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: 1560 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

Electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection,...Electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, guillotine, and garroting. When you hear these words what do you think of? Do you feel frightened? When some hear these words they tend to say, " Oh they deserve it". In the court system that is not always the case. The question you always have to ask yourself is what did the accused do and do they deserve the death penalty? What is bad enough to deserve death? Are their certain crimes that do and then some that do not? Almost every culture through out history has relied on the death penalty and capital punishment and justified as a necessary tool to maintain order. The only thing that changed throughout time were the crimes deemed punishable by death and the methods used to kill those found guilty. Some of the other countries" laws of capital punishment seem so barbaric. In ancient India, executions were sometimes carried out by having an elephant crush the condemned"s head. Executions used to be public spectacles. In ancient Persia, one method of execution involved being eaten alive by insects and vermin. In the middle ages, methods of execution included chopping off limbs, stripping off the condemned person"s skin, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering cutting the persons innards and then tearing the body into four pieces, burning at the stake, and crucifixion. In 1692, a man refused to testify after his wife was accused of witchcraft and was " Pressed " to death. The sentence was carried out by lying him on a stone floor, placing a board over him, and piling stones upon the board. Benjamin Rush, credited with the beginning the movement to abolish capital punishment in the U.S, declared in 1792 that reform, not retribution, should be the goal of punishment. The Bible authorizes executing those who show contempt on their parents, walk without permission on sacred ground, practicing sorcery, sacrifice in foreign gods or who prostitute themselves. In the Bible Exodus 21:12 it says, " Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death." Electrocution in the modern era. Electricity causes biological damage through both heat and electrochemical havoc. The electrical current itself abolishes the function of organs and tissues such as the brain, nerves, and heart by overwhelming the fragile bioelectrical basis of the metabolism. The voltage applied is not the most critical factor but is in fact, almost irrelevant as much as electrical pressure was a factor. The body can tolerate a lot of volts without discomfort. The type of electrical current, too, makes a difference-whether direct DC or alternating AC. The latter is more dangerous and can be lethal even with low voltage and relatively low amperage. The alternating cycle of 60 per second, which is ordinary 110-120 volt house current, will invariably stop heart action through stand still or ventricular fibrillation if the body somehow becomes part of a circuit. The gas chamber. When sodium cyanide pellets are dropped into acid beneath the seated subject in a gas chamber, extremely lethal hydrogen cyanide is produced"¦ Cyanide asphyxiates acts by choking the cells instead of blocking air intake. The gas, HCN, is rapidly absorbed into the blood stream through the lungs. The red blood cells are relatively immune to HCN. When delivered to all of the body"s cells"¦ Cyanide literally and rapidly chokes all the body"s cells to death at the same time. Hanging proponents. Proponents of hanging as a more humane method objected to the practice of beheading"¦Advocates of hanging argued that if the noose were correctly applied to the neck, consciousness would disappear quickly due to the sudden and complete blockage of blood in the head, with resultant swelling of the brain and rupture of small blood vessels. People to whom this was done too that survived swore that there was no pain before they lost consciousness. In a sense any advantages of hanging would seem to be compromised when the "drop" was added. That the drop usually resulted in the breaking of the neck and the ripping of the spinal cord, thus essentially and much more crudely duplicating the results of decapitation without detaching the head. Lethal injection. Thiopental Sodium is a fast acting drug that produces almost short -term unconsciousness after a single dose, it is also used as a " truth serum " administered in small, intermittent, carefully calibrated hypnotic dosed while the subjects counts backward from 100. A trance-like, semi-consciousness is usually reached before the count gets to 90. To complete the lethal mixture for execution, society has stipulated the addition of potassium chloride. A high level of potassium in the blood paralyzes the heart muscle. In effect, then, that would correspond