Eyewitness misidentification is a major problem that has an effect on adequate policing. One major goal and priority of law enforcement is justice. They should focus on prosecuting the correct person because if they are prosecuting the wrong person they are ruining an innocent persons life and justice is not being served. Many problems can arise from misidentification. It often leads to an innocent persons rights being infringed on.
A standard that was made by people who may not have necessarily ever been in such a situation. Objectively speaking, it is possible, highly likely in fact, this was immoral and unethical but, the situations where one could resist an intervention in such a dilemma cannot be ignored. Ayn Rand argues for the virtue of selfishness and this is one example of just why someone would ignore the brutality displayed by Ms. Genovese’s attacker. This argument that even a seemingly selfless act is still acted upon for selfish reasons could go the exact opposite way. Some people said they were afraid and perhaps, this fear is what kept them from acting.
This is an important concept because it explains that officers should not follow society and pressure from the public and media but follow the laws that our country. This a good thing to have when dealing with persuasive criminals and individuals. Both officers and civilians benefit from this principle because it protects both parties. Officers also need to know the laws, so they can stay away form trouble and not be deceived by public persuasion. This is a good thing to have in America today, because many criminals will say anything to get out of punishment.
For example, when a bystander witnesses a child being abused or an old man being pushed and does not offer any means of help when the situation involves other people around, we can form a strong argument that the bystander has a lack of stability and personal security, which are the basic elements for passing the ‘safety and security needs’ tier; therefore, it can be said that according to Maslow’s (1943) theory ,the bystanders have a human strive for safety and security due to the fact that they do not have the basic required traits to pass this stage properly in the pyramidic
Crime would be uncontrollable as never before if there wasn’t some way to deter people from committing the acts. Prison is an effective deterrent, but with some people more is needed, prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. If criminals realize that committing a serious crime that will take them to the gallows, they are bound to think twice before acting. The crime rate in countries where this form of punishment exists is far less compared to other countries where it has been abolished. People may argue and claim there is no “evidence” to suggest that it acts as a deterrent , but then there is no “evidence” to suggest that it doesn't act as a deterrent either.
If you commit a crime, you can usually escape penalization if no one testifies against you. Therefore you 've got an interest to keep witnesses from testifying. If criminals habitually achieve deterring testimony, however, the criminal justice system withers, and laws will be broken with freedom from liability. Witness intimidation could be a basic threat to the rule of law. Empirical information on intimidation has been difficult
There could also be groups that bring it to the people’s attention, but other than that, only the government can make the punishment more severe, or require the police to have more training. Sadly, at the moment there is not a law or policy for dealing with police brutality. It is argued that when things like this happen, the police are just doing their job, or that the person being arrested was resisting the arrest, or were fighting back. I understand this, but police do not have to brutally beat that person. US News wrote that there was a civil rights complaint that was filed, and said: “The department also fails to properly train, supervise, monitor and discipline officers who use excessive force.” () Michael Stinziano, a Democrat, says “To enact more safety for the city of Columbus we’re hiring more police officers.” (Stinziano, City Hall Field Trip, Jan. 18, 2018) This is great, but those officers are not getting as much training as they need.
People would say that law destroys the society for it prevents us to be free. The law may sometimes be “inconsiderate” but it keeps us in order. We may sometimes say it is harsh but it is because we are used to be “free” in a way that we do not follow rules and order. These things happen to us because we are not led by a good public official. Even the officials do not follow the law because they think they are an exemption which is not.
He points out that Finnis fails to explain why there needs to be a general obligation to obey the law. The author refutes that general obligation to obey the law cannot be explained by fairness because there are many innocuous illegal acts which cannot be unfair. Contract and consent to obey the law are often mentioned by advocates of the general obligation to obey. These supporters argue that by living in a society and taking the benefits of a legal system, people implicitly consent to follow the law. However, it must be acknowledged that too few have given consent and such consent is not enough to concede to a whole legal system.
Secondly people need to not look at these as more of a warning. It 's not a felony charge, you are not going to go to jail or prison for it. Frank Trippett believes that we need to get rid of the minor charges because it puts you in a category with other people that are like repeat offenders. But if we did not have the consequences we do what is stopping these people from doing these things and before you know it, our country is going to be a wreck. Law and rules are put into effect for the betterment of mankind that is why we need to have people obeying them and learning from them at all
The difference with this particular accident was that it obviously was damaging enough to be published in a newspaper. By preponderance of the evidence against Mr. B he is guilty of elder neglect. According to the scenario, some psychologists might think that Dr. Y may be acting too early because no one has been harmed yet. Although, just because a someone has not been harmed yet does not justify that someone will not yet get hurt. One question for these psychologists would be: when should
People might respond saying that racial profiling by police isn 't as bad as people make it seem, or that it isn 't as bad as it used to be. Even if that were the case, it isn 't enough. Police forces are there to protect and enforce laws and regulations, protect the people. Not to provide weapons to racist, and bigoted people who assume power unfairly and attack anyone who doesn 't fit their idea of what is “right”. Race is not a choice, just as many other things society has decided to label are not a choice.
It was basically the public against an officer. There was no direct evidence to support that Darren Wilson indeed used excessive force. With proper evidence, the public would succumb easier to result of any incident because there would be evidence to support the claims that were made. If there was proper evidence that Brown had indeed posed a threat to Wilson, there would not have been as much backlash. As a result of the outcome, communities People often put their best foot forward when they know they are being watched by their superiors.
Though, criminals should have second chance in their life to change their bad habits, and be a good influence. But, you can’t always trust them, you can’t have this hope that they will always have a good influence and never break the law again. As you know, ex-cons had made a mistake, those who trusted them before might have thought that the person would make good choices, but it turned out that the person made bad choices and broke the law. So, that’s why ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. Ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again.