The Hypocrisy of the United States’ First and Fourteenth Amendments! A Philosophical Depiction of Free Society and Criminal Justice Practitioner Responsibility
Introduction
The First and Fourteenth
Amendments are the strongest convictions in American society. Without freedom of speech and equal
protection and access to the law, the evils of society can overcome any discrepancy
that is determined to cause insecurities or perceived wrongful opposed beliefs. Given this, the United States’ political and
legal systems have done a terrible job at maintaining these integral rights,
and, in turn, made copious renditions of hypocrisy that cannot be adequately
justified (Alexander, 2012; Parker, 2011; Pyle 2002; Woodiwiss, 2001). More specifically, and given the fact that the
Fourteenth Amendment was not established until after harmful collateral harms
of the Civil War took effect, these Amendments have been eroded and replaced
with – as aforementioned – hypocritical applications of lawmaking and law
enforcing (Alexander, 2012; Parker, 2011; Pyle 2002; Woodiwiss, 2001). For instance, the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic
biases that are related to the criminal justice system present the idea that
equal justice – in and out of the legal system – is only a motto and not a
serious plan of action for the criminal justice practitioners (Alexander, 2012;
Parker, 2011; Pyle 2002; Reiman & Leighton, 2017; Woodiwiss, 2001). Even worse, year-after-year of law
enforcement biases and ignored studies that provide policy implications that
would make the concepts of justice become more authentic, has amounted to an
accepted standard by the legal practitioners and many civilians in the United
States (Alexander, 2012; Black, 2010; Lipsky, 2010; Reiman & Leighton,
2017; Walker, 2011).
Second to this, the
criminal justice system is notorious for not making wayward criminal justice
practitioners take full responsibility for their poor behaviors (Alexander,
2012; Black, 2010; Lash, 2019; Reiman & Leighton, 2017). This is a significant example of how the
federal and state officials disregard the First and Fourteenth Amendments and perform
these violations in a deliberate manner.
Poor lawmaking, taking bribes, police brutality and constitutional
infringements, psychopathic prosecutors, biased judges, and wannabe police
officer-community corrections officers all provide the merit for the notions
being construed in this piece. The hypocrisy
being discussed is typically argued as simply having a few “bad apples” or honest
mistakes in the administration of law.
As this may be true at
times, blaming others for an overall disregard of the previously mentioned Amendments
is, again, hypocrisy and an example of blatant erosions of the most important
constitutional aspects in the United States by the individuals who are
responsible for upholding these rights (Alexander, 2012; Colby, 2013; Lash,
2019; Reiman & Leighton, 2017). Of
this, this essay will describe the hypocrisies in each part of the criminal justice system.
Special attention should be paid to the interrelation of the systems and
how the issues that are being explicated carry over and exacerbate the
constitutional violations for legal practitioners in the other components, the
criminal justice system as a whole, and even for civilians.
The
Lawmakers
The
First and Fourteenth Amendments have pendulum-like qualities in the United
States. Explaining more, the First and
Fourteenth Amendments are used when lawmakers want to invoke pride for
themselves or from other people and are also weaponized for both authentic uses
as well as excuses to justify terrible human behavior (Agan & Starr, 2018;
Baldwin, 2018; Davis & Owen, 1998; Hemmer, 2016; Miller, 2018; Muraskin
& Alleman, 1993; Staggers-Hakim, 2018; Strömberg, 2001). For instance, allowed hate speech and
demonstrations by extremists gives politicians that ability to justify laws
that protect and discriminate a specific party.
Recently, the Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, Me Too, LGBTQ, and
other social justice movements have all encompassed the aforementioned swaying
of the two specific constitutional elements (Agan & Starr, 2018; Baldwin,
2018; Davis & Owen, 1998; Hemmer, 2016; Miller, 2018; Staggers-Hakim, 2018;
Strömberg, 2001). Conservative lawmakers
have, at times, denounced the above-mentioned political groups through
protected speech and during desired lawmaking that causes discernment toward
the parties. Laws that disenfranchise
individuals because of opposing beliefs do turn the people who makeup the
groups into deviants – which is synonymous with the term “criminal” and
criminal justice intervention (Agan & Starr, 2018; Baldwin, 2018; Davis
& Owen, 1998; Hemmer, 2016; Miller, 2018; Staggers-Hakim, 2018; Strömberg,
2001). Thus, lawmakers’ perspectives –
which is sometimes influenced by organizational support networks – turns the First
and Fourteenth Amendments into a conundrum that causes problems for the other
practitioners in the criminal justice system and criminalizes or assists
individuals who are part, and not part of, the lawmaking or attempts at it
(Black, 2010; Lipsky, 2010; Hemmer, 2016; Walker, 2011).
