Social perception involves the development of an attitude towards another person or group of persons.
Given this evidence in favor of the existence of prejudice and the strength of a
prejudice once it has been established, one moot question is whether there is anything that can be done to reduce prejudice. Actually, very few people argue that this is an easy process, and the debate seems to be between those who maintain the thesis that it is possible, though extremely difficult, to reduce prejudice, and those who maintain the opposed thesis (anti-thesis) that prejudice is a virtually permanent feature of society. The thesis argues that prejudice is a social phenomenon rather than a permanent characteristic of human nature, and can be reduced by social engineering. There appear to be two forms of the anti-thesis. The first form sees prejudice as an expression of innate aggression, determined by biological (and genetic) forces, and consequently not at all amenable to environmental modification. The second sees prejudice as social in origin, but maintains that the social forces are such that prejudice is encouraged, and that no amount of social engineering will succeed in reversing the process in the context of the current state of society.
Given this discussion of the difficulty of removing prejudice, there arises a finalquestion:
supposing it is possible to remove prejudice, what steps can be taken to do this? Strategies advocated to remove prejudice are
(1) non-competitive contact between in and out groups on terms of equal status; (2) the pursuit of common, Super ordinate goals which are attainable by cooperation
If prejudice is to be removed, the pursuit of common goals seems to be very important.According to social identity theory people seek to maintain a positive self-image in two respects:
(1) a positive personal identity
(2) a positive social identity
Improper enforcements which run counter to the U.S. Constitution can involve as many as thirty-five (35) violations of the provisions of the United States Constitution valued per 18 USC 241 at $10,000 per constitutional violation, per offense, per officer, per injured party when the officer is acting as a part of a law enforcement agency effort. Hence ( Legal aid.)
The civil value is therefore approximately $350,000 per enforcement offense, per enforcement officer, per injured party.
The statutes enabling the suit and civil claim are part of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871. (42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986 . . .)
A citizen's recourse against official crimes is to file his claim in the form of a criminal complaint/U.S. First (so-called)Amendment petition for redress of grievances with a civil value noted on the complaint, but with the U.S. Seventh Amendment process on hold as not immediately answerable, and with the civil value pending the outcome of the U.S. Sixth (so-called) Amendment criminal prosecution.
The criminal claim puts payment of the bond on hold and pierces the veil of corporate limited liability, exposing the officer to unlimited attachment of personal property unless he is prosecuted and vindicated by prosecution. If the prosecutor does not agree to prosecute the case within thirty days, or such time as is reasonable for investigation of the charges (not to exceed sixty days without reasonable cause), then the matter reverts to a civil action standing half inside and half outside of the corporate veil with the bonding company, the corporation and the officer standing liable for the damages.
A lawyer or an attorney shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and shall be deemed unbond able,:
if he fails to protect the remedies of due process and the equal protection of the law of either his client or of the adverse party in an action. In an adversary system of law, each lawyer or attorney shall protect the representation of fact not only for their own party, but shall protect the legal process for both parties without, exception.
"An affidavit unrebutted stands as the truth."
When a state, by and through its officials and
agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.
The ABA resolution calls for a civil right to counsel in cases where any one of five types of basic human needs are at stake: shelter, sustenance, safety, health, or child custody. Of those, child custody is the category with the greatest number of existing civil right-to-counsel statutes. This is in part because federal law requires that states receiving federal child abuse prevention and treatment funding appoint a representative for children involved in abuse or neglect proceedings. Thus, virtually all states have statutes guaranteeing either the right to an attorney or the right to a guardian ad litem for children in abuse and neglect cases. Many, but not all, states also have a statute guaranteeing the right to counsel for parents in state-initiated termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, and some have a statute guaranteeing the right for parents in abuse and neglect proceedings as well.
--Montana statute requires that counsel be appointed for a parent or guardian "immediately" following the filing of a petition seeking removal or placement of a child or the termination of parental rights.
Montana created a statewide public defender's office to represent low-income people in both civil and criminal matters.
ABA resolution will help strengthen it in some respect. At a minimum, the resolution underscores the importance of the right to counsel in civil matters when a litigant's basic human needs are at risk. Any strategy, whether incremental or global, that advances the right to legal representation in these important cases is a significant step toward the goal of access to justice for all.
rights Individual citizens have the rights enunciated in our Constitution and the ability to enforce those whether they are in Libby or Terry, Billings or Butte.
And all of us have the right to expect the courts to make those decisions based on the merits of each individual case—by judges independent of bias, prejudice or political influence. Criminal cases, child abuse or custody cases, mental commitments and youth court cases by law must be given priority.