Government Grants for All

Criminal Justice scholarships available

Criminal Justice scholarships available
Rush County Sheriff Jeff Sherwood recently announced that the Indiana Sheriff’s Association again this year will award college scholarships to qualified high school seniors or current college students seeking a career in law enforcement.
Read more on Rushville Republican

ACC awarded grant to fund STEM scholarships
Arapahoe Community College was recently awarded a $ 463,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to fund scholarships for students with financial need who are interested in studying in the STEM disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics and math. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Read more on Centennial Citizen

Tags: Available, Criminal, Justice, Scholarships

Guantanamo Justice

Today’s landmark US Supreme Court decision has settled once and for all that the ancient right of habeas corpus extends to the detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Habeas corpus grants every individual in the custody of the US government the right to challenge the basis for their detention in a court of law. By so limiting the power of the executive, it is the fundamental principle that goes so deeply to the heart of our system of government: it defines the distinction between dictatorship and the rule of law.

Even though this is the third ruling in four years to go against the Bush administration on Guantanamo, it is the first that has held that the detainees’ habeas rights were based in the US constitution. Earlier verdicts by the court had been pyrrhic victories for the detainees because the justices only reached the decision that the Guantanamo detainees possessed a statutory right to habeas. Congress can change a statutory right through legislation, something it did after both previous rulings in favor of the detainees, with the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act restricting habeas, and the 2006 Military Commissions Act eliminating it entirely. Only one mechanism exists to overturn this decision, the Suspension Clause of the constitution – but it does not apply to our current situation because it can only be invoked in times of rebellion or invasion.

The 5-4 decision [PDF] held that the system installed by the Bush administration to review detainee cases, the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, are an insufficient substitute for habeas proceedings and that there was “considerable risk of error in the tribunal’s findings of fact.” The ruling means that after more than six years of confinement the Guantanamo detainees will get their first chance to contest their detention in front of an impartial federal court on the merits of the case brought against them by the government.

It does not directly impact the military commissions now ongoing at Guantanamo. It is conceivable that one or more of the 19 detainees charged in the commissions could persuade a federal judge to suspend his trial pending the outcome of a habeas claim. That could place significant pressure on the Pentagon to halt proceedings in all the cases currently on the commissions’ docket.

Yet, this prospect sheds new light on their motivation for rushing through last week’s arraignments of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and five others charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks. It was not, some have suspected, to have politically salient terrorism trials right in the middle of an election, as there was no hope of even starting these trials before the clock ran out on the Bush administration. But now they can enhance their case to press ahead by claiming that any effort to suspend the commission process would delay the trial of the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and his co-conspirators.

This third successive rebuke by the Supreme Court has finally drawn a line under one of the worst excesses of the Bush administration and only adds to the growing momentum to consign this catastrophic presidency to the trash heap of history. In his predictable dissent today, Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts unwittingly provides a fitting epitaph for the president’s disastrous legal adventures: “One cannot help but think … that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants.” Exactly.

Tags: Guantanamo, Justice

The Meaning of Social Justice

The Origins of Society

“…the lower classes of the people… [are] by far the most numerous in all countries and in all ages…”

– James Steuart, 1767 [*1]

Every society is founded on a common principle. A group of people is more capable of producing more together than each person would be individually. Industrialized production and specialized labor are some examples of how the group size contributes to a larger per-person output of the social product. In this organization, the worker’s ability to labor is bound to the other workers. Since their machinery requires many hands to function, they require each other to produce as much as they require their tools. How well each laborer is able to perform their task, then, is necessarily tied to how well all workers as a whole are laboring. Where Capitalism reigns, there are even greater dependencies; not only is the laborer bound to themselves as a class, but they are bound to the class of proprietors. The worker rely on the owners of the bakeries and the mills for their sustenance; and they must rely on an employer as a laborer.

The Capitalist class has its own interdependencies, as well. The masters of production are united in their mutual desire of opposing the laboring class — to keep the subjugated class as dependent for as long as possible. There is also a tremendous amount of economic reliance between private business firms. They depend on each other for the resources of their production. It is clear to see, as well, that the larger firms tend to have a greater degree of influence; they are more capable of securing more for their self-interest when competing against other businesses or subduing local governments. But where the Capitalist enters the political arena, they are always weary not to displease other Capitalists in their actions; to quote Adam Smith, such an act of a Capitalist would be a “reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals.” [*2]

Between the workers, there is the natural and inherent interdependency based on their industrialized labor. But between the masters, there is also a dependency, or a unity. They are bound in their opposition to the interests of the workers and combined for their the interest of the propertied class. However, despite the conflicts between these two groups, the workers generally recognize something: even working in this system, where they are marginalized and persecuted, offers fewer miseries than living completely outside the society of humanity. This is the premise of society: each individual achieving their desires through their cooperation with others; because their collective efforts reap more for the individual, compared to laboring alone and outside of society. The whole is more valuable than the sum of all the parts. Social organization always drives back to this original concept.

Leaving Society

“The contention holds that what we call our civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions. I call this contention astonishing because, in whatever way we may define the concept of civilization, it is a certain fact that all the things with which we seek to protect ourselves against the threats that emanate from the sources of suffering are part of that very civilization.”

