Is Justice for All Possible in America - Research Paper Example

Is Justice for All Possible in America? Introduction From a simplistic perspective, it may be possible to say that justice for all citizens of a country is a real possibility when the laws are fair, and are followed in the spirit as well as the letter by the rational citizens of that country. Although most justice systems are based on similar principles that seem sound in theory, they can become very difficult to practice. Society is made up of a number of groups based on age, race, education, wealth, status, orientation, gender and such other factors. Persons belonging to different groups differ in the extent to which they wield power; and this poses a risk to the concept of justice for all Sullivan (129). Given the diverse nature of the American society, availing justice for all members of society is an extremely difficult, if not impossible task. Concept of Justice The Greek civilization was possibly the first in the western world to develop the concept of a state or country, of a society with its citizens and of justice for all citizens. Justice was understood as the fair treatment of all citizens by law (Schmidtz, 11). A state that provided justice was believed to be a state in which no individual would experience unfair treatment without having the right to contest it. Although these concepts were developed more as theoretical constructs rather than practical tenets; they formed the basis of the social and legal systems developed by the Greek and later by the Romans. Modern justice systems draw from the principles discussed by Greek philosophers, but understand them in present day contexts (Schmidtz, 95). Evolving an Understanding of Justice Over the centuries, the principles of justice have been tested, modified and refined to develop the way in which justice is perceived today. Initially, the Greek right to equal justice was applicable only to free men, while slaves and women were excluded. As the understanding of humanity, human rights and the state developed, more groups were brought under the right to a just state (Schmidtz). Within American history, there are several instances of improvement within the justice system. The civil war paved the way for slaves to be freed so that they receive just and equal treatment; while the feminist movement has been slowly working towards changing the way women are viewed in the home and at the workplace (Kessler, 304). The Gay-Pride movement has been fighting for the acceptance of gay and lesbian people and has been gaining acceptance slowly. Inclusion of Different Groups The laws of a state or country are developed in order to provide a fair and just treatment to all citizens. An important issue that needs to be considered is the definition of the term ‘citizen’. Historically, women, slaves and the lower classes have rarely been considered as citizens, and the rights of these groups have not been considered when evaluating the extent to which the legal system is just. This means that often, even the most effective of justice systems did not represent a large portion of humans living in the country (Schmidtz, 110). Before the civil war, the inhuman treatment of slaves and other people of color was not addressed by the justice systems; and for a long time, women suffered in the workplace and at home because they were deemed inferior. Homosexual persons still find it difficult to gain acceptance in some parts of the country; and find it difficult to enter the army or share a bond of matrimony in some states. Although American laws restrict the unjust treatment that can be meted out to minority groups; this does not ensure that implicit forms of discrimination against minorities have been dealt with. From a philosophical perspective, minorities often do not experience just treatment from the majorities even in America. Kessler (174-176) provides various examples of how the well meaning individuals of minority status are discriminated against under the guise of concern for them. He also raises concern about the manner in which ‘Affirmative action programs’ are carried out. The often cited rationale behind these programs is that they provide compensatory justice to groups that have been denied opportunities in the past (Rawls, 160). While these programs report admirable growth and development for members of minority groups, in principle they are unfair to Caucasian males who are less likely to be chosen when all other factors are equal. Issues in Providing Justice Instances like the one cited above highlight the limitations in providing justice to all. One central issue is that the concept of justice and the manner in which it is practiced is heavily influenced by the perspective, opinions and principles of individuals and groups. Groups that are considered ‘different’ are rarely afforded an equal status with others as it is believed that this would be ‘unjust’ to all concerned. This argument has been used to keep individuals of homosexual orientation out of the military, to explain segregation on the basis of race, and to explain the glass ceiling effect that reduces the chances of women to rise within an industry. Another important issue is related to the extent to which a particular group wields some kind of power over others. Sullivan (129 – 131) discusses various