Why Americans Need Guns The right to bear arms helps protect ourselves and our families. It is our constitutional right to bear arms and I believe it should not be taken away. Some people think if we did not have guns there would be less crime in the United States, but that is not true. When a person purchases a gun at a store they have to register that gun in their name, unless they buy a used one from someone else. If guns are banned the government will take innocent civilian guns away, because they have them registered in their names.
People aren’t ready to forgive felons for what they have done in the past and believe they shouldn’t be given their rights back. If there exists a way for a former felon to regain their rights in some states they should at least allow clemency in every state that disenfranchises felons. If clemency exists than someone out there sees that some felons deserve to regain their rights and if they don’t deserve it they would probably end up in jail again, so former felons should be given their rights back after some sort of process to check whether they are actually ready to regain their rights. This process should be mandatory after serving your jail time so that you can easily regain your rights without having to go through the rough process of
Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.
Unreasonable search and seizure is an asset in this country. It is an asset in this country because the police have to have rules also. If America did away with the fourth Amendment there would not be any crime because the police will be able to arrest anyone without probable cause. The police would have such much power that people will be afraid to even drive through a stop sign.
They say that if guns are taken away than it will stop mass shootings. This is wrong however because the guns criminals use most of the time are bought illegally or bought by someone else and given to them. They also may say that the background check needs to be more through. But even if they change the background checks and make them better, these people have been thinking this over and are probably going to be able to get past without being noticed. Since there is no real middle ground than they say that guns should just be taken away for good.
Police officers should under no circumstances physically harm anyone for any reason. Officers have also in the past used informants as bait and put their lives in danger just to try and catch a criminal. We as citizens should be able to put our trust in these officer, but sadly that trust has been broken too many times. Officers that misuse informants can also with-hold evidence such as drugs or money for themselves and just continue this cycle and then put the blame on the informant that is more than likely already facing jail time. We should all make sure that police officers remain in check and that they do not receive too much power, because things like this happen.
A different federal judge ruled that if the DEA wishes to use a stingray to bring in a criminal then they must have a warrant to use it [source]. The argument that a lot of people will make when it comes to surveillance is that if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. If we apply that same logic to this specific case, then we might as well say that the government should be able to put a unique tracking device on each one of us that we must always carry around. Many people would probably no want to be constantly tracked by the government openly, so why should we be okay with tracking us whenever they want, just without announcing it? We are afforded legal protections for most other private areas in our lives so why should we have almost no rights when it comes to something that we depend on and use every day?
The police and news channels broadcasted the warnings against the predator, for they feared the lives of prospective victims, yet at the same time, he was allowed into the society. If the system feared for the attacks to reoccur then why did they allow him to be released? Why in the first place would we release such a man into society and risk the lives of women. In spite of having the four pillars of the justice system, why do we fail to prevent such crimes? When will the court realize that this man, among many, is a threat and perhaps deserves a real substantial prison sentence?
Many people claim it is a dangerous and risky if prisoners retain the right to vote in political matters. After all, they have somehow violated the laws of the state by committing a crime that led to their imprisonment. But democratic, constitutional states like Germany have not denied prisoners their right to vote. The following essay will argue in favour of that decision. The idea of legal punishment by imprisonment is not revenge but retributivism because the government needs to make sure that these people are eventually able to reclaim a normal life.
“As government, we don’t protect crimes but we have to ensure the lives of people are defended. Mob justice is never allowed and the police did the right thing. The residents should come with the evidence so that they help us prosecute them. As much as they were rescued from the site, we need more evidence,” he
There have even been some states which the lower courts have ruled that using fake evidence to obtain confession is a violation of the suspect’s rights (Florida v. Cayward) (Pollock, 2014, p. 156). The other unethical response to telling the suspect that the death penalty will be taken off the table. This is an area that the homicide detective has no control over. Only the prosecutor can give this type of deal with the suspect and his attorney. The benefits in taking the unethical response is getting the confession, however, is this confession an actual true confession or just a confession from fear.
The people are giving up some of their right so the government will protect them. The first amendment is “freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition” The first amendment is similar to the social contract because in a way the government is promising to protect you in exchange for some of your rights. But if you think about it your free speech is limited, you can’t just say whatever you desire like shouting out “there’s a bomb” in a crowded place that’s illegal because safety is major.
What are the Miranda Rights and what should they mean to you? Why is exercising the Miranda Rights beneficial to you? Why are law enforcement officers required by law to advise an individual that is being investigated for a criminal offense of their Miranda Rights? Why should Miranda Rights be important to you? The Miranda Right should be important to you, because when being arrested, questioned, or investigated a person must know the constitutional rights that are given unto them so they know what they are able and unable to do.
Why we should incarcerate drug users Currently one of the less heated but still talked about debates is the issue of what we should do with those who have been caught using illegal substances. Some people say that we should be giving them rehab, and some say that they deserve to be in their. Both sides have their points, but the evidence points towards incarceration being a better option. The reason our judicial system incarcerates drug abusers are because enforcement will discourage drug use, it will keep them away from innocent people, and it will punish the addicts so they know not to do it again. While there are many reasons to be for the legalization of drugs, many people forget that the reason they’re illegal is to discourage drug