How the State and Its Institutions Perpetuate the Systemic Exclusion and Subsequent Punishment of Radicalized, Sexed, or Gendered Groups
According to Brown, institutional racism is common in the societies we live in today, and sadly the situation my not change soon because the practice is perpetuated by the state and its institutions (2009). In essence, the practice is getting worse, as the world embracing capitalism and moral decay is almost at its peak. The minority groups face loads of injustice from the state and in the communities; they live in (Brown 2009). These individuals also need protection, but instead, the society uses their vulnerability for the greater harm. These individuals often suffer in silence because they have no voice to air their grievances, and even if there is, they just listen, document their stories and do nothing about it. Brown notes that it seems capitalism and moral decay in our society have even eroded humanity in us, and that we forget being a minority group is not often one's wish or rather the society might have shaped individuals to became what they are (2009). Ironically, it is the state that is held responsible for protecting its citizens but instead they pass policies that are not fair the minority groups. Unfortunately, the police department and the entire court system undertake duties for the greater good of the elite while the media radicalizes it through propaganda (Foucault et al., 2009). There are several ways the state and its institutions continues the perpetuation social injustices to the minority groups as discussed in this paper.
The state- it is the role of the state to maintain the sovereignty of a country by protecting its citizens. They do so by passing laws and policies that is fair to all of its citizens. However, passing just laws and policies might not be the issue; the issue is, to what extent those laws and policies are implemented, how much integrity our political leaders have to ensure that the laws and policies are passed for the greater good of the society. According to Foucault et al., we are not certain because we are just spectators, watching from a distance, and the best we can do is cheer (2009). The state leaders have the power to manipulate its institutions to do what it pleases. They manipulate the police, the media, the judicial system and even the prison department to ensure that they protect their interests. They have the power to run these systems to suit their aspirations and even their needs. They appoint people based on what they can deliver to them, or rather those who can cover up their dirty tricks (Foucault et,al., 2009). The minority groups often become victims of these dirty games.
The constitution often gives a detailed description of a certain directive of the law, but the state may ignore it a give another directive contrary to what the law says. Historically, several laws were passed that discriminated the minority groups from receiving state directed privileges such as good housing, fair justice in a criminal court of law, protection from environmental contaminants among others (Fanon, 1965). The policy makers and implementers have always given not social priority to the minority group, and neither do the policies they develop and implement.
The issue of governance cannot be left out, as it shapes the way, the society operates and it characterizes what it terms to be risky making it even more difficult for individuals and groups to exercise personal choice and build solidarity. According to Brown, the weakening social frameworks that for governance has resulted to and exploration and expansion of punitive cerebral strategies in the United States that often regulate the poor and the minorities in the United Stated, or rather even the "urban outcasts" worldwide (2009). These practices are not done in the shadow; rather they are often visible, popular, and naturalized features especially in the urban landscapes. In addition, these form of governance not only dictates social structures it also determines punishment in a much broad in regards to how sovereignty is reconfigured in a much broader social and global landscape and distinctively the American form of punishment.
Law enforcement and criminal justice systems- the very heart of the Constitution of the United States is made from discriminatory foundations that regard the minority groups as 3/5 of the population. Though some amendments have been done to the document to rectify some of the laws that made other people look superior to others, it still has laws that are used against the minority groups in the judicial court systems (Foucault et,al., 2009). Statistics proof to support the claims and to quote from the US Constitution and those charged with crime always remain guilty until proven innocent.
Once one become a minority group defendant in the US judicial system, statistics show that one in every three African American serving a criminal sentence is either in jail or federal prison, parole or on probation. According to Muhammad, mandatory criminal sentences have befallen on a majority of the minority groups including women and enforcement efforts are always targeted the groups that perform even minor social crimes (2010). If we give an example like trafficking of crack cocaine in the US streets, the majority of people convicted are often the minority groups mainly the Hispanics, African Americans and other groups who in fact are not the major users of the drugs (Muhhamad, 2010). It is conventional wisdom that in the US majority of crack cocaine users are whites, yet a majority of the minority groups are often convicted due to crimes associated with crack cocaine trafficking.
Judiciary system is also corrupt, the impunity levels are paramount, and if the US wants to restore its judicial system, it will have to address the issue from the bottom, right at the foundation of its roots. Court hearings are often biased, and one sided, judges give out rulings that are biased. Even with sufficient evidence, a judge can twist the claims to fit the situation he/she favours (Muhhamad, 2010). Jury selections have also been a questionable issue in the United States as a majority of jury personnel are selected based on racial origins and minority groups are excluded from the process.
The law enforcers such as the police departments such as the NYPD are also locked up in the circle of impunity and unfairness. Convictions of criminals are based on various disparities ranging from race, sexual orientation, country of origin among other demographic factors. The majority of police arrests take place in the neighbourhoods where minority groups reside. There is always a political influence in the way police operations are conducted, and it is common for a majority of arrests to be tied down to a target group (Muhhamad, 2010). Police often have the power to initiate shooting and majority of victims are often from the minority groups.
