Hi, could you please write a 8000 words project or thereabouts dissertation on t
Hi, could you please write a 8000 words project or thereabouts dissertation on the topic above. I have provided the plan we submitted for the dissertation a while back.
Could we please ensure that the project is entirely plagiarism free (as I have had some issues with plagiarism in the recent past).
Thank you.
Argumentation of the Need to Amend Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898
We all know that the law of Bangladesh prescribes different punishments for different crimes. Similarly, the Code of Criminal Procedure which is called the Criminal Code. It is a law regulating criminal activities in Bangladesh.
There are currently 365 sections in the CrPC. One of the controversial sections is Section 54. Section 54 basically provides for the arrest of a criminal without a warrant. Basically, in order to arrest a criminal, the first thing to do is to get an affidavit from a first-class magistrate, but if the police think it is possible to arrest a person without a warrant for a suspected crime, then the police can do it under this section. Where it is said that in some cases the police can arrest the accused without a warrant.
There has been a lot of controversy over the abuse of CrPC Section 54 and this section which we have already known. In this section 54, Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha and some wise legal experts presented a paragraph script and judgment in 2016. Where we find a case of BLAST vs Bangladesh (55 DLR 363) where a student of a private university, Shamim Reza Rubel (20) who was a BBA student of Independent University, was arrested by the police under Section 54 of the CrPC, and the police He died in police custody as a result of excessive torture and remand. Many wise lawyers, including the then Prime Minister, condemned the incident and felt that Section 54 needed to be amended. More than 260 people have died in police custody alone in the past six months as a result of police arrests and inhumane torture under this section. And during that time, several women were raped in police custody, including Yasmin of Dinajpur and Kalpana Chakma of Adivasi. Following Rubel’s death, BLAST and several other law enforcement agencies appealed to the High Court over the inhumane treatment of the police.
The writ respondents to refrain from unwarranted and abusive exercise of powers under section 54 of the code or to seek remand under section 167. The Law enforcing is violated to 27,31,33 and 35 of the Constitution. To show cause as to why the respondents should not be required to compile with the guidelines such as those set out in paragraph 21 of the petition and in Annexure ‘C’ to the petition. Cause as to why the respondent No.4 shall not be directed to compile and make a report from 1971 to date of persons who died in custody or jail or in police locks up. The respondents shall not be directed to make monetary compensation to the families of victims of custodial death, torture and custodial rape. Though writ respondent No.2 denied any police abuse, torture and death in police and jail custody the writ petitioners have annexed.
Based on the above findings, the High Court Division recommends amendments to Sections 54, 16, 17 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as what is mentioned in the judgment is inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution.
On this case the judgment of the High Court Division can’t be directed the government to legislate or amend the existing sections 54, 167, 176, 202 of the code and provisions of the Penal Code. Any police officers taking advantage by using section 54 who are arresting innocent citizens without any complain which are violated the fundamental rights under sections 27, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35 of the Constitution. It has observed that it is the basic human rights when a person arrested by police, he must know the reason. These rights are always denied and the police officer did not inform the nearest or relatives which are violated of fundamental rights. The High Court Division made some recommendations to amend section 54, 167 of the Code and other provisions.
On these recommendations it is observed that most of the recommendations are in the conformity with the part 3 of the Constitution but some of them are redundant, some of them are not practically viable and some of them are exaggeration. For an example, a magistrate can’t decide any case relying the postmortem report of a victim. On the doctrine stare decisis if a decision followed for a time, it has been acted by person in the formation of contracts or disposition of their property of general conduct of affairs, legal procedure, any other ways generally followed by courts. The high court division added a new section after section 44 of the police act. This section contains if a person dies in the police custody or jail the police officer who has arrested r taken him in custody for the relevant interrogation. On 5th October 1998, as in Article 35(5) of the Constitution prohibits torture and cruel, in human degrading treatment and punishment. All the recommendation are not relevant under changed circumstances. The high court division judge the case and gave some responsibilities of law enforcing agencies. These are:
On the relevant case the high division gave the guide lines for the law of enforcement agencies. The government could not take it comfortably on this case. The high court division give power to the magistrates, judges and tribunals. The appeal is dismissed the recommendation and guide lines without any order as to costs. The inspector general of recommend the guide lines to all the police stations for the compliance forthwith to the letter and spirit. At the same time the director general of Rapid Action Battalion is also directed the recommendation for compliance of its units and officers. The register general is also directed to circulate for compliance by the magistrates. The register general also directed to transmit copy of the Judgement to the Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs, IGP Police, DG of RAB for taking necessary steps by recommendation, observations and guide lines which made in the body of the judgement.
Cognizable offenses may be recommended if suspicious or involvement information is found. It can also be recommended under the following conditions:
The following recommendations under section 167. The existing sub-section-2 has been made sub-section-3 in the new issue and the following provision has been added as new sub-section-2.
The provisions of sub-section 2 shall be marked as sub-section 3 in the following manner:
Related to subsection 4:
Article 112 does not mention the word ‘parliament’, which is why executives cannot legislate. Abuse of power cannot be presumed. The High Court exceeds its jurisdiction in advising Parliament on what to do and what not to do. While law enforcement agencies have failed to comply with the 15 guidelines that have led to the ever-increasing violence, revisions and appeals alone are not acceptable for all these atrocities. As the guardian of the law, the Supreme Court has the power to prohibit torture in order to uphold the rule of law. Other countries in South Asia have been able to take necessary action and amend the law against law enforcement atrocities.
