you are charged with: (a) finding an Access to Justice case of your choice that has an amicus brief, (b) reviewing its amicus brief, and (c) summarizing it. The summary must include why the matter discussed within the amicus brief is an access to justice issue.
Your amicus brief summary should be at least 2 pages long. Points will be deducted for spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Please proof-read your work. Make sure you are not copying and pasting from your source. Nearly all of the material contained within your summary should be paraphrased. Note: since the purpose is to highlight and summarize key information, merely copying and pasting does not accomplish this goal. You must summarize the information and facts in your own words, using quotations sparingly.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Access to Justice Case Summary: Amicus Brief in Miller v. Alabama
Introduction
Access to justice is a fundamental principle that underpins the legal system, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status, can effectively seek and obtain legal remedies. One significant case that highlights this principle is Miller v. Alabama, which addressed the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders. The case was pivotal for discussing the rights of young individuals within the criminal justice system and the broader implications for access to justice. This summary will review the amicus brief submitted in this case, outlining its key arguments and demonstrating why these issues are pertinent to access to justice.
Background of the Case
Miller v. Alabama emerged from two separate cases involving minors who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for homicides committed when they were 14 years old. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case revolved around whether such mandatory sentences violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The broader implications of the ruling were significant, as they not only impacted the lives of the individuals involved but also raised critical questions about the treatment of juvenile offenders in the justice system.
Overview of the Amicus Brief
The amicus brief in Miller v. Alabama was submitted by various organizations advocating for juvenile justice reform, including civil rights groups, child psychologists, and social scientists. The brief aimed to provide the court with a comprehensive understanding of juvenile development and the unique circumstances that can influence a minor’s behavior. It sought to illustrate that children are fundamentally different from adults in terms of decision-making capabilities and moral responsibility, which should be considered when determining appropriate sentencing.
Key Arguments Presented in the Amicus Brief
1. Developmental Differences: One of the primary arguments emphasized in the amicus brief is that adolescents are still undergoing significant brain development. Research indicates that teenagers have not yet fully matured in areas of the brain responsible for impulse control and risk assessment. This developmental perspective argues against treating juveniles with the same level of culpability as adults, as their understanding of consequences is not fully formed.
2. Potential for Rehabilitation: The brief also highlighted evidence that young offenders have a greater capacity for rehabilitation compared to adults. Studies show that many juveniles experience profound changes as they mature, suggesting that life sentences without parole deny them the opportunity to reform and reintegrate into society. This argument reinforces the notion that justice should not only punish but also aim to rehabilitate.
3. Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities: The amicus brief pointed out that mandatory life sentences disproportionately affect youth from marginalized communities. The brief argued that systemic inequalities, including poverty and lack of access to quality education and mental health services, contribute significantly to juvenile delinquency. Therefore, imposing harsh sentences without consideration of these factors undermines equitable access to justice.
4. International Standards: The brief referenced international norms and treaties emphasizing children’s rights, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many countries have moved away from punitive measures for juvenile offenders, aligning with a more rehabilitative approach. This argument served to position the United States as lagging behind international standards regarding juvenile justice.
5. Precedent and Legal Framework: Finally, the amicus brief cited previous Supreme Court rulings that recognized the distinct status of juveniles in the legal system, such as Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida. These decisions affirmed that children deserve special consideration under the law due to their developmental differences and potential for change.
Access to Justice Implications
The matters discussed within the amicus brief in Miller v. Alabama are critical access to justice issues for several reasons:
– Fairness in Sentencing: Ensuring that juvenile offenders are not subjected to excessively harsh penalties aligns with the principle of fairness inherent in justice systems. The ability to appeal to considerations of development and potential for rehabilitation is essential for achieving equitable outcomes.
– Representation for Vulnerable Populations: The brief raises awareness about how marginalized communities face systemic barriers within the justice system. Addressing these inequalities is vital for ensuring all individuals can seek justice on an equal footing.
– Long-term Societal Impact: Justice systems that prioritize rehabilitation over punishment contribute positively to society by reducing recidivism rates and fostering reintegration. By advocating for a justice system that recognizes these principles, society can enhance overall public safety and cohesion.
Conclusion
In summary, the amicus brief submitted in Miller v. Alabama plays a crucial role in framing the conversation around juvenile justice within the context of access to justice. It highlights the importance of understanding developmental differences among juveniles, advocates for rehabilitation opportunities, and calls attention to systemic inequalities. The case ultimately demonstrates how access to justice is not merely about legal representation but encompasses broader societal values of fairness, equality, and compassion within the legal framework. As such, it provides vital insights into how the justice system should evolve to meet the needs of all its constituents, particularly those who are most vulnerable.
