First of all, injury could be caused by students obtaining teachers’ guns. Second, it is not teachers’ jobs to protect students, as they already have so many responsibilities. They are hard working at school and don’t need more stress from having more to worry about. They are other forms of protection that schools can utilize. Lastly, fear would come upon students because of the deadly firearms in their presence.
Some people believe books should not be banned in schools/libraries but just because you do not like it does not mean it should be taken away, that is the authors freedom of speech. Also, some say that you should not be exposing bad behavior or language to students but in reality they hear and see these things everyday, and by banning a book, that is not protecting them. Writers have the freedom to write whatever they want and that is a part of the First Amendment, so why banned their book? “The First Amendment allows individuals to speak, publish, read and view what they wish, worship (or not worship) as they wish, associate with
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. Following are the issues, which were focused in that scenario. Issues related to Miranda Law 1. People Do not know about their rights: As in this case, the family and
Brian Wilson and Laura Finley discuss how they believe instead keeping violence out of schools the laws “prevent student learning” (Wilson and Finley). Regarding the purpose of the policies, Wilson and Finley state, “zero-tolerance policies are, in effect, a means of channeling young people into the juvenile justice system.” Some of the policies have nothing to do with the safety of the school such as being a distraction, and disobeying dress code. These types of infractions allows minority students to spend less time in school and more time home; time home allows students to find trouble in gangs and crime. Instead of sending students home for a dress code infraction, administrators could simply have clothing available for students who have these infractions. Russel Skiba states, “the use, and especially the overuse, of disciplinary removal carries with it and inherent risk of racial bias” (4).Advocates believe students who break zero-tolerance rules deserves their cruel punishment because no one made them disobey the rules but themselves.
because Lopez wasn't able to defend himself and wasn't able to having a hearing and his family wasn't notified either. If the court did not try to stop this it would have affected him and everyone else as well. If you think about it everyone had the right to be heard and the court bringing up that it affected the 14th amendment was a good way to protect the right to a hearing, because using liberty and property (property being education) challenged the court and made a different viewpoint on how the case was projected. Now we’re able to have court ruling for suspensions. which is a good thing and also sinces i'm a student i think it's fair that court hearing is given because without it how would a student be able to defend themselves without anyone to make the decisions if they are right or wrong.
Schools, especially high schools, implement various rules banning the usage and appearance of illicit substances or materials such as guns and drugs, in their schools. To avoid suspicion, many students resort to placing such items in their lockers where they believe is private and secure. This leads to the difficulty of identifying individuals who engage in such actions without previous records of the student’s actions or claims that such activity is occurring in the school. Locker searches enable the prevention of such predicaments and assist the school in identifying problematic students. This ensures the students, their guardians, and educators that the school has detected potential
According to the United States Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Random drug test have no “probable cause” to support them, making them “unreasonable searches and seizures.” To carry them out, the school must have reliable and sure proof that the student is carrying or using drugs. Otherwise, they have no right to search the
The Miranda rights are essentially police warnings given to criminal suspects in custody and at times, before arrest, in the United States of America. This does not mean that police need to give Miranda warnings for questions regarding a person’s addresses, names or any other biographical
Their brighter future will become dark. The relationship between parents and teenagers also will not closer than before. So that, we all responsible for preventing teenagers in drug abuse. What are the ways to prevent teenagers in drug abuse? First and foremost, parents must not involve itself in drug abuse if they involve their children might follow it because all activity that does by parents will follow by their children.
You wouldn’t talk down to students by being racist and referring to them and call them bad words , so don’t be doing it on social media. You wouldn’t say bad things about pupils or their parents to their face, so don’t post a social media post criticising your pupils or their parents In conclusion to my essay I feel that pupils and teachers should not be friends on social media because I personally don’t want to add any of my teachers on social media because to be honest who I am in school is completely different to who I am out with school and I wouldn’t want them to know what is going on in my personal life, who I associate myself with out with school or how I feel about life as a
T.L.O is relying on court president which is similar to the case of Mapp vs Ohio, that if you don’t have a warrant and you go in and find evidence that that is excluded from trial so they shouldn’t be able to use the contents of T.L.O’s purse. This case is a restraint case because it’s not going to change the rules of the school, it’s going to allow for the search. The court argues that it is correct that students do have an expectation of privacy. No student should expect to have a full scale body search. They also say that there needs to be a balancing test with schools ability to have law and order to run classes to make sure legal activities and drugs aren’t in the school to get in the way of educational objectives.
School officers do not require a warrant or probable cause to search students because the school officers are considered the guardian. Notwithstanding police officers need probable cause to search students. Schools may test any student in an extra curricular after school activity for drug usage. However, the school may not single out a student for testing. Found in the court case of The Board of Education V Earls 2002.