed several appeals, but all were dropped for one reason or the other. In 1989, the Court resolved that putting to death of juveniles was not a breach of the 8th amendment. This was due to the lack of national harmony on the matter thus depriving his grounds for appeal. Consequently, the death penalty was neither pitiless nor unusual (Gross, Roth, Stewart & Young).
This changed in 2002 after the Supreme Court analyzed concepts presented in the case titled Atkins v. Virginia. It was decided that applying the death sentence to a mental retard was brutal, especially upon citing changes in public opinion, in reference to a similar ruling (Gross et al.). The consensus had been achieved against executing mental retards hence it became a contravention of the 8th amendment.
Simmons then appealed to the Missouri Supreme court in 2003. The court acknowledged this, given that like in the Atkins case, it was possible to establish that compromise had been achieved on that matter. It is not forgotten that public opinion was overwhelmingly against the execution of minors. The government appealed to the Court, arguing that allowing evolving standards as sufficient grounds for State Courts to overturn decisions taken by the Supreme Court was dangerous (Oyez).
The Court listened to the case, to establish if the Supreme Court located in Missouri rightfully ruled that putting to death a minor was cruel and unusual hence a desecration of the 8th and 14th amendments. It was also required to ascertain whether or not public opinion had changed since Stanford v. Kentucky (Oyez).
Opinion
As he wrote for the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy argued that the minors should be allowed to mature and fully understand their own humanity hence the state could only withhold certain liberties from them. He noted that the penalty had already been rejected in majority states, a fact he attributes to evolved standards and decency which showed progress in the society (Oyez).
I agree with the majority decision since most youths behave in certain ways as a direct consequence of manipulation or immaturity. Capital punishment would be extremely harsh as they have little or no control over their actions. Most jury practices and legislative enactments have been against executing juveniles, and this also shows condemnation for the move. Moreover, 30 states have enacted legislation against the same.
Being the head of the national reconciliation commission in Argentina I realize my mission and the mission of the organization. Argentina is in the period of renewal, or, to be more correct, in the period of adoption of new to our land, democratic principles. The fact that the process of our society’s democratization is on the initial stage makes the situation more complicated. There are lots of different tasks we should cope with, many aspects we should examine, and a variety of national problems we need to deal with before starting the way of reconciliation in Argentina. I believe that that the process of democratization we would choose would be connected with national obstacles which do not allow our society to become a civilized community. Nevertheless, there are several possible paths we may choose. That is why the commission and I should analyze all possible variants and choose the most appropriate for our country.
To begin with, the people of El Salvador should realize that the commission on the truth was created to investigate a violation of human rights, an offense because of which citizens of Argentina suffer. On the one hand, it would help and promote the process of crimes investigation. On the other hand, it would be the first step for democratization and realization by citizens of Argentina of their rights. Our Truth Commission was established only at the end of the twentieth century, after the Dirty War ended, in 1983. The Commission aimed to investigate the destiny of people who disappeared after it. As a result “we have discovered close to 9000 of these unfortunate people who were abandoned by the world” (Report of considering). The goal of our organization is to explore the reason for the violation, main and minor branches in which the violation is held. Still, I cannot but admit that the Truth Commission of Argentina has some limitations. One of them is the absence of total access to the examination of criminal cases of all levels. It means that we could not inquire about the cases which were ultra vires. On the other hand, “in the course of our investigations we have been insulted and threatened by the very people who committed these crimes” (Report of considering). So, we can do nothing when we are not supported by the government in full.
Nevertheless, the Commission was created to follow the principle of justice. The thing is that many people who committed crimes against citizens of Argentina, as well as other Latin-American countries, had held an opinion that they are more equal than others. Still, my aim and aim of the Commission is at least to try to set moral principles and get rid of mistakes of the previous governments. One of the main principles which are based on the Commission policy is the practical investigation of anti-human crimes. The guideline of our work is to uncover, reveal and punish deeds that were committed against people. My colleagues and I are sure that reconciliation is impossible without a complete understanding of the term “justice”. We follow the statement that concealment is the wrong way to the process of democratization and reconciliation. As a result, we succeeded in many cases, revealed criminal deeds, and promoted imprisonment or other types of punishment. For example, as a result of our work Antonio Domingo Bussi is “under house arrest, he is facing either a trial here in Argentina or, failing that, extradition to Spain, where he is also wanted for crimes against humanity” (Argentina Revisits ‘Dirty War’: Will General Be Tried?). We face many difficulties with this case because even though the general is accused of many awful things many people support him. In this aspect, we meet contradiction: many people suffered because of the general’s policy, still, what we see nowadays is the absence of oppression to offenders. I mean that it is very difficult to conduct the policy of justice when people who suffered from this or that person of a group of people keep silent. After we investigated several cases connected with the Dirty War, “in 1986 and 1987, Congress, faced with threats of military uprisings, passed a pair of amnesty laws that prevented any further prosecutions” (Argentine Congress Likely to Void ‘Dirty War). That is why I may assure you that even though we are fighting for the maintenance of justice and democracy in our country, we face lots of obstacles that do not allow us to follow our mission.
