Social Policy Paper, Free Example

Stone's definition of equity is founded on his understanding of how equity is important as a value in American society. Equity underlines the vision of the American Foundation as it was stated in the declaration of the nation's independence. That is, all men are equal before the creator and must have equal rights to life, liberty and the quest for happiness. In all the eight examples of equity, three elements of equity are prominent. They include an item, which is being distributed, the method of distribution and the recipients of the items being distributed. Hence, all Stones definition of equity focuses on these three elements. Moreover, Stones definition of equity is categorized into three: membership- based item-based and process-based forms of equity. In membership based form of equity, Stone states that fairness exists when members are fairly invited to share resources in equal slices or when members share the cakes slices equally based on everyones equal rank or merit, for instance, a professor getting more shares than an assistant professor. Finally, it is the equity based on quota system with the intention of reciprocating the existing balance within social or demographic groups (Stone, 2002).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Regarding item-based equity, Stones illustrates that equity exists when people are given an equal share of slices in terms of size, number, quantity and quality. Such form of equity looks beyond the item being provided to an individual thus focusing on the overall experiences of people. Also, it is the definition that defines equity where resources are distributed as per the individual needs of each recipient. Finally, in process-based equity, Stone describes equity to existing where every individual has equal starting opportunity. However, it leads to unequal outcomes. Secondly, it is the situation where every person has an equal statistical chance of receiving any public resources such as funding. Finally is the unequal slice but equal vote definition of equity (Stone, 2002). That is, people have equal rights to vote regardless of who wins or loses. The bottom line is that everyone had an equal chance to vote for his or her choice. Moreover, of all her examples, I think giving recipients resources based on their needs is most equitable. It ensures that every individual has an equal opportunity to progress because he or she has the exact toll required for doing so.

Question 3

Question 3 is a proposed bill that seeks to keep firearms away from dangerous people. The bill advocates for a background check before gun transfer or sale between people that are not licensed gun holders. That is if both the seller and the buyer are not licensed gun owners, then they are required to go to a licensed firearm dealer who then conducts a background check on them before transferring the ownership of the firearm to the buyer. The bill also put exceptions to background checks on gun transfers between families (Mainelegislature, 2016). It is a bill that has attracted mixed views. There are those who are endorsing the referendum supporting the draft law while there are those who are opposed to such proposals. For instance, the Maine Chief of Police Association has supported the voting in favor of the proposed law. Its states that, background checks is the most efficient way of preventing domestic abusers, felons, the mentally sick and other dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms (The Bangor Daily News, 2016).

The current law only allows a gun buyer to buy a firearm only from a federally licensed gun dealer who carries out a background check on the purchaser through the FBI criminal database. Such background checks are not a requirement when purchasing a firearm from a private seller or online merchants. Therefore, a group referred to as Mainers for Responsible Gun Ownership argue that such loopholes allow those who are legally barred from buying firearms to buy them from private sellers. Proponents also claim that the law will reduce gun trafficking in Maine and gun violence.

On the other hand, opponents of the question like Sportsmans Alliance of Maine, feel that the law would interfere with hunting in a state that has low crime rate. Others believe that the proposed law would put the undue burden to those who would want to borrow or lend guns hence making criminals out of ordinary Mainers. They also argue that the law makes it a criminal act to transfer a gun to a child. Finally, the bill would inhibit young adults of the age between 18 and 19 from buying handguns hence it will keep them off from policing (Ballotpedia, 2016). Therefore, opposers of the bill argue that the law will not keep the society safer because many people will the denied access to guns.

Though the issue is complicated, it is necessary for the law making bodies to create an avenue for consensus. Moreover, because the policy is going to affect everyone, it is critical that the effect is equally affected among the residents of Maines. Hence I think the authority should apply the equity of unequal resources but equal value to every recipient. Moreover, I think the proposed law as a policy exercises equity because it demands equal criminal background check regardless of where an individual buys a gun.

References

Mainelegislature.org. Retrieved 7 October 2016, from http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=IB0005&item=1&snum=127

Maine Chiefs of Police Association endorses tightening of gun control laws. (2016). The Bangor Daily News. Retrieved 7 October 2016, from http://bangordailynews.com/2016/09/15/politics/elections/maine-chiefs-of-police-association-endorses-tightening-of-gun-control-laws/

Maine Background Checks for Gun Sales, Question 3 (2016) - Ballotpedia. (2016). Ballotpedia.org. Retrieved 7 October 2016, from https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Sales,_Question_3_(2016)

Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making, revised edition. London and New York, NY: WW Norton and Company.