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: 1862 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

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): 199 Comment(s): 0
To what extent and why is...To what extent and why is the constitution very difficult to amend? The Constitution of the United States is highly unique and unlike many written constitutions, it has remained fundamentally unaltered since its ratification in 1789, and continues to exert itself as major source of authority on the political stage in the US. In effect, the first ten amendments were part of the original Constitution Settlement, thus in the last two hundred years there have been only seventeen amendments. Hence the question continuously arises amongst political academics as to why the Constitution has undergone such little significant change, and still is abided by even in today's highly converse political climate. The aim of this discussion will be to unearth the roots that hold the US Constitution so securely embedded into the soil of American political culture. I shall begin by briefly accounting for the construction of the Constitution and explain the necessary history that may fit into the argument in terms of explaining how the framers intended the document to be treated by future Americans, and what necessary precautions they took in avoiding an unfavourable future for the country. I shall then explore the document itself and try to find elements that make the Constitution difficult to amend, whilst looking at the actual amendments that have been undertaken since the original ratification of the document itself in 1789. I shall present the evidence discovered and relate it to the discussion continuously throughout the analysis and then follow up with a conclusion on whether the essay has sufficiently proven the difficulty of amending the Constitution and to what extent it might be so. I shall commence by providing an historical overlook of the how the Constitution was formed, as without this, a further probe into the question would leave the argument without foundation. It must be noted how different the environment the constitution was born out of was from so many Western counterparts who also have a written constitution. To start with, the American Revolution was different to any other significant revolution of late as by definition it was not a revolution at all. This was mainly because the majority of the citizens in the thirteen colonies called themselves "true born Englishmen" and simply defied the monarchical power exercised over them McKay, 2001. Already this highlights the potential difference of the basis of American culture from that of its European relatives, which will further show in later discussion of the Constitution's framework just how difficult the Constitution is to amend. Not only was it the strict monarchical power implementing stringent laws upon the colonists that caused them to react, it was also the rapid spread of ideas and influences of esteemed social contract theorists such as Locke and Rousseau. They promoted the idea that men possessed certain inalienable rights which fused effortlessly with the colonial spirit of independence and liberty. It was this along with the desire for a federal system, the lack of a central government that intervened heavily into the affairs of its people, and the notion of representation that became the driving force of adopting the Constitution. Five years after the Declaration of Independence was signed by Continental Congress in 1776, the colonists successfully fought off the British and under the Articles of Confederation adopted a new system of government. It was, however, nothing more than a formal recognition of Continental Congress McKay, 2001. It was believed by many other major players in the world stage that such a system that was lacking a real leader, and that was in essence quite weak, would not endure the imminent problems facing the new nation. In Philadelphia, in the summer of 1785, fifty-five delegates arrived with the task of attempting to create a constitution for the United States. A key issue in the framing of the Constitution was the system of representative government. It was widely accepted that a representative government bears the banner of majority rule, whilst subsequently implying the existence of limits to democracy. Many academics today believe that Founding Fathers' acceptance of this was a huge strain on the existence of a democratic government. They were not without reason, though, it was tyranny of the majority that they feared. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for... Thomas Jefferson Federalism was also high on the agenda for the Founding Fathers; they were aware also, of the risk of concentrating too much power in any one branch of government and thus the separation of powers ensured that this would never happen. A system of checks and balances would be introduced to further reinforce the ideas of federalism and the separation of powers; an example of which is where in order for a bill to be passed both houses must approve it, and furthermore the President can veto it. Congress can then override that veto if a two-thirds majority votes accordingly. This is a clear example of the intentions the framers had of causing difficulty in changing the laws of the newly created nation. It must be noted however, that not all of the states were in accordance of the Constitution; intense opposition was encountered from the other six states where the Anti-Federalists feared a "federal colossus" Spaeth, 1991. After the eventual ratification of the document, ten amendments were immediately implemented to fulfil the promise to the Anti-Federalists by the Federalists to ensure the Constitution was more democratic, which, once ratified by the states in 1791, became the Bill of Rights. These originate not only from English and Colonial experience, but also from political experience and thought from the revolutionary and confederation periods. From the framing process, it has become apparent how carefully the Founding Fathers were treading. Although no cast iron evidence demonstrating the difficulty of amending the Constitution has yet been discussed, I have illustrated the attitude the framers had at the time of and before creating the Constitution which I believe