Don't Talk to Cops
By Guy McBernson
"GOOD MORNING! My name is investigator Holmes. Do you mind answering a few
simple questions?" If you open your door one day and are greeted with those
words, STOP AND THINK! Whether it is the local police or the FBI at your door,
you have certain legal rights of which you ought to be aware before you
proceed any further.
In the first place, when law enforcement authorities come to see you,
there are no "simple questions". Unless they are investigating a traffic
accident, you can be sure that they want information about somebody. And that
somebody may be you!
Rule number one to remember when confronted by the authorities is that
there is no law requiring you to talk with the police, the FBI, or the
representative of any other investigative agency. Even the simplest questions
may be loaded and the seemingly harmless bits of information which you
volunteer may later become vital links in a chain of circumstantial evidence
against you or a friend.
DO NOT INVITE THE INVESTIGATOR INTO YOUR HOME!
Such an invitation not only gives him the opportunity to look around
for clues to your lifestyle, friends, reading material, etc., but also tends
to prolong the conversation. The longer the conversation, the more chance
there is for a skill investigator to find out what he wants to know.
Many times a police officer will ask you to accompany him to the
police station to answer a few questions. In that case, simply thank him for
the invitation and indicate that you are not disposed to accept it at this
time. Often the authorities simply want to photograph a person for
identification purposes, a procedure which is easily accomplished by placing
him in a private room with a two-way mirror at the station, asking him a few
innocent questions, and then releasing him.
If the investigator becomes angry at your failure to cooperate and
threatens you with arrest, stand firm. He cannot legally place you under
arrest or enter your home without a warrent signed by a judge. If he indicates
that he has such a warrent, ask to see it. A person under arrest, or located
on premises to be searched, generally must be shown a warrent if he requests
it and must be given to chance to read it.
Without a warrent, an officer depends solely upon your helpfulness to
obtain the information he wants. So, unless you are quite sure of yourself,
don't be helpful.
Probably the wisest approach to take to a persistant investigator is
simply to say: "I'm quite busy now. If you have any questions that you feel I
can answer, I'd be happy to listen to them in my lawyer's office. Goodbye!"
Talk is cheap. When that talk involves the law enforcement
authorities, it may cost you, or someone close to you, dearly.
This info came from a leaflet that was printed as a public
service by individuals concerned with the growing role of
authoritarianism and police power in our society. Please
feel free to copy or republish.
This info also applies to dealing with private investigators, and
corporate security agents.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
domestic violence
Somewhere in America at this very moment, a woman is being abused. She will be left with bruises, cuts, broken bones, and scars. The scars that last forever are not physical; however, they are ones of mental anguish. Her abuser is not a stranger, rather her husband or boyfriend. In this country, domestic violence is almost as common as giving birth. There is, however, hope for these women; help is available.
Domestic violence occurs way too often in American society. There are many reasons why people need to speak out against domestic violence. One reason is that statistics show that most abusers will continue to abuse until they are arrested. Another reason is that domestic violence doesn't only physically harm a woman; it also mentally harms the woman and any children involved. The third reason is that help is available.
A man who physically abuses a woman can not be stopped unless he is given counseling, jailed, or killed. He will continue to abuse until he is stopped, and ignoring the problem will definitely not help it go away. Husbands and boyfriends send more women to the hospital each year than strangers do (Campbell 95). The US Surgeon General reports that, "domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to American women between the ages of fifteen and forty-four" (Briggs and Davis 94) . Abusers need to be stopped before its too late for their victims.
Women are not the only victims of abuse. Children who live in a situation where domestic violence is prevalent suffer in many ways. The psychological impact of witnessing violence among many children is just as severe as if they had been the victims of physical or sexual abuse themselves (Krueger 94). These children who witness abuse at home suffer in many unseen ways, and too often their pain goes untreated (Krueger 94). If an abused woman does not have the guts to stand up for her own safety, the least she can do is protect her children. An abused woman an innocent victim, but the children are even more innocent victims.
Many women feel that there is no one to help them escape domestic violence. This assumption is extremely wrong. There are many organizations designed especially to help abused women. A group called Violence Against Women gives out grants that are used to create specialized police and prosecution units to deal with domestic violence (Campbell 95). In addition to Violence Against Women grants, the government issued grants to forty-nine of the fifty states of $426,000 to train police officers to develop more effective strategies to prevent violent crimes against women (Campbell 95). It is up to the abused women to stand up and use their power to make there abuser pay for their physical and mental violence. Help is out there, it is up to the abused woman to reach out for it.