–Sigmund Freud, 1930 [*3]

Any individual who turns away from society loses all of the benefits of the mutual cooperation. And especially after living in a comfortable world, few persons would do without what they’ve been brought up to admire, love, and enjoy. Losing one or two members from society will hardly effect its social order. A laborer or two can be replaced quickly, usually from stockpiling of the unemployed by the Capitalist. And, likewise, where a Capitalists rescinds their right to property to venture into un-societed land, their wealth is quickly usurped by their former equals. One or two taken out of the social order, and the rest can still take part in the cooperation scheme. This will not destroy the tremendous advantage that they receive by laboring together for their mutual interests. At least, if a few people leave society, it will not have this effect.

Individuals are bound to society by their need on each other. Their resulting combination provides a net of security and labor-saving organization. They are allowed benefits and advantages that wouldn’t be possible outside of the social unit. Even if the individual receives the smallest share from the collected efforts of the social order, they still enjoy more privileges than the hermit. For the few concessions that are given to the masters of industry, the individual laborer is still infinitely benefited. Their position will be more secure, stable, and comfortable than that of the person without a society. The allure of living without a master is not enough for the members of the social order. It would be too difficult to struggle alone against the valiant force of nature to survive; if they chose a landed society with a master, their miseries might be reduced by at least a hundred fold. This is the justification of these individuals in their concessions and submissions they allow to their chieftains and statesmen.

This new class of masters, though, does not labor at all; yet they enjoy a reward that is significantly more than that of their ordinary wage-worker. If they should desire to leave the social order altogether, the worker has one advantage: they are out from the yoke of a resented master. They can still labor at their own accord and satisfy their own interests. Deprived of technology, they are slower in production. In the end, they may labor even less than in society, but they would enjoy very few comforts. For the proprietor, the owner of industry and productive capital, there are no advantages outside of the social order. If they emigrated to the state of nature, they would leave behind all their privileges. First, instead of being able to live off of the labor of others without contributing to production, they would be required to work very intensely. Second, the reward they would receive for such labor would be almost nothing compared to the extravagance and prestige they were afforded in society. Effectively, if a Capitalist were to remove themselves from society, they would be leaving behind a thousand pleasures, and gaining a thousand pains.

Unlike the worker, leaving society does not remove them from the burden of an authority; the masters of society are the authority. The influence which they must fear is that of their equals, which keeps the Capitalist class naturally united and combined. They cannot oppose each other, because they each have equal means for resistance, and such a battle of intense powers would needlessly destroy themselves. To this Capitalist class, the social order of domination and hierarchy is perfection; with their lavish and expensive pursuits, every desire is met, and no pains are put upon them. In the absence of their labor, they are constantly involved in intrigue, snobbery, squabbling, instigation, prejudice, and arrogance. It is though it were a class of people who are so free of misery that they must make suffering for themselves in their social relationships. The state of society, then, isn’t weighed equally by the workers as it is by the possessors of wealth.

The Friction of the Social Classes

“Nobody was ever in prison wrongfully who did not believe in the writ of habeas corpus. Nobody ever suffered wrongfully without instantly having ideas of justice.”

–Robert Green Ingersoll, 1876 [*4]

When the worker looks to their master and finds this new class free of work and unlimited in wealth, they are naturally repulsed and disgusted. The attraction of bread, heating, shelter, and clean water, though, are far too great. The individual would rather sustain themselves by labor in society to achieve some comforts and pleasures; living without a master, as glorious as it may strike the heart, is not a strong enough motivation. Even though it may inherently appear against the laws of justice, the individual is still bound to do what is in their own self-interests. This means that some part of the laborer’s creation shall be manifested in their wages. The surplus value is gathered and handed off to the class of masters, so that they can indulge and satisfy their impulses.

It is a sign of decaying civilization when the majority is forced into conceding more and more of its labors; when the workers must take wage-cuts or suffer an increased cost of living, so that the masters can enjoy a greater privilege. Despite how much it offends our sense of justice and fairness, no matter how much we sympathize with anyone who suffers this fate and how much we loathe those who steer this system — despite all of this, the individual will still make the trade. Society is better than the miseries of living in a state of complete nature; they will still submit to a master. The other option available leaves them considerably disadvantaged when compared to the common member of society. It is humanity’s innate want of bread, and not its callous and cruel ambitions, that has built and sustained tyrannies.

The meaning of social justice is to seek a fair distribution of these advantages; to direct them not to the idle masters, but to those who are the columns supporting the whole of society — the workers. Those seeking to revolutionize the social relationship can have no other goal. The ideology of these revolutionaries was not to convince the masses to abandon their association with the civilized order of mankind, to leave society and live in perfect nature. They did not suggest that mankind should completely abolish all forms of labor. Their program never included that landed society should be abandoned in favor of a simplified existence in nature. The rabble rousers and agitators did not preach about the injustice of human nature, but of the injustice of the social organization.

The majority labor and toil; of the vast and immense fortunes they produce, they must subsist on small, meager quantities. And at the top of the echelon, there stands a small, elite class; they enjoy wild and lavish pleasures, providing no labor to the support of the economic structure. Of history’s wiser philosophers, there has always been an argument that the laborer deserves a greater quantity of what they produce, and the idle masters deserves less. But the wisest have gone even further, and said that the laborer has a rightful claim to all of their labor.

What is the Meaning of Social Justice?

“… I know I owe my life to the workers of the nation, it is to the working class of the nation that I am under obligation, not to any subdivision of that class. That is why I am here now. That is why I am talking working-class solidarity, because I want to see the working class do for themselves what they did for me.”

