Policies and Procedures of 2010 Arizona Law - Essay Example

Arizona Law about checking anyone that law enforcement suspects to be undocumented. Affiliation Brief facts of the Arizona Law The 2010 Arizona law also known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is a legislative act that was enacted in Arizona in 2010. It seeks to suffice severe and strict prohibited immigration measures (Rough, 2010). The legislative act has spurred many controversies both internationally and domestically due to the strict policies and measures that have been put in place because of it. The Act was signed into law by the then Governor Jan Brewer after it was adopted successfully and passed by the legislative house. Nevertheless, legal challenges manifested the act on its voidance of the civil and political rights as enshrined in the international convents and the constitution (Rough, 2010). A detailed analysis of policies and procedures of this law A preliminary injunction was issued by a federal judge before the Act took full effect to allow the determination of the controversial issues in the said act. There were four provisions that were contentious in the said act. They included: a) An alien in Arizona found to be without the necessary documents ascertaining his/her identity was deemed to have committed a state misdemeanor. b) The act barred state, local officials, or agencies from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws. c) Stiff penalties imposed on those found sheltering or aiding unregistered aliens. d) State law enforcers were given authority to determine an immigrant status in the case of an arrest or detention after a reasonable suspicion. In June 2012, the matter in this case, Arizona v United States, a ruling was made that upheld and affirmed the contentious provision requiring an immigration status check during lawful stops or arrests (Barnes, 2012).Markedly, the US Supreme Court stroke out the other contentious clauses and they were rendered void. Those clauses were found to be a breach of the supremacy clauses of the United States Constitution (Barnes, 2012). The United States Constitution is the supreme law, and any other law that is contrary to it is inapplicable. The striking out of some of the contentious clauses by the court brought relieve to critics of the act who viewed the Act as repugnant to moral equity and justice. Some persons were of the view that these laws would bring about the issue of racial profiling and furthermore, catalyze racial discrimination among citizens (Thompson, 2010). It is sober to note that this law sparked lots of protests in some of the states of the United States of America with critics calling for boycotts. Nevertheless, some opinion polls seemed to show that most citizens of the Arizona supported the act. They also showed that that they wanted the repealing of some of the sections that were considered to be strict and prompted discomposure of aliens who were immigrants (Thompson, 2010). The bill also took a political angle with support/criticism of the said law being subjected to party positions and not individual understanding of the realities surrounding this law. Most Democrats were opposing the bill and vehemently criticizing it while most Republicans supported the bill and pushed for its enactment (Barnes, 2012). In this analysis, the policies will be on: a) The association between policy, race, and crime. b) Discrimination or disparity in the criminal justice system. The Relationship between policy, race, and crime Various debates and talks have been centered on the aspect of race and crime. It has been assumed and later sampled that there are distinct races with a prevalence of criminal activities. The notion has sparked widespread reactions from different corners with some critics observing that such notions are furthering the profiling of certain races. As noted by Rehavi and Star (2012), African American or Hispanic accused persons are usually likely to be served with mandatory minimum sentences that are usually longer in an effort to try and curb criminal activities. It has been occasioned by the fact that the race of the above is considered to be a major partaker in criminal activities. The criticism of the Arizona 2010 bill was based on this notion too. According to certified reports, most unregistered immigrants in a state happen to be African Americans or Hispanic. It has attributed to the use of race as a subject in the investigation of immigration status of suspicious persons (Rehavi & Star, 2012). A look at the prison data given by US Bureau of Justice statics shows that non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison and jail population in 2009. In the same year the non-Hispanic whites were 34.2%, and Hispanics (of any race) 20.6%. These statics clearly show a gross relationship between crime and race (Rehavi & Star, 2012). The policies developed to govern this situation must be bound by moral obligations and within the principles and values of the constitution. These policies are to help in stabilizing a state without creating unnecessary commotions and controversies (Rehavi & Star, 2012). The relationship between race and crime is a major factor to be reformed to establish a lasting solution. In the controversial Arizona law 2010, it was depicted that the law enforcers were to suppose a general assumption on the illegality of an alien by the basis of his/her race. It may not have been expressed vividly, but it is depicted on the basis of the implications (Vaughan, 2006). Reforms and its legal, political, societal implications Various reforms have been fronted to help in solving this menace of race and crime. These reforms are part of a wider initiative to create a more transparent and affair criminal justice system that will serve its purpose in its fullest sense. An advanced and prudent legislation should be enacted to take care of the racial disparity that exists in the criminal justice system. Guidelines and provisions should be established to aid in the prospective development of such state legislation that will vitally contribute in providing a vivid understanding on the relationship between crime and race. The legislation will aid in minimizing aspects of baseless profiling of persons of a certain race (Barnes, 2012). Notably, steps been undertaken by the Congress in curbing the racial disparity that exists should be acknowledged. In 2010, the Congress adopted the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) that represents a long, neutral effort to minimize the racial disparities that existed prior. The FSA guidelines have been adopted by various commissions and states and a major step towards the realization of sober policy in regards to race and crime (Harris, Rau, & Creno, 2010). Nevertheless, this will have a political impact