Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice and the legal system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justice and the legal system
contravene laws, Jackson et al. 2011). For instance, society might regard various laws that govern them as legitimate when they perceive the legal and justice system and its authorities as promoting suitable standards of conduct, (Jackson et al. 2011). Consequently, such legitimacy pertains to the perception that various enacted laws are supposed to be complied with not as a result of external endorsement, rather because they are the correct behavioral standards, (Jackson et al. 2011). Society may confer legitimacy on law enforcers not merely due to the law enforcers’ adherence to standards of good behavior, but rather because it perceives the law enforcers as representing certain normative ethical frameworks, (Hough et al, 2010). This is particularly …show more content…
Deontological theorists argue that coercive interrogation should be unequivocally impermissible as it entails out-right violation of human dignity, (Arrigo, 2004). According to Posner & Vermeule (2005), the idea of coercive interrogation is paradoxical in that the law enforcers maintain its legality while simultaneously using it under the guise of preventing dangerous criminal suspects from harming other people in the society. Posner & Vermuele (2005) however denounce the deontological view against coercive interrogation by arguing that it is sometimes permissible and necessary although law enforcers need not deny that coercive interrogation is inherently a severe moral evil. Their denunciation is informed by the fact an assertion that sometimes even grave evils are necessary and justified due to the inescapability of tragic choices, although a violation of rights. Posner & Vermuele (2005) conclude that although coercive interrogation is a severe ethical and moral evil that should not be out-rightly permissible, but rather one that should be subjected to rules-with-exceptions based complex regulatory frameworks. Such frameworks should permit the infliction of human harms only in tightly cabined situations with an immunity system that obliges law enforcers to follow stipulated rules in good
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
Due to rising levels of danger along with the creation and utilization of new technology, the government of the twenty first century, are becoming more involved and protective similar to the government of Oceania in the book Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell. In the book Nineteen Eighty Four, the main character Winston Smith, commits acts that are not legal according to the government of Oceania. Winston commits crimes which include thinking bad things about the government of Oceania, or thought crime, plotting against the government of Oceania, and having sexual relations with a young woman named Julia. Eventually, Winston ends up getting caught by a hidden telescreen and two thought police informants. When Winston is caught, he is transported to a prison without being read rights, much less having any actual rights. While in prison Winston is deprived of food and sleep, received regular beatings, is brainwashed, and is tortured physically, mentally, and emotionally. This essay will show the reader what the modern day government of the United States of America does to its political prisoners and how this compares to the treatment of political prisoners in George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty Four.
Rather, when torture is acceptable, and on which term should be it performed? The argument lest authorization torture his an advisor Sharde presumption that torture is currently happening and will be happening in the future hence the the. Plan of torture and. Dershowitz believes in a formal, visible, accountable, and controlled system of inflicting that would ideally leave torture as a last resort. The system would begin by granting the suspect immunity. Then suspect the be would compelled to testify; if the suspect were to refuse to exchange information, the next step would be acknowledging the possibility of torture while continuing to give the option of immunity. In a case of a suspect refusing to exchange information, even with immunity, a judicial warrant must be granted to proceed with purposely elicited
Our interrogation tactics have come a long way from using physical force to retrieve incriminating evidence, which was referred to as the “third degree”, to non-violent methods of obtaining information. We’d like to think that the system we have instilled in America is perfect and fair, but that is far from the reality. Although we have eliminated physical force from interrogations, the new equivalent implemented to the third degree is psychological torture. The nation-wide system used to interrogate potential suspects- the Reid Technique- is heavily flawed and corrupt. In his book Unfair, author Adam Benforado, unveils the truth behind modern interrogation style: it coerces suspects into producing false confessions by subjecting them to grueling
The act of interrogation has been around for thousands of years. From the Punic Wars to the war in Iraq, interrogating criminals, prisoners or military officers in order to receive advantageous information has been regularly used. These interrogation techniques can range from physical pain to emotional distress. Hitting an individual with a whip while they hang from a ceiling or excessively questioning them may seem like an ideal way to get them to reveal something, but in reality it is ineffective and . This is because even the most enduring individual can be made to admit anything under excruciating circumstances. In the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights there is a provision (“no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” ) which reflects a time-honored common principle that no person is bound to betray him or herself or can be forced to give incriminating evidence. This ideology of self-incrimination has been challenged heavily over the past s...
We have laws to keep us in check and consequences to follow if we don’t follow them. Plato’s theory on Benevolent Authority shows how external authorities try to see fair play. “Authorities can have their own agendas and these are not always consistent with cooperation and fair play (Fisher pg. 27).” We look at our authorities and usually don’t question them because we assume since they are higher up they know what they are doing and quite frankly we can’t do anything about it.