To safeguard the life and liberty of the citizens and to limit the power of the police the word concerned used in section 54 of the Code is to be substituted by any other appropriate word despite specific interpretation given to the words reasonable, credible the abusive exercise of power by the police could not be some restrictions so that the police officers will be bound to exercise the power within some limits and the police officers will not be able to justify the arrest without warrant. The police officer receives any information from a person who works as source of the police before arresting the persons. The police officer must record the reasons on which his suspicion is based. A person arrested without warrant before a magistrate, the police officer must state the reasons as to why the investigation could not be completed within 24 hours. The case diary used in section 172 is the diary which is meant in section 167(1). The police officer shall be bound to transmit a copy of the entries of the case diary to the magistrate. The detention of an accused person in police custody is an evil necessity, inasmuch as, unless some force is not applied, no clue can be obtained from hard core criminals and such us is unauthorized. A police officer cannot arrest a person under section 54 of code with a view to detain him under section 3 of the special powers Act, 1974.
S.54 CrPC is a constitutional provision where the police can arrest any person on suspicion without proof or arrest warrant. As a result, many innocent people are either being harassed or dying in police custody. For this reason, an appeal was lodge in the high court against the Act and it was recommended that some changes be made. Because of this law, so that no innocent person is admitted to harassment and does not have to give his life. These recommendations state that, how can the police make arrests, when and how will they interrogate, should they be under the magistrate, how long will they be in police custody? All the benefits have been given and as a result, if this law can be changed as per this recommendation it will reduce the discordant power of the police and it will also reduce the deaths in police custody. The recommendation further states that the accused may consult his lawyer while in police custody. The family will know that he is in jail and there will be a record of everything and the police will not be able to do what they want and rape and death in police custody will decrease. Only, if someone is arrested and harassed on suspicion and failure to give the accused any opportunity to defend himself would be a violation of other articles of the Constitution, which would be considered a violation of human rights and would be against the freedom of the individual anyone. Who dies in police custody will be given a fair trial and the family of the deceased will be compensated. By doing so, no other law will be violated and there will be no injustice. If this recommendation is implemented, the abuse of excessive power of the police will be reduced and corruption will also be reduced. The biggest thing is that the way in which where is no trial in case of arbitrary arrest and harassment or death and the law says that only how to arrest can be made. So, this law should be changed and something should be added. So, our comment is that police are abusing it because of the unparallel power of the police and because of this many innocent people are being punished which is depriving them of their rights as per the Constitution and it is increasing corruption which is not desirable. Therefore, the law should be changed as per the recommendations given and this will reduce and bring under control the extra power of the police. Therefore, if the recommendation is implemented, the Constitution will be protected, rights will be protected and the law will be used properly. In our opinion law should be changed by implementing these recommendations.
The obvious purpose of this case is to amend the section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as it was no police officer can arrest any person without warrant. A proposal to amend this section was raised in the high court but it was futile. If we take a look at the judgement of the high court closely, it can’t be said that it has directed to amend or enact the several provisions of Penal Code. But it can be said that if the helpless citizen is arrested without lodging a complaint or not investigating the matter in the pursuance of the complaint, the fundamental rights of article 27 of the Constitution are violated without doubt and also the article of 30, 31,32,33, 35. So, it has been clearly mentioned that whenever any person is apprehended by the police, who must let him know the reason. And it is unlawful to misbehave with arrestee who is under police custody. The arrestee has a right to appoint an advocate for his defence without any obstacles and similarly the police have no right to debar from meeting an advocate. But it has been seen the arrestee deprived of executing such privileges. So, the fundamental rights are infringed. For instances, decisions of any case can’t be held depending on only for post mortem report. The case must be investigated. Magistrate are not obliged to obey the police report if not found any complexities of accused after investigation. In case any person dies on the police custody, the jail authority and the police who arrest the person and take him custody for interrogations shall expound the causes of death and must show the relevant proofs. Lastly the whole reason behind arresting that person accused must be expressed.
The government has enacted an Act regarding aforementioned facts. And it has been said, that as Bangladesh signed in the declaration paper of New York against inhumane and scandalous behavior and those country that signed in that paper have claimed to enact a law. The government has issued a law which is in reach of its for implementing the form. The law covers all indecencies mentioned above. We make guidelines so that the police forces follow that in case of detaining and arresting the suspicious person and directing the magistrate, tribunal court and the judges for ensuring that whether they adhere to those or not, who have powers to take in account a crime as per jurisdiction.
Gun Control Laws and Their Effectiveness
According to research, gun control laws can be affective if the offender doesn’t have a single intent to kill. A single intent to kill is when the offender’s primary motive is to kill their victim. Frank Z states if the offender has a single intent to kill the offender will find an alternative weapon to kill their victims. Zimring, in his study compared the amount of fatal and nonfatal attacks that were carried out by guns to nonfatal and fatal attacks that were carried out by knifes. He found that 2.3 times as many serious knife attacks were reported to police than gun attacks. Although there were more knife attacks recorded, more people died from gun shot wounds than knife wounds. Zimring concluded that if firearms were taken away the homicide rate would drop drastically.
