# data[].attributes.body
Many people think that America, as a nation of Immigrants, is largely unfair and unjust to undocumented folks today. People live several years in the United States as undocumented immigrants and some are finally deported after decades of living in the country. They make a life for themselves. It can be decades of progress that are all taken away. An undocumented person could life their life in America for thirty years and be pulled over for a broken tail light and then be deported shortly after. It is truly a tragedy when lives are ruined and families are torn apart when someone is deported. Alternately and to some extent, however, I think that it is very fair to deport them. They are here illegally and it should not be surprising when their foundation is uprooted and they are subsequently deported out of the country. It is too risky to establish a life for yourself in a country where you could be deported at any time. It is the law and no one should be surprised when it is executed. It would be unfair to ignore it. So I think that any instance of the law being enforced upon undocumented immigrants is fair. Just because they are good or hardworking people in our country does not mean that we should just turn the other cheek every time. If we got rid of our security, that opens up potential for a lot of foreign troublemakers.

Deportation itself is being looked at like some kind of immoral practice, but I think that it is unfairly being made a target. What could be unfair, however, is the immigration process itself. I feel as though most if not all of the misfortune that someone experiences as a result of their deportation is only a product of a shoddy immigration process. I think that it could just be too hard to become a legal citizen. If someone can spend thirty years making a life for themselves in America, pay taxes and be an upstanding citizen all at the same time and they aren’t a citizen by then, then it is probably just too difficult to become a citizen. We desperately need a better immigration system because it will prevent the deportation of undocumented immigrants who contribute to our American society by eliminating the need for the deportation instead. The system may be broken, but it is not because of deportation.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it is widely considered that those who are monetarily well off often go through the criminal justice system rather smoothly or arguably unscathed completely. I think that rich celebrities who break the law do particularly well when they are facing the justice system. For one, they have a vast amount of resources at their disposal while also leading a following. Famous people have people who like and care about them and these people will want to support them. Personally, I would hate it if Alicia Keys were to be put in jail. Jurors could even be more likely to have some preconceived notion about them based on the public image that they have built for themselves. It could also be quite difficult to find impartial jurors when the defendant has such wide renown. The money and reputation and staggering advantages.

While it is technically a preconceived notion that the rich are so much better off in these situations, I think that it is an assumption based on some truth. Acknowledging this, however, that is not to say that the criminal court is inherently unfair to the poor. I believe that the criminal court is fair to the poor in that it works as intended for them. Since the poor don't have a bunch of money driven variables to throw into the mix, all that is left are the rules and policies that are in place. It seems to me that the court system has a poor or otherwise neutral defendant in mind while leaving the potential for the rich unchecked. So I also believe, that the rich have unfair access to a crucial advantage. They post bail with relative ease which then allows them to go on to work on their case and avoid wearing jail clothes on their court date, making them more relatable. They also the resources to appoint a legal counsel who also has their own resources that will gain them further advantage. I think an interesting idea would be to find a way to equalize both sides in court, one that either limits legal spending in some way or something involving court-appointed lawyers. This way the chance that capital assets will serve a significant advantage is mitigated and a truly fair trial can commence.

Some people think that the poor may be targeted by law enforcement. We can’t ignore any of their wrongdoings, but why would they be so enticing to prosecute? If anyone is targeted, I think it would be the rich, since no one has any reason to be envious of the poor. I go on to think that the poor aren’t necessarily targeted, but the rich are actively avoided since they have more influence.

# data[].attributes.body
As Helen Prejean put it, the pardon board is supposed to be receptive to emotion and one’s conscience as it considers a notion or two of mercy. Their decisions are not inherently limited by past court rulings in any jurisdiction and can make any choice that they personally feel is right. De facto, the pardon board members are appointees of the governor whose wishes are largely the influential forces that affect the decisions of the board members because the governor in question may remove them from their status at any point in time. Howard Marsellus, the Board chairman, was incarcerated for taking bribes in 1991. After Marsellus was released, he expressed regret to Sister Prejean in confessing to a choice that he himself wasn’t all in for. He was not wholeheartedly convinced that a man on death row, Tim Baldwin, was actually guilty. There was some part of his mind that believed that Baldwin was innocent. Despite his own indecisiveness, Marsellus still voted against Baldwin and Baldwin was executed in September that year. A possibly innocent man died because Marsellus was afraid to go against his fellow board members and he was afraid of inconveniencing the governor who appointed him. This was all two years after Robert’s pardon board hearing, when he was denied any lenience in their recommendation to the governor.

