8 questions and write a discussion + 4 replys

Apr 30th, 2015
Price: $50 USD

Question description


I need someone to help me to read this : Vii-1-23.pdf 

then answer these 8 questions : Questions.docx 


Then answer write this discussion : 

The readings in Part VII of your textbook illustrate that American legislative and judicial institutions have a troubled history with egalitarianism. On the one hand, the law has been used to oppress people of color, women, and those with non-heteronormative gender identities and sexual interests. Encouragingly, however, the law has also been used to liberate people from oppression. For example, the same institution that once held slaves to be non-persons -- the Supreme Court -- later abolished the "separate-but-equal" doctrine, helping to bring an end to racial segregation. Similarly, Congress once held slaves to be worth only three fifths of a person, but in another era enacted the Fourteenth Amendment, a landmark piece of legislation that guarantees equal protection of all people under the law. Women, who were once denied full citizenship by state laws, were granted the right to vote by Congress, while state laws that criminalized voluntary sexual acts between consenting adults were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Additionally, although not covered in our textbook readings, in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down a 1996 law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. The movement over time has thus been to use the legislative and judicial system to promote more inclusion and to ensure greater protection of all people, putting the nation's history of oppression and abuse behind.

Yet, as some of the readings suggest, this work is not complete. What's more, some tasks are more challenging than others. One ongoing part of this work, for example, entails more than simply striking down laws that explicitly abridge rights of members of certain groups -- it involves finding out when laws are applied unevenly, or when they have outcomes that disproportionately advantage or disadvantage one group over another. Making this determination is difficult, in part because it depends heavily on the availability of (correctly-interpreted) empirical data, and because it is not the sort of matter than can be resolved merely by looking at the content of a piece of legislation. For example, the Supreme Court suspended executions in the United States in the 1970's, not because anything in the various state laws governing capital punishment singled out people of color, but because, in practice, people of color were found to receive the penalty far more often than white offenders. It wasn't until individual states established safeguards to minimize or eliminate disproportionate use of the death penalty that the Court permitted executions to resume. Detecting the problem, as well as trying to fix it, was a complex challenge.

Turning now to the present day, another complex challenge of this sort confronts us: so-called "stand your ground" laws. Such laws enable a person who feels threatened in a public space to use lethal force against perceived threats. States without such laws presume a "duty to retreat," in which one is not justified in using lethal force but instead must attempt to exit the threatening situation. Stand your ground laws are thus distinct from the "Castle Doctrine," which holds that one is justified in using lethal force in defense against threats in one's home, precisely because the law assumes no duty to retreat even in public spaces. The highly-publicized Trayvon Martin shooting has prompted national discussion of stand your ground laws, and has attracted the attention of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has promised to investigate the laws for racial bias. Like the unequal application of the death penalty, nothing in the stand your ground laws singles out people of color to recieve some sort of disadvantage -- but, as with the death penalty of the 1970's, stand your ground might have disproportionately negative outcomes for people of color.

Some studies, for example, suggest that people of color are able to effectively use the stand your ground defense less often whites, while other studies show that people of color are disproportionately victims of homicides ruled justifiable under the law. See, for example, the following articles:




Given the information available, above and elsewhere, do you think that stand your ground laws are justifiable? Or, like the discriminatory laws of America's troubled (distant and recent) past, do stand your ground laws serve to disenfranchise one group while advantaging another?

I must point out that this is the most difficult discussion topic I have posed in the course, and that it is also our last discussion. I look forward to seeing you approach this complex and potentially sensitive issue with thoughtful consideration to detail and with respect to different points of view.  



Then reply for those students ( give an opinion or an idea ) : 





I need each reply separately  and it should be just 4-5 sentences.

Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Sofia N
School: Carnegie Mellon University

Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students

Review from student
" Awesome! Exactly what I wanted. "
Ask your homework questions. Receive quality answers!

Type your question here (or upload an image)

1827 tutors are online

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors