Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
What are the advantages and disadvantages of 'reactive' and 'proactive' approaches to police investigation?
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 2001 Views: 1509 Comments: 0
Both Reactive and Proactive police investigations are used in Britain today in order to apprehend and punish criminals for breaking the law, from crimes like burglary and assault, to much more serious crimes such as drug dealing, fraud and murder. The crime control model states how important law enforcement is, as, unless criminal conduct is kept under tight control, the view is that there will be a breakdown in public order and a limit to human freedom. This essay aims to introduce and describe the two methods of policing and also to discuss their advantages and disadvantages. The...

In conclusion, both reactive and proactive methods of policing are invaluable and necessary if practised along side one another. Reactive aims to deal with the consequences of crime and the victims, whereas proactive is a more crime preventative measure, aiming to stop the crime before it happens. There is much scope for improvement inside the system and many problems, such as the time consuming reactive work, which allows the officers little time for anything else. Also the proactive approach only works if the forces have adequate staff, equipment and training to deal with the demand on them.

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

Human rights are those rights that...Human rights are those rights that all persons inherently possess. These rights are protected by various legal principals such as the rule of law and ensure the dignity of all people. Various organisations such as the United Nations attempt to ensure that all nations adhere to human rights laws. However, human rights are being violated by countries all around the world, even by countries such as the United States who have the national strategy - "America must stand firmly for the non "“ negotiable demands of human dignity" . The United States have been breaching international covenants and conventions on human rights with their terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. The United States, however, "acts according to the laws it defines for itself" . It is entitled to do so as it is a sovereign state. Guantanamo Bay is an American Navel base used to permanently incapacitate approximately 660 detainees from 40 nations, including children. Because the base is located on Cuban territory the prisoners are not protected by the American constitution or judiciary "it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values" . These prisoners are held at the detention center in "legal limbo, with no access to lawyers or families" . The prisoners are kept isolated for 24 hours a day, little outdoor exercise time and no interaction with other prisoners. The inmates are interrogated for hours at a time and it is commonly speculated subject to torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC is the only non "“ government organisation allowed access to the prisoners. The ICRC is worried about the psychological impact that the prison is inflicting on inmates. A photograph released by the Pentagon shows inmates kneeling before soldiers, hands and ankles cuffed with masks completely covering their faces. The photograph has become an "icon of unacceptable US exceptionalism" . Sayed Abbasin, once an inmate of the Guantanamo bay detention center described the experience "it was the act of an animal to treat a human being like that" . The United States government authorised military commissions to hand down the death penalty for detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Against the verdicts the prisoners have no right to appeal, which is a requirement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR. The defendant has no say in any legal matters, even to who defends him in court. The commissions are also allowing a lower standard of proof as to allow for evidence obtained through coercion to be admissible. These commissions themselves violate the principles of natural justice and the separation of the judiciary, all of which contradict the rule of law. The United States government cannot create unfair commissions administered by the executive, with the power to hand down death sentences to suit their current requirements. Lord Steyn, a leading judge from the United Kingdom has stated that these commissions would be a "stain on United States Justice" . The situation at Guantanamo Bay directly violates various international treaties and covenants including the Geneva Convention and the ICCPR. On January 11 2002 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld outlined the stance the United States would be taking in regards to the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. The United States have labeled the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay "unlawful combatants" and that therefore the Geneva Convention does not protect these individuals. Jamie Fellner director of Human Rights Watch states that as America is party to the Geneva Convention they are required to treat all combatants equally and humanely. The Geneva Convention is also violated simply through the authorisation of these military commissions "“ under the convention all captured fighters regardless "if they are members of an adversary states armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group" are to be tried under the same laws and courts as the detaining country's armed forces. Therefore these military commissions not only violate the Geneva Convention but also the rule of law in the fact that they were architected with the purpose of dealing with inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and have never applied to American soldiers. Human rights violations are allowed to occur because the international community is incapable of punishing or enforcing violations. This problem with international law is predominantly due to state sovereignty. A sovereign state is defined in Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary as "a state which possesses independent competence internationally, supreme authority over all affairs and components of its territory and has acquired the attributes of statehood under the Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of States 1933" . No other nation or organisation has the authority to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. Therefore, the United States has the legal right to act according to the laws it defines for itself. The principal is ironically a fundamental principal of international law yet it allows for countries to violate human rights and international law as they please. Anther major limitation of international law is its ineffective enforcement body, the International Court of Justice ICJ. The ICJ is the international body responsible for deciding on matters of international disputes. However, countries cannot be compelled to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ. In the event that a country does accept the courts jurisdiction there are no systems or enforcement bodies that could ensure compliance with the ruling of the court. The United States have ignored the ruling of the ICJ in the past, in 1986 the United States rejected the order of the ICJ to terminate its "unlawful use of force against Nicaragua" . The ICJ is an extremely ineffective body, adding to the incompetence of international law. The reason international law faces so many problems is because countries can choose which laws they adhere to and weather or not they wish to be punished. The Guantanamo Bay incapacitation centre outlines the inability of international law and organisations to deal with breaches of human rights. Although the United States have violated various fundamental principal of which democracy is based upon, as well as various international treaties such as the ICCPR and the Geneva Convention nothing can be done about the human rights violations imposed at Guantanamo Bay. There will be no true effective international law if countries can continue to hide behind the excuse of state sovereignty. If the effectiveness of International Law is to increase, and security threats and challenges are to be met, the commitment of national states to international law must improve The United States must remember that we have human rights not because we are American or British but because we are human.   

