That is essentially telling the victim that it is their fault. This could lead to the victim not testifying if the person who committed the rape is found and it goes to trial. Everyday Ethical values are called into question by the men and women of law enforcement and it is up to them to overcome as it is part of their job. Sometimes they slip and get away with breaking their ethics but eventually they will get caught and will end up in the same prisons that they have promised to put criminals
According to Dunn he fired the shots because “he felt threatened.” His attorney, Robin Lemonidis, says: “It will be very clear that Mr. Dunn acted very responsibly and as any responsible firearms owner would have acted under these circumstances.” Firing 8-9 shots at a car of four unarmed teenagers listening to music doesn’t sound responsible to me. This is a clear example for racial profiling against African Americans. Even though Dunn was found guilty of first degree murder is still doesn’t make it right. Some might say justice was served but in some cases that it such as in, the Trayvon Martin case
( Economist) “Pressure for a change in the law came after an official inquiry into the murder in 1993 of Stephen Lawrence, a black London schoolboy, found that the principle of double jeopardy would cause “grave injustice to victims and the community” (Economist). The fear that the new rules would be abused and taken advantage of have been tightly defined (Economist). Only the serious crimes can be reviewed—such as murder, rape, and armed robbery (Economist). “Any new investigations must be sent through the Director of Public Prosecution.
Taking away people’s right to own firearms, as Dwyer notes, is a calculated move aimed at leaving the people with no free will. Americans are no longer safe because Liberalism and its ideologies has done away with the safety measures that were aimed at keeping criminals in jail, deporting illegal migrants who are known for their unlawful activities and ensuring that mental patients remain in hospitals. These people are now freely loaming the streets, endangering people’s lives and instead of preventing and stopping this from happening, the government is only keen at imposing the gun-control law on law-abiding citizens. Crime rates are rising, many people have died in the recent years and people need to protect themselves from these criminals but with the gun control laws, no one will be
Here you have people that are taking punishment within their own hands and nothing could be done because that was allowed. From this, we have the vigilante aspect that people think they can go around and take justice into their hands and have no consequence to them. In terms of Government, they are creating the laws but sometimes just do not seem to work with the policing of America. The relationship with police and government is ongoing and will continue to be. The police go to the state for funding for programs and they get turned away, laws are being created that the police have to enforce even if they do not agree with that the law is.
The proponents for banning guns, and the defensive use of a gun, cannot show any proof of taking banning guns will slow the crime rate with tighter gun laws. I’m all for strict and tough enforcement of gun laws that prohibit criminals from using them in the commission of a crime (cite, Blanks 1990) Because if they (criminals) feel they can take advantage of individuals or families who are consider unarmed. These are individual and families are easy prey for them. The criminals will not hesitate to harm or
Another argument against the restorative approach is that it is too soft for some crimes and will it be too hard when applied to less serious crimes? These are the arguments in favor to as well as against the more “just desserts”. When the world is full of crime and it seems like there is nothing that the government can do to protect innocent individuals, restorative approaches are the furthest thing from my mind personally. When crimes are committed against innocent people and they get a simple slap on the risk punishment like ten years in jail with a possibility of parole for accidentally killing someone it disturbs me. For example, here in North Carolina, there was a woman who was clearly out of her mind that decided to give her five year old daughter up for prostitution in order to pay off a drug debt (Netter 2009).
Efforts to fight crime are best served by focusing on the criminal element and not with gun control legislation. Criminals should know that when they break the law there will be swift apprehension, prosecution, and punishment. Research is beginning to prove laws do not reduce the amount of violent crime in our society. Gun laws have only succeeded in disarming the law-abiding and making the criminal's work environment safer (Unfocused 1). Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Neal Knox told the subcommittee on criminal law of the United States Senate, "Gun laws fail because they do not address the issue.
Also the defense will ask for a change of venue to help with juries with believing someone is innocent. This defense attorney is determining to keep people innocent until they are proven guilty. He does not want someone who is innocent to have their name slander. He is an attorney for DUI cases which is kind of pretty hard to prove their innocent. This criminal law website is determined to keep people who are under investigation or have already been arrested, to keep their record clean and out of jail.
Trying to find employment in today’s economy is hard enough, but add a felony to that and it makes it 10 times as hard. Without jobs, convicted felons often look to get public assistance and taxpayer’s help. They lose many of their rights and privileges and are often judged beforehand. Almost all employers today conduct a background check upon hiring. They are hesitant to hire felons because of their past and their criminal record; they don’t want to take that chance.