To be resolved, ex-convicts should not have stricter laws than average citizens. In other words, everyone should have the same law, whether the person is ex-convicts or not. Some laws such as DUI (Driving under the influence), curfews have stricter penalties for ex-convicts. At first, I am going to explain the reason why we should not have this system using Arizona’s case. In the United States, there are DUI laws for drunk or drugged drivers. And each state has various specific laws and penalties. In the case of Arizona, according to Arizona Department of Transportation, first offense and ex-convicts are discriminated in this law. For example, average citizens will be jailed for not less than 10 consecutive days and fined not less than $1,250. …show more content…
In the Oxford English Dictionary, curfew is a regulation requiring people to remain indoors between specified hours, typically at night. The main purpose of this law is preventing teenager from doing illegal activities that mainly occur at the night time. According to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the United States is third-ranked for high teenager crime suspects. The United States is the unique country which has curfews in these days. But still third-ranked in high teenager crime suspects. It means these kind of laws that ex-convicts get strict penalties does not really have an effect to prevent teenagers from the crime. It only has a side effect like this. According to an article in The Guardian, “Life under curfew for American teens: ‘it’s insane, no other country does this’”, since the 1990s, “millions of teenagers have been arrested for breaking curfew.” However, most of them were not related to the criminal situation. However, they experienced they become ex-convicts and gets more penalties. This is the situation like this. You went to the nearby convenience store to buy some snacks. But you caught by police and you become ex-convicts. And next time, you will get more penalties. In my opinion, this is totally ineffective and unfair. It is hard to think that having stricter laws for ex-convicts like this can save the justice in this case. We should not discriminate these people who received the unfair
for calm. At least 64 law enforcement officers had been shot and killed this year, the most in five years. The shooters in the incidents did not have permits that they needed to be carrying the gun they had. Only thirty-one states allow the open carrying of a handgun without any license or permit. Do we really want anyone without a permit to carry a handgun in our states? Then going around shooting law enforcement and innocent people. Concealed weapon holders need to have a permit to carry a weapon
increase everyday from gun violence. Students, particularly boys, who carry guns, are more likely to be involved in drug activity according to The Children Data Bank and more likely to have committed crimes with weapons. Likewise, girls who carried guns were more likely to report feeling threatened. Therefore, stricter law for gun control will lessen the insecurity of a person when holding a gun and prevent further unnecessary death. According to Marianne W. Zanwitz, a member of the staff of the Bureau
penalty under the federal law is commonly used, some states do not allow the use of capital punishment. Based on the level of crime enacted, the punishment for that said crime can come in several variations. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the termination of the accused life as mandated by a court of law in that state for which the crime was committed (www.deathpenalty.procon.org). Over the years, several death methods have been utilized while others have been altered because the