More handpicked essays just for you.
Persuasive essay on why police should wear body cameras
An essay on the police force
An essay on the police force
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
"Those that sacrifice freedom for security will not have nor deserve either one."(Franklin, Benjamin) This quote comes to mind as I read "The Perfect Non-Crime" by Rich L. Michael. In Michael's essay he criticizes what he defines as "perfect prevention" or government actions that completely remove the ability to commit a crime. I mostly agree with Michael's stance; however, I feel that I am divergent from his stance somewhat. Where Michael says that there are some cases in which perfect prevention is acceptable, I say that because of how difficult it is to classify the rare cases of acceptable "perfect prevention" that it is best to not use it at all. One such hypothetical case is the government distribution of mind altering drugs …show more content…
to reduce murder. This type of "perfect prevention" is one in which Michael and I both agree is wrong because it is unconstitutional, morally wrong, and a slippery slope. Adding mind altering drugs into the water supply in order to reduce antisocial behavior and murder is a direct violation of our individual liberties as Americans. I agree with Michael as he stated, "This would seem like an obvious violation of our freedom." As Americans we are entitled to certain rights that the Bill of Rights set in stone. Although there is no amendment that explicitly states that the government could fill our water supply with drugs, we must take into account the 9th amendment. The 9th amendment basically states that we have further rights not directly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. This has often been used by the supreme court to determine the constitutionality of a law by the insinuations of the Constitution if not directly listed or written about. From this process we have the right to privacy which was not directly mention, but insinuated. So, if you read the Constitution, which was written by the founding fathers whom were not the biggest fans of big government, I believe that anyone would come to the conclusion that drugging our drinking water would not be constitutional. Perfect prevention, particularly in the form of government implemented mind altering water drugs, is immoral.
Most are familiar with the phrase "If you truly love it, set it free." There is a grander implantation of the phrase. For example, in the bible God created man and woman. God also created the Tree of Knowledge and said not to eat from it. This was the one sin that they were capable of committing. Adam and Eve only new one right and one wrong which was not to eat from the tree or to eat from it. Why would God create the opportunity for them to sin? If he did not create the tree they could not have done wrong. The answer is that he loved them so much that he gave them free will and the ability to sin. This relates to the question of morality with our government. It is not the place of the government to remove our ability to commit crime or the thoughts of crime. Punishment, rather than prevention, should be the focus of our judicial system. That fear of punishment should be the sole preventive of crime. As Michael stated,"Using technology to prevent the crime entirely would not unduly burden individual freedom." Thus, it is better to allow the possibility of a crime being committed and punished if found guilty rather than preventing it entirely at the cost of
freedom. Allowing the government to have such authority would definitely be a slippery slope. The main argument here is that is it ok for the government to implement hypothetical mind altering drugs, that have no ill side-effects, into the public water system to reduce crime guaranteed. Allowing the government such attorney is taking a large step away from our current political system. Such extreme policy would never pass through popular vote or our highly divided bureaucratic system, probably with good reason, and thus could only be enacted with a highly centralized and large government. If they government was given the authority to add mind altering drugs to our water to reduce crime, we are basically saying that the government has the right to regulate our state of mind. We have a right to get angry, sad, or happy on our own terms. If such policy was practiced people who are mad at the government simply don't drink enough water. It would become the case that "He is angry because taxes are high" would be replaced with "He is angry because he won't take his pills." This point seems obvious. A policy that encourages citizens to become sheep is not a good government practice. Hypotheticals are interesting topics. The case of if the government should put anti-murder drugs in our water system is no exception. I believe it shouldn't because of the violations to the Constitution, the immoral nature of the act, and the slippery slope that would undoubtedly led to absolute governmental control. Michael also believe that the government should not implement such drugs because they encroach on our "freedom of thought" and our privacy to those thoughts. Whether or not you've seen the "Minority Report" I think it is clear that perfect prevention is a poor policy.
In book " black man in the white coat", the author has been mistaken as the electrician by his professor in medical school. It's unfortunately very common experience for our black fellows. I really admired his way to deal with this discrimination. He worked his butt off and became the second in that class. The professor was shocked by his accomplishments and invited him to work in his lab. Of course, he politely refused. The professor had no words about that incident (maybe every black looks same in his eyes). The stereotyping thing is detrimental to the people who came from different race background. Now the in-between biracial people are treated even worse because they do not belong to any categories..."others". Being marginalized is hurtful
At first glance, Inhuman Traffick: The International Struggle against the Transatlantic Slave Trade bares resemblance to your typical, run of the mill historical textbook. The reader [looking at the cover,] may expect to see ordinary text that would pertain to a standardized African History course. Contrary to the title, the author, Rafe Blaufarb, provides a vivid, contextual look at how slavery spanned out with the use of graphic images and primary sources in a way most authors do not today. Comparatively [to other textbooks,] Inhuman Traffick depicts the development of the raw story of enslavement. From the ships to the whips, it shows concrete details of this haunting era while adding an underlying complexity to the story whilst omitting
The book basically talks about two young boys both with the name Wes Moore, who grew up in Baltimore and in the same neighborhood but never knew of each others existence. This is until the author Wes Moore, the one who escaped his rough childhood in Baltimore and the Bronx, began meeting with the other Wes Moore and questioning him who is spending his life in prison because of attempted murder. The author Wes Moore who managed to escape his situation growing up had a much more supportive mother who moved him away from Baltimore and continued to push him to get an education. He lived in the Bronx for sometime with his grandparents and mother, and attended a well renowned school in the Bronx. His mother worked several jobs in order for him to
The novel, Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson is an incredible read. In this book, Mr.