If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, help is available. This help can be received by calling the local Women's Center at
784-6631.
The fight against domestic violence has just begun. There has been much progress towards stopping the violence in the past couple of years, but the violence is still too prevalent. If more people speak out against this violence, the world would be a much safer place.
Domestic violence occurs way too often in American society. There are many reasons why people need to speak out against domestic violence. One reason is that statistics show that most abusers will continue to abuse until they are arrested. Another reason is that domestic violence doesn't only physically harm a woman; it also mentally harms the woman and any children involved. The third reason is that help is available.
A man who physically abuses a woman can not be stopped unless he is given counseling, jailed, or killed. He will continue to abuse until he is stopped, and ignoring the problem will definitely not help it go away. Husbands and boyfriends send more women to the hospital each year than strangers do (Campbell 95). The US Surgeon General reports that, "domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to American women between the ages of fifteen and forty-four" (Briggs and Davis 94) . Abusers need to be stopped before its too late for their victims.
Women are not the only victims of abuse. Children who live in a situation where domestic violence is prevalent suffer in many ways. The psychological impact of witnessing violence among many children is just as severe as if they had been the victims of physical or sexual abuse themselves (Krueger 94). These children who witness abuse at home suffer in many unseen ways, and too often their pain goes untreated (Krueger 94). If an abused woman does not have the guts to stand up for her own safety, the least she can do is protect her children. An abused woman an innocent victim, but the children are even more innocent victims.
Many women feel that there is no one to help them escape domestic violence. This assumption is extremely wrong. There are many organizations designed especially to help abused women. A group called Violence Against Women gives out grants that are used to create specialized police and prosecution units to deal with domestic violence (Campbell 95). In addition to Violence Against Women grants, the government issued grants to forty-nine of the fifty states of $426,000 to train police officers to develop more effective strategies to prevent violent crimes against women (Campbell 95). It is up to the abused women to stand up and use their power to make there abuser pay for their physical and mental violence. Help is out there, it is up to the abused woman to reach out for it.
If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, help is available. This help can be received by calling the local Women's Center at
784-6631.
The fight against domestic violence has just begun. There has been much progress towards stopping the violence in the past couple of years, but the violence is still too prevalent. If more people speak out against this violence, the world would be a much safer place.
Domestic abuse
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Found at the scene of the crime two dead bodies stabbed brutally, and left to die at their house. This was the story that shocked the country in 1991. This was the start of the O.J. Simpson domestic abuse case that is still going on today. Unfortunately events like this happen many times over everyday in many setting all over the United states; however the victims of the other cases don't get nearly as much publicity.
Some facts about domestic abuse
An average of nine out of 10 women have to be turned away from shelters on.
The reason so few cases get assigned initially is the police usually don't have enough officers to meet the demand
At the Portland Women's Crisis Line, where calls have doubled since the killings of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, they welcome the increased attention.
From July 19,through March 31, 1993 a total of 3,665 domestic violence cases were reviewed in Portland Oregon. Of those, only 281 cases resulted in some action taken against the accused abuser. Some of this is because there is not enough police, but it is mostly because the abused person is scared.
for the last six months of 1993 and the first three months of 1994 Portland averaged about 1,000 calls each month or 12,000 calls a year.
In January 1992, 30 criminal domestic violence complaints were issued. For January 1994, the number was more than 100.
Nationally, estimates range from 2 to 4 million women assaults each year.
Some studies show that 20 to 30 percent of all women who seek help at hospital emergency rooms are there because of domestic violence.
Kyra Woods never made it to the emergency room. Whoever killed her saw to that. She suffered 13 stab wounds to the back five of them so violent the knife came out the other side of her body.
Wood's mother, Mable, and two aunts wept quietly in a back row of the courtroom as the prosecution argued against bail for Woods' former boyfriend Jackson. Rod Underhill, the prosecutor, painted a picture of domestic violence. He told of a dramatic moment after the killing, when Woods' 4-year-old son, holding a teddy bear, re- enacted the attack. "He put his hands around the neck of the bear and shook it," Underhill said. "He began to pound it with a closed fist and slug it."
Mable Woods said that her daughter never told her much about any abuse. Neighbors, however, told police of hearing the couple fight violently. According to police reports, one neighbor said, "They fought so hard the pictures on the wall shook back and forth."
