Unfairness in the American Judicial System The objective of this study is to examine unfairness in the American Judicial System. Toward this end, this study will conduct a review of the literature in this area of inquiry that is academic and professional peer-reviewed literature.

There is an existing myth in today's American society that the American Judicial System is 'fair'. However; the belief of this myth is due to societal conditioning and traditionally held beliefs about the American Judicial System and is not based on the reality of today's American Judicial System and its practices, principles, and processes.

There is presently a high level of unfairness in the American Judicial System evidenced by diverse sentencing guidelines and laws and by the mass incarceration of individuals from vulnerable poverty stricken communities and specifically mass incarceration of those of a minority race and those who have committed drug offenses highlights the present unfairness in the American Judicial System. Individuals committing heinous or violent crimes are on the receiving end of sentences that are less than the sentences handed down to individuals who have been arrested for drug use.

The present unfairness in the American Judicial System further is impacted by the arrogant violation of the civil liberties of American citizens whose rights are protected under the United States Constitution Bill of Rights but violated by the passing of the Patriot Act following the events of September 11, 2001, giving the government and law enforcement overreaching rights into the lives of American citizens and leaving citizens abjectly removed from the protections in the United States Constitution and accompanying Bill of Rights guaranteeing American citizens certain protections to their privacy and to be free from illegal search and seizure.

1. Fair Criminal Justice System Myth

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 reports that indeed this is simply a myth. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (2009) defines the world 'fair' as being "marked by impartiality and honesty...free from self-interest, prejudice or favoritism." (p.1) Words stated to be related to the word 'fair' by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary include those of: (1) just; (2) equitable; (3) impartial; (4) unbiased; (5) dispassionate; and (6) objective all of which can be derived to mean to be free from viewing either side to a dispute more favorably than the other side. Robinson and Williams (2009) state that another terms that must be considered in understanding fairness is the world 'desert' referring to the individual receiving what they deserve in terms of being punished or rewarded. (paraphrased)

The work of Karmen (2009) on victimology and the work of Miller (2003) on social justice demonstrate according to Robinson and Williams 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) In fact, in a survey of Americans, results demonstrate that 66% of Americans stated a belief that the American Criminal Justice system was fair in nature while an approximately two-third of Americans polled in 2000 and 2002 stated a belief that law enforcement in their community "treated people fairly." However, there are those who are more informed on the issues that belief that the American Criminal Justice system being fair is just a myth perpetrated on the American public. Robinson and Williams state that a myth is a popularly held conception or a "popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something...one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society...an unfounded or false notion." (2009, p. 1)

One example of the unfairness of the American Judicial System is highlighted in a recent CNN report on the law enforcement officer who shot and killed a young black man in Ferguson. The story relates that the grand jury deliberated two days prior to deciding to bring charges against Darren Wilson, the law enforcement officer who shot and killed the young man. The prosecutor in this case only provided a very minimal amount of evidence to the Grand jury and while the prosecutor could have brought charges himself against Wilson, he chose otherwise. The truth in this case will never be known because the law enforcement officer will not be put to

Similar murders might get 40 years in one location and the death penalty in another location. Specifically, in many U.S. States including Tennessee, Ohio and Maryland, there are a large percentages of death penalties arising from only a couple of counties within these states. In addition, exacerbating the problem of unfairness "Individual prosecutors have broad discretion to decide when to seek the death penalty. Such discretion is one of the hallmarks of our nation's legal system. But 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)
In addition, it is reported that many of the highest profile murder cases "don't result in a death sentence because the defendants can afford better lawyers who negotiate deals." (Kozy, 2014, p. 1) The defendants who are poorer are more likely to get a death penalty and while those who commit premeditated murder often receive a sentence under 40 years for those who commit robbery and kills someone because something 'went wrong' and even their accomplices, who may have been sitting in a car unknowingly participating often receive death sentences.

In addition, as reported by Kozy (2014) "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 terrible and heinous crime, the "death penalty is supposed to be for the 'worst of the worst'." (Kozy, 2014, p. 1) Worsening the inequity in the American Judicial System is that while American Citizens are assured to be tried by a jury of their peers when accused by a crime, the fact is that individuals failing to support the death penalty "are excluded from serving on capital juries. The result is that large segments of the population can not participate in the most serious cases." (Kozy, 2014, p. 1)

In cases involving murder there has been focused attention on the part of prosecutors to "strike black jurors in murder cases. Even though the Supreme Court has expressly prohibited racially motivated strikes." (Kozy, 2014, p.1) An excellent example of the unfairness of the American Judicial System is related in the work of Kozy (2011) as follows:

"the Supreme Court considered 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. Notice how easy it is for Mr. Alito to justify denying Mr. Maples justice because of a "reluctance to impose new burdens on government officials." My, my, those poor overburdened governmental officials! Does their need for protection from their being overburdened trump a plaintiff's need for just treatment?." (p.1)

It is shocking that the American Judicial system and its officials would rather let a man die due to a missed deadline based on the excuse that government officials should not be overburdened and certainly there is no fairness in that view. This is arrogance and abuse of the position of an elected official. Moreover, there have been approximately 23 individuals executed by death in the State of Alabama alone that were later proven without doubt to have been innocent of the crimes of which they were accused, sentenced and executed to death on the basis 'guilt'.

II. Law Enforcement Abuse Upon American Citizens

There are many upstanding, ethical and committed law enforcement officers in the United States however; law enforcement that violate the civil liberties of American citizens, that commits assault and abuse upon American citizens and that even unjustly kill American citizens, taints the processes of the American Judicial System and ultimately puts the lives of their fellow-officers in danger. For individuals who were raised in a society that supported law enforcement activities traditionally based on the principles of 'serve and protect' and who witness perpetrated police abuse, it is certain that the confidence they held in law enforcement is lost and that they become scared…