DOCSLIB.ORG

Centering Race in Procedural Justice Theory: Systemic Racism and the Under-Policing and Over- Policing of Black Communities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Centering Race in Procedural Justice Theory: Systemic Racism and the Under-Policing and Over- Policing of Black Communities 1 Centering race in procedural justice theory: Systemic racism and the under-policing and over- policing of Black communities Jonathan Jackson, Department of Methodology, LSE, and University of Sydney Law School Tasseli McKay, RTI International and Duke University Leonidas Cheliotis, Department of Social Policy, LSE Ben Bradford, Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London Adam Fine, Arizona State University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Rick Trinkner, Arizona State University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Jonathan Jackson is Professor of Methodology at LSE and Honorary Professor at University of Sydney Law School Tasseli McKay is a NSF postdoctoral researcher at Duke University and a researcher in the Youth, Violence and Community Justice Program at RTI International Leonidas Cheliotis is Associate Professor at the LSE and Director of LSE’s Mannheim Centre for Criminology Ben Bradford is Professor of Global City Policing at UCL and Director of the Institute for Global City Policing Adam Fine is Assistant Professor at Arizona State University Rick Trinkner is Assistant Professor at Arizona State University and an Affiliated Scholar at Yale Law School’s Justice Collaboratory 2 Abstract Objectives. Bring people’s perceptions of systemic racism into procedural justice theory. Test an expanded model of police legitimacy that includes people’s perceptions of the under-policing and over- policing of Black communities. Methods. A cross-sectional survey based on a quota sample of 1,500 US residents designed to resemble the general population on the bases of race, gender, and age. Key measures are procedural justice, distributive justice, bounded authority, police legitimacy, perceptions of under-policing of Black communities, perceptions of over-policing of Black communities, and perceptions of systemic racism in the police. Structural equation modelling examines conditional correlations between latent constructs. Results. People’s perceptions of systemic under-policing and over-policing of Black communities are strongly associated with perceived police racism. Perceptions of under-policing and over-policing predict perceptions of the fairness and legitimacy of the police. These findings holds for both white and Black respondents. Conclusions. We provide ‘proof of concept’ in this particular approach to centering race in procedural justice theory. Findings also point to a pressing need to address the paradoxical law enforcement practices that have kept American police forces in service to structural racism and left Black communities both unprotected and over-regulated. Key words: Procedural justice; structural racism; police legitimacy 3 Introduction American law enforcement faces a crisis of legitimacy and public support (Gallup, 2021). Having long played a role in telegraphing the second-class citizenship of communities of color (Weaver & Lerman, 2010), police agencies are receiving fresh scrutiny after a new wave of deadly police violence against Black bodies. Mass protests against police and a shift in public opinion regarding structural racism raise questions about the popular legitimacy of police and the public’s willingness to fund policing (Evans et al., 2020; Horton, 2020; Whitfield et al., 2020). Following civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri and elsewhere over the police killing of Michael Brown in 2014, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) declared legitimacy as the first pillar of good policing. The report referenced a theory—procedural justice theory (PJT)—that has been widely applied to understand how police-community relations shape the public’s perceptions of police legitimacy (Tyler, Goff, et al., 2015). PJT offers a compelling and well-supported alternative to deterrence-based approaches to law enforcement that privilege coercive over consensual modes of policing. It stresses the role that acting in procedurally just ways plays in enhancing and maintaining legitimacy (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006). Fair and respectful treatment and neutral and accountable decision-making by police signal to people that they are valued members of civil society (Bradford, 2014; Brouwer et al., 2018; Tyler, 1997; Justice & Meares, 2014). By extension, unfair decision-making (decisions that are subjective and biased) and interpersonal treatment (treatment that denies the value and dignity of the individual) communicates subordination and exclusion. Legitimacy is posited to motivate people to cooperate with law enforcement and comply with the law (Bolger and Walters 2019; Jackson, 2018; Walters and Bolger 2019). Overall, the theory predicts that an increasingly narrow reliance on violent force in policing is likely to follow if the public is unwilling to cooperate with police in achieving their goals, comply with their orders, and accept their decisions. The theory’s predictions have been supported in studies involving marginalized communities of color (Wolfe et al., 2016; Madon et al., 2017; Quinn et al., 2019). There is also evidence that the experience of being subjected to stop-and-frisk encounters and other types of aggressive pro-active policing among Black and Latino men can erode police legitimacy through a sense of procedural injustice and unjustified intrusion (Geller et al., 2014; Tyler et al., 2014). Yet, it is striking that no study has fully incorporated people’s perceptions of racist