However, even after the removal of firearms people would find alternative weapons to use to commit their crimes such as knifes or their hands and feet. Most of the substitute weapons used in place of guns won’t produce nearly as many homicides as guns do. Naturally like Zimring stated the homicide rate would decrease.
According to research, The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which was created in 1993 required anybody who purchased a handgun to receive a background check and be placed on a waiting list before they received their handgun. Jefferey Monroe states that the Brady Act has a chance to affective because it will deter felons and others who are presumed to be dangerous from purchasing a firearm. However, most criminals obtain their guns illegally from friends, relatives, or dealers. Jefferey Moore research indicates that states who implemented the Brady Act homicide rate increased compared to the states who didn’t but the homicide rate for juveniles increased in states that have the Brady Act.
Adults are responsible for most of the gun-related homicides that were committed in Brady States. 51% of all homicides were committed by adults to compared to 39% in pre-Brady states. The Brady states that were used in Monroe’s research were states that added background checks when the Brady Act was passed in 1994. The Brady States were compared to pre-brady states that already required anybody who tried to purchase a gun to get a background check. In states that implemented the Brady Act only adults received a background check because it was illegal for minors to purchase a handgun so the homicides committed by adults should have decreased. In 1994 after the Brady act was implemented the homicides that were committed by adults in Brady states dropped in 1995 but increased in 1996 and 1997. In Pre-Brady states the adult homicide rate increased in 1995 but decreased in 1996 and 1997. The Brady act didn’t stop adults from committing homicides.
I hypothesize that gun control laws won’t affect the overall homicide rate because most criminals don’t buy their weapons from gun dealers legally. Criminals typically buy their guns from illegal sources. Although I don’t believe the overall homicide rates will be affected, I do believe that certain types of homicides or gun-related deaths will be affected. The suicide rate should decrease because when a gun dealership does a background check and finds out a person has attempted suicide on numerous occasions, the gun dealers won’t be able to give that person a gun. However, my research is specifically focusing on gun-related homicides. Gun-related homicide can be defined as a nonaccidental death that was caused by a firearm.
I also hypothesize that states with strict gun laws will have a higher gun-related homicide rate than states that have lenient gun laws. In the states that have stricter gun laws people or criminals would most likely travel to neighboring states that have more lenient gun laws and purchase their guns or they’ll look to use an alternative weapon to carry out their range.
Critical Essay on Gun Laws in Texas: Pros and Cons
Guns into the ClassroomsMass shootings represent only 1 percent of the overall gunfire incidents that happen in or around school property. However, they disproportionately account for the highest number of deaths and injuries. Gun laws, policies, and gun culture have an evident influence on incidents of mass shootings. In addition to mass shootings, other incidents of gun violence are also being evidenced in schools at a distressing frequency. These include unintentional discharges that result in death or injuries, homicides, assaults, and suicides using firearms. Regardless of the intent or the number of victims, all the aforementioned gun violence incidents compromise the safety of the students and staff members in schools, thereby requiring the implementation of feasible solutions that can minimize or even eliminate this threat.
In order to better understand the effectiveness of any proposed solution, it is important to analyze the link between gun laws and policies and the rate of school mass shootings. Through an empirical research study, the states with more permissive gun laws and less restrictive possession rights experienced higher rates of mass shootings than the states with more restrictive gun laws (Reeping et al., 2019). Specifically, this study found that an increase in state gun law permissiveness by 10 units resulted in a 9 percent increase rate in mass shootings while a 10 percent gain in permissiveness in gun ownership laws resulted in a 35 percent increase likelihood of mass shootings. Essentially, the states that have relaxed gun laws have higher numbers of people who own guns and subsequently experience higher rates of mass shootings.
The primary trend in many states is to enact laws and policies that restrict gun ownership and accessibility.
On the other hand, Texas has some of the least constrictive gun laws. The state has also experienced some of the deadliest cases of mass shootings in schools. For example, in 2018 a school shooting happened at Santa Fe High School killing 10 people. The shooter used a shotgun and a .38 revolver which were legally owned by a local father. In August 2019, a shooter opened fire in a crowded bar, resulting in the deaths of 9 people and injuring 27 people more in El Paso, Texas. This incident happened only a few hours after another shooter opened fire in a Walmart store in El Paso, killing around 20 people and injuring 27 others.
The Texas legislature has enacted some of the most liberal gun laws allowing its citizens to carry concealed weapons in public places such as churches and public school grounds. Some of these laws include allowing the storage of weapons and ammunition in the same locked location by licensed foster parents. Previously, it was required that weapons and ammunition were stored separately. Licensed gun holders are also free to carry weapons into church grounds. Senator Donna Campbell, who sponsored the bill allowing guns into houses of worship stated that the guns would help law-abiding citizens defend themselves against individuals with evil intentions (Johnson, 2019). Within the school grounds, the Texas law bans school districts from specifying how gun owners should store their guns, thereby allowing them to transport and carry guns into school premises.
