Society, Law and Government - Assignment Example

Final Exam al Affiliation Final Exam Question Choose one judicial decision and analyze the impact of this particular decisionon law, precedent and social policy. The judicial decision made on the Supreme Court case: School District of Abington Township v. Schempp presented a significant impact on law, precedent and social policy in terms of alleged violation of the provisions of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment which explicitly stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . “(FindLaw, 1963, p. 1). The prescribed opening exercises of schoolchildren at the Abington School which involved recitation of Bible verses and saying of The Lord’s Prayer counter the religious beliefs of the defendants, the Schempp family. As such, the decision was instrumental in enforcing the law, particularly conformity to the provisions set in the Constitution, particularly in respecting the rights of people in practicing and observing diversity in religious affiliations. The precedent case which influenced the judicial decision was noted to have been premised from a previous court ruling identified in “Engel vs. Vitale in which the court ruled that allowing prayer in school was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution” (Graff, 2009, p. 1); therefore, the decision imposed consistency in the rule of law. Finally, the decision impacts facets of social policy in terms of restoration of perceived injustice for undermining the religious beliefs of the Schempps; therefore enhancing awareness on the part of school administrators and the public to respect diversity in religious practices, as legally and constitutionally required. Question # 2. There are five (5) extraneous influences on judicial policy making (1. The values and ability of the chief executive. 2. The will of Congress or the legislature. 3. The temper of public opinion. 4. The strength and ideological orientation of key interest groups. 5. The attitudes and goodwill of those called on to implement judicial decisions in the real world). Choose three (3) of these and expand on them in relation to the impact they have had on a specific policy. The values and abilities of the chief executive (or the decision-maker) is paramount in judicial policy making (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso, 2010). There were specifically indicated professional qualifications noted for judges, for instance in the State of Iowa, to include: “experience, legal skills and knowledge, and judicial temperament” (Iowa Judicial Branch, 2013, p. 1). However, there had been findings which asserted that “extraneous variables can influence judicial decisions, which bolsters the growing body of evidence that points to the susceptibility of experienced judges to psychological biases” (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso: Discussion, 2010, par. 1). Thus, just like any other propensities for external (or internal factors) that impinge on the decision-making process of other professionals in other fields of discipline, apart from the basis qualifications that impact policy making, the values and abilities, as well as external variables (“effects of a short rest, positive mood, and glucose on mental resource replenishment” (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso:Discussion, 2010, par. 1), could evidently impact on the policy making of judicial process. Likewise, the temper of public opinion has also been found to be an influencing factor in judicial policy making (Casillas, Enns, & Wohlfarth, 2010). It has been expressly found that “the influence of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions is real, substantively important, and most pronounced in nonsalient cases” (Casillas, Enns, & Wohlfarth, 2010, p. 1). The authors even acknowledged that “the publicmood directly constrains the justices’ behavior and the Court’s policy outcomes, even after controlling for the social forces that influence the public and the Supreme Court” (Casillas, Enns, & Wohlfarth, 2010, p. 13). The costs of countering public opinion and the interest of a greater number of people were therefore perceived to be greater than conforming to their assertions, when these are within legal bounds of the judicial system. Finally, the strength and ideological orientation of key interest groups is also a signficant extraneous factor in the judical policy making process, as evidently argued, to wit: “organized interest groups may also play a role in bringing previously nonsalient decisions to the public’s attention. Wlezien and Goggin (1993) show that Supreme Court decisions on abortion can influence interest group activities at future time points” (Casillas, Enns, & Wohlfarth, 2010, p. 9). This was corroborated through emphasizing that “even when the Supreme Court makes a ruling that does not initially attract attention, some of the time, media and organized interests draw attention to the case. This fact alone might be sufficient for justices to consider the context of their decisions and prevailing public opinion in nonsalient cases. To behave otherwise would risk inciting negative attention at some point in the future” (Casillas, Enns, & Wohlfarth, 2010, p. 9). Question # 3. Discuss each of the four (4) justifications of punishment (retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation). Apply each of these in a way that shows why each one makes sense for a particular case. In order for punishment to be allegedly justified, any of the four (4) criteria must be met: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Under retribution, it was asserted that that it originated from the “Judeo–Christian tradition in the Mosaic laws of the Old Testament that emphasize the idea of ‘an eye for an eye’” (Philosophies of Punishment, 2010, p. 16). This particular justification apparently makes sense in cases which “fit primarily the moral gravity of the crime and, to a lesser extent, the characteristics of the offender” (Philosophies of Punishment, 2010, p. 16). For instance, when an offender murders another person, retribution clearly asserts taking that person’s life as an equal and justifiable punishment. In the case of incapacitation, the principle disclosed the need to eliminate a person’s capacity to commit a crime through the provision of physical restraints on potential behavior. Examples of strategies conforming to legal incapacitation include: “court-ordered injunctions, federal boycotts and restraint-of-trade agreements, restraining orders in domestic violence cases, cease-and-desist orders, revocations of licenses, foreclosures, and the passage of certification requirements to perform particular tasks (e.g., college degree requirements for teaching, passing medical board and bar exams for practicing medicine or law)” (Philosophies of Punishment, 2010, p. 18). This make sense to avoid untoward incidents should potential perpetuators of malevolent behavior remain uncontrolled. In addition, the principle of deterrence discloses potential punishments which would definitely be applied should a criminal behavior be undertaken. As emphasized, “punishments have the greatest potential for deterring misconduct when they are severe, certain, and swift in their application” (Philosophies of Punishment, 2010, p. 20). This is therefore most applicable in cases involving drug-related crimes or even in human trafficking where stiff penalties could prevent potential individuals of even thinking of committing the crime. Finally, rehabilitation aims to treat or reform the offenders. It was emphasized that “the ultimate goal of rehabilitation is to restore a convicted offender to a constructive place in society through some combination of treatment, education, and training” (Philosophies of Punishment, 2010, p. 22). This is most applicable in juvenile cases where young offenders should be given effective opportunities to recognize, evaluate, and correct the mistakes which were irresponsibly committed. References Casillas, C., Enns, P., & Wohlfarth, P. (2010). How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 1-15. Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2010). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Retrieved from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.full FindLaw. (1963). ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Retrieved from caselaw.lp.findlaw.com: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/374/203.html Graff, L. (2009, September 24). Abington Township vs. Schempp. Retrieved from departments.bucknell.edu: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/fn125/Abstract%201%202009/graff_schempp.html Iowa Judicial Branch. (2013). Judicial Selection. Retrieved from iowacourts.gov: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Public_Information/About_Judges/Selection/ Philosophies of Punishment. (2010). Retrieved from marisluste.files.wordpress.com: http://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/soda-filozofijas-3.pdf Wlezein, C., & Goggin, M. (1993). The Courts, Interest Groups, and Public Opinion about Abortion. Political Behavior, 15(4): 381–405. Read More