A law code is a set of rules that a specific country systemically recognizes as a regulator of the actions of its members. In other words, this is a factual statement keenly deducted from observational skills and certain scientific phenomenon frequently occurs in the presence of certain conditions.
With reference to law, a paradigm is a model case that should be clearly distinguished from a typical case. There are various bodies mandated with the role of creating laws depending on the state. A paradigm on the other hand is a model standing for explicit rules and therefore defining a single element. It can also be defined as the common thing people have for example values and techniques. A paradigm shift is therefore the gradual movement from one paradigm to another.
However, scholars define paradigm shift as the change fundam
...entally in the experimental practices of a scientific discipline. In other instances, paradigm shift is the fundamental change in event perception. It should be noted that paradigm shift comes in different times and varying ways. It can occur at different levels but nomata the scope by which it occurs; one constant thing a paradigm shift leaves behind is dramatic change (joseph & Erel 95).
With reference to law, a paradigm is a model case that should be clearly distinguished from a typical case. There are various bodies mandated with the role of creating laws depending on the state. Some laws, for example the drug laws, have been constantly rearranged to target the blacks. This is evident especially during President Nixon’s era where he declared war on drugs his number one priority yet on the other hand he considered the African
Americans the enemies to development. He therefore used this as a tool to fight them.
This therefore makes the war against crime not really a war against crime but a war against the minority and the black people who are considered an enemy to prosperity. Before the break of World War 2, there existed the foreign sovereign immunities act which immunized a leader of a given state from external interference. However, the Second World War, during the Nuremburg trials; trial of the defeated Nazi leaders, the use of sovereign immunity act was denied as base of defense. This was a great shift from the then existing principle that stated that immunity to prosecution by other states would be provided to country leaders. In case this shift could not have occurred, the German and china military leaders who had committed heinous crime against humanity could have gone scot free and the public internationally could be up in arms and doubtful against international accountability.
During the duration between 1999 and 2001, many global leaders in countries such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Ukraine were committing serious crime against humanity within their areas of jurisdiction taking advantage of the law that restricted international bodies from meddling into the domestic jurisdiction of any state. This therefore led to the loss of many lives; leaders were hesitant giving up their leadership positions due to the fact that they had command over the army. Dictatorship was rampant and democracy was slowly dying (Sanchez 635). This led to the call up of a crisis meeting by the United Nations to look at how to deal with the issues. In the meeting, Kofi Annan, the
then secretary general of the United Nations said that no legal principle can ever shield and protect crimes against humanity, not even sovereignty.
This led to the creation of a law that restricted the sovereignty law (a case of paradigm shift). The new law created stated that the primary responsibility to protect falls to the country whereas the surrogate responsibility to protect falls within the jurisdiction of the international community. This was specified to cases where the state in mention was unwilling to halt serious harm to the population. This therefore led to a drop-in crime against humanity. For us to clearly understand how various drug laws have been rearranged to target African Americans, we first of all must have a brief history on the war against drugs in the United States of America. It all began in the early years of 1860 when a penalty was passed on the mislabeling and improper sale of pharmaceuticals.
This was then followed by an agreement prohibiting the shipment of opium between America and Qing dynasty china in 1880. Thereafter during the international opium convention of 1925, the United States agreed and supported the regulation of cannabis as a drug. The congress then passed a marijuana tax act in 1937which allowed for a nuisance tax to be charged on marijuana. The war on drugs took another drastic turn and got a new face in the year 1971 when President Nixon declared drugs an enemy number one of the United States and therefore declared the war on drugs. Before that there was the creation of the controlled substance act of 1970 which declared and classified marijuana as a schedule drug since
it was considered to have no medical use in treatment in the United States.
Nixon formed the drug enforcement administration to enforce new drug laws. In 1972, he ignored the national commission on marijuana and drug abuse’s recommendation to legalize the growing and use of marijuana (john & jock 88). During his era too, there was creation of anti-drug act which stated the minimum sentence for drug offences including marijuana. Nearing the end of Reagan’s era, the office of the national drug control policy was created for central coordination of drug related legislations. After Nixon’s era, not many drug laws have been passed except for the legalization of marijuana in some states in America like Oregon.
However, it is purported that Nixon used his antidrug policies and the war against drugs to criminalize and disrupt black communities together with their leaders. He frequently used the war against drugs as a clear tool to fight the blacks since he was used to the idea of getting the public to associate the African Americans with heroin and marijuana too. This therefore gave him an excuse to vilify the African Americans day in day out, arrest their leaders and raid their homes. He believed that the black people and the antiwar left were the main existing enemies towards forward progress in America. He did not care about them because his main focus was on the whites which he considered as the silent majority. It should be noted that the most commonly abused drug is the marijuana which is either manufactured from within or smuggled in from neighboring countries.
