Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same extent? If not, you're making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the problem is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any one group, but to protect all
I believe this first because when something negative is said in an article or news report the author does not sought out the officer who did the negative action they just simply say the name of the police force. I believe this secondly because police and political corruption feed off each other, which is a known opinion by most (http://www.coha.org,2004). The third reason I believe the negative actions seem to out weight the positive actions in most situations. I believe that when something negative is said in an article or in a news report the author or news caster does not seek out the officer who did the negative action they simply say the name of the force. Though when an officer does something positive they give that person recognition and that’s the end of it and the public never hears about it again.
Asses the usefulness of labelling as an approach to the study of crime and deviance In the study of crime and deviance, most approaches other than Marxists, suggest that there is a difference between those who offend and those who do not, and search for key factors that lead people to offend. However, there are a group of theorist who reject this idea and instead suggest that most people commit deviant and criminal acts, but only some people are caught and stigmatised for it. Although the labelling theory is quite prominent in the study of crime and deviance, there are endorsers and criticisers who both give valid accounts to why this theory should be, or not be taken as a valid theory. Labelling theory suggests that deviancy is a social process usually related to power differences but it doesn't explain the causes of crime. It does however explain why some people or actions are described as deviant, and can help in understanding crime and deviance.
Gun Control: An Unrealistic Deterrent “Give me your wallet and jewelry and nobody gets hurt!” A mugger has just thrust a gun into your face. At this point you have two options. First, comply with the mugger in the hopes that he will not shoot you. Second, distract the mugger while you draw your weapon and defend yourself. Alas, you are a devout gun control supporter and do not have any means of which to defend yourself from such an attack.
Mr. Beccaria and other members of the Classical School fought for punishment to be set by legislative instead of judges having all of the authority for punishment. The members of the Classical School of Thought believed that preventing crime was more important than punishing the criminal. When criminals know what the punishment is going to be for the crimes that they are going to commit it will help to deter the crimes from being committed. When people do commit crimes the crime is done of their own free will. This procedure of knowing the punishment with it being severe to the
If Barbie does not die Ken can still be hit with a charge for disclosing the fact that he had aids. Ken would probably get hit with intentional transmission which is when you fail to inform your partner that you don't have aids. Theres is also a possibility that Ken wont get charged because the laws are still very blurry when it comes to the transmission of aids. What is Homicide? Homicide is murder but not all homicides are illegal some are considered justified homicide an example of justified homicide is when its done as an act of self defense.
In contrast to Scalia I think he has good points but he needs a better argument than the judical system has faults. Scalia is for the death penalty. She thinks about the victims in the crimes. She agrees that there is a lot of pian done to the victims however she is not considering all the pain the prisoners will go threw also. This “cocktail” is not just a shot and that’s it, she should know that already.
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.
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.
That usually means reverting to street crimes. These crimes include burglary, vandalism, and selling drugs. Those individuals feel that street crime is the only way they will obtain material success. Merton's theory may stand true when comparing social status with street crime; however, his theory becomes weak when the crimes include white-collar and business crimes. Therefore, Merton's theory has become an “anomie theory”.