Thomas Jefferson's All Men are Created Equal

Thomas Jefferson's 'All Men are Created Equal' in the Declaration of Independence is full of irony. It has been subjected to numerous debates since he uttered them.

Thomas Jefferson`s statement, in the Declaration of Independence, that ”all men are created equal” had indeed been the subject of serious debate all through the years. 'Life is unfair', is a paradox all know too well and often. The chasm between the rich and poor has grown so wide in these times. While some people drive by in expensive sports car, others don't even know where to find their next meal.

Equality in Moral Sense

Jefferson's pronouncements that all is equal seems to negate what reality throws. Intellectual, physical, and spiritual inequalities among human beings are apparent. Some go through daily lives, pursuing the daily grind and ponder how the other half lives.

Adherents to Jefferson's line however believe that he was not referring to what is obvious. Jefferson plunged to the heart of the matter by declaring that all is equal in the sense that all is equal ”in the eyes of God” or that all are equal in having a ”moral sense”. This line of reasoning has added a new dimension to the interpretation of the quote. To some extent, this has resolved the paradox.

Those who practice Christianity are all aware that before the eyes of the Creator, nobody is better than the other. Each holds the same moral laws inside that help determine right from wrong. Each is unique, created in His image and likeness. Therefore, each holds a piece of Creator's divinity in his or her being. That is the very essence of equality as preached by Christianity.

Christian teachings believe that God also gives all men different talents. Each may differ in the capacity but each is gifted in one way or another. How these gifts are harnessed will spell the difference between success and failure in their lives. 'What one sows, one reaps.' If one works hard at something, it necessarily follows that one attains some measure of success. This is where the difference lies. Some are naturally more successful than others.

Same but Different

The underlying principle in Jefferson's statement is that all are basically the same. One may be different in degree of talents but that does not make someone lesser than others. The more talent a person has, the more expectations God places on him or her. And the more successes mean the more responsibilities. Everything comes with a price tag.

It is not possible for two individuals to have an equal amount of successes and an equal amount of responsibilities. Therefore, there is no cause for the common man to complain because the load that he carries on his shoulders is not as heavy as those in power. Jefferson did speak the truth when he said "all men are created equal".

What is Just Desert

Just desert or retributive justice is about meting out punishment that fits the crime. For one's action there is a corresponding reaction.

Just desert is the doctrine of justice - that which a person deserves. It is the consequence of an action done whether good or bad. Retributive justice states that everyone should get what he or she deserves.

Deserts which refer to 'things deserved' has been used in English since at least the 13th century. A quote from a book written in 1599 Warning Faire Women goes: "Upon a pillory - that all the world may see, A just desert for such impiety."

Just Desert Defined

Retributive justice is behind the idea of “just desert”. Simply put, just desert is treating people the way they treat others. It has some biblical connotations as the command “do unto others, what you want others do unto you”.

The main idea of retributive justice revolves around the ideas of merit and desert. Those who work hard should reap what they sow. Those who violate rules should be punished. People should be treated the same way they treat others. Good behavior deserves good treatment.

Immanuel Kant likens just desert to a debt. Citizens of a certain community enjoy the advantages gained from the rules imposed. The principle of fair play states that citizens must do their part to preserve the law. A person who wants the benefits of law without following it and exercising self-control is called a free rider. He gained benefits through unfair advantages and it is the role of the government to impose the rule of law.

Justifications for Just Desert

Just desert applies to past actions. It justifies punishment for any wrongful act or injustice committed. The main idea is that the wrongdoer has done something that gave him undue advantage over the victim, thus just desert or the punishment for such wrongdoing restores the balance of justice.

Those who do not adhere to rules should therefore be meted punishment equal to the violations they committed. Retributive justice is at the heart of several legal proceedings which affect international law, human rights and war crimes.

The justification for retributive or ‘just desert’ approach is that the offender decides to commit a violation therefore deserves punishment. The punishment is seen as the catalyst that would reestablish moral balance by causing pain to the offender for the pain they caused to the victim and the community.

Nature of Penalties

When wrongdoing occurs, someone who deserves certain benefits lost them while another who does not merit benefit acquires them. The nature of penalties under retributive or ‘just deserts’ model implies the following:

Similar offenses should be punished in similar ways and the penalty should be equal to the severity of the offense.
Punishment should be equal to the extent of the offense. Previous violations of the offender should not be taken into consideration in meting out the punishment.
Penalty should be based on proven violations. Proof of offense should be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Just desert or retributive justice is about rewards and punishment depending on the actions of the person.

What is Freedom of Speech?