to a heart attack for the condemned while in the deep sleep of a barbiturate coma. As April, 1991, the method of execution in 21 states is lethal injection. Six states grant a choice: between lethal injection and the gas chamber in MO and NC, hanging in MT and WA, or a firing squad in Idaho and Utah. The fist such execution in Texas in 1982 was attempted by prison employees. They had difficulty in trying to pierce the badly scarred veins of the condemned man with a large needle and blood splattered all over the sheets. Among those witnesses the bungled attempt was of the prison doctor. Firing squads. Firing squads was probably the 2nd most widely; cruel used technique of execution. Death was virtually instant if the person is shot at close range through the skull; the bullet penetrates the medulla, which contains the vital respirator and cardiac among others. The other way firing squads followed their orders is to aim at the condemned"s heart from some meters away. The reason for this is simple; the cause of death in these cases is normally blood loss through the rupture of the heart or a large vessel, or tearing of the lungs. Persons shot by bullet wounds that are were suffering said when they were shot it felt like hey were kicked hard by a large horse. Usually firing squads usually kill quickly because of a large number of soldiers of prison guards firing simultaneously. The guillotine. The guillotine was named after the French deputy who proposed the use of the device in 1789. It was believed to be a swift and painless device. Many people believe that the guillotine was invented in France, but it had previously been used in Italy, Germany, and Scotland in the 16th century. Guillotining was considered to be more humane because the blade was sharper, and execution was more rapid than was normally accomplished with an ax. Death occurs due to the separation of the brain and the spinal cord, after transaction of the surrounding tissues. Consciousness is probably lost within 2-3 seconds, due to rapid fall of intracranial perfusion of the blood. Garroting. Garroting is a form of strangulation by a metal collar with a clamp. The tissues of the neck are tough and the application of the contraption is highly disagreeable, the clamp also occludes the trachea. It kills by asphyxia, cerebral ishaemia. Dying is painful, deeply distressing and may take several minutes. The courts step in. By 1967 legislation efforts were under way to persuade the U.S Supreme Court that the death penalty violated cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions of the eight amendment. The court responded by staying execution by the court order pending outcome of the suits. In June 1992 the court decided that the erratic selection of offenders singled out for the death penalty resulted from lack of standards. On July 1972 the Supreme Court again ruled on the death penalty and issued 5 opinions. One decision stated that capital punishment for the crime of murder was not cruel or unusual punishment. They also ruled that to be constitutional a procedure for imposing the death penalty must provide standards for sentencing authorities. The Supreme Court rulings indicated the court would hold the states to strict standards in imposing the death penalty. The prosecutor. The prosecutor must decide weather to change the offender with an offense meriting the death penalty or a lesser offense. Assuming the occused has been charged with death penalty, the prosecutor ordinarily has to decide weather to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser offense instead. This permits the defendant to avoid possible execution in exchange for going to prison without a trial. In some situations the prosecutor makes his or her decision in cooperation with the grand jury. Since prosecutors are no more immune to human fallibility than others are, the possibility of error lurks. The defense lawyer. When the prosecutor charges a defendant with a capital offense but is willing to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser one, the defendant the oretically, has the option of accepting or rejecting the alternative. Sometimes the accused is more than likely in a state of emotional turmoil, frightened, and confused. The defendant may, in fact, not be guilty, but the defense lawyer may nevertheless advise the client to plead guilty to the lesser offense in order to avoid trial, the risk of conviction, and the possibility of execution. Should the defendant elect to stand trial, his or her fate is completely in the hands of the defense attorney. If the criminal lawyer is skillful, the chances of conviction, if the accused is not guilty, are much in the defendant"s favor. The jury. The defendant"s fate is also in the hands of the jurors. At the end of the trial the jurors are faced with a number of decisions to make, each of which can be subject to error. Race, racism continues to play an unacceptable