Power and Privilege Observations of McIntosh and Flagg Essay

Power and Privilege Observations of McIntosh and Flagg - Essay Example There are two major problems with Ms. McIntosh's ideas. First, she projects her own world on that of everyone else. While her 46 conditions are insightful, they are not representative of whites; because whites, like every other race and culture, cannot be summed up into a generalized expression. If someone were to make such sweeping observations about Hispanics, they would be racists; yet apparently McIntosh believes that it is okay to racist as long as your prejudice is directed at yourself. Take some of the language of the list, e.g., arguments with colleagues absent advancement limitations based on race, and apply that to whites living in Appalachia; there is no comparison at all. Under her analysis, McIntosh is failing to add the privileges relative to a highly-educated and moneyed academic. Secondly, McIntosh's own list evidences the contradictory nature of self-projection. For example, number 35 refers to employment. In reality, there are many places where the hiring of a white female academic would be complete tokenism; say, at Howard University in Washington, D.C. The point is that making racial generalizations, even on oneself, is an illogical and inaccurate approach to power or privilege. That which is observable is not necessarily causative. Discussion Point Two.

Requirements for Admissible Statements Analysis Case Study - 1

Requirements for Admissible Statements Analysis - Case Study Example Illinois', Danny Escobedo, a 22 year-old young man, was accused for the murder of his brother-in-law. The incident happened at the night of 19th January, 1960 when the victim was fatally shot. After few hours Escobedo was arrested without a warrant and taken to custody for interrogation. Escobedo made no statements to police and he was released in the afternoon when his lawyer pursued writ of habeas corpus to the state court with the appeal of releasing his client as according to him there were no sufficient evidences against his client. But Escobedo was again arrested along with his sister on January 30, on the basis of the statement of Benedict DiGerlando who was another suspect of the murder. Benedict DiGerlando stated to police that Escobedo shot his brother-in-law causing his death. Police handcuffed Escobedo while taking him to police station and threatened him by saying that they have enough proof of his crime and it will be better for him to confess. According to the Fifth Am endment of the United States Constitution, nobody can be forced to be witness against himself in any criminal case but this rule was violated in case of Escobedo. Even, when Escobedo requested to consult with his attorney, his request was rejected. The attempt from Escobedo's attorney to see his client was also rejected by police. Again it was the violation of Sixth Amendment of U.S. Constitution as it states that, the suspected person has the right to enjoy legal assistance in all criminal prosecution. Finally, Escobedo confessed the crime and based on that he was found guilty of the murder. He appealed in the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider his conviction. But it was rejected and then he approached to the U.S. Supreme Court. Supreme Court's decision went with Escobedo and his conviction was overturned by declaring his confession statement as inadmissible. In the second case 'Miranda v. Arizona', Ernesto Arturo Miranda, was accused in two cases one is robbery and the other is attempt to rape. He was arrested on March, 1963. In the attempt to rape case, the victim identified Miranda as the attacker. He also confessed the fact during police interrogation. The court appointed attorney of Miranda, John J. Flynn, tried to defend the accused by highlighting two points. First point was the instability in the story stated by the victim in the attempt to rape case and the second point was the confession of Miranda during police interrogation without any legal advice from any lawyer. But the Arizona Supreme Court convicted Miranda a 20-30 years imprisonment for the punishment of both cases by overruling all objections of his lawyer. But an appeal to the U.S. S