People may argue against Jamison by saying that she challenge the common sense that people should be responsible for what they have done. In the other words, if one committed crime, he deserve the correspondence punishment under United State legal system. When the correspondence punishment happen to be incarceration, he should be incarcerated. This argument is weak because the fact that Charlie does not deserve incarceration in Beckley does not necessary leads to the generally conclusion that people should not be responsible for what they have done. What Jamison wants to argue is that people should feel empathy towards those inmates.
However, there are many that argue that the decriminalization of possession of drugs would redirect focus of the law enforcement system of any country to put more effort into arresting dealers and big time criminals, instead of arresting minor criminals for mere possession, and thus be more effective. It also has more focus on the drug user instead of drug lords which is a more humane approach as compared to the others. Decriminalisation then includes diversion programmes instead of incarceration. Decriminalisation also removes the stigma attached to a criminal conviction for the use of
In fact, we'd hope an alternative explanation would have more value than the disease label, by giving people with addictions something the disease concept lacks: an understanding that is useful for treating the problem. This question has been discussed in Module 1 amongst my cohorts and I with the majority stating addiction was a disease and those few who questioned this, only did so because someone they truly loved became an addict hurting their feelings which in turn clouded their
Some have argued that drug offenders deserve to be severely punished, as it was their choice to get involved with drugs. They believe strict punishments would not only dissuade people that want to get into the business of drugs, but also discipline current drug offenders. It’s completely understandable why someone might think this way. They have learned that when someone commits a crime, that person will be punished to discourage the same offense from taking place again. For the most part, this is how it has been done for centuries, and it has seemed to work for all these years.
Apart from the fact that cathartic retribution is dubious justification for punishment, there seems little reason to believe that it is necessary to favor present modes of execution over the paradigm in order to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands. It can just as easily be argued that executions through cruel methods encourage public brutality and disrespect for the law. In the past, lynchings seemed to occur more often in states that employed the traditional modes of execution than in jurisdictions that had abolished capital punishment. Because a significant proportion of the public favors abolition of capital punishment, any execution could inspire public resentment of the legal system, particularly if the capital punishment were performed in an unnecessarily cruel
I mentioned a few reasons on how the use of force has made police officers look bad. It is making officers look bad because recordings from the public only show the beatings and shootings, but do not capture the beginning of the confrontation. It will be bet for officers and the goof being of the community I officers use body-worn cameras because it will capture every second that happens between confrontations. The use of force is granted to the officers if they feel like the suspect is dangerous or is not complying with the officer. It was a right given to them by a case back in 1985, in which a person was killed by deadly force.
Today many countries try to regulate the numbers of drugs users as many as they can by using the scary promotions and commercials to attract the attention from people, albeit ineffective. Rather than using the outmoded methods, legitimacy should be announced for all drugs in order that the regulation will process more ease for the government. In this procedure, the government can legislate the limitations for drugs consumption and people will be able to understand drug disadvantages profoundly. Therefore, allowing drugs as ordinary substances will abate the drug consumption. The aforementioned issue, in brief, the drugs is a too danger to leave it as it is so it should be legalized.
Addressing this issue causes a huge debate due to stigmas. Many believe that any convicted criminal should be set away from society. This is due to the stigma that anyone convicted is a “delinquent” or is “crooked, evil, or a possible murderer.” But, it is quite naive to believe that prisons should be set separate from society. It is crucial that services are provided inside those walls to aid the inmates whom-with a few exceptions- will be released and it is our job and in our interest to ensure that they will not return to crime and be locked up yet again. Assisting them would be to not lock up people for pretty silly crimes, to relieve the problem of overcrowding, to not believe that a person of a darker skin tone is more likely to commit a violent crime, to as a whole support non violent offenders to turn around their life during their sentence and be released ready to start over and be welcomed back with open arms instead of silenced whispers and icy stares, to rid these prisons of industrialization and profit and encourage rehabilitation, rejuvenation, and
According to sex offender statics, sex offenders are kept off of these grounds because this helps reduce the temptation or recidivism rates of that offenders to possible reoffend, due to this statement has been a huge argument, because people say if a sex offender want to offend they will do it anyway. These restrictions of dwelling also bring up argument with recidivism, because it forces the offenders to leave in place where jobs might not be as enrich, treatment may not be available closely, or makes it hard for law enforcement officials to get to. Baltimore county has sex
Reinforced by research evidence, reasonable arguments for supporting the current law on illegal drugs are rarely offered. The clearest arguments are religiously based or moral views that the use of particular drugs is immoral; that people who use those drugs are corrupt and consequently, drugs should be banned and manufacturers, suppliers and users should be treated as criminals. Adjustment to drug laws has been advocated by a number of individuals and reform groups, however opponents announce that such reduction of laws, involving decriminalization and legalization, will eliminate the preventive effect and increase drug use and release much larger drug-related concerns into the community. A reasoning for legalization is that it would significantly reduce or even abolish drug trade inside the black market and criminal networks. Other arguments involve focusing responses within health instead of the police and the criminal justice system.