Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Death penalty-to be or not to be? Sometimes crime cannot be punished enough. Sometimes crime is so cruel that there is no realistic punishment for it. There are too many victims out there, that suffered and their attacker gets a simple painless death. I am saying painless comparing to murders that happen every day that are simply horrifying. As Paul A. Winters says "If a person commits a uniquely gruesome murder, he deserves to be put to death" Winters et al. 154. So many murderers are convicted of the crime of murder and they only get years in jail. Their victims feel the pain, but imagine the pain and sorrow that the families of the victims feel, and that pain lasts for the rest of their lives. If someone from my family was killed, I wouldn't think a second what to do with the murderer. I would want him dead. Most of the families feel this way and the best way to stop the pain is to get rid off the cause of the pain. Death sentence is effective because it deters crimes, but many people argue that life without parole is much harder to serve for the person who committed the crime, "Abolitionist claim there are some alternative to the death penalty, they say that life without parole serves just as well" Guilmette 2. I agree that putting away the murderer is effective, but just isn't enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. As long as the murderer there is a small possibility that he could strike again. Capital punishment is the most effective weapon against the murderers; because no executed murderer has ever killed again. You cannot say that about those sentenced to prison. Death sentence also depends on the case. I am not saying that everybody who commits the murder should be placed on the death row. There are different types of the murder and every murder that was planned or intentional should be severely punished. As Hugo Adam Badeu says, "Despicable crimes should be dealt with realistically" Badeu et al. 131. I have no mercy for the killers, and nobody should have any mercy for anybody who does harm to another human being. Who gives a right to anyone to commit crime anyway? Michael Kronenwetter says, "The death penalty has always been considered especially appropriate for the crime of murder" Kronenwetter 6. Murder is the biggest crime and biggest offense, and it should be treated like that. Over the years, public safety has become a meaningless thing, not worth defending anymore, and the death penalty has been persecuted for just that reason. Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless way to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don't see why public safety doesn't deserve as much respect and protection as a nation's national security does. In fact, it can be argued that supporting armies and war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. The whole reason why nations and government exist is to defend their citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. I think that the people in all the nations will soon realize that capital punishment, like the military or police force and even taxes is an unavoidable consequence of every civilized society, and it will no longer be the question of whether or not a nation should have the death penalty, but rather how it should be used. "According to polls, more than 70 percent of Americans feel that murderers deserve the death penalty" Winters et al. 168. What can you say to the parents of the kids that were killed in Columbine High School, their kids will never come back, and their killers were kids, too. What can be done about juvenile murderers? "President Clinton proposed that the age at which penalty could be applied should be reduced from 21 to 18" O'Rourke 1. I agree with that and if that law could be put in place, no killer would be protected. Everybody who is mature enough to the consequences of the things they do should be equally punished as everybody else. Most of the people don't agree with this, but that's just the way it is. As I said laws change and convicted could be out on the streets again, and they could strike again. Those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment have supported their cause with many arguments. They have claimed that some have been wrongly sent to death row, while other decisions have been unfairly applied to minorities and the poor. Others argued for the sanctity of human life, as well as the expense involved in capital punishment. But those who believe in the opposition of the death penalty are often misled. They should consider the following cases that underlie the support for capital punishment, for it is certainly the only way to deal with the cruelty of crime that has infected our society. Capital punishment was once supported by the theory of deterrence, yet studies have shown weaknesses in this argument. Although the death penalty may not have an effect in deterring crime, it protects society from the threat of the same criminal committing a violation again when they are set free. A notable example is the case of Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate the Pope after he had previously been tried and convicted of murder. Opponents may often refute this by suggesting a life sentence without parole, yet research has shown that the crime rates in prisons are gradually increasing. What happens when a person sentenced with life imprisonment kills another inmate or guard during that time? This brings about reconsideration