THE FAILURE OF MULTICULTURAL ISM & SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
A society must include the criminal justice system to aid it in ensuring law and order. The justice system is in place to provide a verdict with fairness and equality to all. However, concerns have risen why the criminal justice system tend to oppress some individuals in the society as per their beliefs and race. The criminal justice structure is supposed to protect and serve all community members equally; therefore, any prejudicial attitudes harbored by criminal justice students may negatively impact their job performance as future justice professionals. Four hundred and eighty-four students at a large Midwestern university were surveyed on their views toward gay and lesbian persons and issues. The responses of criminal justice majors were compared to the reactions of students majoring in other fields. Criminal justice majors tended to have more negative views of gays and lesbians than students in other majors. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups of students in their willingness to extend rights to and socialize with gay and lesbian individuals. This paper analyzes the research of Ventura, L. A., Lambert, E. G., Bryant, M., & Pasupuleti, S. on the differences in attitudes toward gays and lesbians among criminal justice and non-criminal justice majors.
Ventura, L. A., Lambert, E. G., Bryant, M., & Pasupuleti, S. used the quantitative research design. Quantitative research is descriptive or experimental; the researchers grouped Midwestern university students into classes of between twenty-thirty undergraduate students. These students processed different array of age groups, sex, skills, educational background, race, and the social class they came from. The total number of students who participated in the experimental data collection was at Four hundred and eighty-four students. The researcher’s questions to the students were given political affiliation and religious aspects in respect to their research question. The 18 issues covered attitudes, gays, lesbians, and homosexuality. They were to be answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree at one to agree at five actively—however, this not ask the participants if they were gay or lesbians. The researcher’s use of students was a good idea, for they were sure of their participation compared to adults who would have declined at a high rate.
On the other hand, students provided a larger platform to choose from, starting from those who practiced law-related courses to those who did other courses. Using students for their study was vital for they are open-minded and would speak their minds. Additionally, their opinion is based on the upbringing and society they were raised in; hence, the researchers had covered a large environment. Using the students also gave them a variety of populations to conduct their study. Forty-four percent were male as forty-six percent were females, seventeen percent were African American, three percent were white, three percent were Hispanic, and the other race covered seven percent. The researcher’s use of Midwestern University students gave them an excellent platform to derive proper data for their study research.
The researchers opted for a random sampling method. The researcher gave the test to students present to fill them; they even did not have previous participants of the test but requested those who had undertaken the check not to redo it. Random sampling provided them with a wide range of participants to conduct their analysis hence adequate data. The technique also omits the researchers from being bias in their data collection. Selecting a particular group would limit the availability of some responses making the data neutral. On the positive side, random sampling allows for the use of mathematical theorems that justify the most common statistical procedures.
The researcher had appropriate use of questionnaires in the T-test as their research instruments. The quality of their research instruments is reputable, most preferred for the research, and provided uniformed and comparable data. They used Questioners to the students; this eliminated the pressure form the participants in answering the question. They also used a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree at 1 to strongly agree at 5, which reduced the tiresome on the confusion to the participants on how to answers. Additionally, it allowed them to be able to asses the results with ease and rate the outcomes correctly. The researchers were finding out how the justice systems have marginalized some individuals in the society. They divided the feedbacks between students majoring in criminal justice and those not taking it. It allowed them to have a glimpse of how education on criminal justice affect the behavior of an individual towards the society. Age, gender, religion, and republican also played a role in giving the researchers a better scope of the social perception of gays and lesbians. They manage to understand how each gender felt about their sex indulging intimately together. On religion, they manage to realize how each religion teaches about same-sex intimacy.
The research was taken ethically and professionally. Participants were not forced nor threaten to partake in the T-test provided by the researchers. The researchers omitted to ask the participants if they were gay or lesbians. It would have dented their appearance to participants who viewed the act as immoral and should not be practiced. To reduce anxiety and severe challenge for the participants in answering the test, the researchers used a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree at 1 to agree at five strongly. It allowed the participants not to have the urge to explain why they chose their decision. In the results of the research, the researchers used percentages to show results received. They did not mention the names of the participants nor their stand on the study. The researchers conducted their research with the utmost ethicality and respect of participants.
For a literature review, I would consider the research Ventura, L. A., Lambert, E. G., Bryant, M., & Pasupuleti, S. on the differences in attitudes toward gays and lesbians among criminal justice and non-criminal justice majors for my review. The research is well thought off; their collection of data is precise and omits biasness on the selection of participants for the study. Representation of the results is well explained and even displayed with a table to allow proper understanding. Ventura, L. A., Lambert, E. G., Bryant, M., & Pasupuleti, S, discuss the topic of their research and openly explain why the criminal justice system has a particular way of treating gay people. They also admit that additional research is needed to understand why the criminal justice system act in a certain way towards the gay community. Hence would give a new researcher on the idea of what has not be researched to fill the blank pages on the topic.
In conclusion, Ventura, L. A., Lambert, E. G., Bryant, M., & Pasupuleti, S. research on the differences in attitudes toward gays and lesbians among criminal justice and non-criminal justice majors has explained vividly on the matter. Their use of quantitative research design helped them identify the population of participants for their research and how to divide them int groups of age, religion, and educational background. The study was taken ethically and professionally. The researchers omitted to ask the participants if they were gay or lesbians. It would have dented their appearance to participants who viewed the act as immoral and should not be practiced.