ISBN13: 9780073108346 ISBN10: 0073108340 Condition: Standard All Product Details
Author Ron Stewarts work is a case study of the black male population in Buffalo, New York. Stewart explores not only the pattern of black male incarceration, but focuses on the experiences and perceptions of black males in relation to the U.S. criminal justice system and the local police department. DAlessio and Stolzenberg challenge the typically held view that racial discrimination by police is the reason for the very high rate of male African-American incarceration. The authors also criticize the use of social factorsespecially poverty, economic inequality, social disruption, segregation and family structureto explain the differences in crime patterns between the races.
Author Heather Mac Donald reviews and disputes the allegations of police profiling and explores the daily demands on police officers. Mac Donald also discusses the justification for using race in investigating crime. Richard G. Scott draws the distinctions between legitimate "stops" versus those based upon racial characteristics. Scott includes an overview of Constitutional protections aimed at preventing police profiling and points to the need for proper police training.
Timothy Sandefur argues that, while plea bargaining can be abused, it is not necessarily unconstitutional, and that to the extent that flaws exist, they can be remedies. McConville and Mirsky argue that plea bargains form a system of imposing control and discipline upon vulnerable groups in society.
Norm R. Allen argues that there are two standards of justice in the United Stateslegal and socialand that the disparity between the two works against minorities. Stephen Klein, Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner argue that myths occur regarding racial discrimination because the word "discrimination" is mistakenly used in place of "disparity," and that the courts are not engaging in sentencing discrimination.
David Risley argues that the purpose of mandatory minimum sentences is to ensure that serious drug crimes are met with significant punishment and that they have been successful toward this end. Carl M. Cannon argues that, while increased prison sentences may make citizens feel safer, the damage done to prisoners families is a high price for society to pay.
Professor Fred L. Pincus argues that "reverse discrimination" (i.e., discrimination against whites and especially white males) is the result of affirmative action because affirmative action gives them fewer opportunities. Charles Murray argues that whites are not adversely affected by affirmative action because those minorities who are hired are qualified and would be hired even if affirmative action programs were not in existence.
Nagel and Johnson argue that recent social and historical events have resulted in race, gender, and class discrimination. They argue that the current emphasis is on the crime committed, rather than who committed the crime. Gaskins argues that women suffer disproportionately by virtue of being caught in the circumstance of serving as conspirators to males in drug conspiracy. She further argues that such "trapped" women should be given preferential treatment because of their role as mothers.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) argues that the privatization of Social Security will be detrimental to women. Women rely upon current Social Security benefits and would fare poorly under privatization. Authors Shirley and Spiegler argue that women will do very well under the privatization of Social Security because the current Social Security system is detrimental to women.
Cathy Young cites judicial leniency toward women, arguing that women do indeed receive lesser sentences for the same crime. Through the issue of capital punishment, Barbara Cruikshank explores the dilemmas posed by feminist thinking that would argue for equality vs. special consideration for women. If there is to be equality of the sexes, gender cannot be considered in sentencing.
Elena Grigera argues that since the state has a legitimate interest in implementing harsh penalties for hate crimes, hate crime legislation is constitutional. Andrew Sullivan agrees that hate crimes are despicable and that government should work toward eliminating violence. But, he argues, a crime is a crime and should not be treated differently depending upon the victim. Sullivan further argues that waging war on beliefs is unconstitutional.
Lara Schwartz, Human Rights Campaign senior staff counsel, argues that any other form of same-sex uniform denies equality, financial benefits and security, and social recognition. Settling for anything less than "marriage" would be to abandon the quest for equality. Edith M. Humphrey argues that same-sex marriages are contrary to biblical teaching. Marriage, she argues, is not a human creation but one enacted by god himself.
Citing cases of well-adjusted children of gay/lesbian parents, Ellen C. Perrin argues in favor of adoption rights for homosexual individuals and couples. Timothy J. Dailey argues that children of gay/lesbian parents are endangered as a result of many factors, including lack of role models, homosexual behavior, and the need for a "traditional" (i.e., mother/father) family structure.
Sloan, Clarke, and Engelberg argue that while the 1963 Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright held that everyone is entitled to a defense attorney in criminal cases, the reality is that defense of the indigent is woefully inadequate. The Economist presents an argument that the poor cannot be adequately defended because funding for public defenders has dropped dramatically. Public defenders are not able to match better-funded and prepared prosecutors.
Anna Maria Gillis argues the need for expert witnesses in the courtroom, given the increasing complexity of many issues before judge and jury. She believes fairness can be achieved with closer judicial scrutiny of "experts" credentials and with court-appointment expert witnesses. Preston Lerner argues that money will always prevail in a judicial proceeding, and that finding the best "expert witnesses" is no different than hiring the best attorney.
David Cay Johnston of the San Francisco Chronicle argues that tax laws favor the top 1/100th of 1 percent of Americans. Jim Nintzel argues that the wealthy actually pay significantly more income tax dollars than the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Michele Moser and Ross Rubenstein discuss the strides the states have made in closing intrastate gaps for students. Susan E. Mayer argues that growing economic inequality, which results in greater neighborhood differential, has increased educational inequality.
Authors Ford and Harmon argue that students who are different from the "dominant culture" often go unrecognized, especially in programs for the gifted. The Examiner staff writer Annie Nakao argues that a diversity of factorsnot biasaccounts for lower standardized test scores for minorities.
Doris Redfield delineates the standards set down by NCLB and the research instruments needed to determine the equality of programs across the country. Marilyn Gitell presents an outright rejection of national standards and argues that local school systems should be financially aided by the federal government rather than having standards dictated to them.
Richard L. Simpson, Paul G. LaCava and Patricia Sampson Graner are strong defenders of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate to the states from the federal government. They believe that the states have already responded with greater educational achievement on the part of children. Lisa Guisbond and Monty Neill argue that the NCLB demands placed upon the states are strapping the states already limited resources and that the mandate has only served to exacerbate the problem of educational inequality.