This classification makes sense because if crime is caused by terrorists; terrorist will cause crimes. If the majority of minorities are in prisons, then people of color will end up in prison. On the opposing side of racial profiling, many minorities feel that it is a form of racial discrimination that only hurts the good image law enforcement upholds. For example, the California Highway Patrol has recently been taken to court for the misuse of racial profiling. Therefore, a compromise must be made because it would be ideological to believe that there can be a government that bans the use of racial identification.
Death penalty VS Life in prison By Colin Robertson “Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty... mine's putting in an express lane.” – Ron White The death penalty, as it is commonly referred, is the penalty sometimes given to the criminals faced with the most horrific crimes possible. Many feel it is necessary in order to keep society safe because of how it permanently removes these select people from society, feeling that this will keep them safe from danger. It has been a part of the justice system since the beginning of human history, used primarily in cases of murder, treason and in military service, but just because something is old, doesn’t mean it’s what is right. The last several centuries have seen the emergence of modern nation states. Almost obvious to the concept of nation state is the idea of citizenship.
History Controlled Assessment. Why has 9/11 had a lasting significance on the fight against terrorism? In the past we have always had a problem with terrorism; There have been bombings in many different countries like Kenya, Beirut, Lebanon, Iran and Tanzania. These bombings happened because the US positioned troops out in the countries near holy sites and embassies for protection but some people didn’t like it, like Osama Bin Laden, and decided to act on it resulting in the attack of 911. Another act of terrorism was the ‘Klu Klux Klan’ who were a group of white people who did not agree with the slave trade being abolished so they would commit crimes (like burning down buildings and rioting) and would harm people who agreed with slaves being freed.
Gun casualties and incidents throughout the country have woken the public up from its ignorance and shown them the danger guns can pose to society (Martinez, 2013). While some people want a complete blanket ban on the ownership of guns, others wants an easier access to guns so that every person may look after their own security. Part of what makes the term gun control a very controversial topic is that it’s used in a ambiguous way that does not explain the details of the issue and the demands, apart from literally controlling guns. The two prominent sides of the debate are the groups who ask for liberal gun laws that make it easier for a person to procure guns and conversely, there are groups who want to repeal the second amendment. I personally am a strong believer that an “ideal society” should have no guns; nevertheless crime is a big problem to the citizens of our society and guns are necessary.
Politicians have stated thy will introduce new laws wanting tougher background checks, forced registration, and outright banning of military looking firearms. All these types of new laws will cut down on crime and make this country a safer place. But I believe the way to protect against a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. First of all on the issue of it will cut down on violent crime, who are they kidding criminals rarely obey laws; studies show most criminals acquire guns through friends or theft. Adam Lanza the shooter at Newtown stole the guns he used from his mother.
Juvenile offenders are still very impressionable and interacting with the violent and hardened criminals does not give them the tools to survive in normal society and become productive citizens. My contention has been that if we catch these offenders soon enough we can prevent them from committing more serious crimes. Many states have implemented the death penalty, hoping that it would be a deterrent against crime. I do not think it works either. Many prosecutors use the threat of the death penalty as a way of getting a plea deal to get the offender off the streets.
To be effective, the punishment must be harsh enough to actually deter people from committing crimes. A more effective way is the “carrot and stick” policy, in which the law abider is given an incentive to follow rules, and is punished if he does not. While few would really argue against taking the bite out of punishment, there are some arguments that deterrence is not nearly as effective as we'd like it to be. Statistics showing high crime rates among people who have already been in prisons, or punished in other ways can easily be used to demonstrate that deterrence isn't so very effective. The sheer threat of punishment is not enough to ensure the smooth functioning of a law-abiding society, as countless examples of tyranny and police states illustrate.
The actual known hate crimes targeting gay men and lesbians is compromised because of the inclusion of sexual orientation as a category under the federal hate crimes law. What I don’t think people understand is that victims of such hate crimes suffer more physical trauma and psychological trauma than any other crimes. Sexual orientation continues to be excluded from many states, as I stated earlier. The U.S. Senate rejected the inclusion of sexual orientation in federal hate crime laws back in the late 1990’s even though hate crimes towards gays and lesbians were
Assuming that young, petty lawbreakers may be deterred from braking laws, simply by introducing the possibility of a public flogging, has some flaws to it. Jacoby neglected to bring up, what I would call the perfect argument to this topic. People who already intentionally commit crimes in today’s American society are fully aware of the possible repercussions for their actions. Despite this knowledge they continue to commit crimes that could land them in jail. I could argue that even more crime could result in effect to fewer prisonable offences and more humane forms of corporal punishment.
is Criminal Legislation Karen Elzy, Blake Edwards, Shawanda Dixon, Florencio Ocampo University of Phoenix Criminal Law CJA354 David Harrison September 19, 2011 Criminal Legislation As laws are created, society views them and abides by these laws no matter how harsh or lenient they may seem. Through the creation of two new laws our team will explain how these new laws will not only save lives but also highlight how these actions promote a reckless behavior. Such actions should not be considered tolerable within community standards because these acts will not only result in the death of a person but also destruction of private property. Laws such as the three-strike law and medical marijuana are considered abusive or ineffective because one law contributes to an overcrowded prison population whereas the other law contributes to the misuse of medical marijuana. As society continues to evolve several acts have become an issue, which our team has reason to believe laws against sexual offenders and controlled substance are either too lenient or controversial causing these two laws to become modified into a harsher version.