policing (or policing that reflects and exacerbates systemic racism in society) into the framework. Procedural justice is about the fairness of the methods used to achieve outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Racism embedded in an unfair process (e.g. biased decision-making and disrespectful treatment) will, almost by definition, produce racially biased outcomes at the individual and aggregate level (e.g. disproportionate and aggressive contact). Still, no study has addressed whether community- level policing practices and patterns, such as the under-policing or over-policing of particular groups or neighbourhoods, reflect structural racism in the eyes of civilians and lead them to believe policing is biased and unjust – with all the potential implications noted above. PJT research is less ‘color-blind’ with regard to the measurement of distributive justice, but even here the issue is watered down. Distributive justice typically refers to the level of fairness or equality in the allocation of outcomes (Sunshine and Tyler, 2003); researchers within this literature occasionally reference race, although it is limited to measurement. For example, one of the five survey indicators in Sunshine & Tyler’s (2003) study mentioned race (“Minority residents of the city receive a lower quality of service from the NYPD than do whites”).1 One of the two distributive justice items in Wolfe et al. (2016) asked respondents whether they thought that the police in their neighborhood ‘‘give minorities less help because of their race.’’ Even in these studies, however, there is no direct reference to race in the overarching theoretical framework. No study, in short, has directly addressed whether procedurally unjust treatment and biased decision-making is experienced as or seen to be racially inflected, or asked people whether they believe police systematically under-police and/or over-police certain communities based on race. This is 1 See also Reisig et al. (2007: 1004), whose five measures of distributive fairness were: “Provide the same quality of service to all citizens”, “Enforce the law consistently when dealing with all people”, “Make sure citizens receive the outcomes they deserve under the law”, “Give minorities less help because of their race” and “Provide better services to wealthier citizens”. The issue here is that the sentiment about under-policing of minority communities could get slightly lost because the other four measures do not specify particular social groups and the theoretical framework is concerned with overall perceptions of the fair allocation of scarce resources, not in relation to specific racial groups. 4 surprising for a number of reasons. First, some policy makers and police leaders have drawn on PJT as a way of partially framing the problem of race in US policing and therefore, potentially, some way of framing reform (Gilbert et al., 2016; NIBCTJ, 2015; US Conference of Mayors, 2015). Second, researchers have documented a strong and consistent pattern of “disproportionate minority contacts” instigated by police, particularly with Black and Latino boys. Epp et al. (2014) arguing that investigatory stops convey powerful racial messages that violate rights and dignity. Studies have highlighted the systemic injustice implicit in racially targeted police contacts that are not explained by differences in individual behavior or neighborhood-level crime rates (Gase et al., 2016; Weaver et al., 2019). Third, qualitative work has suggested how, from the perspective of members of “race-class subjugated communities” (Soss & Weaver, 2017, p. 567), racism in policing is experienced not as a purely procedural concern nor simply a matter of excessive police contact. Rather, it is exemplified by a paradox of over-regulation and under-protection (or “distorted responsiveness”), with significant consequences for communities of color (Prowse et al., 2019, p. 1435; Rios, 2011, pp. 64–65). We seek in this paper to incorporate people’s perceptions of structural racism into PJT. We do this through the lens of perceptions of the over-policing and under-policing of Black communities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Justice in an Open World – the Role Of
    E c o n o m i c & Social Affairs The International Forum for Social Development Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations Sales No. E.06.IV.2 ISBN 92-1-130249-5 05-62917—January 2006—2,000 United Nations ST/ESA/305 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS Division for Social Policy and Development The International Forum for Social Development Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations asdf United Nations New York, 2006 DESA The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat is a vital interface between global policies in the economic, social and environmental spheres and national action. The Department works in three main interlinked areas: (i) it compiles, generates and analyses a wide range of economic, social and environ- mental data and information on which States Members of the United Nations draw to review common problems and to take stock of policy options; (ii) it facilitates the negotiations of Member States in many intergovernmental bodies on joint course of action to address ongoing or emerging global challenges; and (iii) it advises inter- ested Governments on the ways and means of translating policy frameworks devel- oped in United Nations conferences and summits into programmes at the country level and, through technical assistance, helps build national capacities. Note The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations. The designations employed and the presentation of the mate- rial do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitations of its frontiers.