Human rights are those rights that all persons inherently possess. These rights are protected by various legal principals such as the rule of law and ensure the dignity of all people. Various organisations such as the United Nations attempt to ensure that all nations adhere to human rights laws. However,...

Words: 1091 View(s): 236 Comment(s): 0
Ignorance, pride, hatred and a disregard...Ignorance, pride, hatred and a disregard for the wellbeing of others in society. These are the seeds allowing the roots of activities promoting racial discrimination to sprout. Out of that, comes the growth of a fearful social epidemic, in which uneducated persons put their destructive thoughts and viewpoints into action. These criminal activities have been dubbed "Hate Crimes" and have plagues society as far back as one can remember. Hate Crimes, in varying degrees, can consist of something as minute as a derogatory comment, to something as serious as an act of murder. The common thread is that the offence was committed because of the victim's ethnicity or race. Hate Crimes violate the human rights of society, and rob minorities of the dignity and respect they deserve. Everyone is entitled to live free from discrimination and harassment. However, this entitlement is infringed upon when Hate Crimes are committed. Mandel, 11 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a controversial approach to protecting the rights of citizens. Section 2 outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms of all peoples in society, in an attempt to ensure the protection of all civil liberties. However, in many cases, these freedoms can act as loopholes, clearing offenders of the hate crimes they continue to commit, posing a threat to the livelihood of minority communities in Canada. Dickinson,146 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a freedom of conscience and religion; b freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c freedom of peaceful assembly; and d freedom of association. The freedoms, as stated above serve as a controversial 'gray area', in which Section 2 of the Charter can be manipulated and 'bent' to serve as both offence and defense in the judicial reasoning of crimes based on racial prejudice. Freedom of Association and Freedom of Assembly are two closely related rights. Both liberties, provided by Section 2 of the Charter, "protect the freedom of individuals to join together to form a union" and the right to gather together for the purpose of lobbying peacefully, in the hopes of reaching a common goal Coombs, 27. In British Columbia's past, Nazi Fundamentalist groups have attempted to gather publicly and demonstrate against ethnic integration, and spout their views on how the White Aryan race is superior to all other minorities. Much of this activity is not tolerated by authorities because "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" Martin, 39. Allowing such open promotion of hatred, infringes on every individual in society's right to be free from discrimination and harassment. This behavior creates an environment oppressed with inequality, injustice and ignorance- not conducive to racial harmony in a multi-cultural society Coombs, 17. Freedom of conscience and religion gives ethnic and religious minorities, such as the Jewish peoples, the right to practice their beliefs- and customs associated with their values. Many "Jewish persons have been excluded from clubs and universities", based on their race and religion Dickinson, 93. The rights of Jews and other religious and racial minorities have been infringed upon throughout history. Hate Crimes have persecuted followers of religious and faith groups such as the Jews and Christians, worldwide. Holocaust deniers continue to live in the belief that there is a widespread Jewish conspiracy, and that the Jews were never oppressed. In British Columbia, Nazi fundamentalist views are rampant Martin, 78. This legislation in the Charter is an attempt to prevent discriminatory conduct on the basis of one's race and religion, contributing to a societal environment that is conducive to religious growth and freedom Roland, 2. Hate Crime Offenders take