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? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same extent? If not, you're making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the problem is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any one group, but to protect all
They did not follow the proper procedures for the offense when terminating some employees. Management also disregarded the Merit Rule for dismissal supported by just cause. Before DelDOT management took the actions that they did with all employees involved, they should have consulted with their human resources department. Human resources should have told the managers the proper way to proceed with the disciplinary actions to all involved. They could have explained to the managers that immediate termination is not the proper form of discipline for the offenses mentioned.
Every conflict has its significant implications on administrative and departmental officer procedures. The mainly problem that always occurring is the physical brutality, which the main goal is to get the police department to enforce and adopt a written policy. However, polices limiting actions will bring most of debate especially from the police officers themselves. “Many feel that their firepower is already too weak to battle the weapons criminals have on the streets, and limiting their legality of gun use will not only endanger them, but the innocent bystanders who must endure the hierarchy gun power creates in the benefit of criminals.” (Bouza, Anthony. 1990) It’s necessary to ask help from the superior officers so that a tolerance of brutality will not establish.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
An example of the state committing an unjust act against the individual was evidenced in the recent Troy Davis case. Even if Davis was guilty, there was enough doubt for the state to delay his execution in order to determine the best course of action to take. This is just one widely recognized example, there might be many more examples of unjust acts committed by the state. Should for some reason Troy Davis had been broken out of prison against the will of the state, once again Socrates would not justify this. It's situations such as this that makes me not believe in legal obligation to the extent which Socrates does where it's almost absolute.
There are many reasons I don’t believe in the death penalty. For one thing, I don’t believe it helps the survivors, who grieve. Executions in my view focus more on revenge then anything and doest even focus on healing. If anything it makes another family go through what the victim’s family went though. Why would anyone willingly want to do that to another person?
Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
It is because of the gross misinterpretations of this law that prevents all involved from getting a fair trial as in the Alexander, Giles and Landry cases. It encourages unlawful behavior with a crutch for assailants to lean on just like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn. It also undermines this country's law enforcement and judicial system. Sadly, it rips justice away from victims' families. While I do not personally feel the Stand Your Ground law should be abolished, I am adamant that the law needs to be revised.
The face of Criminal Justice and its laws has forever been changed, largely in part due to the KKK. Had Congress and Politicians been able to foresee what effect the KKK would have on the US and set in place measures to stop them before they became powerful, would the hate crimes and hate groups of today be as prominent? There will always be hatred in the world. There will always be people, groups, and organizations that do not agree or accept certain lifestyles, religions, races, and ethnicity. Perhaps though, had the KKK and those that
Unfortunately, this will not go away in the future. Therefore, hate crimes will continue to be a part of our society. Much has been done to prevent hate crimes, but, much more needs to be done. Police agencies need more training and better policies. Victims need more assistance and communities need to be made safer.