helps solidly pave the way towards the subsequent area of discussion. It is necessary first, to explain how the constitution may be formally amended. It is article V that lays out the formal amendment process and it dictates: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on application of legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid"¦when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress The amendment process of the Constitution was intentionally rendered difficult. "Supermajorities" are what the Constitution effectively relies upon Ashbee, 1999. Ashbee explains that these supermajorities are a two thirds majority or a three fourths majority, unlike the conventional majority which can be anything over half the amount of the total. As the constitution has previously stated, an amendment must be proposed either by a two thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a Constitutional Convention the likes of which has not happened since the actual framing of the constitution itself to which two thirds of the state legislatures would be required to convene. With a Constitutional Convention, however, there is the possibility that an entire restructuring of the government might occur. Cummings 1977 noted that Several Senators and legal scholars after the Republican Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois encouraged a Constitutional Convention to overturn the Supreme Court's "one person, one vote", believed that a Constitutional Convention could get out of hand and cause extensive changes in the construction of the federal government due to the fact that there is no standard for the agenda setting of a convention. This was also the case in 1985, when a convention to forbid the government from operating a deficit budget was 2 votes short. The framers, then, knowing possibly that this would be the most difficult method of Constitutional amendment, may well have felt that a serious change in government may sometimes be necessary, though it must be kept infrequent in order to maintain the stable government they had worked so hard for. After the proposal stage, the ratification stage needs to be completed in order for the amendment to be adopted by the constitution in full. To illustrate how difficult the ratification stage is to pass, the fact that other than the first ten amendments only 17 amendments have been ratified since the constitution itself was ratified over 215 years ago. To further reiterate the complex and stubborn nature of the amendment process, an amendment at ratification stage must then be approved by three fourths of the state legislatures in three fourths of the states, so an amendment can therefore be blocked by one fourth of the states plus one more, or thirteen states Dahl, 2002. After having investigated the formal amendment method stated in the Constitution itself, it has become evident that the Founding Fathers were clearly trying to avoid substantial changes being undertaken on the constitution. The method in which an amendment can be achieved somewhat guarantees that it is agreed to by a "supermajority" and as Congress at the time is not directly elected by the people is in theory a "qualified majority", thus ridding the framers of their fear of a tyranny by majority. The historical relevance of the Constitution, a detailed look into the actual amendment process as pointed out by the document itself and an insight into the reason why the Constitution was crafted the way it is have all been looked into in order that this discussion has created itself a strong grounding. I shall now begin to probe some of the arguments providing reasons as to why the Constitution is so difficult to amend. Firstly, the proposal of amendments has been a highly challenging task, the only method to date that has proven successful, has been that of receiving a two thirds majority from both the upper and lower houses of Congress. Hodder Williams 2003 believes the reason behind this is twofold. He explains firstly, that few years have existed in which any party have enjoyed a two thirds majority in both houses of Congress at the same time. Looking at the extremely close nature of the two-way party politics of the US political climate today, it is evident that this could never be a reality in the foreseeable future. The second reason that he believes may explain why the proposal of amendments have been so easily prevented is that American leaders of today feel that amendments should only be successful under very special circumstances. This historically proves sound, and within the success the Constitution has enjoyed is certainly a wise and prudent move from the leaders. However, as pointed out by Cummings 1977 earlier, a Constitutional Convention could lead to a mass reformation of the entire document, ridding it off all stability and could even perhaps lead to its downfall. A striking piece of evidence that solidifies the argument that the Constitution is difficult to amend is that of the highly disputed Equal Rights Amendment. Many academics McKay, 2002; Hodder-Williams, 2003; Ashbee 1999; Cummings 1977 have all used this as a tool to demonstrate the difficulty of formally amending the US Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment states that: Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex This amendment was initially given a seven year time period in which to be extended which was eventually extended a further three years. After its extension, insufficient states ratified and the amendment eventually fell. This amendment fell, it is said, as it was feared that women may have to take up combat positions in battle. It was a mere three short of ratification. Perhaps another reason for the difficulty of amendment is the ambiguity of the document itself. It must be noted that McKay 2001 felt that in order for a constitution to be successful and durable, it must not be too precise. He continues: "No constitution can elaborate the precise relationship between institutions and political forces; if it attempts to do so, it runs the danger of being ignored". Thus, in order for a constitution to remain valued, a certain flexibility and openness to varying interpretations must be retained, and the language used in the document must be cautiously and shrewdly implemented. The flexibility of the Constitution