Prison organizational systems are also unjust to minority groups in the United States and other developed nations. Corruption and impunity among prison wardens make a certain minority group in the prison to suffer unfair punishments in prisons. Prison management often targets minority groups to either oppress or make them a specimen of various tasks that can collectively be done by all the prisoners (Brown 2009). Prisons are ideally correctional facilities, but political ideologies and subjects dictate the consequences prisoners face in prison, and it is ideally tied to vengeance to the prisoner; hence, commands are given to prison wardens to treat prisoners accordingly using fellow prisoners. The law making processes will often favour vengeance over crime prevention and reduction of fear among individuals in the society especially the minority groups (Brown 2009). Unfortunately, not even our prisons practise what it was initially designed to do, but rather drive impunity and social injustices to minority groups.
According to Potter and Marshal, media has a role in perpetuating social injustices in our communities. (2009) Media is not isolated from our society but is an integral part of the society, and they utilize the knowledge that is soon as a collective pool of common sense to inform us what is happening in all aspects of our lives (Bloom, 2007). Historically, the media has positioned and represented itself differently when representing the minority groups in the American society, and they construct negativity out of their differences; hence, influencing other people's attitudes towards them (Bloom, 2007).
The media can drive the state to make further investigations that might not be is associated with the minority groups because the media often labels them as suspects and make them look like the bad guys (Hall, 1978). The media also have biased judgements concerning sexual orientations ethnic orientations and other social demographics among the minorities. Media coverage on minority futures often circles particular themes such as deviance, exotica, crime and other negatively valued differences (Potter & Marshal, 2009).
What Is Wrong With Rights?
Scholars define rights as a moral permission to express one; to carry out a certain activity without any limitation set by the state or individuals (Sisemore, 2007). The US constitution has a section that outlines various rights granted to an individual or a group. Though rights ensure that people have freedom to live freely, these rights have also jeopardized our social systems and morality. Ideally, the exercise of certain rights should be regulated, but the histories of social injustices in the United States have granted other institutions excessive rights than the others (Hyams, 2011). For instance, the judicial system has been granted the power and right to carry out its activities, and it has led to various consequences, for instance, the jury members can twist cases to suit a certain party. The American constitution amended its constitutions almost ten times to develop the Bill of Rights, but it was a mall help in ferreting the principles of human rights, but the whole idea was not ideally the declaration of human rights (Sisemore, 2007).
Sisemore notes that rights come with their various challenges especially in executing social justices in the state institutions (2007). Various bodies have been formed to promote rights of the minority groups and special groups such as women and children, but the question is what extent do those rights conform to constitutional requirements under the state laws. Groups have moved to courts to seek legal stand on some basic rights of minority groups such as homosexuals (Sisemore, 2007). The fight has not been easy because it questions the morality of what the state needs to execute. The constitutional foundations of the US Constitution are laid on Christian norms and principles and executing some basic rights for the special groups might be an uphill task. It is not easy to change the constitution. Thus, several amendments have been made to extend the basic human rights but still, the question of morality is still a factor in consideration when granting rights to citizens.
What Are The Limits Of Rights-Based Discourses? Moreover, What Are the Alternatives?
The relevance of human rights discourse is relevant to people working on interpersonal violence, and it often has profound implications on perceptions of certain groups, for instance, women with regards to respect and seeking interventions as a rights-bearer seeking safety dignity and respect (Matsuzawa, 2012). Most non-governmental organizations have utilized right based discourses to educate and train special groups in the society, especially where rights are not exercised freely.
The problem with this approach, however, is the fact that enlightenments on various basic human rights are not welcomed in some societies; for instance, among the Islam, scholars discovered that with enlightenment come all sorts of social problems especially if the enlightenment targets groups such as women (Matsuzawa, 2012). Thus, in exercising human rights, it is essential to factor in the cultural differences among people and the perceptions they have towards the certain right if a certain group is granted to exercise that right. Many cultures are not capitalistic contrary to the western cultures and individualism is not given priority in the social setting, therefore, in the exercise of any right granted by the society caution is always taken to ensure that it does not harm the social structures of the society.
Human right discourse on gender rights is also being debated as it is one of the aspects of the society that has raised numerous controversies, since, its establishment. The organization executing the exercise should be cautious because in exercising the moral right of enlightening women, they should not feed the wrong information into their minds (Smith, 2009). Naturally, women are perceived to be homemakers, but if the women activists are feeding women with wrong values, their social responsibility might be shaken posing a danger to our social structures shortly.
In the judicial system, the element of human right discourse may not be a subject of debate and therefore individuals may be forced to adhere to what the law says and not merely reflecting on the bill of rights. Cases are complex and multi-dimensional and thus, if issues on human rights are blended to it then more often than not justice might not be served accordingly. Both cases are analyzed, and the legal personnel bring out judgements based on the evidence gathered on the ground (Ramutsindela, 2010). Justice is served according to the jurisdiction of the constitution and not just a section of it.
