Essay Example on Criminal Justice, Intercultural Prejudice, and Employment Opportunities

The processes of judicious criminal justice enhance policy formulation in the maximization of the balance between public safety Intercultural Encounter, individual citizen's rights and liberties. I establish intercultural prejudice in the article "the Mark of a criminal record" by Devah Pager recollects the impact of incarceration in the criminal justice system on employment opportunities in the future of a convicted individual. The number of people incarcerated in the United States is registering growing numbers where an estimated two million people are incarcerated globally and half a million prisoners complete their jail term service yearly. Pager outlines his focus on the consequences of incarceration of employment making a comparative study between white and black men seeking jobs after release. The study realized that more blacks than whites are sent to prison within the last three years. After release from prisons the job market is not ready to assimilate the ex-felons making more than a third of them poses a high likelihood to be incarcerated for new crimes due to joblessness. This paper will make a critical analysis of the intercultural encounters on prejudgment and prejudice making a mark on different situations young people find themselves in due to their criminal records.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Further, pager states that the incarceration of young black men has increased over the years to constitute ten percent in the ration of one percent of white men in criminal justice systems. The relationship between employment chances and incarceration shows strong significance on the ex-felons lives. The study argued the behavioral and stereotypic consequences reduce the number of ex-felons assimilated in the employment market. The racial and criminal records tend to has a strong influence on the individuals gaining social confidence after incarceration reducing their likelihood to be assimilated in the job market.

The critique of Pager's contribution to the body of knowledge on the stigmatization of black and white young men after incarceration has an indirect denial of access to jobs and negative labeling of ex-felons informal participation because of their past criminal background. The racial standpoint of Pager's work shows prejudice in the share of opportunities to ex-convicts in their assimilation level in the job market contributing to the increase rate of considering young men with criminal records for employment opportunities. Pager's footing on the historical injustices perpetrated to ex-felons seeking employment after incarceration shows lack of policy consideration in the labeling and earmarking ex-convicts when offering employment opportunities especially in security and other highly sensitive industries where criminal repeats are likely to occur. Criminalization of young black men after incarceration causes frustrating stigmatization increasing the likelihood of these young men going back to prison within a span of three years after their release. In this note, Pager's research seemed to be racially biased and with overconfidence on the likelihood of young black men seeking employment after incarceration falling into crime again as opposed to their white men counterparts.

Consequently, most of Pager's work tends to go against the conventional beliefs of the contemporary age in the struggle against racial prejudice and biased intimidation of young people because of their criminal records or situational characteristics when seeking employment in America. Therefore Pager's focus on the consequences of incarceration of employment making a comparative study between white and black men seeking jobs after release shows that the impact of incarceration in the criminal justice system on employment opportunities in the future of a convicted individual. In her article, Elizabeth Anderson capitalizes on the ideological perspective that epistemic justice is a virtue of social institutions dictated by how individuals focus on the need to integrate diverse engagement on the inquiries of the transactional and structural intercultural encounter on injustices. In this argument, Anderson hypothesizes the criteria of justice in the transactional theory of justice in the interactions between persons in the voluntary, mutual or deceptive consented exchanges of a particular perception of the justice system. Transactional and structural injustices are entitled to the paradigm of legitimacy to satisfy the different criteria of justice to disastrous results. The philosophical argument by Anderson capitalizes on the epistemic justice executed in social institutions to explore on the understanding of the intercultural communication on the prejudice rationale of the theory of knowledge that represents the transactional and structural injustices.

