CRITIQUE This week in Module 6 we discussed the Consensus Perspective. The Consensus Perspective is a concept which states "that most members of society agree on what is right and wrong

and that the various elements of society-including institutions such as churches, schools, government agencies, and businesses-work together toward a shared vision of the greater good" (Schmalleger, n.d.). The key flaw with this theory is its complete generalization of societal opinion and institutional role. Of the four principles, the third in particular, "all persons are equal under the law.... the law not only embodies a shared view of justice but also is perceived to be just in its application" exemplifies the flawed macro view (Schmalleger, n.d.). The law is not just in its application. Those who are in charge of preaching the law only preach and abide by what benefits them and their clients. Nearly any case involving race is a perfect example. Take the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"; while considered a legal principle and not a law, it is rarely the followed principle. Most are considered guilty until proven innocent with presumptions made based on racial and ethnic identifiers not on the presented evidence as seen with many police brutality cases. Those who are supposed to be enforcing the law are only doing so to their perspective and morals which is a direct conflict to the statement "that most members of society agree on what is right and wrong" as presented by the Consensus Perspective (Schmalleger, n.d.). Grouping all persons into a state of equality in terms of law is a false blanket statement that leaves too much room for interpretation and allows perspectives respective to those prosecuting to take precedence over evidence. Perhaps in a society where there was no bias, no diversity, and no culture-mixing would the Consensus Perspective be applicable; however, in today's modern world a view as such is no longer completely valid.