User:Mahitgar/sandbox/legal hegemony
The ways lawyers and clients construct the facts, the law is likewise revealed to be a game of strategy, rather than a search for truth and justice.[1]
Assimilation of policy into legal hegemony requires an overt act of transition and incorporation through legal processes. In general though,policy is ‘used to identify something that does not fully fit into the legal world’ and may (or may not)achieve its ‘transformational moment[2]
People’s motivations to comply with the law lie at the heart of crime-control policy. Much criminal policy is premised on the idea that compliance is secured by the presence of formal policing that involves the threat of sanctions for wrong-doers (Tyler, 2008; Nagin, 1998; Kahan, 1999). These social control mechanisms are premised on the idea that credible risks of sanction persuade rational-choice individuals that – while otherwise desirable – a criminal act is not worth the risk (Tyler et al., in press). If offenders are responsive primarily to the risk of punishment, then agents of criminal justice must send out signals of strength, effectiveness, force, detection and justice (Hough et al., 2010).
Legal disparity
[edit]The gaps and inconsistencies between law on books and law in action and all the failed promises of equal treatment opens up spaces for resistance against the legal and cultural hegemony such that there is no one common perception of law (Stychin, 1995). In order to sustain its institutional power and legal hegemony, specific laws are made to work better for particular groups, particular interests and according to mainstream social logics, local cultural categories, norms etc. As a result, despite the aspirations of due process and equality, legal actions and legislations continue to make contributions towards sustaining a common culture, historical institutions, and particular structures of power and inequality (Silbey, 2005). [3]
According to Peter D. Trooboff raising awareness to legal harmonisation to best legal practices works and helps identify and address legal disparities as obstacles with adequate level of polotical interest for legal harmonisation.[4]
see also
[edit]- Hegemony
- legal thought
- legal harmonisation
- Legal empowerment
- Legal consiousness
- Legal socialisation
- Legal legitimacy
references
[edit]- ^ http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1596&context=law-review
- ^ http://regnet.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Dale_5.1.pdf
- ^ Raguparan, M. (2014). (Il)legal Subjects? ..... Multidisciplinary Journal of Gender Studies, 3(1), 328-350. doi: 10.4471/generos.2014.32
- ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YpVWAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT81&lpg=PT81&dq=%22Legal+disparity%22&source=bl&ots=4_2RScjmhL&sig=_SfigcjpDCyVL_sWl_EAR6n83Rc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B-WLVJrmL5LluQT514K4Bg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=%22Legal%20disparity%22&f=false