Jackson has pleaded innocent. His attorney, Angel Lopez, points out that no murder weapon has been found. He said the account from the 4-year-old boy could not be matched with any others, and he pointed out inconsistencies in the boy's statements. Bail was denied.
Jackson was accused of killing his former girlfriend, Kyra Woods, by stabbing her 13 times. His bail hearing normally would have merited little public attention. What brought out the cameras and reporter was the Simpson case.
Children are often the unseen victims of domestic abuse. they see one of their parents being harmed and this leads to high stress. Boys tend to be much more hostile when raised in a broken home. They are also ten times more likely to be abusive when they grow up. Girls raised in an abusive family tend to be very shy and afraid of boys. When they grow up they are 50 times more likely to marry an abusive husband.
The effect of domestic abuse on society is negative, but unfortunately it does not get much publicity unless it involves a figure that is well known such as O.J. Simpson. Another sad thing is that people often shrug off domestic abuse calling it a personal matter because they don't want to get involved or they are afraid of what people will think about them
Survivors have found the emotional strength to break from their abusers through different means: a hot-line number remembered from a restroom wall, a wallet card of crisis numbers from a pediatrician who would not overlook a mother's black eye. A grown child begging her mother to flee--and a shelter with an open bed.
The women, some with their identities changed to protect their privacy, talked about shame, guilt, fear of triggering even greater violence, low self-worth, isolation, embarrassment, numbing depression, concern for children, foiled escapes, a unrealistic sense of reality, a walking-on-eggshells existence and, perhaps above all, an illogical hope that something would change.
"the abuser can make everything sound so good," says Florence A. Reid, 45, now living in transitional housing through Bradley- Angle House after 10 years in a violent marriage and another 13 year relationship, in an abusive relationship both with men who were full of promises after the pummelings.
Even now, 25 years later, after dozens of broken ribs, a broken jaw, pushes downstairs, and out a car, and thrice-weekly bouts with her husband sometimes drunk, sometimes sober--kicking with his work boots as she lay on the floor; even now, Reid has pipe dreams of living happily with this teen-age love, of sitting on a front porch and talking about the old days.
"Wouldn't that be nice?" asks Reid. "Just live a normal life with the father of my children."
"The first time I tried leaving my husband was 1972. I took the kids to a friend's house," she remembers. "He found me and brought a gun with him. Of course, I just went back."
In 1992, after dozens of tries, Ruth left for the last time, with the help of a daughter, and ended up at West Women's & Children's Shelter.
Ruth, who now works part-time at a bank, sighs. "I don't know. For years, my excuse was the kids. And of course, I realize that was probably the worst thing I did for them. And I always thought, `Things will get better if I do this.'"
Other women clung to similar fantasies, sure the goodness and charm would return--if they could love him better, do everything right.
When someone abuses another person they often have a certain attitude such as thinking that it is the abused persons fault and that they brought it upon themselves. extensive studies have shown this. The abuser often blames the person who was abused for their troubles. Abusers often have a hard time communicating.
Unfortunately the abuser is rarely gets action taken against them. But when they do it is often very serious. The least that could happen is that the abuser gets a restraining order. In more serious cases there can be a number of penalties ranging from short prison term to a life sentence.
This is the information that I found when I looked up domestic abuse. As you can see some of these facts are rather grim but people are becoming more open to ideas and people are reporting more than ever. I hope that this stops being the most un reported crime in the United States so that we can get the problem under control.
The Homepage of the Committee Against Family Violence
NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE webpage
Bibliography: Breiner, S., Slaughter of the Innocents (1990); deMause, L., The History of Childhood (1988); Kempe, H., and Helfer, R., The Battered Child, 4th ed. (1987); Kempe, Ruth S. and C. Henry, Sexual Abuse of Children and Adolescents (1984); Moorehead, C., ed., Betrayal (1990); Wexler, R., Wounded Innocents (1990).
Domestic Abuse
Metro Nashville Police Department
Evaluation of the "Surviving Together" Support Group
for Women and Children (Women's Group)
For Health and Community Services
July 1995
By Christine Szikla
EASTWOOD, S. "Parenting After The Violence" in Parent Help Program: News &
Information Number 8, November 1992, The Australian Council for Educational
Research Limited, Hawthorn: Victoria. (p.4)
WARD, J. How to Research Community Issues: The Grounded Community
Development Research Method. Partnership Press in Association with Deakin
University, Melbourne: 1993.
