First of all, if the NSA were to pursue major invasions of privacy to American’s, they would be obstructing rights set forth by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits non-reasonable search and seizure. If there is no probable cause for the government to search for evidence on an individual, then their legal rights should not be violated. I personally have nothing to hide, but being spied on would make me questions the true ethics of this country. On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own.
Imagine a society where the rights of individuals are not protected. A law enforcement agency can search a person’s telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. If they suspect any terrorism-related acts, they can detain anyone indefinitely. This is Patriot Act. Even though advocates claim that the Patriot Act helps to protect the national security, the Patriot Act is unjust.
The balance between domestic intelligence collection and civil liberties is a challenging notion with no true clear answer. The most difficult times to find this balance is times of national stress such as the period now. On the other hand it is imperative to understand the importance of intelligence collection in providing international security and public safety. Countries have been constantly reminded that the inability to collect information and connect the information results in catastrophic failure such as the intelligence failure in the 9/11 attacks. Great Britain is also currently being presented with the same question as the problem has arisen as the extent of knowledge law enforcement has as to the activity of Muslim extremist in the country.
The Destruction of the American Freedom An instruction memo, discarded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) states, “under certain circumstances, the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge upon the freedom of others”. Federal counter-terrorism agencies like FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protect citizens and the constitution of the United States of America.. However, what happens when these agencies stop believing in the laws they are to enforce? In the novel, Little Brother by Cory Doctorow, the DHS, turns San Francisco into a police state and break the law they are to preserve. The DHS is so determined to protect society from terrorism that ultimately they destroy the freedom that they are striving to protect.
The prosecution must without a reasonable doubt prove the defendant is responsible for committing the crime. And in doing so must remain within the regulations of the courts. Sometimes the prosecution’s personal, ethical. Organizational, or political beliefs can becomea driving force into a trail which can have negative effects on the courts when misconduct occurs or mistakes are made. When misconduct or mistakes are made it can have very damaging effects on individuals and their lives, but also to the credibility of the criminal justice system.
There are many controversial issues in the criminal justice system, but none more so than the use of the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence. This rule, based on protection offered under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, has been in place at the federal level since 1914 and at the state level since 1961. (Scheb, 2008) There are both pros and cons to the continued use of the exclusionary rule, as well as some possible alternatives. Our system of justice is based on the idea of “separation of powers” that prevents any one branch from overstepping its powers. In line with this, the investigative department requests warrants to search for evidence, but they must be approved by the judicial branch.
Non-Fatal Offences Evaluation Recommendations for the reform of this area of the law have been made by both the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Law Commission. The Law Commission pointed out that there are three main problems with the OAPA 1861. These are that: the Act uses complicated old fashioned language, the structure of the act is complex and that non-lawyers find the Act completely unintelligible. As the Act was written in 1861 much of the language is obscure and old fashioned, for example, the words 'maliciously' and 'grievous'. Many words do not have the same meaning now as they did in 1861 and some words are no longer used or have a specialist legal meaning.
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
According to Larry Greenemeier, a recent court case, Carpenter V. United States "specifically pits the privacy of information that wireless devices share with their service providers-the towers or " cell sites" devices connect to, the phone numbers they call and answer, and the time and length of those calls-against law enforcement's authority to retrieve that data without a warrant." However, the FBI issued court orders under the 1986 SCA in order to compel carriers to turn that information over to the FBI. This would be acceptable despite the fact that a warrant requires more reasoning to receive. If they felt strongly enough that they had reason to obtain certain information, they should have to convince a judge to see the situation from the same point of view. “ Without a warrant, but with the SCA court order in hand-the FBI compelled MetroPCS to provide about four months of location records for a smartphone owned by suspect Timothy Ivory Carpenter.” Based off of the information the authorities had previously, it would not have been hard to convince a judge to issue them a warrant.
"Profiling" “Section 412 of the Patriot Act permits the attorney general of the United States to detain aliens he certifies as threats to national security for up to seven days without bringing charges (USA PATRIOT Act, 2014).” The United States is in a constant battle to prevent terrorist acts and to ensure the safety of every U.S. citizen. I believe there are certain occasions that losing individual freedoms is worth enduring in order to have safety and live in the great country that we do today. However, enduring a type of "profiling" is not necessary to prevent terrorism in the United States. Nevertheless, many terrorists do not fit a single profile. Many terrorists come from Europe or from within the United States, which do not fit