DANIEL COLON CJA 301 MODULE 2 CASE TRIDENT UNIVERSITY The Miranda rights have been established to provide suspected criminals their rights upon being arrested. By being read these rights, the criminals know what they are entitled to, such as the right to remain silent and to obtaining an attorney (Prentzas, 2005). However, in recent years many terrorist suspects have not been read these rights and it has come to the point that many people, lawmakers and officials believe that they should not be entitled to the rights that are drawn out in the Miranda warnings. As these terrorist suspects are innocent until proven guilty, are no different than any other criminals, and have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments backing them up, they should be guaranteed the rights given by the Miranda warnings. The Miranda rights are essentially police warnings given to criminal suspects in custody and at times, before arrest, in the United States of America.
The second amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms is a heated subject for everyone across the world right now. Many people believe that taking away gun rights is “Not American” and goes against everything we are about, here in the land of the free. Many can argue also that it’s not the guns that kill people, it’s the people. It is unfair to take away something from everyone when only certain people shouldn’t be using them, because they aren’t mature enough to handle weapons. To begin with, many people believe that guns should be taken away because of all the shootings and dangerous events going on all around the world.
This is a good and efficient tactic for officers, it keeps the innocent safe. Although, this tactic does not always work, it can cause some problems. Officers are supposed to use the tactic when there is a suspected criminal, but if it turns out there is no criminal it can cause many problems. Officers do not need to persuade the innocent because then the cops are just creating crime witch is the opposite of what they are supposed to do. The main point of this article is that it wants to make the structure and the frame work of the entrapment system clearer and more precise.
Crime would be uncontrollable as never before if there wasn’t some way to deter people from committing the acts. Prison is an effective deterrent, but with some people more is needed, prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. If criminals realize that committing a serious crime that will take them to the gallows, they are bound to think twice before acting. The crime rate in countries where this form of punishment exists is far less compared to other countries where it has been abolished. People may argue and claim there is no “evidence” to suggest that it acts as a deterrent , but then there is no “evidence” to suggest that it doesn't act as a deterrent either.
Miranda cautions are a high point of dispute in the law enforcement scene. There are many misunderstandings as to when "Miranda" applies. First, I explain about Miranda rights to their family because it’s important to know these basics. If we aren’t in police care then we don’t have to give them Miranda warnings. We mention all the matter in front of boy’s family and asked the officer that when police officers question a suspect in custody without first giving the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is supposed to be instinctive, and cannot be used against the suspicious in any criminal case.
Freedom of assembly has to be balanced with other people’s right if it causes problem in public order. When people think freedom of assembly, it’s always have to do with people protesting which causes violence. But they plea that’s peaceful protest when it’s not. People should have freedom to roam where they please and go wherever they’d like, just not when it involves violence on public property. “Although the government can't stop you from joining with a group of others to make your views known, you must do it in a peaceful manner” (The Right To Gather Has Some Restrictions).
Further, it is also important to understand that censorship is not only an after effect of the act of expression. It should also be seen in the absence of the speech-act. It is a process which “encompasses all socially structured proscriptions or prescriptions which inhibit or prohibit dissemination of ideas, information, images, and other messages through a society 's channels of communication whether these obstructions are secured by political, economic, religious, or other systems of authority. It includes both overt and covert proscriptions and prescriptions.” (Beat Muller 227) In democracy which constitutionally enshrines freedom of speech, censorship constitutes paranoia wherein the authority both mandates free speech and later forfeits if it is found to be threatening. Foucault, in The Courage of Truth opines that parrhesia (truth- telling) which includes both the right to express one’s opinion, and the courage to go against the opinions of others is crucial
Those still aren’t good enough reasons to murder someone, but another reason young people commit such crimes is that of the psychology of their brains. People under the age of 18 aren’t fully developed and don’t think or function as properly as adults do. Their brains don’t think about the logic of situations, just feelings, which is why most juvenile offenders don’t really realize what they are doing or think about the consequences of their actions. In order to understand what is going on in their brains and to get juveniles to change the way they think, they need child rehabilitation, but instead, receive adult rehabilitation. These juvenile offenders are treated like adults because they made adult decisions when instead they should be given attention and support to turn them into better people.
Is it really possible that a killer will be more deterred by the risk of the death penalty than by having to spend the rest of his life in prison? The claim fails the test of common sense. Criminologists and police chiefs say the death penalty just doesn't influence murderers -- partly because its application is so haphazard. Although some people say the purpose of punishment is not only just to deter but also to retribute. However, this does not justify the idea that a person should be killed because of killing other just like a rapist should also be rapped.
Many people claim it is a dangerous and risky if prisoners retain the right to vote in political matters. After all, they have somehow violated the laws of the state by committing a crime that led to their imprisonment. But democratic, constitutional states like Germany have not denied prisoners their right to vote. The following essay will argue in favour of that decision. The idea of legal punishment by imprisonment is not revenge but retributivism because the government needs to make sure that these people are eventually able to reclaim a normal life.
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.
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.
Unreasonable search and seizure is an asset in this country. It is an asset in this country because the police have to have rules also. If America did away with the fourth Amendment there would not be any crime because the police will be able to arrest anyone without probable cause. The police would have such much power that people will be afraid to even drive through a stop sign.
It is shameful, It is deadly.” These people will suffer from this if this isn’t resolved. Many false arrests have been made, innocent people are doing time in prison. Police officers need to be equal with anyone regardless of how they look. Many things can be done to prevent situations like these from happening. Police officers can be trained for a longer period of time, to help them better connect with people and not use excessive force.
Why we should incarcerate drug users Currently one of the less heated but still talked about debates is the issue of what we should do with those who have been caught using illegal substances. Some people say that we should be giving them rehab, and some say that they deserve to be in their. Both sides have their points, but the evidence points towards incarceration being a better option. The reason our judicial system incarcerates drug abusers are because enforcement will discourage drug use, it will keep them away from innocent people, and it will punish the addicts so they know not to do it again. While there are many reasons to be for the legalization of drugs, many people forget that the reason they’re illegal is to discourage drug