–Big Bill Haywood, 1911 [*5]

In my own personal life, there are thousands of advantages I enjoy, all of which come from my civil organization with my fellow, society members. I am inspired by the will and the genius of those who changed the social order. My gratitude lies with those who created the eight-hour working day — those who gave the workers more of their time, more of the product of their labors. It was by strikes, boycotts, protests, direct action, and civil disobedience that I have these rights. It was by resistance to the masters of the social order. By the same methods and tactics, these rebels also gave me safe working conditions at my place of employment. In America, the Capitalist can no longer save a few pennies by building factories without protective equipment and safety mechanisms. Less than one hundred years ago, the common worker in this nation faced the serious possibility of losing limb and life from their work conditions. Such cruelty has been put under serious constraint, not by the force of law, but by the social movements that have been opposed to the class of masters.­

The minimum wage and the right to unionize, as well, are other rights that are a social product of these movements. It is the result of pitched battles between labor and capital, between the privileged and subjugated, the masters and the subjects. These are not rights that were granted or admitted by the lords of industry. It was something that was wrested from their paws. Those who fought for it did not consider themselves as immemorial heroes fulfilling a legend. Their thoughts were with their present condition and what was to follow for their future generations.

These are accomplishments from the labor movement. They were motivated and agitated from the influence of Unionists, Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists. There are some elements in today’s world that would debate the value of these achievements. They would pass them off as the result of a classist struggle, where one side was more aptly capable of corrupting the government than the other. To please these critics, we just need to look back centuries further. Consider the first millennium in Europe, where possession of a bible written in a local language carried with it harsh sentencing. Those who opposed these laws, who organized against the established clergy — it is to these individuals that we owe a great deal of our right to conscience. It was the heretics won the right to read the primary scripture of the culture’s most widely accepted religion. The concession agreement signed by the masters of society was written in the blood of these agitators. The idea of absolute obedience to the ruling of a church fell apart. The people could then followed the reins of their own will. Our own religious and cultural freedom owes so much to those people who came before; they sacrificed their lives and property to create a brighter reality for humanity.

To the serf who rose against their vassal, to the chained slave who slaughtered their owner, to the activist breaking windows and the women arrested for voting, to the imprisoned printers of Thomas Paine’s’ “The Rights of Man,” to the students expelled for thinking and acting outside the boundaries, to the workers who pooled their collective resources into a strike or boycott, to all the children smart enough to flee a beating parent, to anyone who thought about their situation, what could be, and then acted on it — it is to this group that we owe our present condition of living.

My right to thought, to speak and believe what I like about the supernatural and natural, to worship and praise as I wish — this right comes from none other than those who resisted the inquisition, those who fought for a separation of church and state, those defied the law and were chained, tortured, and finally dragged to the gallows by the state; it is to these that we owe the right to think, to write, to speak whatever we feel. What I can appreciate about our modern life is attributable to these individuals.

Those Who Came Before Us

“There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always, like Ulysses on land and sea constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney, cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”

–Étienne de La Boétie, 1548 [*6]

The dead are gone, but what they have done belongs to the living. The liberties and securities the people hold today are the end product of social organizing and resistance to authority. Those who published and distributed illegal opinions, whether it was against an invading power of imperialism or a corrupt, domestic government, are responsible for giving us the right to think and speak. These rights that we do possess, that contribute so greatly to our happiness, our health, and our harmony, these would not have been possible without resistance to authority — without deliberate and oftentimes criminal activity.

The dead revolutionary does not work the mills or the farms; their memory does not turn flour into bread. The history of reformers, past and present, does not give the people their clothes, their homes, or their food. The exchanges of labor and capital today are responsible for giving us the industry and its fruits. But what revolutionaries have done is give us the liberty to enjoy more of the fruits of our labor, to be less constricted by authority. What we have in society today comes from our own labors. But our right to appreciate our lives, by enjoying a greater share of our labor and more freedom, is something that those dead and past have given to us.

Sanitary methods of food production did not come about from competing forces in the economy. Plumbing didn’t bring water to anyone’s home but those of the wealthy. Clean, sanitary water did not become commonly available because of any state or any church. All of the world’s priests and police would not be able to bring a single drop to the people. Sewage systems require intellect and logic to be developed by brilliant minds. But our society required a second invention before the people could reap the benefits of this technology. Society needed an understanding and application of social justice; it needed to create its own ideas and use its power to resist privileged power. Without this advancement, without this new social tool, then the common people would have never be granted access to sanitation systems. They would be living with a few meager advantages, treated virtually as property by an oppressive, indulgent minority.

It wasn’t the printing press that allowed the ordinary person to write, think, and speak as they pleased. It took armies of dissidents, slaughtered mercilessly by the forces of the masters, and their refusal to submit. No charter or constitution or law created Free Speech; it was forced upon the masters of society, against their will, by the common people, organized for their common purpose.

