The Committee of Public Safety implemented the Law of Suspects, which prevented counter-revolutionary uprisings by imprisoning anyone suspected of treason against the revolution. The Law of Suspects referred to enemies as anyone opposing the revolution, and therefore minimized the action against it by imprisoning them. They protected the revolution from its enemies by relentlessly placing anti-revolutionaries in prison if they did not comply with the movement.
The Law of Suspects referred to monarchists as enemies. They were placed in custody for being convicted of treason against the revolution. This intimidated people into either being indifferent, or restraining themselves from outwardly criticizing the revolution, as citizens did not want
a threat. The decree stated that such people were not to be immediately executed but were to vanish without a trace into the night and fog. (www.historylearningsite.co.uk).
Aside from giving the guillotine a purpose, the Reign of Terror stands as a necessity in the story of French independence. It might not have been the proudest of times, but the Reign began on a strong premise: holding together a new government by purging the bad apples for the betterment of the whole cart. While the Reign of Terror developed into an overly excessive bloodshed, it was justified by the war stricken circumstances and necessity for the support of the ongoing revolution. Despite the extreme heights the Reign of Terror reached, it was necessary to maintain the fragile presence of the government and preserve the new liberty a majority of the population had been denied before. In a 1793 letter from Vendée —a major counterrevolutionary hub— local government was fending off on-going riots and rebellion while being invaded from the north by Prussia.
It was often the case, that suspects were locked into gaols, until court was held. If it happened in smaller towns, the citizens had to act as gaolers and furthermore had to feed their prisoners. Therefore they did not guard their captives very careful, which led to a lot of breakouts. That could have had financial consequences for the citizens, but they did not bother at all, because the costs in loss of working time and in feeding the prisoners were balanced by the feeling that these fines were an unavoidable form of taxation. Now the criminals tried to escape to the next churchyard, because there they could claim sanctuary. If they were successful, they could stay there in safety for the next forty days.
Being suspicious about someone is not necessarily bad for police officers, as long as you have a reason to suspect. For example, have you ever seen a person that you have never seen before, walk by your neighborhood? Law enforcement officers patrol the streets making sure there isn’t anything suspicious going on. There have been cases were the police have been accused of stopping people over for no reason. Some say they were racially profiled. Whatever the case is, police have to have reasonable suspicion to stop someone.
(Doc E) This violated the ideal that everyone is innocent until declared guilty and making a remark saying that they don't like the revolution is an opinion so in a way the government was actually breaking both ideals and therefore proves the Reign of Terror was not justified.
... “…let them lose the business, or be stripped any publicly beaten in the presence of people”, laws were taken very seriously and had consequences to them. People feared and followed all the laws (Document D).
In 1789, the French people began to stand up to their current monarchical government in order to obtain rights and laws that they felt they deserved. The Reign of Terror followed after the Revolution and seemed to stand for the complete opposite of what the people had previously stood up for. The Reign of Terror began in 1793 and ended in 1794 due to the decapitation of Maximilien Robespierre. The Reign of Terror can be explained as a time period in France when many counter revolutionaries were killed because of their traditional beliefs. Counter revolutionaries believed in preserving the ways of the monarchy, but since the majority of people thought otherwise, these opposing beliefs led to death. The French government did not have good reason to conduct such drastic measures against those who challenged the Revolution.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
... court, there are only two choices for their fate: confess to a false crime and spend time in jail for it, or don't confess and face either torture until you confess or your execution. It is a lose lose situation. This is true for every person who is tried in front of the court. People became fearful of this and they could do nothing but accuse everyone they can in order to prevent accusation of themselves.
The Uniform Crime Report, which was developed in the 1930s, is commonly used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a record of crimes committed all across the United States. These crimes, which fall under two categories, Part I and Part II offenses, are reported by local police to the Federal Bureau of Investigation each year. Part I offenses are considered to be the more serious of crimes recognized by society. Such examples of this are homicide, forcible rape, robbery, arson, motor vehicle theft, etc. Part II offenses are those that are considered less serious, such as fraud, simple assault, drug abuse, gambling, stolen property, embezzlement, etc. Part I crimes can also be subdivided into what are known as violent crimes and property crimes. (Barkan, 2012). However, there are both some positive and negative aspects of this type of crime measurement. The following paper will explore the small amount of pros and numerous cons associated with the Uniform Crime Report.
There are a few elements that need to be introduced before an arrest is taken place. These few elements are Seizures and detention, Intention to arrest, Arrest Authority and lastly understanding for the individual that they are being arrested. To discuss these elements it first starts with seizure and detention. Seizure and detention have a two-lane road which is actual, meaning that a person is taken into custody without using the use of force but very few touching is sometimes involved or by firearm, the other way is constructive which means when an individual's corporates with the officer peacefully. It is known that if neither of these exists the arrest isn't valid (Del Carmen). Another element of arrest is the intention to arrest. The intention to arrest clear means that the law enforcement officer has the intention to arrest individuals by words of mouth or with action taking place. Without the intentions to arrest on the scene it would also be considered invalid (Wadia Whalen). Also with the intention to arrest once words and action are taken place, the officer has to take the person down to the police station or before a judicial officer. The intention to arrest is quite hard to prove because it's whatsit in the officer mind. The other element listed above that is
As the Reign of Terror in France grew and invoked fear the internal threats became more radical and deadly. The French Revolution began in 1789 as an attempt to create a new and fair government. (Doc A) As year four of freedom lurched the thirst for power in Maximilien Robespierre stirred and the hunger for more blood provoked him urging him to create the Reign of Terror. 1793, the first year of the Reign of Terror, Robespierre grasped on to his new power and as the revolution spun out of control the Jacobins Club established a new way to “fight enemies” by constructing a Committee of Public Safety and a Tribunal Court. (Doc A) This new government was working swell it contained counterrevolutionaries in the Vendée Region, and it smothered and ferreted the internal threats. (Docs A, C, G) The counterrevolutionaries adopted a name that meant trouble – the rabble. (Doc D) In a letter written by a city official of the Town of Niort a...
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
The definition of justice and the means by which it must be distributed differ depending on an individual’s background, culture, and own personal morals. As a country of many individualistic citizens, the United States has always tried its best to protect, but not coddle, its people in this area. Therefore, the criminal justice history of the United States is quite extensive and diverse; with each introduction of a new era, more modern technologies and ideals are incorporated into government, all with American citizens’ best interests in mind.
Crime is defined as an omission or an act that violates the set laws in a given jurisdiction, and which is punishable when an individual is convicted (Arrington, 2006). Crimes include offenses concerning drugs, against property or people, offenses as per the provision of the federal statute, and motor vehicle offenses. Some of the disorderly behaviors, which may include public urination, aggressive panhandling, and sleeping in public areas, such as streets, are not necessarily considered to be criminal acts, but such acts always affect the community or the society since it leads to the erosion of the quality of life in the given society or community in which such activities are rampant. Normally, there are three main factors that must be present so that a crime can take place. These include the presence of a motivated offender, who has the intention of performing the criminal activity, The availability of a suitable target, that motivates and arouse the interest of the offender to engage in the criminal activity, and a third part, which either a person or something the either encourages the crime to take place or discourages the criminal acts form being committed by the offender. In essence, this can be put as that, crimes concerns people, situations, and places. These elements are thus the responsibility of crime prevention of crime reduction.