Category: Criminal Law

Laws are primarily made to protect the rights and freedom of the people. However, on many occasions, specific rules might lead to a surge in victimization and crime rates when used carelessly. Stand-your-ground laws allow individuals to apply lethal force for self-defense when confronted and find their lives in danger. The stand-your-ground constitution has been adopted and used differently in many parts of the United States. For instance, in Florida, the adoption of stand-your-ground laws has affected the number of justifiable homicides negatively by increasing crime rates. Whites can successfully apply stand-your-ground law on black attackers without being convicted, unlike when blacks use the law on white attackers. White-on-white homicides are also most likely justifiable than white-on-black murders, which are most likely legitimate. Cases of fatalities and hospitalization due to gunshot injuries increase in Florida every day. The adoption of the Comprehensive Homicide Initiative helps reduce the incidents of homicides. Comprehensive Homicide Initiative provides the protection, intervention, persecution, and enforcement programs that reduce cases of murder in the United States.

Stand-your-ground laws imply that a person has the legal right to defend themselves against perceived threats even to the extent of applying physical force irrespective of whether the person could manage to withdraw from the situation (Hough, McCorkle, & Harper, 2019). In other words, stand-your-ground law protects the rights of a person to stay in places where they have legal rights to be without retreating even when threatened to do so. The person may use lethal force that can cause bodily harm or death for self-defense if a threat arises and realizes that his life is in danger. A reasonable force is applied while defending property or another person (Mack, & Roberts-Lewis, 2016). The law also protects people from retreating into their homes.

However, stand-your-ground law is used differently in different states. However, in most jurisdictions, the acceptance must be under extreme conditions and decisions of last resort. States that have fully adopted and implemented stand-your-ground laws are Florida, Texas, California, and Washington. New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland states have limited the application of the law. According to these limitations, people have the duty not to retreat only in their homes and cars, but not in public places. The law only allows people to use deadly force while in their private residences and not in public places (McClellan & Tekin, 2012). The controversial argument on whether stand-your-ground law affects the paradigms and numbers of justifiable homicides only applies to the validity of the law in terms of its ability to exacerbate crime. However, this paper will specifically investigate evidence that proves that stand-your-ground law affects the number of justifiable homicides. Moreover, this research also reviews how the stand-your-ground code is used to highlight the cases of gender disparity and its effect on the number of justifiable homicides.

Many pieces of literature have been published on the contentious issues surrounding stand-your-ground law in the United States. The Florida State Defense Force claims that the state finds it challenging to persecute individuals who commit crimes and affirm the rights of self-defense. The department considers the law unnecessary and dangerous on two grounds: an individual may apply deadly force on children, or an individual may use deadly force on drunken people who mistakenly break into his home. In some instances, people have been shot while restrained and lacking no space to escape. Such cases can be avoided by allowing such individuals to withdraw to other places safely without using physical force that can cause death or bodily harm. Concerning this, a legislator from Florida proposed a bill that would allow people to give warnings by showing gunshots to the confronting individuals before aiming at them.

Racial disparity is also a clear indication that stand-your-ground law affects the paradigm and numbers of justifiable homicides. Spanbauer (2018) shows that whites are more successful while using stand-your-ground defense against black attackers than when blacks use stand-your-ground protection against white attackers. Reports further highlight that the use of stand-your-ground law in incidences involving the shooting of black attackers is 18% justifiable in most cases. In contrast, the use of stand-your-ground defense in shooting a white attacker is less than 1% justifiable on many occasions (Sommers & Marotta, 2015). Contrary to the case in non-stand-your-ground states, a white shooting a black attacker is approximately 10% justifiable while a black person shooting a white attacker is found about 2% legitimate. According to the Urban Institute, white-on-white homicides in stand-your-ground states are less than 50% more likely justifiable compared to white-on-black murder, which is more than 300% more likely justifiable. The variation here indicates that stand-your-ground law is two times more likely to subject white victims to conviction as opposed to black victims.

A report by McClellan & Tekin (2017) shows that cases of hospitalization resulting from gunshot-inflicted injuries and homicides gradually incline in the United States as a result of stand-your-ground laws. According to the study, nearly 30 people die every month as a result of the rules. The report further found that stand-your-ground laws ‘do not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. In contrast, they lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters.’ In Florida, stand-your-ground laws have caused more than a 20% increase in both fire-arm-related deaths and homicides. Stand-your-ground laws have also inflicted fear amongst many people because many people carry guns, and they use them carelessly, knowing that they can use the code as a defense for their crimes.

Law has many different functions in society that are important in different ways. Laws can be used for many different rules and vary depending on the country, the time, and the function required by that law. Laws are fluid and do not always remain the same, however, some laws have remained the same for a long time such as murder being illegal. Different laws have different functions, with some deemed more important than others, however, they all play a role in society and ensure that society functions well. This essay will look at different laws, what their functions are, and why they are important to our society today.

In Western society, laws are supposed to show the shared values and beliefs of society (Cotterrell and Cotterrell, 1992). These laws are put in place in order to ensure that society follows these shared beliefs and punishes those that do not follow them. However, different people have different morals and ideas as to what is right and wrong, so the laws may not reflect the ideals of everyone, which can lead to people breaking these laws. The aim is to reflect the ideas of the majority of society, as it is impossible to reflect the ideas of everyone. The idea that laws reflect the ideals of society can be seen by changes in laws, with homosexuality being decriminalized in the Sexual Offences Act (1967) in private between two men over the age of 21 when it was previously against the law, showing how societies views on homosexuality have changed over the years. It is important that the law acts as a reflection of the morals and ideals of the majority of society to maintain a happy and safe place and ensure that citizens know what is acceptable. Lynch (1997) explains that for society to function most people need to follow the laws based on their own convictions instead of out of fear of being punished as they also believe that following these laws is the right and moral thing to do.

