This is an assignment of course Theorizing Crime, Law, and Social Justice.
Write a short argumentative essay (4-5 pages) of polemics, justice, and the nature of critical social science. This is a short, argumentative essay, so you will have to do some reflection and come up with your thesis statement.
FOLLOW THE ATTACHED DOC OF INSTRUCTION WHICH STATES WHAT IS THIS ESSAY ABOUT AND ALL OTHER DETAIL INSTRUCTION. You need to go through the readings ( I have attached) and write the essay from referring informations there.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
Follow all the instruction in attached file
This assignment is not specifically about Foucault (although you may certainly discussFoucault in your assignment if your main argument warrants it), his imperative highlights a certaincontrast: sometimes we read theoretical work that is, like Foucault, somewhat descriptive andanalytical, but which avoids taking pronounced stances on questions of politics or (social) justice. Onthe other hand, some critical theorists do write with an overt sense of inequality, social or politicaljustice, liberation, or emancipation embedded in their work. Between the two poles, there is an entirespectrum of approaches to doing critical theorizing.
This is an assignment of course Theorizing Crime, Law, and Social Justice. Write a short argumentative essay (4-5 pages) of polemics, justice, and the nature of critical social science. This is a shor
10 Just & Unjust Law and Contemporary Crime Control Policy Student Name Course Title and Name Instructor Name Due Just & Unjust Law and Contemporary Crime Control Policy Introduction The laws are rules that govern human behavior and are enacted to direct human behavior. A nation without laws is akin to a car without wheels, as laws are intended to regulate the conduct of its population. It is impossible to reconcile human conflict when there are no laws; thus, the law is implemented for retribution rather than justice. This paper will advance six arguments on applying laws and the roles of the Supreme Court, the social movement, and the women’s movement in creating just laws. Jacque Derris, Simon, and Foucault’s perspectives on just and unjust laws, modern perspectives on the penal code, and the government’s role in the normalization of social life have been explored. Jacques Derris creates a new concept of what laws are just and unjust. However, his reasoning contradicts that of Foucault, who identifies the Supreme Court as a regulatory agent and implicates it in enforcing laws that may lead to violence. Laws serve a variety of objectives in society, but they can also oppress the minority, despite safeguards set by legitimate governments to keep current laws and institutions that enact and enforce them in check (Shiner, 2015). Jacques Derris believes that just laws only sometimes promote justice since there are state actors with repugnant moral values, which may affect the implementation and interpretation of just law (Derrida, 2016). I am of the general opinion that, just law benefits outweigh the oppression and opposition from a state actor and those with conservative views on promoting social justice. This study will clearly illustrate why laws must be deconstructed to align with modern norms and achieve justice. Jacques Derrida highlights that laws are regarded as the authority that determines what is legal and illegal and what is just and unjust, upon which prior authorization is based (Derrida, 2016). Unjust laws mistreat an individual or group or promote injustice. It is always possible to modify the law to favor the status quo but rarely to promote minority rights and social justice (Derrida, 2016). The Supreme Court of Canada, for instance, approaches sexuality-related matters based on the prevalent social ethos of the time. As a result, it interprets what constitutes nonconsensual sex in a shift from a regulatory perspective (Brock, Glasbeek, & Murdocca, 2014). The Supreme Court’s view may advance justice by leading to the replacement of rape with sexual assault in the penal code. The laws establish a greater right to privacy for victims of sexual assault, alter the age of consent, and expand the scope of legislation protecting sexual abuse. In contrast, the deconstructed laws may not achieve the intended social justice course with state actors with conservative views on nonconsensual sexual activity. Taking this view further, it has been argued that justice exists beyond and outside laws, and justice cannot be deconstructed, but the laws can be deconstructed. Justice may not change despite the passage of time, but new rights may be acknowledged, and the legislation will be amended to suit justice needs (Derrida, 2016). Existing legal changes and homonormativity debates include the expansion of anti-discrimination laws pertaining to sexual orientation, the recognition of same-gender couples, and an associated change in family laws (Brock, Glasbeek, & Murdocca, 2014). The court’s in 2003 ruling recognizing same-sex marriage resulted in the passage of the 2005 Civil Marriage Act. The court’s interpretation of the existing family-making recommendation, which resulted in the 2005 civil marriage statute, was intended to reflect contemporary ideas on marriage that are acceptable to society (where did you get this information from? Please cite). However, even though this law promotes justice by safeguarding the rights of minorities, it faces criticism from church leaders who hold opposing viewpoints and emphasize the significance of building social ethos. Furthermore, society has experienced a significant shift from regulation of indecency and phonography, replacing morality-based reasoning with harm-based reasoning. The solicitation of sex workers on the street is a nuisance to the public and should be regulated based on harm-based reasoning. The court has traditionally deconstructed laws to enhance minority rights but has placed less emphasis on the consequences of laws interfering with social ethos (Brock, Glasbeek, & Murdocca, 2014). According to Jacques Derrida, laws provide calculative punishments that operate as retribution rather than as a means to advance justice (Derrida, 2016). The presence of sex workers is an annoyance to the public, but the deconstruction of laws that would provide the public with justice only leads to violence as a result of their implementation. The public can feel secure and social order can be