that may hinder the realizations of these reforms. With the highly polarized politics, the political reality may not give a go ahead to the occasioning of these reforms. Discrimination or disparity in the criminal justice system There have been notable aspects of gross discrimination of persons in the criminal justice system. The discrimination usually is in terms of gender, race, age, color, social class among many other factors. It has led to controversies that in one way or the other result to a miscarriage of justice. The 2010 Arizona law was viewed by criticizers as a tool to be used for furthering the discrimination of profiled races in that particular state. It led to the review of the particular law in what came to be known as the HB 2162 modification. The modification had clearly expressed how the Act would be applied and that it was not to be used in a discriminatory manner (Archibald, 2010). There still exist notions and perceptions that illegal immigrants will undergo discrimination and some of them might be subjected to gross harassment and mistreatment. Opponents of the law are still seeking redress of the court on this matter. A group of civil groups on human rights have gone to Court to try and halt the enforcement of the provision that was passed by the US Supreme Court (Rau, Rough, & Hensley, 2010). Claims have been fronted that the Latinos who live in the Arizona would be occasioned to an organized and systematic racial discrimination and will be subjected to unrealistic detentions if the act is enforced by the state. It is viewed by some as an excuse by the sympathizers of illegal activities (Rau, Rough, & Hensley, 2010).The International Convention on Civil and Political rights (ICCPR) is an international instrument that bound the United States after ratifying. The covenant has these rights that are meant to restrain the government/state activity. It further prohibits the discrimination of persons with all forms (Aliaskari, 2011). Reforms and its legal, political, and societal implications Several reforms, that may aid in limiting or eradicating forms of discrimination that may surface especially in the application of the 2010 Arizona law, which has already been effected can be facilitated. The police must undergo prudent training on how to avoid discriminatory practices while enforcing these laws. The training should be incorporated into the curriculum of the police course and be a core unit. It will help the police to minimize the chances of being viewed as facilitators of discriminatory practices. The police should also be enlightened on how to establish reasonable suspicion that is a mandatory requirement in enforcing the provisions of the 2010 Arizona law (Barnes, 2012).The reforms of the police will have a vital role in minimizing the chances of discrimination. It is a step that aids in solving the root causes of discrimination in the criminal justice system. It will be upon the state to ensure that these police reforms are adhered to, so as to, achieve their intended purpose. The laws, which encourage discrimination in the criminal justice system should be rendered void and draconian. All laws being enacted should be within the standardized principles enshrined in the civil and political rights (Barnes, 2012). Role of law enforcement and their relation to Hispanic community The 2010 Arizona law is a time bomb that may lead to various consequences if not carefully enforced by the relevant authorities. The relation between the Hispanic community and the law enforcers will weaken as time progress. It will be regardless of whether one is a legal citizen or an illegal citizen (Aliaskari, 2011). The Hispanic community may view this as a form of discrimination that is being hidden in the cocoon of legal authorities in an effort to do away with them. Therefore, a hostile reaction may be embraced by this community that may lead to protests, strikes as already being witnessed in Arizona ((Rau, Rough, & Hensley, 2010). The law has been compared to the Japanese American internment during World War II and Apartheid in South Africa (Harris, Rau, & Creno, 2010). It is due to the fact that the law tends to violate rights such as the freedom of speech by exposing persons to scrutiny based on their language, race, and national origin minorities by subjecting them to stops, detentions, and arrests. It may have an effect on jails and prisons, since with the option of mandatory sentencing, persons may be sent to prisons at a higher rate. It may not aid the current process being undertaken by the federal government to decongest prisons by offering other forms of punishments for unlawful acts or omissions (Harris, Rau, & Creno, 2010). Conclusively, reforms should be adhered to the letter. The laws being enacted should be principled by the provisions in the covenant of civil and political rights to reduce instances of racial bias and discrimination in the criminal justice system. Taking into consideration that racial discrimination has been the cause of numerous history changing events since the colonial times. Presently, it is up to the Federal and State law-makers to institute laws that ensure the rights of every individual are protected in spite of their origin or color. Doing so will ensure equality and justice are the pillar of any law. References Aliaskari, M. (2011, May 2). The Ninth Circuit and Arizona’s S. B. 1070. The National Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/ninth-circuit-and- arizona-s-sb-1070 Archibold, R. C. (2010, April 23). Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?_r=0 Barnes, R. (2012, June 25). Supreme Court Rejects Much of Arizona Immigration Law. The Washington post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme- court-rules-on-arizona-immigration-law/2012/06/25/gJQA0Nrm1V_story.html Harris, C., Rau, A. B., Creno, G. (2010, April 24). Arizona governor signs immigration law; foes promise fight. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration- law-passed.html Rau, A. B. Rough, G. & Hensley, J. J. (2010, July 28). Arizona immigration law: State to appeal injunction. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/07/28/20100728ari zona-immigration-law-court-ruling-brk28-ON.html Rough, G. (2010, June 4). Brewer calls Obama meeting a success. The Arizona republic. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/20100603arizona- governor-meets-with-obama.html Thompson, K. (2010, May 12). Arizona tourism loses more business in wake of immigration law vote. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051203317.html Vaughan, J. M. (2006, April). Attrition through Enforcement: A Cost-Effective Strategy to Shrink the Illegal Population. Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved from http://www.cis.org/Enforcement-IllegalPopulation Read More