Another study also states that prostitutes are 18 times more likely to be murdered than a normal civilian (Fuchs). While not every prostitute is killed, a study of San Francisco prostitutes has demonstrated that 82% of prostitutes have been assaulted and 68% have been raped (Fuchs). Yet, although they suffer from violent crime, these prostitutes are less inclined to report abuse because what they are doing to earn a living is illegal. As for the business-related expenses, most pimps tend to spend 65.8% of it on transportation and housing, and very little on the health of the prostitute, they “manage” (Fuchs). Poor health is a major problem for prostitutes and they have few options.
The most important thing here is keeping the society safe. My own cultural influences and beliefs are that no one person should be done any harm, if harm should be caused to anyone person then the person that caused harm should be put behind bars. But for the topic of the psychopath there is an ongoing debate on whether or not the psychopathic mind should be treated as a criminal mind or treated as a mentally ill mind. Usually when the life of the psychopath ... ... middle of paper ... ...ound them and society could be kept safer. That my own influences are that no one should be done harm, and if done so then their attacker should be put behind bars.
So, our friend from earlier and every other criminal that ever existed are not actually guilty of their crimes. These people had no other choices. I guess we should let all of the criminals out of jail. Not exactly, the hard determinist view has a good point but the whole argument is not valid. The determinist believes that all actions made by a human can be predicted.
Based on Mill’s view and where he drew the line between private and public is that the society should not endeavor to limit persons drinking for example, but rightly prosecutes individual for harming others while drunk. But if the conduct the person chose clearly results in the harm just to that one person, the government has no business in even trying to suppress that behavior.
While there are negative aspects concerned with prostitution, there are also good ones too, and Nevada is a perfect example. Prostitution should not be legalized because it offers no real benefits. The main reason people believe prostitution should be legalized is because they think it will boost the economy. According to Nevada State Tax Examiner Ruth Jones, “the state does not reap the rewards of this million-dollar industry. There are no state taxes and because it is up to each individual county to decide if it wants to allow prostitution within its borders, the only real revenue the state sees come from sales tax on bar sales” (Gormley).
History and behavior of man has revealed that normal human instinct does not prevent people from committing crimes because if it did capital punishment would never have to be used. People would have been informed about the consequences of breaking the law and everyone would be in fear of committing crimes. Unfortunately when people commit crimes they seem to not care of the consequences; so whether capital punishment is in force or not crimes are going to be committed. This paper therefore presents a strong argument that the capital punishment does not deter people from committing crimes The justice system does not have to use punishment by death as a tool which will deter crime. Canada is a good example of where statistics have proved that punishment by death does not deter crime effectively.
Criminals simply aren’t discouraged, they just ignore bans. The only two things passing a law of this nature would accomplish would be to take away the honest citizens’ ability to protect themselves and their families in their homes and give criminals a safer work environment. There are dangerous people everywhere and they will find ways to hurt others no matter how many means of doing so you take out of their reach. Banning guns will not stop gun violence, on the other hand, it would just ensure that criminals with stolen or smuggled guns would have no fear that their innocent victims would be able to defend themselves. Reducing violence would be extremely difficult for gun control to do; in fact exactly the opposite would occur.
Illegal activity happens regardless of law, so the second amendment should be upheld as it stands in order that American families can remain protected. Gun violence has been surfaced recently by the media. American society has been made aware of the gun threat as more of a political scheme than anything. The growing need for gun control that the government thinks we need is null. Criminals do not care about gun laws just as they are oblivious to drug laws.
They therefore would have no... ... middle of paper ... ...tead of helping them. If they choose to act criminally, then they’re consequences, but using in and of itself shouldn’t have a legal consequence solely on the basis of morality or that they may become an addict. And illegalization gives profits to those who conduct themselves immorally. Drug lords and gangs thrive and are facilitated and those in poorer neighborhoods become victim to the war on drugs more than those that are susceptible to the criminality of an addict. The war on drugs should be fought against those who directly benefit from drug use and there are little to no benefits for an addict (who will choose to use regardless of illegality, take the case of prescription drug abuse).
The issue on crime is split people say the crime would go down because the price of drugs would go down , maybe this is true but it is very unlikely. As people become addicted they need more and more, what happens when the money runs out? People are going to do whatever it takes to obtain their "fix" which includes stealing , robbing , and burglarization possibly even murder, anything to get their drugs. My feeling on this subject is that of total disagreement with the legalization of drugs. People only want the legalization for the profit end of the industry , which is the only appealing side of the drug trade, but it is not appealing enough to sacrifice my children's future for money.