Found at the scene of the crime two dead bodies stabbed brutally, and left to die at their house. This was the story that shocked the country in 1991. This was the start of the O.J. Simpson domestic abuse case that is still going on today. Unfortunately events like this happen many times over everyday in many setting all over the United states; however the victims of the other cases don't get nearly as much publicity.
Some facts about domestic abuse
An average of nine out of 10 women have to be turned away from shelters on.
The reason so few cases get assigned initially is the police usually don't have enough officers to meet the demand
At the Portland Women's Crisis Line, where calls have doubled since the killings of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, they welcome the increased attention.
From July 19,through March 31, 1993 a total of 3,665 domestic violence cases were reviewed in Portland Oregon. Of those, only 281 cases resulted in some action taken against the accused abuser. Some of this is because there is not enough police, but it is mostly because the abused person is scared.
for the last six months of 1993 and the first three months of 1994 Portland averaged about 1,000 calls each month or 12,000 calls a year.
In January 1992, 30 criminal domestic violence complaints were issued. For January 1994, the number was more than 100.
Nationally, estimates range from 2 to 4 million women assaults each year.
Some studies show that 20 to 30 percent of all women who seek help at hospital emergency rooms are there because of domestic violence.
Kyra Woods never made it to the emergency room. Whoever killed her saw to that. She suffered 13 stab wounds to the back five of them so violent the knife came out the other side of her body.
Wood's mother, Mable, and two aunts wept quietly in a back row of the courtroom as the prosecution argued against bail for Woods' former boyfriend Jackson. Rod Underhill, the prosecutor, painted a picture of domestic violence. He told of a dramatic moment after the killing, when Woods' 4-year-old son, holding a teddy bear, re- enacted the attack. "He put his hands around the neck of the bear and shook it," Underhill said. "He began to pound it with a closed fist and slug it."
Mable Woods said that her daughter never told her much about any abuse. Neighbors, however, told police of hearing the couple fight violently. According to police reports, one neighbor said, "They fought so hard the pictures on the wall shook back and forth."
Jackson has pleaded innocent. His attorney, Angel Lopez, points out that no murder weapon has been found. He said the account from the 4-year-old boy could not be matched with any others, and he pointed out inconsistencies in the boy's statements. Bail was denied.
Jackson was accused of killing his former girlfriend, Kyra Woods, by stabbing her 13 times. His bail hearing normally would have merited little public attention. What brought out the cameras and reporter was the Simpson case.
Children are often the unseen victims of domestic abuse. they see one of their parents being harmed and this leads to high stress. Boys tend to be much more hostile when raised in a broken home. They are also ten times more likely to be abusive when they grow up. Girls raised in an abusive family tend to be very shy and afraid of boys. When they grow up they are 50 times more likely to marry an abusive husband.
The effect of domestic abuse on society is negative, but unfortunately it does not get much publicity unless it involves a figure that is well known such as O.J. Simpson. Another sad thing is that people often shrug off domestic abuse calling it a personal matter because they don't want to get involved or they are afraid of what people will think about them
Survivors have found the emotional strength to break from their abusers through different means: a hot-line number remembered from a restroom wall, a wallet card of crisis numbers from a pediatrician who would not overlook a mother's black eye. A grown child begging her mother to flee--and a shelter with an open bed.
The women, some with their identities changed to protect their privacy, talked about shame, guilt, fear of triggering even greater violence, low self-worth, isolation, embarrassment, numbing depression, concern for children, foiled escapes, a unrealistic sense of reality, a walking-on-eggshells existence and, perhaps above all, an illogical hope that something would change.
"the abuser can make everything sound so good," says Florence A. Reid, 45, now living in transitional housing through Bradley- Angle House after 10 years in a violent marriage and another 13 year relationship, in an abusive relationship both with men who were full of promises after the pummelings.
Even now, 25 years later, after dozens of broken ribs, a broken jaw, pushes downstairs, and out a car, and thrice-weekly bouts with her husband sometimes drunk, sometimes sober--kicking with his work boots as she lay on the floor; even now, Reid has pipe dreams of living happily with this teen-age love, of sitting on a front porch and talking about the old days.
"Wouldn't that be nice?" asks Reid. "Just live a normal life with the father of my children."
"The first time I tried leaving my husband was 1972. I took the kids to a friend's house," she remembers. "He found me and brought a gun with him. Of course, I just went back."