for those who advocate sentences without parole instead of capital punishment. A second way to look at the validation of capital punishment is the concept of retribution. Retribution cannot be confused with the concept of revenge. It is society"s right of intolerance to heinous crimes that bring about the need for death row. Criminals have not only injured their victims but also the important values that govern society, which is the respect for life. Society has a responsibility to protect its citizens, doing what is necessary and appropriate to those who break the laws. Thus, capital punishment is necessary to ensure the priceless value of human lives. Thirdly, some people urge to abolish the death penalty because of their concern for the sanctity of human life. That is precisely the reason why this form of crime prevention should be maintained. Capital punishment is different from murder because the person being executed had committed a crime and was tried and found guilty. An execution carried out after a trial cannot be compared to a murder committed by a criminal. Lastly, it is suggested and often proven that the death penalty discriminates against the poor and minority groups. One must see that this problem does not concern the justification of the penalty, but the unfair way in which it is distributed. This problem may be improved by properly reviewing the cases, imposing decisions without regard to race or class. This can be achieved so that all defendants receive equal protection ground. Capital punishment has proven to have good benefits upon the country in determining the consequences that criminals deserve. This is needed to ensure the safety and moral values of society. If this is the case, there is no need for us to consider the expenses involved in the death penalty. Certainly human lives are more important, for it may easily be yours. We should not abolish capital punishment, but hold our country accountable for properly exercising the death penalty upon those who deserve it. Many criminals don"t fear the judicial system. They know that they will get out in ten years if they murder someone. They are not afraid of jail or their punishment. How can we force them to stop killing or stealing if they are not afraid of the punishment we give them. Most rational men are afraid of death. They don"t want to die. There are also men that don"t fear death, but enjoy killing. They must be controlled, but if they are sentenced to life they are soon free to kill again. Again, I am not saying we should kill all the men in jail and any other criminal in the world. That is not the answer either, but we must have the death penalty as an option so that they will be afraid to break the law, and to control those who don"t fear death but love to break the law. What do you do with men who do not fear the loss of their life? One criminal of America, Carl Panzram was quoted in saying, "In my life I have murdered 21 human beings. I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 1000 male human beings. For all of these things I am not the least bit sorry. I have no conscience so that does not worry me. I don"t believe in Man, God nor devil. I hate the whole damned human race including myself" Panzram 1. Men like this who do not care for any law and do every unthinkable act are being supported in some jails around the world. What do you do with people who only want to kill and cause chaos? There is very little you can do, especially if they do not care if they are imprisoned. Panzram cares for nothing. He doesn"t mind his fifteen years in prison, or even his twenty-five. Panzram was executed and can no longer bother man kind, but there are others like him. Australia has abolished the death sentence. They can no longer control the men like Panzram. Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 innocent people in Tasmania. He is now being supported by the people of Australia. There is one option, which Australia no longer has. They cannot put this man to death, they are not allowed. This cannot be the case in other countries, so that those criminals like Panzram and Bryant, will be able to do what they want and not be executed for it. We must keep the death penalty for the people like this; people who like to kill and that don"t fear imprisonment. The death penalty should be maintained"¦
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1764 Views: 268 Comments: 0
Death penalty-to be or not to be? Sometimes crime cannot be punished enough. Sometimes crime is so cruel that there is no realistic punishment for it. There are too many victims out there, that suffered and their attacker gets a simple painless death. I am saying painless comparing to murders that happen every day that are simply horrifying. As Paul A. Winters says "If a person commits a uniquely gruesome murder, he deserves to be put to death" Winters et al. 154. So many murderers are convicted of the crime of murder and they only get years in jail. Their...
like Panzram. Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 innocent people in Tasmania. He is now being supported by the people of Australia. There is one option, which Australia no longer has. They cannot put this man to death, they are not allowed. This cannot be the case in other countries, so that those criminals like Panzram and Bryant, will be able to do what they want and not be executed for it. We must keep the death penalty for the people like this; people who like to kill and that don"t fear imprisonment.