As I was completing this assignment, I was watching the infamous Netflix documentary entitled Making a Murderer. The documentary follows the story of Steven Avery, who is currently in prison for the death of a woman, Teresa Halbach, in 2005. Steven Avery has been denying any involvement in the murder of Teresa Halbach for the past eleven years. In the middle of the reading, the documentary was exploring and analyzing Steven Avery’s deviant behavior as a young man (Making). As I observed what was being discussed about Steven Avery, I was able to build the connection between how society, and the community from which he came from, perceived Steven Avery and what Kai Erikson discussed in the first couple pages of the book with regards to deviance and its relation with regards to society.
The first five chapters of The Collapse of American Criminal Justice by William Stuntz discusses the history of the criminal justice, and it’s flaws as well. He goes in details how things work, and of course the collapse of the system. Stuntz seems to believe although their has been improvements in the constitution, it’s still not perfect. He also suggests some of the things that need to be change.
In Monster: The Autobiography of an L.A. Gang Member, Kody Scott tells the story of the struggle between two significantly large gangs. At the age of eleven he was initiated into the Crips, and committed his first murder. It was this day that began what would become a career for Kody: banging (Scott, 1993).
The Murderers Are Among Us, directed by Wolfe Gang Staudte, is the first postwar film. The film takes place in Berlin right after the war. Susan Wallner, a young women who has returned from a concentration camp, goes to her old apartment to find Hans Mertens living there. Hans took up there after returning home from war and finding out his house was destroyed. Hans would not leave, even after Susan returned home. Later on in the film we find out Hans was a former surgeon but can no longer deal with human suffering because of his traumatic experience in war. We find out about this traumatic experience when Ferdinand Bruckner comes into the film. Bruckner, Hans’ former captain, was responsible for killing hundreds
Dostoevsky uses Lebezyatnikov as another way to talk about his own opinion on the ideas of such “progressives” (376). His argument against the ideas of progressives is intensified with Lebezyatnikov because his actions don’t seem to be congruent with his stances. Lebezyatnikov’s treatment of Katerina Ivanovna and Sonya do not comply with his ideas of free love and the equality of women. Dostoevsky does not agree with the progressive “‘younger generation’” (378) as he characterizes Lebezyatnikov as belonging to “[a] varied legion of semi-literate half wits”(378). Clearly Dostoevsky is not fond of these people. Progressive ideas can be beneficial when actually acted upon. Perhaps he is not arguing that the ideas themselves are bad but that the people who “vulgarize them” (378) are the reason why these ideas make no actual progress.
It is absolutely clear that you feel sad when somebody cheated and duplicate your own things. This causes many people to feel frustration and getting upset when they are facing this difficult situation. We know it is not a good attitude for students, authors, and anyone else to use something misappropriate that they didn’t belong it. I read an article that called “When the Story Stolen is Your Own”. When the author Sherman Alexie was writing this article, he was feeling nervous because somebody has stolen his article and use it in his own. Nobody didn’t believe him when he told the publisher that his story was stolen by someone and imitate that he belong it. Same as the students when they cheated each other and submit the same paper, it was one of the biggest challenge that happens some of the students when they are in the college.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
Many would typically conclude that there is a trade-off between basic liberty and safety. In today's society, technology has been a predominant part of our lives that gives us the freedom to say and speak freely. But when our sense of trust in the liberty we live in is broken it breaks our sense of security. A recent example of this can be seen when the government collects data from our phone calls and text messages. The government claims to collect personal information in an effort to protect ourselves from criminals and terrorists. This idea should be rejected against the masses because our own personal security should not be violated and the liberty to text and say what we want should not be looked into. Liberation is not something we should take for granted. Liberation is a commodity people in history fought for and die for. Liberation is the power to act, speak, right and do as one pleases. Liberation should make us feel secure in a nation that is supposed to protect us and our rights and privacies. When we give someone information to convey our personal information, that's not just a violation are on our personal lives but I freedom of speech. We give the government permission to read what you typed and listen to what we say. We give up our own personal liberties to gain a temporary
The Major Crimes Act was an important piece of legislation regarding the jurisdiction of Indian tribes on U.S. soil, and was passed on March 3, 1885. It was one of the concluding sections of the Indian Appropriations Act of 1885, which sought to deal with Indian American relations of the latter-19th century. The Major Crimes Act law was passed by Congress, following the General Crimes Act of 1817. The Major Crimes Act expanded on the General Crimes Act by detailing what could constitute as a crime under the federal jurisdiction of the United States if they were to be committed by a Native American in a Native American territory. It also added the caveat that crimes committed between two Native Americans would also count under federal jurisdiction
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular
Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.