Law Does Not Equate Violence

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

Society has been subjected to many violent acts over the course of its history. Although violence is immoral and wrong, somehow people everyday condone and commit violence for countless reasons. Many Hollywood films glorify mindless violence to their advantage and captivate audiences through its entertaining shock value and rake large box office profits. Car chases, crashes and glorified gladiator sword fights are all familiar scenes in which violence is portrayed in an unrealistic glamorised manner.

What has America come to? Although the articles, “We’re No.1(1)!” written by Thomas Friedman, and the article “Violence is Who We Are,” by Steven Crichley, have different overall subjects, they have a similar arguments. The world isn’t as great as it used to be, we are lacking good leadership, and we happily invite wrong doings into our lives.

In a society governed by sometimes strict and sometimes barely acknowledged laws, we tend to turn a blind eye towards incidents where the law is supposed to swoop in and save the day. Take, for example, the Reconstruction era after the civil war from 1865-1877, when America tried to rebuild its country and bridge the gap between the north and south after the divisive war. White supremacy leagues were created and allowed to exist by the government during that time because the law did not do its job by protecting all its citizens. It didn’t enforce the acceptance of the free African-Americans and didn’t encourage much, or any social change. I believe that laws are not the most important factor in overcoming discrimination and creating social

Laws are created among society to maintain order, keeping the communities safe and controlled. In To Kill a Mockingbird, the trial of Tom Robinson is a textbook example of how law creates order among society. When Tom was accused of rape, he was taken to a court of law and prosecuted for the laws that he had broken. Atticus states, “There is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller… that institution gentlemen, is a court.” pg 274 When Atticus says that he is expressing that legally all men are equal in the court of law, and men that are proven guilty are demanded to serve the punishment that has been given to them. This shows that law is the ultimate decider over the people, and that the people should respect the law because it upholds the regulations of the nation.

How does the law create order within society? Do you think the law is fair? Why or why not?

Laws are necessary part of a government. Government serves as system that can provide services and order which the people can pick their respentace. Now imagine a law that help protect you, your race, ideas, sexual orientation and so forth. Now imagine a group of people or even organization who are against you views. To a certain point to even hurt or murder your ideas. Like any government laws are place to protect the people and that’s what hate crime laws are. Too protect citizens no matter their race and choices. But that doesn’t seem to be the case always. In article by .

Violence is preventable and extremely imperative for us to detect the early signs of it. We need to take all prevention strategies for an account. For example, primary, secondary, and tertiary preventions are an appropriate approach for this matter. Dating violence is the topic that is going to be discussed in this reading. I decided to write about this topic because many people are in the dark when it comes to dating violence, and the substantial effects of it. Allow me the opportunity to expand your horizon on this particular topic. There have been quite a few cases where women press charges on their significant other after being battered in unhealthy relationships. I always hear about situations like this through the media never in real life. It’s sad to say that a very close friend of mind was one of those women in a vicious relationship.

Between 1787 and 1877, violent and non-violent action both had an effect in changing the American society. During 1787 to 1816, violent actions were proved to be more useful in enacting changes. On the other hand, violence did not proof its usefulness in helping the advancement of society during Reconstruction period from 1861 to 1877. In Early Republic when the country was unstable because of internal and external conflicts, violent actions were necessary and had the upper hand in succeeding in building the nation. On the other hand, during Reconstruction, unity was the main goal of the process in which violent actions held very little positive effects to aid the purpose. In different period of times, violent and non-violent actions had different,

On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men. 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime. When judges come across domestic violence cases, they are often frowned upon. Because we live in a world there are huge double standards when it comes to domestic violence and our men are on the bad end of the deal. When a man commits domestic violence he is punished very harshly. But when a woman commits domestic violence she gets cheers, chuckles or is all too often ignored.

In spite of the fact that law capacities to advantage society it can likewise reflect and strengthen the social disparity found in bigger society. American history is loaded with case of two related parts of law and imbalance. The utilization of law to encourage social disparity and the effect of disparity on the causes of law and the operation of the lawful framework.

All over the news we hear of incidents where there is violence paired with guns. Granted there are the instances that violence is not coordinated with guns but we do now hear about that as often. A focus that I have taken as a criminal justice major at Bluffton is looking at school shootings. I have always found them an interesting subject, especially when trying to figure out why they occur, and in what manner. Looking at the world especially the USA there are a lot of what we consider "Mass Shootings" happening per year. According to PBS.Org, the San Bernardino shootings in California was the 355th Mass shooting in the USA in 2015. This means roughly that there was a mass shooting every single day happening. What is a Mass shooting exactly? "Four or more people are killed or injured by gunfire" (Christopher Ingraham). That means that in 355 shootings four or more people died in these incidents, sometimes even more. This makes the liberals go absolutely nuts over gun rights, saying that they need to be taken away. On the other side of things, it makes the total conservatives hoot and holler about how we need to have more guns to protect ourselves. But what if guns were just cut out of the situations completely? What I am going to be doing is taking the mainstream mass shootings that we have had and adding a restorative justice piece to them to see what that would look like. I know most people who have committed these crimes have passed or are locked up, but if they

In order to show that the law does not create a violent or unequal environment we have to examine why people might believe such a thing. Let’s look at the exaggerated way Cover describes the judicial system. Cover says that “the law is designed to create credible threats of actual deeds of violence.” According to Cover, “a judge articulates her understanding of a

Studies are starting to show that laws don’t prohibit violent crime. The gun laws keep the good people of our countries from protecting their selves. This allows the criminals to walk all over the citizens because they are defenseless (Chicago Tribune, 1993). There are many good examples to support that accusation that have happened very recently. The first scenario that has happened the most recent is the shooting in California. In that particular shooting AR 15 rifles were used in the mass killings. Considering that California has a ban on AR 15 this seems to bring up some questions. How did the rifles end up in California in a mass shooting if the guns are illegal there?

The origin of the adversarial legal system is very blurry and vague, but the system has been around quite a while and approaches to handle criminal proceeding in a totally opposite method, compared to the inquisitorial legal system. Before discussing the effectiveness and the advantages of a adversarial legal system, it is a good idea to understand the system. Adversarial legal system began in England with common law, and most countries with common law usually tend to follow the adversarial legal system but some countries based on civil law like France, and the Netherlands follow the inquisitorial legal system (). The main difference between the two systems is the role of judge, in an inquisitorial legal system the judge is more involves with the case but in the adversarial legal system the judge’s role gets reduced to a neutral third party only to just hear the case, presented by the prosecutor and defense attorney. In Canada our legal system is based around common law and hence resulting in our adversarial legal system, the system is incredibly effective and features many advantages when compared to its counterpart the inquisitorial system. The key elements which allow the adversarial system to be effective are the role judge, fair opportunity for both defendant and prosecutor to present their case while their rights being protected, and finally the introduction of the restorative justice.