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.
I believe neuro-imaging could be used as evidence. While many people may use it as an excuse for their actions, it makes sense for why they did these actions. I do not believe it should give them a free pass out of jail (since they still know its wrong and CAN ask for help), but I do think they need counseling and medication over some jail time since that is the only thing that will cure their problem. 5. Do you believe that the judicial system should be based on holding people accountable for their choices (blame) or probability of future crimes committed?
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Then it would be where the person itself would not be incarcerated but given help to change the outcomes of their thought so that the risk of them committing a crime is lowered. Which I somewhat agree with them; however I know some people can use that to their advantage to commit something and get away with it without the possibility of getting incarcerated. According to "Criminologist Believes Violent Behavior Is Biological" (2013), " if bad brains do cause bad behavior, if brain dysfunction raises the odds that somebody will become a criminal offender — a violent offender — and if the causes of the brain dysfunction come relatively early in life ... should we fully hold that adult individual responsible?” (para. 7). It was explained that there could be plenty of factors that go on when it comes to this kind of behavior which may include birth complications or things that someone was exposed to at a young age that could cause such a reaction to the mindset of
There is little question that the public leans toward a punishment that is harsher for those who commit acts of armed robber. The public would the people are who innocent and inevitably be the victims who would be the targets for those criminals. The public would be in full support of a motion that punishes those who perform these acts more harshly than they are being punished now in the hopes that the new legislation would act as deterrence. It has been a common theory that harsher punishments would indeed be effective as deterrents to such acts of deviance as armed robbery. Acts of armed robbery that end in violence or homicide tend to render the public outraged and give their voice a stronger demand for justice to be done.
The point of the speed limit is to give us a chance to stop and protect us and others. When you speed you have less chance of stopping if someone runs into a street etc. This is when minor laws become major laws and violent crimes. Our job as citizens is to obey laws minor or major, big or small. But if no one follows them then more and more won’t follow them.
They lied about getting a warrant and in turn let a killer walk away from the situation with no punishment. Like I said previously if they would have used the ethics of virtue system they would have went about things in an honest manner and even though it might not have saved the life of Detective Griffiths it would have put his killer in jail. Ethics training for our officers is very important to maintain order (Papenfuhs,2011). However, when really spending some time and thinking about this situation I wish our legal system could in some way take into account the pressure we put on cops and when we know for an absolute fact a serious crime as been committed that the criminal could still be punished regardless of the mistakes of cops. I don’t think the people should be able to get off that easy simply because of a legal mishap and in fact disgusts me that his has happens numerous times every year.
It is politically advantageous and morally satisfying position to take without any regards to the consequences of these actions. I personally would like to see tough sentences act as a deterrent or at least as a satisfying punishment for committing a crime against society providing that punishment bettered society as a whole. What this new crime bill does not take into account is the fact that people will one day get out. There is no planning for reintegration back into society in this bill. Other shortfalls include; addiction counseling, anger management, job training, and after-school programs for children.
This and the legislators passing more restrictive juvenile codes seems to have an overall beneficial effect on the delinquency rate and that is that it has declined. Specific deterrence is used to send convicted offenders to secure incarceration facilities so that punishment is severe enough to convince the offenders not to repeat their criminal activity (Wadsworth, 2005). Though there are research studies that show that arrest and conviction may lower the frequency of reoffending other
Thus, the illegal immigrants should be punished through deporting back to their native country if within the period of time the they are here, they have just being slack off or breaking the laws such as stealing, etc. Then, they have no reason to say that the US didn’t give them the chance to be its resident, but it’s just their own fault. Illegal immigration should be eliminated, but the immigrants themselves should be treated with more understanding, instead of negative reactions. If every country is great as US (a free country), then the issue would not even come up. Freedom is always something that everyone want to have, some have it, some do not.