Despite Lynch (1997) saying that people shouldn’t follow laws out of fear of being punished, one of the most important functions of law in society is to punish those that have done something that is believed to be wrong or immoral. Hart (2008), explains that for punishment to be justified there needs to be benefits. These benefits may not be for the accused but for the greater good of society. Hart (2008) goes on to explain that the amount of crimes being committed is reducing due to this punishment and therefore the function of the law to punish people is beneficial. For example, if someone is in prison, they are prevented from committing crimes and breaking the law and therefore society should theoretically be safer. The punishment can vary depending on the crime that has been committed, whether the offender has committed a crime before, and the circumstances. One example is one of the ways a drunk driver is punished by the removal of his driving license as his driving is deemed unsafe to others on the roads. The function of the law as a form of punishment is important in order to keep people safe and to show that the law being broken is unacceptable, as well as to prevent people from committing this crime again.

D Hlynka (2015), explains that the Magna Carta was created on the 15th of June 1215, and contained 63 clauses, (most of which were relevant to the time), which were meant to bring about peace. Only three of the clauses of the Magna Carta are still used today, showing that law is fluid and constantly changing. One protects the freedom and rights of the English Church and one confirms the liberties and customs of London and other towns. However, the third and most famous are:

‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possession, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him. Except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one we will sell, to no one denies or delay right or justice.’ – The Magna Cart 1215.

This means everyone is allowed the right to a fair trial, something which is still used today. These laws, and many more laws that are now used are for the protection of the rights of the citizens. This includes human rights, which Amnesty International UK (2017) describes as the fundamental rights and freedoms that belong to everyone. In the United Kingdom, the rights are protected by the Human Rights Act (1998), which protects the rights of every citizen and is based on the principles of dignity, fairness, and respect. The Human Rights Act (1998) protects your right to life, the right to freedom, the right to a fair trial, protection against slavery, and much more with the aim to ensure that every citizen is protected and safe. Protecting everyone’s rights is a very important use of law in society today as it protects everyone, especially those who are vulnerable. It is important that human rights are protected as they are the basic rights that everyone is entitled to and required to ensure everyone has their basic needs, including food and water. Without these rights being protected, some people could be taken advantage of.

The law is not only used in order to protect the people of society but also to protect animals as they are unable to protect themselves. Waldau (2001) explains that animal law has changed over time, with laws about animals originally being focused on the ownership of animals. The development of animal law, with a focus on the protection of animals, is a relatively new field that is growing in popularity, with many laws being passed in order to protect animals. The Animal Welfare Act (2006) was passed in order to help prevent animal abuse, with owners being prosecuted with fines, imprisonment, and being prohibited from owning an animal. This act ensures that animals are not mistreated and if they are the person responsible is punished appropriately. Before the Animal Welfare Act (2006), there were other laws in order to protect animals. This includes the Cock Fighting Act 1952 which made it illegal to have any instruments or appliances used in connection to cock fighting and The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 which regulated zoos therefore protecting the animals that were in the zoos. These laws are crucial as the protection of animals becomes more important to society, with many people advocating for the rights of animals. Charities such as the RSPCA advocate for the rights of animals and the prevention of abuse, showing an increasing interest in protecting animals (RSPCA, 2019). This makes the protection of animals and their rights a very important function of law today.

The function of law is not only important to protect animals but also to protect the environment. The United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (2018) explains that Environmental law is a field of law that focuses on the protection and enhancement of the environment. Environmental law is extremely relevant now, as (Sands, 2012) explains that governments are being called on to implement laws that will tackle the environmental challenges that are being faced. Environmental law covers several factors from litter and planning permission to pollution and wildlife. The use of law to protect the environment is a very important function of law as it covers many areas that are very important to the general public (the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association, 2018). The relevance of environmental law can be seen by the fact that there are over 200 laws focused on the issue of the environment. The Climate Change Act (2008) set out a target to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions of the United Kingdom by 80% by the year 2050. The issue of climate change is becoming more of a concern for the general public, which can be seen in the media coverage with articles such as the ones about Greta Thunberg’s activism. An example of this can be seen in the 2019 article in The Guardian which explains how the young girl has encouraged many people to protest against climate change (The Guardian, 2019). Gidding, Hopwood, and O’Brien (2002) explain that environmental issues are a growing issue for society. The law reflects the society which naturally makes environmental law and the protection of the environment a very important function of law today.

Property offenses are also an issue for many people in the United Kingdom with property crime making up 66% of all crimes reported to the police in 2016 (Office for National Statistics, 2016), with this trend being seen in countries all over the world. Property offenses include theft, burglary, fraud, and many other acts with the aim usually being to obtain something such as money or items of value from someone (McGuire, 2004). One function of the laws around the subject is to protect people and their items however, with many people feeling unsafe after some of these offenses an important function of law is to ensure that people feel safe in their homes. It is important to feel safe in your home because that is where most people spend the majority of their time. Laws such as The Theft Act of 1968 ensure that people who commit these crimes are punished and try to deter others from committing these crimes. The function of law to ensure people feel safe, especially in their own homes is very important as it is something everyone has the right to, making it important to society.

