Student Professor English 305 6 November 2009 I Say No To Hate Crime Laws Hate crimes are an irrational, ignorant and cowardly expression of desperation. A person who commits a hate crime is desperate to feel better, superior and in control. That being said, there should not be special laws and mandatory sentences for people who commit these heinous acts of violence because they do not accomplish the goals of eradicating or deterring bigotry. If we, as a society, put special laws and punishments into our legal system, we are unequivocally saying that the motive of these acts is more important than the intent or outcome of these crimes. I do not believe this is true nor do I feel that this is the position of the majority of people in
Other types of risks that BUGusa, Inc. can potentially face without property protection and poor management are: loss in customer trust, penalties for law violations, compliance risk, availability risk, access risk, and more. (Priviti, 2008) B. Discuss in detail what types(s), if any, of civil liability Steve and/or WIRETIME may face if caught. a. BUGusa is facing the issues of their work being stolen and internet hacking. Not to mention WIRETIME is unethical in their actions.
Thinking about it more, I realized that hate-crimes legislation doesn't aim to punish the actual crime, but rather the motive (or thoughts) behind it. That's smacks of being more than a little Orwellian to me, besides being something that's very difficult to prove. If someone is continually spouting hateful speech, there's a pretty good chance you can figure out that their motive for a crime might be related to that hate. But what about someone who doesn't give any
It seems to be a legal blunder that is very straight forward, but becomes a heated debate. It begins with the argument should we prosecute a gamer for stealing via the virtual world? Alex Weiss is correct in saying that prosecution for virtual theft is wrong in the scheme of things, because each player reacts differently to behaviors. Even though a person is a “raider” in a game, it doesn’t make them a criminal in the real world. Weiss opens up his article with, “As a reformed online gaming thief, this ruling makes no sense to me.
He uses logic to set up the article and by posing the analogy “We seem to forget that kids can be as tech-savvy as Bill Gates but as gullible as Bambi,” he introduces a dimension of reasoning to shows that we live in an age of technology and that the child pornography laws are defeated when they are being used to prosecute teens instead of protecting them. The authors tone is strong and opinionated when he includes that “judges and prosecutors need to understand that a lifetime of cyber humiliation shouldn’t be ground for a lifelong real criminal record.” The article concludes with he is opinion on how the situation should be handled, by suggesting that parents should be the one to remind their teens of the potential risks of this trending epidemic. He bluntly mentions that “the criminal-justice system is too harsh of an instrument to resolve a problem that reflects more about the volatile combination of teens and technology than about some national cybercrime
Companies such as this are required not only legally, but ethically to protect the customers’ private information or be held accountable by law. It is also bad practice to allow this sensitive information to be disseminated and stolen by cyber criminals. Since this kind of data must be protected at all costs, certain regulations were put in place so that standards for information security could be monitored. One of these standards is that all personal information is to be encrypted when being sent over the internet and also on the servers. This will make it much harder for the hacker to access the information easily.
Because of the fear of privacy invasion, the different federal agency databases were held on individual agency specific computer systems and were not accessible to anyone, but the owner. Having such a compartmentalized system did not give law enforcement nor intelligence the ability to assist each other in putting together potentially complex terror plots, and often the more sophisticated the terror plot, the more potential for mass killing (White, 2006). Communication is key in all parts of life, and especially important when dealing with such dire consequences. The USA PATRIOT Act, in Title VII, granted the expansion of information sharing systems in order to better facilitate communication between all agencies involved in counterterrorism. This called for the implementation of the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) as a central database for all law enforcement to use (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001).
It's also wrong. While young people must be held accountable for serious crimes, the juvenile justice system exists for precisely that purpose. Funneling more youth into the adult system does no good and much harm. Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn't make it so. Besides, we don't really mean it: When we try them in criminal court, we do not deem them adults for other purposes, such as voting and drinking.
But, is pornography really that harmful? There are many reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the first amendment. Nadine Strossen of the ACLU had a good point when she said "the First Amendment contains no exception for sexual speech.
He was anonymously browsing the web, while provoking other users. It was a very gentle way of cyber-bullying. He sees the cyber-bullying as a problem of course, but also as a problem that can be solved. Nina describes how this type of bullying is the hardest to stop and fight, because in the modern world the Internet is hard not to come by. Most teenagers in a European or western country owns a smartphone or a computer.