This reminds me of Michelle Alexander's analysis of racial inequality in her novel The New Jim Crow: a central premise of hers is that although America appears to be a more racially-equitable state, these supposed "equities" are actually constructed out of a Eurocentric model of society. Because society and its moral standards are centered on what (particularly) white men deemed morally just, if these same standards are applied to all races/ethnicities, we only have the guise of equity with the underlying fact that white people still maintain subtle control over our society. Interesting how this same idea presents itself in this article as well.

Excellent example of Durkheimian organic solidarity: all jobs are important, as each job contributes something to society which others simply could not. Jobs are the metaphorical "organs" here, each organ contributing to the larger "organism" that is society at large.

An example of in-group theory: idea that we will (more often than not) choose to do whatever benefits our group the most. Here, the in-group would be women, who would be more likely to support women's rights advocates if they appeal to in-group benefit to all women.

Shows the importance of using common language to convey a message in a more digestible and powerful way. If people don't understand what a movement is saying, that movement will surely not succeed. Interesting how terminology is everything and often decides who wins or what messages champion as the best one.

Bias is the second edge (the weakness) of the legal system overall in cases with regressive as opposed to progressive outcomes. For instance, Supreme Court Justice Aquilina's sex played a significant role in her decision in the Nasaar case. Specifically, as a woman, Aquilina was better able to sympathize with the sexually-assaulted female survivors and sentence Nasaar to life in prison. Here, sex bias (a woman being more compassionate to the suffering of other women) creates a good outcome (locking away a malicious sexual offender). It is the good side of the sword. On the other hand, if a male judge is sexist like the one in this text's example, they may not decide to pay women equally compared to men. This bias, which produces a bad outcome, represents the bad side of the sword.

Double-edged sword idea: biggest weakness of the system (inequality) is also the biggest potential source of strength of the system in discouraging inequality and empower women, in this context.

It's really interesting to see how conservatives use euphemisms to make their once "controversial" policies/beliefs sound more socially acceptable. This reminds me of J.B. White's "Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law", in which White examines the central role of rhetoric (namely, diction) in composing an effective legal argument. In this piece, White advances the notion that the same legal argument can be construed in various ways, all of which convey a distinct message- all based on word choice. It would seem that conservatives, too, utilize liberalized diction to win cases and establish their policies in a socially acceptable manner.

This ideological distinction reminds me of Jazz's earlier annotation regarding conservatives using law to bolster what directly benefits them, but not necessarily everyone (the example used being that conservative Christians might espouse religious freedom, yet simultaneously be opposed to a Mosque being built in a predominantly Christian area). In this case, I see Jazz's point much more clearly, so this is some evidence of that!

Reminds me of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), a legal theory approach which sends this same message that offenders are people too, worthy of moral consideration. The significant practice which differentiates therapeutic jurisprudence from this seemingly act-based morality view is that unlike act-based morality, TJ often sends redeemable offenders to community courts where they receive rehabilitative treatment and are reintegrated into society (e.g. Cook County Treatment Center).

This distinction between person-centered and act-based morality perspectives reminds me of Packer's "Crime Control Model", a model in which criminals' guilt is assumed, and his contrasting "Due Process Model", which claims the opposite- innocence of the offender until proven guilty. It also reminds me of the contrast of the retributive perspective which seeks vengeance on a presumably guilty offender (more reminiscent of person-centered morality) of as well versus the restorative model, which, like the act-based morality perspective, condemns the act- not the individual.

laissez-faire capitalism: free marketplace idea

interesting connection: previous foundations of legal studies class, said we kind of went backwards in moral progress. went from being more forgiving initially with more reformative/restorative methods, to retributive/punitive, and back to restorative push

connects to Lutheran POV too, e.g. in sociology talked about how work ethic needed for redemption (different from Calvinist sentiment of predestination)

Origins of restorative justice?

Not sure what this point means? Can anyone clarify? :)