However, it may also be argued that more restrictive gun laws may not necessarily translate to increased safety and fewer mass shootings. For example, California is regarded as the ‘capital of gun control’ due to the state’s restrictive and comprehensive gun laws. California is a ‘may issue’ state whereby state authorities exercise discretion in giving permits for carrying concealed weapons to the citizens. The permitting process is quite rigorous. Some of the requirements include being 21 years old and above, background checks to check previous criminal activities, providing an ID or driver’s license, providing proof of residency, and also undergoing a Firearm Safety Certification. The certification includes a test on California gun laws and safety rules. There is a list of handguns that Californians can purchase. As a ‘may issue state, the permitting process helps the relevant authority to determine whether the applicant has a good cause to be issued with a permit. In addition, the permit only allows the individual to carry the weapon at certain times or circumstances and not at all times, during which times the permitted individual is still subject to the terms of the permit. Violating these terms may result in the revocation of the permit.
However, despite the restrictive nature of California’s gun laws, the state has also experienced some of the worst school and public mass shootings in the country.
This goes to show that even though restrictive gun laws may have the effect of reducing the rate of mass shootings, they can only go so far. Motivated individuals will always look for ways to go around these laws, whether through purchasing firearms over the internet, asking third parties to purchase them on their behalf, stealing the firearms from family members, or taking advantage of the porous state borders to transport guns from states with less restrictive laws. For example, Chicago has some of the strongest gun controls but also experiences disproportionately high rates of gun violence. According to a press statement from the Mayor’s office, many of the guns found in gun violence crimes were bought outside Illinois potentially from states with permissive gun laws (City of Chicago Office of the Mayor, 2017). These factors, therefore, make it imperative for the creation and implementation of measures against gun violence.
The gruesome and overwhelming consequences of mass shootings in schools have resulted in widespread debates on the most effective measures to stop them at both the national and state levels. Federal agencies, local enforcement agencies and associations, public safety groups, disaster response, and preparedness groups, and scholars are among the groups that are invested in understanding school mass shootings in order to provide effective solutions. For example, following the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 a presidential task force was created to provide recommendations on how to end public mass shootings, and at a broader aspect, solutions to gun violence (Lemieux, 2014). As is with any gun control-related debate, there are always two major and opposing positions. On the one hand, there is the group that advocates for the protection of Second Amendment rights with regard to gun ownership. This group recommends measures that address the American violent culture without restricting the citizens’ constitutionally protected rights. On the other hand, there is a group that advocates for more restrictions on the accessibility and the subsequent use of guns such as requiring background checks before selling a gun as well as restricting the sale of specific types of military weapons that when used in a mass shooting can inflict optimum fatalities.
To put this debate into perspective, following the Columbine High School shooting that killed 12 students and one teacher, the role of firearms was stressed from the very beginning, with the accessibility with ease to guns being attributed as the main reason that enabled the shooting. The killings were specifically attributed to too many guns and few gun control laws. This resulted in gun control laws being the second highest most proposed bills in Congress, only preceded by bills that focused on school programs and security (Kleck, 2009). The pro-gun and anti-control conservatives on the other hand were apprehensive of any preventive measure that gun control would have had on the two shooters arguing that even though there were dozen gun control laws in Colorado at the time, the shooters were still able to purchase their arsenal.
These two positions are both at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Arguably, situational solutions are some form of compromise between these two hard stances.
One of these situational solutions is allowing teachers to be in possession of a firearm in the classroom. Having a teacher use a gun to apprehend a shooter on school property is not a new concept. In one of the first school shootings at Pearl High School, Mississippi in 1997, the shooter, Luke Woodham, had killed 2 students and wounded another 7 before the school’s Vice Principal apprehended him (Jones, 2016). The teacher, Joel Myrick, had retrieved a gun he kept in his truck to capture Woodham, further stopping him from allegedly continuing with his shooting rampage at another school. Myrick became the first ever school employee to use his gun to stop a shooting within school premises.
One of the major arguments that may be advanced against arming school employees is the potential for the armed employee to become violent against the students and staff members. For example, a South Pasadena High School principal, Verlin Spencer killed 5 of his colleagues due to being disgruntled about a decision to fire him. The principal had been fired from the school due to friction with colleagues. The shooting occurred on his way to an appeal hearing against the school board’s decision. However, it was later established that Spencer had an unusually high amount of bromide in his blood, a highly addictive active ingredient that was used to treat headaches before it was banned. It was established that the amount in Spencer’s blood at the time of the shooting was enough to render him legally insane, which was consistent with his claims that he did not remember anything from the shooting. The insanity ground goes to show that shootings by armed school employees can only happen in exceptional circumstances.
It can also be argued that a layperson, as many school employees are, does not possess the necessary training to enable them to handle a firearm under highly volatile and unpredictable circumstances. A school shooting incident is a stressful situation whereby all the individuals are acting under pressure to maintain their own and other people’s safety. For example, armed security and law enforcement personnel undergo intense training in order to acquire a firearm certification. The training enables these individuals to accurately shoot a firearm. Moreover, constant and ongoing training enables armed individuals to maintain proficiency.
In order to mitigate the potential risks, the decision-making process allowing teachers to carry weapons into the school grounds should undertake a risk management approach. This approach requires the relevant policymakers as well as the school administration to undertake a risk assessment, identification and analysis of the exposure risks, evaluation of the alternatives to deal with the exposure risks, the selection of the best option, the implementation of the chosen solution, and monitoring the effectiveness of the option. This process may include analyzing the popular culture within the school and attitudes towards guns, the storage and training requirements, determining the difference between having armed security guards over armed employees, analyzing any measures that may mitigate against the risks of having armed employees, adopting the policy and actually providing the weapons to the teachers or other considered employees, and finally enforcing and evaluating the effectiveness of the standards and controls.
