For example, many of the friendliest citizens break the speeding law when they witness someone else get away with speeding. This shows that if one citizen speeds, another one will want to also speed since the first citizen did not get caught. Another reason that supports Trippett’s argument is that many normal people are harassed into breaking the law and do not even realize it. For example, if you are going the speed limit and someone honks their horn at another citizen, their natural instinct is to go faster, which would break the law. This shows that a citizen will follow the law, but those around him will not and influence him to break it.
However, when teenagers hear about car crashes that are caused by drivers on their phones, they automatically think that this horrible car crash cannot happen to them, but it can. It can happen to everyone who are not careful and distracted easily. These rules are so important to follow if you want to be a safe and careful
In today’s world, these youth will be or have been sentenced as adults, with much longer sentences than those of the juvenile court, despite the fact that there are rehabilitation clinics that could have better helped them while their minds were still flexible. Many aspects go on in everyday life for these children, that are very rarely taken into consideration because they’re insignificant compared to their crimes, even though this information could be what makes the case completely flip around. Often they don’t have good role models to show them how to treat others and themselves; they only realize they’ve done wrong when the world tells them, and the world is a harsh master compared to their fragile brains. Everyday, new things are learned and remembered, meaning there is never a point where the brain fully stops developing. However, the rational part of the brain’s development is nearly completed at the age of 25.
Well. There goes another teen speeding. It looks like his desires are prioritized over the law, which are rules that each citizen has come into an agreement to obey once they have obtained their licence. Driving is an ability that citizens tend to misuse nowadays, especially at the teen or young adult ages of 16 to 21. Driving is not seen as an obligation, but a privilege that many do not recognize.
The media seems to exaggerate violent crime in general, thus shaping public perceptions and this is reflected in the reporting of youths involved in gun, knife and gang crime. Although statistics show that there are problems in larger cities such as Manchester and London, there is no evidence to suggest that it is a national problem. However, problems with statistics have also been identified, and due to there being multiple definitions of youth gangs in use, there is difficulty in generalising findings, therefore the true nature of the gang problem cannot be identified. It is clear that statistics are socially constructed due to under reporting of gang related crimes and issues with police recording. Reliable statistics may show that the problem of youth gangs is not as large as the media portrays it to be.
Some legislators think raising the driving age would be safer. Teenagers have a high percentage of accidents. Insurance for teenagers is extremely high. Vehicles are expensive, so this would save parents money. The legal age should be changed because young drivers are irresponsible, teenagers need more practice driving, and they are too easily distracted.
In today 's society, teenagers have the opportunity to get into a lot of trouble. Many teens have to cope with the temptation of doing drugs and joining gangs; however, a curfew will not stop them. Teenagers already do many illegal things, showing a blatant disregard for the laws already implemented. Setting a curfew in place will not reduce the trouble teens get into; it will just be another law that teenagers break. Many people would argue that implementing a curfew will eliminate all of the temptations teenagers have to face.
In recent discussions of whether or not to enforce tougher laws in order to stop texting and driving, a controversial issue has been whether or not to enforce the laws. On one hand, some argue that texting and driving really isn 't that dangerous. From this perspective, they think that this isn 't very dangerous because it is only for a quick moment. On the other hand, however, others argue that it is very dangerous and can bring great harm to people that are driving. For example, a statement that supports this would be that many people have died or have gotten seriously injured.
They often have an exaggerated idea of how much alcohol they can tolerate without impairing their driving. Every day there are several drivers who get caught by the police in spite of their belief that just a few cup of drinks doesn’t matter and it cannot affect their driving ability. Another answer
The abuse of power is all around us, and Civil Forfeiture is no exception. The idea behind this process is something that could really help our country, but unfortunately when put in the hands of certain authority figures it loses that privilege and becomes increasingly negative towards American citizens. Of course there are many examples as to how Civil Forfeiture is not used properly, but the most obvious one is the abuse of innocent people. Police do not only target criminals but people who have done nothing to break the law. They do this in order to benefit themselves finically, as particular states have laws in place where the officer gets to keep one hundred percent of the money seized.
A ‘tough-on-crime’ approach is increasingly taking up legal, political and social discourse however, it is having limited effects on preventing rates of offending in society. A ‘tough-on-crime’ approach and increased severity of crime in the long run severely impacts the criminal justice system and fails overall to act as a deterrent compared to other criminal justice methods. This perception of an increased severity of punishment is created through the media which creates moral panics and forces changes in legislature, this can have a vast impact on the first point of contact, the police force. However, it also limits the overall ability of the court system to enforce a sentence effectively and equally, this can be seen through the implementation