Sociology

1) Galanter analyzes the procedure of the legal system by looking at parties down to the rules. The main argument of Galanter revolves around the idea that rules and the corresponding legal system that interprets and applies is neutral and its decision is actually dependent upon the parties that are involved. In this sense, the differences in the size, state of law, resources, and actors that utilizes the court play a pivotal role in the outcomes of judicial processes. The respective claims of the one-shot and repeat-player parties as well as the corresponding costs and benefits that they have also affect judicial decisions. One-shot and repeat players can also be observed outside the legal system wherein the one-shot players usually pertain to individuals that do not have the same resources as the repeat players they are most composed of large corporations (Galanter, 1974).

2.) Being a repeat player has its respective advantages. First, they have the advance intelligence. Second, they have the necessary expertise and access to specialist. Third, repeat players have the opportunities to enhance informal relations with institutional incumbents. Fourth, repeat players need to establish and maintain their reputation as combatant acts as resource in establishing commitment to their bargaining positions. Fifth, repeat plays can play the odds. Sixth, they can play for the rules but still acquire immediate gains. Seventh, they can play for rules in litigation. Lastly, they can distinguish rules that can penetrate and those that are only symbolic commitments. Ninth, they can invest in resources that will assure penetration (Galanter, 1974).

3.)  One-shot and repeat players confront each other in litigations such as Prosecutor v. Accused, Finance Co. v. Debtor, Landlord v. Tenant, I.R.S. v. Taxpayer, and Condemnor v. Property Owner. In these cases the law is applied for routine processing of claims by parties, which make such claims in a regular business activity and most of these cases are settled informally. On the other hand, cases such as Welfare Client v. Agency, Auto Dealer v. Manufacturer, Injury Victim v. insurance Company, Bankrupt Consumer v. Creditors, and Defamed v. Publisher the one-shot player has minimal interest in the state of law while the repeat players is greatly interested. The outcome is closely directed to possible litigation (Galanter, 1974).

Distinguish between the consensus perspective and the conflict perspective
Consensus perspective explains that individuals in a society conform on the basic value that distinguishes inherently right from wrong. As a result, the laws that are created in the society, such as the one established in the United States of America exemplifies the values that the American people adhere to. The Consensus Theory is rooted way back in history. In general, the society conforms on the idea of what is right and wrong, which is why the creation of laws serves the very purpose of preventing and prohibiting wrong or deviant behavior. The Consensus Theory can also be rooted from the concept of the social contract wherein independent individuals agree to give up a certain portion of their freedom in order to form a society that will safeguard the security of the larger population. In relation to this, social solidarity is also caused by the shared values of the society, which is referred to as collective conscience. In the Consensus Perspective, punishment is recognized as a way in order to restore social order (Mensh, 1998).

On the other hand, the Conflict Perspective regards the law as a way in order to maintain the status quo. The supporting evidence in this kind of adage usually involves the framers of the United States Constitution wherein those people are socially, politically, and economically powerful men. Contrary to the Consensus Perspective, the Conflict Theory perceived punishment as a means in order to control the lower class and maintain the power of the upper class. The social division argument of the Conflict Perspective is mostly observed during the nineteenth century wherein the society was divided into the small ruling class, a middle-sized class of artisans, and a large class of peasants. The laws that were implemented during those times were perceived to have the main purpose of keeping uprising under control. Generally, the Conflict Perspective explains the way by which laws protect the interests and values of the dominant groups in the society (Mensh, 1998).    

Minority Overrepresentation and Legal Theory
The American Criminal Justice System is characterized by the fact that minority groups are overrepresented in prison population as compared with their white counterparts. This is proven by the evidence that in 2005, 66 of the State and Federal inmates were Black or Hispanic. In line with this, legal theories can be able to explain this kind of phenomenon that is happening in the criminal justice of the country, specifically the theory of Thurman Arnold.

According to the theory of Thurman Arnold, law was an effective dissuader to protest (Hyde, 1983). Arnold argues the function of law is not to guide the society but rather to comfort. He believes that it is through the notion of a rule of law that people learned to accept things as they are. In a practical point of view, he asserts that law is the greatest instrument of social stability because it provides them the necessary avenue to express their yearnings. The sentiments of the underprivileged can have official approval without the involvement of any specific action, which might affect the existing status quo (Hyde, 1983). Moreover, Arnold also points out that not all norms can be legitimated by means of legal decision because legal norms are dependent upon substantive values that are already recognized by the population (Hyde, 1983).

In relation to the theory of Thurman Arnold, it can be understood the law applied to the convicted minority groups has a substantive legitimacy wherein it is dependent upon the accepted values of the population. In this kind of law, the norms of the people play a huge effect in the decisions given by the court. There are instances that the behavior of minorities contradicts the accepted norms of the majority of the population, which result for them to actually defy or disobey the laws which are grounded upon the norms of the majority. Furthermore, despite the fact that the justice system, specifically the courts are perceived as an avenue for the underprivileged to express their sentiments, it should be pointed out that in the theory of Arnold the status of the power-holders in the society should be preserved and this directly applies to the majority of the population. Being the case, the dominance of the majority, especially in the adherence of their norms and values in the society play a pivotal role in the processes of the criminal justice systems that also resulted to higher convictions for minority groups.