Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome. This can be done by using critical thinking. Does the end justify the means? “The cost is that the exclusionary rule (cost to society) keeps evidence from the jury and makes it more difficult and more impossible to obtain a conviction (because of the loss of the evidence or the necessity of a retrial)” (Cost Benefit Analysis To The Exclusionary Rule, 2011). When officer conduct a search of a person’s house without following proper procedure the evidence that is obtained may not be admissible in court, the result is criminals go free.
Many believe that a government without limits will turn into a government that acts in ways that will disregard the rights of all in all circumstances (Zalman, M. (2008). Those who support the crime control model, however, indicate that these protections hinder law enforcement investigation and allow defendants more privacy than victims are allowed “Crime control emphasizes an efficient criminal process through early determination of guilt by law enforcement agents” and the Fourth Amendment prevents this (Cornell,
Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity. All these points are valid, but they are forgetting about the rights of people and what they stand for. I would think people would want defendants to be punished fairly and not have an opening, where they could possible get their case dropped because of something illegal done on the prosecution or law enforcement
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
In a country full of violent crime, the United States continues to embody the gun as integral to it's protection and culture. While the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants the people the right to bear arms, the people must on the contrary protect themselves from those who bear them. In my view, guns give people a false sense of security and are more of a nuisance than a benefit. Guns are a threat to the peace and safety of society. Therefore, since it is unlikely that all guns will disappear in the United States, legislation must be enacted to ban and cease the further manufacture of the types of firearms involved in more violent crime than all others; handguns and assault-weapons.
Since law enforcers are not enough to ensure safety for every citizens, citizens should be allowed to protect themselves. Opponents of gun control like NRA also argue that gun control policies are for authoritarian models of government like the Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (Rogers, 2013). These are governments that disarm the population due to the fear of being overthrown due to their bad governance and violation of human rights. Therefore, democrats should not be afraid of being overthrown by disarming citizens if they respect human
This is just another example of people putting the blame where it doesn’t belong. In conclusion carrying a gun doesn’t make you a killer it make you a person who can only be persuaded through reason and not through force. And, by banning the sale and position of handguns you are only making people easier targets for mugger and thieves. And only a government that is doing something that its people would not agree with would want to ban an item that the common person uses to protect
How would you feel if your loved one was executed and later on found innocent? If you capture and execute the wrong person, you cannot bring the victim back to life. While if you capture the wrong person and put them in prison, to later on find this person innocent you can set them free. As you can see Capital punishment is not an effective
However a weakness of the upbringing approach is that it can be considered a reductionist because it ignores biological causes of crime. This can be seen in Sutherland’s theories as he presents one theory, ‘criminal behaviour is learnt’, and Sutherland believes that criminals’ behaviour isn’t inherited or as a result of any other biological condition, ‘without prior influence people are incapable of inventing behaviour’. This theory provides a good explanation for certain types of violent crime, but it cannot be applied to crimes
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.