Despite the United States developing hate crime legislation that suffices to maintain justice within the judiciary system, numerous legislative experts strongly believe these most recent changes create unnecessary bias. Criminal offenses against certain groups of minorities have received mixed interpretations, but regardless of the special attention these lawsuits receive, cases almost always commence without the considerations of hate. In a Colorado Springs crime a man called Geremiah Vargas and Marshall Hamilton-Parks “fag” and “faggots” before brutally stabbing them (Steiner). Motivation remains the key to prosecuting Vargas, but circumstances that have n... ... middle of paper ... ...t one murder having more or less impact than another. The addition of hate crime charges does not potentially harm anyone else other than the criminal themselves, but the oppositions of hate crime legislation could have evolved out of jealousy for this supposed unequal advantages.
For instance, Dr. Kruse, John states in his article, “attorneys and scholars predicted that banning plea bargaining would result in…jamming the courts and creating huge backlogs” (28). This idea seems very logical, but before Dr. Kruse became to this conclusion, he should have supported the idea with research. According to an article titled Alaska 's Plea Bargaining Ban Re-evaluated, “disposition times for criminal cases actually improved” (1). There are many factors why the disposition times improved. One of them is Prosecutors start trying defendants when they have evidence which is beyond a reasonable doubt rather than probable cause.
Rather than dismaying the skeptics or completely trusting the media, everyone should examine the facts individually and question the amount of government involvement and distorted truth in the American people's lives- and particularly in Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012. One of the things that have become evident throughout the past is that gun control issues are being pushed through various conspiracy theories; for example, the shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Skeptics believe that the massacre was a joint government and media operation to create support to repeal the second amendment (Stuart, 1). Logically, this actually makes sense. Although it is easier to believe that what happened on December 14, 2012 was legitimate, it is possible that America has been duped.
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules. “As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever,” Clarence Darrow a young lawyer who has fought on the affirmative and opposing sides of some of the most controversial issues of civil disobedience.
The attribution of patriotism to people who commit acts of civil disobedience is lawful and just, because civil disobedience, or dissent are a vital part of a liberal democracy, and a free nation of rights. Definition of Civil Disobedience Taking the two components of the term separately, ‘civil’ refers to matters involving the populace or citizens while ‘disobedience’ refers to breaches of the law (Brownlee). This brief analysis hardly does the term justice, however, for its political, individual, and social implications. The political philosopher John Rawls defined it as “a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies” (Brownlee). As such, the key components of an act of civil disobedience are: the breach of the law, the non-violent nature of the breach, the public forum in which the breach occurs, and the intention of changing a law or policy.
Currently, physician-assisted suicide is illegal. Through numerous court cases, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that people have the constitutional “right to die.” The Court also realized that ass... ... middle of paper ... ...ive rhetorical technique is to prove their point through numbers and studies. While those in favor of legalization refer more to individual cases, the opposition refers to overall population statistics. By showing that the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in other countries has led to abuse, they persuade their readers that if assisted suicide were legalized in the United States, it might have negative effects. However, both sides of the issue establish good credibility because they provide first hand experience and are involved in a medical profession that deals with assisted suicide.
The British Court ruled that while the current laws did not support the rights the men claimed, “the ban on euthanasia is justified” (Cheng 1). In this lawsuit, the right to live won above the so-called right to die because a law that was enacted by the people of Britain was protected. Had the case won, the laws that British voters approved to protect life, would have been cast away. Similarly in the United States, many bills to promote euthanasia have died once voters were informed of the debate. Initiative 119, which would have legalized euthanasia in Washington in 1991, at first show... ... middle of paper ... ...neficiaries of the liberty interest here” (Smith 5).
The environmental movement in politics is often overplayed causing people to loose interest in the issue, but Jarred Diamond makes it impossible to ignore the issue in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Jared Diamond hopes to catch as many peoples attention as he can; the name alone, “Collapse”, makes him appear to be an alarmist looking for attention. He has just cause though for blowing the whistle on society. He makes parallels to previous failed societies and to modern societies showing how the practices that we employ are similar to these failed societies. He is suggesting that America, as well as other countries, are headed down the path of ecocide more possible a global ecocide.
While capital punishment may never be the most pressing issue in our hectic, day-to-day lives, it merits our attention nevertheless because of what it symbolizes-institutionalized violence. Just as people without cancer or HIV should care about what the government is doing to help find a cure for AIDS and other deadly diseases, we should all pay attention to what our government is doing in our names. For when a government executes someone, it sends the ill-conceived message that the use of violence against already incarcerated individuals is acceptable. (Bessler, John D.) The death penalty and capital punishment as a whole has existed for centuries, with the first death penalty laws dating back to the Code of King Hammurabi in Babylon and his “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” philosophy in the Eighteenth Century B.C. (Death Penalty Information Center) The death penalty resurfaced again through the introduction of the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables, and continued to make its way around the world, proliferating in magnitude, until most civilized areas of the world utilized some form of the death penalty in their systems of justice.
The development of societies and their governments lead naturally to systems of laws and punishments. Originally, there were far more illegal acts than exist today, and the punishments were harsher, since an advanced prison system had not been developed. The basic premise of any legal system worldwide has always been simple, however: to take those who pose a threat to society and to remove them from it. The next act of choosing to actually kill these people was never a necessary act for society. Instead, it was a form of retributive justice,... ... middle of paper ... ... Campaign to End the Death Penalty: Illinois Moratorium, "Moratorium Victory In Illinois" 13 Dec 2000 http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/ilmoratorium.html Dieter, Richard C., The Death Penalty in Black & White: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides June 1998, 13 Dec 2000 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/racerpt.html Genesis and John.