Consider a world where the people did not recognize the injustice done to them. Imagine if the people never resisted and revolted at the government’s various systems of economy and politics, against the institutions of wealth and law. The laboring class today, if they didn’t have these advantages, would be paid enough wages to satisfy the poorest means of existence; just inches away from thinking that life outside of the state of society would be easier. The technological prowess, that we have accumulated as a civilization, would be used as a tool to keep the minority tremendously advantaged, slightly benefiting the majority. This has been the case in Imperial China, where Adam Smith wrote, “Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries.” [*7]

With the advents of technology, today’s individual laborer is as productive as one thousand laborers from a millennia ago. If this individual laborer today were to receive just enough to subsist, they would receive less than a thousandth of what they produced. There would be such a striking pain at the sight of the billions toiling upon countless labors and existing at such miserable levels of poverty; and through this, an extreme minority remained idle and indulged in such unimaginable excesses. Without rebellion, the teeming masses would be sleeping in mud, working in complete darkness with dangerous equipment. A small wound might be an amputation, an infection might be lethal. The life expectancy of a commoner would be an insignificant fraction compared to that of the wealthy industrialist. At the same time, the small group at the top possesses all means to keep itself at unbelievable health standards. They enjoy incredible stimulation in their entertainment, all the while contributing nothing of value to the whole structure; their privileges, wealth, and power are co-rights to their right of private ownership of the means of production.

These conditions are foul, and they bring the natural senses to tremendous feelings of disgust and terror. But we can be certain that they are the result of an oppressive combination of the gods of state and the lords of industry. We are so certain, because this is the present condition of three billion people.

Those who say “it is no so bad, we should love our masters,” are narrow-minded — they forget that the reason why it is not so bad is because our ancestors sacrificed themselves in destroying the power of the masters. They forgot that their masters are constantly and always working to invalidate their accomplishments. They will rework the accomplishments of the people towards devious ends. In America, a universal education system was advocated as a means of abolishing child labor; but like the Soviet Union emerging from under the Russian Tzar, the school system became a new system of brutality and exploitation. The industrialists have not been able to lobby to lower the minimum wage in the United States, but they’ve kept it stagnant for over a decade. The rights which people sacrificed themselves for, gave themselves to the burning embers and suffered terrible inquisitions for, — these rights are stealthily being swept out from under the people. The state and the capitalist is either working in reaction to the peoples’ demands, or they are working to whither away the small achievements they’ve so far achieved.

Fulfilling the Legacy

“We shall enter the career
When our elders are no longer there,
There we shall find their dust
And the mark of their virtues
Much less keen to survive them
As to share their coffins,
We shall have the sublime pride
Of avenging or following them”

–La Marseillaise, 1792 [*8]

We are not living in the ideal vision of those who resisted. We are living in a world that has just enough liberty and equity to make the majority submit. The concessions that the masters have granted were sufficient to subdue the masses; enough to make the average person say, “At least it is better than what we had.” Through the persistence of their spirit, which are the rights and society that we possess, we can still create their vision… We can still create our vision.

Everything we have today we owe to those many in the past who have fought for justice. The rights to freedom of speech, to assemble and gather freely, to worship unseen deities or to praise only the natural world, to think and believe anything you’d like, even the right to appeal to the state for protection from the violence of others in the social order, all rights we have today, we can appreciate for this reason — someone struggled for them, suffered for them, and died for them.

Our social rights, such as the right to live in housing that isn’t toxic, the right to the eight-hour workday, the right to non-discrimination in the workplace, the right to unionize and picket — all of these rights exist because individuals made ideals and acted upon them. The right to vote for both genders can be owed to none other than various democratic movements. So, too, is the right to equal access to the public functions of the government, whether the courts, the schools, or even public office.

These accomplishments were not granted or admitted by any ruler or ruling body. They were forced from their hands. The shackles were never destroyed by wishes, but by actions. It is to those in the past and what they have done in their battles that we must owe our gratitude, our debt, and our admiration. To the protesters, the picketers, the union organizers, the activists, and the social dissidents, to those who carried prohibited pamphlets, to those who distributed birth control against the law, to everyone who participated in the abolitionist movement and the feminist movement.

This is not to say that each and every person had perfect and untouchable ideas; rather, by their massive organization and their ideals, they were able to change the world in a way that would shape every future generation on the planet. It is to these movements that we owe everything. Without them, every person would still be a slave in shackles, at the beck and command of grueling, murderous labor, under a near infinite hierarchy of rulers and sub-rulers and assistant-rulers, unable to organize or speak or ask for an address of grievances from the abuses of others. We would be sleeping in mud, drinking infested water, constantly bruised and broken from the endless labor, subsisting on rotting and unpalatable food, not given a single amenity to soothe us from the harsh winters of this life, and then expected to produce a new generation to fill in; just before we give way to a passing existence that accomplished nothing but the maintenance of the order of tyrants. Everything we have today, we owe to those who came before us and changed society. And there is nothing more honorable or fulfilling than to follow in their unstoppable, legendary footsteps.

No individual is mortal. Everyone must become part of the world’s dirt. As it was from the ground that provided the nourishment of our ancestors, so we must return to that very same mass of nutrients, waiting to be used for the growth of trees, grass, and flowers. Everyone must die someday, but social justice is a matter of making something more that may belong to the living of future generations.

Each one of us will make up the legacy of human history; we each have a chance to be one of those who changed the social order to create justice; we each have a chance to be remembered as among those who came before us.

