The sentencing practices include disproportionately long prison terms, mandatory sentencing without parole, and treating youth offenders as adults. Human Rights Watch research in found that the massive overincarceration includes a growing number of elderly people whom prisons are ill-equipped to handle, and an estimated 93, youth under age 18 in adult jails and another 2, in adult prisons. Hundreds of children are subjected to solitary confinement.
Ryan Messmore Winter After a financial crisis, a deep recession, and a stalled recovery, it should be no surprise that poverty in America is on the rise. This is a troubling figure, and it should certainly move us to act to help the poor as we strive to grow the economy.
But efforts to address poverty in America are frequently derailed by misguided ideology — in particular, by the notion that poverty is best understood through the lens of inequality.
Far too often, policymakers succumb to the argument that a widening gap between the richest and poorest Americans is the fundamental problem to be solved and that poverty is merely a symptom of that deeper flaw.
Such concerns about inequality are not baseless, of course. They begin from a fact of the modern American economy, which is that, in recent decades, incomes among the poor have risen less quickly than have incomes among the wealthy. And such growing inequality, some critics contend, is both practically and morally dangerous.
A growing income divide can foster bitterness and animosity between classes, threaten democracy, and destabilize the economy. Above all, they argue, it violates the cherished moral principle of equality. Implicit in much of the critique of our income divide is the assumption that inequality per se is inherently unjust, and therefore that the gap between rich and poor is as well.
That perceived injustice in turn spurs support for redistributionist policies that are intended to make levels of prosperity more equal across society. President Obama commonly uses the language of justice and equality to advance such an agenda — speaking, for instance, of "the injustice in the growing divide between Main Street and Wall Street.
Some religious figures have even used their moral concerns about inequality to justify the imposition of specific redistributionist economic policies.
For example, Jim Wallis, president of the liberal religious organization Sojourners, has said that inequality in America — "a sin of biblical proportions" — necessitates a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, and increased welfare spending. But though the gap between rich and poor may be widening, this obsession with inequality — and this preferred approach to mitigating it — are fundamentally counterproductive.
They are born of a misconception rooted in a flawed understanding of both justice and economic fact. Even if their premises and objectives were sound, these policies would have perverse unintended consequences — fostering class resentment, destroying jobs, and reducing wages and opportunities for the poor most of all.
Such policies also tend to undermine the family and create a culture of dependence on the state — unleashing harmful consequences that would, again, fall disproportionately on the poor.
Before we can seriously address the state of the poor in America, then, we need to seriously question some popular assumptions about poverty, equality, and justice. We must ask whether justice is always synonymous with equality, and explore the economic realities underlying the claim that a resource gap is inherently unjust.
Such an examination will show that the left's intense focus on the income gap is severely misplaced — and that, if we fail to correct their error, our society runs the risk of neglecting the poor for the sake of an ill-advised ideological quest.
Indeed, in America, we often use "equality" as a synonym for justice. A just society, we imply, is one in which everyone is treated equally. After all, the guiding first principle of the American founding, according to the Declaration of Independence, was that "all men are created equal.
And justice also requires that we recognize these differences. Where people are equal, it is just to treat them the same; where they are different, it is unjust to treat them the same. So in what respects are people equal? According to the Declaration of Independence, all men are equally endowed with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT PAROLE SYSTEM DOES INJUSTICE TO THE VICTIM OF CRIMES (GOVERNMENT) A very good__, I bid to Mr/Madam speaker, honourable adjudicators, just time keepers, Members of the opposition and Members of the house.
Ladies and gentlemen, I could not help but to listen to the opposition leader’s feeble argument. This does not mean that if we are free we have no obligations to others; it does mean, however, that providing material equality is not one of those obligations we have to others — and, indeed, that having government make it such an obligation would be unjust.
US: Injustices Filling the Prisons. Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report The sentencing practices include disproportionately long prison terms, mandatory sentencing without. The flowchart of the events in the criminal justice system (shown in the diagram) updates the original chart prepared by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the .
Too Often, American Justice Is Injustice. "A two-tiered system of justice ensures that the country's it exposed lawbreaking not only by government . Government Apologies for Historical Injustices Craig W. Blatz University of Waterloo Karina Schumann Historical Injustice, Reactive Devaluation Throughout history, governments of many countries have committed deliber-ate discriminatory acts against minorities, ranging from unfair taxes to slavery and system.
Fourth, a government apology.