Freedom of speech is a basic human right that helps preserve peace and order. Freedom to express opinions and views promotes creativity and paves the way for progress.

Freedom of speech is a universal right of each and every human being protected by United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Each nation formally recognizes this law although the degree of its implementation varies.

Freedom of Speech as a Right

Freedom of speech or freedom of expression is a basic human right and its value could never be underestimated. Freedom of speech to a certain degree defines the level of creativity and achievement in a society. Without freedom of speech, the people’s creativity and ability to solve problems are stifled. If the freedom to receive and give input is limited then it would be hard to discuss and know fully issues and options, limiting views and choices. Freedom of speech, therefore, is a strong indicator of a society’s progress.

Freedom of expression is also strongly correlated to freedom of press. Freedom of press is merely the extension of freedom of speech to written and printed materials. The First Amendment stated "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Freedom of speech, being a basic civil right, is very essential in preserving peace and order. Without free speech, it would be hard to understand and resolve differences of opinion. Communication is a very important tool particularly in maintaining international diplomacy where differences of beliefs, cultures and religion come into play. This particularly true in the United States where maintaining a superpower status means delineating policies to neighboring countries.

Freedom of speech means the ability to express opinions and ideas without impediments particularly the threat of being punished for doing so. The works of great men in the past made it possible to enjoy freedom of speech now. Much of the current idea of free speech comes from the principles of freedom of press and freedom of religion which evolved in England in the seventeenth century.

John Milton and John Locke provided the foundation of the free speech which is known and practiced in modern America now. Their monumental, historical struggles paved the way for the attainment of freedom of speech in the present.

Freedom of speech is specifically provided for in the Constitution of the United States particularly in the 1st ad 14th Amendments. These laws stated that everybody has the right to express ideas free from limitations imposed by the government.

Freedom does come with a responsibility and that is what the restrictions are all about. These restrictions become legitimate only once the exercise of the freedom poses “clear and present danger”. Also, defamation, obscenity and censorship rules come into play when it comes to its practice.

Importance of Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is important to the American society for several important reasons.

Firstly, it promotes free flow of ideas which help preserve democracy and the democratic institutions.
Secondly, it promotes ideas that are important in uncovering the truth and other noble pursuits.
And lastly, it promotes self-actualization of both imparters and receivers of the ideas.
When one talks of free speech, one is often reminded of important people in history who used the right to speak to advance their ideas which were thought to be radical during their time. Who could forget Patrick Henry’s immortal speech “Give Me Liberty or Give me Death”? Another important example would be Martin Luther King whose famous speech “I Have a Dream” on promotion of civil rights still evokes powerful emotions even to this day.
Freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, enables all to express ideas, uncover truth, evoke powerful emotions, effect radical change and changes the course of history. In the history of mankind, every great and important undertaking in the world involved the exercise of free speech. Therefore, the preservation of free speech could possibly mean the survival of humanity.

Educational Programs for Inmates

Educational programs for inmates are administered by Bureau of Prisons for inmates who want to pursue literacy and skills training.

Bureau of Prison offers several programs for inmates that will enable them to acquire literacy and find jobs when released. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) provides for occupational and vocational training programs depending on three factors:

what the inmates want to pursue
the labor market
labor force needs in the institution
Education Programs

All institutions in the US provide literacy classes, English as a Second Language, parenting, wellness education, adult continuing education, library services, and leisure-time activities.

Inmates who have no high school diploma or a General Educational Development (GED) certificate must take part of the literacy program for at least 240 hours or until GED is acquired. Non-English speaking inmates are required to take English as a Second Language first.

Bureau of Prisons provides on-the-job-training through institution job assignments and in Federal Prison industries. BOP also has post-secondary programs such as vocational classes. For inmates who want to pursue College courses, they need to fund this coursework.

In Santa Ana City Jail, for instance, classes provided for inmates include: Computer Applications, Business Skills, ESL, GED, Parenting, Anger Management, Job Development, Substance Abuse, Art, Drug Court Counseling, Sex Education, Bible studies, AA meetings, Sociology 101, Sociology 112,and Protestant and Catholic services.

Education and Training

A study by Correctional Service in Canada (CSC) revealed that there seems to be a gap in services to offenders if the concentration of the education and vocational training is mainly within the institutions. Almost all of the employability training resources were conducted inside prison. It was hard therefore for the offenders to make the necessary transition from the institution to the community after release.

In order for the educational classes and training to be effective, the government must establish programs in the community that will bridge the transition of the inmates from institution to the community. These programs must be relevant to the inmate students and their needs and which would orient them to cultural learning differences within prison and outside.