Resources

1. “An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy,” by Sir James Steuart, 1767, Book 1, Chapter 12.
2. “The Wealth of Nations,” by Adam Smith, 1776, Book 1, Chapter 8.
3. “Civilization and Its Discontents,” by Sigmund Freud, 1930. Published by W.W. Norton & Company, translated and edited by James Strachey (copyright 1961), with a biographical introduction by Peter Gay. Chapter 3, page 38.
4. “Centennial Oration,” by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1876.
5. “The General Strike,” by William D. Haywood; Speech by William D. Haywood at Meeting Held for the Benefit of the Buccafori Defense, at Progress Assembly Rooms, New York, March 16, 1911.
6. “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude,” by Étienne de La Boétie, 1548, translated by Harry Kurz.
7. “The Wealth of Nations,” by Adam Smith, 1776, Book 1, Chapter 8.
8. Lyrics from the Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise.

Tags: Justice, meaning, Social

Criminal Justice Online Schools – Careers At Your Finger Tips

Criminal justice is an entirely different subject which serves an important purpose of providing services to the nation to abide by its law enforcement system. Increasing activities of felonious nature have triggered citizens to take upon interest in this subject and thus, there has been a great uproar for degree programs in this line. Keeping in mind the busy schedules and the nature of degree program, criminal justice online schools have been set up and have led to the introduction of various online degree courses.

Criminal justice online schools offer associate’s, bachelors, masters and even certificate courses for criminal justice. With the increasing rave for criminal justice study, the number of courses and specialization subjects are increasingly high and students are provided a wide variety of options to choose from. Paralegal studies are becoming very popular as paralegals work along with the attorneys and assist them in every dimension of work.
Forensic sciences are turning out to be an interesting topic to study which deals with having an eye for observation and analysis of crime facts.

The purpose of providing educational services through online schools is to make the education procedure as simple as possible and to help working people and others to be able to study courses at their homes with flexible programs and enabling them to study at times convenient and comfortable for them with the only purpose of being able to spread knowledge through such a genuine means.

University of Phoenix is a dedicated online school providing courses in masters of the subject with special majoring subjects as juvenile justice, corrections, law enforcement and forensics. Keiser University is an online institution providing associate’s, bachelors and master’s degree in criminal justice and provides variety of introductory lessons related to street gangs, victimology, drug control and forensic psychology. Kaplan University enjoys a position of respect amongst other online colleges and offers a range of criminal justice programs in associate’s, bachelors and master’s level. Everest University Online adopts a career-focused outlook and is intent on providing its students with the realties of working scenarios which will help them in the long run to be successful at their jobs. Lincoln College Online, US Career Institute, Colorado Technical University Online, Liberty University Online, University of Cincinnati, Ashford University Online, Walden University, Virginia Colleges are the names of a few important colleges and universities which provide online degrees in criminal justice.

The medium of online education is spreading like quick fire and has become easily acceptable to the people. Criminal justice online schools have been providing a chance to the masses to take a dip in this vast subject.

*update* – From my research, go here to find out how you can get a degree in any field of criminal justice in a very short time frame. Criminal Justice Degrees.

Tags: Careers, Criminal, Finger, Justice, Online, Schools, Tips

Becoming a Justice of the Peace

We all have gathered here to bind these two in the thread of holy matrimony, is not a very unfamiliar phrase and all of us are pretty much acquainted with it. That is what is mostly said by a justice of the peace in the USA, while officiating at a wedding. It is one of the most honored positions, even though not very powerful. Nevertheless, there is more to the position of justice of the peace than just officiating at weddings. In the USA, the justice of the peace presides over a court of limited jurisdiction and settles petty issues like misdemeanor, traffic violations and the likes in some states.

So here is more on how to become a justice of the peace and what are the variations in the position in USA and other countries.

How to Become a Justice of the Peace?

Becoming a justice of peace is not a mean feat. Application for the position of the justice of the peace is an uphill route. However, if you are determined enough, well you can surely be one. Here is how you can be one.
First of all, you cannot just apply for the position randomly. Hence, you would need to get in touch with the secretary of state office and ask about the requirements and the whole procedure.
The basic requirements are state citizenship, voter registration and you have to write an oath stating no conviction against a crime. For that, you would have to go through the routine police records check and also pay a fee for the overall commission.
What you need to do is to submit all the necessary documents, fees and evidences to the secretary of state office.
Keep your fingers crossed and brace your patience, because it’s a long and winding way, and wait ahead. You would need to wait for at least 10 weeks for your application to be processed, after all the background checks!
If your application is approved, check out and wait if the governor and executive counsel appoints you. If you are appointed, you would be commissioned to be a justice of the peace for five years. The other things like related material to follow your duty will be taken care of later.
That was a very brief description on becoming a justice of the peace.

As mentioned earlier, there is more to the position of justice of peace than just officiating at weddings. Therefore following is a brief overview of the duties and the connotation of the justice of the peace.

Becoming a Justice Peace: Global View

Justice of the Peace in the USA: In some states of the USA, a justice of the peace acts as a judge in court with limited jurisdiction. In other cases, a justice of the peace also serves as a magistrate or a quasi judicial officer with a few common or statutory law magisterial powers. Normally, justice of the peace presides over court cases related to petty crimes like traffic violations, registering orders, misdemeanor cases and so on. In some states justice of the peace is appointed and in some it is an elected position. The offices of the justice of peace according to national directory of justice of the peace are located in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Louisiana and Vermont. The office is an elected one in Texas, Louisiana, Oregon and Vermont. Apart from this, the office of the justice of the peace in USA is most associated with being the wedding officiate. Becoming a justice, gives an individual an opportunity to be a witness and participant in a wedding ceremony. This is considered as the most widespread duty of the office of justice of the peace.

