He does not present enough proof to believe that less enforcement will in fact lower violence in gangs. Gangs are a complex and fairly intelligent corporation that will try and stop at nothing to get what they want with any means possible. Drugs do have a major role in gang violence, like Gardner says, but stopping the drug trade in my eyes won’t in fact end their
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.
Second, the author addresses the prohibitionist argument that illegal drugs cause harm to people around the user as well. Huemer agrees that drugs have the potential to ruin a user’s life whether it be laziness, poor communication with others, or not taking pride in one’s work. He states that drug use only has a chance of causing one to behave in these ways. There are people all over the world that voluntarily behave in these ways without the use of drugs. Should these people be arrested for being losers?
(DuPlessis, O'Byrne, Enman & Gunz, 2011) Orc Industries Corp. however, did not cite any other reasons for terminating Mr. Baggins apart from “dishonesty, and coming to work drunk”. In the case of dishonesty, yes, it is generally considered a serious misconduct, but, a single act of dishonesty in and of itself is not necessarily sufficient to warrant just cause, the circumstances and context of the situation should be taken into account as well. (DuPlessis, O'Byrne, Enman & Gunz, 2011) As for “coming to work drunk”, things of this nature would generally be filed under “incompatible conduct” and would definitely be grounds for just cause, if it can be proven that an employee is actually drunk on the job. However, the only evidence Orc Industries Corp. has of Mr. Baggins being intoxicated at work, is an empty bottle of whisky found in a cabinet in Mr. Baggins’ office. With the above in mind, it can be stated that Orc Industries Corp. evidence for firing Mr. Baggins on the ground of just cause, is weak at best.
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
When I did get caught up in the legal system, the first question my attorney asked was, “Are you an addict?” He further explained that if I was on drugs when I committed my crime, the District Attorney would be willing to make a deal for less jail time. The reasoning was that by being an addict I was not responsible for my actions, due to the fact that I was under the influence of a narcotic. The basic relationship between drug use and crime is simple. It is a crime to possess, manufacture, or distribute any drugs with a high potential for abuse such as marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine. It is also illegal to drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Although section 5K and 5L offer immunity to the defendant against any liability when a person engages in a classified dangerous act. In the present case however, it was established that Mr. Mourlas was injured due to negligence on Mr. Fallas part and he was responsible for the necessary damages. Also, a person should not participate in dangerous recreational activity even if they have consumed very little alcohol just to prioritize safety for everyone involved. The defendant was negligent in taking loaded gun inside the car because it was not only a danger to himself but to the passenger and other shooters
Breaking the law is ok and a good thing to do? That can’t be. Here’s the question: Why don’t people drive the speed limit or below? Answer using operant conditioning terms. People don’t drive the speed limit because maybe they have not gotten a negative consequence from it yet.
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.
It's also wrong. While young people must be held accountable for serious crimes, the juvenile justice system exists for precisely that purpose. Funneling more youth into the adult system does no good and much harm. Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn't make it so. Besides, we don't really mean it: When we try them in criminal court, we do not deem them adults for other purposes, such as voting and drinking.