Gun violence is a multi-faceted problem that requires a complex and comprehensive set of solutions. In many cases, gun violence, in schools and elsewhere, is mainly premised on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Some guns approach in school premises are a compromise between the two sides of the debate. The risk and liability of having armed teachers in schools are far lesser than that of restricting all individuals from possessing guns. Having armed teachers provides a higher safety advantage. In many of the school shootings that have previously occurred, the shooter(s) committed suicide after establishing that law enforcement officers had arrived. Arguably, an incident with an armed employee may prevent further deaths or injuries from being perpetrated. However, it is crucial to provide sufficient training for the teachers to be armed.
Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives: Persuasive Essay
Gun control is one of the most debatable issues in the United States. Americans are in conflict about whether gun control is necessary, or if their right to the second amendment is being taken away. Many believe that if we have strict gun control would reduce gun violence. Many other people believe that people should have the right to bear arms for protection, or even for the desire of hunting. In the Bill of Rights, it is stated that Americans have the constitutional right to own guns, and to be allowed to have a license. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The second amendment clearly states that people have the right to bear arms. the amendment doesn’t exactly say go shoot up a movie’s theatre by accident, like we have been seeing on the news for the past couple of years the amendment doesn’t say go to elementary school, and shoot up everyone’s that is in it. on December 14, 2012, one of the worst tragedies hit the united states when twenty years old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adult members in mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary. After Lanza committed a homicide, he committed a homicide which left many people wondering why would a person in their right mind takes away an innocent child’s life, with a gun. This is one of the reasons why gun control is needed, and why it is so important for everyone to be able to get access to guns. Americans have a mixed definition of gun control. In the article What is gun controlled by Joseph Blocher and Darnell A.H Miller it “stated that gun control is “conventionally understood as direct legislative regulation of use, possession, sale, and manufacture of firearms, is just one part of a larger regulatory environment. When heard about gun control, they about their second amendment being stripped away when in actuality they just want us to use, and get guns safely.
Carrying guns in public causes a lot of unnecessary panic, because a lot of people are afraid of what that one accidental touch might to do a person. That is why a lot of places like Starbucks, and other places are saying no gun policy at their building, which people are over-conflicted because of it. Assault is one of the big reasons why guns control needs to be stricter because a lot of people pull out guns when they are having a disagreement which can end a person’s life, as quickly as a snap of a finger. The article What is gun controlled? discussed should peoples be allowed to carry guns on another person’s property. The open is over conflicted which opens a big debate since the second amendment doesn’t exactly state where, and when you can carry your gun, or not have it which makes things more complicated. Businesses excluded guns from having guns on their property if you trespass what consequences will you get then? Some states like Tennessee allowed you to carry guns in your car as long it is your property. Images someone having a mental problem, and having road rage at the same time, they would probably use a gun. People with mental health should be allowed to purchase a gun, but they still do since most places don’t follow the guideline when selling a firearm. Most American have mental health issues from depression, and schizophrenia, with some improvement with treatment, but it is usually unlikely. Depression can cause a person to go to a dark place, when you are in there dark you usually resolve your issues through violence. most depressed people usually committed suicide by gun, which could be avoided if people did background checks before selling a gun to a person. Guns should not be so accessible when people are taking away their life or other people’s life. America has the highest gun violence issues in the world. [ “According to Jens Ludwig in the articles reducing gun violence in America.”] United States gun violence’s usually contributed by homicides, and gang activity among minorities, but especially African American. Ludwig states that American gun violence usually contributes from contributed from homicides, and gang activity among minorities, especially African American. Gang violence has been over-popularized by the media for as long as hip-hop music has existed. Most teenagers think it is cool to own a gun because the lookup is not up to no good. African American have the biggest gun violence in their community because of their economic standard, and their role model. Guns are also easy to access in their community because people need money, when you need resources you sell whatever you have. Even though the gun is easy to access but with few gun-controlled rules it can make a difference. In the article, Ludwig stated the waiting period to be able to purchase handguns has reduced homicides by 17 percent, which shows what can be done if gun control becomes strict. A lot of people supported the idea of waiting to buy a gun because it can save a life.
According to Ludwig, federal gun control has prohibited people that are illegal aliens, minors, adults with felonies, and people with mental health illness are restricted from buying firearms. however, the federal gun control act doesn’t require federally licensed firearm dealers to check to see if a person is eligible to purchase one. Anyone can buy a gun, which is not in favor of those whose lives might be taken away because the cooperated wanted to make more money. Other peoples are against gun control because they things they right of the Second Amendment is being taken away. Those opposed the national rifle association because they think their right is being taken, but in reality, if we have more gun control, it means less money for them to make.
The federal gun-controlled act and the rifle association don’t care about the people who have life can be taken with one touch of a firearm. We as a society need to do better to help save our community and not just think about our second amendment being taken away.