The function of law in order to keep people safe extends further than their homes and possessions, with many laws being implemented with the aim to ensure the safety of the public. One of these laws is The Road Safety Act 2006, which focuses on ensuring that the roads are safe which includes punishing offences such as reckless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is in order to ensure the safety of others as well as the safety of the driver who was also putting himself at risk. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 was implemented in order to protect people at work and ensure any activities undertaken at work are safe. Without these laws, many people could be working in unsafe conditions. These laws are just some examples of laws that are used in order to keep people safe, showing that a very important function of law in society today is to keep people safe. These laws being implemented are also important as they function as reassurance to society.

Law is also used a lot in society in order to resolve disputes, which could be between two people or between larger companies, or a combination of both. Disputes often need to be resolved when a contract or an element of the contract is broken or disputed with one party feeling as though the other party has not fulfilled the agreed terms. Folberg, Golann, Stippanowich, and Kloppenberg (2016) explain that lawyers are often required to settle disputes, with preferably a favorable outcome for the person they are representing being desirable. Disputes are unavoidable, therefor the court and the law are required as a formal way to resolve these disputes. Many disputes that are brought to lawyers do not go to court, as the lawyer has to evaluate and decide if it is in the best interest of the client to proceed with the case, while others are pursued through informal methods such as complaint hotlines (Folbergm, Golann, Stippanowich and Kloppenberg, 2016). A lot of larger companies or cooperations will often provide a settlement, this is normally financial compensation, in order to avoid having to go to trial, as this can affect their reputation. These cases can often lead to negotiations, and mediation among other things (Gill et al., 1985). Dispute resolution is a very important function of law today due to many different disputes arising and the need for them to be resolved in a safe and neutral manner. This allows people to resolve issues in a controlled manner and ensure that the issue is solved.

Due to people having different behavior and interests, there is a need to control the actions of people to ensure that what is considered socially normal is kept to. There are many forms of social control, both informal and formal, and law is a form of formal social control. Pound (2016) describes the law as a highly specialized form of social control in developed politically organized societies. Fuller (1975) explains that some people believe the law is not used as a social control but in order to facilitate human interaction. The law can often be used as a combination of both ideas. Law is something that is socially constructed and because of this law is naturally used as a form of social control. Social control is an important function of law as it maintains order in society.

This essay explores some of the many different functions of law in society today, with many of the functions of law still not explained in this essay. This is due to the law having different functions depending on where you are and who you ask. Law is used for protection, including the protection of people, possessions, animals, and the environment. Law as a form of protection is very important, especially for people that can not protect themselves. Law is also used as a reflection of the morals and ideas of society; however, this can be difficult as not everyone has the same morals and ideals, which can lead to conflict. One very important function of law in society is the protection of rights. This can be protecting human rights or the rights of animals, with these rights being protected and enforced through many laws. Punishment is another function of law in society as punishment can be used as a deterrent, to prevent others from committing the crime, or to prevent reoffending. The law can be used to resolve disputes in a controlled manner and to ensure the safety of people, including whether they feel safe at home. All the different functions of law work together to make the legal system that we have today. These functions are seen and utilized every day, showing how important law and the different functions of law are to society.

This term paper is about criminal law, and how criminal law has evolved over the course of United States history. There will be real examples of how crimes such as first-degree murder are processed, and how it will affect those that are convicted. There will be a discussion on what criminal law really is, and what kinds of crimes fall under the category of criminal law. Crime will always be happening in any society because no one person is perfect. Having a criminal law system in place is essential for how criminals are prosecuted because not all crimes are prosecuted the same. One example that will be given is the different criminal laws and charges that are currently in Iowa and an example of the sentence that a person would serve after committing such a crime. This term paper will look at a variety of different aspects of the criminal law system and will emphasize the importance of the system in everyday situations.

My topic for this paper is going to be criminal law, and how criminal law has been affecting the United States throughout the course of time. Something that is extremely relevant in the United States more so than ever before is how criminals are being tried in a court of law. There will be some emphasis on specific court trials, and how criminal law took effect in that specific incident. It is important as a citizen to know the ins and outs of these laws because there needs to be a widely known difference between what is right and what is wrong. Figuring out how someone should be tried for the crimes that they have committed, or if they even need to be tried at all.

The reason that this topic is relevant is that crime is happening around us every day, no matter what city or state you may live in. No matter what country a person may be from, most crime is broadcast on a national spectrum, giving people the opportunity to stay informed and up to date on everything that is going on in the world around them. For example, in the upcoming weeks, the world will get to see on live television the verdict of former officer Derek Chauvin, and how he is being tried as a criminal. The killing of George Floyd and how Chauvin had a part in that has given the world a great view of criminal laws, and it also shows that no one is above the law. It will be important in this research paper to look at every side of criminal law and to truly see how it could affect the average person on the street.

Something important that I have learned from this process is that at any given time, a crime can occur that any person could be involved in/surrounded by. It leaves many people with lots of questions about how the system works, and it is important to stay knowledgeable about these very important topics. Some may feel that they could never be directly affected by crime or the law in general, but as citizens of this country, it will affect us, or someone we love in some way. This term paper will be looking at all of that information, and how it has shifted over time.

The definition of criminal law is, “a system of laws concerned with the punishment of individuals who commit crimes (Criminal Law, 2021).” This explanation is straightforward, and as far as the textbook is concerned, matches perfectly. Before starting this research, I even found myself asking the question, “What constitutes a crime, and when will that crime reach a trial or court?” However, what I would come to find out is that there are many different kinds of crimes. Those would include but are not limited to, property crimes, drug-related crimes, statutory crimes, and many others. For almost every crime, there is a law that goes right along with it, and how it should be tried in a court of law. In criminal cases many times, a jury is given the power to decide the fate of the one in question. Looking at how a crime is classified, however, it is an act of wrongdoing that goes against the moral standings of society and absolutely prohibited by the law (What Constitutes A Criminal Offense? 2019).