and powerful role in capital punishment. In state death penalty cases, he race of the victim is much more important than the prior criminal record of the defender or the actual circumstances of crime. More than half of those inmates on death row are people of color, although they represent only 20% of the people of the U.S although they are about 6% of the U.S population, about 40% of those on death row are African American. Race, a 1984 death penalty case, McClaskey vs. Kemp, showed that in Georgia those who kill whites are four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill a black person. At the federal level, black and Hispanic defendants are disproportionately selected for capital prosecution. Since 1988, the federal government has sought the death penalty in 92 cases. Of these, 56 defendants 61% were black, 11 were Hispanic, 5 were Asian, and 20 were Caucasian. Women, in comparison with men, women are less often prosecuted for capital crimes, and less frequently sentenced to death. Nevertheless, 47 women are awaiting execution in the U.S. In February 1998, Kayla Faye Tucker was executed in Texas despite her obvious rehabilitation. Her case drew worldwide attention, and many clemency pleas, including those from human rights activist Bianca Jogger, the Rev. Pat Robertson, and Pope John Paul II, one of the jurors in her case, and the brother of one of her victims. As April 1998, Florida executed 54 year old Judy Buenano also. 3 women in AK, IL, and TX were given the death penalty in 1998. Juveniles, In 1988 the U.S Supreme Court ruled that persons less than 16 when they committed the crime may not be sentenced to death. Currently in 14 states not including MO and as well as the federal government ban the execution of those who were younger than 18 when he killed. At this present time, 51 death row inmates, all male, were less than 18 when they committed the crime. Three fourths of them were 17 and a quarter were 16 years old. Texas" death row holds 20 of the 51; nine men have been executed for crimes committed at age 17, none since 1993. In 1997, at least 6 juveniles ages 16 or 17 when they killed were condemned to death. In February 1999, OK executed Sean Sellars for a horrendous crime he committed when he was 16. In 1992, a defense-sponsored psychiatric evaluation concluded Sellars had multiple personality disorder. But the 10th U.S circuit court of appeals, based on a technicality said it could not grand relief. Statistics, There have been 18 total executions in the new millennium and nine of them have been in TX. Between 1930 and 1980 there have been 3,860 executions in the U.S of this number, 3,380 have been executed for murder. Rape, armed robbery, burglary and aggravated assault no longer are capital crimes. Only 32 women have been executed. Since 1930 half of all persons executed were non-white. By 1983 polls revealed nearly 70% favored capital punishment. Questions you have to ask yourself about the death penalty. Does a prisoner have the right to die quickly rather than wait for years while the appeals process drags on? Why does the appeals process take so long? Why, in a time when many countries have abolished the death penalty, does the U.S still execute criminals? Is the death penalty jut, or is it a legalized form of murder? Does the death penalty actually prevent crime by frightening potential crimes? Is it cruel to kill someone in an electric chair or gas chamber? Is it fair to all Americans that some states have strict death penalty laws while others employ long, complicated legal procedures that make it almost impossible for a criminal to be executed? Samuel Hand, The North American Review, December 1881 wrote an article titled Deserved Retribution. It said, Capital execution upon the deadly poisoner and the midnight assassin is not only necessary for the safety of society, it is the fit and deserved retribution of their crimes. By it alone is divine and human justice is fulfilled. Robert Rantaul Jr., Report to The Legislature, 1836 wrote an article titled Death Penalty Unnecessary. It said, It is not necessary to hang the murderer in order to guard society against him, and to prevent him from repeating the crime. If it were, we should hang the maniac, who is the most dangerous murderer. Society may defend itself by other means than by destroying life. Massachusetts can build prisons strong enough to secure the community forever against convicted felons. You may have been close minded about capital punishment before you read my paper and if you were you still probably are, but the one thing I hope you saw were all the sides and views of capital punishment.   

Electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, guillotine, and garroting. When you hear these words what do you think of? Do you feel frightened? When some hear these words they tend to say, " Oh they deserve it". In the court system that is not always the case....

