Pros And Cons Of Feds

In the United States of America there are currently two prison systems in place; the Federal prison system, and the State prison system. Every state in the U.S. has its own Department of Corrections, which is tasked with handling crimes committed at the state level (Allen, 2017). The state where the crime occurred has jurisdiction over the individual that committed the crime. An individual, whom has committed a crime within a state’s jurisdiction that results in a long sentence, is sent to the state prison system in that particular state (Allen, 2017). A long sentence encompasses a period of time which exceeds a year, and a day; which is the length of time given to an individual convicted of a felony crime. An individual convicted of a misdemeanor crime which is accompanied by a sentencing length of less than a year, will serve their respective sentence in a jail. Once the individual has received their sentence, they will go through an initial classification process (Allen, Latessa, and Ponder, 2013). The purpose of the initial classification process is to identify the individual’s custody level, work assignment, and treatment. The initial classification process will differentiate between those individuals that present different security risks, and supervision concerns. Factors such as the individual’s current offense, escape potential and prior criminal history are factored in during the initial classification. Also, an individual’s background attributes, such as mental

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

The Framers of the United States Constitution ultimately decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments for many reasons. There were many problems with the articles that caused instability in the government, and even a rebellion. Then there’s the Federal government who lacked powers to do anything much because the people were too scared to make the Federal government strong. Lastly, there was the State government who had either too much power or they had power that the Federal government should have. There were a lot of problems with the Articles that needed to be addressed , most of which were addressed.

Federalism is a fervently debated idea in which two parties, the Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists, argue whether or not the Constitution should be ratified. The main writers of the Federalists Papers include three Founding Fathers by the names of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The Federalists wrote of the need for a strong central government and a constitution, however, the Anti-Federalists sought for a guarantee of freedom with a Bill of Rights. The Constitution required a Bill of Rights in order to limit the large authoritative power of central government and to protect the voice of the common man from oppression. Federalist Paper Number 84, written, by Alexander Hamilton, focused on the concept of a Constitution and the containment of a Bill

Subsequently, I think Apple should try and use the patch method to unlock the iPhone for several reasons, instead of not unlocking it at all. The iPhone's owner is a gunman, a shooter, and it would seem quite wrong to not unlock it to figure out anything, like who was this person, what are his plans, what made him like this. Technically, Apple has the right to refuse to unlock the iPhone, but we need to solve this issue, and protect ourselves from future terrorists to use iPhones. There is another problem, and it is that if Apple decides to work with the FBI to break the laws just to break into their own iPhones, other foreign governments can use Apple to break into iPhones from owners that don’t live in the US. This means that Apple will have to work more with others and give up time to use the iPhone. I think Apple should have some time to unlock the iPhone just for the FBI so they can have access to the terrorist’s plans. Terrorism in the US is a very critical problem and is very serious and Apple will need to solve the way to unlock the iPhone without giving up privacy and security to the FBI. Apple will need to find a way to make the iPhone unlock without the FBI knowing how to and other foreign governments also. If Apple does not succeed to unlock the iPhone, or gives up both privacy and security, then having an iPhone really looks like there is no specialty or difference between Android phones. If Apple decides to unlock the iPhone just for the FBI, this

Imagine you are in the middle of your typical day-to-day activities. Maybe you are driving, spending time with family, or working. If you are like most people, your phone is at your side on a daily basis. Little do you know that, at any time, police and law enforcement could be looking at information stored on your phone. You haven’t done anything wrong. You haven’t been asked for permission. You aren’t suspected of any crime.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) safeguards and promotes confidence in the United States financial system by insuring deposits in banks, identifying, examining, and addressing risks, and by limiting the effect on the economy and the financial system when a bank fails. An independent agency of the federal government, the FDIC was formed in response to bank failures that happened in the 1920s and 1930s. The FDIC employs more than 7,000 people and is headquartered in Washington, D.C., but conducts most of its business in six regional offices, and in offices around the country. The FDIC is managed by a Board of Directors; five individuals appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with no more than three being from

Evaluating the pros and cons of government operated security versus returning to privately owned security

In late eighteenth-century America, the ideal form of government was widely contested. When the American colonies were under British rule, they were subject to the almost-tyrannical British government, in which they were not fully represented. After the colonies achieved independence, two main political factions emerged: the Republicans and the Federalists. The Republicans, scarred by the overbearing British government, advocated for a weak federal government with individual state governments, which prevented the concentration of power in a single party and promoted a form of more direct representation. However, this system proved to be ineffective, for the federal government’s lack of power was dangerous and inefficient. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported a strong federal government. Cognizant of the negative implications of local state governments, the Federalists published a series of essays during 1787 and 1788 that supported the stronger national government that resulted from the Constitutional Convention. In “Federalist no. 51”, James Madison, a key component of the Federalist movement, described the role of government and its relationship with the people. He wrote,

I believe that the government has good reasoning to want to go through our phone conversations and e-mails, but that doesn’t make it right. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. This means that they can’t just go against the United States Bill of Rights and dig through people’s electronic devices. Part of the first amendment states you have the freedom of speech. If you have freedom of speech and the government is watching and listening to your conversations and you accidentally say something that sounds like terrorism but you happen to be joking, they can arrest you because they are suspicious. Both

The fourth amendment of the United States talks about the rights of people and how they can secure their personal items unless they need to be searches by the police. The only time the police or someone in the federal investigation business can search your house is if they have a search warrant and a good cause to search your house. The reason they would need a good reason is because they have to go to the court to get one, so if they say that they need a search warrant because someone stole a candy bar from the store they probably won't get it. But everything's the same with your phone. Unless it is on school grounds.

The USA Patriot Act of 2011 was designed to equip law enforcement with other weapons to expose and inhibit terrorism and to aid in the fight against drug trafficking. (DOJ. (n.d). p. 1). However, for the FBI to look into anyone’s phone, they must have probable cause and get a warrant

Describe The Federal System Of Government In Australia. Evaluate The Advantages And Disadvantages Of This System.

On February 16th, 2016, Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote a letter to customers that would eventually place him at the center of a crucial national debate. The letter came after the Justice Department decided to take Apple court for refusing to unlock the iPhone of terrorist Syed Farook. In the letter, Cook stated that creating a piece of software meant to bypass security features so that the FBI could enter the phone with brute force would only hurt the good people using their software and not the terrorists as intended. By speaking out on such a controversial topic, Tim Cook accepted the fact that he would be the target to ridicule and threats. Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican nominee, called on his supporters to boycott Apple until they comply,

The future is uncertain, as such conventional wisdom dictates that governments must intervene in the economy to help enhance growth and ensure stability. However, is too much intervention a bad thing? There are many reasons why it is so but one such reason is that in an economy where there is excessive government intervention and ownership such as in the Soviet Union, there was a lack of risk and subsequently lack of innovation as rather than satisfying customers the concern of a producer in the system was to satisfy the state. The lack of a reward for working harder, due to all businesses being owned by the state reduces incentive to produce or innovate and this leads to inefficient outcomes in an economy. This is a contrast to a capitalist society where innovation and hard work can lead to personnel gain in the form of money. Price ceiling and price floors are price control mechanisms that are used to, respectively set a maximum price, and a minimum price. One such problem as a result of implementing these is that they will artificially cause a shortage or surplus, respectively, of the good or service due to affecting supply and demand. This prevents the good/services to be at the equilibrium price, which is where economic outcomes would be most efficient. So should governments intervene? Regardless of the aforementioned downsides this has always been a topic of debate between Keynesian economists and classical economists, but a widely accepted consensus is that some level