When looking at the evolution of criminal law over a sort of many years, there are several noteworthy changes. As stated in The Evolution of Criminal Justice, criminal justice really just began as a way to shame people and remove them from the communities that they were causing issues in, but now it has changed into something that is geared more towards the rehabilitation of the perpetrator. Many times throughout history, there have been many crimes recorded that were punishable by death on many accounts. However, the justice system in the United States gives criminals a chance at a more fruitful life in prison, regardless of their sentence. They have the ability to be a good citizen in jail, and that is a strong example of how rehabilitation is being used in today’s justice system (The Evolution of Criminal Justice, 2019). This has become very important for a lot of people because it is showing how justice is being served. Many have argued that just because someone dies for the crimes they have committed, does not necessarily mean that justice was served. Because of how criminal justice specifically has evolved throughout the years, this has been a very noticeable difference in how justice is being served.

Before going further, I want to ask you an interesting question.

The question is:

‘Suppose you are a well-known lawyer in the UK. There is a famous business personality that you admired and wanted to meet once in a lifetime. Recently, this famous personality got highlighted in one of the biggest scams that took place which led to the deterioration of the economy. He is willing to pay as much as the lawyer wants to handle this case. The businessman knows he is guilty of the crime, but wants to be innocent in the eyes of the law in one way or another. Further, you really need the money so you can pay back all the money invested by your parents in your education. Advocating for this case removes all your pending debts. If not handling this case, at least two years should be to pay off the debt to your parents. Would you advocate this unjust situation? Yes, or No

Well, it depends, and most of you will say ‘No”. In the words of Martine Luther King -‘One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Personally, I think that these words clearly say what to do in times when we must make the fair and unfair business side of the law. Likewise, St. Augustine rightly says – ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’

Now, the big question among us is how to determine whether a law is just or unjust.

In simple words, a just law can be defined as an act that may reflect the philosophical values of the people. As law students, we can define just laws as the set of rules and regulations made by judges contrary to existing laws. Sometimes, Judges have the power to give a judgment on the basis of “Equality” whenever justice cannot be provided by the existing laws of the state. For instance, if someone forces you to ENTER a contract with either influence or no influence of parents, teachers, friends, etc., it would be considered a valid contract in the eyes of the law, but judges could intervene and investigate whether it would be fair and reasonable to regulate this contract or not.

Now, instead of defining the outset ‘unjust laws.’ I would like to take you back to the libertarian view of the application of the Act, namely;

‘Freedom consists in the human right to do whatever he wants as long as their actions do not harm others, therefore, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other member’s society the enjoyment of similar rights. these limits can only be determined by law’- This Article 4 of the Declaration of human rights and Citizen of France in 1789 to the most current version, I refer you to Article 29 of the UDHR in 1948 ‘.

What do we mean by this?

The role of the law is to protect the community and the individual of those who mistreat while ensuring freedom is maintained. All that’s missing in this is a safe bet for arguing as unfair. Failing to argue the point of complete libertarian view that the laws of the drug are unfair because it is the right of every citizen to damage their body in any way they please.

To make things more interesting, I draw the writings of Martin Luther King Jr. on what he called ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ laws in its ‘Prison Letter of Birmingham.’ In his words ‘A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is in harmony with the moral law’.

According to various sources, there are countless examples of unjust laws in Britain, particularly in the common law. For example, there was a time before RVG 2004 during which the rules and regulations were such that if one has committed something without realizing that is prone to a dangerous life for most people, he/she could be convicted of criminal damage ignoring the facts of the person if he was a child, had a mental illness or something like that. Do you think all this does not really seem fair?

However, after the R V. G [2004], if someone commits criminal damage under the influence of drugs or wine without achieving what he/she is doing and why he/she will not be convicted of criminal damage in accordance with the law. After reading this example, do you strongly agree or disagree on whether it was justice for the person you are damaged goods?

Everyone wants justice to be served, and it is the obligation of the judicial system to ensure that goal is achieved. Justice involves enhancing fairness in a conflicting argument or claim. In other words, it is a just behavior or conduct in response to a situation contradictory situation. However, in most cases, people find themselves denied justice when most needed. History tells of cases of people who have been wrongly convicted for crimes they never committed, while others denied justice after an assault or harmed in other ways. Therefore, it is important to have a detailed understanding of the legal system to be in a position to differentiate between a just and unjust law. At the same time, know where justice is or is not served. In this paper, I will examine the concept of just and unjust law through different theoretical frames, such as natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, and stare decisis, to scrutinize the case verdict on People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015).

First, it is important to differentiate between just and unjust laws. In a letter from Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed what just and unjust laws meant. He wrote the letter to present the level of injustices that were happening in the country against people of color. In the letter, he argued that people should be governed by just laws to enhance moral actions (King Jr, 1964). According to Dr. King, oppression and racism against blacks were injustice actions. He added that people not only have the right but also a moral obligation to disobey and break unjust laws. He stated that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King Jr, 1964). Therefore, society should strive to fight for just laws instead of waiting for justice to be realized through the judicial system.

Relating Dr. King’s statement with Tom Tyler’s views on matters concerning legal issues, they both have similar views on what entails just and unjust laws. According to Tyler, people should follow the law based on an individual’s belief of what is right and wrong (Tyler, 2006). He adds that a just law is what aligns with societal moral expectations. Therefore, people should condemn any law that acts against societal moral beliefs. Also, Dr. King’s letter on the issue of just and unjust laws gain support from the legal framework governing Hawaii Cockfighting. From this scenario, an unjust law is what all people agree to be wrong. For example, although people feel that it is unfair to criminalize cockfighting, they abide by regulations bestowed by the court (Young, 2016). People never resist once caught, meaning that they agree on the governing rules despite having not put them on record.