Children are now being able to get their hands on guns with ease. Children are able to purchase guns, or even have one if they got one. There is not enough restriction on guns, especially in rural areas. Parents are not doing enough job hiding their guns because too many children are being murdered with something that is posted to protect them. A three years old boy shot his two-year sister in the chest by accident in Fort Myers Florida. According to the article by James Forman, JR “Colton found the loaded .25 caliber pistol in a drawer in his parent bedroom where he and Kaile were playing, while their mom was in another room.” Kaile was taken to the hospital where she was pronounced dead. When people think of children with guns, they don’t think about the little Kaile and Colton in the world, they think of the teenager that wants rebels against their parent rules. Having a gun is good and bad at the same time. The thirteen-year-old Jessica would be able to save her and her sibling’s life if she knew the code to her parent’s safe to retrieve the firearm. In the article Children and gun Forman stated “Having been trained by her father, Jessica knew how to use a firearm. There was one problem: the household gun was locked up in compliance with California state law.” [Forman 165] Children having guns is problematic but if that child knows how to use, them and is taught by an adult, they can use them to save their life when an intruder is inside. Most children use guns as entertainment or to gain fame from social media, without even knowing how to use them. after so many accidents with children being taken away communities are protesting, and gathering to find solutions to reducing gun violence, so there won’t be another Kaile or Colton story.
After so many incidents people are advocating for gun control, but they seem not to be able to be on the same page. Bryan Miller advocates for stronger gun control and says that children with a gun are a big problem and that peoples need to do better. They are trying to find a strategic way to make it stronger gun either by educating people or bringing awareness to them. they say we should protect our children and not gun. Having safe storage is a big step because it would more likely stop certain accidents from happening. People should take safety courses that are not online because online you can be scammed. The safety course should include a clear background check, and how to properly handle a weapon, this will ensure that people are qualified a carry a firearm. The course should also include the senseless killing that is happening with gun violence, and how used when you are defending yourself from a robbery. This way it will make homicides and unnecessary usages of firearms reduce. With the long progress of buying a firearm and the gun courses, the firearm will less likely to fall into the wrong person’s hand.
The articles stated that they are also trying to reduce juvenile gun violence, but the media is not making it any better. They believe the key idea to reducing gun violence for children is talking about showing the risk. They have a center where children can get together, read, and write poems to entertain themselves so they won’t go to the wrong crowd. Parent are also doing their part by advocating for gun control, and educating themselves. By making sure the youth is aware of the risks of using a gun, and how they can end their life, or someone else in second children are less likely to go purchases an illegal gun. Creating after-school programs for children in poor areas will reduce gun violence, because with them not having anything to do they usually go do something they have no business doing. Also if all those people they follow in the media showed that taking a ways someone’s life is not glamorous, and it doesn’t make you anything in life, teens are more likely not to buy a firearm.
In my home state gun are considered friendly here which is scary for someone living in a place like this. There are considered as the gun-friendly state is considered because there is no requirement when purchasing a gun. In Tennessee, you don’t need any approval to carry a firearm. You can apply online for a permit with your driver’s license. Nonresidents can also apply as long they have been working in the state for six months. You are only required to do eight hours of training to start using your gun. You can carry a gun in your car. You can have your firearm in public places for example like a restaurant, state parks. In Tennessee, it is legal to carry a handgun, in a vehicle that is privately owned. The minimum age to carry a gun is 18 years old. If there is no sign saying no gun allowed you can bring it with you. If there is a saying stating no weapon inside and you bring it inside you are committing a crime, which will be resulted in some kind of warning, or punishment. The worst part about the rule is people are able to carry to carries guns in their cars, which is the reason why highway shootings are happening every other week. According to WREG news channel 3, “As it turned out, there was more shooting on Memphis highways and interstates in 2019 than previously thought.” We are in the year 2020 and gun control is still an issue. Nowadays you cannot even drive without worrying about someone shooting you, because this is the new normal for users.
Gun control is needed more than ever in America, because of how many peoples there has to be for us to take it seriously. Having strict gun control can save an innocent life from someone with a mental problem who bought a firearm without a transparent background check. Adding restrictions to the current gun policy would help us as a nation to grow and save a life, and make us a safer country at the same time.
We Need Stricter Gun Laws: Persuasive Essay
When watching the news, it’s becoming all too common to hear the phrases “active shooter” and “mass casualty”. These types of events such as school and nightclub shootings are becoming a norm and leave many questions about how and why these types of events take place. While the media broadcasts round-the-clock coverage of some of these incidents, there are many more that aren’t televised. Stronger gun control laws tend to come to the forefront and become a popular political topic after a major loss of life incident happens but tend to fade until the next. As American citizens, we have a Second Amendment right to bear arms however as a country I strongly believe we need to enact stronger gun control laws to try and prevent the senseless loss of life in the future.
Enacting stricter gun control laws would help put restrictions in place not only on who can access weapons but what type of weapons and ammo would be available for actual purchase and use. A major area of concern that has been debated heavily is the possession and use of assault weapons. The Las Vegas shooting that occurred in 2017 took the lives of 58 people and wounded over 500 more (Parents of Massacre). This incident was conducted with an AR-15 that had been modified to increase firepower as a primary weapon of choice amongst a variety of other severely lethal weapons made for mass casualty (Bragg). Statistically out of all the mass casualty shootings that have taken place in the United States, a handgun was the most commonly used weapon. After the federal ban on assault rifles expired that was put into place by President Clinton, the use of this type of weapon increased significantly within the last five years and has had a significant contribution to the increasing deadliness of mass shootings (Noriega and Owen).