The death penalty should be maintained…

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

If you recently picked up a...If you recently picked up a newspaper or turned on to see the news you may have question what is happening in our schools and begin to think whether our schools are still safe places for children. Recent school shootings have set feared in many parents about their children's safety in our schools. Since last year number of school shootings by students have occurred regularly. On Tuesday February 29, 2000 in Mount Morris Township, Michigan a six-year old boy shot his classmate to death in their first grade classroom. Police reports show that the two youngsters had an argument the previous day. A single shot was fired inside the classroom at Buell Elementary School around 10 a.m. The young boy said he brought the gun to school to frighten her but accidentally fired a shot. "We"ve had other schoolchildren take guns to elementary schools before"¦ but it never went this far with it. "Society refuses to take responsibility by locking up their armed weapons." Said by a schoolteacher. Since last year there have been fifteen different school shootings in which many student have died without any reason. Who should we blame for this? Should we blame the parents, teachers, schools or our government? Before blaming anyone we must hear what two sides of gun control have to say. It is very wise to debate on a topic that have concerned all of us since last few years before making our decision. In doing so, we must answer series of questions. Therefore our group has come up with some questions to which we will try to tackle. Since this is a debate paper we have try to present both side of the issue through our answers. Very first question that arise in peoples minds after witnessing the horrible tragedies is should we have more gun control laws? Many of us differ on this issue. We have found lots of argument on this question. Proponents of gun more gun control laws feared that until stronger gun control measures are taken there will be future tragedies like horrors that took place at schools all over US. Over 76% of Americans favored more gun control laws LA TIMES. On the other side people who are against more gun control laws argue that issue of guns is not really the problem. They say more gun control laws wouldn't prevent future tragedies because people who are intended to harm people are less likely to obey them. Opponent of stronger gun control laws also believe that government laws on how to store guns and laws banning certain types of firearms deny the fundamental right of self- defense and violate the Second Amendment. Another serious question arise when talking about gun control is should adults be held criminally responsible for their children actions? Few Americans including our president agree we should hold adults responsible, but over 70% of Americans believe that adults should not be held responsible for their children's action. The uncle of the six-year old student who shot his classmate was arrested following the shootings. Should the uncle be held responsible for the action he didn't take? And how about the child, should we charge a six year old student as an adult? Also what causes these students to gun down their classmates? What stressor contributing to these shootings? And what are right steps we should take to prevent the future tragedies? Our group explores these questions in an effort to make sense of what appear to be senseless and avoidable crimes. We have tried to examine gun violence in schools through the lens of the recent school shootings and explores the role and responsibility of parents, teacher and society as a whole in combating this frightening scourge. We have also created a skit in which each member of our group has taken part of someone and has debated on this issue. Opponents think that stricter gun control laws will not work or stop the violence in the school. School violence is a hard thing to take control of. Gun control laws will not help to make our schools safer. The gun control laws might help some people to feel better and safe but it will not stop the person who intends to hurt someone. According to the Wall Street Journal, nationwide there are more than 20,000 gun control laws that regulate everything from who can own a gun, background checks on people wanting to own a gun, where it is been purchased, etc. The Clinton administration has created stricter gun control laws, which will increase school safety, but the question is will these laws ultimately save the lives of the children in school? Guns are more available today than they were in the 1970's and 1980's and at that time school shootings were not prevalent as it is today. According to the magazine NEA today, the guns do not create violence in schools, the kids with an attitude towards violence is the major problem. Today, the attitude and violence mix together in the mind of the teenagers. Even if we put a slash on guns than there are other weapons that can kill and more readily available than guns, that can create violence in the schools. As for example, a student with a knife could kill several people before being disarmed. Bomb-making materials are readily available in stores and information on making bombs is plentiful on the Internet. A student who intends to kill innocent people will find a way to do that violent act even though he or she does not have the access to guns. According to John R. Lott, the professor in law and economics at the University of Chicago Law School states that gun availability has never before been as restricted as it is now. In 1960's and 1970's, it was possible for the 13 year old to buy a rifle from hardware store anywhere in the U.S. Rifle were mailed to anybody who wanted to buy one. It is also a fact that until 1969, the public high schools in New-York City had a shooting club. The students used to bring guns to the school and turned them over to their homeroom teacher or to their coach and retrieve the guns after the school for target practice. The students who were on the rifle team regularly compete in wide shooting contests in New-York City. The most surprising part is that the students who were good at shooting contests were awarded university scholarships. Furthermore, the