Nancy Scheper-Hughes Death Without Weeping, she states that “even the most ‘advanced’ state can resort to threats of violence or to open violence against ‘disorderly’ citizens” (Fassin 2013). This quote suggests that the state uses its discretionary power to maintain the order of society. This discretionary power applies to the police as well. Baldwin’s “A Report from Occupied Territory” provides examples of a state using violence against citizens that society perceives to be disorderly. Baldwin criticizes this use of violence. This criticism provides key claims, that along with other articles provide insight in the relationships between law, coercive force, and discretion. Using Baldwin’s “A Report from Occupied Territory”, as well as a few …show more content…
As mentioned above, the Rule of Law grants the police the legitimacy to use coercive force. Klockars would argue that this is a form of legal legitimacy, and it is important not to equate legal legitimacy to moral legitimacy (Klockars 1985). Although the police may claim to have legal legitimacy for beating up the salesman, but they certainly did not have the moral legitimacy to act in such a brutal manner. Legal legitimacy becomes gray over the manner of violence. How much violence is legally acceptable? As mentioned earlier, the law has granted a flexible answer to that question. The wider expansion of the discretion of violent measures to coercive force, the more blurred the lines become between moral and legal legitimacy. Baldwin states that “the law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer” (Baldwin 1966). This statement emphasizes the relationship between law and violence. To Baldwin, the law is designed to save him from violent actions has disappeared, and it has been replaced by one that inflicts harm. For Baldwin, the law is no longer legitimate because it does not function in the manner in which the law is intended to act. The violent maintenance of order draws into question the legitimacy of law. Therefore, the relationship between law, legitimacy, and violence is quite complicated. The law legitimizes the police use of discretionary coercive force, and it provides a wide application of this power. This in turn can cause some people to question the legal and moral legitimacy when the use of coercive force becomes too
Before the Supreme Court, Nixon’s attorneys debated that the doctrine of separation of powers prohibited the Supreme Court from investigation this case. The Court vetoed their claim, replying that the circumstance presented a constitutional question, and consequently fell within the responsibility of the judicial branch as interpreter of the Constitution. President Nixon’s attorneys also proclaimed that the president was permitted to unconditional executive privilege. This meant that he could not be required to disclose anything unless he desired to. The Court acknowledged that the president was allowed a degree of executive privilege.
In the letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr addresses his audience by defining what qualifies an action or law to be just and unjust. He describes a just law as a “code that squares away with the moral law or the law of God” (King). Then he describes the unjust law as being “a code that is out of the harmony with the moral law” (King). Kings definitions compare well with the dictionary definitions because both agree that just laws are based on a moral code. He uses the strategy of examples and counter examples in order to define both of the words and give his audience a clear understanding of their meaning.
Just as Holmes during the war was in the first rank courageously waving his sword and leading an infantry charge, so too in law he was in the first rank bravely wielding his pen and leading an assault, implicitly shouting, “Will no one follow me?” Just as in war he marched into what he called “debatable land,” so too as a legal thinker he marched into debatable intellectual territory. But there was
One common opinion is that officers should not use more force than is necessary or reasonable, and even then, that force should be used only as a last resort. “Police use force to affect civilians’ conduct. On a day-to-day basis, they do so most often by employing the least degree of force available to them, their mere presence. Cops wear uniforms and drive distinctly marked cars so that, without saying a word, they may have an effect on citizens’ behavior” (Fyfe, 38). When an officer’s presence fails to fulfill the desired conduct, the next course of action for said officer would be verbalization.
In today’s age, there are many laws in America that aren’t right. They demean another person’s rights, while some put people’s life in danger. It’s unsure why certain ones were created, but once the public realizes they aren’t necessarily helpful, they attempt to get rid of them. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail” a letter written to clergymen by Martin Luther King Jr. he addresses the laws in which he and many other people are oppressed. He makes many points and examples as of how the laws are unfair.
Yadata Osman Dr. Robinson Survey of Philosophy of Thought 11/30/2015 Paper 2 There have been many unjust laws throughout history. Citizens obey the laws because they are enacted by the leaders of government. The opinions against laws are expected and tolerated to an extent.
Though the times have changed the abuse of power has not and those who abuse it rarely face a genuine persecution for it. The dispute began between Martin and
Before the enlightenment, “Governments and churches maintained order by punishing non conformists with mutilation, torture and gruesome forms of execution, such as burning, breaking, disembowelment, impalement, and sawing in half.” The author also uses the “Rights Revolution” to show how in modern society has given people the right to take matters into their own hands when they feel they haven’t been treated fairly. Some of the main protests the “Rights Revolution” consisted of were the “civil rights movement”, “gay rights movement” and even the “movement for children’s rights”. All of these movements happened because Americans felt the need to test those who were in charge and show them that if they didn’t do anything about the current state they were in they’d take matters into their own hands. Pinker uses these facts in his article to argue that violence has pretty much been substantially decreased in order to maintain a more peaceful society.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. states, "it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws;" this statement corresponds with Dr. King Jr. agreeing with St. Augustine’s statement that "an unjust law is no law at all." In 1954 during the
The use of physical and psychological violence to rule over society has been explored in literature throughout history. Two examples are Macbeth by William Shakespeare and 1984 by George Orwell. Responsibility for violence depends on context, and the influences on the inflictor. The form of despotism affects this responsibility: an autocracy or oligarchy. Macbeth and the Party justify violence for power, sacrificing important human values and beliefs.
Often times, mindless conformity leads to senseless violence that could have been avoided with just a little more thought. In order to justify hateful and exclusive acts, the actions of people in minorities are often taken
The struggle between law, order and justice has led to conflict and terrorism all over the world. Some of those struggles have been represented in the books The Lottery by Shirley Jackson and A Hanging by George Orwell.
And yet as absurd as it is, this is it they demand; not knowing that the Lawes are of no power to protect them without a sword in the hands of the man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution,”
Law enforcement agents are should behave to a standard that is greater than the average civilian. Police brutality comes from an abuse of power granted to the police. Police brutality is often drawn on by overreaction in certain situations drawn on by panic. Police using excessive force in the United States is a crucial dilemma and must be stopped.
It is asserted by James Currun and Jean Seaton in ‘Power without Responsibility’ (1981) that the radical news press in the 19th century Britain was predominantly owned by the working class and news content was generated for a working class audience which effectively evoked their class consciousness. Whereby, the radical press created papers that “promoted a greater collective confidence by repeatedly emphasising the potential power of working people to effect social change” (Curren and Seaton, 1981). However, due to the rising costs of the media production, the radical press was deteriorating and thus was eventually replaced by the popular press which was owned by the ruling class as they could afford to maintain the production costs of the