In accordance with Tom Tyler's ideal of procedural justice criminal justice professionals should behave in a manner that leads to more trust and confidence in our judges, the courts, the criminal justice system, and the law while providing justice for the people. An example of this is the decisions pertaining to child custody and support in which would be willingly followed by both parents to create the most positive outcome for the parties separating; In other words, enabling both parents to adhere to court agreements concerning custody issues, child support, and visitation rights. This basic form of procedural of justice is often filled with problems and disputes that lead to one side not accepting the decisions of the of court; thus, leading
Leah, Great post! Merton argues that one of the main reasons for high crime rates in America is due to the goal for monetary success and the limitations which hinder individuals from reaching that goal. The deprivation of basic life essentials like skills and values which are needed to succeed in life may cause one to engage in crime (Cullen, Agnew, & Wilcox, 2014, p. 168). According to Merton, when strain is placed on an individual there are five ways in which they may adapt to it (Cullen, Agnew, & Wilcox, 2014, p. 177). Do you think if strain and stresses did not affect individuals while perusing monetary goals, there would still be high rates of crime?
Bob Brecher’s argument is centered around being a counter-claim to Dershowitz’ Ticking Bomb scenario. The counter-claim argues that a ticking bomb scenario, as described by Dershowtiz, is unlikely to occur in the real world, due to the difficulty in apprehending a terrorist after the terrorist plot has been set in motion, but has not yet been fully executed. Even if the authorities are lucky enough to apprehend the suspect before the ticking bomb has been set to detonate, it is improbable that torture would result in the suspect revealing the plot before the bomb goes off. Brecher additionally argues that Dershowitz’ idea of using legalized torture warrants to limit torture would, on the contrary, lead to the abuse of the torture warrant system.
Kevin t. Keith uses quite a bit of personal anecdotes which unlike his questionable facts helps his argument. He uses personal anecdotes as a way to show his emotional connection and view on the topic. For example when he states “it feels like their family member has been ‘sacrificed’(because of course they do not agree that the treatment would be ‘futile’).” he seems to know what it's like being a family member of a patient whose treatment was futile. It shows a personal knowledge on the subject of futile treatment well.the use of personal anecdotes increases the validity of his credibility as well as his argument as a
In his argumentative essay, Paul Bogard uses literacy diction and allusions to give credibility to his argument. By using words like Van Gogh, “Starry night sky”, and given. These words evoke a feeling of recollection. Also using the words van Gogh, Paul gives his paper further credibility all while persuading the audience to be on his side. Furthermore Paul also uses imagery in his argument to evoke a feeling of both sadness and a feeling of missing out.
So my issue with Peter Singer's argument is it's infallible to tell someone that they should not be spending money on luxuries, when they themselves are buying tickets to see a movie. I believe in "practice what you preach" and "actions speak louder than words". Which really puts me off about what Singer was trying to communicate. Now I understand his thoughts of trying to challenge people to not be selfish and think inwardly. But in that process, he himself fell prey to his own vices.
Recently gaining popularity in light of the recent election, some Californian residents are calling for secession. The idea of secession is not new, especially in instances of political turmoil. In 2012, after former President Obama’s re-election, individuals from states like Texas and Louisiana began petitions that garnered enough signatures for an office of the White House to respond. However, instead of California seceding and becoming it’s own nation, what about splitting the state into two or three states? Dividing into separate states could ease feelings of unjust representation and help the further development in each state’s needs.
John Tierney’s piece is very interesting. It goes against I and many other people have been taught when it comes to recycling. As I read his article I kept saying to myself, oh wow, I never taught of that or that is an interesting perspective. When it comes to the environment I am not someone who keeps up with it
I gift you all with a short response this week, your move Dylan. Bryen is essentially arguing that historians should read petitions as very pointed documents with an inherent bias. The quote, “petitions must not be read as form letters drafted mechanically and sent off to whichever official was available. They are conscious and calculated attempts to frame individual complaints in legal language, and petitioners chose the language they used with care” (155-56), just about sums up his argument. Petitions are in his eyes biased and must be read with that in mind, it is almost a sort of historical sensitivity toward Mary-Engle’s idea of “Forum Shopping.”
Sprigg’s viewpoint is that “homosexual relationships are not marriage because they are not between the union of a man and a woman and that homosexual relationships are harmful because they do not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive” (Finsterbusch, 2012, p.124). Sprigg’s comments are supported by figures on higher rates of diseases, higher rates of mental health issues, and national opinion polls that say people do not support gay marriage. He has some valid points and does have his opinion about the subject. However, when it comes to same-sex marriages I am divided on this subject for different reasons. First, I think we should not judge people or what