Police
Officers
Police
officers in both the state and federal system are forced to administer the law
as it is written, which, in turn, causes serious societal problems and
discrepancies between policing agencies and the public (Lipp, 2015; Lipsky,
2010; Pyle, 2002; Shantz & Williams, 2013).
Given this, the conundrums regarding the First and Fourteenth Amendments
arise when police departments interact with citizens who believe that they are
exercising their constitutional rights and disagree with the laws and policies
that have been enacted or are trying to be set into place (Lipp, 2015; Lipsky,
2010; Maguire, 2015). Precisely, the constitutional
right to peacefully protest and express opinions about specific public policies
or agendas that disallow desired rights causes police officers to infringe on
freedom of speech and equal protection of the law clauses and, in turn, appear
to be enemies of the public (Lipp, 2015; Lipsky, 2010; Shantz & Williams, 2013). This is a complex issue to discuss and thus
requires further explanation.
More precisely, when
citizens disagree with concepts of freedom of speech and equal protection of
the law it is their personal opinions coming to light, and the Constitution
protects these activities as it is written, and when laws or policies are
created, or desired public agendas are discussed that go against the grain of
the personal perceptions of freedom of speech and equal protection of the law
by parties who believe that they are being infringed upon by the government,
police officers automatically become conduits of the laws that are already written
that have been expressed as credible and prejudiced and, at times, have to
enforce laws when protests and expressions of opinion transform to activities
that are not in line with statutes that have already been passed and deemed as inappropriate
(Black, 2010; Lipsky, 2010; Shantz & Williams, 2013).
Case in point, the concepts
within the First and Fourteenth Amendments are biased when applied to personal living
standards and, especially, when applied to situations when laws have been
configured that do not appreciate the true concepts of freedom of speech and
equal protection of law (Black, 2010; Pyle, 2002; Shantz, 2016; Shantz &
Williams, 2013). In other words, the
notions of freedom of speech and equal access to the law are described and
enforced by public officials who have been given the authority to activate
cultural norms and not other persons who makeup the culture of the United
States (Black, 2010; Shantz, 2016). This
can be summarized with a philosophical question, which is: Are your living standards in line with
governmental functions that tell you what is acceptable and what is not? Any discrepancy by you in the proposed
question are the purposes of this essay and validate the ideas about how the
First and Fourteenth Amendments are prejudiced in nature when a philosophical
comprehension is incorporated into their application into contemporary society.
In conclusion, the standards
of the law are problematic for police officers because they are required to
inflict prejudices that do not fall in line with the personal comprehensions of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the applied norms – as described by the
government – are what they are required to enforce (Lipsky, 2010; Pyle, 2002). Once more, and for example purposes, consider
drug laws in the United States and how there are a plethora of people that
disagree with the current policies and disregard the laws that they feel are an
infringement of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and equal
protection of the law. Police officers,
regardless of their personal opinions, are required to enforce the laws as they are written and their discretion about police work is limited because of the duties
that they are responsible for (Lipsky, 2010; Pyle, 2002).
Prosecutors, Judges, and Criminal Defense
Attorneys
Administrations of law
that prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and judges in the United States
are required to enforce and discuss have similar applications to the duties
that police officers are required to perform.
However, there is a difference in the metamorphosis that occurs in their
environments. That is, prosecutors,
criminal defense representatives, and judges are supposed to check the balances
of facts, hearsay, and constitutional rights that civilians are entitled to (Fallon,
2005; Levi, 2019; Lipsky, 2010; Pyle, 2002).
The social and philosophical complications that arrive are related to who
or what is able to describe the standards of the freedom of speech and equal
access to the law. The courts, defense
attorneys, and government attorneys have some discretion in these matters, but
when the accordance is properly observed the prosecutors, defense attorneys,
and judges typically adhere to the lawmakers’ perceptions that have promulgated
a perception that has been accepted as right or wrong, as well as the case law
that has been generated (Fallon, 2005; Levi, 2019; Lipsky, 2010; Pyle,
2002).