Laws on marijuana have therefore been debated and some passed but the most
important one and eye catching one is the controlled substance act which declares and classifies marijuana as a schedule drug. Its cultivation is however allowed in cases of medical research and industrial use. There are numerous other laws that have been passed with regard marijuana that are however justifiable on paper but when clearly scrutinized they have lots of racial undertones. A very good example being the allowance made by the department of justice for Native American tribes being allowed to grow and sell marijuana even in states where it is illegal. In such a case, non-natives of America are not allowed to grow marijuana (Raymond 96). Although this legislation is acceptable, it leaves a lot of question marks with regard to racial insights.
This therefore makes the war against drugs to be seen as a monstrous machine socially aimed at totally grinding the poor black community. There are certain states in America where marijuana is legal. States like Colorado and Washington legalized the consumption, sale and possession of marijuana in 2012. In 2014, Alaska and Oregon states followed suit and made the legalizations too. However, marijuana is legal under federal law. The federal executive agency announced that it would therefore no longer pursue marijuana offences in states where it is legalized.
This is an exception to instances involving firearms, gangs and cartels. It should be noted that the African Americans are believed to be core founders of gangs and crime executers in the united states and therefore even if this legislation sound justifiable, it has a lot to be questioned about. In the other remaining states however, marijuana consumption is considered illegal. Statistics done in 2001
have shown that 16 million Americans use drugs regardless of their race. The same statistics shows that with regard to race, whites are the highest users of drugs ranging at 40% of the total number of drug users followed by the African Americans at 19%.
However, statistics made on arrests made due to drugs show that 50% of the drug offenders are African Americans yet the whites who are the highest consumers only cater for 5% of the total arrests made due to drug abuse. The question is why this contradicting data? , are the drug laws targeting the African Americans? Although the rates of drug sellers and users are comparative along racial lines, people with colour are the ones being stopped, searched and prosecuted than whites. The law enforcement department believes the mass criminalization of coloured people is a profound system of controlling race (Erickson et al 105). The law income societies are usually the main targets when it comes to drug crackdowns. There is always rampant racial discrimination and neglection of the minority when it comes to the incarceration of offences due to drugs.
When a person in is arrested due to marijuana possession for the first time, the penalty should be a one year prison sentence together with a maximum fine of 1000 US dollars. These charges are regardless of the amount one is found in possession. In case one is caught selling marijuana which is less than 50 kilograms, the law requires that the victim is charged with felony and a five year imprisonment. It is however so disappointing in a case where the judicial system fails to follow these regulations and decides
to rearrange the law and give judgment on racial basis. Most inmates in maximum prisons due to drug abuse are mostly African Americans. In case the whites are caught they are given a few year sentence followed by probation and community service: privileges the African Americans are not granted.
The prosecution process also does not favor the minority since they do not have the resources to acquire a private defense team. They are therefore dependent on the public defense system as per the law but since the law does not favor them due to their race, their prosecution policies are served on unfair and consequential collateral of conviction. They end up being given death sentences or even life imprisonments yet such judgments should be made to those prisoners who are found guilty of distributing, importing and manufacturing the marijuana. The state drug laws and the unfair rearrangement of these laws has caused a major harm to the people it affects especially the African Americans. Since they are handed long term imprisonment sentences, they are disintegrated from their families and in the long run the community is destabilized (Sanchez 635). They are also denied an opportunity for economic and life success.
In Minnesota, one of the states in America, there are various drug policies that were passed that are legislatively okay but are in the real sense targeting the minority. These policies include a fine of one million dollars accompanied by a 30 year jail sentence for a first degree felony. A second-degree felony was punishable by a five hundred thousand dollar fine accompanied by 25 years’ imprisonment. These policies were a great disadvantage to the minority communities
since they assisted to ensure that many minority groups remained confined and locked up in general multi cycles of social and disadvantaged exclusion. As if this was not enough, an inmate was deprived of his voting rights which would only be restored upon sentence completion, including probation and prison parole. Since statistics showed that most people arrested and executed due to drug offences were African Americans, this rule helped massively in depriving them of their right to vote.
During the reign of Bill Clinton as the president of the United States, he signed into law very many crime bills that tremendously helped dismantle African Americans. One main example is the three strikes law which increased significantly prison sentences for felony convicted prisoners who have previously been convicted for two or more crimes which are violent and of serious felony, and the ability of offenders to receive another punishment other than life sentence was limited. After the passing of these laws, law enforcement officers increased crackdowns in areas inhabited by African Americans and many of them were arrested more than twice leading to life imprisonment in accordance with this law. It is recorded that during the Clinton era, correctional facilities received the highest number of African American inmates ever. The general outlook of the three strikes law makes it acceptable to the public but looking at it through a different angle, we notice that it truly and clearly targeted the African Americans.