Our principle of justice and truth contradicts the principle of forgiveness. To illustrate the importance of this guideline I need to refer to the film Discovering Dominga. The woman who decided t uncover crimes that were committed against her nation, her village, and relatives, did not want to forgive the people who killed the whole village (Discovering Dominga). The cases we investigate are not connected with personal mistakes, they are not crimes that are committed as a result of an affective state. The cases we deal with are the thought-out, preconceived plan of the holocaust, they are crimes against the nation.
The history of our work is not long. Still, it is a firm step towards reconciliation. There are some changes which are to be made in our society. We are not the first and not last people who are involved in the fight against tyrannies. To succeed in the process of democratization and reconciliation we need to follow examples of successful and effective policies which are led in other countries of the word. We do not need to search for it. In Chile “President Ricardo Lagos, the courts, opposition parties, and even the military are searching for ways to achieve the reconciliation they all say they want” (Chile’s Leader Presses Rights Issues Softly but Successfully). The work of the Truth Commission is the collaboration on all levels of the country: from the president to the country. They united to find those whose who are guilty of the crimes against the nation. Moreover, the president of Chile offered to introduce the victims of the previous governments’ crimes. On the one hand, we need to follow the benefits of our neighbors, and on the other hand, their example allows us to omit the mistakes they made. Moreover, the realization of the reconciliation importance should begin in the minds of ours citizens. It is very difficult to fight for those who do not want to be rescued but keep silent. We should provide people with information about their rights and examples of those who did not wish to stand aside but decided to fight for the truth. The example of Denise Becker is very bright. Such films should be distributed in all parts of our country.
Works Cited
“Discovering Dominga”. American Documentary, n. d. 2010.
“Report of Conadep (National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons)”. n. d. 2010.
Rother, Larry. “Argentine Congress Likely to Void ‘Dirty War’ Amnesties”. The New York Times, 2003.
Rother, Larry. “Argentina Revisits ‘Dirty War’: Will General Be Tried?” The New York Times, 2003.
Rother, Larry. “Chile’s Leader Presses Rights Issues Softly but Successfully”. The New York Times, 2003.
Socrates’ philosophy had a great influence on shifting thinking from basic scientific principles to matters that would satisfy the soul. Plato, one of his students, recorded many of Socrates’ teachings. Socrates was born in Athens. This is the place where he lived and where he came up with most of his ideas. A great philosopher based his conception of justice on the principle: “The man who is good is just”.
Socrates advocated the idea that justice was good, and that meant that injustice was equal to evil. Furthermore, he emphasized that good was a natural deed and not what man thinks he needs. In addition, he said that a person’s nature was an inner self that needed fulfillment, thus the desire to do good was natural.
Providing the explanation of relationship between good and justice, Socrates presented the example of an ill seeking treatment, and who gets a cure and, is finally happy. He also gives the example of another man, who is completely healthy and is, therefore, happier. The point he makes here is that justice is the cure for evil, and that a man who never commits an evil deed do not need to be punished, and thus, happier than a man punished for his misdeeds (Vlastos 300).
Socrates explains the role of justice in man’s life by stating that men should do harm to enemies when they are evil, and be just to those who are good. He, however, does not accept this chain of thoughts, as, according to his belief, doing harm to others makes more harm to ourselves.
This was the beginning of the concept that individual should not harm anyone, even his enemies. Socrates also explains that men fall into pleasures of doing harm to those who harm them instead of being just. Summing up his idea of justice, Socrates declares that to be a poor man who is just is better than being a rich man with wealth acquired through injustice, because injustice taints the soul.