Once more, the standards
of freedom of speech and equal access to the law are configured in a biased
fashion, that is. Judges, criminal
defense attorneys, and prosecutors are required to apply the standard of law as
it is written unless significant discourse is undergone – which includes
decisions being made by justices, and other legal practitioners, that are entitled
to their self-induced perception of freedom of speech and equal protection
under law (Black, 2010; Fallon, 2005; Levi, 2019; Lipsky, 2010; Pyle, 2002). Appellate procedures and other forms of stare
decisis are formidable, but the notion of a superior governmental-social class
that is able to dictate the concepts of freedom of speech and equal access to
the law are something that ought to be considered when discussions of comprehensions
of freedom of speech and equal opportunity under the law are apparent (Levi,
2019; Shantz, 2016).
The conundrum that is
being proposed is one that is rooted in the idea that actual freedom of speech
and equal protection of the law have no boundaries, and that the boundaries
that do exist are accepted and applied by the legal practitioners that have the
authority to define and dictate the philosophical notions in constitutional
provisions (Black, 2010; Pyle, 2002; Shantz, 2016). Which, in turn, is a seriously heavy concept
to embrace as an individual who is part of an alleged free society, and legal
professionals in the courts succumb to the bestowed authority that is generated
through personal opinions by them and in previous situations and thus operate
on a hypocritical-based notion that disregards critical perspectives of law and
democracy (Black, 2010; Levi, 2019; Lipsky, 2010; Shantz, 2016). In turn, their activities permeate into
society and set standards for everyone.
Power, and specificities, are created and established by the courtroom practitioners,
that is. Is this a good thing? How free are we because of this? And, is it truly equal protection of the
law?
Corrections and Community Corrections Officers
Applying the concepts of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the responsibilities of conventional correction officers and community correction officers is difficult to construe because of
the deprivation of rights that are placed upon convicted offenders while under
correctional or community correctional control.
Yet, it can be done in a manner that allows for philosophical and legitimate
legal discussions that allow any legal practitioner – in or out of the
correctional system – to understand how the aforementioned constitutional
rights are prejudicially comprehended and delivered into the society that is the
United States. Specifically, traditional
correctional specialists routinely hinder offenders’ ability to express freedom
of speech and equal access to the law (Branham, 2002; Layton MacKenzie, 2012). This will be explained in a manner that is legitimately
operated and philosophically distributed so that the audience is able to
comprehend the contradictions that are abundant in the First and Fourteenth
Amendments given the current laws and provisions in the Constitution.
Such as, offenders in a
correctional facility have little ability to express their freedom of speech
without the consent of correctional facility employees or the authority dispensed
from the judiciary and legislative policies that guide correctional agendas (Branham,
2002; Layton MacKenzie, 2012; Pyle 2002).
Because of this, the notion of proper freedom of speech and equal protection
of the law are diminished to a concept that is dictated by employees of an
institution (Branham, 2002; Layton MacKenzie, 2012; Lipsky, 2010; Pyle 2002). The deprivation of basic rights and
permission to participate in basic rights is controlled through policies,
views, and laws that form particular occupations in the correctional and
community correctional systems, that is.
A specific example can be produced to highlight the notions in this
section. That is, the operations that
guide the maintenance of running an orderly jail or prison comes with telling
inmates that they are not allowed to participate in reading or viewing specific
materials, have as many choices in their attire when compared to citizens who
are not incarcerated, communicate in a fashion that does not meet the standards
of correctional staff, and participate in political activism in many circumstances
– especially expressions that challenge the rules of the current facility that
they are in (Branham, 2002; Layton MacKenzie, 2012; Lipsky, 2010; Pyle 2002). All of which are dictated forms of what is
and is not acceptable in the understandings of the freedom of speech and equal
protection of the law concepts in the United States.
Even with convictions and
sanctions allowed by law, and the responsibility that the law has, is our society
one that fully encompasses the ideas of true versions of freedom of speech and
equal protection of law? Or are the
values in the First and Fourteenth Amendments a dictated process that tells
everyone what is acceptable and what is not?