Other Countries: In the United Kingdom, specifically in England and Wales, summary justice is done by a magistrate’s court comprising a bench of three justices of the Peace or magistrates. Summary justice refers to crimes which do not account for an imprisonment of more than 6 months. Moving on to Asia, and the orient, in India, this office is a very ornamental one. Even though it exists, it is not a permanent one. In Australia, it apparently is less rigid as compared to other countries. In Australia, justice of the peace is a person who is basically a god human being, having respect in the society. Such person is authorized to sign statutory declarations and affidavits and to authenticate and attest copies of original documents. In some countries you also need to have qualifications certifying you as a lawyer or an attorney for becoming a justice of the peace.

The travesty is, even though this is such an advantageous and a practically useful office, in a few countries, this office is totally draconian and real judicial powers are seldom vested in the office.

Nevertheless, if you want to be a part of weddings and achieve a certain status in the society, well, justice of the peace is what you should apply for!

Tags: Becoming, Justice, Peace

A Variety of Online Schools for Criminal Justice Degrees

The trend of the present era is online colleges and universities. Criminal Justice is a subject which has been given due importance in the recent years and the proof is the increasing interest of the people in the subject, as a result of which various degrees in the subject are being offered. Online schools for criminal justice programs have become the need of the hour and are providing the needed educational facilities to encourage the interested lot to shape up their career in the direction of criminal justice.

Incidents of criminal nature have resulted in increasing anxiety and stress pangs amongst people who are unable to determine the idea of a safe society. The 9/11 shook the very grounds of America and left millions of people devastated. With all these factors put together, the study of criminal justice has become extremely appealing to the masses as it a kind of golden chance to know the nature of criminal behavior and various other aspects of delinquent activities.

The directory of online schools offering criminal justice degrees is quite vast, as there are a number of colleges and universities who understand the importance of providing criminal justice degrees through the online means. University of Phoenix’s online school called as Axia College provides associate’s, bachelor’s and master’s degree in criminal justice with special reference to majoring subjects like juvenile justice, corrections and forensics.

Virginia College provides degrees in parole and law enforcement and helps students to procure entry-level jobs in public and private sectors. All degree programs provided by Keiser University also focuses on offering introductory lessons to the students on street gangs, forensic psychology, victimology and drug control. Ashford University Online mainly concentrates in U.S Law, forensics, corrections and security. Lincoln College online offers an altogether different program called Criminal Justice and the Study of the Criminal Mind and includes topics like human relations and ethics and decision making skills. US career Institute provides certification courses and trains graduates for careers in court system and homeland security. Colorado Technical University Online provides great criminal justice programs in associate’s and bachelor’s level online especially in topics like parole, juvenile justice and public administration. Kaplan University enjoys a unique position amongst other online schools for being the most respected institution of the nation. The university provides various exclusive degree programs in criminal justice at all levels.

Online means of education helps us to visualize a future with all the citizens of a nation being educated in a subject who each can relate to and to be able to comfortably study at home. Online schools for criminal justice are proving to be an example by providing all the necessary criminal justice degree programs to study through the online medium.

*Update* – To find more on how you can began your degree in the exciting field of criminal justice or if you are just looking for more information, then visit this easy to follow guide and resource: Criminal Justice Guide.

Tags: Criminal, Degrees, Justice, Online, Schools, Variety

Ending An American Tragedy: Mental Illness And The Justice System

There is a crisis in our nation’s jails and prisons. Men and women with mental illnesses and addictions incarcerated because they didn’t get the treatments they desperately need — and an inspiration — highlighting the possibilities of effective services. The only way this trend will change is if leaders in all communities can come together, pool resources, and work as one. People with enough care and conviction to combat this injustice must be endlessly creative in overcoming financial, bureaucratic, and cultural barriers and establishing collaborations that solve community problems. Looking forward to the growth and spread of programs and services that offer productive lives to people with mental illnesses and addictions as the alternative to incarceration, here are four recommendations for immediate action.

1. The President should appoint a Special Advisor for Mental Health/Criminal Justice Collaboration:

Currently, there is no fixed responsibility within the Federal government to promote effective mental health/criminal justice activities and ensure accountability for the use of public dollars. The Special Advisor will serve as an advocate and ombudsman across the wide array of Federal agencies that serve the multiple needs of justice-involved people with mental and substance use disorders. One of his or her tasks will be to implement an immediate review of all CMS and SAMHSA regulations to identify conflicts and inconsistencies for people with mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders — particularly those involved in the justice system.

2. Federal Medicaid policies that limit or discourage access to more effective and cost-efficient health care services for individuals with serious mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders should be reviewed and action taken to create more efficient programs:

Congress is encouraged to review Medicaid policies and take action that will enable states to create more effective and appropriate programs targeting eligible beneficiaries most likely to experience avoidable admissions to acute care settings. Such programs should allow states flexibility in designing and implementing targeted outreach and engagement services, coordinated care management, and community support services that are likely to reduce expenditures on deep-end services, and engage people in prevention, early intervention, and wellness care in the community. Services provided should reflect evidence-based and promising practices and should be designed around principles of recovery, person-centered planning, and consumer choice. Because of the high rates of co-morbid health care needs among people with serious mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders, programs should seek to establish more effective integration of primary and behavioral health care service delivery system as well.