Anderson's argument on the application of epistemic justice as a virtual of social institutions can have cumulative effects that connect, evaluate and elicit many individuals to have unjust communicative actions. Therefore, it is not possible to justify independent epistemic justice system for global corrective results, through the incorporation of epistemic systems needs reformation as the primary starting point to explore issues affecting institutional justice. The transactional and structural forms of epistemic injustice are recognized on emphasizing individual virtue. The virtue of epistemic justice needs scaling up the systematic size in the consideration of social practices that justify the inquiry of operation. The two kinds of epistemic injustices, testimonial and hermeneutical, help in the understanding of the terrain of inquiry results. In the two kinds of injustices are central in the prejudice of discriminating an individual because of their social identity. Testimonial epistemic injustice occurs when a hearing his directed with the credibility of the testimony affected by prejudice based on social identity where the word of the accuser and the accused are is hampered by unjust because of social orientation of the institutions where each individual originates. The social institutions have a systematic prejudice that individuals associated with have a strong influence in their regard to the systematic discrimination from discounting credibility in the justice system. In the transactional epistemic system, identity prejudice is affected by pre-emptive testimonial injustices drawing to the structural systems of the justice system. It's against this background that this work will compact a philosophical evaluation of Anderson's argument to form a standpoint contrasting the understanding and point of reference in the matters of epistemic systems of the justice prejudice. The hermeneutical injustices occur when the society has limited interpretive resources based on marginalized prejudice for the significance of their reactions. The structural element of hermeneutical injustices is drawn in marginalized prejudice with the victimization of the speakers in the perspectives of social discriminations of the hearers.

My view is that the transactional and structural argument of the social institutional and intercultural prejudice fails to understand the concepts of the independence of testimonial and hermeneutical injustices. I believe that the construction of social institutions and other socialization agencies to form individualized perceptions on what an individual communicates and the point of view understood by the hearers needs the understanding of social systems. Different people's standpoints are understood in the justification of their positions in society to put weight to their opinion. Therefore, social virtual of epistemic injustices on the testimonial and hermeneutical injustices as suggested by Anderson lack situational backing of others attributed to social institutional prejudice like attitude and other significant personality perceptions. The credibility of the understanding of moral vices and virtues in the understanding of hearers perception of communication-based on social identity shows the prejudice and insignificant opinion of people from marginalized groups. The argument fails to counter the signs of individuality and testimonial truth of the structural and transactional process in the dissemination of information from one point to the next as evidence used in justification of actions in a case or social systems. Overreliance on the perception of the argument on the two-sided social prejudice on the transactional and structural functions in the epistemic injustice systems fails to provide the importance of witness relations with the subject and the victims. At certain times Anderson's argument lacks proper ground to back the essence of social injustices in the institutionalized perceptions of subject elements of the speaker and the hearers' attitude towards the communicative styles among other properties that emanate from discrimination and prejudice.

Anderson might respond to the counter-objection of the attitude elements of the structural and transactional forms of epistemic injustices as a virtue of social institutions. The attitude partaken by the hearers of the speaker tends to show their perception of their situation in which the case is founded. It is important to understand other elements attributed to the speakers' arguments rather than the demographic perception causing discrimination and prejudice. When the hearers are swayed by negative attitudes toward the speaker because of irrational grounds of prejudice their attitude is paramount to understand the individualized elements on the arguments and the point of view without prior judgment of the outcome because of personality traits of one party. The improvement in relationships between the speaker and the hearers needs to establish positive criticism to ensure that personal attributes do not affect the attitude of either party. In the development of the tenets of the theory of knowledge will help increase the justice appraisal in the structural and transactional models of the justice understanding in an epistemic system.

Conclusion

However, understanding the individual attitude of the personalities involved in either the structural or transactional process of epistemic injustice drive as a virtue in the social institutions may prove tedious and time consuming because one may end up wasting a lot of time as they try to understand and change the attitude towards the structural and transactional injustice systems. Conclusively, objecting the ideological perspective on the understanding of the epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions shows the emphasis of the individual's focus on the need to integrate diverse engagement on the inquiries of transactional and structural injustices. This argument capitalizes on the criteria of justice in the transactional theory of justice in the interactions between persons in the voluntary, mutual or deceptive consented exchanges of a particular perception of the justice system. In this understanding, the application of epistemic justice as a virtual of social institutions shows cumulative effects that connect, evaluate and elicit which is possible to justify independent epistemic justice system for global corrective results, through the incorporation of epistemic systems needs reformation as the primary starting point to explore issues affecting institutional justice. In this sense understanding the two kinds of epistemic injustices, testimonial and hermeneutical, help in the understanding of the terrain of inquiry results. Therefore the objection of the transactional and structural forms of epistemic injustice shows the recognized and emphasizing individual virtue failing to factor the individual elements like opinion, attitude, experience and the truth of the information disseminated in the process.