Is the government acknowledging your views or any inmates’ views when it
comes to freedom of speech and equal protection of law in a legitimate fashion? Does the public tell the government what is
acceptable for inmates? Or does the government
tell the public what is acceptable for offenders in a correctional setting? Is this truly a free society? What limitations for inmates are appropriate
given the concepts in the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Regarding individuals in
the community correctional systems and the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
these offenders have similar issues that inmates have (Branham, 2002; Hanser,
2013). Albeit, there are vast
differences in the reproaches toward exercising and decreasing their rights to
freedom of speech and having equal protection of the law. Particularly, offenders involved in the
community correction supervision system have rules that they are required to follow
and have little ability to express any dissent about the rules that they do not
agree with (Branham, 2002; Hanser, 2013; Lipsky, 2010; Pyle, 2002). Elaborating more, community corrections
officers are required to administer a biased application of the law upon offenders. The prejudices in the constitutional rights
come to light in a deductive format.
That is, rules are given out by higher authorities and they are expected
to be followed and enforced regardless of personal viewpoints about the
standards (Branham, 2002; Hanser, 2013; Lipsky, 2010; Pyle, 2002). Once more, a dictated form of freedom of
speech and equal protection of the law.
More specifically, if an
offender does not perceive the rules that they are required to abide by there
is little legitimate recourse that can be pursued to challenge the
opposition. Prohibition of drug and
alcohol use, mandated participation in social services, curfews, employment
barriers, and searches serve as the best examples for the ideations being presented
in this section. Community correctional
officers have limited discretion as well, and are required to enforce the
stipulations that others have told them to do (Branham, 2002; Hanser, 2013;
Lipsky, 2010; Pyle, 2002). Which
concepts of freedom of speech and equal protection of the law are encompassed
in these systems? Are probation and
parole officers stripping individuals of their constitutional rights in a
righteously allowed manner? Or has the
government hired people who are willing to dictate its wanted concepts of
freedom of speech and equal protection of the law? What are acceptable forms of correctional strategies
in a democratic society that suggests that freedom of speech and equal
protection of the law are two of its main premises?
The Production of Problems That Carry Over
to Each Component of the Criminal Justice System
Irreparable harms are a
common theme in the criminal justice system when freedom of speech and equal
protection of the law clauses begin to be forged and enforced (Levi, 2019;
Shantz, 2016). This notion has been
presented in the above sections, yet a more detailed explanation is necessary
to comprehend the full breadth of conundrums that radiate because of the
dictations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the United States. That is, the practitioners in the criminal
justice system routinely cross professional boundaries and instill, and adhere,
to an internal culture that requires obedience to informal and formal structures
that cause infringements in individuals’ perceived freedom of speech and equal
protection of the law rights (Black, 2010; Levi, 2019; Lipsky, 2010; Shantz,
2016). For example, police officers,
prosecutors, judges, criminal defense attorneys, and correctional personnel all
intersect with each other given their profession and are responsible for
suggesting that people have rights or that their rights have been violated. The specific examples are abundant because of
the situations that the criminal justice system processes.
Nonetheless, the turmoil
that radiates because of proscribed laws that dictate the concepts within the
First and Fourteenth Amendments and perceptions of what is right, or ought to be
right, are the mechanisms in which the entire criminal justice system is based
on (Black, 2010; Levi, 2019). Investigations,
prosecutions, decisions by judges, criminal defense strategies, and correctional
control all encompass infringing on individuals’ rights to engage in freedom of
speech and to not have legal intervention applied to themselves for actions
that are believed to be correct. A
narrower example can be implemented to understand this concept. Which is, police officers arresting political
activists for participating in their perceived freedom of speech and equal protection
of the law rights or desired rights, prosecutors and judges relying on statutory
and procedural laws that establish administrations of law about standards that
are required to be followed, and correctional practitioners enforcing rules
that are placed on individuals when their perceived freedom of speech and equal
protection of the law have been deemed as ineffective. Again, all of these processes dictate the
notions that are within the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
A drug policy example can be used again, envision an individual who believes that
using drugs is appropriate and does not believe that laws against drug use or
possession should be allowed and is convicted of a drug possession charge. Does their perceptions of freedom of speech
or equal protection of the law matter to the law enforcement practitioners or the
criminal justice system in general? The
answer is that the only right that a drug user has is the right to
vocalize their disdain about the perceived comprehensions about drug policies
in the United States in a fashion that is acceptable to the government. Is this a true application of freedom of
speech and equal protection of the law given the drug user’s beliefs? What problems arise in society because of the
cultural norms we have and style of government that is suggested to be in place
in the United States? What are the
solutions? Welcome to the law in the
United States!
