Unfairness in the American Judicial System Examined
This paper examines unfairness in the American judicial system through a review of academic and professional literature. It challenges the widely held myth that the U.S. criminal justice system is fair, exploring evidence of racial and socioeconomic bias across multiple dimensions: disparate sentencing for drug offenses, inequities in death penalty application, law enforcement abuse of civil liberties, and the systemic targeting of minority communities. The paper draws on sources addressing racial disparities in arrest, prosecution, jury selection, and sentencing, and connects mass incarceration to the decay of vulnerable communities. It concludes with recommendations for further research into privatized prison systems and calls for restorative justice approaches to reform.
- The Myth of a Fair Criminal Justice System: Challenges the popular belief that U.S. justice is fair
- Law Enforcement Abuse and Civil Liberties: Examines police misconduct and lack of accountability
- Sentencing Discrepancies and Inequality of Access: Highlights crack cocaine sentencing disparity and access gaps
- Racial Disparities in Minority Sentencing: Documents systemic bias against Black and Hispanic Americans
- Community Decay and the Cycle of Injustice: Links mass incarceration to community breakdown and distrust
- Principles of Justice and Fairness: Defines justice and procedural fairness standards
- Conclusion and Recommendations: Synthesizes findings and calls for restorative justice reform
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its argument in a range of peer-reviewed and professional sources, including journal articles, legal reports, and advocacy organization findings, lending credibility to its claims.
- Moves systematically through multiple dimensions of judicial unfairness—myth-busting, death penalty inequity, law enforcement conduct, sentencing disparity, racial targeting, and community impact—building a cumulative case rather than relying on a single example.
- Uses direct quotation strategically to let authoritative voices reinforce the argument, particularly when citing statistical findings and legal case analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates literature synthesis: it draws on multiple independent sources (Robinson and Williams, Dunnaville, Kozy, Malese, Stoner) and integrates their findings into a unified argument rather than summarizing each source separately. This technique is essential for research papers that seek to establish a pattern across a field rather than report a single study's findings.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis-driven introduction establishing the "fairness myth" as its central problem. Body sections address distinct aspects of injustice—myth, law enforcement, sentencing, racial disparity, and community consequences—before turning to philosophical grounding in principles of justice. The conclusion synthesizes findings and offers forward-looking recommendations, including a critique of privatized prison systems and a call for restorative justice. The structure follows a standard research paper format appropriate to undergraduate-level social science inquiry.
The Myth of a Fair Criminal Justice System
The objective of this study is to examine unfairness in the American judicial system. Toward this end, this study conducts a review of academic and professional peer-reviewed literature in this area of inquiry.
There is an existing myth in today's American society that the American judicial system is "fair." However, this belief is due to societal conditioning and traditionally held assumptions about the system, not to the reality of its current practices, principles, and processes.
There is presently a high level of unfairness in the American judicial system, evidenced by disparate sentencing guidelines and laws and by the mass incarceration of individuals from vulnerable, poverty-stricken communities — specifically the mass incarceration of racial minorities and those who have committed drug offenses. Individuals committing heinous or violent crimes frequently receive sentences shorter than those handed down to individuals arrested for drug use.
This unfairness is further compounded by violations of the civil liberties of American citizens whose rights are protected under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, but were undermined by the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act following the events of September 11, 2001. That legislation granted the government and law enforcement sweeping authority over the lives of American citizens, effectively removing many of the constitutional protections guaranteeing privacy and freedom from illegal search and seizure.
The work of Robinson and Williams (2009), published in the Justice Policy Journal, examines the belief that the U.S. criminal justice system is fair and concludes that this is simply a myth. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "fair" as being "marked by impartiality and honesty…free from self-interest, prejudice or favoritism." Related terms include: (1) just; (2) equitable; (3) impartial; (4) unbiased; (5) dispassionate; and (6) objective — all of which imply freedom from viewing either side of a dispute more favorably than the other. Robinson and Williams (2009) also note that the concept of "desert" must be considered in understanding fairness, referring to the idea that an individual should receive what they deserve in terms of punishment or reward.
Drawing on the work of Karmen (2009) on victimology and Miller (2003) on social justice, Robinson and Williams argue that "it is unfair when those culpable for harmful behaviors are not held accountable for their actions. Many believe that the criminal justice system is fair" (Robinson and Williams, 2009, p. 1). Indeed, a survey of Americans found that 66% believed the American criminal justice system was fair, and approximately two-thirds of those polled in 2000 and 2002 stated that law enforcement in their communities "treated people fairly." Nevertheless, more informed observers regard the notion of a fair criminal justice system as a myth — defined by Robinson and Williams as a "popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something…an unfounded or false notion" (2009, p. 1).
One example of the unfairness of the American judicial system involves the case of a law enforcement officer who shot and killed a young Black man in Ferguson, Missouri. Reports indicated that the grand jury deliberated for only two days before deciding not to bring charges against the officer. The prosecutor presented a minimal amount of evidence to the grand jury and, though he possessed the authority to bring charges independently, chose not to do so. Because the officer was never put on trial, the full truth of the matter was never established.
According to Kozy (2014), disturbing facts also arise in relation to the death penalty. For example, "where crime occurs can play as big a role as the nature of the crime in determining who will live and who will die. Similar murders might get 40 years in one location and the death penalty in another." In many U.S. states — including Tennessee, Ohio, and Maryland — a large percentage of death sentences arise from only a handful of counties. Compounding this problem, "individual prosecutors have broad discretion to decide when to seek the death penalty…the definition of 'death eligible' is so broad that there is little guidance for prosecutors to make that decision. That leaves room for bias and other factors to seep into the decision-making process, despite a prosecutor's best intentions" (Kozy, 2014, p. 1).
It is further reported that many high-profile murder cases "don't result in a death sentence because the defendants can afford better lawyers who negotiate deals" (Kozy, 2014, p. 1). Poorer defendants are more likely to receive the death penalty, while those who commit premeditated murder often receive sentences under 40 years. By contrast, individuals who commit robbery in which a killing occurs unexpectedly — and even their accomplices, who may have been unknowingly present — frequently receive death sentences. As Kozy (2014) notes, "there have even been instances of accomplices getting executed while the person who actually committed the murder got life" (p. 1).
While murder is a grave crime, the death penalty is intended to be reserved for the "worst of the worst" (Kozy, 2014, p. 1). Further undermining equity, Americans are constitutionally assured the right to trial by a jury of their peers; yet individuals who oppose the death penalty are excluded from serving on capital juries, meaning "large segments of the population cannot participate in the most serious cases" (Kozy, 2014, p. 1). There has also been a documented pattern in which prosecutors strike Black jurors in murder cases, even though the Supreme Court has expressly prohibited racially motivated jury strikes.
An instructive example of judicial unfairness is provided by Kozy (2011) in the case of Cory R. Maples, a death row inmate in Alabama whose lawyers had missed a deadline to file an appeal:
"'Mr. Maples lost his right to appeal,' Justice Alito said, 'through no fault of his own…But a ruling for Mr. Maples,' Justice Alito continued, 'could require the court to adopt principles that would affect many, many cases and would substantially change existing law.' He said he was reluctant to impose new burdens on government officials and to allow clients to second-guess their lawyers' decisions in order to provide relief to Mr. Maples." (Kozy, 2011, p. 1)
It is troubling that the American judicial system would allow a man to face death due to a missed filing deadline, justified on the grounds that correcting the error would burden government officials. This represents an abuse of judicial authority. Furthermore, approximately 23 individuals were executed in the state of Alabama alone who were later proven to have been innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted and executed.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.