The kind of corruption that is allowed to happen in any kind of official legal process is absolutely and utterly shameful. I would view anything official as one of the highest authority in its respective territory and it always disappoints me to see something like this to be allowed to happen. It is through political motivations that I think hinders our pursuit for justice greatly. When corruption has its way, it is a spit in the face of justice and all that is good. If Marsellus had not taken bribes or been worried about his status on the pardon board, he may have saved Tim Baldwins’s life and the life of any others that Marsellus had foolishly and carelessly condemned. If Baldwin was innocent, they would have been one step closer to attaining true justice. It is a shame that political motivations are so often placed above someone’s welfare, but I don’t think corruption can be fixed. People are people and it is only natural that human error slips through the cracks here and there for as long as we are humans with feelings and desires.

# data[].attributes.body
Back in the late 70’s and up until the early 80’s, Texas law held that school districts could deny enrollment to undocumented children. If the children were enrolled, school district funds could be withheld from the support of the children’s education.

Some argue that we should all have a basic right to education and that it is wrong to refuse it to these children because they lack documentation. They couldn’t leave the country on their own if they wanted to; they’re children. They live here like everyone else and deserve an education if they seek it. It was further argued that the children’s desire for education was protected by the fifth and fourteenth amendments as well as the Equal Protection Clause. Specifically, the fourteenth amendment states that no state may make or enforce a law that takes away the privileges of a citizen. While these children may not necessarily be citizens, the key is in the amendment’s phrasing: “Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction.” In Plyler V. Doe, it was this upon which the basis of the court’s decision was made to allow the education of undocumented children in our jurisdiction. It is de jure that these children go through their education unhindered and unburdened as everyone else does, but it is de facto that they still see their access to basic rights questioned. They also worry about being outed to their peers as undocumented.

Others also thought to consider where the funding comes from and what that funding is intended for. School district funds come from the property tax of the local community. It is why nicer schools tend to be closer to nicer and pricier neighborhoods and poorer communities are closer to poorer schools. Now what are taxes intended to do? They are meant to support and serve the community and citizens. I can see why some people would not be as supportive, considering that their taxes are going towards the welfare of those who are not documented and are not citizens.

Either way it goes, every issue I hear concerning immigration and the acceptance and support or lack thereof for undocumented people keeps bringing me back to the actual immigration process. I feel as if each and every one of these issues is just a product of one and we are arguing and stressing over the wrong thing. All the issues seem to suggest that the immigration process is too difficult and superfluous.

# data[].attributes.body
The Native American tribes, the ones that were allowed some degree of sovereignty, can have their own jurisdictions. They can have their own police departments with officers, vehicles and other resources. When we say that both the United States and the Cherokee Nation both have sovereignty, one might think that they should technically be equal as far as being considered individual entities. Typically if a foreign company were to be sued in another country after infringing upon the local laws of the land, that foreign entity should deal with the indigenous legal system. It is only fair that such a foreign entity should agree to this if they are to conduct operations within that country’s bounds. This fair assumption was not held to be true when the Cherokee nation saw it as necessary to sue United Sates opioid distributors in the local tribal court system. This fact is inconsistent with the self-governing status that other countries like to call “sovereignty.” They now not only still have an opioid problem on their hands, but also they are back to trying to claim sovereignty over themselves.

If the Cherokee Nation lacked the authority and jurisdiction to take the opioid distributors to the local courts, then how can the same nation that denied the Cherokee still call them “sovereign?” If they lack the jurisdiction to protect their own people from foreign entities, then how can this be called self-governing? It is not self-governing if it can’t even serve its own justice.

Despite the lack of jurisdiction that the Cherokee have, I think it would still be fair to assume that they can cease the imports from opioid distributors. While this is essentially an ultimate solution to the problem they initially faced, it probably comes with its own set of problems. They wanted to regulate the opioids coming into their territories, not eliminate it. However, this is only in recognition that they still may have some power. I think they should preliminarily set terms for these kinds of exchanges in the future. They will accept the import of these goods, providing that the exporter adheres to the indigenous laws of the land. They should reserve the right to sue distributors in the tribal courts. I think this would have been a good idea in hindsight, but now I think that the Cherokee have lost power in that regard. I do not think they could afford to cut ties with opioid distributors at this point.

# data[].attributes.body
The law in Alabama that allows for sheriffs to pocket money by cutting the costs of food is severely outdated. This is a law that I imagine was introduced back in the times of the old west in the late 1800s to early 1900s where, as the article stated, that jails were more or less mom and pop operations where the prisoners were personally fed by the sheriff’s wife. These were expenses that probably came out of the sheriff’s personal account anyway. The law is outdated, though. Things change.

