The New York Times. The New York Times, 9 July 2015. Web. 14 July 2015. Kristof, Nicholas.
The exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without pay, dismissing them from a case, or in extreme circumstances terminating employment of officers who violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures from all government officials.
Today our reality is loaded with wrongdoing. The general population perpetrating these violations must have an outcome for their unlawful activities. The framework set up to continuing everything reasonable and safe is known as the criminal equity framework. This was placed set up to guarantee there is reasonableness and equity served to individuals who split the laws set up by the legislature. Criminal equity is a standout amongst the most critical majors one can think about because of the need to keep the boulevards sheltered and clean.
America has a strict law, which protects our citizens from predators; sex offender registries are exemplifications. In the article “Protect Yourself, Family From Sex Offenders,” Rick Schneider argues that sex offender’s name should not be taken off even after they had served their time. Many can argue that registries are a good way for the government authorities to keep track, and to protect the community from any violence caused by sex offenders. For example, many people may believe the registry protects people from predators because it allows others to know where the predators are and how likely they are to strike again. On the other hand, some people consider that it is “horribly unfair” to release the names and addresses of offenders
As we may know, breaking the law is not always justified. It may lead to dysfunction and chaos in our society. Laws are created and exist to keep the citizens secure, safe, and from behaving in a negative manner that will greatly affect the quality of our lives. Everyone knows that the law should not be broken due to them being an essential piece of humanity, however "the only reason the law should ever be broken by someone was if it was necessary to stay alive or to defeat injustice. The law should protect everyone and if it 's not doing that whether it be due to oppression or survival, it is OK to break it" (Debate.org).
Whether this was obtained in legal or illegal circumstances, it does not change that fact that we need to create regulations on automatic weapons. Weapons like everything else, should have limits. For example a person cannot have more than 2-3 dogs or they will be cited. Another example is that although we have freedom of speech, we can not yell fire in a crowded room where there is no fire; there are limits to our free speech. Why do we have limits on everything else but weapons, does human life no longer have value.
In reference to a bill introduced to Congress forbidding the use of tactics defined by torture; The United States government must consider all of the ethical options and possibilities they have. Torturing anyone is morally unethical but allowing terrorists to murder innocent civilians is against every moral we, as humans possess. As morally just people America needs to find the exceptions in which we are willing to use torture in countering terrorism. As leaders of the free world our government has the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect innocent people and gain the needed information to do so. In order to win the war on terror, officials will occasionally have no choice but to torture the terrorists withholding information to prevent these attacks on humanity.
Something allowed in the United States could easily be prohibited in Arabia or Pakistan, everything depends directly if the ideas are taken as disrespectful or insulting to a person, religion, among others, and are all control and regulated by each state government. The control in the media is, as any other government action, full of pros and cons about the reasons and results it gives. On one hand, it is important to put a limit on the kind of information, images, videos and others that can get to the population.
We should protect everything that people say because it's their right to say what they believe and if we take that away we are no different from North Korea or Cuba. Depriving people of what they can or can't say takes away the whole ideology this country was born of people started a revolution for what they believed so we shouldn't take it away. The only time that we should stop protecting people of what they believe is when there is a violent outbreak like the attack in Charlottesville. James Alex Fields, Jr is a prime example of what free speech isn't because speech is not going out in your car and ramming it into a group of people this when the government should step in because that is no longer speech in a peaceful way you are harming people for stating there own opinion(Pearce). Some people try to take justice into their own hands like Based Stickman AKA Kyle Chapman who went to a Trump rally and starting assaulting people with a flagpole and he was then taken to jail on suspicion of a felony with a deadly weapon(Chang).
If it appears to the officer-in-charge of a police station at any stage of the investigation that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on personal bond without demanding any sureties for his release. The police officer has to record sufficient reasons in the case diary. Therefore, the recording of the reasons in writing is mandatory as it puts the history of the case on record for superior police officers and the court for review and for passing
Throughout the history of the United States, the American commitment to civil liberties has frequently been put to the test. Examples such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the Patriot Act of October 26, 2001 reflect this. Both were driven by a perceived need to protect the United States against foreign adversaries or internal subversion and espionage. The darkest chapters of American history, especially those involving crackdowns against immigrants and political dissent, have almost always occurred during times of war and terror, or the threat of these events. In times like these it is imperative to remember that America was built on the foundation of liberty and equality.
Imagine you are just casually walking home from school. Slowly a policeman passes by and stops behind you. The police halts you and asks you to give your backpack to him. He looks into your bag, doesn't seek anything, and leaves. Are people actually given the privilege to feel safe and secure?