Martin Luther Kings Letter from a Birmingham Jail - Essay Example

? Take Home Exam Questions Tiffany Howard Law and Society Lisa Holland-Davis October 26, From Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” In his letter, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” the rationale for participating in a march in Birmingham. He expounded on several approaches to conflict management and then justifies why his movement has chosen the one he calls, “direct action”. In this regard, the essay will be used to analyze the conflict management approaches presented by Donald Black. Forms of Conflict Management Discuss and define the 3 approaches: From the lecture notes on Law as Social Control, there are three general approaches to resolving conflict are categorized into unilateral, bilateral and through third party. The unilateral form actually focuses on toleration where it was noted that the victim is perceived to be socially inferior or estranged from the offender. The bilateral form is parallel with applying negotiation techniques where both parties are deemed of equal status and seek some form of agreement or arrangement to settle their conflicts that would be amenable to both. Finally, if despite all resolutions techniques have been exhausted and conflicts remain unresolved, the third-party settlement form requires seeking a neutral third party (not affiliated to any of the offending nor offended parties) to evaluate the issue and arrive at the most appropriate solution. Description of Circumstances for Application of Conflict Management Forms Using Donald Black’s article, entitled “Crime as Social Control”, the forms of conflict management are: toleration, negotiation, settlement, law and self-help. Self-help was defined by Black (1983) as “the expression of a grievance by unilateral aggression such as personal violence or property destruction” (p. 34). Law, on the other hand, was noted as a form of governmental social control (Black, 1983, p. 41). His focus was to present law and self-help as forms of conflict management that functions more as social control mechanisms. Using these forms of conflict management in the case of King, from the circumstances relayed in his letter, he clearly noted the application of a rational four step process in his nonviolent campaign in conflict management, to wit: “collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King, 1963, p. 1). But evidently, the form of unilateral form of conflict management was applied when toleration was upheld for the longest time. King averred that “we have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights” (King, 1963, p. 3). Since he acknowledged that colored people have been discriminated and prejudiced for so long exemplifying the inferior status socially imposed, this form was therefore eventually rejected as effective and applicable. The bilateral form of conflict management had been applied when King noted that negotiations were apparently tried but proven ineffective. As proven, there were negotiations (or supposedly agreed upon settlements) made between the leaders of the Birmingham’s economic community and the Negro citizens in terms of removing racial signs in merchants’ stores, for instance. Apparently, these leaders and merchants failed to comply with the promise as few signs were briefly removed but return eventually and others were not removed at all (King, 1963, p. 2). Therefore, ordinary negotiations were proven to be ineffective and were arbitrarily rejected by King. Likewise, the direct action through demonstrations were a call for further negotiations possible seeking third party infusion to resolve the conflict by invoking public protests to make others aware that there is a need to bring justice and equality to the oppressed. This option was regarded as the best course of action for reasons identified and justified below. Law intercedes in King’s quest for conflict resolution through admitting that their direct action do no violate any persisting law or government control. The sit ins, marching and demonstration were organized as non-violent actions that comply and conform to the laws of society. However, self-help is clearly manifested as a unilateral expression of grievance of the Negro citizenry with the aim of achieving vindications for prejudices and discriminations imposed upon them. Explanation of “Direct Action” as a Bilateral Form of Conflict Management As revealed in the letter, the “purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation… (It) seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue” (King, 1963, p. 2). Therefore, the direct action is a bilateral form of conflict management since King seeks to open the doors of communication to arrive at an agreement between the white and black community members regarding racial issues. This was seen by King as the best option because in this commitment, he was already seeking for equality and justice in of the same rights and privileges among both white and black citizens. As the bilateral form indicated, this conflict management type is resorted between groups of equal statuses and perceived to be homogenous with the same privileges and ties. However, during that time, the black community has not shared equal statuses and privileges accorded to the white citizens. In this regard, through direct action of creating tension and unrest through street demonstrations, sit ins, marches, and other nonviolent actions, there is actually a call for government to intercede and act as a third party arbitrator to resolve the racial discrimination once and for all. This is therefore deemed the best option as it is a nonviolent campaign that is participated by a wide range and number of the black community and calls the attention of those in power (government) to act and solve the impending conflict. Ernest van de Haag and the Theory of Deterrence Ernst van den Haag suggests that in order to increase the deterrent value