Words: 2441 View(s): 183 Comment(s): 0
"The transmission of such a price-list..."The transmission of such a price-list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might find himself involved in any number of contractual obligations to supply wine of a particular description which he would be quite unable to carry out, his stock of wine of that description being necessarily limited. I entertain, I confess, a very clear opinion that the Solicitor-General was quite right in arguing the case on the assumption that no sales were made in this country." Lord Herschell Just over one hundred years ago the above ratio-decendi was given in what was at the time a case concerned with alleged back taxes owed by Grainger & Son. Grainger & Son henceforth referred to as G&S were British wine merchants who as a side venture passed on the price lists of a French wine producer to their customers. G&S received a commission on any orders placed with said producer and paid tax on this commission. Gough claimed that tax was payable on the whole value of these sales not just the commission element. Monsieur Roederer henceforth Mr R was a wine producer located in France. He decided whether to accept orders the orders gathered by G&S or not. The reason for this being that the wine was shipped out ahead of any payment being received and Mr R wanted to vett his customers credit worthiness. The wine was shipped directly to the customer in the UK from France. Most customers settled their accounts directly with Mr R. A few customers instead made payment to G&S who would pass on to Mr R any amounts in excess of the commission they happened to be owed. In summary the flows of events are: Mr R, located in France, sends price list to G&S in Britain G&S distribute price list Customer places, for want a better word, an order with G&S for wine produced by Mr R G&S forward order to Mr R Mr R dispatches wine to customer Mr R dispatches bill for said customers wine to G&S for onwards transmission G&S forward bill to customer Customer sends payment to Mr R "“ occasionally made to G&S who forward this to Mr R Mr R sends receipt to customer G&S pay tax on commission received G&S maintained that they entered no contracts regarding Mr R's wine. Gough held the converse view that G&S entered contracts themselves and thus sold Mr R's wine. Our starting point must be to define what a contract under English law is. The Jurists Bentham and Austin have laid down that the "two main essentials of a contract are these: first, a signification by the promising party of his intention to do the acts or to observe the forbearances which he promises to do or to observe. Secondly, a signification by the promise that he expects the promising party will fulfil the proffered promise." More precisely to form a contract under English law the following elements are required i a valid offer has been proffered by the first party to another party or parties ii the offer has been accepted unchanged by the second party or parties and this has been communicated to the offerer . iii there is an intention by all parties to create legal relations when they entered into the contract and the parties have the capacity to contract iv the promises made within the contract are for valuable executive consideration and v the terms of the contract are certain. Did Mr R make an offer through the medium of his price list. Looking in Mozley and Whiteley"s Law dictionary an offer is "An expression of readiness to do something e.g. to purchase or sell". Mr R is saying that he is willing to sell wine. Based on this definition initial opinion would say that the price list does constitute an offer. Continuing with this line of thought G&S acted in an agency capacity for Mr R making an offer to the customers they approached and receiving the acceptance of any order. If the customers accepted G&S's offer made via the medium of the price list then Mr R merely shipped directly from France. The bills for said wine were sent to G&S who would then forward them on to the British customer. These points all suggest that the sale was made in the UK by G&S. The listing of Mr R, in the Post Office London Directory, as trading from G&S's establishment further hints at an agency type arrangement. Much of the argument supporting the invitation to treat viewpoint is by drawing analogies with cases involving auctions such as Payne v. Cave 1789 and Harris v. Nickerson 1873 in which both concluded that bidders make an offer which the auctioneer is free to accept or not. The bidder's offer being retractable until accepted by the auctioneer . The pricelist could be seen as statement of the minimum price at which Mr R would bewilling to sell wine drawing analogies with Harvey v Facey 1893. Mr R's supply of wine in any year is finite and demand could outstrip supply leaving an impossible back log of orders all demanding specific performance. Mr R could possibly, though extremely doubtfully, claim the defence of frustration as the things contracted for no longer exist. Add to this Mr R's option to reject any order makes it appear that his price list is an invitation to treat as otherwise it would be an offer that is subject to revocation without notice. Acceptance of an offer has to be communicated. At the time of this case, 1896, the only readily available methods of communication for distant parties were the postal system or telegram. The postal rule would apply to any customers acceptance sent via these mediums and hence any revocation of the offer would be impossible The final item to consider is the peculiar concept of consideration to be found in the English legal system and those derived from it The 1677 Statute of Frauds made consideration vital in any contracts not made under seal. G&S received no consideration for the wine therefore they could not be a party to the contract. [Transfer of title