Is justice for all possible in America - Research Paper Example

Is justice for all possible in America? Introduction: For all the legal bodies of the world providing fair and equal justice to all is an ethical and mandatory responsibility; the same holds true for United States of America (USA) as well. USA follows a federal set up in governance and federalism and dual sovereignty have always remained two mutually conflicting aspects for United States of America. Though in course of time most of the federal-state conflict attained an agreement on both part, but perfection remained a mirage. Within a federal-state set up the state witnessed a declining supremacy, yet the criminal law remained a domain where the state sustained to enjoy the final say. However, Supreme Court kept the states under strict vigilance and often corrected their action in case it deemed necessary (Batt, 325). Questions however pierced through the surface that what does fairness actually stands for and what is the true standard for the same. As usual these couple of questions have also given birth to another; who would be the determining body for fairness. The first amendment and the fourteenth amendment of the USA constitution determine the concept of fairness of justice for the federal and the state government respectively (Batt, 325). Historically USA has remained a multi ethnic country; from the Red Indians to the Afro-Americans, USA history is all about friction and conflict among people heralding from different ethnic background. At this background providing justice for all becomes necessary but upholding equality among USA nationals is challenging as well. Critics has also raised the question that whether All these questions cumulatively give birth to an interesting paradigm and finding a satisfactory answer to these justice for all is at all possible in USA; is it a myth or motto? Since getting justice has become a costly affair, is it possible amid growing income inequality that all remain same before law? questions is an arduous work for a researcher. Starting from the late nineteenth century the present paper leads an endeavour to find the answer for all these questions in a just and apt manner. Justice in USA by the end of nineteenth and at the wake of twentieth century: In USA the federal courts had restrained themselves from enacting any control over state criminal proceedings till 1868. During the Cohens v. Virginia case the federal court felt the need of its intervention for the first time owing to a hastened decision by John Marshall. Even after the enactment of the fourteenth amendment the states seldom displayed any concern for change in procedure while implementing the criminal law and the first wave of cases dealt by the state courts and needed further consideration by the federal courts reached the Supreme Court around fifteen years after the concerned amendment. In those cases racial discrimination occupied the central stage. Scholars and practitioners dedicated to fair trial for all opined in favour of the inclusion of Bill of Rights but their plea mostly remained in vein as we realize through the decisions taken on Slaughter House cases. In 1879 and 1880 the Supreme Court reviewed three cases on discrimination namely, Virginia v. Reeves, Strauder v. West Virginia and Neal v. Delaware. Though in the first mentioned case the Supreme Court uphold the state’s decision but in the next two cases it successfully intervened to stop the denial of true justice. However, those early year exploits to usher true justice were soon put to sleep and the Supreme Court in 1890s became much more engrossed in justifying state’s faults on racial discriminationand thus the progress achieved so far on justice for all; literally met its end by nineteenth century (Batt, 327-328). Legal ambience in America during Twentieth Century: The twentieth century witnessed increased judicial activism in United States of America and owing to this some of the flaws and dubiousness of law became visible. The first of this kind came through the definiteness of statutes. When the states defined gangster, the Supreme Court criticised the definition as baseless and not well defined. Furthermore the Supreme Court also opined that defining someone as gangster based upon the existing definition and applying common sense might be detrimental for the upholding of the law in a just manner. However, the Supreme Court seemed clueless when it came to define the term obscene. Eventually the Supreme Court agreed that that sever lacuna does exist in these definitions and within the usual process of applying common sense while classifying someone using these definitions and applying the common intelligence. It is obvious that application of common intelligence and its acceptance to the court eventually is a reflection of personal philosophy that seldom can be neutral and just. Personal philosophy differs among persons and do not abide by any documented set of doctrine. Reaching a just verdict is more of an accident under this set up rather than a sustainable process (Batt, 328-331). The role of police in the USA is not beyond question and even the court has opined at times that it is easier for the police to resort to physical torture in order to extract evidence and confession that to go out and search for the evidence.Exploitation of this kind is much higher for Afro-Americans. For example, in Brown vs. Mississippi case the deputy in charge commented after torturing the accused “not too much for a Negro. Not as much as I would have done if it were left to me.” (Batt, 335). Once a white man was murdered and the Florida police arrested forty black men within twenty four hours without warrant. All the arrested blacks were thereafter subject to never ending questioning by the police without a break. Not that only such without warrant arrest is legally prohibited but the relevancy of a confession got in this manner is not beyond doubt. Furthermore it also raises the question that whether these people if white would have undergone similar situation. It is worth remembering that Afro-Americans are not the only ethnic minority living in USA, there are Latinos and Asian-Americans as well and exploitation is prevalent among them as well. Time and again it has been seen that exploitation of the legal system happens mostly within the period of arrest, corporal restraint and trial but apart from the sporadic cautionary words the court has not extended anything substantial to the police system. It is true that at times corrupt police officers have been caught but in comparison to their actual number such arrest is at its bare minimum. However, the court portrays a much clear and just picture regarding upholding of the law bereft of racial biasness than the police (Batt, 329-336). In the present era of commercialization questions have also been raised that how far the legal arena has remained outside its grasp. Nowadays, to get the verdict in favour, one has to resort to costly affair through hiring good lawyers and hastening hearing dates. USA is subject to severe income inequality and amid this ambience; there is always the possibility that a well off person might find it much easier to mould the law in his favour than a person under financial pressure. When law just becomes a function of money then it generates significant doubt about the clarity of the system (Schleifer; Curto). There is an old saying “justice delayed is justice denied” (Curto); however with time killing methods applied by the lawyers, it seems no hid whatsoever has been paid to this caution. Changing judges during the hearing of the case, lawyer’s plea for date extension and moving cases from one court to another all adds to delayed justice, but so far not any significant step has been taken to address it. One interest aspect in this regard comes to the attention. If justice is truly served for all in a just manner then why there would be repeated crime? (Curto). As mentioned by Schleifer “For instance, New York City has 61,000 officers. Considering that the average yearly salary is about $50,000, law enforcement alone costs New York City approximately $3 billion! In essence, they have thrown money at the problem, instead of addressing its cause.Consider the following: according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most current statistics, a violent crime occurs every 25.3 seconds, with one murder every 35.6 minutes, a forcible rape every 6.2 minutes, one robbery every 1.4 minutes, and an aggravated assault every 40.5 seconds. And this is just in the United States!” (Schleifer). Hence there is no denial that crime is rampant in USA and that might be due to unavailability of timely and true justice for all. Conclusion: So far what has been discussed reveals the fact that justice for all is not yet available in America. The federal-state set up, multi ethnicity, income inequality and delayed justice might be the reason for the same. What USA need is to address federal-state conflict within the realm of the law, a better social harmony where human would be considered as human irrespective of their ethnic background and color and all the parts of the judiciary would devote themselves to provide timely and true justice to all irrespective of the accusers and accused socio-economic background. It would be exaggeration to call the justice for all in America impossible but it is true to make things possible much have to be done and the government has to take special care for the backwards so that they can provide them a chance to realise true justice. Works Cited Batt, John R. Equal Justice for all? – Myth or Mytho, William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, April 24, 2014 from: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3344&context=wmlr Curto, Anthony, No justice at all, How our Civil Justice System is failing Americans, Fox News, 2012, April 24, 2014 from: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/10/no-justice-for-all-how-our-civil-justice-system-is-failing-americans/ Schleifer, Bradford, Justice for all, 2014, April 24 2014 from: http://realtruth.org/articles/353-tjaig.html Read More