Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Public Policy, Justice, and the Law - Brossura

Natoli, Marie

Brossura

ISBN 10: 0073108340 ISBN 13: 9780073108346

Casa editrice: McGraw-Hill Education, 2005

Riassunto

This debate-style reader is designed to introduce students to controversies in justice and law through readings that reflect a variety of viewpoints. Each issue is framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. The Taking Sides readers feature annotated listings of selected World Wide Web sites. Taking Sides is supported by our student website, Dushkin Online (www.dushkin.com/online/).

Su questo libro

Contenuti:

PART 1. Race

ISSUE 1. Does the Judicial Process Result in Racial Discrimination?

YES: Ron Stewart, from “African American Males’ Reported Involvement in the Criminal Justice System: A Descriptive Analysis,” Journal of African American Men (Fall 2000)

NO: Stewart J. D’Alessio and Lisa Stolzenberg, from “Race and the Probability of Arrest,” Social Forces (June 2003)

Author Ron Stewart’s work is a case study of the black male population in Buffalo, New York. Stewart explores not only the pattern of black male incarceration, but focuses on the experiences and perceptions of black males in relation to the U.S. criminal justice system and the local police department. D’Alessio and Stolzenberg challenge the typically held view that racial discrimination by police is the reason for the very high rate of male African-American incarceration. The authors also criticize the use of social factors—especially poverty, economic inequality, social disruption, segregation and family structure—to explain the differences in crime patterns between the races.

ISSUE 2. Is Racial Profiling Necessary to Law Enforcement?

YES: Heather Mac Donald, from “The Myth of Racial Profiling,” City Journal (Spring 2001)

NO: Richard G. Schott, from “The Role of Race in Law Enforcement: Racial Profiling or Legitimate Use?” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001)

Author Heather Mac Donald reviews and disputes the allegations of police profiling and explores the daily demands on police officers. Mac Donald also discusses the justification for using race in investigating crime. Richard G. Scott draws the distinctions between legitimate "stops" versus those based upon racial characteristics. Scott includes an overview of Constitutional protections aimed at preventing police profiling and points to the need for proper police training.

ISSUE 3. Is Plea Bargaining Fair?

YES: Timothy Sandefur, from “In Defense of Plea Bargaining: The Practice Is Flawed, but not Unconstitutional,” Regulation (Fall 2003)

NO: Mike McConville and Chester Mirsky, from “Guilty Plea Courts: A Social Disciplinary Model of Criminal Justice,” Social Problems (May 1995)

Timothy Sandefur argues that, while plea bargaining can be abused, it is not necessarily unconstitutional, and that to the extent that flaws exist, they can be remedies. McConville and Mirsky argue that plea bargains form a system of imposing control and discipline upon vulnerable groups in society.

ISSUE 4. Do Minorities Receive Tougher Sentencing?

YES: Norm R. Allen, Jr., from “Reforming the Incarceration Nation,” Free Inquiry (Summer 2001)

NO: Stephen Klein, Joan Petersilia, and Susan Turner, from “Race and Imprisonment Decisions in California?” Science (February 16, 1990)

Norm R. Allen argues that there are two standards of justice in the United States—legal and social—and that the disparity between the two works against minorities. Stephen Klein, Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner argue that myths occur regarding racial discrimination because the word "discrimination" is mistakenly used in place of "disparity," and that the courts are not engaging in sentencing discrimination.

ISSUE 5. Are Mandatory Minimum Sentences Fair and Effective?

YES: David Risley, from “Mandatory Minimum Sentences: An Overview,” Drug Watch International (May 2000)

NO: Carl M. Cannon, from “America: All Locked Up,” National Journal (August 15, 1998)

David Risley argues that the purpose of mandatory minimum sentences is to ensure that serious drug crimes are met with significant punishment and that they have been successful toward this end. Carl M. Cannon argues that, while increased prison sentences may make citizens feel safer, the damage done to prisoners’ families is a high price for society to pay.

PART 2. Gender

ISSUE 6. Is Affirmative Action Reverse Discrimination?

YES: Fred L. Pincus, from “The Social Construction of Reverse Discrimination: The Impact of Affirmative Action on Whites,” Journal of Intergroup Relations (Winter 2001/2002)

NO: Charles Murray, from “Affirmative Racism: How Preferential Treatment Works Against Blacks,” The New Republic (December 31, 1984)

Professor Fred L. Pincus argues that "reverse discrimination" (i.e., discrimination against whites and especially white males) is the result of affirmative action because affirmative action gives them fewer opportunities. Charles Murray argues that whites are not adversely affected by affirmative action because those minorities who are hired are qualified and would be hired even if affirmative action programs were not in existence.