best-illustrated part for not having gun control laws is from Virginia. The high-school students in rural areas have a long tradition of going hunting in the morning. The state legislative has failed to enact an exemption to a federal law banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school. They ultimately failed because students often bring guns to the school by putting them in the trunk of their vehicle. It was crazy to send a good student to the prison because he brought the gun to the school. Furthermore, potential victims use guns more than two million times a year to stop violent crimes: 98% of the time simply brandishing a gun is sufficient to stop an attack. Crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns. In addition to this, not one academic study has shown that waiting periods and background checks have reduced crime or youth violence. Therefore, disarming potential victims those likely to obey the gun laws relative to criminals those who almost by definition will not obey such laws makes crime more attractive and more likely. Mechanical locks that fit either into a gun's barrel or over its trigger requires the gun to be unloaded; and locked, unloaded guns offer far less protection from intruders. The requirements of locks on guns would surely increase deaths resulting from crime. Switzerland has more firepower per person than any other country in the world said by author Steven Halbrook. He also added that Switzerland is still one of the safest places to live. Switzerland has a lower homicide and robbery rate than United States, which has strict gun control laws. Yet, there have no school massacres in Switzerland where kids and guns mix freely. In our country there are 20,000 gun laws already on the books and still we don't have the answer whether this gun control laws has caused the existing gun violence problem. Well, good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save lives. Thus, Guns, clearly, are not the real problem. The strict gun control laws might help make a school safer but there is no evidence that shows that by putting restriction on guns the violence in the school has decreased. The gun control laws have noticeably reduced gun ownership but the result is opposite that each 1% reduction in gun ownership there is a 3% increase in violent crime. The bottom line is that guns do not kill people but criminals do and gun control laws do not control guns but they control law-obeying citizens. The Second Amendment gives citizens the "right to bear arms." Proponent believed that it should have read, "Only adults who meet the requirements may possess firearms," but instead it means once you are born you can purchase a gun and take anyone"s life. Too many shootings have occurred over the years and the numbers will continue to grow unless we as righteous citizens put a stop to it. Many liberals believe that we need gun control because to many innocent people are dying. No one has the right to take a life away from anyone. Once that person is gone there is no way to bring them back. Tragedies will occur but we can try to prevent a few of them from occurring by enforcing gun control laws Different factors contribute to violence in our schools. Kids commit crimes for many different reasons. Some see it on T.V. and want to imitate them. Others do it for attention. Some do it out of anger and just don"t care to think about the consequences. We need strict gun control laws to help prevent some of these teens from making the biggest mistake of their life. Unqualified citizens and kids have easy access to firearms. I can log on to Internet right now and purchase a gun without being asked any questions. The Brady Law was created to prevent some criminals from purchasing deadly weapons. The Brady Law gives a background check. It asks for your residence, prior criminal convictions, age and employment. There is also a ten-day waiting period. Those who need the gun right away just say forget. Many don"t even try to purchase a gun because they are afraid of what will be found out when the background check is done. When the Brady Law was created our murder rate fell by 11.6%. Since 1989 twenty seven thousand were arrested when trying to purchase a gun due to the background check. The Brady Law is helpful yet no one tries to enforce it. This law continues to be ignored. Kids can get their little paws on a gun without any hassle. There are several loopholes that give children easy access. Parents are not required to keep loaded firearms out of reach of children. Parents should lock up their firearms. Many times children think that their parent's gun is a toy gun and they end up injuring themselves or others. Private gun owners can sell guns without background checks at gun shows and flea markets. They do not need to keep records of whom they have sold to. This creates a big problem when a gun has been found at a murder scene. The Law Enforcement is unable to trace the gun back to the owner. It then becomes harder to find the murderer. Gun manufacturers and stores are not required to lock up their guns when the factory or stories closed. Thousands of guns are stolen from stores every year. If a person needs a gun bad enough nothing will stop him from stealing one but if he knew that they were locked up he would not even try because he would not succeed. Gun manufacturers are not required to make guns that are safer and less accessible to children and unauthorized users. They have the ability and technology to produce these guns but refuse to produce them. It is inexpensive to create combination locks. In most states, juveniles of any age can purchase assault weapons. Most kids do not have the capability, maturity and responsibility to handle a gun. Children play with them like toys and don"t understand the consequences. Many believe in personalizing guns, trigger locks, more security for schools. Children without access to their parents" firearms or illegal guns will be less likely to commit violent acts at school. Guns do kill people according to LA Times, 800 Americans old and young die each year from gun shot by children under nineteen. Another, even stranger phenomenon is the rapid growth of armed violence in schools. It is becoming more and more frequent to find loaded guns at elementary schools. Los