People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015), was a criminal case involving Turner and Channel Miller. Turner, a student at Stanford University, was convicted with five accounts of sexually assaulting Jane Doe on 18th January 2015. Block Turner was a passionate swimmer and he had enrolled in a scholarship for swimming at the university. Emily, on the other hand, was 22 years old during the incident and an alumnus of a different college (Palo Alto Online, 2015). The two were partying at the Santa Clara County Bar and had never met one another. Unfortunately, the plaintiff had drunk excessively to the extent of becoming unconscious. Turner took advantage of Emily’s unconsciousness and assaulted her sexually. He was caught in the act by Carl-Fredrik and Peter Johnson, who seized him until the authority arrived (Palo Alto Online, 2015). On the other end, Emily was taken to the hospital, and that is where she regained consciousness. After the arrest, Turner was unconfined the same day with cash bail. On the date of the first trial, 2nd February 2015, Turner was charged with five indicts: one for rape attempt, two for sexual assaults, and two for rape, but pleaded not guilty. During the second trial, 30th March 2015, the courts made its verdict based on three account charges: assault with intent to commit rape to an intoxicated person, penetration of an intoxicated person, and penetrating of an unconscious person (Palo Alto Online, 2015). Aaron Persky, the ruling judge, sentenced Mr. Turner to a six-month jail term and three years of probation. Further, he was to register as a sex offender throughout his life and had to undertake a rehabilitation program for sex offenders. Unfortunately, Persky’s decision was received with criticism from the public, arguing that the verdict was trivial for a sexual assault and depicted gender bias against women, and, at the same time, denied justice to less privileged.

After a detailed evaluation of the case, stand that justice was never served accordingly. First, it is wrong to rape someone, either male or female. Relating the case to natural law, Block Turner had committed a felony. According to Aristotle’s teachings, natural law is an unalterable moral principle that governs people’s conduct (Finnis, 2017). In other words, it is a kind of universal law that everyone needs to follow. In this case, every sober-minded person knows that raping is an immoral act. Raping relates to dehumanizing an individual, something that is immoral according to natural law. Therefore, the victim must be punished. Mr. Turner knew his action was immoral; the reason he tried to run after Carl-Fredrik and Peter Johnson intervened. Besides, he took advantage of the victim while she was drunk and unconscious. The happening of events indicates that Turner was aware of what he was doing, and it was immoral. Thus, he deserved a punishment corresponding to the act.

Also, integrating the theory of legal positivism in the case shows that justice was never served in the court. According to theorists, such as Lon Fuller, the law is equivalent to morality (Bix, 2017). Contrary to natural law, legal positivism is centered on created norms and regulations by the legislator act as case law or common law. In other words, an action is judged based on the framed norms and morals rather than on humanity or justice (Bix, 2017). However, under legal positivism, everyone is supposed to abide by the set rules, failure to which they are punishable by the law. Under legal positivism, raping is against the governing rules, and the victim is liable to face disciplinary charges. Therefore, Turner’s action was morally wrong based on natural law; the act was illegal under legal positivism and deserved a huge penalty. The court denied Jane Doe justice the first time they released the defendant on cash bail. Besides, sentencing him to only six months was injustice in relation to the crime committed.

Further, basing the explained case on the concept of legal realism, it is with no doubt that the justice served was limited. Legal realism is the argument that jurisprudence should act in response to natural sciences, where empirical evidence is used in determining a court case (Medushevsky, 2018). According to Roscoe Pound, Alfred Ross, and Oliver Wendell in their study about legal philosophy, the law should be framed through a scientific method, which involves the collection of evidence to enhance the logical result, and, at the same time, ensure justice is served (Medushevsky, 2018). Legal realism strives to wipe out cases of political, financial, or social influences while making a verdict. Relating the argument to the examined case, the judicial system failed to preserve justice. First, despite the evidence presented after the arrest, the court released Turner on a cash bail amounting to $15, 0000. In this case, the economic factor acted as an influential power, something that should not have happened based on the action committed. Besides, the jail term was short for a person convicted of rape. There was enough evidence that Turner was a threat to society as he was even doing drugs (Palo Alto Online, 2015). Therefore, the judge was supposed to use all the evidence and give a reasonable and deserving charge.

Besides, based on past legal cases concerning sexual assaults, charges imposed by the judge were undeserving. When marking verdicts, judges are supposed to be guided by decisions made in the past on a similar case. It is at this point the theory of stare decisis gets its application. The approach requires courts to be guided by standards set in previous cases (Anderlini, Felli & Riboni, 2014). The system gives judges a predictable and dependable development of legal morality. In other words, judges are in a position to decide a verdict easily since a similar case has been presented in the court (Anderlini, Felli & Riboni, 2014). Doing this ensures that justice is served and every. Unfortunately, in the court in the People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015), case judge Aaron Persky never referred to any legal proceedings that have happened in the past based on sexual assault. Contrary, the decision made was grounded on the evidence presented before the court.