Results of Inmate Education

In a study conducted by Correctional Service in Canada (CSC), it was found out that inmate education results in lesser institutional behavior problems, pursuit of further education upon release from prison and increased chances of obtaining employment.

When it comes to college education, a study made by Open Society Institute conducted in Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, New York, revealed that even more benefits are generated among women-inmates who took college class while in prison.

The results of the study showed that only 8 percent of the women-inmates who took college classes returned to prison after three years of release compared 30 percent of women who did not participate in the college program. The result can be due to several factors. One is, women generally have lower recidivism rates. Second, any kind of education decreases recidivism but higher education generate more favorable results than vocational education.

The problem though is in the funding of these college classes. If the state can provide means for the inmate to pursue college education such as scholarships or paid work while they are in prison, then the results would be so much better.

Education programs teach inmates job skills and cognitive skills that will make them productive and law-abiding citizens later on.

Reference:

Inmate education. John Howard Society of Alberta. 2002. (PDF file)

What is Justice

Socrates in his conversation with Thrasymachus proves that justice is a principal, intrinsic virtue that is good in itself or espoused a non-consequentialist view.

Socrates, in the Republic, attempts to prove that justice is good in and of itself. In other words, Socrates made a non-consequentialist argument for justice. But before he arrived at the non-consequentialist view on justice he pointed out to Thrasymachus that justice is also consequentialist, meaning it is relative to the actions of a person that pleases another.

The interesting conversation regarding justice started when Thrasymachus, Socrates’ interlocutor in Plato’s Republic, argued that morality and justice are not based on intrinsic properties that are inherent in these same values, that are independent of human perceptions or actions.

In short, what makes human actions just is not justice itself but the by-product of deeds that elicit positive response in others. The thing is just because it pleases a person or is useful to him, that is what makes them just or morally good. Individual preferences then come into play in deciding if an action is just or not.

Consequentialist Argument for Justice

Socrates countered the arguments forwarded by Thrasymachus by saying that justice and morality have two parts. First, he points out that justice can be useful and pleasing to all not just to certain groups or persons depending greatly on human preferences unlike what Thrasymachus believes. Justice can be good to all because some social arrangements could lead to the advantage of the entire community. Justice therefore is just and advantageous to all, not just to some or disadvantageous to others.

Socrates provides the natural dependence of humans on others as a perfect example of the encompassing virtue of justice. According to Socrates, each needs others for their wants. All is insufficient on his own. And this holds true in every situation whether economically or socially.

Division of labor has led to material and social benefits for all. Therefore, justice is good because it is instrumental to the attainment of economic and social goods all need. Therefore, justice is applicable to all. And each of us derived some good from justice.

Non-Consequentialist Argument for Justice

This brings us to the second argument raised by Socrates – that justice is good in and of itself. In this second view, Socratese convincingly made a non-consequentialist argument for justice. This is the principal part of Socrates’ argument in response to Thrasymachus.

This proves that the usefulness of justice does not depend on the need to acquire something for ourselves. Justice is good in and of itself. He argues that justice is intrinsic and independent of benefits and rewards. Justice is a virtue in itself and does not need external validation.

Justice as Principal Intrinsic Virtue

Socrates argues that justice is the principal virtue of the human soul since justice serves as the basis for the three other cardinal virtues – wisdom, courage and moderation. To delve deeper into this claim by Socrates it is important to understand his definition of the human soul, the meaning of virtue and the relationship of justice and human virtues.

Human soul means the total of human psychological faculties. The human soul separates people from objects. It is immortal. Virtue in humans pertains to the capacity to carry out tasks well. Virtue is always identified with a task or job. It is always related to something to perform a task.

Every human society must perform specific tasks to make it humane. These tasks are inherent in people, therefore one can have no choice over them. This is where political rulers come in. They make rules as to what tasks are allowed and what are not.

Justice, and morality will only manifest if one has the virtues to carry out these tasks. Justice therefore is not possible to manifest on its own. It is hard to know what is just if one does not know what is good. One cannot be good if one doesn’t know what tasks are needed and what virtues are important to carry out these tasks. Justice may be a principal virtue from which other virtues emanate but it is also a derivative virtue.

There are objects which are not transitory or do not satisfy just the immediate needs of a person. These things are always good for all people at all times. The beauty of these objects are not subject to opinions or use. These goods have their own intrinsic perfection. Socrates points out that these are the things that can make us attain true happiness.

The basic reason one acquires goods is because one thinks they can make him/her happy. But real happiness or the eternal joy is only found in goods that will always be good. In the hierarchy of beauty, these objects belong to the highest. Justice is thus based on the notion that some things have intrinsic perfection.