Additionally, allowing people have guns will infuse people’s courage to against terrorist activities. Also, it will have a deterrent role to play in preventing and stopping potential violators from recommitting new crimes. When the killers see their target have guns, they might look before they leap. However, I don’t mean to deny that allow people to carry guns might cause several problems. The government can provide more information about how to identify dangerous and deal with accidents to people, and periodically to train in their use.
This episode would have made me think criminals are victims of their environment, as the character would not have been on steroids if his father lessened the pressure on him and give him better examples of appropriate behavior. I would have deemed that the criminal justice system has some flaws due to Stabler’s act of wanting to let the accused off for his father. Although this episode only portrayed some criminological theories, it highlighted that there are alternate reasons criminals behave in violent matters. Overall, the episode was interesting, insightful, and clearly depicted criminal activity from a variety of
More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned.
If there is a firearm involved in a crime, agencies refer to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to achieve the prolonged incarceration of armed, violent offenders. Under this Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, it gives the agencies power and authority to emphasize the "Three Strikes, You're Out" requirement. This assist agencies with offenders that are violent and repetitive. This requirement plays an important role in every agency’s strategy for anti-violent crime.
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat could be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear or physical harm. However offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate threat, does not justify the use of force in self-defense. Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor did not actually mean the perceived victim any harm (“Self-Defense Overview-
Deadly force is more of a last resort, or is used when all else fails. Deadly force should be used only in the occasion that an officer’s life or the life of another individual is in danger. Courts have ruled that deadly force may be used under two main criteria, to prevent the escape of a suspect, and that the officer has probable cause of possible serious threat of death/injury to another individual. If a felon is fleeing deadly force is only justified if there is reason to believe serous injury or death to the public or an officer may occur. In cases where a suspect has some sort of deadly weapon officers may use deadly for if the suspect is attempting to cause harm and the use of force is justifiable.
Someone’s life does not have to be cut short because of gun. It is such a tragedy with the violent death of a loved one, so in order to prevent other deaths then gun control must be issued. Guns are very powerful weapons, and should not be offered to just anyone. If guns fall into the wrong hands it can be a very dangerous and scary situation. Most of the time officers are not always quick to address a situation, and sometimes situations involving guns can be out of the officer’s
Article 2 stipulates that there is a protection of the right to life. Article 3 stipulates that there is a right to protection from degrading treatment. An example of where the courts have had to decide where the courts have had to decide which of the conflicting rights outweighed the other is in the case of John Venebles, the murderer of James Bulger. After he was arrested for possession of child pornography some years back, it was considered whether his anonymity should be lifted. The court considered however, that there was a “clear and present danger to his physical safety and life” and so he should retain his anonymity.
The constitution gives United States citizens the right to bear arms and should not be infringed upon. If guns are banned then the black market and crime rate will be way worse, drugs are illegal and people can get them as they please, if firearms are banned people will do the same. Mental health is an even bigger issue than the guns themselves, if someone commits a mass murder there is something wrong with that individual and they are not mentally stable. People pull the trigger, the weapons do not fire
With guns people can injure other people in matters of seconds and people can’t do anything about it but with cars people can react in time and move out of the way. If the government wants to make the guns extremely hard to get that's fine but, make sure that the gun will be used
Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.
However, it is crucial to identify how this fallacy plagues our society; a gun is a gun, it is a weapon designed for the purpose of ending someone’s life. Due to their hazardous nature, guns must always be kept in the hands of responsible users; therefore, people diagnosed with severe mental illnesses should not be allowed to possess or carry firearms. Our society has partially realized this notion, as indicated by the Gun Control Act passed by Congress in 1968, forbidding people who “had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital” from purchasing guns (Webster 35). However, it must be stressed that the control implemented by this act is not enough, as mentally-disabled people are still misusing firearms and creating massacres across this
The main purpose for our criminal justice system should be to stop future crime. General deterrence would be a good way to set an example to communities who disobey the law. Allowing bystanders to see the punishments of crime will instill fear into them, causing them not to repeat the crime they witness. Specific deterrence allows for criminals to still be in society, but every time they think about doing something illegal they will have a negative feeling. These method focusses on educative function allowing people to learn from their mistakes and preventing further complications.
In the common law, “a felony was defined as any crime for which the perpetrator could be compelled to forfeit his property-both real and personal-in addition to being subject to punishment through the procedures of death, imprisonment, or fine; generally the punishment is jail for more than one year or incarceration in state prison” (Chamelin & Thomas, 2012, p. 10 & 18). The following are classified as some of the major felonies: rape, manslaughter, murder, larceny, sodomy, robbery, arson, and burglary. The one key way to distinguish a felony from a misdemeanor is if punishment was required. A misdemeanor is defined as a crime of a minor class and the penalty is less than a felony. Some examples of misdemeanors’ include: prostitution, public intoxication, reckless driving, and trespassing.