    [Show full text]
  • Holistic Retributivism
    Holistic Retributivism Douglas Husakt I INTRODUCTION Many contemporary liberals make relatively little use of the concept of desert in their conceptions of distributive justice. By contrast, the con- cept of desert is absolutely central to their views about the justification of criminal punishment. Are they consistent? Samuel Scheffler hopes to find a plausible rationale for the asymmetric role played by desert in theories of distributive and retributive justice.' According to Scheffler, good reasons can be found to "de-emphasize desert in relation to distributive justice while retaining it as an element of our thinking about ... retributive justice and the function of the criminal law. 2 Why do contemporary liberals "de-emphasize" desert in their theories of distributive justice?3 The key to Scheffler's answer is that "there is a fundamental difference between the justificatory bases for claims of desert and claims of distributive justice, respectively."4 The justificatory basis for a valid desert claim must be individualistic, whereas distributive justice is holistic. In describing the basis for a desert claim as individualistic, Scheffier means that the fact that provides the basis for the desert claim must be about the person who is the subject of that claim. In describing distributive justice as holistic, Scheffler means that the justice of any assignment of benefits to particular persons always depends on the justice of the larger distribution of benefits in society. Copyright © 2000 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Incorporated (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. t' Professor of Philosophy, Rutgers University.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Criminology
    PART 1 © Nevarpp/iStockphoto/Getty Images Introduction to Criminology CHAPTER 1 Crime and Criminology. 3 CHAPTER 2 The Incidence of Crime . 35 1 © Tithi Luadthong/Shutterstock CHAPTER 1 Crime and Criminology Crime and the fear of crime have permeated the fabric of American life. —Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court1 Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd. —Bertrand Russell2 OBJECTIVES • Define criminology, and understand how this field of study relates to other social science disciplines. Pg. 4 • Understand the meaning of scientific theory and its relationship to research and policy. Pg. 8 • Recognize how the media shape public perceptions of crime. Pg. 19 • Know the criteria for establishing causation, and identify the attributes of good research. Pg. 13 • Understand the politics of criminology and the importance of social context. Pg. 18 • Define criminal law, and understand the conflict and consensus perspectives on the law. Pg. 5 • Describe the various schools of criminological theory and the explanations that they provide. Pg. 9 of the public’s concern about the safety of their com- Introduction munities, crime is a perennial political issue that can- Crime is a social phenomenon that commands the didates for political office are compelled to address. attention and energy of the American public. When Dealing with crime commands a substantial por- crime statistics are announced or a particular crime tion of the country’s tax dollars. Criminal justice sys- goes viral, the public demands that “something be tem operations (police, courts, prisons) cost American done.” American citizens are concerned about their taxpayers over $270 billion annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Ethics
    4/18/2017 Project Team Colleen Owens [email protected] 202-261-5539 Jeanette Hussemann [email protected] Abbey Flynn [email protected] Bending Towards Justice: Hanna Love Perceptions of Justice among Human Trafficking Survivors [email protected] Freedom Network USA Conference Lilly Yu April 5, 2017 [email protected] Project Overview Background Literature • Funded by the National Institute of Justice State and local investigation and prosecution (Farrell et al., 2012) • 85% sex trafficking investigations • 2 year study (January 2016-December 2017) • Low victim self report, low priority, reactive investigations, 35% of victims arrested • Human trafficking laws are not being used • 8 sites, geographically diverse, 80-100 interviews with survivors • 7% sex trafficking charge, 9% sex trafficking of a minor charge and 2% labor of labor and sex trafficking, interviews with criminal and civil trafficking charge (*federal) justice stakeholders, service providers Federal prosecution and restitution (Levy et al., 2014) • Only 36% of victims were ordered restitution Goals of the study: • Half of prosecutors did not order restitution for sex trafficking • Explore human trafficking survivors’ experiences with the justice system and their perceptions of whether and how justice was achieved Labor trafficking (Owens et al., 2014) • Less than half of suspects arrested • Understand whether transitional/restorative justice and procedural justice • DOL fines in one case, restitution rare models might apply together with or separate from criminal prosecutions •
