On the other hand, people might argue, if some people stop obeying the law in the name of justice, others will stop following them completely. The rules and regulations of a country is what keeps it successful, and these rules sometimes bring success in the wrong ways. Many times laws are unjust morally, but are beneficial to the economy, upper class, or politicians. These groups might not think the law as unjust, but nonetheless, some laws are made to be broken. For example, the Sedition Acts signed by President James Madison were against what the United States of America stood for, and those who obliged to this law did not do the country justice by not
He wants the people to notice and realize injustice the law is. However, there is nothing wrong with fighting against something that feels unjust, but fighting sometimes may lead to destruction within the public. The law shouldn’t be based off of just the people’s opinions but also what the government think is best. It’s acceptable to do what is right but many are afraid to stand up to the the government due to the fact that they have more power. Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face.
And the fact that in layman’s terms, the law is carried out by a bunch of people that are usually right but might sometimes be wrong in certain cases doesn’t actually help. So, this means we should justify breaking the law. However, before I give up and justify breaking the law, consider what would happen if whenever an individual felt that the law was wrong and decided that a mistake was made and justified breaking the law and broke it. If everyone did the same the law would be more a series of guidelines for people to consider and not necessarily follow, and when the law holds no power, courts will be useless and eventually in my opinion, chaos would ensue. People will do whatever they want without a fear of consequences because they will always find a reason to justify breaking the law I believe what makes this whole law argument extremely confusing and difficult is the nature of the law.
It was not only the system that had flaws but also the people on the board. The prosecutors "opposed testing, arguing that it would make no difference" whether or not those being convicted got DNA tested (Garrett 1). Confessions was one of the causes that often led to the downfall of those innocently convicted. In the case of Jeffrey Deskovic, the police officer was supposed to conduct the polygraph examination. The detective for this case explained that he did not actually conduct the examination but only tested "Deskovic 's truthfulness" and to "get
These few questions might pop into one 's head when they hear civil disobedience. This topic is highly debatable and different people might have different opinions. People who have suffered from some form of injustice may define civil disobedience differently from others. By definition, civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with specific laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. This is important because this is when one fights through a problem without physically hurting someone.
However, this still doesn’t stop them from doing the deed. In conclusion, hate speech stems from one’s ignorance towards modern day and historical issues resulting to discrimination and prejudice. Sufficient knowledge and awareness alone are not enough to put an end to society’s abuse of their rights of freedom of speech. A balance must be formed in order to protect the rights of every citizen without limiting the liberty of the
Polygraph tests should not be held admissible in the court system because they are used falsely and they do not always catch the lies that have been told.What is a polygraph? Is it used properly in the court system? “There is no test that can detect lies.”(Sources6)Some people think that the tests are read and study correctly and some people think it is read wrong. Scientist have studied and shows that it is not better than no other tests that is out there to catch lies and guilty people. (Sources 1) A person can constantly tell them self they didn 't do it and pass the polygraph test by just saying that to them self over and over to make their self believe .
They also search them even if they have no evidence that they have committed a crime. Racial profiling is obviously illegal violating the U.S. Constitution’s main point of equal protection under the law to all and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Racial profiling doesn 't really help anyone usually alienating communities because of their ethnicities. Which causes the people not to trust the police. My first
prosecution, which led them to believe that there were many issues within the system that led to the wrongful conviction that needed to be fixed so another minority was not charged with a murder that was not committed by them. The Inquiry found that the investigation was not done suitably for the standards that the police, and the Crown have. The case’s evidence was insufficient due to lack of investigation at the crime scene, of the witnesses, and of the charges pursued. There was also an insufficient amount of sensitivity of this case due to the fact that it was the prosecution of a visible minority and the lack of training done on the respect to sensitivity on visible minorities. As well as the absence of sufficient review led to the wrongful conviction because they didn’t review the first eyewitness reports and relied only on the second report, which were influenced by an incompetent and unprofessional
Moreover, not only Gobs but also Freud think like that because both suggest that people have selfish motivations for surviving in the society and they does not have any positive or altruistic sides. For example, you believed that people are basically good, it means that poverty or some other forces can cause people to commit violent crime, because it is only reason why people can make crime despite to their initially good nature. In addition, Sigmund Freud states that in civilized society people use violence only on criminals, and the point is that there is no law which can prosecute people who hide their domestic evil. Finally, the biggest argued that evil nature of humans was argued in several different experiment.one of the experiment was happened in the Stanford. Participants were divided into two groups such as: three prisoners and three guards.
I would address the issue of professionalism that the police department lacks. The media’s agenda loves playing with topics such as police brutality, racism, and other symptoms like this, but the root issue is the lack of professionalism. The use of force to protect an officer’s life when he feels threatened is justified. Sometimes a white officer arrests a black criminal. There is nothing wrong with either of these situations or a combination of the two.