I don’t know where the money comes from these days. I don’t know if it is tax payer money or if the money comes from grants. I do not think it is fair, either way. It is especially unfair if it is tax payer money. I do not want to pay for anyone’s beach house and I do not think anyone wants to pay for someone else’s beach house or contribute to his 1.7 million dollar empire of properties. In saying this, I realize it is perfectly legal for him to do it. A lot of wrong things can be legal. I think It may even be a hard choice to make between up to $250,000 more a year and giving the prisoners an extra biscuit at dinner time. That is not to deny the instances of extreme starvation or malnourishment that has occurred in the past, but I might have a hard time trying to resist dipping into the fund myself if it’s entirely 100% legal. I feel like I should mention that the same sheriff also personally funded the inmates’ meals after the previous sheriff died and the entirety of the fund went to his estate. There was no money and the sheriff had to take out a loan to feed them. I don’t know about a beach house, but I would not blame him if he felt like he deserved something for that.

I think there needs to be a set of clearly defined standards of nutrition for the sheriffs to adhere to. One that is not to be seen as a minimum by sheriffs but as a standard. It would not be fair for imprisonment to worsen one’s physical health instead of maintaining it if we can help it. Feeding inmates is definitely something we can help.

We also need to consider that this isn’t the old west anymore. There is a significantly bigger amount of inmates going in and out of jails. There is a significantly bigger amount of money also going into and out of jails. We should also consider inflation as well. The law should be updated, not necessarily removed entirely.

# data[].attributes.body
In reference again to Bryan Stevenson’s experience with the police documented in Just Mercy. He was threatened and searched illegally. It was an injustice, yes, but a matter like this is more complicated than just how the victim felt. In reference again to my own experience with the police, when that cop was unfairly assuming I had committed a crime. Yes that was unfair treatment. At the time we feel victimized and wronged. Stevenson wanted an apology. I wanted that cop to find nothing and just feel stupid. I also understand, however, that there were two extreme points of view in these incidents. Although there were technically three, the point of view of the police and that of the detained in question. I look at this both from personal experience and from what I’ve read in Just Mercy.

First looking at Stevenson’s experience. In this point of view, the victim’s, we see this incident only for the wrongdoings that occur upon the victim’s person when they were also choices made by another living and breathing person with his own concerns and past experiences upon which to base his own choices at present. As pointed out previously, criminals are wont to avoid incriminating themselves by consenting to a search of their person or property. The officer asks to conduct a search of the man’s vehicle. He denies the request because, unbeknownst to the cop, there are in fact illegal substances inside. The cop finds no incriminating evidence. Criminal 1, Cop 0. In instance 2, the cop just searches through the car without asking and finds anthrax or something. Cop 1, Criminal 0. Although to my understanding, such evidence the officer would find would be inadmissible in court. The cop searches anyway, so I do not know if he is merely ignorant of this fact or there’s something I do not know. Is that rule enforced in any way? If the cop had found something bad in Stevenson’s car, could anything have actually been done with it? Do the courts simply not care? Getting back to the topic at hand, the context of these situations is that the suspect is potentially a guilty party. The police can’t forget that. I think that they would rather haul away a burglar than let him go free and likely rob another innocent family blind because he didn’t search the car for stolen goods. I think they value justice over another angry, anti-cop post on social media. In essence, that is ironically justice at the cost of justice.

