The high likelihood of detection by the police, and the deterrent effects of punishment have been seen as forms of crime prevention. But the traditional criminal justice agencies have prevention as a sort of side effect or unintended consequence of their main aim of detection and punishment. And they are, as we have seen in previous lectures, not that efficient. Specific measures aimed at preventing crime have always been around in an everyday sense. Families, schools and communities disapprove of crime and this acts as a form of 'informal social control' People lock their doors and windows against burglars, and perhaps avoid badly lit areas, or certain parts of town, with the intention of reducing the likelihood of victimisation.
Imagine how angry someone would be if they were living in the same neighborhood of a criminal, unaware that they committed a crime. Public awareness has different forms. Currently, parents could title a section in the newspaper labeling what their child did. They also have the option of putting it on the news, so not that one or two people could see, but everybody could. Back during the Scarlett Letter, townspeople didn’t have that option due to the lack of technology.
This is the main reason I do not think the Bloody Code played a part in stamping this out. There are various factors, however, that I believe were a part in stomping out highway robbery. Some clever people did just not want to become a highwayman. This is because of a few factors: houses were built on open land, which made it harder for highwaymen to rob people; people were starting to use banks instead of money, which meant sometimes highwaymen would rob people but they had no money to hand so it was pointless; rewards were being offered to encourage people to catch highwaymen, even if nobody was brave enough there was still a risk that they could be caught and hung and also justices of the peace(JPs) had stop licensing taverns which meant that highwaymen had to find other places to sell their loot. Open land around London was being built on as the population expanded.
Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because of crimal justice. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because the person could run. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because now there are camera's that capture everything we do. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because it is stupid to kill someone just because they stole some property. Another opinion is because some people do not like to kill
I feel some crimes that have taken place in this country could have been stopped or lessened to a degree with a concealed firearm. The government can not ensure the 100 percent safety and wellbeing of all its citizens. For example the school shootings and workplace instances etc that happened in this country. But if there were more responsible law abiding people that had a concealed weapon on them some of these tragedies could have been avoided or at least minimized the damage that those criminals caused saving the lives of others is always a good thing. Criminals are not known for following the rules so all law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by any means needed.
First, he broke the department policy by not video recording the interview which was essential to built a solid case if they had confess in which he claimed the two did. Secondly, he did not have either of the young offenders guardian(s) present which was a grand mistake. Not only did he confess to intentionally crossing the line by avoiding bringing in the parents and including them in the interview he probably is also guilty of coercing them in the confession. According, to the self-incrimination clause it clearly states that any statement made by defendant(s) while in police custody before trail will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney before being questioned, the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, the right to be informed that any statement they do make can
Criminals usually plan out and act upon the scenario in a time when they’re not being followed and during the scenario they are not available; Wiggims was nowhere to be heard of or seen, therefore he is a suspect. As the Chief you are authorized to be in control of society, protect it and follow the higher authorization person(s). The Mayor of Springfield, Quimby, told the Police to “take out Burns,” and clearly chief Wiggims is once against suspected because of his authority as a police offer. The little time before and after the shooting, Chief Wiggims told Jimbo Jones to stay away from the statue near the parking lot (where Mr.Burns was shot near the Simpsons car) because he was loitering and during that time it can be safely assumed that Wiggims had committed the crime, got rid of evidence (jimbo Jones) and may have had some cause to leave bloodstains on the Simpsons car. After all the person who was not at the shooting, and was responsible for the case being Wiggims would be a great idea due to the authority(Chief Wiggims), power(Quimby) and the gun that had made the sound when shot.
“But the Duvitches were marked people.” (3) This prevented them to do what they wished peacefully because where ever they went they would be harassed by the town folk. And that harassment helps to prevent them from feeling free. Moving into a new country is tough, but moving to a place where the community doesn’t accept you is much harder. Even though you are technically free, you can never be free unless you are accepted by the community you move to. This is shown in the short story The Strangers That Came to Town by Ambrose Flack.
When you are convicted of a crime, you are no longer a member of society; therefore, you have no rights". Which most people would think the same thing as this blogger, the only time it is legally correct and should be allowed to take away gun control from citizens is if entering jail, or have a criminal
For instance, you called the police because your husband just assaulted you. This example was used because the mindset that most couples have is that the police should never be called in order to address a domestic violence situation; thus, the victim of this type of violence suffers on a consistent basis. Law-enforcement involvement with minorities is rarely voluntary. Most minorities only call the police as a last resort; therefore, when the police are called the situation is usually out of control. The main reason presented for minority citizens not calling for police assistance is the belief that everyone involved in the situation will be arrested.