In the Crito, there is a dialogue between Socrates and Crito in Socrates’ prison cell. Socrates was awaiting for his execution, but Crito notes Socrates’ peacefulness, his calm way, and his lack of fear in front of the face of the death. This leads to a debate, because Crito assisted Socrates’ escape, and he argues that accepting death would be a great victory of his enemies. He also adds that Socrates was responsible for the education of young people and could not leave them behind as orphans.
In his response, Socrates insists that reason will guide his decisions unlike the masses that are dependent on random acts as a guide. He asks Crito what the laws say about his escape, and he proceeds to state that the Laws say that a resident’s position in reference to the municipality was like a child in reference to the parent, or like a slave to his master.
He explains that he made a deal with the Laws by remaining in the city and benefiting from it, and that he could not now condemn it on the basis that he was unjustly accused. He further states that the Laws argue that he accepted to obey the law by remaining in Athens after having attained maturity and raised a family within the city walls. Socrates tells Crito that he does not agree with the Law’s argument, but asks if they should accept it, and Crito says that they should. This brings the debate, and then Socrates is executed.
We can sum up Socrates’ conception of law and justice in the Crito, and the Apology as the understanding of what is good means, and that accepting law as justice is important because we accept the law that governs us, and by residing in the law’s jurisdiction, we are subjected to its implementation.
Works Cited
Vlastos, Gregory. Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. United States of America: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
The United States Department of Justice starts its existence in 1789, and in 2020 the 150th anniversary became the most significant celebration of the Agency. Nowadays, the Department consists of more than 113,000 employees with about 10,000 federal lawyers. The first steps towards the development of the Department of Justice were taken with the creation of the First United States Congress when the Judiciary Act became accepted (Feldt, 2020). The Department of Justice provides citizens of the United States with protection and represents hundreds of agencies with reliable lawyers. The Department’s main mission is effective and efficient control of justice and creating a peaceful society. Trust, reliability, and stability can be defined as the main visions of the Department of Justice.
Agency Functions
The functions of the Agency are safety and fighting against external and internal aggressions, controlling and preventing crime, creating fair punishments, and decreasing adverse outcomes of final decisions of the Department’s workers. The American society receives more benefits than drawbacks from the Department’s actions as justice always has a better chance of success. The Department has many divisions such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Prison, which function in different ways. More precise functions of work can be represented in three various Agency activities: Immigration regulation, International support, and the provision of a trusted lawyer.
The Department of Justice is responsible for the implementation of immigration and naturalization laws. Also, visa approvals and rejections are key responsibilities of the Agency. However, deportation is not included in the work of the Department (Green & Roiphe, 2018). Moreover, it processes requests of refugees and decides who might receive the status. Participation in international courts provides the basis for the creation of mutual assistance. The Department of Justice negotiates with foreign countries and sets specific legal regulations on trading (Green & Roiphe, 2018). Moreover, it follows international conventions to influence injustice abroad and indirectly improve the situation in other countries. The Department of Justice is an official representative of trusted lawyers. Many huge organizations in conflict situations need legal help and resolution (Green & Roiphe, 2018). The appointed secretary processes requests from private or public parties, and acts according to protocols solving specific tasks.
Agency News
Actions related to laws occur every day, and they might affect personnel in different ways. While facing new cases, many workers might feel pressure and negativity from others, which is often complicated. Adherence to rules positively influences staff, and unusual cases do not stump (Werden, 2018). Many cases, which expand the capabilities of the department, happen every day and their differences increase professional skills of the staff and improve the quality of provided services.
According to the official site of the Department of Justice, one of the latest cases happened in Louisiana on July 28, 2021, when a woman confessed to conspiracy to trick the United States. In 2015 Brittany Patterson and her partners decided to provide false tax declarations for Pelicans Income Tax and Payroll Services’ customers to receive more tax refunds from January to April. Brittany also confessed that she was collecting the personal information of clients without their permission. In general, Patterson and her partners caused a loss of about $550,000. She will be sentenced in January 2022, facing five years in prison. Brittany also receives restitution and large penalties. Moreover, in November 2019, Patterson pleaded guilty to the same issue of fake declarations for Crown Tax Service LLC’s clients. The sentence is planned for August 5, 2021. This case implicates personnel to take the situation seriously and not look at parallel distractions.