occurred only between Mr R and the customer]. That occasionally the payments for the wine were made to G&S instead of directly to Mr R was held to be equivalent to Mr R, for the sole convenience of his customers, operating a British bank account to receive payments. Graiger v. Gough was one of the major cases in the creation of the principle of invitation to treat. In order to explore this principle more fully the case will be re-examined as it occurred today. Once again the starting point is was the price list an offer or merely a willingness to deal. There are a number of variants on an invitation to treat these are: pre-contractional negotiations , shop displays and finally advertisements. G&S's supply of the price list to potential customers is a form of direct marketing and falls under the last of these three categories. To be classed as a unilateral offer the price list would have to show some intention to be bound by pro-offering a tangible benefit, in excess of sales puff, that could be accepted by performance rather than communication . Is there any similarity to Bowerman v. ABTA 1995 or Carhill v. Carbolic Smokeball Company 1892. If the answer to this is a negative then the next step is to determine where the act of offer & acceptance occurs. In a face to face situation such as a shop the customer offers to buy goods by presenting them at the till and the shop either accepts or rejects this offer to buy. The goods on the shelves are merely invitations to treat in keeping with the findings of Fisher v. Bell and Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists. The views of this in America and the European Community are slightly different. Although it seems odd that a shop would not want to sell its stock the English legal system is designed to achieve consistency even if it has to distort the persons actual intent. This produces oddities such as Partridge v. Crittenden 1968 where a newspaper advert to sell wild birds was found to be an invitation to treat not an offer to sell so the defendant escaped prosecution under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 . A key point in the original Graniger v. Gough was where was the contract made. Today the location of the act of contracting can be different depending on the mode of acceptance. The postal rule puts acceptance at the place of posting. Where both parties use a telex or nowadays facsimile machine the Court of Appeal decided in the case of Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation 1955 that the contract was entered into when and where the acceptance was received. Lord Denning confirmed, obiter" that the same principles also apply to acceptances by telephone. Answering machines and voice mail are assumed to at maximum delay receipt of the acceptance till the next working day rather than grant them an agent status capable of entering contracts. Faulty hardware, lack of link & paper or sloppy business practice, such as not checking the fax for days, does not stop or delay the acceptance of an offer. Public holidays and weekends however do delay acceptance till the next working day. E-mail contrary to popular belief is not always an instant form of communication. An e-mail may pass through a number of third parties networks & servers and could quite possibly be considerably delayed. Also the recipient has to actively retrieve their e-mail from their service providers or works mail server. The Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967 sets out that the acceptance of an offer becomes effective at the moment the indication of assent reaches the offeror . But is the offer accepted in the country of the readers computer or where the email server is hosted? If a person picked up the contents of their phones answer machine in a country different to that which said machine was in, where was the contract made. Within closed networks or Electronic Data Interchange systems mail delivery is more reliable and it may be possible to tag the e-mails so they generate a receipt message upon reaching their destination and upon being read. The EDI Trading Partner Agreements will also outline when acceptance takes place and which countries laws apply. If Mr R had a website that could receive customer orders would it be an invitation to treat or an electronic contracting agent ? A non-interactive site just listing his wines would most certainly be classed as an advert. This question is under consideration by may of the worlds legal minds. Unfortunately the Argos £2.99 television and recent Kodak £100 digital camera incident never made it to court so there is no precedent. The Kodak site took the customers order and issued an order confirmation which the customer was asked to retain for warranty service. Consumers would believe that having placed their order and given their credit card details and been told that the £100 will be charged to their card along with receiving an acknowledgement ,that their purchase has been made. This "clickwrap contract" is what the law calls a "contract of adhesion" -- a contract you didn"t really bargain over in any way, but which was presented as more of a take-it-or-leave-it offer . Kodak made such a bad bargain that everyone wanted to take it The only case on web based retail sales so far is American where the court stated "such an automated, ministerial act cannot constitute an acceptance" which does little to resolve the issue. As international web based commerce increases, instances similar to Gough v. Granger will become more common. Will the concept of invitation to treat expand outside of legal systems based around Anglo-American common law bringing some consistency to the dynamics of offer & acceptance or will the EU idea of its an offer until the stock runs out be adopted.   

"The transmission of such a price-list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might...