    [Show full text]
  • CONSEQUENTIALISM, the SEPARATENESS of PERSONS, and AGGREGATION1 David O
    Forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, ed. D. Portmore (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020) CONSEQUENTIALISM, THE SEPARATENESS OF PERSONS, AND AGGREGATION1 David O. Brink University of California, San Diego Abstract: This essay reconstructs and assesses claims that utilitarianism and, more generally, consequentialism have inadequate conceptions of distributive justice, because their aggregative character ignores the separateness of persons. On this view, the separateness of persons requires a fundamentally anti-aggregative conception of distributive justice. Even if this objection applies to some forms of utilitarianism, it won’t apply to forms of consequentialism that recognize some conception of distributive justice as an important non-derivative good. Moreover, the separateness of persons poses, rather than resolves, questions about the role of aggregation within distributive justice. This essay explores the adequacy of some consequentialist answers to these questions and defends selective, rather than unrestricted, aggregation. Keywords: aggregation, consequentialism, contractualism, distributive justice, egalitarianism, separateness of persons, sorites, transitivity, utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory that takes the good to be promoted — in one formulation, maximized — to be the general happiness or welfare. It takes everyone's interests into account by aggregating their interests, balancing benefits to some against harms to others, as necessary, so as to produce the best total outcome. This conception of impartiality is aggregative and permits interpersonal balancing of benefits and harms. But some critics of utilitarianism claim that whereas balancing goods and harms within a life might be acceptable, balancing goods and harms across lives is impermissible. This is because of the separateness of persons. Intrapersonal balancing recognizes the separateness of persons, because in that case there is compensation; benefactor and beneficiary are the same person.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Outcome Fairness: Revisiting the Role of Distributive Justice
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholar Commons - Institutional Repository of the University of South Carolina University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2018 The mpI ortance of Outcome Fairness: Revisiting the Role of Distributive Justice Kyle McLean University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation McLean, K.(2018). The Importance of Outcome Fairness: Revisiting the Role of Distributive Justice. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4579 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Importance of Outcome Fairness: Revisiting the Role of Distributive Justice by Kyle McLean Bachelor of Science Appalachian State University, 2012 Master of Arts University of South Carolina, 2014 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Criminology and Criminal Justice College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2018 Accepted by: Scott E. Wolfe, Major Professor Geoffrey P. Alpert, Committee Member Deena Isom, Committee Member Barry Markovsky, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Kyle McLean, 2018 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION For Jessica and Molly. You are my strength and my inspiration. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without a great many people.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributive Justice and Social Policy: a Case Study
    DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY: A CASE STUDY BY SUSAN MARIE SWIDER B.S.N., DePaul University, 1979 M.S., University of Illinois at Chicago, 1983 THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing Sciences in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 1988 Chi cago, Illinoi s F ~ .......... Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO The Graduate College /baAiJ /J>; / / / / ____________ I hereby recommend that the thesis prepared under my supervision by Susan M. Swider entitled Distributive Justice and Social Policy: A Case Study be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Committee Final Examination UNIVERSITY or ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO D517 Rev. 1/87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for their assistance and encouragement: Dr. Wendy Young, Dr. Dorothy Camilleri, Dr. Olga Church, and Dr. J. Warren Salmon. I also appre­ ciated the chance to work with the faculty and graduate students of the Women's Health Group at the College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, who provided a supportive environment for testing out new ideas and asking new questions. I am grateful for the love and support I received from my many friends during the process of my graduate studies, especially Tonda Hughes, Deborah Perils, and Bill Kabat, who had faith in me and expressed it frequently, as needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice for Juveniles
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. )OS!, 7 JUSTICE FOR JUVENILES Charles E. Springer Vice-Chief Justice Supreme Court of Nevada ~ " :tment of Justice lvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention OJJDP Ie * JUSTICE FOR JUVENILES Charles E. Springer Vice-Chief Justice Supreme Court of Nevada U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention OJJDP II ,I;' - c :;;w '&-••1\'£:-.' ¥W, Charles E. Springer is Vice-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada. Prior to being commissioned to the Supreme Court, he was Juvenile Court Master for the Second Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada from 1973 to 1980. He has also served the State of Nevada as Attorney General. He received the Outstanding Service Award from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in 1980 and has served on the Boards and Commissions of numerous civic and State organizations in an effort to improve the quality of justice for adults and juveniles . ........ * & & !MI',. u. S. ~partment of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention NmionallnslituJejiJr Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Ju.rl;" Cfrorin8/w"''' NCJRS Box6000. Rochill<. MD 20lJjO Dear Colleague: "Justice for Juveniles" is a serious and deliberative look at the juvenile justice systeln, its philosophical and historical underpinnings, the strengths and weaknesses of today's system, and the implications for its future. Last year over 35,000 juveniles were arrested in this country for violent crimes, including murder, rape, and aggravated assault. The success of this office's e~forts to reduce juvenile crime and create a nlore secure society depends on the ready exchange of information and ideas among professionals in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Justice As Fairness from Rawls to Sen
    philosophies Article Toward a Human-Centered Economy and Politics: The Theory of Justice as Fairness from Rawls to Sen Alfonso D’Amodio The International Research Area on Foundations of the Sciences (IRAFS), Pontifical Lateran University, 00184 Rome, Italy; [email protected]; Tel.: +39-329-439-7126 Received: 11 September 2020; Accepted: 2 December 2020; Published: 8 December 2020 Abstract: In this paper, I present the suggestion that a suitable theory of “justice as fairness” could offer a consistent path for solving many issues related to the actual crisis of the classical liberal model of economy and democracy, by substituting the abstract “equality” principle, with the concrete “equity” one in the notion of justice. After a short discussion of some main characters of the present worldwide crisis of the classical liberal model, I present two main theories of justice as fairness. John Rawls’ theory in political philosophy that emphasizes how really equitable judgements must overcome the equalitarianism of the Classical Liberalism, by considering the real possibilities of individuals and groups of accessing and enjoying commodities and utilities, as well as, the “basic liberties” defining the citizen equal dignity in the Modern State. Rawls propose, therefore, a notion of fairness compliant with the Kantian normativism, and a notion of fair distributive justice based on the ethical principle of the maximin, as a criterion for judging the righteousness of the State Institutions. The other theory of justice as fairness I discuss in this paper is an evolution of Rawls’ in the direction of the development of a “comparative distributive justice”, without any normativism.