Arguing the case in correlation to functionalism theory, justice was underserved in Brock Turner’s sexual assault case. Under the legal theory, functionalism examines lawful conduct by assessing the functions of the judicial system (Morgenthau, 2017). According to function theory, a sound legal system is one that expresses actions that satisfy the presented tests. In other words, the court should act in response to laws and moral regulations that serve its people (Morgenthau, 2017). Therefore, basing the argument on functionalism theory, the court is supposed to protect its people by rendering justice. Sexual assault is morally wrong within the judicial system, and the offender must face charges that reflect such an action. Unfortunately, the court failed to execute its functions as expected. Although Turner was imprisoned, the term of service was short. He had raped a woman in an unconscious mind, an act that framed him as a threat to society. Also, releasing the defendant on cash bail, the same day he was arrested, showed incompetence in the judicial system and failure to meet its legal functionality.

Finally, relating the case with conflict theory indicates that justice was not served to the fullest. In the legal system, conflict theory stands that the court is biased and intended to protect the affluent (Petrocelli, Piquero & Smith, 2003). The theory holds that the criminal justice system should work effortlessly to ensure that justice is served. However, sometimes judges are influenced by material things, hence making the wrong decision knowingly. Besides, aspects of race, ethnicity, and gender play a part in shaping verdicts made by judges (Petrocelli, Piquero & Smith, 2003). In Brock Turner’s sexual assault case, aspects of race and wealth seem to have played a part in influencing the court decision. First, the victim was a female, and the decision made could have been based on gender bias. Also, the defendant’s father seems to be a wealthy man in reflection of the cash bail he posted to get his son released on the day of arrest. From these remarks and considering the kind of crime committed, Jane Doe never received due justice.

After the evaluation of different sociological theories related to the legal system, courts are obliged to offer justice to society. As Dr. King stated, injustice is a threat to justice. Justice requires doing what is morally right. Judges should employ all sociological theories, such as natural law, legal positivism, and legal realism, among others, to ensure justice is served. Arguing the presented case based on the examined theories, Jane Doe was not served with justice. The defendant was imprisoned for only 6 months a sentence but was released 3 months earlier. Brock Turner only served 3 months for raping an unconscious woman and if that doesn’t prove gender bias, a wealth gap, and race play a huge role in law we have huge problems heading our way. His sentence was short and incomparable with the crime he committed. Also, the court allowed gender bias to play its cause, and this resulted in an unfair decision. Undoubtedly, the verdict imposed by the judge on the People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner’s (2015) case never promoted justice based on the sociological framework.

References

1. Anderlini, L., Felli, L., & Riboni, A. (2014). Why Stare Decisis? Review of Economic Dynamics, 17(4), 726-738.
2. Bix, B. (2017). On the dividing line between natural law theory and legal positivism. In Law and Morality (pp. 49-60). Routledge.
3. Finnis, J. (2017). Liberalism and Natural Law Theory. In Thomas Aquinas (pp. 139-156). Routledge.
4. King Jr, M. L. (1964). Letter from Birmingham Jail. Liberating Faith: Religious voices for justice, peace, & ecological wisdom, 177-187.
5. Medushevsky, A. N. (2018). Law and Social Constructivism: The Russian School of the Legal Realism Reexamined. In Russian Legal Realism (pp. 37-65). Springer, Cham.
6. Morgenthau, H. J. (2017). Positivism, functionalism, and international law. In The Nature of International Law (pp. 159-184). Routledge.
7. Palo Alto Online. (2015). People’s Sentencing Memorandum: People v. Block Allen Turner: Paloaltoonline.RetrievedFrom
8. Petrocelli, M., Piquero, A. R., & Smith, M. R. (2003). Conflict theory and racial profiling: An empirical analysis of police traffic stop data. Journal of criminal justice, 31(1), 1-11.
9. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why do people obey the law? Princeton University Press.
10. Young, K. M. (2016). Criminal Behavior as an Expression of Identity and a Form of Resistance: The Sociolegal Significance of the Hawaiian Cockfight. Calif. L. Rev., 104, 1159.

One of the reasons Socrates gives for not escaping from prison is that it would be a violation of the law. I agree with Socrates, one should never break the law, even when it conflicts with one’s sense of morality because of Socrates’s idea of a social contract, as well as if the laws are disobeyed it could bring dissolution of the city or state.

In Crito, we see some reasons Socrates gives Crito for not escaping from prison, for example, one of them is the idea of a social contract. Socrates has lived many years there and agreed to the laws and regulations, so even if the verdict is unjust, he has agreed to abide by the laws there (Plato, pg. 53). If Socrates were to escape the jury would just assume that they were correct in their verdict. To prove them right would mean that they were correct in the unjust accusations they were making. Regardless of the decision just because he believes the decision is unjust does not mean it is actually unjust, if he had no problem with the laws and regulations before it means he believed that they were just and chose to remain there. Socrates also has high morals and believes you can not make a wrong right with another wrong. If he were to escape just because he was wronged, he would do something sneaky and against the law making it wrong, and because his high morals, impedes him from doing so. Socrates’ reasoning is very convincing because it leaves Crito with nothing to say.

If the laws are disobeyed it could potentially bring dissolution of the city or state. It is important to follow the law because it keeps its citizens safe and creates balance and order. If the citizens have not had any problems or found the laws unjust, then they have remained in their city. They have the choice to move and live somewhere else if they believe their values are not viewed and respected. Laws should not be broken because they can bring forth legal consequences, people usually follow the law because they respect authority and because they feel that it is morally right to do so. If a law is in conflict with one’s sense of morality, one can move somewhere else, they can try to petition the law, or ignore it.

