Assignment 2: Civil Rights Vs Public Safety
Civil Rights VS Public Safety
CJA/550
December 13, 2010
Steven Duplissis
Civil Rights VS Public Safety
The argument over public safety versus civil rights has been an ongoing process in the United States since the creation of the Constitution. Some argue that in order to have public safety in our society the government tends to violate some of our amendment rights, while others believe it is a mistake to sacrifice public safety for civil rights. Civil rights are rooted in our country and protect the people who live in this country. Many believe the safety of the general population is more important than protecting the rights of citizens. This paper will analyze public safety versus civil rights with focus on the death …show more content…
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate on whether it should be allowed or whether it violates our constitutional right. While most developed Western nations have stopped executing the United States continues to execute offenders (Zimring 2004). From 1977 through 2008 1,136 people have been executed, which consisted of people who committed murder (Procon 2010). Those who are in favor of the death penalty believe it is an important tool to help deter crime and it cost less than life imprisonment (Procon 2010). They believe retribution helps console the grieving family and it also ensures that the offender will never be able to commit another heinous crime (Procon 2010). According to Grant (2004) some people believe that some offenders should face the death penalty because of vengeance and retribution for violent crimes. During the …show more content…
Hate crimes happens any and every where, in small and large cities, and every state. As long as hate crimes have been happening the actual name “hate crime” is new and so is the idea of special treatment of these offenses (Gerstenfeld 2010). The first hate crime law was not passed until 1980 and 3 decades later only 44 states, District of Columbia and the federal government have some form of hate crime legislation (Gerstenfeld 2010). In this day and time I find it hard to believe that not all 50 states have some type of hate crime law. Some people do not believe there should be special laws for hate crimes because they say all violent crimes are hateful regardless of race and sexual orientation. Those in favor of hate crime laws argue that there are hate crime laws because; the person who commits a hate crime deserve an increased punishment because these type of crimes are worse than ordinary; hate crime laws will deter the act; and that the laws will show that this type of crime is not allowed (Gerstenfeld 2010). In the US the most frequently reported hate crime is racism against blacks with 3,000 of the 8,000 hate crime reported to the FBI against black people (FBI 2009). In 1990 the Hate Crime Statistics Act was
CJA/550
December 13, 2010
Steven Duplissis
Civil Rights VS Public Safety
The argument over public safety versus civil rights has been an ongoing process in the United States since the creation of the Constitution. Some argue that in order to have public safety in our society the government tends to violate some of our amendment rights, while others believe it is a mistake to sacrifice public safety for civil rights. Civil rights are rooted in our country and protect the people who live in this country. Many believe the safety of the general population is more important than protecting the rights of citizens. This paper will analyze public safety versus civil rights with focus on the death …show more content…
The death penalty has been an ongoing debate on whether it should be allowed or whether it violates our constitutional right. While most developed Western nations have stopped executing the United States continues to execute offenders (Zimring 2004). From 1977 through 2008 1,136 people have been executed, which consisted of people who committed murder (Procon 2010). Those who are in favor of the death penalty believe it is an important tool to help deter crime and it cost less than life imprisonment (Procon 2010). They believe retribution helps console the grieving family and it also ensures that the offender will never be able to commit another heinous crime (Procon 2010). According to Grant (2004) some people believe that some offenders should face the death penalty because of vengeance and retribution for violent crimes. During the …show more content…
Hate crimes happens any and every where, in small and large cities, and every state. As long as hate crimes have been happening the actual name “hate crime” is new and so is the idea of special treatment of these offenses (Gerstenfeld 2010). The first hate crime law was not passed until 1980 and 3 decades later only 44 states, District of Columbia and the federal government have some form of hate crime legislation (Gerstenfeld 2010). In this day and time I find it hard to believe that not all 50 states have some type of hate crime law. Some people do not believe there should be special laws for hate crimes because they say all violent crimes are hateful regardless of race and sexual orientation. Those in favor of hate crime laws argue that there are hate crime laws because; the person who commits a hate crime deserve an increased punishment because these type of crimes are worse than ordinary; hate crime laws will deter the act; and that the laws will show that this type of crime is not allowed (Gerstenfeld 2010). In the US the most frequently reported hate crime is racism against blacks with 3,000 of the 8,000 hate crime reported to the FBI against black people (FBI 2009). In 1990 the Hate Crime Statistics Act was