Words: 2066 View(s): 3070 Comment(s): 0
Capital punishment should be abolished from...Capital punishment should be abolished from law since it is definitely inhumane, and uncivilized. Nevertheless the fact that it is cruel, many people still consider capital punishment mandatory to the society. However, in my opinion, this type of punishment is not well chosen. Also, if a criminal had been killed because of death sentence, but turns out that the criminal had never committed a felony, it can be a catastrophic disaster. These strong reasons have built up on me and created me into a person who always have his face contorted in anguish when hears letters that are spelt with "C-A-P-I-T-A-L P-U-N-I-S-H-M-E-N-T." Minority of people say that capital punishments are necessity to the society we are living in. The strongest purpose that compels people to determine that death sentence is compulsory is that: if a criminal had done a horrendous massacre, he/she should die horrendously like the many others whom got killed in the event. However, my fellow citizens, do you know for sure that the criminal had committed the felony? Also, another reason is that it costs money for criminal to stay in a jail because of provisions and other necessary needs. Many people would agree with this statement, but as far as I am concerned, these people have black hearts. "“ DO YOU THINK THAT HUMAN LIVES CAN BE REFERRED TO MONEY? Sentencing capital punishment is an unethical decision. One of the reason is that only god, should determine on births and deaths of people, not mortals. Death penalties are not the only punishments that can be taken, and there are some different ways to deal with capital punishment. For example, sentencing life in prison is a decent way for a criminal to regret the actions that he/she had done. If a prisoner had achieved and learned to behave well and know the consequences of any regrettable actions, they might have rights to go back to life. For example, a terrorist who supported the catastrophe, 9/11 attack, was not sentenced death penalty, even though it had helped to kill thousands of people. Instead, he was sentenced life in jail. Statistics show that capital punishment had reduced in U.S.A since 1930s which was the era that capital punishments were usual. Have you ever considered whether the criminal was not a genuine criminal? Statistics from Bureau of Justice shows that since 1973, over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. However, if the court decides to sentence death penalty and executes a criminal, what would happen if the criminal was really innocent? More drastic measures would be taken, and would make anarchy between the people who loved the person who got executed and the judge. If there was no such thing as capital punishment, there would be no such thing as anarchy between people. As I reach the conclusion, the vocabulary that would make my face twisted in anguish is "CAPITAL PUNISHMENT." No matter what the criminal had done, only the three sisters should cut the string, not the mortals. Also, you cannot buy a person, which means people can"t be referred to money because it is just unethical. It would be more disastrous to find out that the person whom got executed to turn out that the person is innocent. Death penalty is not the only disciplinary to deal with criminals; judges can sentence criminals life in prison which is more civilized and totally more humane.   

Capital punishment should be abolished from law since it is definitely inhumane, and uncivilized. Nevertheless the fact that it is cruel, many people still consider capital punishment mandatory to the society. However, in my opinion, this type of punishment is not well chosen. Also, if a criminal had been killed...