Some people might argue that the law should be broken if it is unjust or it does not coincide with their values and beliefs. This is not correct, because Socrates’s idea of a social contract as well as how you decide if a law is unjust, there are other strategies to fight the law while continuing to obey the law. If a person does not agree with the law, they have the choice to move from that location, remaining there would mean that you are willing to follow the law and believe it to be just. Many people have different beliefs and values though most of us usually agree on our morals sometimes this is not the case. If you believe a law to be immoral but others believe it to be moral how would you argue that you are correct? Cities or states usually coincide with the majority’s opinion, which leads to the next strategy if the law really is unjust. If a law is truly unjust you can get a lawyer to help fight a case against that law and/or start a petition, usually if the majority of the population agrees then a law can be overturned or changed.

In today’s society, this still applies, the law should never be broken. In today’s age following the law allows us to live in a civilized society where people can not just do whatever they please. In this day and age, a modern example would be abortion there are a lot of debates and controversies over this topic, people may not agree with it morally but instead of breaking the law, they decide to protest or debate about it. They try to get their voice heard which is a better way than acting on what they believe in and breaking the law in the process example of these would be people killing each other or attacking each other because they do not want the person to abort which in return they would be breaking the law. Instead, they have gone through the justice system to get their voice heard and done everything by the law without having to take or break any law or jurisdiction.

In conclusion, I agree with Socrates and think that one should never break the law, one can move somewhere else or fight against the law in a legal manner if the law is in conflict with one’s sense of morality. If one does not agree with it there are other methods now that people can use to let it be known instead of breaking the law or going the illegal way. They can protest, petition, or take it to court. They can appeal it in the courts if they are in jail and believe they have been wrongfully accused. There is no need to go to the extent of breaking the law especially if you believe it is morally wrong, two wrongs do not make a right you can find another solution to it. You can let them know another way or there can be another outcome to it as long as you keep trying you will eventually persevere. This is what Socrates wanted Crito to understand and this is what we should understand as morally right.

Since time immemorial, laws have been used to govern small communities as well as large countries. Typically, they are made in relation to human political communities, attitudes, practices, and values. They are expected to be followed and are generally viewed as a way to maintain specific moral codes of society. However, several people believe that there is morality in breaking the law, especially notable historical figures such as Plato and Martin Luther King Jr. King, one of the many black leaders who fought for freedom, makes an argument on the morality in breaking unjust laws in an exemplary manner. On the other hand, Plato’s Crito argues the morality of breaking the law using an impeccable dialogue between Socrates and Crito, who have different and realistic views on the matter. Admittedly, rules may be made to govern and keep peace in a society, but when the civil law is discriminative or unjust, it is morally permissible to break it.

Martin Luther King Jr. published a letter, “Letter from Birmingham City Jail,’ which explained his stand on civil disobedience. He had been arrested for conducting mass public demonstrations, which was against Alabama law. His letter is one of the most inspiring documents in America, which showed tremendous courage and defense of his stand on civil disobedience. While in jail, King read a letter that had been published in a newspaper, criticizing demonstrations and referring to them as imprudent. He wrote his letter in response to the newspaper letter, where he argues that the people protesting had every right to fight for justice. King’s main argument was that protests against racism were justified since they were fighting against unjust ordinances and laws. He made sure to explain why he thought it was morally right to break civil law.

In his letter, King deals with the question of how activists can intentionally break the law while fighting for the adaptation of racially equal laws. He answers his question by pointing out that there are right laws, but others are wrong. King writes that unjust laws are those that treat people like animals or disrespect their humanity and, thus, should not be obeyed. They are laws that are made by the majority to govern the minority and keep them in a less dignified manner. He supports his argument by giving an example of how black people in the South were prohibited from voting for laws that clearly affected them gravely. Besides, he mentions that he was not an anarchist since he breaks laws knowing the exact penalties. In fact, he wrote that he and his fellow demonstrators actually had the highest respect for the law, since they were attempting to make them better. In further support of his argument, he points out that Hitler caused a lot of pain in the world in a very legal way. Also, he declared that he would have illegally aided the escape of Jews if he was in Germany. Thus, he concludes that laws are not always right and can be broken if they are unjust.

On the other hand, Plato’s Crito engages in an argument about whether breaking unjust laws is morally right through a dialogue between Socrates and Crito. Socrates is convicted of mortifying the youth and impiety with his public philosophizing, which was against the gods of the city. He denied the charges but claimed that his arrest was for the good of the law in Athens. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. Crito shows up in Socrates’ cell, where they have a dialogue about justice and injustice and a suitable way to respond to injustice. Crito intends to break out Socrates, but he refuses the offer. Subsequently, they begin a conversation where they argue what they believe about the right thing to do in that situation.

Crito makes several arguments as to why Socrates should take up his offer to escape. To begin with, he explains that if he were to be executed, his friends would gain a bad reputation for not having tried to save him. Crito then tries to make his point from an ethical point of view by explaining how Socrates would be assisting his enemies, which was a wrong thing to do as well as leaving his sons fatherless. Socrates responds by pointing out that public opinion is not essential, and they only listen to the wise and experts. They should only be concerned with being morally upright. Additionally, he believed that it would be unjust for him to break the laws of Athens, to which he was bound. Individuals should care about what is actually just, rather than what many people think is just. He compared breaking the law to a child striking a parent. As for helping his enemies do unjust deeds, he said that if he were to behave himself unjustly, he would be giving them what they want. Socrates argued that the right thing to do was to convince the law keepers to release him since being treated unjustly did not warrant him being unjust. In the end, Crito is entirely persuaded by Socrates’ argument.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is very consistent with his argument. He provides solid reasons as well as real historical events to prove that laws are not always right and that it is morally acceptable to break the unjust ones. In the end, King gives an excellent reason for accepting his conclusions by explaining that Hitler caused misery and did it through the law. Thus, he proves that rules are not always right. His arguments are very compelling because he provides actual facts such as black people not being allowed to vote. He makes a reasonable point when he says laws that keep people in misery are unjust and should not be followed. However, he uses the either/or logical fallacy when he talks about extremists for justice. He mentions that it is essential to promote justice because notable figures such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and even Jesus Christ were extremists for justice. King assumes that people will side with his argument since famous people are on his side.