advantage of the Charter providing "the right to declare religious beliefs openly"¦without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination" Dickinson, 142. Various groups that preach hatred, such as White Supremacists, claim that their 'religion' a specific denomination of Christianity deems that they, being superior to all minorities, should therefore act as a dominating force in society. Every individual is entitled to their personal belief system. However, beliefs and values rooted deeply in ignorance, selfish pride, and hate, will only contribute to racist attitudes and the oppression of the minorities and disadvantaged groups in Canada. The freedom to have conscience and religious belief is "subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Roland , 146. Prejudice beliefs, laced with hatred, create a society where people feel bound by the shackles of manipulation and domination. "It is discriminatory practice for a person or group of persons acting in concert to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination" Coombs, 86. The fundamental right to freedom of expression has been a source of controversy since the establishment of the Charter, in 1972. It has been said that liberty in thought and communication is "little less vital to a man's mind and spirit than breathing is to his physical existence" Justice Rand of the Ontario courts, 1957. There are few areas which produce as much disagreement as limitations on freedom of speech and, by extension, limitations on the freedom to be exposed to the ideas of others. Some would argue that although certain forms of expression are disagreeable, the risks involved in eroding this right are so great that there should be virtually no limit on it. Lobby groups, such as Canadians for decency, advocate the protection of Canadians from media promoting an undesirable stereotype of a particular group Mandel, 94. The opposing arguments against censorship states that "insofar as material does not constitute libel, fraud, incitement, mischief, perjury, or otherwise endanger fair trials and legal hearings, it cannot be censored, however disgusting or offensive or otherwise injurious it may be" Coombs, 88. A blatant example is the case of Ernst Zundel, a holocaust denier. Although he willfully published statements he knew to be false, causing injury or mischief to a specific religious group, he has not been convicted of promoting hatred in North America Dickinson, 171. On the Internet, for instance, he continues to share his discriminatory convictions with the public. In conclusion, the four fundamental freedoms of the Charter are cause for a great 'gray area' in the rights of Canadian citizens and the limits imposed on them. Section 1 of the Charter is the most explicit in defining the limits of the Charter Mandel, 4: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Although this section guarantees the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter, it also states that they are not absolute, but are subject to reasonable limits. In other words, governments may restrict rights if they can show there are compelling reasons for doing so, which can be justified in a free and democratic society Coombs, 81. This provision serves two vital purposes. On the one hand, it is a guarantee that our rights won't be restricted unless it can be shown to be clearly justified. On the other hand, it ensures that defensible objectives of society will receive careful consideration. Society is granted the right to be free of discrimination and harassment Coombs, 82. It is these two objectives that are used both ways, to defend and oppose activities dealing with the harboring and promotion of hate-provoking discrimination, on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against an identifiable group.   

Ignorance, pride, hatred and a disregard for the wellbeing of others in society. These are the seeds allowing the roots of activities promoting racial discrimination to sprout. Out of that, comes the growth of a fearful social epidemic, in which uneducated persons put their destructive thoughts and viewpoints into action....

Words: 1300 View(s): 169 Comment(s): 0