Hypocrisy Criminal Justice

The defendants themselves were illiterate and “ignorant”. They were all tried separately, each trial lasting a day, convicted, and sentenced to death. This is the only case in history when the right of an American citizen is knowingly being strip by the very system that is supposed to protect them. The defendants were in fact stripped of their rights of the 6th amendment and for was won in their favor. The majority opinion stated “In the light of the ... ignorance and illiteracy of the defendants, their youth, the circumstances of public hostility, the imprisonment and the close surveillance of the defendants by the military forces, the fact that their friends and families were all in other states and communication with them necessarily difficult,

But for those most horrendous crimes like murder, the scientific “mumbo jumbo” goes out the window. When kids kill, society wants retribution. adult retribution. When it comes to the juvenile system, we should address the inconsistency of how it borders on hypocrisy. If we agree that the juvenile mind is less culpable, we should treat it that way, without exception. Not only do we see hypocrisy with African American males and juveniles but with women as well. Our avowed legal values regarding to women as equals before the law, are shaped by the views of rape. As a matter of legal principles, we as a nation began to recognize the equality of women in an array of ways, the most obvious example being the 19th Amendment in 1920. Rape had come to be legally recognized as a violation of a woman’s sovereignty. Yet it was not until 1975 that South Dakota became the first state to remove the exception for the prosecution of rape among spouses. North Carolina was the last state to formally recognize this crime in 1993 (Yankah 5). Still, in 33 states, the crime of spousal rape is a lesser charge than that of rape between

Examples like; a plaintiff argues she is owed compensation because another driver’s actions were unreasonable. A corporation argues that it cannot be held liable for pollution because it was correct in its interpretation of an environmental regulation; this leaves the potential for uncertainty. One party will often suspect that it is being treated unfairly. Many decisions will be made in areas where deep uncertainty is unavoidable. Rather, it is critical for the rule of law that the fact that a legal decision has been made is generally capable of securing trust that a reasonable decision has been made and fidelity to following the law as a way of continuing the project of social cooperation. More and more people seeing the law as hypocritical, and thus treating them with contempt, makes such fidelity impossible. Finally, hypocrisy does not just hurt those who are its direct victims. The vicious irony is that ultimately hypocrisy, particularly in an institutional or legal setting undermines the bonds of trust and fidelity to are the very lifeblood of the rule of law. Recall that in examining private hypocrisy, we noticed that hypocrisy undermined the confidence society shared in expressions of moral values thus revealing that the hypocrite treats both the victim of hypocrisy and the moral codes which they value with causal indifference or contempt. When