maintained by enforcing a law that may not achieve its intended purpose. In contrast, the social movement alters the public discourse around the regulation of sex workers, which may impede and delay the court’s efforts to deconstruct the legislation so that it conforms to social ethos. According to Foucault, the government has always utilized laws as a normalizing process because it views laws as an effective means of governing contemporary Western cultures (Brock, Glasbeek, & Murdocca, 2014). Even though the government regulates acceptable social behavior, the legal system and its job of dispensing justice remain essential to the functioning of society. The decision of the government to normalize behavior is not necessarily a valid and just means of promoting justice because it may include the use of excessive force. For instance, the Canadian government determined that the best approach to integrate Indigenous people into mainstream culture and normalize their behavior and cultures is to integrate them to residential schools. According to Jacques Derrida, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is equivalent to creating a new regulation (Derrida, 2016).In contrast; the legal system is becoming integrated into a continuum of apparatus. According to Foucault, the Supreme Court is a regulatory component of state technologies for fostering structured social life (Brock, Glasbeek, & Murdocca, 2014). The enforcement of laws increasingly results in social abuse and oppression as opposed to achieving social justice. In further detail, the Supreme Court of Canada established a new precedent that will serve as the basis for new legislation governing how cases involving indigenous people must be evaluated, the criteria that must be examined, and the sort of penalty that must be imposed (Bernstein, 2012). Wacquant and Simon believe that control and dominance of the racialized underclass are not directly related to crime and government. Typically, the new liberal middle-class freedom is protected not against but through modern penal policy (Bernstein, 2012). The shift in the liberal perspective of crime has increased the contemporary victim rights movement’s prominence. The provincial court of appeal has diverged from the just precedent established by the Supreme Court of Canada, which focuses on upholding the right to punitive sentencing for minorities, particularly indigenous people (Kelly & Murphy, 2005). Contrary to the liberal notion of securing the rights of a liberal society, the majority notion, which is fully based on deterrence and punishment, disproportionately and negatively affects minorities. However, there is a shift on judges of courts of appeal in their interpretation of the law, despite the fact that the nature of the offense determines the sentencing. In addition, social ordering is the way in which individuals agree to be bound by social contracts that stipulate the observance of certain rules and laws and the maintenance of particular standards, values, and norms. (Olaya, Salinas, & Beltrán, 2010) Rationality, individual political conditions, and the economic environment typically exacerbate social disorder. There are growing opinions that women’s increased participation in the labor force has resulted in the abandonment of their homes, which may have contributed to the reported increase in social disorder (Bernstein, 2012). Simon has further shown that a woman has actively advanced the new tough-on-crime narrative, notably on domestic abuse and rape (Bernstein, 2012). Feminists and their anti-rape and domestic violence movement advocated social services remedies that have generated a new social discourse and led to the passage of legislation that prevents violence against women. On the contrary, the laws enacted lead to violence and oppression of males since the law considers one gender. According to the cultural patriarch, men are viewed as the decision-makers of the family; hence, men who hold conservative views may oppose existing laws that promote social justice for women. Conclusion Laws are enacted to serve various purposes, including promoting orderly social development, preserving the status quo, protecting individual rights, promoting minority rights against majorities, and promoting social justice. The social ethos and public perception of society’s most pressing concerns impact state actors in enacting and interpreting the legislation that results in new laws. The Supreme Court of Canada examined social ethos when deregulating sexual expression, implementing the Family Act of 2005, and providing interpretive criteria for sentencing indigenous rights. Society is undergoing a transformation involving a liberal voice demanding protection from crime in support of the criminal system and a rise in women’s voices promoting social justice. The goal of the actor is to promote social justice and orderly transformation. On the other hand, those who embraced conservative ideas were opposed to the legislation because they had goals that were contradictory to the social ethos and norms and promoted a distinct social life. The facts presented demonstrates that, despite opposition from conservative voices, just laws always benefit society by encouraging justice and orderly societal developments that respect everyone’s rights. References Bernstein, E. (2012). Carceral politics as gender justice? The “traffic in women” and neoliberal circuits of crime, sex, and rights. Theory and Society, 41(3), 233-259. Brock, D., Glasbeek, A., & Murdocca, C. (2014). Criminalization, Representation, Regulation: Thinking Differently about Crime. University of Toronto Press. Derrida, J. (2016). Force of law: The “mystical foundation of authority.” In Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice (pp. 3-67). Routledge. Kelly, J. B., & Murphy, M. (2005). Shaping the constitutional dialogue on federalism: Canada’s Supreme Court as a meta-political actor. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 35(2), 217–243. Olaya, C., Salinas, M., & Beltrán, I. D. L. (2010). Theorizing About Crime: Elements for a Contribution of System Dynamics to Criminology. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society (pp. 1-10). Shiner, R. (2015). Law and Authority. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 2(1), 3–18. doi:10.1017/S084182090000093X Tyler, T. R. (2021). Why do people obey the law? In Why People Obey the Law. Princeton university press.