Many of today’s interrogation models being utilized in police investigations have an impact on false confessions. The model that has been in the public eye recently is the social psychological process model of interrogation known as the “The Reid Technique.” There are two alternatives used by the police today to replace the Reid Technique, one is the PEACE Model and the other is Cognitive Interviewing. These methods are not interrogation techniques like Reid but interview processes.
Regulations have administrated human demeanor for hundreds of centuries, and in present-day, criminal laws are to standardize and occasionally preserve social order. By allocating which conducts are prohibited, they present comprehensible standards of actions, cautioning society about which actions will be or will not be held accountable for, depending on the degree of severity; it is also figurative in conveying a statement that the public objects to these particular deeds. The earliest identified account of written decrees dates back to the period of the Babylonian King Hammurabi, or what we now know today as Hammurabi’s Code, which instituted high principles of an individual’s actions and severe penalties to violators, inflicting consequences equivalent to that of their crimes. An additional early structure of written laws was the renowned Mosaic Law, like the Hammurabi’s Code, based on the rule of “an eye for an eye” (Realities and Challenges 99). The general public in the United States are directed by a great quantity of regulations from an array of foundations such as the federal, state, and local administrative institutes that concern everything from acquiring a license to drive to crime against person. Although the organization of laws in the U.S. is extensive, complex, and varied, it can, in fact, be more comprehensive when sorting American laws into two general groups: civil law and criminal law.
From the moment an innocent individual enters the criminal justice system they are pressured by law enforcement whose main objective is to obtain a conviction. Some police interrogation tactics have been characterized as explicit violations of the suspect’s right to due process (Campbell and Denov 2004). However, this is just the beginning. Additional forms of suffering under police custody include assaults,
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.
...is issue. As discussed earlier, his command theory of law mainly claims that the normativity of law is entirely a matter of law’s coerciveness. His theory has been superseded views such as those of Hart. Hart took pains to distinguish, as well as relate, law’s coercive- ness and its normativity. “Both the distinction and the relationship are expressed in the locution “norms backed by sanctions”: law’s normativity in this view must be understood independently of and in contrast to its coerciveness. Normativity is a matter of voluntary obedience; it invokes and relies on people’s disposition, whose nature and sources may vary, to follow legal rules. Coercion and normativity are portrayed as two separate but complementary strategies that the law employs to secure the individual conduct that it desires. The idea of a norm backed by a sanction is not unique to law”.
Since 911, many people suspected of terrorism have been detained inside the United States. Most have been noncitizens. Under most federal laws, noncitizens can be detained for only 24 hours without being formally charged with a crime. However, the USA Patriot Act allows noncitizens suspected of terrorist activity to be detained without being formally charged with an offense for as long as it take to either prove that the detainees are not involved in terrorism or to gather enough evidence to press charges.
When many individuals use up a shared resource out of self-interest, that demand overwhelms the supply and the resource begins to decrease. This situation can be avoided either by making an appeal to conscience or by instituting regulations using mutually agreed upon coercion. An appeal to conscience would be to inform people of how their self-interested decisions negatively affect others in the grand scheme of things. After this, enough people would have to change their behavior to lower the overall costs just enough to lower the resource usage. The coercion would be a punishment such as a law or a fine to the people who do not follow the rules that limit resource consumption. Hardin claims that in seeking to solve the population problem,
Behavioral conduct is regulated through two different avenues: law and morality. Morality is defined as the “rules of behavior an individual or a group may follow out of personal conscience and that are not necessarily part of legislated law” (Encyclopedia of American Law). Morality channels our behavior through a system of incentives; bad acts produce “… guilt and disapprobation, and good acts result in virtuous feelings and praise” (Shavell 228). Law, on the other hand, is concerned with justice and is upheld through “… the threat of sanctions if we disobey legal rules” (Shavell 227). The point of contention occurs when individuals incorrectly assume that a just decision necessitates morality. These individuals dispute the scope of authority that either morality or law should encompass. Morality and law do not operate in different spheres; instead, the laws are created with a primary focus towards persuading individuals to make moral decisions. In both A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt and the Greek play Antigone by Sophocles, difficulty ensues not because law and morality are actually conflicting, but because the individuals interpreting law and morality have varying interpretations.
William O. Douglas said, "Common sense often makes good law." Well that is what laws essentially are, rules and regulations that make sure common sense is followed. One could even say that laws are enforced ethics. Laws serve several roles and functions in business and society, and this paper will discuss those roles and functions.