In 1992, after dozens of tries, Ruth left for the last time, with the help of a daughter, and ended up at West Women's & Children's Shelter.
Ruth, who now works part-time at a bank, sighs. "I don't know. For years, my excuse was the kids. And of course, I realize that was probably the worst thing I did for them. And I always thought, `Things will get better if I do this.'"
Other women clung to similar fantasies, sure the goodness and charm would return--if they could love him better, do everything right.
When someone abuses another person they often have a certain attitude such as thinking that it is the abused persons fault and that they brought it upon themselves. extensive studies have shown this. The abuser often blames the person who was abused for their troubles. Abusers often have a hard time communicating.
Unfortunately the abuser is rarely gets action taken against them. But when they do it is often very serious. The least that could happen is that the abuser gets a restraining order. In more serious cases there can be a number of penalties ranging from short prison term to a life sentence.
This is the information that I found when I looked up domestic abuse. As you can see some of these facts are rather grim but people are becoming more open to ideas and people are reporting more than ever. I hope that this stops being the most un reported crime in the United States so that we can get the problem under control.
The Homepage of the Committee Against Family Violence
NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE webpage
Bibliography: Breiner, S., Slaughter of the Innocents (1990); deMause, L., The History of Childhood (1988); Kempe, H., and Helfer, R., The Battered Child, 4th ed. (1987); Kempe, Ruth S. and C. Henry, Sexual Abuse of Children and Adolescents (1984); Moorehead, C., ed., Betrayal (1990); Wexler, R., Wounded Innocents (1990).
Domestic Abuse
Metro Nashville Police Department
Evaluation of the "Surviving Together" Support Group
for Women and Children (Women's Group)
For Health and Community Services
July 1995
By Christine Szikla
EASTWOOD, S. "Parenting After The Violence" in Parent Help Program: News &
Information Number 8, November 1992, The Australian Council for Educational
Research Limited, Hawthorn: Victoria. (p.4)
WARD, J. How to Research Community Issues: The Grounded Community
Development Research Method. Partnership Press in Association with Deakin
University, Melbourne: 1993.
Divorce
DIVORCE
Divorce rates in the United States have increased dramatically in the past 25 years. Over 40 percent of the marriages among young Americans will end in divorce. There is a lot of stress on all the people involved. The man has to deal with, usually, not seeing his children, being alone, and the responsibility that is accompanied with much of the legal process. The wife has to go through, maybe, entering the work force for the first time. Children are often viewed as a back burner issue but more often than none they are the center piece of discussion. The children may begin feeling inadequate around their friends and even in personal esteem. Feeling like it is their fault they might get depressed or perhaps even rebellious. Regardless, divorce is an activity that has become common place in today's family structure, behavior, and morality.
When two people meet and decide their love is strong enough to carry them to the next level marriage is usually the out come. Sometimes they decide to have children and sometimes they don't, but when they do, it usually brings them closer together. All parents have desires and hopes for their children. The way in which parents achieve these ends can differ. Researchers do not agree on which of the child-raising practices is best. But it is known that parents provide role models for their children and that children rely on their parents to teach them about the world.
When a culture's values and traditions undergo a rapid change it becomes difficult to decide which attitudes and beliefs children should be taught. As one researcher has stated, "today's children are the first generation to be raised amid doubt about the role prescriptions that have long gone unchallenged. This makes their socialization especially difficult. Traditionally, socialization was a process of raising the young to fill major roles in society when the present incumbents vacated them. Yet today we do not know what type of society our children will inherit, nor the roles for which they should be prepared. "(pp.34) Divorce along married couples is the most well-documented and studied of the various ways relationships end. According to Dworetzky:
Divorce rates in the United States have increased dramatically in the past 25 years. According to current assessments, over 40 percent of marriages among young Americans will end in divorce, of the children born in the last ten years, almost 50 percent will spend on an average of six years in a one- parent household. Nine out of ten children will reside with their mothers. Between 9 and 11million school-age children in the United States live in one-parent families. About one-half of all divorces occur within the first seven years of marriage with the first two to three years being an especially vulnerable time period for divorce.(pp.47-63)
The actual rate of divorce may only represent a small amount of the problem. It is unknown how many marriages end in non legal separations or how many married people stay together in an empty, essentially dissolved, relationship for the children's sake.