Summation
The philosophical
understandings of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are necessary to ponder
when engaging in professional and theoretical inquiry about the practices of
the criminal justice system in the United States. Lawyers, especially, have a mandatory
professional commitment to participate in such practices, and not doing so
delivers stagnate services and duties that cause a refusal to evolve or learn
about new things that could make the legal community – and society – better. Other criminal justice practitioners are not immune
from such philosophical inquiry when it comes to their careers and public
responsibilities. Lawmakers, police
officers, and correctional people should mentally deviate from the legal norms occasionally
and consider the possibilities that could manifest because of the thinking process that they have embarked in.
Overall, the notions within the First and Fourteenth Amendments are
currently being dictated by government officials and not fundamental concepts
of actual freedom of speech and equal protection of the law. As standards are required in the legal system
and for society at large, the fact remains that opposing viewpoints cause
disturbances in the administration of law and, in turn, cause infringements in
the freedom of speech and equal protection of law rights in the United States.
References
Agan, A., & Starr, S. (2018).
Ban the box, criminal records, and racial discrimination: A field
experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1),
191-235.
Alexander, M.
(2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of
colorblindness.
New
York, NY: The New Press.
Baldwin, B.
(2018). Black, White, and
blue: Bias, profiling, and policing in
the age of
black
lives matter. Western New England Law
Review, 40(3), 431-446.
Black, D.
(2010). The behavior of
law: Special edition. United Kingdom: Emerald.
Branham, L. S.
(2002). The law of sentencing,
corrections, and prisoners’ rights in a nutshell
(6th ed.). St. Paul, MN:
West Group.
Colby, T. B.
(2013). Originalism and the
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Northwestern
University Law Review, 107(4), 1627-1688.
Davis, R., & Owen, D. (1998).
New media and American politics.
New York, NY: Oxford
University
Press.
Fallon, R. H.
(2005). Legitimacy and the Constitution. Harvard Law Review, 118(6),
1787-
1853.
Lash, K. T.
(2019). Federalism and the
original Fourteenth Amendment. Harvard
Journal of
Law
and Public Policy, 42(1), 69-79.
Layton MacKenzie, D.
(2012). First do no harm: A look at correctional policies and programs
today. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(1),
1-17.
Levi, D. F.
(2019). 51 imperfect solutions: State and federal judges consider the role
state
constitutions
in rights innovation. Judicature, 103(1),
33-45.
Lipp, R.
(2015). Protest policing in New
York City: Balancing safety and expression.
Harvard
Law & Policy Review, 9(1), 275.
Lipsky, M.
(2010). Street-level
bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual
public services.
New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hanser, R. D. (2013). Community corrections (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hemmer, N.
(2016). Messengers of the
right: Conservative media and the
transformation of
American
politics. Philadelphia,
PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Maguire, M.
(2015). New directions in protest
policing. Saint Louis University
Public Law
Review,
35(1),
67-108.
Miller, B.
(2018). Constitutional law – Do Black
lives matter to the Constitution? Western
New
England Law Review, 40(3), 459-494.
Muraskin, R., & Alleman, T. (1993).
It’s a crime: Women and
Justice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Regents/Prentice
Hall.
Parker, K. M.
(2011). Common law, history,
and democracy in America, 1790–1900: Legal
thought before modernism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pyle, R. C.
(2002). Foundations of
law: Cases, commentary & ethics (3rd
ed.). Albany, NY:
West Thomson Learning.
Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2017).
The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology,
class,
and criminal justice (11th ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Shantz, J.
(2016). Crisis states: Governance, resistance & precarious
capitalism.
Brooklyn,
NY: Punctum.
Shantz, J., & Williams, D. M. (2013).
Anarchy and society:
Reflections on anarchist
sociology. Boston, MA: Brill.
Staggers-Hakim, R.
(2018). Black lives matter, civil
rights, and health inequalities.
Western
New England Law Review, 40(3), 447-458.
Strömberg, D.
(2001). Mass media and public
policy. European Economic Review, 45(4-6),
652-663.
Walker, S.
(2011). Sense and non-sense
about crime, drugs, and communities (7th ed.).
Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Woodiwiss, M.
(2001). Organized crime and
American power. Toronto, CA: University of
Toronto
Press.
 |
| Photo Credit: Anonymous Fan |
Comments
Post a Comment