although written, can be equally as flexible to that of the unwritten British constitution which has survived and remained the "law of the land" for centuries Hodder-Williams, 2003. Following the notion of ambiguity is the idea of reinterpretation. It is widely believed that the constitution has a very different meaning and a massively different impact than it did when it was first ratified. This is because of the continual development of American society and its economy, rather than the wording of the Constitution. A major player in this argument according to many critics is the Supreme Court. Hodder-Williams 2003 explains: The simple answer is that the justices of the Supreme Court, in the process of dealing with cases brought to them, refine the meanings of particular phrases and words in a way which affects the political structure or the rights of individuals, as the case may be. In article I, section 8, the Constitution indicates several policy areas in which the power of Congress is required to operate. The fact of the matter is some grants of power are all but precise and require an answer from the Supreme Court, whereas some require none due to their clarity. It must be noted at this stage that the Supreme Court is "the highest court deciding litigation generated by disputes over the meaning of the constitution" Hodder-Williams, 2003. This exemplifies the fact that the Constitution, although written, is still open to reinterpretation and this reinterpretation is ultimately the decision of the Supreme Court. Dahl 2002 claims: "¦the authority of the Supreme Court to overrule laws and policies that, in its view, violate the Constitution has become a widely accepted part of our unwritten constitution since 1803, when the Supreme Court first claimed that authority The first amendment of the constitution is another area that commentators discuss concerning the Constitution. In terms of its interpretation, the provisions of the first amendment have been treated by the Supreme Court as more fundamental than other parts. They have been considered by a few justices to be virtually absolute, construing the amendments language literally Spaeth, 1991. Hodder-Williams 2003 says that the first amendment of the constitution in being the exact definition of an individual's rights starts: "Congress shall make no law"¦", but the following eight amendments commence in all but the same way. These assertions of rights were generally held to be constraints on the much feared power of the new central government. The Supreme Court is likely to remain the unelected policy-making body that it has been since 1803 Dahl, 2002. The actual amendments to the Constitution must also be addressed, as these will provide an insight into what sort of amendments, if any, do actually pass. The aforementioned first amendment limits the action of government and recognises liberties. When examining the constitution, it is clear that voting is a key issue, the Constitution has been amended four times to accommodate for a more democratic system of voting. Generally summed up, these amendments incorporated for new votes in terms of race the fifteenth, women the nineteenth, citizens of Washington DC the twenty third and over eighteens the twenty sixth. Another issue taking up centre stage on the Constitutional amendment agenda was rights. The extension of civil rights by abolishing slavery the thirteenth amendment, and the assertion that all citizens were entitled to the equal protection of the laws the fourteenth amendment additionally reinforce the idea that furthering the democratic element of the Constitution is a good reason for amendment. As discussed earlier, it is extremely difficult to amend the constitution formally; hence this proves that the advancement of democracy and the extension of civil rights are areas where the Constitution is willing to accommodate change. Having examined these crucial facts and having reached this point of the discussion, I feel that a conclusion is necessary. I shall firstly say that we must first look at the fact that the Constitution has survived so long without the wording being changed as a significant player in the difficult of amending it. If the system that is in place is performing satisfactorily, then why is there any need to change it? The framers certainly created a well structured and well thought out system, but there are certain elements that they could not have foreseen. Thus, there are areas in the Constitution where they have allowed for a continuously changing society. However, it is only significant changes such as the abolition of slavery and the allowing of women to vote for example, that have been able to actually become ratified. Many of the less significant, but still important changes in modern society, have simply been informally changed and reinterpreted through the judgements of the Supreme Court. This has proven the somewhat flexible nature of the document. However, it is only flexible within certain ideological and political boundaries. The justices of the Supreme Court, being the body that makes the adjustments to the modern day are, the select few that there are, ultimately responsible for the interpretation of the Constitution outside the formal amendment process. The Constitution is to a great extent, difficult to amend formally, but previous discussion shows that the informal and flexible interpretation of the Constitution is to a less extent, difficult to amend. However successful the American Constitutional system, it is unique and was set up, after all, in the need change. The country itself was established in unique circumstances, and the American Constitution will remain to be unique next to those of other Western democracies. I shall finish this discussion Robert Dahl noted in Scialabba, 2002: Among the countries most comparable to the United States"¦and where democratic institutions have long existed without breakdown, not one has adopted our American Constitutional system.   

To what extent and why is the constitution very difficult to amend? The Constitution of the United States is highly unique and unlike many written constitutions, it has remained fundamentally unaltered since its ratification in 1789, and continues to exert itself as major source of authority on the political...

Words: 3107 View(s): 448 Comment(s): 0