3. All States should create cross-system agencies, commissions, or positions charged with removing barriers and creating incentives for cross-agency activity at the State and local level:

No one system can solve this problem alone. These cross-system groups or individuals will play a key role in spanning the different administrative structures, funding mechanisms, and treatment philosophies of the mental health, substance abuse, and criminal justice systems. States must make clear that collaboration is not only possible but expected.

In Montana, for example, the State Department of
Corrections and Department of Public Health and Human Services jointly fund a boundary spanner position that facilitates shared planning, communication, resources, and treatment methods between the mental health and criminal justice systems.

4. Localities must develop and implement core services that comprise an Essential System of Care:

Recognizing the limited resources often available and the complexities of the cross-system collaborations required, the eight components of an Essential System of Care would be best approached in two phases. Phase 1 would include less expensive, easier to mount services. Phase 2 would include essential evidence-based practices that are more expensive and more challenging to implement, but are critical to actually increasing positive public safety and public health outcomes.

Prospective Phase 1 Services:

>> Forensic Intensive Case Management
>> Supportive Housing
>> Peer Support
>> Accessible and Appropriate Medication

Prospective Phase 2 Services:

>> Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment, which provides treatment for mental illnesses and substance use disorders simultaneously and in the same setting

>> Supported Employment, which is an evidence-based practice that helps individuals with mental illnesses find, get, and keep competitive work

>> Assertive Community Treatment (ACT)/ Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT), which is a service delivery model in which treatment is provided by a team of professionals, with services determined by an individual’s needs for as long as required, and

>> Cognitive Behavioral Interventions Targeted to Risk Factors specific to offending, are a set of interventions, well researched within both institutional settings and community settings that have a utility when extended to community treatment programs.

Tags: American, Ending, Illness, Justice, Mental, System, Tragedy

The Distributive Justice of the Market

The public outcry against executive pay and compensation followed disclosures of insider trading, double dealing, and outright fraud. But even honest and productive entrepreneurs often earn more money in one year than Albert Einstein did in his entire life. This strikes many – especially academics – as unfair. Surely Einstein’s contributions to human knowledge and welfare far exceed anything ever accomplished by sundry businessmen? Fortunately, this discrepancy is cause for constructive jealousy, emulation, and imitation. It can, however, lead to an orgy of destructive and self-ruinous envy.

Entrepreneurs recombine natural and human resources in novel ways. They do so to respond to forecasts of future needs, or to observations of failures and shortcomings of current products or services. Entrepreneurs are professional – though usually intuitive – futurologists. This is a valuable service and it is financed by systematic risk takers, such as venture capitalists. Surely they all deserve compensation for their efforts and the hazards they assume?

Exclusive ownership is the most ancient type of such remuneration. First movers, entrepreneurs, risk takers, owners of the wealth they generated, exploiters of resources – are allowed to exclude others from owning or exploiting the same things. Mineral concessions, patents, copyright, trademarks – are all forms of monopoly ownership. What moral right to exclude others is gained from being the first?

Nozick advanced Locke’s Proviso. An exclusive ownership of property is just only if “enough and as good is left in common for others”. If it does not worsen other people’s lot, exclusivity is morally permissible. It can be argued, though, that all modes of exclusive ownership aggravate other people’s situation. As far as everyone, bar the entrepreneur, are concerned, exclusivity also prevents a more advantageous distribution of income and wealth.

Exclusive ownership reflects real-life irreversibility. A first mover has the advantage of excess information and of irreversibly invested work, time, and effort. Economic enterprise is subject to information asymmetry: we know nothing about the future and everything about the past. This asymmetry is known as “investment risk”. Society compensates the entrepreneur with one type of asymmetry – exclusive ownership – for assuming another, the investment risk.

One way of looking at it is that all others are worse off by the amount of profits and rents accruing to owner-entrepreneurs. Profits and rents reflect an intrinsic inefficiency. Another is to recall that ownership is the result of adding value to the world. It is only reasonable to expect it to yield to the entrepreneur at least this value added now and in the future.

In a “Theory of Justice” (published 1971, p. 302), John Rawls described an ideal society thus:

“(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. (2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. ”

It all harks back to scarcity of resources – land, money, raw materials, manpower, creative brains. Those who can afford to do so, hoard resources to offset anxiety regarding future uncertainty. Others wallow in paucity. The distribution of means is thus skewed. “Distributive justice” deals with the just allocation of scarce resources.

Yet, even the basic terminology is somewhat fuzzy. What constitutes a resource? what is meant by allocation? Who should allocate resources – Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, the government, the consumer, or business? Should it reflect differences in power, in intelligence, in knowledge, or in heredity? Should resource allocation be subject to a principle of entitlement? Is it reasonable to demand that it be just – or merely efficient? Are justice and efficiency antonyms?

Justice is concerned with equal access to opportunities. Equal access does not guarantee equal outcomes, invariably determined by idiosyncrasies and differences between people. Access leveraged by the application of natural or acquired capacities – translates into accrued wealth. Disparities in these capacities lead to discrepancies in accrued wealth.

The doctrine of equal access is founded on the equivalence of Men. That all men are created equal and deserve the same respect and, therefore, equal treatment is not self evident. European aristocracy well into this century would have probably found this notion abhorrent. Jose Ortega Y Gasset, writing in the 1930′s, preached that access to educational and economic opportunities should be premised on one’s lineage, up bringing, wealth, and social responsibilities.