# data[].attributes.body
In Stevenson’s personal experience with the police, he received a threat to his life and had his belongings illegally searched through. There was no stolen contraband or drugs. He was not a dangerous criminal. He was just a lawyer singing in his car. They treated him as if he was the former. As we may realize for ourselves, criminals aren’t as cooperative. I think that sometimes police officers need to be tough, so I do not blame them. But they should not reject logic and reasoning.
From Bryan Stevenson’s point of view, he was threatened to be shot in the head. In this moment, Stevenson was stricken with a decision with his life potentially at stake. He thought of running but he quickly realized that would not be a good idea. He later thought and realized how close he was to making a life threatening mistake and how easy it would have been to die right then and there. How easy it would have been for anyone else in that situation to die. It’s a scary thought. When we feel the pressure of time-sensitive decisions, we are denied the luxury of a well thought out decision. It is a spontaneous decision made in mere moments. It is easy to make mistakes; It is easy to die. Later, his belongings were searched illegally. A criminal is unlikely to consent to a search. With this in mind, an officer may deem it necessary to conduct a search anyway. But that is not sound reasoning.
I was waiting for the bus with my friend in front of a gas station when a police car pulls up instead of a bus. An officer motions for us to approach. I look around thinking he must be wanting someone else’s attention when the second officer gets out and approaches us. It turns out the cashier thought it was suspicious that I took off my hat and put it back on one too many times and called the police. One could say that this pair had a good cop, bad cop dynamic going on because one officer was asking me loaded questions like, “What did you steal from the gas station?” It seemed like he really wanted to believe that I had stolen something. The bad cop went into the store to check security footage after I had told him I didn’t steal anything. The second officer, the “good cop,” was more empathetic in the way that he entertained the possibility that we actually didn’t do anything wrong. He checked my bag. I do not remember if he asked for permission. If he did, I said yes. Although if he didn’t ask, I do not know the legality of it. Either way, he found nothing but the comic books I bought earlier. He told me I could take my hands off the hood and put them on the bumper bars instead because it was hot. After his light and neutral questioning and while we were waiting for bad cop to come back, he made conversation with us. Bad cop came back and the security footage was not incriminating. We were let go, but we were banned from the gas station. If I go in there again, I could be arrested. We also missed the bus. Here, the bad cop assumed we were thieves and with this assumption he constructed his questioning. His assumption was wrong and that prompted a negative response from me because I felt offended.
I feel that the unreasonable assumptions that police make can cause more problems than they’re worth. If the guy actually did it, who cares? Those instances don’t get any coverage even if it was wrongful. I think they should approach these situations differently because the impact of false positives on community relations is not worth it.

# data[].attributes.body
When the public elects someone for a position, the public places trust in the candidate. We trust the candidate to do what he or she says he or she will do and we trust that this person will do what is right when the time calls for it. Such an individual should, above all else, maintain this trust in a genuine way. When the elected official thinks first about staying in their position, rather than fulfilling their duty to the voters, then the elected has broken and betrayed the trust of the voters and should resign. They have failed the public and the people.

Elections are not without their advantages. I think when the people vote for an official, they generally care to take the time to learn a thing or two about the candidate and have an idea of what one can expect from them. The people think about what they want and what the community needs. They think about the greater good and they think about what affects their neighbors. People pay attention and make a conscious decision about the future of the community and the people in it. In this way, electing a sheriff allows the people to get acquainted with the force that is meant to protect and serve them.

The disadvantages can also weigh just as heavy. In the In the Dark podcast, it recounts an instance where a sheriff (arguably) ends up hastily closing a case to garner favor from voters just in time for the next election where he was running again for sheriff. The case in question was high-profile and he was under a lot of pressure to close the case. He was not under pressure to necessarily solve the case. He was only under pressure to close it. Everyone just wanted to point their finger at someone. Unfortunately, the wrong man was made a victim and his life was ruined. I often think back to when I learned that judges are sworn in for life specifically to prevent these incentivized decisions. Judges don’t worry about being re-elected because they don’t have to. They don’t make decisions based on the likelihood of being re-elected and are allowed to make what they deem to be the most “rightful” decision they can. That is not to say that sheriffs should be sworn in for life, but they can serve single, fixed terms. So it can be easier for them to be true to what the community needs.

# data[].attributes.body
I think what Bryan Stevenson means by this is that in the face of absolute and complete justice, poverty cannot exist. Justice is more equivocal than just being within the confines of the law. Justice is just. Justice is what is right and poverty is the product of injustice. Poverty is born from greed and unfairness while justice is born from fairness and rightfulness. Such that they are the inverse of one another. When everything is all right and just, I think that everyone would be happy. With distribution of resources, I do not think it necessary for them to be distributed evenly but it can still be fair because not everyone has the same needs. Unfortunately, this is impossible because people often go beyond the territory of “need” and into “desire.” Although I think I see what he means by it, I do not think it's an appropriate comparison to make for a quote. Poverty implies the absence of assets and the deliverance of justice does not necessarily have anything to do with assets. Justice can be observed when someone gets what they deserved. A man throws a rock at a poor unsuspecting monkey at a zoo and a bigger ape throws something unmentionable at him. That is justice served hot. There are no assets involved and no one is inherently impoverished in this instance. Unless one takes into account the fact that the apes have no rights and no assets. Then there may be a movement to include apes as a part of our society as citizens. And that is just bananas.

I do think that social justice can go hand in hand with any kind of justice, considering that the idea of justice is a social construct to begin with. It is a broad idea that casts a wide net. We cannot conceive the idea of justice without the social quality that we use to determine what is right and what is wrong. It is because one’s own sense of morality is developed with the influence that society has on ourselves and the people we see around us. Put most simply, I have an interaction with someone and I do not like how they acted towards me. From that point on I consider their action “wrong” or “unjust.” It’s in this way where interactions within society define what is morally sound and what is questionable behavior at best.