Another case provided by the official site of the Department of Justice is about a Mexican woman who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for participating in the transfer of kilograms of cocaine and methamphetamine to the United States. Fajardo Campos and her adult children delivered cocaine from Columbia to Central America and Mexico, hiring pilots and buying jets. She was cooperating with many suppliers to distribute prohibited substances to the United States. Fajardo gave bribes to Mexican and Columbian law enforcement to transfer cocaine using airports. Moreover, she tried to bribe the police to arrest opponents and improve restrictions on domestic production. Consequently, five years of supervised release and penalty of $18 million were added to 22 years in prison. Fajardo Campos’s case forces the Department of Justice workers to spread consequences to society and prevent negative outcomes.
Representatives of law enforcement can also be accused and cause damages. For instance, the officer of the Mississippi Police Department pleaded guilty to the use of pressure on a person while arresting a car. Daniel Starks pushed the victim twice while putting him in handcuffs and used a stun gun. The victim fell and could not stand when Starks pointed the stun gun and threatened to use it again. Daniel Starks faces a maximum of ten years in prison and a fine of around $250,000. The main conclusion from this situation should be done by law personnel to stop the abuse of authority by law enforcement officers and make them equal to ordinary citizens.
Rationale for Selecting Agency
The United States Department of Justice affects almost all areas of life, and laws that protect our world from lawlessness are an integral part of existence. Analyzing the agencies, it is crucial to understand how they might connect with each other to get the most out of discussions (Feldt, 2020). The Department of Justice can be associated with the Department of Health and Human Services when solving a conflict during patients’ treatments. Moreover, it may have a close connection to the Department of Labor as workplace conditions, hiring, and firing must be legal and follow all laws. Finally, the relationship with the Department of Education is significant when it comes to the equity between teachers and students and the reduction of discrimination by sex, age, race, and social status.
Furthermore, laws created over the years, which almost do not undergo changes, may oppose the human will and negatively influence. Studying and evaluating the Department of Justice’s work can help defend a person’s rights in any sphere of life, such as interpersonal conflicts at shops, car accidents, and workplace harassment. Consequently, selecting this agency can become a lifeboat in a critical situation.
Conclusion
The development of the United States Department of Justice has been one of the main parts of modern life for a long period of time. The missions of the department continue to grow along with success in solving set goals. Participation in different cases with various scenarios expand working strategies and increases the speed of making the right decision. Being an individual, it is helpful to understand the system of the department and be able to prove existing rights.
References
Feldt, D. G. (2020). 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice origins: Attorney General to Department 1789-1872. The Department of Justice Journal of Federal Law and Practice, 68(4), pp. 1-18.
Green Bruce A. & Roiphe, Rebecca (2018). Can the President control the Department of Justice. The university of Alabama.
Werden, Gregory J. (2018). Establishment of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. St. John’s University, 92(3), pp. 419-430.
According to Thrasymachus what is justice and why would anyone want to be just?
Thrasymachus defines justice as something that gives some advantage to the stronger. He argues that the person in charge of the ruling party is the strongest in each nation. He bases his argument on the fact that those in power are the ones who formulate and pass laws that tend to favor them and give them some advantage over the rest of the people. After those in power have passed the law, they come with an assertion that justice is the act of obeying the law.
According to Thrasymachus, those who fail to obey the set laws of the land are regarded as being unjust and end up being punished for breaking the law. Thrasymachus further emphasizes the fact that justice tends to be relatively similar in all nations because the ruling class in all nations across the world enjoy some advantage over the rest of the people. Since the ruling class is always stronger in a nation, justice can thus be referred to as anything that tends to give some advantage to the stronger in society. Thrasymachus made several conclusions that were aimed at justifying his argument on the definition of justice.
To begin with, he concluded that that justice is found everywhere and will always give some advantage to the stronger. Society consists of the ruling group which is the stronger part and the subjects. The ruling class classes pass laws that give them some advantage and at the same time administer punishment to lawbreakers.
In his explanation of what justice is, Thrasymachus tries to show the relationship between law and justice. By obeying the laws passed by the ruling group, one is referred to as being just and failure to obey the law renders one unjust. All the ruling parties across the world have the same definition of justice which basically emphasizes obedience to the law. Thrasymachus supports the argument that the weak in society should be ruled by the strong in society.
According to him, justice is simply the obedience of the laid down laws and does not go beyond that. According to Thrasymachus, real justice does not exist in the current systems because everything is dictated by the ruling class. The subjects have no choice but to obey laws set by the ruling class without any question. Questioning the law is being unjust and one is bound to be punished by the ruling group by daring to do that.
