They begin to explain that the drop in crime among the age groups that would have been affected by the Roe v. Wade. They argue that because of this case those babies that would have grown and become criminals are not because they are not being born. The authors begin to support their explanation by using studies done is Australia and Canada. Both states have shown a similar causal relationship between abortion rates and crime (Levitt, Dubner 129). They further explain how the generation that was affected by Roe v. Wade is not only missing the thousands of young criminals but also the unwanted teenage mothers who would have been born if not for the Roe v.
In the US specifically, studies show that the stricter gun laws are in a state, the lower the amount of deaths related to guns occur (Graham). While many believe that further restrictions on guns would not be feasible, both Australia and the United Kingdom managed to highly restrict or ban guns from their nations in order to reduce gun-related deaths and crime (Graham). Australia was able to rid the country of around 650,000 guns and their rate of robberies per 100,000 people sank from about 100 to 60 (cite later 1). This program of complete gun confiscation costed Australia $230 million. If a program of the same relative scale were to be done in the States, it would cost the government around $4 billion (Rieck).
They say law enforcement must have more power to prosecute and convict juvenile offenders for serious crimes and to deal with gang members. Con: Opponents say Department of Justice statistics show that serious juvenile crime has steadily declined in recent years and California already has tough laws against gangs and youth crime. They argue that the measure carries a high price tag; more jails and prisons will need to be built, taking money away from other government services and current efforts to prevent violence.
However, in 2003 a new 'two strikes' law was enacted (effective April 4, 2005), requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public. This resulted in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation. In response to prison overcrowding, the law was changed in 2008 to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is
"While I do believe being tough on crime is a good thing in general, it's the role of the judge to determine it." Mandatory minimum sentences often tie a judge's hands, robbing them of their right to tailor sentences to a specific situation. I suppose tough-on-crime laws “worked" if success is only measured by the increase of prisoner populations. However, one of the unbelievable little details of this new tough-on-crime stance is how differently the federal government views crack cocaine and powder cocaine.
The suicide rate in America is not as high as other countries. According to the Jacobs’ study, the suicide rate for America in 1996 is 11.6 and for Japan is 16.7 and for France is 20.8 (Jacobs). Adversely, this is just the comparison between America and other countries. Because the guns are illegal in Japan and France so we couldn’t know what will happen when the guns are legal in the two countries. When focusing on the America, as discussed before, the suicide rate related to guns indeed increased faster than the suicide related to other methods.
Pena Nieto, the newly appointed president, began his term by improving coordination between intelligence and operations agencies and calling for judicial reform, resulting in high profile captures of drug lords. This different approach caused a decrease in homicides, but an overall increase in kidnappings and extortion cases, showing a diversification of criminal activities. Furthermore, Mexico City, which had previously had lower levels of violence, there was a 21 percent increase in homicide. Calderon’s and Nieto’s initiatives both focused on an issue and improved it to an extent, but their successes were diminished by the fact that the severity of other issues increased. In Nieto’s case the statistics clearly showed that even though he reduced homicide there was still an increase in crime, it just diversified and homicide actually increased in Mexico
For instance, it was shown in numerous examples of federal cases that the United States treated domestic terrorist differently than Islamic-related terrorists. The Reuters, a newspaper, found “100 federal cases found that domestic terrorism suspects collectively have faced less severe charges than those accused of acting on behalf of Islamic State” (Harte, et al). In the United States terrorists that attack for an Islamic State face charges more harsh than domestic terrorists who commit similar if not the same crimes. Thus, showing that the United States does not see the threat of domestic terrorists, to the point where the United States does not charge them with the crimes the terrorists deserve.
According to Time.com, the “temporary bans that campus create after attacks” are not strict enough. There should be more long term consequences for those who commit sexual assault crimes. Another punishment that should be enforced more is “bans on booze” (Time). Due to most sexual assaults involving alcohol consumption, there should be more strict laws and bans on alcohol. According to CollegeDrinkingPrevention.gov, “on average, about half of college student sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use”.
Prior to the introduction to crack, cocaine and herion were more expensive drugs. The drug users were people who could afford the more expensive drugs. When the drugs became less expensive, example crack, people were not making as much money being a crack dealer as they did compared to the late 80’s. Those kingpins were going to prison or dying and the younger generation didn’t feel like the minimal amouts they could make or killing someone over it was worth the jail time. So even though the crime rate fell due to this, it was nothing in comparison to the percentage that drugs caused the crime to increase in prior
Another example of judicial inequality in parity between legal treatments of citizens is the Crack Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Before 2010, there were much stricter mandatory minimum sentences when someone was convicted of a crime involving crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. Crack cocaine is much cheaper to produce and buy than powder cocaine, and thus crack cocaine offenders were more likely to be poor and black, while powder cocaine offenders were more often more affluent and white. Thus a disproportionate number of blacks were imprisoned
The concealed weapons law stops crime quite significantly. The law has reduced murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, and robberies. Murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robbery by 3%. More research was conducted on why this law helps deter crime and between 1980 and 2009, states with more restrictive laws for concealed weapons had gun-related murder rates that were 10%. Also, before Florida passed the concealed weapons law, they had 36% higher crime rate than the nation average.
The shorter mandatory minimums have only been effective on drug offenders and no other offenses. After the sentencing commision was created the “Senators Dick Durbin (D–IL) and Mike Lee (R–UT) have introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act.” (Larkin and Bernick) This explains in detail that the sentences for drug offenders will be shortened. Likewise, The smarter sentencing act has lessened sentences on drug offences.
In the case of drug abuse, the law prohibits drug use and considers it a crime. While it is logical to prohibit the general population from using substances that are detrimental to one’s health and societal output/GDP, the fact is that when we consider the homeless’ drug abuse as a crime the result is higher numbers of incarceration and crimes as opposed to lower long term usage of drugs. A similar example is when the U.S. congress places a prohibition on alcohol in the 1920’s. In the end, “congress recognized that prohibition had failed to stop drinking and had increased prison population and crime rate” (David Boaz, CATO Institute, USA, 1999). So while it does not help reduce the number of drug use, it actually exacerbates the problem since “the long federal experiment in the prohibition of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs has given us unprecedented crime and corruption combined with a manifest failure to stop the use of drugs or reduce their availability to children” (David Boaz, CATO Institute, USA,