Angeles has 300-armed police officers permanently assigned to schools, and a growing number of schools have metal detectors at their doors. Law enforcement officials are more alarmed then ever about the threats that children and their teachers face in learning institutions. Many troubled adolescents decide to shatter their own life along with those who are their classmates by coming to school with loaded guns and opening fire. These students involve themselves in such acts for many different reasons. A fifteen-year boy wounded six schoolmates over a breakup with his girlfriend. This incident occurred at an all American suburban high school where no one would have thought such a thing was possible. "He"s not one of those trench coat types," Brandon Bailey, a seventeen year old said. You do not have to be a certain type to go out and harm someone. Many do such a deed out of anger. "You tell yourself this kind of thing could never happen here, but you know in your heart that"s not true anymore," commented a student. A gun can kill so many people so fast. In 1998 nine thousand handgun murders occurred in America. A gun should be treated like a vehicle. A person should need a license just to hold a gun and fingerprints should be taken. We all know that if a person really wanted to harm someone they would use something other then a gun. Just remember that a knife cannot conduct a drive by shooting only a gun can. A person can kill twice as many people with a firearm in just a matter of time. In order to use a knife a person must put a lot more energy into it and can only get to so many. Gun control in schools is a controversial issue in the United States. It has recently become a major issue because of all the school shootings. On one side of the issue, the proponents want zero tolerance. The proponents believe that stricter laws and regulations are needed to ensure the safety of students and faculty members. Laws and regulations, such as locker inspections, more security guards on and off campus, students must carry see through bags, metal detectors, and criminal charges against the student their parents when a gun is misused. Some believe that children who go on shooting rampages should be tried as an adult. Another solution proponents proposed were new technology devices such as trigger locks and personalized guns. Opponents of gun control in schools believe that stricter laws and regulations are unnecessary. They believe that children will commit crimes regardless if they have a gun or not. They say that "it's not the gun that pulls the trigger, but the person behind the gun that does." If a child can't use a gun, then he'll use a knife or any other weapon. Opponents to gun control in school believe that adding stricter regulations and laws would cost too much money. Regulations and laws would just raise taxes. They argue that money shouldn't be spent on gun control in school, but on educational programs, school supplies, computers, new technology, teachers, and renovations. In the past two years in the United States there has been an unprecedented amount of devastating shootings and murders in schools. The unbelievable rate of school shootings amongst children has caused a major concern amongst teachers, students, authorities, and the whole society. From Colorado to Arkansas, to the most recent in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, has caused an outcry from society to make drastic changes in order to protect the children of the future, and anyone else who might get involved. Schools used to be envisioned as a safe environment, where you were free to learn and have fun without any worries. But now in the present time when you think about school you envision fear, school shootings and violence. As a group we came up with some solutions concerning gun control in schools. We all agree that recently school shootings have become a major issue. And we feel in order to help prevent on going future tragedies certain laws and regulations need to be added. First of all we believe that it should be required that students take educational classes on gun control and prevention in school. Second, we believe all schools should have metal detectors, allowed no lockers, and add more security guards on and off the campus. When a student gets caught with a gun in school we believe he/she should be suspended for a week. To be reinstated the student must be forced to undergo counseling and take extra classes in gun safety and prevention. When a student fires a gun in or outside of school, we believe they should be tried as an adult. Criminal charges should also be implemented to the owner of the gun which the child has obtained access to. School shootings have been occurring at an unbelievable rate. The big question is why has it there been numerous amounts of shootings these past two to three years? There many factors out there that contributes to the problem. Kids see violence on television everyday. They see it in movies, the news, and TV shows. The media has glorified violence. Another contributing factor is parental guidance. Plenty of children are left unsupervised, free to make decisions by themselves. While the parents are out working eight to twelve hours a day, the child is left alone to do as they please. Guns are very easily obtainable nowadays. You can buy them off the streets or even on the Internet with no questions asked. Parental guidance and media control is a necessity if we want to see some changes. Children at young ages are very easily influenced. Parents need to monitor what their children are watching on the television and need to be involved with their lives and interests. They need to keep their children involved with sports and clubs. Parents need to teach their children how to handle certain situations. Situations such as, dealing with a bully, controlling your anger, and all other hostile situations a young child could encounter. Until all the underlying factors are somehow controlled, guns will still be found in schools.   

If you recently picked up a newspaper or turned on to see the news you may have question what is happening in our schools and begin to think whether our schools are still safe places for children. Recent school shootings have set feared in many parents about their children's safety...