Thrasymachus argues that the moral values in the society are a complete reflection of the interests of the ruling group and not the society as a whole. Thrasymachus’ definition of justice and his explanation appears to be a realistic one but his ideal view of justice is equal rights and justice for everyone. The fact that the ruling class formulates of their selfish advantage seems unjust. The subjects have no choice but to be just by obeying the laws of the land whether they favor them or not. One should be just to avoid punishment from the ruling group.
What is Plato’s definition of a just person? Is it true that such a person would not do what is wrong?
Plato defines a just person as the one who is able to balance the there elements of the soul harmoniously. The three elements that control the soul of a human being include desire, appetite, and reason. Desire tends to motivate a person and drives them to unleash their full potential. The second element is an appetite which makes one become spirited whereas reason rules one’s desires and appetites.
According to Plato, failure to balance these three elements of the soul leads to failure in achieving justice. According to Plato, justice can only be understood properly in the context of society. Since society is made up of people, a just society will only depend on how just the people belonging to the society are. Plato believes that justice is only done when the needs of the people in the society are met. He advocates for a minimal state that has a lot of benefits in terms of the ability to meet the needs of the people. Plato further argues that this type of state is bound to face some challenges from external people with intentions of robbing the society of its benefits. Plato believes that for justice to prevail, the personal needs of the individual must be met. A just society meets the personal needs of all the people and not a selected few.
Plato argues that in a system where the moral standards are set by the ruling class, the needs of subjects are often neglected. According to Plato, the ruling class should embrace communism for a just society to be realized. The there elements of the soul have a great effect on whether the person will be just or. If a person is driven by desire and appetite alone, without reason, they are bound to be unjust because they will always want everything for themselves. Reason gives a person a sense of care and will always help a person do things for the interest of every.
It is always difficult to have a just society when there are certain classes of people in society who are portrayed as special and stronger. The ruling class will always want to have some advantages at the expense of the common people and in the process and in the process creating an unjust society. According to Plato, a just person is a person who ensures equality for all. According to Plato, individual justice can only be fully explored and understood after understanding what a just society should be like.
Plato disputes Thrasymachus’ argument that being just is simply obeying the law. Plato goes on to clarify that the breaking of the law is a result of inequality in society. According to Plato, a just man commits some mistakes at times but does not disqualify them from being just as long as they stand for equality in society. Plato argues that obedience to law should not be the basis of deciding who is just and who is not because some of the laws were formulated out of the selfish interest of the ruling class.
What are the differences between Plato’s ideal society and our idea of society?
Comparing Plato’s concept of an ideal society and our concept of an ideal society there are quite a number of differences that can be noted. Plato’s ideal society should be a minimal state that has the need for all the people in equal measure. Our ideal society should be maximum with strong leadership to guard it against negative external forces. Plato is of the fact that society can have a luxurious state of the needs of the people are met equally.
Since society will have a division of labor, all the people will be provided with all the luxuries that need by the state. This idea completely differs from our ideal society because if everyone is living a luxurious life; society would stagnate because there would be no other motivation for working and being engaged in economic activities. According to Plato, by limiting the luxuries granted to the people, the state tends to enjoy military protection.
Plato believes in the caste system and argues the limitation of power over luxuries is essential in ensuring that the luxuries are not abused by the people. According to Plato, the security forces such as the military should have limited power on luxuries which is a very challenging thing to implement in our ideal society. According to Plato, the people with the most power in society should have restricted luxuries. In our ideal society, it is meaningless to have power if one is not able to enjoy the luxuries and privileges that come with it.
Plato prescribes a very rigorous system of selecting employees and those to be in power by ensuring that those selected are properly educated are well suited for their roles and the power gained would not be abused. Plato suggests this kind of criteria in selecting leaders to ensure that those aspiring to lead the state are not motivated by power and luxuries. In our ideal society, the idea of wanting lead is motivated by either the power associated with it or the luxuries that come with it.
Many people pretend that they are not motivated by these two factors but in the real sense, they are major factors. Plato’s ideal society does not allow the leader to their own children to prevent them from being raised as rulers just like their parents. In our ideal society, a leader wants their children to emulate them and if possible inherit the throne from them. According to Plato, some of our suggestions for a stable and just society seem foolish to him because he sees them as being very impractical. According to Plato, our ideals are foolish in the sense that we think of a just society like the one that has laws formulated and enforced by the ruling class.
Plato sees the idea of having a ruling class as a very stupid idea because it simply enslaves the subjects to the ideals of those in power. Plato argues that giving those in power some privileges is a recipe for an unjust society.