Part one: I strongly believe that judge Foster’s view is more persuasive. The judges should take into consideration the legislative intent when judges interpret and apply statutes due to the fact that words do not always show the intent that the legislative branch had when it created a statute. As a result, the goal of the statute will not be reached. The fact that words sometimes do not convey the real message of it is really important when it comes to criminal system. It will never be fair to punish a person when the judge knows that the words existing in the statute are not what the legislative branch intended to punish.
One of Gopniks main point states that the Bill of Rights emphasizes process and procedure rather than principle. What this means is that a criminal can abuse his rights for his own protection. For example Gopnik quotes Stuntz by saying that a criminal can get off a charge simply because the officer who made the arrest didn 't have a proper warrant. This proves the basis of the Bill of Rights following the one track minded belief that process and procedure is the only way to properly operate a system. Both Stuntz and Gopnik believe that the Bill of Rights could be the cause of the unstable justice system that plagues our communities today.
Even though, some adequate emotional appeals appeared, Muhlhausen’s article failed to prove, logically, the deterrence theory. Muhlhausen’s emotional appeals does affect the audience’s decision for the deterrence theory. For example, Muhlhausen states that criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminal based their decisions on the net costs and benefits of each alternative, where they maximize their own self-interest subject to restrictions that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere (Muhlhausen, David). In other word, the criminals are most likely to commit the crime if the
Throughout his article, Krugman continually supports that “the goal of terrorists is to inspire terror, because that 's all they’re capable of” (Krugman). Krugman manages to downplay the fear terrorism instills by using “more amorphous and elastic” (Nunberg) word, terror; consequently, he is able to manipulate the audience into thinking an event was just an act of terror, rather than using the loaded word, “terrorism.” In addition to choosing intentional diction, Krugman also uses the propaganda technique, cardstacking, to underemphasize and omit the possible outcomes of terrorism by explaining, “terrorism is just one of many dangers in the world” (Krugman), allowing him to avoid the real issue at hand, terrorist attacks. (*****). Additionally, Krugman rewords the phrase “organized attempt to destroy Western civilization”(Krugman) and replaces it with “organized attempt to sow panic” (Krugman), allowing him to effectively make his statement more convincing and appealing (Luntz) by replacing “destroy,” a powerfully connotated word with “panic” which has much less emphasis. Subsequently, throughout Krugman’s entire article about the war on terrorism, he replaces specific words and common propaganda techniques in order to demonstrate his disdain for the fighting against terrorists.
It was mainly used as a method to suppress the Freedom Movement. Several freedom fighters, including Tilak, and Gandhi have been jailed under this law. Nehru himself criticised the law, saying “that particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better.” The sedition law is a draconian law in that it does not require the speaker to incite violence against the state. It simply requires that they “excite disaffection,” a term which the statute specifies “includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity,” extremely vague terms.
The law is designed to protect innocent victims. “It does not have any provision to protect original aggressors.” (Contributor). The stand your ground law is extremely biased towards who has a better luck at getting away or being able to successfully use the stand your ground law as defense. For example, the way the government prosecuted the Black Panthers vs other legal gun owners. “The Panthers became experts on firearm laws and openly carried guns, in a sharp departure from mainstream civil rights technique.
This is against the protection found in the US Constitution under the fourth amendment. The processes of finding a criminal needs to be reasonable and have a cause. Callahan does as he pleases and does not get the proper paperwork when chasing after the criminal. This is not helpful as the criminal is then freed because of the lack of procedure followed. He has good and noble intentions for what
One of them is the case of civil asset forfeiture. Although this is a relatively minor part of the documentary, it provides a very clear and obvious way to apply Nozick’s theory. This is a controversial issue; however, due to widespread acceptance of the sentiment, it is reasonable to assume that civil asset forfeiture is unjust. In a few words, civil asset forfeiture grants police officers the ability to seize the belongings of a person suspected of a crime even without formally charging that person. If Nozick’s principle of justice in transfer is applied here, it is clear that this is not a just transfer.
The predominant difference between classical theory and neoclassical theory is the assumption of human beings having free will. In neoclassical theory, it was conceded that certain aspects or factors, something like a person’s sanity, may play a vital role in that person’s ability to exercise their free will. Early psychiatrists that made the connection between insanity and crime rejected the idea that criminal acts were sin, and provided the first secular and scientific theories of crime. However, they only focused on what is considered to be violent crimes. The insanity-crime connection was formalized when the M’Naghten Rule for determining legal insanity was introduced into court as a requirement.
“The First Amendment grants the people of the United states the right to peacefully criticize law enforcement. This law doesn’t come without conditions, criticism of law enforcement duties loses protection when ‘no essential part of an exposition of ideas and [is] of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from [criticism] is clearly outweighed by the social interests in order and morality’”. ( Shah, 226) Included in the First Amendment is the right for free speech and press. “The Forth Amendment is the general right to be from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’ That provision has generated a complex of body case law focused on the use of force by police. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement could only use force proportionate to the threat faced by officers or the public.” (Garrett and Stoughton, 216) The First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed an issue on a case that took place October 2007.
Stare Decisis Examining Hofsherier’s equal protection analysis the majority in Johnson not only held that the analysis was wrong but also concluded that stare decisis did not compelled to court to follow Hofsheier as precedent. In addition, Johnson indicated that Hofsheier’s analysis was faulty, which resulted in a number of sex crimes against minors. The Court referred to these “broad consequences” as the reason why stare decisis should not be allowed in order to correct an error in our constitutional jurisprudence. Stare decisis is one of the most important doctrines for the legal system. The doctrine states that courts are bound by decisions held in earlier cases.
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.
What society fails to see is that officers can also be brought before the courts if they did not act on reasonable grounds and use “excessive force” (Martins, 2016, p. 43). Section 25 part four states, subsection E specifically states that an officer is allowed to use deadly force if, “the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner” (Martins, 2016, p. 39). An officer’s judgment plays a crucial role in these particular situations. A question that can be raised when you look at this subsection is the meaning of “reasonable”. What may seem “reasonable” to one officer may not be “reasonable” to another.
This blog, is based on Evan Defilippis overview on the pros and cons of gun control. Defilippis develops well written and clear visual arguments on both sides of the issue. For example, he states “The main point of this argument is that criminals do not follow laws; therefore laws restricting gun ownership and types of guns would only hurt those who follow them.” “Gun control laws only help criminals, criminals do not play by the law. That is why we need to punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens by disarming them. Gun control laws is not the answer.” What he meant by this is why punish EVERYONE including people who abide by the laws that are already in place?
(Dershowitz 621) However openly allowing torture in any way will normalize its use. While Dershowitz’s proposal for warranted torture may seem appropriate in the case of the ticking bomb terrorist, the proposal is undermined by many moral and legal issues. It is easier for government officials to justify using torture in such extreme cases, but the reasons for not using torture outweigh its justifications. Dershowitz’s suggestion assumes that under a system of torture warrants that officials will refrain from torture if the warrant is rejected. There is no way to regulate interrogators and it is unlikely that a warrant will prevent interrogators from breaking the rules.