Inequality in the Justice System Essay Example

Introduction

The cornerstone of the justice system lies in its mandate to treat everyone as an equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of gender, race or social background. Though equality should mean everyone being the same, its implementation is usually subject to interpretation by the law. It is the reason analysts have proposed a total overhaul of the system from prisons, policies, and training (Walsh, 2016). Williams (2015) attributes these inequalities to the fact that judicial benches lack in diversity, representing a particular class in society, therefore, hindering fairness in a system that should be devoid of bias. Even as the debate on inequality in the justice system rages on, there exist instances where it can be justified.

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

Save 25%

Justifiable Inequality

Justifiable inequality stands for instances in law where certain individuals are denied would-be rights and freedoms, or exempted from facing trial and prosecution like regular citizens. An example of a situation within the criminal justice system where this inequality exists is in the military. The Supreme Court of the United States recognizes the military as a specialized society that is not equal to civilians. Their oath to defend the constitution and obey the President at all times reduces some of their rights and freedoms.

First, members of the disciplined forces are tried in Martial court and not the regular system as stipulated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Prosecutions are not handed out by jurors as is with civilian courts, and 90% of them receive conviction followed by extenuation and mitigation (Wadsworth, 2018). The UCMJ also allows commanders Non-Judicial Punishment, which is the authority to punish their juniors for minor offenses without a court hearing or formal judicial process. Some of the punishments include a two-month restriction period or forfeiture of pay for the same period. Under ordinary law, it is wrong for an employer to punish an employee by not paying salary.

Further afield, the First Amendment guarantees rights and freedoms among them the right to assemble and petition the government (Legal Information Institute, 2018). The foundation of military discipline and effectiveness is however hinged on obedience to orders from superiors without question. This stops members of the disciplined forces from attending demonstrations or public gatherings while in uniform because it portrays the military as being in support. They are also not allowed to join military labor organizations but could negotiate for a pay rise through their appointed leaders.

The right to engage in free speech too has limitations for the disciplined forces, as article 88 of the UCMJ outlaws them from using negative words against superiors, the President and Congress. These include gestures deemed to have the ability to provoke a fight, disclosing confidential information or discussing official matters about the military without authorization (Au.af.mil., 2018). Parker (2018) highlights the Brown versus Glines case of 1980 as an example. Captain Albert Glines circulated a petition to Congress members with complaints about the grooming standards of the Airforce. He faced dismissal for violating regulations, and as much as the federal court ruled in his favor, he was found guilty of overstepping military law.

Politically, the Department of Defense has strict rules regarding the US military's participation in politics. Though allowed to vote as civilians, they are not allowed to be candidates for an elective office, campaign for or show open affiliation to specific candidates as long as they are in military uniform. The rules are meant to curtail potential appearance of bias or partisanship by the military, whose members operate on orders by Congress and the Commander in Chief, regardless of their affiliations.

Members are allowed to rent property and lease vehicles like civilians, however, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) offers several legal protections against penalties that are not available to the general public (Military.com, 2018). It protects members from unwarranted evictions by landlords because of late rent payment, car repossessions especially if a deposit has been made and appearing in court for hearings on divorce or child support. This act is in existence to safeguard the integrity and image of those who put their lives on the line to protect the nation.

Ethical and Legal Basis for Inequality

The justification for having a separate judicial system for the military is that it has more efficient procedures which ensure faster decision making and discipline, a basic essential geared towards military control (Law.jrank.org., 2018). These speedy and often predictable trials go a long way in maintaining uniformity and order in the forces, an essential cog in national security. A court-martial framework also helps satisfy the public's expectation of an efficient and disciplined military, compared to the civilian system which can be not only cumbersome but also yields inconsistent judgments. The system also offers provision for offenses which are specific for the military, like failure to obey orders, insubordination or mutiny.

Soldiers do not have the right to petition or demonstrate because such acts are considered as insubordination and have the potential to degenerate into a mutiny. The troop morale that comes with such actions is an essential element in starting a war or holding a nation hostage. Revolts are mostly a result of trust breakdown between Commanders and their troops, and sometimes as an avenue for revolutionary leadership. An uprising by the uniformed men and women is a threat to the integrity of a system that is expected to be united and disciplined to protect the country from within and without the borders successfully.

The justification for curtailing the right to free speech and expression is that it fosters order and discipline. This could be backed up by some acts of verbal or written mishaps by military members who should serve as a symbol of unity. An example is Sergeant Gary Stein, a 26-year-old Marine who posted derogatory remarks about Obama on his Facebook page, a decision that led to his dismissal (James & Taylor, 2012). Stein (2012) expounds that being in the military means desisting from saying things that could encourage unrest or insubordination, as well as being in communication with a state 'enemy.'

Is it Justifiable?

The author opines that as long as the existing inequalities do not breed ethnic, racial and social discrimination, there is sufficient justification for members of the disciplined forces enjoying some benefits over civilians while losing some rights. It would be imprudent to have military men and women who can join citizens in condemning the government, carrying placards to complain about poor pay or facing trial for crimes like mutiny before civilian judges who do not understand the military law. Overall, the nature of the office, roles, and responsibilities put against the potential aftermath of them having equal rights and freedoms are a testament to the need for inequality.

Though meant to safeguard image and relieve officers from the hustle of standing trial when they should be elsewhere working for the country, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act needs change. According to Powers (2018), this immunity compromises the abilities of members of the armed forces from fulfilling their financial obligations. The argument is that landlords and lease companies who become victims of this act lose money and hardly get compensated for the losses as a result. Single parents seeking alimony from former spouses who absconded parental obligations face the same frustrations.

References

Au.af.mil. (2018). Rights of Military Members. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/rights_of_military_mbrs.pdf

James, M., & Taylor, M. (2012). Marine to be Discharged Over Anti-Obama Facebook Comment. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/marine-sgt-gary-stein-honorable-discharge-anti-obama/story?id=16216279

Law.jrank.org. (2018). Military Law - Military Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from http://law.jrank.org/pages/8564/Military-Law-Military-Criminal-Justice-System.html

Military.com. (2018). SCRA: Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Overview. Retrieved from https://www.military.com/benefits/military-legal-matters/scra/servicemembers-civil-relief-act-overview.html

Parker, R. (2018). Brown v. Glines. Retrieved from https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/337/brown-v-glines

Powers, R. (2018). All About the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Retrieved from https://www.thebalancecareers.com/servicemembers-civil-relief-act-simplified-3332928

Stein, G. (2012). Military Freedom of Speech. Retrieved from https://www.redstate.com/diary/garystein/2012/03/02/military-freedom-of-speech/

Uniform Code of Military Justice - UCMJ. (2018). Congressional Code of Military Criminal Law Applicable to all Military Members Worldwide. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

Wadsworth, M. (2018). How the Military Justice System Works. Retrieved from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-the-military-justice-system-works.html

Walsh, C. (2016). The Costs of Inequality: Goal Is Justice, but Reality Is Unfairness. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-01/the-costs-of-inequality-goal-is-justice-but-reality-is-unfairness

Williams, J. (2015). Is There Really Justice for All? Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/10/30/is-there-really-justice-for-all-in-the-us