    [Show full text]
  • Retributive and Distributive Justice in Tort Law
    THE VANISHING HIDDLE GROUND: Retributive and Distributive Justice in Tort Law - Joseph Sanders University of Michigan May, 1974 --CC---C---LCCC----------------------------------- CRSO Working Paper /I98 Copies available through: The Center for Research On Social Organization University of Michigan /I214 C Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 . -. -. THE VANISHING MIDDLE GROUND: Retributive and Distributive Justice in Tort Law -. Joseph Sanders The University of Michigan Center for Research on Social Organization , . "0, when degree.is shaked , Which is-ihe ladder of all high designs, The enterprise is sick!" Shakespeare Troilus & Cressida I. Introduction \\\\\ \ A?.. \Th$ Power La& Mower Shoe Shine. We are once again in a period when many writers are dredging in the murky waters of tort theory. As one recent author noted, "torts is at once one af the simplest and one of the most complex areas of the law'! (Eps tein, 1973: 151) With respect to negligence at least, ordinary language and ordinary understandings surround, perhaps engulf, the main concepts. Carelessness, ~bresight,Ability, Knowledge, Unavoid- able Accident, even The Reasonable Man all find their referents in everyday life. Everyone can judge, everyone does judge, yet there is little consensus. Dare to step beyond the common sense of the thing and you will find a hundred complexities, a dozen distinctions and even several totally different points of view. Much of the renewed interest in tort theory springs from the desire to move away from the ambiguities of negligence.. ..Most of the movement is toward what is commonly called Strict Liability. Almost from the instant of its birth negligence has been under the shadow of strict liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking "Justice and Fairness" Seriously: Distributive Justice and the Takings Clause
    TAKING “JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS” SERIOUSLY: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AND THE TAKINGS CLAUSE PROFESSOR JEFFREY M. GABA DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY DALLAS, TEXAS 75275 PHONE: 214-768-2710 E-MAIL: [email protected] A version of this essay was presented as part of the Public Scholar program of the Cary M. Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility at Southern Methodist University. Taking “Justice and Fairness” Seriously In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized brigandage? St. Augustine1 The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that private property shall not “be taken for public use without just compensation.” This is the so-called “Takings Clause,” and, since the Supreme Court’s 1922 opinion in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, it has served as a limitation on government regulatory actions that go “too far” in restricting the use of property. Defining “how far is too far” is the central objective of Supreme Court takings jurisprudence, but the Court’s analysis is recognized by all to be (as it is most politely phrased) “a muddle.”2 Perhaps the most important reason for this “muddle” is the failure of the Court to articulate a coherent conceptual basis for the Takings Clause. A variety of themes that have been advanced to describe the basis of the Takings Clause. For some, the Takings Clause represents a critical component of personal liberty that bars the government from interfering with some almost absolute right to property. For others, it is merely a codification on the government’s authority to appropriate title through eminent domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributive Justice – Rawls
    Distributive Justice – Rawls 1. Justice as Fairness: Imagine that you have a cake to divide among several people, including yourself. How do you divide it among them in a just manner? If any of the slices are too small, someone may complain: ‘That’s not fair!’ One solution: Elect one person to cut the cake into several slices, and then have everyone else pick their slice first. How do you think the elected person will divide the cake? Very likely, they will cut the cake into equal slices, so that the distribution is FAIR. Equal slices seems to be the ‘just’ distribution of cake. But, what is the most just or fair distribution of goods in SOCIETY? Rawls answered this situation in much the same way as we answered the question about the cake. 2. The Original Position: Rawls considers a hypothetical situation (here), in which: “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.” Imagine that you are trying to decide what society should be like, and what is just and unjust. You know that, once you make these decisions, you will be placed somewhere within this society as a member of it—but that is ALL you know. You do not know your race, gender, age, or location, or religious or moral beliefs, or economic status, etc.
    [Show full text]