The anniversary of this shooting each year sparks a conversation surrounding legislation and gun control. Even after the mass shooting that took place, Nevada currently does not have a ban on assault weapons, is an open carry state, and has no waiting period on a gun purchase (Gontcharova). Just recently within the past few hours, the famous musician and rapper Eminem released a surprise album which is a strong cry for gun control. A music video for the song “Darkness” was released with the new album which depicts a reenactment of the Vegas shooting from the point of view of the shooter along with various other references to mass shooting events that have taken place over recent years (Holcombe). This is a verbal and visual outcry to our lawmakers to put forth these necessary stricter regulations.
New York State sprang into action in 2013 and signed into law the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (SAFE) to regulate gun control. One of the major regulations is the ban on assault weapons. These new laws also put forth restrictions on ammunition and a ban on instant background checks (Bragg). While the SAFE Act has put important gun control policies in place, it also has been met with resistance and viewed by some as anti-gun legislation, a violation of the Second Amendment, and unconstitutional. Currently, new amendments to the law are in the process of being passed to enact further restrictions, however, the fight against these laws is taking place as well.
Florida is another state who has seen multiple mass shooting events and more lenient gun laws. Currently, Florida does not have an assault weapon ban, has a waiting period of three days for the purchase of a firearm, and does not require a background check for private sales (Gontcharova). The Florida Senate is working on passing legislation to close what they call the “gun show loophole” regarding regulations around private sales. These new laws would require photo identification for a firearm purchase along with an extensive, notarized questionnaire form completed by the seller, and a background check (Mower). Similar to New York State, Florida is seeing resistance to these new proposed regulations. Pro-gun activists consider these new proposals a violation of their Second Amendment rights. Lawmakers across the nation are divided on the importance of protecting gun rights under the Constitution versus gun control and regulations to protect the citizens of this country (Gramlich and Schaeffer).
Mental health is always brought into question when a mass shooting occurs. While most people who commit a mass shooting show signs beforehand of a form of mental distress, most who are diagnosed with a clinical mental disorder don’t commit violent crimes against others (Akpan). When trying to figure out the “why” of a specific violent event it’s more complicated than one reasonable answer. A study just recently released by the Department of Justice surrounding all mass shooting attacks that have occurred in the United States shows that all shooters had four things in common with each other. While some of the specific commonalities revolve around personal injustices, and traumatic incidents that took place during childhood, one common item that sticks out amongst them all is the easy access to a gun or firearm (Noriega and Owen). This study also concluded that nearly seventy percent of mass casualty shooters were suicidal prior to committing the act and that for people who committed mass shootings in schools, the percentage was higher (Noriega and Owen).
Another factor that is popularly discussed when mass shootings occur is the influence violent video games have on the person or persons committing the violent acts. In 1999, two teenagers named Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris conducted a school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado killing 13 people and wounding over 20 more. At that time, violent video games were widely blamed for influencing them to commit the shooting however this was never proven to be a major factor (Columbine Shooting). Video games that are violent in nature are commonly played all over the world in mostly all countries. Profits from these video game sales are higher in Japan than in the United States and sales in Britain are equal to sales in the United States. For 1 victim in Japan killed in a homicide-related death, 111 Americans are killed in a gun-related homicide (Klaas). In the United States, the homicide rate involving guns is 73 times higher than in Britain. How can this be possible? The significant difference between these three countries is the access to guns and gun control laws (Klaas). While Britain and Japan have stricter regulations and limited access, the United States is the opposite. Also, states that have higher ownership of guns and more lenient gun laws also have a higher rate of violent mass casualty events than states with stricter gun control laws (Understanding Gun Violence).
Lawmakers have put forth legislation to try and improve gun control across the United States. A proposal was given to enact universal background checks for every gun purchase whether it be a private sale or licensed dealer and would close any private sale loophole that still exists. This bill has an approval rate of 92 percent with American citizens and an 89 percent approval rate with Republicans. This proposal was approved by the Democratic majority House but blocked in the Republican majority Senate (Klaas).
Gun control reform is a widely debated topic across the United States however it is a necessity in order to make America a safer place. While Second Amendment rights are important to protect, it’s also crucial to try and prevent gun-related deaths by enacting stronger laws and restrictions. Regulations regarding weapons of war like assault rifles that are easily accessible to American civilians are critical to the safety of our nation. Studies have proven that the reduction in gun-related deaths in other countries has been linked to stricter gun regulation. While mental health and violent video game exposure are a concern, it’s not the main culprit surrounding the gun-related homicide. The easy accessibility to these weapons is the common denominator. While gun control reform and restrictions might not eliminate gun-related deaths completely, they can significantly reduce senseless loss of life in the future.
Insanity and Intoxication as General Excusatory Defences: Critical Essay
In order to hold a defendant liable for a criminal offence, the prosecution not only bears the burden of proving the mens rea but also bears the burden of disproving any defence that can exonerate, reduce or lessen the defendant’s liability. Two such general excusatory defences that can be pleaded in relation to all crimes – insanity and intoxication – will be discussed chronologically along with comparisons and differences being drawn regarding their nature and application.
