After reading about the forfeited right theory, I agree that the theory is not only ethical, but it is quite intriguing. “The rights forfeiture theory of punishment contends that punishment is justified when and because the criminal has forfeited their right not to be subjected to this hard treatment” (Wellman, 2012, p. 371). When a person is taken into custody, their rights have been taken away from them. All of their rights except the Miranda Rights in which the individual is entitled to. So that means if a person commits a crime then they have already violated thier own rights therefore, they should not be complaining about their rights being violated. In my opinion, if an individual does not want thier rights taken away then they should
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney.
Anyone who has been arrested before should know their rights therefore no matter what that person had done they are required to read you your rights as you are arrested. But who created the Miranda rights? The Miranda rights were first created by the Supreme Court after a man named Ernesto Miranda was convicted of his crime without his rights read to him. This case Ernesto, he was convicted of kidnapping and raping an eighteen year old ill woman. I disagree with this because of his past crimes along with his new crimes.
The Declaration of Independence says “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The unalienable rights that this excerpt is talking about are derived from John Locke’s theory of natural law that says no man should have their life, liberty, or property taken from them. The Constitution makes sure the government absolutely protects our natural rights, because if it doesn’t, it will be abolished by the people of the United States if they feel that it’s
Furthermore, law enforcement would use “The end justifies the means” to accomplish these encounters. For example, the law enforcement officer would stop a citizen to pat him down with the hopes to find a gun or narcotics, additionally there was no cause for the stop, or the cause was made up. I agree, it is imperative that we constantly ensure that our law enforcement is working within our Bill of Rights the 4th amendment. However, I find it interesting that the defense’s argument, is an argument of the intent of the 4th amendment, rather than the spirit of the amendment. For example, the young women who went to a grocery store with her young child, only to be kidnapped, raped and both her and her child murdered.
It should give power to the ones who deserve it, but criminals or people who have tried to deface its value shouldn’t deserve its perks. In document four, Owen Brown says that “no man had any right to deprive his fellow man, of these Inherent rights, except in punishment of Crime.” This is proving the truth behind the best adjective to describe our rights, which is Unalienable. American rights should be given to any one who achieves the title of an American citizen, no matter race, religion, color, creed, or sexual orientation. Anyone trying to abandon these rules should not only be revoked of these freedoms, but should also be punished for it.
The outcome of this case made sure that every person who was arrested and put under the custody of the police had to read their Miranda rights and therefore made known of their Fifth Amendment rights. This case would change the procedure of every legal arrest from that point on, and ensure that any person under the custody of the police would be fully aware of their
The opposition argues that it violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and disproportionately
Thomas Jefferson said it best. When any form of Government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the people’s right to alter or abolish it.
They should not be able to make decisions without peoples say in what their opinion is. Our people should have the same amount of power when they vote for something than the government deciding their own opinion while ignoring the peoples most votes. Most people should be able to decide what they want to be legal and not want to be legal because they are the ones who live in the country and are the ones who work in the country. The government just has a job just like other people and shouldn’t be treatd with more say inb votes, they are just people who run our country. They should not also take a say that they shouldn’t have more power because they will most likely will have more poweer because they are considered the boss.
Because this amendment seems to be far removed from Americans ' modern-day lives, should it be repealed? Why or why not? No, I do not think it should be repealed. Just because it hasn`t ever been used doesn`t mean that it should be removed.
Let us start with the Fourth Amendment. Before we can examine how it is ignored, it
The Fourth Amendment affirms that "people are secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, no Warrants shall issue, describe the place to search, and the persons or things to be seized. " There should be a warrant for everything if what a person is being charged for is risking their rights as a U.S citizen. For example the privacy of a citizen is safe under the Fourth Amendment. Second, the property belonging to U.S citizens is secure from search and seizure without a warrant. Third, due to the Fourth Amendment, any citizen is safe from unfair arrests.
According to the Constitution, people can’t be stripped from their inalienable rights which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Despite the implement of the Constitution, “freedom” was defined differently in the 1980s than it was in the 20th century. Back in the 1980s, “freedom” was still not seen as a right to all people due to some of the laws such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act” that were implemented to go against the Constitution. While, in the 20th century, “freedom” was viewed as a right since “freedom” was offered to every people no matter what their race, their color of the skin, their religion, and their sexuality. For example, former president Barack Obama was able to make same-sex marriage legal, lifted the restriction on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” barred employers for firing their employees for being either transgender or having a different sexuality, allowed everyone to have universal access to ObamaCare, and had a diversified cabinet that helped Obama make tough decisions to make America the most affluent and strongest country in the world.
Libertarians disagree. They think that we must never violate anyones rights-even if doing so would increase overall happiness. According
They should have their freedom. LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning. This community is based of people who either feel they were born in the wrong body, they like the same sex or both sexes, or they feel like they have have both female and male personalities. People in the LGBTQ community or said to be weird or a disgrace just because they feel, and think differently. These people should be able to enjoy