The rules that officers must do to arrest a suspect are designed to protect their physical safety and also to avoid making a legal mistake that can lead to ruining the prosecution 's trial case. During the time of the arrest the cops are to read out the suspects Miranda rights. The Miranda rights were done in the U.S. supreme court ruling Miranda v. Arizona which set the rights to remain silent, and anything that you say can be used against you in a court of law etc (Miranda rights). Police Officers violate people 's rights by unreasonable searches through their houses or pulling them over. In a matter of fact, they have to have a reason why they stopped you and need a warrant issued for searching you.
Another reason is that a small fraction of victims, are not actually victims. Some make up a story to cover up for something else. In which case the victim is proven to be false, the kit should be thrown away, but if the victim is afraid of their offender, then the police should still pursue the case, but place the victim under witness protection. Hopefully by protecting the victims of sexual assault, more will feel it safe to report the crime. In the meantime, more kits should be tested to place the true criminals behind
The accused O.J. Simpson should have been given a restraining order to protect Nicole, there were still access to her even after she made a complaint of intimate violence. Changes have to be made for the future, police that is handling cases such as intimate violence should have a prompt response. The restraining order wouldn’t do any good if it isn’t enforced, the perpetrator should be return to police custody to guarantee the safety of the victim. Compensation can be used as a tool to discourage offenders from committing acts.
After reading this chapter of her rape the question of should or shouldn't sexual assault scenes be told in novels, there is two sides to this argument. People who think it should, because having these scenes in book could give the reader a better understanding of what it felt like, and could even give victims the support they need to be speak out. Then there's a group that think it shouldn't, because that argument means nothing because rape victims who read these stories will only be offend by them and trigger their emotions they have not let out, and that having these sexual assaults only make the assault more and more socially acceptable. These arguments make it clear that sexual assault scenes should not be in books, because they are less effective when nobody
Harsher sentencing could send a message to people that the government does not tolerate hate crimes and the punishments for committing one are severe. Additionally, police could push perpetrators in the moment for their motives, as someone may not be inclined to initially admit to having a racial bias and committing a crime because of it. Police could do a better job to get the full picture on why a perpetrator committed a crime. This likely would require more training for police officers to recognize and understand racially motivated bias. Lastly, the Federal government specifically the Department of Justice could aid in the fight against hate crime by providing the funds and resources necessary.
People aren’t ready to forgive felons for what they have done in the past and believe they shouldn’t be given their rights back. If there exists a way for a former felon to regain their rights in some states they should at least allow clemency in every state that disenfranchises felons. If clemency exists than someone out there sees that some felons deserve to regain their rights and if they don’t deserve it they would probably end up in jail again, so former felons should be given their rights back after some sort of process to check whether they are actually ready to regain their rights. This process should be mandatory after serving your jail time so that you can easily regain your rights without having to go through the rough process of
In recent times there has been a major debate over whether law enforcement should be able to use jailhouse informants. The controversy sparked after the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s use of jailhouse informants was called into question. Many people feel that the use of informants in cases against those accused of various crimes is a violation of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. In regards to this topic, The Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination, meaning that those accused of a crime have a right to remain silent. The Sixth Amendment, ensures that anyone accused of a crime has the right to an attorney, if a defendant cannot afford an attorney one will be provided.
But are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting these punishments because they are cruel? If a more lenient mode of correcting vice and deterring others from the commission of it would be invented, it would be very prudent in the Legislature to adopt it; but until we have some security that this will be done, we ought not to be restrained from making necessary laws by any declaration of this kind’ “ (Bomboy). In other words, Livermore was arguing that all citizens who commit horrible crime do deserve severe punishments for the crimes that they commit, and until the government figures out a way to place restrictions and guidelines on the penalties that we believe are morally proper to give, then they cannot hold back from reprimanding those citizens. Consequently, The Founding Fathers created the Eighth Amendment to be intended for further generations to interpret the meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” over time (Donnell). The amendment was then ratified in 1791 nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment and the death penalty is still highly debated today because the differences in interpretations
8TH Amendment The 8th Amendment was formed to ensure that punishment for a crime was not cruel or unusual. It also has a clause for those with mental illness so that they will not face the death penalty for committing a crime that a sane person would commit. And those under the age of 18 would not face the death penalty. Since the 8th Amendment was attached to the Bill of Rights in 1791 it has taken on a different meaning for the accused of breaking the law and prisoner of today. In this paper we will look at several cases in which the 8th Amendment has been used in my opinion unethically to justify everything from gender reassignment surgery to claiming that one was mentally insane in order to get out of facing the death penalty.
I believe that the existence of sex offender registries can offer a positive effect especially for families and parents who want to know if a certain community is safe for their children and it also helps police officers narrow down the location if an offender committed another criminal act. If anything, I believe that the registries need to be updated and not abolished completely. The activities of a sex offender should in fact be monitored and tracked. However, registered sex offenders who committed less serious acts should not be registered for a lifetime. One stupid mistake a person made years ago should not make them a sex offender for life.
One of these rules is that prior sexual history should not be brought up by defense counsel to discredit complainant. This helps to protect the complainant from further trauma and to insure the trial is fair and just. In trials, complainants are able to use testimonial aids. There aids help prevent further trauma from happening by aiding complainants tell their emotional stories. There are many challenges faced in Sexual Assault Law.
In this situation there are key ethical and legal situations that arise from the treatment and transportation of Craig. As the police are now involved the paramedics have better assistance with the legal side of restraint however the ethical issues remain import and need to be managed correctly. The first issue raised is the physical restraint of the patient, even thought the police are present the paramedics could take a different approach to avoid the use of physical restraint. It could be argued that the physical restrain is necessary in this situation as the patient could be a danger to himself or others. NSW health (1) explains in there restraining policy that legally it is permitted to restrain a patient if the patient is posing a risk to themselves or others, they further explain that the restraint used should be reasonable only to control the current threat and that it only be used as a last resort.
Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.