The defence of insanity is a legal defence that is not reflective of any medical condition and the result of a successful plea of insanity is a finding of not guilty. The criteria for a successful plea of insanity was established in the case M’Naughten (1843), where it has held that the defendant to plea the defence of insanity must labour under a defect of reason that was to arise from a disease of the mind which impaired his ability to know the nature and quality of his act. The criteria have to be proved by the defendant on the balance of probabilities. To satisfy the first criterion, the defendant must prove that he suffered from a defect of reason or, in other words, was deprived of his power to reason. This is a relatively high standard to meet as mere distraction or absentmindedness will not suffice. The second criterion is to suffer from a disease of the mind, but in this case, it need not be a recognized medical condition. A disease of the mind in legal terms was thought to be a disease affecting the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding, and must arise from an internal cause. Furthermore, there are additional elements that could help the defendant in gaining a successful plea. This is regarding the nature and quality of the defendant’s act and would require the defence to show that D was unable to recognize what he was physically doing and the physical consequences of that.
Moving on to intoxication, it is a defence established by common law principles based on the inability to form the men’s rea of the criminal offence. Such a condition must be caused due to the influence of soporific substances such as alcohol, drugs, and prescription drugs that lower the inhibitions. Two types of intoxication were proposed by the courts, and thus the courts have created different rules in regard to involuntary/voluntary intoxication. A defendant will be classed as involuntarily intoxicated if he is not aware that he is consuming an intoxicant. In other words, if his drink is being spiked. Furthermore, in the case of Hardie, it was also stated that involuntary intoxication extends to someone voluntarily taking drugs not knowing about the soporific effect it is supposed to have. However, it is to be kept in mind that in involuntary intoxication, where the defendant holds the mens rea of the crime, they would not be given a defence. When a defendant is voluntarily intoxicated, that is, taking a soporific substance of his own free will, the effect of the plea depending on the element of mens rea becomes complicated. When it comes to a specific intent offence, lack of mens rea will cause the verdict for the defendant to be not guilty. However, if a basic intent alternative offence is available, such as murder or manslaughter, he may be convicted of that offence. The question to be asked to the jury in such a scenario is whether the defendant would have formed the mens rea if he was sober. If the answer results in a yes, then the defendant may be convicted.
In light of the above discussion, we can see that intoxication and insanity are two very contrasting defences. Although there is one common element in regards to the nature of both of them. It is the defect of reason. However, both arise from different grounds. In insanity, it arises from a disease of the mind, whereas in intoxication it arises from the influence of a soporific substance. The effect of a successful plea under insanity usually results in a special verdict of not guilty, whereas in intoxication the mens rea is an important element and intent, such as basic or specific form, an important part of the judgement. Thus, it can be said that although general and excusatory defences both are widely contrasting in their nature and application.
Insanity Defence and Why Currently It Is Rarely Used: Critical Essay
The legal defence of ‘insanity’ states that the defendant is not capable of committing a crime as the individual is not aware of the nature or the quality of the act he has committed. Insanity is establishing that the mens rae (guilty mind) was in the individual’s control and if the act was his intention at the time of the offence and not the trial. It is only available as a defence in a murder charge.
Using the defence of insanity often increases the cost and length of a trial. Defence attorneys need to obtain experts that are able to spend time with the defendant in order to evaluate their past medical records and potentially give their testimony twice. Attorneys may not have the time or the resources to obtain past medical records to analyse whether the defendant will be a successful candidate for the use of insanity as a legal defence (Tindula, 2016).
Insanity, however, is now rarely used as a defence for a number of reasons. When it has been used in trials, it is rarely successful. A study by the US National Institute of Mental Health in eight US states found that the defence was filed in less than 1 per cent of all felony cases. Of those cases where the defence is successful in a small proportion of the cases.
In those rare cases when the insanity defence is successful, the defendant is admitted to a mental institute or a psychiatric hospital. The institution specializes in the treatment of serious mental disorders, such as severe depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. The aim of treatment is to rehabilitate an individual to return to society. The disadvantage of admitting a defendant into a psychiatric hospital is that it is much more restrictive than a general prison, as well as there is the possibility that the defendant will be held indefinitely.
The diminished responsibility defence has caused the insanity defence to be used even less. The legislation (the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), introduced in the Homicide Act 1957, states that individuals who kill another or are a part of it cannot be convicted of murder if the defendant was suffering from an abnormal mental functioning that’s caused by a recognised medical condition, making them unable to form rational judgements or exercise self-control. It explains the defendant’s acts or omissions that contributed to the killing.
In general, all of the above explains why insanity as a legal defence is now rarely used.
Write an essay on professionalism and ethics. Ethics are viewed differently by e
Write an essay on professionalism and ethics. Ethics are viewed differently by everyone. There is not just one definition of ethics. A current debate and belief by many is that ethics cannot be taught. However, research suggests ethical behavior can be taught. In 500 words or more not including the title page and reference page, write an essay detailing what ethics mean to you. Why is ethics important in law enforcement? What is your belief, can ethics be taught?
Map (diagram) the criminal justice process stages from arrest through final appe
Map (diagram) the criminal justice process stages from arrest through final appeal. You may use a simple flow chart or you may choose another type of chart to diagram.
After diagramming, take three of the stages and explain them in detail, including how each of them may relate to a different field (e.g., law enforcement, sociology, etc.). This assignment is worth fifteen percent of your final grade, so please ensure you produce high quality graduate work. Ensure you properly Bluebook your resources.
The grading criteria is:
Accurately diagram the process (40%)
Describe in detail three of the stages (40%)
Quality of writing (10%)
Proper Bluebook citations (10%)