People conclude that an unequal distribution of resources is fair if it is entirely due to individual choices. Personal ascriptions are associated with a pattern of beliefs highlighting personal responsibility and the view that individuals receive what they deserve, as well as belief in a fair world, social supremacy, political dogmatism and stereotypes regarding welfare beneficiaries. Various types of research provides understanding of the way acknowledgment of economic inequality is directed by beliefs concerning the poor people, stereotypes about their appearance, and ascriptions for why certain individuals are poor. In America, single mothers and racial minorities, especially African Americans, are the public expression of poverty. Therefore, poverty is perceived as a minority problem and a manifestation of weak sexual customs and the deterioration of the nuclear family. Labels concerning the poor and racial minorities reflect each other with interconnecting descriptions, such as idleness, sexual promiscuity, careless parenting, lack of interest in education, and disrespect of the law. Such features are highly evident in particular subcategories of the poor, for example, aid beneficiaries and the urban poor. Words such as “underclass,” “Cadillac queen,” and “trailer trash” are used to refer to certain ethnic groups to illustrate the way class is associated with race in common conversations and public perception. Social psychological examination of group disparities concentrate on the way such patterns explain common attribution biases, particularly the “actor-observer effect” where people associate their negative results with situational factors but the negative results of others’ with personal causes (Costa‐Lopes et al., 2013).
The principle of differentiation states that social and economic inequalities should be organized in a manner that they are to the utmost anticipated benefit of the less fortunate. This principle emphasizes that disparity in the allocation of wealth is unjust whenever it does not benefit the poorest individuals in the society. On the other hand, Equality principle states that competitive positions need to be open to any person irrespective of social background, ethnicity or sex. According to equality principle, if some individuals in society have more wealth compared to others, then the possessions are compensations for social positions they occupy, which are accessible to everyone (Arneson, 2008).
Death qualification is not an ethical way of deciding who sits on a death penalty jury because of numerous biases involved. Firstly, what jurors go through during death qualification affects their view of both parts of a death-penalty case. Therefore, jurors shift their concentration from the presumption of guiltlessness to post- conviction events. The courts determination implies guiltiness and makes jurors to believe that the penalty is appropriate or unavoidable. Death qualification also compels jurors to visualize themselves in the penalty-stage proceeding since the assumption of the occurrence of an event increases the personal estimate that it will. Moreover, during death qualification, jurors are interrogated repeatedly concerning their perception of death penalty. This process makes them insensitive to the imposition of death penalty due to recurrent exposure to this emotional condition. Jurors are as well compelled to openly oblige to a particular viewpoint. Additionally, jurors who fail to approve the death penalty also undergo implied legal disapproval by being excepted for being unfit for capital jury service (Death 1). Witt standard is a better way of selecting jury members because it offers more discretion to the judge in death qualification. The judge chooses whether the jurors’ positions towards death penalty prevents or impairs their ability to decide on sentence justly (Butler &Wasserman, 2006).
References
Arneson, R. (2008). Rawls, responsibility, and distributive justice. Justice, political liberalism, and utilitarianism: Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls, 80-107.
Butler, B., & Wasserman, A. W. (2006). The Role of Death Qualification in Venirepersons’ Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1744-1757.
Costa‐Lopes, R., Dovidio, J. F., Pereira, C. R., & Jost, J. T. (2013). Social psychological perspectives on the legitimation of social inequality: Past, present and future. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 229-237.