of punishment we should abandon discretionary sentences in favor of flat, mandatory and determinate sentences. In this regard, the essay aims to address the following concerns: (1) to discuss the origins and basic tenants of the theory of deterrence; (2) to explain the logic behind van den Haag’s plan; and finally, (3) to use the Atkins v. Virginia (2002) case to illustrate the flaws in his logic. Origins and Basic Tenants of the Theory of Deterrence The origin of the theory of deterrence can be pinpointed from the philosopher Cesare Beccaria in his discourse entitled “On Crimes and Punishments (On Crimes), written in 1764” (Paternoster, 2010, p. 767). As quoted, Beccaria proffered that “certain punishment is a much more effective deterrent than severe punishment” (Paternoster, 2010, p. 769). His contentions were based on evaluating that punishments are most effective not depending on the extent of cruelty, but on infallibility. As long as those who reflect on committing some criminal behavior acknowledge that punishment would be certain, regardless of extent, the fear inflicted by the certainty has been proven as an effective deterrent. In sum, and most clearly noted, the basic tenants of the theory of deterrence was disclosed, to wit: “very much the original deterrence theorist, Beccaria’s position was that the self-interest to commit crime has to be thwarted by legal punishment that is certain, proportional and swift” (Paternoster, 2010, p. 769). Logic Behind Van Den Haag’s Plan Ernest van de Haag’s article entitled “The Criminal Law as a Threat System” proposed to contend that “the prohibitions of the criminal law are justified, and that the moral or material cost of enforcing them by punishment need not be excessive” (van de Haag, 1982, pp. 769-770). He recognized and made aware that “currently, punishments are to a large extent discretionary (decided upon by courts within wide limits set by law), indeterminate (the courts often merely set the minimum and maximum time to be served), and expected to be reduced in various, often unpredictable, degrees by outside boards and prison administrators (parole and time off for good behavior)” (van de Haag, 1982, p. 773). In so doing, people who are tempted to break the law and commit a crime hope for marginalized punishments (based on diverse factors) eventually opt to commit the crime when lesser costs (in terms of potential punishments) are perceived than the benefits to be gained for committing the crime. He therefore proposed for a “mandated, determinate, and flat sentences would reduce discretion, and thus individualization, to a minimum for the sake of deterrence and of justice” (van de Haag, 1982, p. 773). Use of Atkins v. Virginia’s Case to Illustrate Flaws in van de Haag’s Logic The use of Atkins v Virginia Case (2002) provided a vivid example that illustrated a flaw in van de Haag’s logic. His proposed mandated, determinate and flat sentences to be applicable in a more universal setting are flawed. His prescription would duly indiscriminate Atkins who was initially convicted of a death sentence, as penalty for capital murder and other related crimes. If the prescription of van de Haag is promulgated in its entirety, Atkins would have been led to death despite apparent lack of sufficient capacities for mental functioning. As upheld by the court, death penalty is imposed to as a deterrent and retributory function. However, in cases of offenders diagnosed for mental retardation, the law upholds that mentally retarded persons due to “their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct” (2002, p. 2). If van de Haag’s proposal is used, there would not be any exemption as to the personality and mental capacity of the offender – and in which case – would have successfully imposed and enacted the death penalty. The flaw in his logic therefore, is seen in terms of failure to consider excessive penalties stipulated in the Eighth Amendment, which “succinctly prohibits "excessive" sanctions. It provides: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (2002, p. 4). For Atkins who exhibited the mental functioning only of a young boy, the court ruled that “"the imposition of the sentence of death upon a criminal defendant who has the mental age of a child between the ages of 9 and 12 is excessive" (2002, p. 3).Further, the purpose of the death penalty is futile in this case since imposing a death penalty on a mentally retarded person would not justify its purpose for deterrence and retribution. A mentally retarded person could not be said to deserve such punishment due to the lack of mental capacity to discern the appropriateness of the actions. Deterrence is also not duly applicable as “capital punishment can serve as a deterrent only when murder is the result of premeditation and deliberation” (2002, p. 7). In Atkin’s case, he could not have premeditated nor deliberated on his actions: “the diminished ability to understand and process information, to learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, or to control impulses--that also make it less likely that they can process the information of the possibility of execution as a penalty and, as a result, control their conduct based upon that information” (2002, p. 7). In both counts, the logic of van de Haag has been proven to be flawed. References Atkins v. Virginia, No. 00-8452 (Supreme Court of Virginia June 20, 2002). Black, D. (1983). Crime as Social Control. American Sociological Review, Volume 48, Number 1, 34-45. King, M. L. (1963, April 16). Letter From Birmingham Jail. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr.: http://www.kingpapers.org Paternoster, R. (2010). How Much do we Really know about Criminal Deterrence? The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Volume 100, Number 3, 765-825. van de Haag, E. (1982). The Criminal Law as a Threat System. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Volume 73, Number 2, 769-785. Read More