Police Powers in the Public Services P1 – describe the difference between arrest with and without a warrant M1 – explain the requirements of lawful arrest and detention D1 – evaluate the powers of arrest, detention and search There is a legal right that allows UK citizens to arrest another person. This law is given under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), 1984. In order to carry out a citizen’s arrest, there are certain rules that say when you can and cannot make an arrest. If you have suspicions that someone has committed a crime, these suspicions are not enough, no matter how strong they are. You could find yourself getting into trouble with the police if you carry out an arrest that is incorrect.
Describe the potential tension between maintaining an individual’s confidentiality and disclosing concerns There are some situations when confidentiality needs to be breached to report information to a higher authority. The disclosure of private and personal information should only take place when: ▶ withholding the information is likely to threaten the safety and wellbeing of others ▶ a crime has been, or is likely to be committed. It is my responsibility to check the policy and procedure at my place of work about disclosure of confidential information, in order to be clear about how to act and who to contact should the need arise. Speak to a senior person within or outside of my work setting who is able to act on the information appropriately. It is a mistake to think this is only a matter for senior
University of Phoenix Material: Robin Mravik Ethical Dilemma Worksheet Incident Review 1. What is the ethical issue or problem? Identify the issue succinctly. | The law enforcement officials did suspect that the individual was driving under the influence and thus becoming a risk to himself and everyone else around him. Before the law enforcement officer can make an arrest there has to be a clear sign of probable cause if an officer neglects to find probable cause before arresting the individual when the trial comes along, the case will be dismissed in court and the offender will walk away free.
The major premise of his argument is that “the display of swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” Thus, though he regrets that the students involved behaved in this fashion, Bok claims that censorship is dangerous and goes against the value of communication and American principles of democracy. He concludes his argument by suggesting that instead of enforcing codes, and thus violating the right to free speech, it would be better either to ignore such communications or to speak with those who perform insensitive acts. Rhetorical analysis Derek Bok organizes his argument by first describing the problem, then presenting both sides of approaches to resolving it, and finally explaining his personal stand on the issue. The rhetorical structure of such approach allows Bok present the argument fairly by conceding to the proponents of speech code enforcement that display of Confederate flags or swastikas is indeed insensitive and offensive. This pattern of organization also allows Bok to distinguish between the
In this study the author uses an approach that should be followed with regard to “how-to” crime manuals. It is proposed that if the material serves information to its audiences about methods to committing a crime and/or methods on how not to get caught and if so, the material is lacking serious political, scientific, or literary value, then the material should be classified as criminogenic and stripped of the First Amendment protection. Inductive logic is when you begin with some data and then determine what general conclusions can be logically derived from the information. In this study the example used would be the example of the Casey Anderson case. You could conclude that Casey used the information off the internet on how to make chloroform and used it to murder her child.
Do you prosecute that as a hate-crime, just because it might be? One group of people is now getting special treatment under the law. That sounds lot like discrimination to me, which isn't how this country is supposed to work. Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups?
Down with the Patriot Act The Patriot Act is a very controversial law. It allows the government much more room to do as they please. Some of these practices that government officials can do are monitoring phone calls, emails, and going through personal records. They say this will help prevent terrorism, but is losing one’s privacy really worth it? Could there be a better way to prevent terrorism?
Though in the attempts to obtain security, the people of the United States are giving up their freedoms and others are having those same freedoms taken away from them. The pursuit of stopping terrorism has taken precedence over an individuals civil rights. Surveillance has increased in attempts to catch terrorists. Under the USA Patriot Act which is the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," police agencies are given the authority to conduct Internet and expanded telephone surveillance, as well as loosen the restrictions placed on the C.I.A in the 1970's to engage in domestic surveillance. The Patriot act presents a broadened definition of terrorism, and provides some level of detention of suspected terrorists as
The ones that are against racial profiling have thought of an alternative solution, which is behavioral profiling. Behavioral profiling, hence the name, means to base the law enforcers' suspicion according to that person’s behavior instead of race. With this more effective system, it balances our protection from both terrorism and violating someone’s civil rights. One reasonable example on why we shouldn’t racial profile is the popular bomber in United Kingdom, Richard Reid, who doesn’t fit the profile that they have created for terrorists. Individuals have also made good arguments about the negative outcome that racial profiling might bring to our society.
If the matters continue to be disregarded, the government would then face threats on their own accountability to the people and their right to rule. As mentioned earlier, this ironically may become a threat to the securitisation of human security issue as well. With regards to domestic pressure, if the human security threat raised is only faced by a minority group or a group with less power in the state yet it benefits the majority or a group with power — the state would then face the need to strike a balance between both