Sex offenders who are tried in a court of law; found guilty of their accused crime and serve out their time in jail should not then have this horrendous, life-changing experience topped with having their names and addresses being publicly listed under this harsh label for the rest of their lives. The minimal information stated on this register does not include the nature of the crime committed, only the ‘textbook’ conviction; allowing far-reaching conclusions to be drawn in the minds of the public. What chance are we giving any person of reform or allowing them to move on from what would not be a proud moment of their lives by making public this list? Why do these people, above anyone else, deserve to be estranged and how is the reprimand of jail time not punishment enough? Australia’s justice system is concerned with rehabilitating those who have done wrong and preventing them from re-offending.
The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures. (Woodfin, 2009) In addition, there are already several exceptions to requiring a warrant, such as “stop-and-frisk”, airport and school searches, voluntary searches, and emergency situations (Scheb, 2008) While these arguments supported the continued use of the exclusionary rule, there are also many argue against its value to our criminal justice system. One of the most
Every report of abuse is often met with denial or explanation of why the abuse was necessary instead of taking any real action like a suspension or removal of their badge in most cases. Police departments seem to be paying more money defending themselves in court than on proper training of their police officers. Each precinct has their own, yet similar set of rules and regulations when it comes to use of force, as we learned from out two officer speakers. According to our San Diego precincts, the only time they are to use deadly force is when they, or civilians are in a life threatening situations. There are many examples of excessive force that will examine what’s being done to address the issue.
All of the prosecution’s witnesses would have been difficult, if not impossible to track down for the new trial. To allow a retrial, while granting the defendant a legal right, would presumably let a guilty man walk free. Heffernan was struggling between the moral issues he was presented, and maximizing the legal advantages he held. After all a prosecutor’s decision to challenge a defendant’s appeal is usually enough to guarantee that a conviction is upheld. Whether or not this man was punished and remained in jail was up to the prosecution.
Within the last decade alone, vehicle pursuits have become the leading concern to law enforcement agencies throughout the country; the liability issues, and negative media attention sparking much of the concern for these actions. The only problem is there no simple method for avoiding or preventing all pursuits. Some occur when a suspect flees from the scene of a crime, while others are already speeding subjects who refuse to stop. Preventable or unpreventable, police pursuits have their arguments for and against; they have new techniques and tools to help prevent, and court rulings in favor of and limiting future chases. The arguments for police pursuits remain few and simple.
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics Chad Lomax ADJ/235 07/05/2011 Rebecca Sanchez-Roig There are many conflicts between the formal law enforcement code of ethics and the police subculture. Police officers are sworn to not take part in any corrupt actions. When this happens other officers do not report the actions and stand with those corrupt officers. The officers have sworn to only use force when absolutely necessary yet there are many cases where suspects are beaten and injured while being arrested by over-aggressive officers. Other officers will cover up these actions when filing reports.
In Arizona they tried immigration enforcement. Other individual acts of discrimination could be when the criminal has already been detained and is already in handcuffs as well. There is always one officer that ruins the reputation of a department or agency. The best way to handle this is confront the situation to the leader of the investigation or talk to the current supervisor. Putting a stop to this behavior will not just help the department but correct any kind of other bad behavior
The prosecution, the judge and the defendant all benefit when defense counsel performs in the way the Constitution envisions. The broken public defense system in our State doesn't have to be like this. It can and must be fixed. As a result of these deficiencies, many individuals facing criminal charges are compelled to appear in court without a lawyer at critical junctures, such as when bail decisions are made. This often results in unnecessary or excessive bail being set and keeps people who cannot afford it in jail awaiting trial Many public defense lawyers also fail to: meet or consult with clients at critical stages in their cases; investigate the charges against their clients or hire experts who can assist with case preparation or testify at trial; file necessary pre-trial motions; and provide meaningful consultation before clients accept plea bargains, regardless of whether a charge is appropriate or a viable defense exists.
My biggest mistake was thinking that it was okay to not have my equipment because it was not issued. I should have taken it upon my self and notified my team leader that due to the fact. That I had recently in-processed this unit and had not gotten all of my supply issued items, that I did not have my equipment. Had I done this I could have possibly been prepared for training, because my Team Leader may have had the equipment for me to use so that I could train properly. Another reason that having your proper equipment is so important is because if today was a real world situation in combat then If we had pulled up to an intersection where a possible VBIED had been then by having my whistle I would have been able to follow the proper procedures for escalating my levels of force because without my whistle I would have not followed the rules of engagement properly which could have resulted in me getting an Article 15 because I did not follow the standard operating procedures.
Should the officer be fired or demoted or should said officer just be reprimanded with no repercussions? Both choices could solve the problem and both could be morally correct but there are other factors to take into consideration. Firing or demoting the officer could induce moral problems within the department and just reprimanding the officer could appear to be a sign of weakness. It takes a strong moral character and conviction to make such decisions and balance the consequences of those decisions. Individual versus community is another situation that criminal justice administrators must face.