ISSUE 7. Is Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Fair to Women?

YES: Ilene H. Nagel and Barry L. Johnson, from “The Role of Gender in a Structured Sentencing System: Equal Treatment, Policy Choices, and the Sentencing of Female Offenders Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Summer 1994)

NO: Shimica Gaskins, from “‘Women of Circumstance’—The Effects of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing on Women Minimally Involved in Drug Crimes,” American Criminal Law Review (Fall 2004)

Nagel and Johnson argue that recent social and historical events have resulted in race, gender, and class discrimination. They argue that the current emphasis is on the crime committed, rather than who committed the crime. Gaskins argues that women suffer disproportionately by virtue of being caught in the circumstance of serving as conspirators to males in drug conspiracy. She further argues that such "trapped" women should be given preferential treatment because of their role as mothers.

ISSUE 8. Would Privatization of Social Security Be Detrimental to Women?

YES: National Organization for Women (NOW), from “Viewpoint: A Foolish Bargain for Women,” National NOW Times (Spring 2005)

NO: Ekaterina Shirley and Peter Spiegler, from “The Benefits of Social Security Privatization for Women,” Cato Institute (July 12, 2005)

The National Organization for Women (NOW) argues that the privatization of Social Security will be detrimental to women. Women rely upon current Social Security benefits and would fare poorly under privatization. Authors Shirley and Spiegler argue that women will do very well under the privatization of Social Security because the current Social Security system is detrimental to women.

ISSUE 9. Does Gender Affect Criminal Sentencing?

YES: Cathy Young, from “License to Kill: Men and Women, Crime and Punishment,” Reason Foundation (July 2004)

NO: Barbara Cruikshank, from “Feminism and Punishment,” Signs (Summer 1999)

Cathy Young cites judicial leniency toward women, arguing that women do indeed receive lesser sentences for the same crime. Through the issue of capital punishment, Barbara Cruikshank explores the dilemmas posed by feminist thinking that would argue for equality vs. special consideration for women. If there is to be equality of the sexes, gender cannot be considered in sentencing.

PART 3. Sexual Orientation

ISSUE 10. Is Hate Crime Legislation Constitutional?

YES: Elena Grigera, from “Hate Crimes: State and Federal Response to Bias-Motivated Violence,” Corrections Today (August 1999)

NO: Andrew Sullivan, from “What’s So Bad About Hate: The Illogic and Illiberalism Behind Hate Crime Laws,” The New York Times Magazine (September 26, 1999)

Elena Grigera argues that since the state has a legitimate interest in implementing harsh penalties for hate crimes, hate crime legislation is constitutional. Andrew Sullivan agrees that hate crimes are despicable and that government should work toward eliminating violence. But, he argues, a crime is a crime and should not be treated differently depending upon the victim. Sullivan further argues that waging war on beliefs is unconstitutional.

ISSUE 11. Should Same-Sex Marriages Be Permitted?

YES: Lara Schwartz, from “Why Marriage?” Human Rights Campaign Publication

NO: Edith M. Humphrey, from “What God Hath Not Joined: Why Marriage Was Designed for Male and Female,” Christianity Today (September 2004)

Lara Schwartz, Human Rights Campaign senior staff counsel, argues that any other form of same-sex uniform denies equality, financial benefits and security, and social recognition. Settling for anything less than "marriage" would be to abandon the quest for equality. Edith M. Humphrey argues that same-sex marriages are contrary to biblical teaching. Marriage, she argues, is not a human creation but one enacted by god himself.

ISSUE 12. Should Gays and Lesbians Be Allowed to Adopt?

YES: Ellen C. Perrin, from “Symposium: Adoption by Gay or Lesbian Couples,” Insight on the News (April 22, 2002)

NO: Timothy J. Dailey, from “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” Family Research Council (November 29, 2004)

Citing cases of well-adjus...

Product Description:

Book by Natoli Marie

Su questa edizione

• Editore: McGraw-Hill Education
• Data di pubblicazione: 2005
• ISBN 10: 0073108340
• ISBN 13: 9780073108346
• Rilegatura: Copertina flessibile
• Numero di pagine: 358