Words: 3264 View(s): 446 Comment(s): 0
The constitutions of most of our...The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, 1824 Should guns be banned in America? Should guns be banned? This is one of the widest asked questions. There are those who believe that gun's should be banned, as guns are the number one killer. All around the world, small arms stocks were destroyed in the hope to lower the amount of guns in the world. South Africa's destruction of 24 000 small arms today is part of worldwide small arms destructions "“ 6 000 illegal guns were destroyed in Cambodia, 1 700 in Mozambique, and 10 000 weapons were destroyed in Brazil. Through these destructions governments from around the world are showing their support for the regulation of the small arms trade "“ a trade that kills an estimated 500 000 people each year. Handguns and other firearms have a long tradition in American civilization. The right to bear arms is an American right featured in the second Amendment of the Constitution. In the 18th century, when the constitution was written, times were different; there was a need for armed citizens to insure the safety of the society as a whole. Contemporarily the police department preserves the safety of society and the need for armed citizens is out of date. The founding fathers of the Constitution could presumably never imagine the horrendous outcome of their actions. Every year too many lives are claimed as the result of the American government's inability to fully face up to effects of the issue. Compared to other western countries that have considerably stricter gun control laws America is still viewed as "The Wild-Wild West". The growing gun related death toll in the U.S. has to come to a turning point. Stripping away the constitutional right to bear arms might have the effect that only criminals will have access to guns. It is important to understand that in a society where both criminals and law abiding citizens have access to guns the likeliness of an innocent person getting shot, when both parties are waving guns, is probably greater than if only criminals have guns. A ban on firearms might not be appealing as a short-term solution but it is important that people don't limit their thinking to their generation and not think about the safety of their children, grandchildren and the society people are creating today for them to live in. The main obstacle in removing firearms from citizens in the U.S. is the second Amendment of the Constitution. It reads: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The second Amendment can be interpreted as every citizen right to bear arms. However the key word is "Militia", meaning soldiers or defenders of the State. In the late 18th century, when the Constitution was written, times were very different than those of contemporary America. People were scared of possible invasions from Native Americans, the English, and other nationalities. By "a well regulated Militia"¦" the founding fathers probably meant that citizens could have a muscot standing in the corner just in case anything would happen. Note that the writers of the Constitution added, "A well regulated"¦" in front of the word Militia. That would most likely reveal a controversy in writing this Amendment, some of the founding fathers might have foreseen the possibility of a misinterpretation of this Amendment. In the U.S. there are approximately 200 million privately owned guns, which is statistically close to a gun per person and places more than one gun per home on average O'Donnell 771. In other words, guns are all around. This effects, without a doubt, the whole society structure and the citizens that live within its boundaries. The children that live within a gun infested society are going to suffer the consequences. In fact, kids between the ages 16 and 19 have the highest handgun victimization rate among all age groups. It's not hard to understand why, since there are on average more than one gun per household, kids are likely to find firearm and in some cases even use it. Here are a couple of incidents that occurred not so long ago. All are witness statements taken down by the police and are all in favor of the government to take action: "A shopkeeper who was shot dead in a robbery stepped in front of her killers to save her daughter, said her husband." "Thieves killed Marion Bates, 64, in front of her daughter Xanthe in an attack at their family jewelry store in Arnold, Nottingham, on Tuesday." "A man has died and another has been injured after a drive-by shooting in Hertfordshire." "Police say two men came under fire- most possibly from an automatic weapon- outside the Physical Limit Health and Fitness Club in Brewery road in Hoddesdon Gun Control in the United States of America is a topic that has had some criticism and support by many citizens. The critical people of this topic believe that the guns do not kill people; it is the people that kill people. The supporters of this topic believe that guns lead to violence and a feeling of power over others. They also believe that if guns were eliminated from the public, then violence and death would decrease heavily in this country. These two opposing views leave the federal government open to a decision on whether or not to abolish one of our Constitutional rights, or to keep allowing people the right to own a gun. The majority of crimes committed in the United States were accompanied by a weapon, which was usually a gun. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research dedicates its service to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries. Studies have proven that in 1997 there were 32,436 gun related deaths which calculated out equals 88 deaths a day. A study by researchers from the University of Chicago, John Lott and David Mustard, showed that violent crime is reduced when citizens have a law that allows them to carry concealed weapons. In 1994 a crime bill was passed that included an assault weapons ban that outlawed the manufacturing and selling of semiautomatic weapons and prohibits the manufacturing of copies. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research was established in 1995 and applies an approach to informing the public about guns. The Center attempts to educate the public about firearm injuries and new gun policies. The Center tries to prove that the safety of guns can be regulated as we would regulate the safety of other consumer goods. The Center looks into legal and public strategies to reduce the amounts of injuries and deaths due to the use of guns. The Center creates and evaluates policies to restrict the availability of weapons to high risk users. The faculty of the Center evaluates the effect of gun laws such as those banning the Saturday Night Specials, or permitting the carrying of a concealed weapon. The Center also conducts surveys to find out from the public what people think about gun laws and policies There is like all arguments, a reason why guns should not be banned. There are reasons which have to be accounted for such as the quote "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.". For almost as long as guns have been around gun control has been a major issue throughout the world. As we look back on the past we find that gun control, its is said that gun control doesn't really help reduce crime. Another down side of gun control is that if the government takes away the right to own weapons then they will start to think they can take other rights away. With every new anti gun law passed the crime rate in the United States escalates. For example if you look at the state of Texas or any other state where pro gun laws were recently passed, that allow non felon citizens to purchase and carry a handgun, you can see that crime rates have gone down in these states. It appears that if criminals feel threatened, because their victims may have a gun, they are less likely to attack people. This example shows how gun laws that restrict guns are ineffective because when a law that allows guns is passed crime rates don't go up but actually go down when more people have guns. "Gun laws fail because they do not address the issue. The issue is not possession of firearms, but misuse of firearms. We cannot expect criminals to abide by gun laws when they have already shown a disregard for law and order by their criminal activity. The only people ever affected by gun laws are peaceful, law abiding citizens, who never abuse their firearms right. Recent research is finding gun laws do not reduce the amount of violent crime in our society. Gun laws have succeeded only in disarming the law abiding and making the criminals' work environment safer I submit that our concern should be to make the environment for honest citizens, and this, gun laws have failed to do." Thomas Jefferson predicted these same results when he said, "Laws that forbid the Carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." If someone is a criminal they either don't really care about breaking the law or they don't plan on getting caught. It is absurd to pass laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning weapons because it isn't the citizens, that are obeying the laws,that should be punished for the wrong doing of the criminals. A robber is not going to stop and think wow I better not hold up this store, with this gun, just because it is illegal. Robbing a store is illegal in the first place, but the robber is still going to rob the store, so what is the point of making guns illegal. The law shouldn't be on the gun it should be against the person using the gun. The gun itself did nothing wrong. If a robber robs a store the gun is not thinking or moving by itself so it can't be blamed for the crime.   

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, 1824 Should guns be banned in America? Should guns be banned? This is one of the widest asked questions. There...

Words: 1779 View(s): 310 Comment(s): 0
When comparing apples to pears,... When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence. Unlike municipal law, international law is a horizontal system designed to deal with the external interactions of states between each other; whereas municipal law represents a centralized system with various institutions. In the eyes of international law, states are recognized as being sovereign and equal, although in reality some states are more powerful than others. Therefore, dealing with states of equal statue makes it difficult to force a state to behave in a particular manner. Municipal law on the other hand behaves as supreme law of the land and people of various states suffer penal consequences for not adhering to the established law of the state. In the international arena agreements are made and states uphold these agreements which they have consented and expect other states involved to do like wise. In effect, what distinguishes the rules and principles of international law from 'mere morality' is that they are accepted in practice as legally binding by states in their intercourse because they are useful to reduce complexity and uncertainty in international relations Malanczuk 6-7. As mentioned previously, municipal law is mainly concerned with state internal affairs, whereas international law pertains to the external dealings of states with one another. Taking this into consideration, dealing with external activities of a state, international law has extensive latitude. In Article 38 1 of the Statue of the International Court of Justice, the following sources of international law are acknowledged: a international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States; b international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d ... judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law 36. Sources having a technical meaning related to the law making process and must not be confused with information sources, research sources or bibliographies on international law 35. Rules expressed and recognized by consenting states are referred to as treaties and/or conventions. Treaties are codified agreements established by consenting states as means of resolving a dispute or to recognize mutual interests. Since treaties are codified, they are favored over customary law; therefore, becoming a vital part of building a more stable foundation for international law. States are required to meet their international obligations as well as formulate efforts to bring their municipal law into agreement with international law. States can not use their municipal law as a means for denying fulfillment of their international obligations. For example, the Free Zone case where France attempted to use its internal legislation to nullify an international obligation