It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
This is why it is very imperative that the citizens should learn about their government. Not knowing how the government works could really affect the lives of many citizens. If citizens did not know about the democratic and the republican. Without government and laws, people would run wild over society. The purpose of government is to maintain order and prevent social chaos.
Today the dominate version of the control theories is the social control theory. This theory was created by Travis Hirschi, who took a different approach in his theory. He didn’t ask why a person commits crime; instead, he asked why a person doesn’t commit crime. The social control theory states that all people have the potential to be law breakers, but most people choose to stray from breaking the law because of the potential damage it could do to the personal bonds in their lives. If they break the law, they fear that the bonds they have with their family, friends, church, and employer will be broken.
Gun casualties and incidents throughout the country have woken the public up from its ignorance and shown them the danger guns can pose to society (Martinez, 2013). While some people want a complete blanket ban on the ownership of guns, others wants an easier access to guns so that every person may look after their own security. Part of what makes the term gun control a very controversial topic is that it’s used in a ambiguous way that does not explain the details of the issue and the demands, apart from literally controlling guns. The two prominent sides of the debate are the groups who ask for liberal gun laws that make it easier for a person to procure guns and conversely, there are groups who want to repeal the second amendment. I personally am a strong believer that an “ideal society” should have no guns; nevertheless crime is a big problem to the citizens of our society and guns are necessary.
The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges. Basically one wrong moved can make us lose a suspect of a horrible crime if we are not careful. Law enforcement just need to be cautious so they are doing their jobs correct, and setting a person free will get them into trouble (cjlf.org, 2011). When we are identifying the exclusionary rule it is a great rule to have so police have to stop and think. Police have to think before they search because it could cost them a lot if they just do what they want.
One of the major points against gun control is the violation of your second amendment rights, you have the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection. This paper will show there is no common sense in banning all firearms as a means gun control and it leaves law abiding citizens increasingly vulnerable to violent crimes. No Common Sense in Gun Control Over the past forty years, legislators have spent a lot of time, effort and revenue on legislation regarding gun control. Gun control advocates insist that increased gun control will lower the soaring crime rates of the early 70's. However, “recent research on the prevalence of defensive gun use has prompted growing concern that government efforts to regulate gun ownership and use may be counterproductive” (Ludwig, 2000, p. 363).
One of the most common arguments deals with respecting the Constitution. Racial profiling should be eliminated in routine traffic stops because it leads to a violation of civil rights, poor relationships between police officers and citizens, and decreased urban safety. Racial profiling violates citizens’ rights in a few different ways. The fourth amendment reads, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”, as recited by West Des Moines’ police captain, Scott Wiegert. A traffic stop on the basis of race violates the fourth amendment because the officer can make the victim feel violated instead of secure.
Gun control ENG/102 8/11/10 Brian Kevin Gun control 1 Introduction: Gun control advocates have cried foul, because of the Supreme Court 2010 ruling they believe will damage the chances gun control laws to reduce crime. While many people consider gun control to be too restrictive, advocates are of the mind that we should remove all the guns, at all cost. The Supreme Court ruling has mandated that state and city governments have no choice but to respect the Second Amendment of their citizens. While the ruling does not completely abolish current gun restrictions, it does weaken the ability of the local government to
However this right has been abused when guns fall in the hands of senseless murders, robbers, mentally unstable individuals, etc. which generates issues of the debate about gun control in recent years. Republicans and Democrats both stand behind our right protected by the Second Amendment nevertheless we need control over the gun laws. Republicans fully stands behind citizens right to guns, just the same as democrats they believe in regulation to keep down violence levels but philosophy they go against anything that inconveniences constitutional right of gun owners. Democrats in no way wish to undermine the right to the second amendment but do wish to establish strong laws to who can and cannot bear a gun for example restricting guns to be issued in the hands of previous criminals, stalkers, person going under mental services, background checks for gun sales, etc.
This was then said to be justified because the car was on public streets so the fourth amendment doesn’t apply. The court of appeals denied the argument implying that you can’t track a person’s movements for an extensive amount of time, because the government would gather more information about your everyday life, then just the location of the car. The Constitution is potentially violated in this case because the use of privacy-invading technologies. Providing the courts with all the evidence reveals this case as an unconstitutional search. This illustrates the conflict between the freedom of individual privacy and the order from the government’s political values.