And although Savant makes a persuasive argument, he fails to tell both sides of illegal immigration. Both the good and bad. In his article “Imagining the Immigrant” writer John J. Savant give his opinion on the topic of immigration. Savant starts by giving examples of detectives and therapist, and how they must put themselves into other people’s shoes; metaphorically speaking, and use their imagination to fully understand a situation. “Imagination… can lead to moral clarification.”(1) Savant believes that we must try to imagine why an illegal immigrant chooses to come illegally before we make a judgment call.
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
One has a moral |Morality is a misleading concept, varies from person to person, | |responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” –by Dr Martin Luther King Jr in |basing laws on morality would mean imposing someone’s moral views and| |1963, the importance of morality in man’s actions even if the man might |values upon others, especially about sexuality –gay marriage etc | |have to stand against laws, morality is more important than legality |(Chappell). | |(Brinkley). |Which vision of morality will be enforced and by what sort of | |“Why would we outlaw rape and murder if they were not wrong?” (Chappell) |government –creates conflicts (Watson). | |Morality is a social phenmenon and it reflects the values and judgements |The domains of law and morality are different –law cannot be used in | |of public. Therefore basing the law on morality would favor the public’s |minor moral issues (Chappell).
Few men with all the power 1. They may help us, or they may enslave us c. Yes, there was a small uprising in one of the states but it did not spread, and it was taken care of. i. Doubtful of a full blown revolution d. Feels that the Articles of Confederation should be given more of a chance 4. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison Confront the Need for a Bill of
The Unjust of Just law Ethics 110 22 Jun 2010 In a democratic state it is in never within our rights to break the law. Breaking the law leads to lawlessness and disobedience from the democracy that we have worked, or have been born into. If the law is unjust, then it might be fair to break that law as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of punishment set aside for that particular unjust law. Failure to adhere to the punishment is unjust as well, for failure to adhere to the punishment of the law is a statement that you do not respect the laws of your society. Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement.
Does the life of one person really boil down to stereotypes, racial profiling or can we actually 1oo% say without a doubt that this person knows important information that may or may not have the potential to put civilians at risk? Even after the fact, how can we be sure whatever comes out of the victims mouth is reliable info? What use is it if it’s not even admissible in court, because it wouldn’t be. I thought our end goal was to put the prisoner in jail. Where do our true intentions lie?
Whenever this law is being used as a defense there should be an extensive investigation into the case in order to root out if it was really self defense or not. This would eliminate cases like the Martin case, where the accused “attackers” were actually the real victims. Nothing is more valuable than human life. Citizens must be able to protect themselves without fear that self-defense will be legally problematic. The Stand Your Ground Law allows for this.
One of the reasons given against King George of England for the American Revolution was that he refused to allow the American Colonies the benefits of jury trial. The ideal purpose of a jury trial is that an accused person is given the opportunity to convince a group of his or her peers regarding his or her innocence. So, the same values that the accused cherishes are held by the jurors. Katz states that the
It must be the work of personal agencies; in other words, it must not be the natural consequence of an action. 5. It must be imposed by an authority or an institution against whose rules the offense has been committed. If this is not the case, then the act is not one of punishment but is simply a hostile act. Similarly, direct action by a person who has no special authority is not properly called punishment, and is more likely to be revenge or an act of hostility.” http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5144_Banks_II_Proof_Chapter_5.pdf When using a theoretical approach to the question of why we punish criminals, the same source raises the issues of: • They deserve to be punished.
Classical criminology grew out of a reaction against the barbaric system of law, justice and punishment that was in existence before 1789. It sought an emphasis on free will and human rationality. The Classical School was not interested in studying criminals, but rather law-making and legal processing. Crime, they believed, was activity engaged in out of total free will and that individuals weighed the consequences of their actions. Punishment is made in order to deter people from committing crime and it should be greater than the pleasure of criminal gains.