A succession of societies and cultures discriminated against the ignorant, criminals, atheists, females, homosexuals, members of ethnic, religious, or racial groups, the old, the immigrant, and the poor. Communism – ostensibly a strict egalitarian idea – foundered because it failed to reconcile strict equality with economic and psychological realities within an impatient timetable.

Philosophers tried to specify a “bundle” or “package” of goods, services, and intangibles (like information, or skills, or knowledge). Justice – though not necessarily happiness – is when everyone possesses an identical bundle. Happiness – though not necessarily justice – is when each one of us possesses a “bundle” which reflects his or her preferences, priorities, and predilections. None of us will be too happy with a standardized bundle, selected by a committee of philosophers – or bureaucrats, as was the case under communism.

The market allows for the exchange of goods and services between holders of identical bundles. If I seek books, but detest oranges – I can swap them with someone in return for his books. That way both of us are rendered better off than under the strict egalitarian version.

Still, there is no guarantee that I will find my exact match – a person who is interested in swapping his books for my oranges. Illiquid, small, or imperfect markets thus inhibit the scope of these exchanges. Additionally, exchange participants have to agree on an index: how many books for how many oranges? This is the price of oranges in terms of books.

Money – the obvious “index” – does not solve this problem, merely simplifies it and facilitates exchanges. It does not eliminate the necessity to negotiate an “exchange rate”. It does not prevent market failures. In other words: money is not an index. It is merely a medium of exchange and a store of value. The index – as expressed in terms of money – is the underlying agreement regarding the values of resources in terms of other resources (i.e., their relative values).

The market – and the price mechanism – increase happiness and welfare by allowing people to alter the composition of their bundles. The invisible hand is just and benevolent. But money is imperfect. The aforementioned Rawles demonstrated (1971), that we need to combine money with other measures in order to place a value on intangibles.

The prevailing market theories postulate that everyone has the same resources at some initial point (the “starting gate”). It is up to them to deploy these endowments and, thus, to ravage or increase their wealth. While the initial distribution is equal – the end distribution depends on how wisely – or imprudently – the initial distribution was used.

Egalitarian thinkers proposed to equate everyone’s income in each time frame (e.g., annually). But identical incomes do not automatically yield the same accrued wealth. The latter depends on how the income is used – saved, invested, or squandered. Relative disparities of wealth are bound to emerge, regardless of the nature of income distribution.

Some say that excess wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. Progressive taxation and the welfare state aim to secure this outcome. Redistributive mechanisms reset the “wealth clock” periodically (at the end of every month, or fiscal year). In many countries, the law dictates which portion of one’s income must be saved and, by implication, how much can be consumed. This conflicts with basic rights like the freedom to make economic choices.

The legalized expropriation of income (i.e., taxes) is morally dubious. Anti-tax movements have sprung all over the world and their philosophy permeates the ideology of political parties in many countries, not least the USA. Taxes are punitive: they penalize enterprise, success, entrepreneurship, foresight, and risk assumption. Welfare, on the other hand, rewards dependence and parasitism.

According to Rawles’ Difference Principle, all tenets of justice are either redistributive or retributive. This ignores non-economic activities and human inherent variance. Moreover, conflict and inequality are the engines of growth and innovation – which mostly benefit the least advantaged in the long run. Experience shows that unmitigated equality results in atrophy, corruption and stagnation. Thermodynamics teaches us that life and motion are engendered by an irregular distribution of energy. Entropy – an even distribution of energy – equals death and stasis.

What about the disadvantaged and challenged – the mentally retarded, the mentally insane, the paralyzed, the chronically ill? For that matter, what about the less talented, less skilled, less daring? Dworkin (1981) proposed a compensation scheme. He suggested a model of fair distribution in which every person is given the same purchasing power and uses it to bid, in a fair auction, for resources that best fit that person’s life plan, goals and preferences.

Having thus acquired these resources, we are then permitted to use them as we see fit. Obviously, we end up with disparate economic results. But we cannot complain – we were given the same purchasing power and the freedom to bid for a bundle of our choice.

Dworkin assumes that prior to the hypothetical auction, people are unaware of their own natural endowments but are willing and able to insure against being naturally disadvantaged. Their payments create an insurance pool to compensate the less fortunate for their misfortune.

This, of course, is highly unrealistic. We are usually very much aware of natural endowments and liabilities – both ours and others’. Therefore, the demand for such insurance is not universal, nor uniform. Some of us badly need and want it – others not at all. It is morally acceptable to let willing buyers and sellers to trade in such coverage (e.g., by offering charity or alms) – but may be immoral to make it compulsory.

Most of the modern welfare programs are involuntary Dworkin schemes. Worse yet, they often measure differences in natural endowments arbitrarily, compensate for lack of acquired skills, and discriminate between types of endowments in accordance with cultural biases and fads.

Libertarians limit themselves to ensuring a level playing field of just exchanges, where just actions always result in just outcomes. Justice is not dependent on a particular distribution pattern, whether as a starting point, or as an outcome. Robert Nozick “Entitlement Theory” proposed in 1974 is based on this approach.

That the market is wiser than any of its participants is a pillar of the philosophy of capitalism. In its pure form, the theory claims that markets yield patterns of merited distribution – i.e., reward and punish justly. Capitalism generate just deserts. Market failures – for instance, in the provision of public goods – should be tackled by governments. But a just distribution of income and wealth does not constitute a market failure and, therefore, should not be tampered with.

Tags: Distributive, Justice, Market