agreed to in the Versailles Peace Treaty 1919. The Permanent Court of International Justice said: 'It is certain that France cannot rely on her own legislation to limit to the scope of her international obligations' Malanczuk 64. No specific method has been established for states to follow for bringing their municipal law into harmony with international law. Several states require legislative action if a treaty conflicts or requires a change of existing municipal law. In the United Kingdom U.K., the Queen has the authority to make and ratify treaties on the advice of other officials such as the Prime Minister. However, if a treaty requires a change to English law, it becomes necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to bring English law in accordance with the treaty. If an Act of Parliament is not obtained, the U.K. is bound by the treaty as far as the international arena is concerned and accepts responsibility for the consequences that may arise as a result of not complying with the terms of the treaty. Likewise, the United States U.S. accepts treaties ratified in agreement with the U.S. Constitution as automatic municipal law. International agreements are carefully reviewed to ensure they do not violate the BiIl of Rights or other U.S. Constitutional requirements; those in violation cannot be implemented internally. Nonetheless, states have the right to modify a treaty to bring it into compliance with its internal laws; Article 21 d of the Vienna Convention defines a reservation as a unilateral statement...made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State 133. Customary law refers to the general practices of states that have come to be accepted as law. How is general practice defined? Observing a state's actions during international meetings, newspaper and television reports of a state's actions, governmental decisions made by states, and a state's daily practices can reveal the customs of various states. Just as much can be determined by one's individual choices, actions, and character; the same holds true for states. Despite the fact that all rules of international law are not as concrete as critics feel they should be, states acknowledge the need to comply with international law. For instance, it is not necessary to codify that foreign diplomats should not pay custom duties, but simply instructing custom officers not to levy customs duties on the belongings of foreign diplomats keeps the state in compliance with international law 71. No state, not even the most powerful can exist for long without interaction with the outside world; other states. The post war period after World War I and World War II, state leaders came to the realization that international forum was needed. Furthermore, this forum needed the authority to make binding decisions; especially, in the arena of maintaining world security. World security and environmental issues such as the thinning ozone layer are issues that a single state can not handle alone. Under the leadership of the United States and Great Britain, the United Nations U.N. was birthed upon the adoption of the U.N. Charter. Unlike some present day notions, the U.N. was developed to cater to a real need not an ideology; the idea was not to create a centralized international authority, but collectiveness among states for the greater good which extended beyond any individual state. Although a state can not be sentenced to prison time, international community eyes are watching and taking note of wrongs committed against fellow states for future reference. Punishments for an uncooperative state in violation of its international obligations include: Retorsion, a lawful act which is designed to injure the wrongdoing state "“ for example, cutting off economic aid. Reprisals, acts which would normally be illegal but which are rendered legal by a prior illegal act committed by the other state. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a society as a part of a community bound together by common interests and standards. The argument selected for this essay: it is impossible to have an international system of orderly and stable relations between states without international law. Thereby, international law is a fundamental requirement of a modern, increasingly interdependent, global system of states and non-state actors. Some argue that interdependence is not the proper term to describe the current international system; instead they prefer the term interconnected. The argument claims that only 'transactions' are exchanged among states via advancements in technology. On the contrary, are rules not needed for the conduct of transfers to determine the equality of the currency or mediums being exchanged; does not the mere essence of exchange require consent; therefore, establishing a general practice? Corporations such as Nike, Honda, McDonalds, General Motors, Disney, and many others have ventured into foreign regions seeking opportunities beyond those offered by their home states. Such maneuvers require much more than the transfer of 'transactions'. Corporations going global are not only faced with cultural differences of the foreign land, but are subject to the state's internal law as well as the nationality principle which bounds them to obey rules of their homeland. Likewise, foreign states accepting aliens must treat them fairly or be guilty of breaching international law. Moreover, globalization is on the rise in the twenty-first century. Companies like the potential profits and other benefits associated with putting aside differences for the sack of common interest and its rewards. Chaos in such situations is ineffective; order is needed to develop a system which benefits the best interests of all involved parties. People as well as states are happy when their needs and desires are met; it is when states feel threatened that they become uncooperative. The deduction made that a society, even if society of states can not exist without laws for governing the society "“ any relationship whether two people or two nation-states, involves compromise. Even since the beginning of mankind, Adam and Eve, the union of the first society required rules; they were not free to fulfill their heart's desires, but to serve a higher purpose.   

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making...

Words: 1593 View(s): 188 Comment(s): 0