The judicial system, created to provide protection to America’s citizens, may now possess immoral characteristics, causing harm to Americans. The sentencing of criminals in courts exemplify unfair trials towards minorities through discrimination, as well as ignoring scientific data that favors the mentally unstable. The authors of these five sources all unveal the American court system’s immoral credibility, through the providing of examples of the present discrimination in the court room and the ongoing failed adoption of societies racial and scientific advancements, however, they differ in their examination of subjects who face these inequitable sentences, minorities and psychopaths.
Authors Lisa Stolzenberg, Stewart J. D’Alessio, and David Eitle, conduct a series of trials that researches what points of the judicial system imitates racial discrimination through their skewed sentencing. The authors exhibit strength in the article when explaining their research analysis of the tendencies of bias and stereotypes prevalent in the judicial system, “…both prosecutors and judges rely on perceptual shorthands that allow them to reach quick decisions when confronted with insufficient or contradictory case information” (Stolzenberg, Lisa, et al.). The authors imply that the court system contains flaws and suggests that minorities have a disadvantage in the court room based on their appearance, but do not further explain why they believe that these ‘shorthands’ occur. However, the authors then qualify the claim of what ‘perceptual shorthands’ include, through the listing of stereotypes that a young black male possesses. These examples supported the argument that judges and prosecutor’s racial stereotyping relevancy when sentencing, providing proof of how a minority faces judgement before actually legitimately judged. Similarly, the authors compare the data of sentences of differentiating racial crimes, “Studies find that Black-on-White crimes are punished more harshly than Black-on-Black crimes because these types of interracial offenses are perceived to be more threatening to the interests of Whites in the society…” (Stolzenberg, Lisa, et al.). The authors fortify their argument that the judicial system has a tendency to show discrimination towards blacks and favor societies historical ‘superior white male’. The authors argument effectively explains the bias within interracial crimes, but lack commentary and in-depth examples. Although, they still relay the message to their readers of the importance of the acknowledgement that the judicial system’s unequal sentencing.
Similarly, the authors Rebecca D. Gill, Sylvia R. Lazos, and Mallory M. Waters, further the examination in their article on the judicial system to conduct a conclusion whether or not judges and jurors show discrimination when sentencing minorities. The authors make the accusation that discrimination in court does not occur deliberately, “Conscious or explicit bias is the kind of prejudice that people openly embrace, but unconscious or implicit biases are automatic, unintentional, and often unexamined” (Gill, Rebecca D., et al 737). The authors use the prevalent fact that people have an unconscious bias to support the idea that our judges and jurors conduct an unwarranted trial. They effectively support the claim of the ongoing bias that people in court possess, but do not advocate solely for the side of the minorities, therefore weakening their argument. However, the authors maintain an informative relationship with their readers by ensuring their understanding of the issues discussed, “…racial and gender stereotypes are negative generalizations based on culture and myths” (Gill, Rebecca D., et al 738). Through the use of definitions, the authors keep their readers engaged by establishing a relationship between them. This relationship creates a stronger credibility for the article and enables the reader to make an informed conclusion about the claimed arguments that suggest the court system holds immoral discriminatory tendencies.
Michael L. Perlin in his book states that the mentally disabled should receive different sentencing standards, due to new scientific data and advancements that demonstrate uncontrollable flaws in a mentally ill individual’s brain. Perlin shows the importance of one to reveal all medical information for criminals with mental disabilities, through the Wiggins v. Smith case, “Set forth a national standard of practice for the defense of capital cases in order to insure high quality legal representation for all persons facing the possible imposition or execution of a death sentence by any jurisdiction” (Perlin 37). By quoting this famous case in regard to the death penalty, the Sixth Amendment, and mental disabilities, Perlin establishes a strong source of credibility. To expand his argument, Perlin provides concrete examples for what the guidelines entail to pronounce the criminal as mentally disabled, “Diagnostic studies, neuropsychological testing, appropriate brain scans, blood tests or genetic studies, and consultation with additional mental health specialists may also be necessary” (Perlin 37). Through Perlin’s explanation of the extreme measures that must transpire to declare one’s brain unfit for making rational decisions. He educates his readers on the numerous important qualifications a criminal must carry to label one as a psychopath and therefore, should not meet the requirements for the death penalty. Perlin suggests that usage of the multiple tests that signify a defendant as mentally unstable, should hold significant importance when used as a defense in court.
Similarly, Kimberly D. Phillips addresses in her article why psychopaths do not have the same qualities that make them fit to receive the death penalty, and then effectively supports his argument with sufficient evidence. Phillips creates a compelling argument when introducing to her readers the idea that psychopath’s brains obtain abnormalities, “Their acts result not from a deranged mind but from a cold, calculating rationality combined with a chilling inability to treat others as thinking, feeling human beings” (Phillips 3). By providing this example of how a psychopath’s brain functions here, the severity of the argument Phillips later suggests becomes more relevant, which intentionally adds to her opinion that psychopaths should not fall victim to the death sentence. Furthering the argument that psychopaths do not hold accountability for their horrid crimes, she provides detail on what an fMRI does and how it differs from an MRI, “fMRI records ‘the differences between oxygenated and nonoxygenated blood cells die to their magnetic charges, so more active neurons can be distinguished from less active ones” (Phillips 29). Phillips informs her readers of the crucial information on how jurors and judges apply scientific data, like fMRI scans, to sentence a criminal with a mental disability and determine whether or not they have brain functionality of a psychopath. Phillips uncovers the significance of these scans and by describing the advancement it establishes in its reveal of a brain’s low functionality. She defines these scientific tools to establish the advancements in scientific data, and further suggests that the court should form to these new findings to attempt to save lives and escape the death penalty.
In comparison, Julia C. Spring in her article effectively makes an argument concerning the legality of the death penalty in reference to psychopaths. In attempt to establish credibility through ethos, Spring quotes a judicial case that directly effects the legality of sentencing a psychopath, “…the Supreme Court’s 1986 Ford opinion held that the ‘Eight Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits a State from carrying out a sentence of death upon a prisoner who is insane’” (Spring 30). Spring includes this in her introduction to inform her readers to of her stance towards the controversial topic and to establish the illegality of the death sentence in respect to criminals with mental illnesses. The inclusion of the constitution gives readers a wider understanding of what the death penalty’s entails, and also generates a compelling example for the overall claim that psychopaths cannot face execution due to their mental instability. However, Spring makes her claim ineffectual when explaining Singleton’s, a criminal on death row, story, “The only way for Singleton to escape death was to stop taking medication, regress to psychosis, become dangerous, lose his ability to understand that he was to be executed and why- and then start the whole cycle over” (Spring 31). The inclusion of the Singleton’s attempt to escape death row as a result of making himself insane, takes away from the severity of her first argument stating that people who suffer from mentally illnesses deserve different sentencing privileges. However, Spring still sufficiently advocates on the behalf of the law the constitution establishes, which needs to be brought to the attention of America’s courts.
The judicial system, judges and jurors, show qualities of old-fashioned tendencies and biased opinions that lead to discrimination and unjust sentences throughout America. These authors adequately conducted research trials to expose the prominent bias and immoral discrimination in the court room, research famous trials to advance their claim through the use of concrete examples, and established the importance of the need change of the use of pressing scientific data. Through this research, the authors were able to uncover scientific data that can determine a criminal as a psychopath, as well as racial discrimination during trials, which both must become applicable when sentencing defendants.