Nakheel has gone to some efforts to prevent this from occurring by building breakwaters but they would be no match for a vicious tsunami. Unlike other problems, there would be no solution to the destruction of the island and individuals and the government would suffer
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
Even when such issues are present, it doesn’t affect the utilization of reported crime statistics for determining the efficiency of guidelines intended to diminish crime. As long as UCR data remains the only source of geographically disaggregated data on crime, recognizing and calculating the probable causes of policy-related measurement errors in UCR data will be a main focus of research (Levitt, 1998). The purpose of this paper is to only give a very brief overview of the NCVS and the UCR and its problems. The problems of both are so complex a much larger
This law also does not apply to nations that harvest shrimp in seas where sea turtles are not located. The requirements of U.S. Public Law 101-162 must be met annually. On October 8 1996, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand requested consultations with the United States concerning a ban on the importation of shrimp and shrimp products imposed by the United States under Section 609 of U.S. Public Law 101-162. The complainants alleged the United States violated Articles I, XI, and XIII of the GATT 1994, as well as nullification and impairment of benefits. The alleged violations of GATT 1994 by the United States are concerning Articles I, XI, and XIII.
While I don’t agree with worshiping earth, I disagree that Krauthammar completely disregards earth due to the fact that there are natural disasters; his statements are simply not realistic. He states, “My nature worship stops with the April twister that came through Andover, Kans., or the May cyclone that killed more than 125,000 Bengalis and left 10 million homeless.” Granted that the certain views can be taken to an extreme, the earth itself cannot be thought of as just property that can be used and disposed of without having some kind of repercussion due to our actions. One must really think about natural disasters. They are called “natural” for a reason, and have occurred throughout history. The way humans are taking advantage of earth by polluting it and depleting the ozone layer will have an effect in one way or another.
Should the government regulate companies' claims that their products are green? Should official classifications for environmental friendliness be defined? As with any claim, there needs to be a third party who defines the standard. Without a third party to define the minimum requirements to make their claim, any company could go around making claims that their product is the best one, or that it is the “greenest”. Whether or not this needs to a government entity or not is up for debate.
Dillon Searcy, Social Values and the Environment 465, Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. 1993 “Environmental regulations have not uniformly benefited all segments of society” (Bullard, 15). Non-white races such as “African American, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans” must contend with environmental pollution from “byproducts of municipal landfills, incinerators, polluting industries, hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities” (Bullard, 15). “How can environmental justice be incorporated into the campaign for environmental protection? What industrial changes would enable the United States to become a just and sustainable society?
Recycling Should Be Mandatory Non-biodegradable waste poses a great challenge to environment conservation efforts. This is simply because this kind of waste does not decompose naturally leaving profound effects on the environment. The lack of a proper disposal mechanism puts the world at a poor position in as far as environment conservation is concerned. This calls for government intervention through regulations to revamp the campaign for both the preservation and conservation of Mother Nature. Disposal techniques such as burning and using dumpsites only push the environment further down the drain (Logomasini, 1); since such waste disposal methods bring about environmental concerns as well.
What it comes down to is if one believes recycling is good for the environment and is ethical, or if the bad outweighs the good and recycling is bad and unethical. The part of the world that is for recycling argues that recycling protects the environment, recycling creates sustainable use of resources, and recycling creates green jobs and opportunities to make money off recycling. People who are against recycling argue that contamination is easily spread, recycling is too expensive and that the recycling process produces a lot of pollutants. While there are many good things that can come from recycling, there is also a dark side. During the recycling process contamination is very, easily spread.
Deviance is not breaking the law like crime; it is moving away from a set of standards established by society the social norms. It varies from physical characteristics to peoples beliefs; for example a tribal tattoo on the face of a Maori is deemed the norm in New Zealand but in the UK it would be deemed deviant. Deviance is not always seen as a bad act, as is a crime. It is possible to deviate in a constructive way for example fathers for justice protested to have equal rights in which they were successful. All crime is deviant but not all deviance is crime.