instances in which persons from impoverished backgrounds and of minority status receive punishment for relatively minor crimes while the wealthy and powerful are rarely targeted as effectively. He also discusses the manner in which persons in positions of power are likely to inhibit the path of due process to their own ends (134). One of the cornerstones of a justice system is that all humans are capable of rational thought and honesty; and should behave thus. In reality, people are rarely moved wholly by reason, and often make choices and decisions based more in emotion and self-serving bias than in reason. It is unrealistic and possibly unjust to expect an individual or a group to make a choice that does not favor them. In saying that, it is also necessary to understand the impact that such a bias can have on the execution of justice. Practical and Ethical Dilemmas Providing justice to all is thus a tedious and difficult process and not without its grey areas. One of the main concerns is associated with who the recipient of justice should be, and what factors should be taken into consideration when trying to understand a case. For instance, when an illegal immigrant is attested and tried, should the focus be on the fact that he/she was holding a job that should rightfully have gone to an American citizen or on the fact that the immigrant was faced with circumstances of extreme neglect if deported back to his/her home country (Ramos, 64)? While it would be unjust to allow an individual to hold a job illegally; it would also be unjust to deny them the chance to better their circumstances. Another dilemma revolves around how one should address situations that compromises justice for one group so that another may benefit. Affirmative action policies are often targeted on this basis by spokespersons of majority groups (Kessler, 175). The argument often raised is that instead of reversing the privileges, each person should be allowed to share in both the benefits as well as the burdens in a fair and equitable manner (175). The counter argument in favor of providing affirmative action to minority groups is that these groups have been wronged heavily in the past; and they require some preferential treatment in order to compensate for these wrong-doings (194). Both these arguments appeal to the concept of justice for all; and it can become difficult to define a policy that does not harm any group to help another. A final dilemma that may be noted is that the definition of equality and understanding of individual freedoms and rights is an ever changing and evolving concept. Thus, precedent cannot always be relied on to provide groundwork for just decision making. It is important to review legal and social norms regularly in order to ensure that no member or group of members in a society who experience an inequality that is not to the benefit of all including themselves (Rawls, 160). Having said this, the fact that are inequalities may be used by the unscrupulous to their own advantage so that others suffer consequences that are not of their own making. The issues raised by the ‘99% movement’ demonstrate this dilemma. Although it is within the right of the rich to try and gain more wealth; it is unjust that others suffer more than they do (seemingly) when these attempts fail. Conclusion Justice is one of the basic principles that each democratic country tries to establish within its functioning. America, like all countries that value the tenets of democracy strives to provide justice to all individuals on American soil. But while conceptually and in principle, equal justice to all is an important idea; it is extremely difficult if not practically impossible to apply to the daily functioning of the social, legal, financial and other systems within the country. Inequalities between groups of people exist due to different reasons (Schmidtz, 110-112); and it can become difficult to provide equal opportunities to all members of a group. Justice can sometimes mean providing preferential treatment to some for the benefit of all; but such situations may prove to be unjust (if temporarily) for some members of the society. Human understanding of the state and society and the limitations and privileges that are associated with being the citizen of a particular country have developed and become refined over the centuries. But this in no way indicates that prevalent understanding of justice and equitable distribution truly reflects the principles of justice for all. Various limitations and dilemmas including the nature of humans, limitations of the state and equal status under law that cannot recognize particular cases impede the path of providing a truly just life for all members of a society. The challenge of providing justice to all persons also rises from these limitations. Works cited Kessler, Gary E. Voices of wisdom: a multicultural philosophy reader. 5th ed. New York: Wadsworth. 2003. Print. Ramos, J. A country for all: An immigrant manifesto. New York: Random House. 2010. Print. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard University Press. 1971. Print. Sullivan, John C. --and Justice for All?: A Dissenting Opinion of the American Legal System. Utah: Cedar Fort, 1989. Print. Schmidtz, D. Elements of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. 2006. Print. Read More