This shows us that civilians had to be extremely careful even when they had not broken the law, which would restrict what they could do in public. “Men were fined for striking matches in the street to light their cigarettes or pipes.” This source also tells us that civilians could not carry out every day behaviour while they were in public. This may have made getting on with their lives very difficult and did not enable them to act as they normally would. The overall impact of
A curfew on the minors of America is ineffective and unconstitutional. Curfew laws are ineffective in both preventing crime and utilizing police resources. Officer Tom Dwyer a sergeant in the Sacramento police department believes otherwise, “It is an effective crime prevention tool.” But if in fact curfews are effective crime fighting tools why then are they not in place on all age groups. The only logical conclusion one could draw from this type of blatant prejudice is that it is only
Serpico was later assigned to work plainclothes where he encountered widespread corruption among the other police in his system. He witnessed them mishandling of money, mishandling civilians, and basically not fulfilling the job they were intended to (Maas). Serpico's career as a plainclothes police officer working in Brooklyn and the Bronx to expose vice racketeering was short lived because he avoided taking part in the corruption. He risked his own life and safety to expose those who did, (Maas). In 1967, he reported evidence of widespread police corruption.
But due to poor educational achievement and low paid manual work they are unable to gain these goals. An example of this is Willis’ 12 lads and their ‘anti-school’ subculture. The strain makes working classes experience ‘status frustration’ due to the lack of power, respect and prestige that they receive and therefore they seek this through illegitimate means such as joyriding. This suggests that criminal gangs develop for more reasons than financial gain. From this it is clear that Albert Cohen agrees with the subculturalist view of crime being a collective activity.
The main cause of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire was a violation of sensible safety measures, for example the doors being locked by the owners. This made escaping the fire nearly impossible. Politicians and labor unions were able to force through reforms, despite claims that such reforms were illegal. As the Unions and their allies pushed for reform, they gained great public support. A progressive reform era of reform was born as a result of this horrific incident.
The governor and other state officials were enthusiastic about using foot patrol as a way of cutting crime, but many police chiefs were skeptical. (The Police and neighborhood safety George L. Kelling March 1982) Foot patrol, in their eyes, had been pretty much discredited. It reduced the mobility of the police, who thus had difficulty responding to citizen calls for service, and it weakened headquarters control over patrol officers. Many police officers also disliked foot patrol, but for different reasons: it was hard work, it kept them outside on cold, rainy nights, and it reduced their chances for making a “good
The Quakers, who settled Pennsylvania, believed that the criminal codes were both inhumane and inefficient in that judges often did not follow the criminal codes because they did not want to inflict more severe punishments on relatively minor offenders. Under the leadership of Penn, the Quakers replaced the current criminal code with a new one. The new criminal code included the abolition of capital punishment for all crimes other than homicide, the substitution of imprisonment at hard labor for bloody corporal punishments, the provisions of free food and lodging to inmates, and the replacement of the stocks and pillory with houses of detention. When Penn died in 1718 the Quaker code was repealed. Dr. Benjamin Rush, the leader of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of the Public Prisons, revived the Quaker code in the late 1700s.
However, there is also a difference in how the characters dealt with the situation. The police officer knew that what he was doing was not proper and immoral but he did it anyways so he wouldn’t look like a fool. The man from “First they came for the Jews” was different. He did not care what was neither proper nor immoral. The man only realized his mistake when he exclaimed, “then they came for me”(7).
Although police officers stand for peace, there are many countries where people view police not as the hero but as the villain. Even in safe, developed countries like Canada and the United States, acts of police misconduct have occurred. For these reasons, police officers should not be allowed to carry firearms. Eliminating guns won’t eliminate police misconduct; however it will take some power away from them but that can be good because they will also be gaining power this way. It sounds confusing but when people see a man with a gun, no matter what side of the law he is on, they will get intimidated and possibly fear him.
People aren't willing to accept change and theirs not much you can do in the 1930's to change that because it was "sociality acceptable" not to. Racism was given to its full potential in this novel by displaying that of Tom Robinson being charged on a crime that he did not commit. He is accused of raping a white women by one of the most untrustworthy people in the town. This was just another accusation in this time but ended as most did, with the wrong outcome chosen because of social inequality. Differences in social status are explored largely through the overcomplicated social status.