Words: 606 View(s): 169 Comment(s): 0
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): 503 Comment(s): 0
Gun violence is one of the...Gun violence is one of the most serious problems in the United States. Each year in the U.S., more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, a death rate much higher than that in any other industrial nations. In 1997, approximately 70 percent of the murders in the United States were committed with guns. However, ironically, the United States also is the country that has the most gun control laws. Gun control laws generally focus on passing legislation"”by local state, or national government"”to restrict legal ownership of certain firearms. Seemingly, gun control laws may decrease criminals' access to guns, but in fact the same laws also have their negative effects. Thus, the controversy over gun control is always heated. But my paper is not about whether guns should be controlled or not. From another angle, looking closely at those gun control laws and their enforcement, we can not only see the criminal problem in America, but also another important social problem in America"”racial discrimination. The racial problem of gun control has raised attention of some American scholars in the U.S. For example, a black man, General Lancy, who is the founder of a little organization known as the National Black Sportsman's Association, often called "the black gun lobby" said when asked his opinion of gun control: "Gun control is really race control. People who embrace gun control are really racists in nature. All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people, mainly black people"¦" Some white men have said almost the same thing. Investigative reporter Robert Sherrill concluded in his book The Saturday Night Special that the object of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was black control rather than gun control. Congress passed the act to "shut off weapons access to blacks, and since they Congress probably associated cheap guns with ghetto blacks and thought cheapness was peculiarly the characteristic of imported military surplus and the mail-order traffic, they decided to cut off these sources while leaving over-the-counter purchases open to the affluent." Gun control in the United States has its history. Prohibitions against the sale of cheap handguns originated in the post-Civil War South. In the 1870s and 1880s, small pistols costing as little as 50 or 60 cents were obtainable, and since they could be afforded by blacks and poor whites, these guns posed a significant threat to those who were wealthy or powerful. They were afraid that blacks and poor whites possessing guns would break their established social structure. So consequently, in 1870, Tennessee banned "selling all but 'the Army and Navy model' handgun". Of course this type of gun was the most expensive one, which was beyond the means of most blacks and laboring people. In 1881, Arkansas enacted an almost identical ban on the sale of cheap revolvers. In 1902, South Carolina banned the sale of handguns to all but "sheriffs and their special deputies". In 1893 and 1907, respectively, Alabama and Texas passed extremely heavy taxes on the sale of such weapons to put handguns out of the reach of the blacks and poor whites. The same thing happened in the North. Attempts to regulate the possession of guns began in the northern states during the early 20th century. These regulations were almost the same with their counterparts in South in essence although they had different focuses. In 1911, New York enacted its Sullivan Law requiring a police permit for legal possession of a handgun rather than trying to keep handguns out of means of blacks and the poor whites. This law made it possible for the police to screen applicants for permits to possess handguns. Such a requirement may seem reasonable, it can and has been abused. Those who are not in favor with the influential or the police are easily suspected and denied permits. The act was designed to "strike hardest at the foreign-born element" particularly Italians, Catholics and Jews. Those who were considered racially inferior found it almost impossible to obtain gun permits. Over the years, as the police seldom granted handgun permits to any person but the wealthy and influential, application of the Sullivan Law has become increasingly elitist . Then why those gun control proponents would always deny that those controls are either racist or elitist in effects? Of course the intent of those control apply to everybody and aim at reducing violence for everybody, but the controls are in fact racist or elitist in effect. We can easily notice that the anger towards weapon is originated from the anger towards criminals. Most people, when they are hearing of an especially heinous crime, or when they are victimized, feel angry and hostile towards the offender of the crime. The uncomfortable feeling can be easily transferred from the offender to an inanimate object "“ the weapon. Although the illegal possession of a handgun or of any gun is a crime, it doesn't produce a victim and is difficult to be reported to the police, therefore handgun permit requirements or handgun prohibitions aren't easily enforced. And when laws are difficult to enforce, "enforcement becomes progressively more haphazard until at last the laws are used only against those who are unpopular with the police." Of course minorities aren't likely to be popular with the police. These minorities, because of police indifference or perhaps even hostility, may be the most inclined to look to guns for protection. On the one hand, they can't acquire guns legally and on the other hand, it will put them in danger if possessed illegally. So while the intent of such laws may not be racist, their effect certainly is. Today, the dispute over gun-control, like those of days gone by, breaks out among different social classes. Most of the dedicated proponents of strict gun controls are urban, upper-middle-class people, many of whom are to some degree influential. On the other hand, the most dedicated opponents of gun control are often rural, working- or middle-class people, few of whom can publicize their views, but many of whom know a lot about the safe and lawful uses of guns. To these Americans, guns mean freedom and security. The gun controls dispute, therefore, has become a conflict that affluent Americans attempting to impose their discrimination on working-class people who are comfortable with guns. Above all, we have enough evidences to conclude that gun control in America, not concerning whether it should be or should not be, is a kind of racial discrimination. Now we can admit how right General Laney said: "All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people"¦"   

Gun violence is one of the most serious problems in the United States. Each year in the U.S., more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, a death rate much higher than that in any other industrial nations. In 1997, approximately 70 percent of the murders in the United States...

Words: 1125 View(s): 198 Comment(s): 0