On the other hand, Socrates’ argument is weak, despite his having convinced Crito. First, the state has made an unjust ruling and Socrates reasons he does not want to teach lawless behavior, while the Athens system itself is already unfair. Instead, he teaches people not to stand up for themselves when being discriminated a. Either way, it is wrong at the end of the day. Crito’s argument, however, is reasonable. He claims that if Socrates does not escape, he will be promoting unjust laws in Athens, which is true. Doing nothing in the face of discrimination only promotes further injustice in society. Notably, Socrates commits the Ad Populum Fallacy by appealing to the opinion of the many. He sets up his argument with what many people would think.

In my opinion, it is very morally permissible to break the law in cases where it is wrong or unjust. Blindly following every rule can rapidly promote discrimination and unfair treatment of some groups. Not necessarily everyone has the opportunity to participate in law-making, and thus some rights can easily be infringed in the process. Therefore, if people feel like the law is not fair or is oppressing them, they have the moral obligation to make sure that prejudice and oppression do not endure in society. This is consistent with King’s opinions, which suggest that laws causing misery and subjugation in a society should not be obeyed. Indeed, if people were to follow all rules blindly because they are laws, communities would never develop or improve with the changing times.

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.

Fact

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.

Argument

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.

Decision

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:

• Law agencies fulfill the duty impost upon them by law;
• Respect and protect human dignity;
• Use force only when strictly necessary;
• Protect the human rights guarantee;
• Most importantly protect of human life and dignity;
• Prevention of crime.

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.

Recommendations

Cognizable offenses may be recommended if suspicious or involvement information is found. It can also be recommended under the following conditions:

• If a person is arrested by a police officer from a place, home or business establishment under sub-section-1, the arrested person will have to show his/her identity card to the police if he she wants.
• After the arrest of a person on the basis of a cognizable offense, all the information of the accused, such as the crime, the reason for the arrest and the time of arrest, etc., must be recorded in the diary immediately after the arrest.
• Special evidence has to be recorded in the diary on the basis of clause (2).
• If the arrested person is in an injured condition at the time of arrest, the cause of the injury must be recorded and a medical certificate must be collected after treatment at the nearest hospital or government doctor.
• All the information such as the reason for the arrest, the crime, etc. must be recorded within three hours of bringing the arrested person to the police station. f. If the accused is arrested in the absence of his home or business establishment or acquaintance, the police officer must notify the next of kin via mobile call or message within one hour of bringing the accused to the police station.
• If the arrested person wants, the police officer will allow him to consult a lawyer. Consent to this consultation shall remain in force until the Magistrate resolves in accordance with Article 61.

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.

• If a magistrate is satisfied with the information about the accused, the diary, the police officer’s investigation, he can order the accused to be sent to jail, but if the incident is not satisfied with the investigation, he will release him.
• If the investigating officer asks for time to investigate, the magistrate will give him time, but that time will not be more than seven days. If the involvement of the cognizable offense is not proved within that period, the magistrate will release the accused.
• If the accused is released in accordance with clauses a and b, the magistrate will issue a Suo motu Penal Code under Section 220 against the police officer who made the arrest without filing a complaint or without an arrest warrant

The provisions of sub-section 2 shall be marked as sub-section 3 in the following manner:

• If a case is filed within the period specified in sub-section 2, the magistrate may send the accused to jail; the investigating officer may inquire.
• If the investigating officer wants to keep the accused in custody through an application in the context of the investigation, he has to show a specific reason to the magistrate. If the magistrate is satisfied, he will be sent to police custody for a maximum of three days.
• Before any order comes, the magistrate will give the accused an opportunity to consult with the lawyer and listen to the lawyer of the accused or his party.

Related to subsection 4:

• If you want to issue an order through a metropolitan magistrate, a copy must be sent to the metropolitan judge. The Metropolitan Judge will execute the order within 15 days.
• In case of police investigation, all the reports have to be submitted by checking through the medical board before being kept in custody.
• Only the investigating officer can interrogate him while in custody. If an accused makes a complaint about torture, the previous medical report will be checked by a magistrate.
• If the allegation of torture is proved, action will be taken against the investigating officer under sections 190 (1) and 330 of the Penal Code.
• If a person dies in prison or custody, the magistrate must be notified.

Attorney General Argument

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.

Findings of the High Court Division

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.

Observation

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.

Conclusion

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.

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.

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.

References

1. City of Chicago Office of the Mayor, (2017). Gun Trace Report. Retrieved from https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2017/October/GTR2017.pdf
2. Johnson, A. (2019). As many call for tighter gun laws, Texas is set to loosen up. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/many-call-tighter-gun-laws-texas-set-loosen-n1039481n,
3. Jones, C. W. (2016). Armed to Learn: Aiming at California K-12 School Gun Policy. Naval Postgraduate School Student Thesis.
4. Kleck, G. (2009). Mass Shootings in Schools: The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10).
5. Lemieux, F. (2014). Effect of gun culture and firearm laws on gun violence and mass shootings in the United States: a multi-level quantitative analysis. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9 (1), 74-93.
6. Reeping, P. M. (2019). State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross-sectional time series. The BMJ, 364.