It is hard to separate the cases between instrumental aggression and bias motivation. I think not every bias motivation reflected as hate crime or breach the hate speech law. In some time you have the ability to like some one or not, so hate crime law could make many problems **** instigate retaliatory attacks. In conclusion, society would be better with more control and more law to live in an organized and pleasant community of humanity. Hate speech law does not prevent of exercising the freedom of speech but it has been found for reduce using freedom of speech and minimize making problems to other or causing harm to them.
As such, the public should have more sway in the decision making process for proper punishment for the officers in question. Furthermore, the details of the investigation should be made public so that the law enforcement agency employing the offender cannot pull punches in regards to their punishment. In effect this would lower the chances of negative police deviance as there would be no room for making a horrendous decision that affects the life of another individual. This is not to mention the fact that such a public disgrace goes beyond the slap on the wrist that the agency usually attempts to use. It would single out the offender and keep the agencies public face intact as opposed to giving every officer a bad name as a result of a few bad
According to the magazine daily news it suggest, “the NYPD Patrol Guide encourages the use of pepper spray for noncompliance (Moskos, 2014).” It seems like it is a less lethal technique, but it is actually still dangerous because people may be allergic to the acidic substance and might end up dying. Overall, the use of force needs to be done, but only when it is 100% necessary or else the community will see it as a violation of the law. If the use of force is being used when it is necessary, people will not be disrespecting the police and protesting police
C: The atmosphere in America about hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there 's a discussion if free speech should protect it. E: The main argument against hate speech being allowed as free speech is the fact that it provokes people into actions. E: And the projection of hate speech in Charlottesville, Virginia led to a day of riots and a death of 1 person and 19 injured (Heim).
Racial profiling is a positive thing. Racial profiling is a practice used by law enforcement officials to target individuals and groups of people who are suspicious of crimes based on their ethnicity. Racial profiling should be allowed for the police to use because it is easier for them to track down criminals, to prevent crimes from happening and to create a safer place. Racial profiling should be allowed for the police to use because it is easier to prevent crimes from happening.
We are saying that committing a crime against a stranger due to their way of life, and no other reason is worse than committing a crime out of anger or out of disagreement. In conclusion, there are pros and cons of hate crime laws, however in reality they are a necessity in our criminal justice system. They are equally beneficial to minorities as well as the majority. they equally protect everyone.
They want to make sure when punishing an immoral act, there is benefit to society. Shaw says this because utilitarianism does give established laws and reasoning behind them. Shaw also says that Utilitarians say that our system of punishment as it functions, succeeds in rehabilitating many convicts and discourages them from future mistakes. his reasons for saying this. I think that Utilitarians favor exploring the alternatives because doing something to someone, even a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime, morally wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right, it is setting the wrong view for society.
It is also used to describe nonutilitarian theories of punishment based on justice and desert. In its third sense, the term retribution describes punishment that serves a utilitarian purpose: to vent public disgust toward criminals and, as a consequence, to increase respect for the law and eliminate the likelihood that citizens will "take the law into their own hands." Whatever meaning is attached to retribution, the paradigm does not become less desirable than other modes of capital punishment on "retributive" grounds. It is an inappropriate application of the criminal sanction to impose a crueler sanction simply to inflict more suffering upon the offender.
During the Holocaust millions of people were killed by the Nazis because they were not the ideal race. The Nuremberg Trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany. The judges of the trials were from Great Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States, and France. These trials were held to bring justice to all the lives lost during World War two. After the Holocaust, the Nuremberg Trials were held to bring justice to Nazi officials, Industrialists, but failed to punish those who escaped.
A law that may protect people from near death experiences, decrease crime rates, but also puts people in danger when so-called “helping” the victim can go both ways. People often see the bystander law as a good or a bad thing, for starters, the bystander law can protect many people on the streets and make them feel safe if anything bad happens, on the other hand, it may also put people in the risk of danger when getting involved or assisting. A law that gets you fined when failed to assist or report a crime you witnessed, the bystander law can also leave you with a guilty feeling and a jail sentence. The bystander effect began when a woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of her apartment complex and was a witnessed murder by many of the residents in those apartments. Not one called the police, but why?
Should hate speech be prevented? Hate can provoke violent incidents which are capable of having a stronger impact on victims than ordinary crimes. For example, they send a message to communities that these communities should be denied the right to be part of society. Since hate speech may promote hate crimes, the two concepts are interlinked. Responses to hate crime would call for changes in legislation and training in the criminal justice system aimed at improving responses to hate crimes; such as, investigation, prosecution, and prevention of hate crimes.
Is hate speech free speech and should it be protected under the First Amendment? Hate speech is speech that is used to verbally assault a single individual or a group of people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. While some countries such as France, Canada, Chile, Germany, etc. have passed laws in an attempt to combat or minimize hate speech, the United States guarantees full protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, which was ratified in 1789 and adopted in 1791, essentially forbids Congress to create any laws curtailing the freedom of speech, freedom of press, or the right of citizens to peaceably assemble and seek assistance from the Government for a redress of grievances. Since the adoption of the First Amendment, Americans have consciously, continuously, and contentedly exercised their right.
Introduction Colin Ferguson was convicted of the December 7, 1993 shooting of 25 people aboard the Long Island Rail Road commuter train out of Penn Station at Merillon Avenue station in Garden City, New York, New York. He killed six and wounded nineteen before being stopped by three of the passengers: Kevin Blum, Mark McEntee, and Mike O'Connor. Ferguson's trial was notable for a number of unusual developments, including his firing of his defense counsel and insisting on representing himself and examining himself as a live witness. Before the trial, William Kunstler and Ron Kuby attempted to argue that Ferguson was driven to mental illness through years of living in an oppressive and racist society.