An alternative to human right discourse that touches on sensitive matters in the society may be discussed in Congress together with stakeholders and human activists who sought to correct the situation on the ground. Some matters are so sensitive that they cannot be openly discussed in the presence of all the audience (Ramutsindela, 2010). There is a need to amend the constitution to ensure that basic human rights are not just tied to specific individuals but should cut across all the departments and religious groups, hence, granting everyone equal basic rights. Discussions on human rights have always gone sour but with advancement in technology and learning, hitches can be ironed out smoothly (Hyams, 2011).
How Rights A Claim To Membership in a Population That Simultaneously Act To Exclude another Group
Certain rights often segregate individuals to cluster themselves to certain groups in the society. People who share similar characteristics often come together and seek attention from the state by expressing the need to have special rights according to the characteristics they present. Several groups such as women, people with disabilities, homosexuals, certain tribe and other minority groups often seek to have a special docket in the bill of rights (Liasidou, 2014). Congress and other arms of governments may not always grant these individuals these rights because they assume that the constitution offers universal rights to everyone.
Exclusion of other groups is often a phenomenon that often raises this phenomenon, for instance, people who are not gay or lesbians may tend to see people who have that characteristic as outcasts in the society. They regard their practice as immoral and a bad example to the community, and are often seen as a disgrace even to their families (Liasidou, 2014). These individuals often feel stigmatized, and they try to come together to fight for their rights at the same time pleading to their society to view them as normal individuals. Another instance could be the issue could be free communication among the media houses. The government always permits certain information to reach the public but can withhold others. Hence, the media may feel that they are not given enough freedom of expression, and they start blaming the government through demonstrations that they are violating their rights (Serpe, 2014). The other instance that has been growing rapidly over the years is the women's rights. Women initially were suffering in silence until women activists rose to power and demanded women to be treated equally as their counterparts.
There have been several demonstrations of women fighting for their rights in many parts of the world. It has reached a point where the rights of men and the boy child have been ignored, hence turning the tables (Smith, 2009). In the United States, for instance, the minority groups have always been subject to discrimination in almost all aspects of life, while their counterparts flourish and lead a comfortable life. The fights for equality in the US has never stopped simply because the minority groups have been segregated even by the constitution itself making it difficult for them to achieve their full potential as a normal US citizen.
How Does the ‘Maldistribution Of Life Chances', As Shown In Cruel And Unusual (2006), Expose The Limits Of Rights?
After reviewing the film, it is evident that you can only exercise your rights fully if you are a free person in the United States not convicted in any prison or jail. The basic human rights can only be enjoyed when one is free from any crime but unless otherwise, human rights are the property of the state. The documentary features transgendered males and females who get imprisoned are mixed up with other prisoners regardless of their special needs and attentions (Serpe, 2014). The prison wardens do not care that these individuals are subject to sexual abuse in prison. Their basic right to treatment and protection from sexual assault is not factored in these prisons. The film gives a highlight that rights can sometimes be a mere talk in the society because it may not be practised in our social institutions at all.
Special people in the society must be treated like normal people and not outcasts, and their special needs met without any form of discrimination. Children are also very vulnerable to social abuses and have always been the victims of violence and sexual abuse. They do not know what their rights are, and even if they knew, they would do nothing about it. The society will keep on doing social injustices to them knowing that they have nowhere to run to or even may not have a clue of the existing institutional protocols. Women to some extent may sometimes not exercise their full rights especially when they are married to a culture where a woman is just tied serve her husband even when they are abused. These, misfortunes in life make us question the whole issue of morality about the exercise of human rights and various social injustices tied to the whole process.
References
Brown, M. (2009). The culture of punishment: Prison, society, and spectacle. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Bloom, H. (2007). James Baldwin. New York: Chelsea House.
Fanon, F., Sartre, J., & Farrington, C. (1965). The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press.
Foucault, M., Senellart, M., Ewald, F., & Fontana, A. (2009). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-1978. New York: Picador/Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyams, K. (2011). When Consent Doesn't Work: A Rights-Based Case for Limits to Consent's Capacity to Legitimise. Journal Of Moral Philosophy, 8(1), 110-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/174552411x549417
Liasidou, A. (2014). Disabling discourses and human rights law: a case study based on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Discourse: Studies In The Cultural Politics Of Education, 37(1), 149-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.936928
Matsuzawa, S. (2012). Citizen Environmental Activism in China: Legitimacy, Alliances, and Rights-based Discourses. ANE, 19(2), 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.16995/ane.33
Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of blackness: Race, crime, and the making of modern urban America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, L. (2001). Playing the race card: Melodramas of black and white from Uncle Tom to O.J. Simpson. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Potter, T., & Marshall, C. W. (2009). The Wire: Urban decay and American television. New York: Continuum.
Ramutsindela, M. (2010). Property rights, land tenure and the racial discourses. Geojournal, 77(6), 753-763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9382-6
Serpe, N. (2014). How the Right Gets Us Wrong. Dissent, 61(4), 148-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dss.2014.0081
Sisemore, T. (2007). When rights may be wrong. Psyccritiques, 52(52). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0010299
Smith, M. (2009). Limits and Possibilities: Rights-based Discourses in Australian Gender Pay Equity Reform 1969â2007. Gender, Work & Organization. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00491.x
