The existing facial profiling systems are far from being [Doctoral rule (but good advice for any academic writer)--If not a noun (as in "human being"), the word "Being" is hard to imagine; it means "existing." Try to rewrite this without using "being"--with action words like "attending," "working," "living," "experiencing," simply "as"--or even removing "being" completely] perfect and cause numerous errors. Law enforcement agencies develop effective surveillance procedures, but these procedures imply that any type of personal communication can be subject to legal monitoring. As a result, there is a “possibility of sharing of sensitive private information between several agencies with no safeguards for their future use” (Schwabe, 2003) [Needs page number] . Although surveillance procedures can prevent possible terrorist threats, they can also break citizens’
In other words, each citizen has the right to free speech. He or she is can express him or her self, or criticize the government without the fear of retribution. Freedom of speech is, however, limited to a certain extent. Although this amendment allows a person to protest peacefully, engage in symbolic speech to advertise commercial products, not speak, or use certain offensive words to convey in political messages, there are boundaries to be drawn. Freedom of speech does not include making or distributing obscene materials, instigate or provoke actions that would harm or cause harm to others, or burn draft cards as an anti-war protest (“United States Court,” n.d.).
The magistrates had accepted that common assault had been committed, however the defendant was not charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. As cutting of hair did not itself constitute to ABH. The prosecution appealed. Sir Igor Judge and Creswell J said along the lines of.. Actual bodily harm did not appeal to just the skin, flesh and bones but too all parts of the body whether it was alive or dead. Hair is an important
Although someone could do this to another person’s property, we should still have faith in humanity that we only want to enjoy a free movie or song. Our appreciation for the product doesn’t lessen just because we got it for free. Preventing illegal downloading and copyright would result in no media entertainment on sites like YouTube or Pandora. These sites are allowing media to be enjoyed in a free manner; if we abolished this ability the public would be distraught. It is also a long and complicated process to take someone to court for breaking a copyright law; many cases would and have been brushed off.
The court concluded that the Officer Epps request was not vital in their decision for not granting him the leave, but the relocating of his duties will be disruptive and thereby causing an undue hardship for the small police station. (Great Lakes ADA Center,
If there were stricter gun laws in place how are people suppose to feel safe in their homes. Criminals are called criminals for a reason they do not live their life with respect to laws, they always find a loop hole to get what they want. “Gun free zones do little to protect law-abiding citizens, law abiding citizens do not carry guns in these areas, but criminals do; this will only make soft targets for criminals and increase the chance of violent crimes” (2010). Everyone has a constitutional right to bear arms, and legislation will only be taking away the rights of people to protect themselves. Everything can be posed as a threat not just gun, “In 2013 there have been killing sprees with knives and bombs at the Boston Marathon; three people were killed and 264 were injured when the Tsarnaev brothers set two bombs and a student in Houston
The 2nd amendment states that we as citizens have the right to bare arms and to protect ourselves. Gun control only keeps the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Bad guys will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it is from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun laws won't do much in stopping them. As the saying goes where there's a will there’s a way.
Nowadays there are many offending things out there that nobody is safe from being offended. There are a couple simple things people can do to avoid offensive things if they do not like them. For example, the Pompeii statue, if one doesn’t like to look at this and finds it offensive to oneself, then the simple thing to do is to not go near it and look at it. You don’t have to go to the city and demand it be removed. Simply just avoid the statue.
They cannot take them away. They can, however, put some restrictions on them (gun control laws, for instance). This is not an infringement of the right, it is making an adjustment that will insure the safety of the citizens of this country. The only time it is acceptable to strip someone of their rights is when they are behind bars. When you are convicted of a crime, you are no longer a member of society; therefore, you have no rights".
This way they were able to make more room violent offenders and were able to send off less violent offenders. Inmates being sent to the fire camps have to be non-violent and have to go through a screening process and take a physical. They are then taught to fight fires and to clear debris from flood control basins. The inmates transferred to these camps will be able to earn good time credits and shorten their sentences. An article in LA Times explains, “In the interim, sending inmates to fire camps is the most cost-effective way to curb early releases of inmates, officials said” (Para 11, 2013).