Of course, you do not have to be married to experience a separation from a close relationship. "If we add to the official divorce rate the number of cohabitation couples who break up, those who terminate their engagements to marry, break-up, steady dating partner, or otherwise bow out of a relationship, several million couples end intimate relationships each year.2"(pp.27-28,30)
So, why do people separate? Unmarried couples give us a number of reasons for separation. In one study, researchers followed over 200 couples for a three year period. "During this period of time, more that one-half of them ended the relationship. Seventy-eight percent of the men and women listed boredom as the major reason for the separation.(Kolata: pp, 42) Apparently their romantic, passionate love had lost it's power and there was little else between them. Couples reported other differences in several areas as caused for breaking up, including differences in interests, hobbies, outside of the home activities, religion, intelligence, and education. "Almost two-sixth percent of the men and women felt their sexual attitudes contributed to the separation. Arguments about the frequency and types of sexual activities became major barriers to living happily together.3"(pp.139-160)
Among married couples, similar issues are the reason why people have other problems. An important wife should stay with in the traditional roles; that is, the man earns a living and the wife stays home and takes care of the house. There are conflicts when women begin having different desires. "In addition, when married women work, they are still expected to do more than their fair share of household and childbearing chores. In effect, they find themselves with two full time jobs."(pp. 98-104: "Understanding") Conflicts over roles is becoming an important factor in whether married couples remain together.
Separations present two challenges to our ability to adjust. On one hand we must cope with the additional stress that enters our lives. Studies of divorced men and women, for example, provide a number of illustrations of the types of stress to which people must adjust. "Divorced men often find themselves working longer hours to meet alimony payments. Since courts usually award the mother the custody of children, men have longer periods of separation from them. Men also find they dislike spending time alone. Many divorced women find themselves in the working field for the first time making less money than their husband did. Feeling helpless, lost, isolated and in a deep state of depression they soon feel trapped by the children and the new responsibility put on them." (pp.56-63: Psychology Today) The division to divorce, the process of a divorce, and the postdivorce adjustment, are all very stressful. It is not uncommon for the divorced partner to experience hurt, resentment, and anger. To many people, divorce signifies failure in an extremely important relationship. Lowwer self-esteem and feelings of worthlessness and reduction are also common and stress producing results. If children are involved, the stress can be even greater. Researchers now believe that the most important influence on the emotional health of children its the quality of their relationships within their family, however that family might be structured, according to Robert Every, a psychologist at the University of Virginia. For example, psychologists used to think that boys needed their father within the home until at least age of seven or eight. Now, they have discovered that the physical presence of a father in the family are warm and supporting adults. This shift occurred partly in recognition of the changing American family and the changing demographics of divorce. The focus on relationships also means that if divorced parents are angry and bitter, children will suffer and they will suffer more if they are exposed more to the conflict through joint custody.4"(pp.20-46) Parent-child interactions may become difficult, because the children of divorced families tend to exhibit more inappropriate behavior that those in intact homes.
Many children respond with anger and fear to divorce. It is also common for children who do feel guilty or in some way responsible for the divorce and to become withdrawn and depressed.
"Most children can adapt to a divorce within a couple of years, but, if the crisis is aggravated by additional stresses or conflicts, serious developmental disruptions may result. Whether children fare well may depend on their temperament, their past experience, their age, and the support they receive from their parents .5"(pp. 189-197) Such parental support is often lacking, because parents are so wrapped up in their own problems during a divorce that their ability to function as parents diminishes. "Although children may fare well in single-parent families, the chances increase that they will face problems. There are many stresses associated with divorce. These include the disruption of bedtimes and eating schedules, the effects of the parents emotional state, and the lessening of adult contact. Also, the level of income in the household usually decreases, and this may produce more stress. Less income may require the parent to move, which in turn may cause the child to behave to change of schools or move to a poorer neighborhood with a higher rate of crime and delinquency."(pp. 170-174)
Divorce is happening every day to couples in the United States. The only problem, is that the couple thinks they are the only ones going through it when almost twenty-two percent of adult America is also. When parents get divorced the children get divorced too. Children and adolescents face a lot of stress during their lives, but divorce is very confusing, speaking from personal experience. It can be too much stress to peoples' lives but they also present opportunities to form new relationships and to strengthen existing ones.
Divorce rates in the United States have increased dramatically in the past 25 years. Over 40 percent of the marriages among young Americans will end in divorce. There is a lot of stress on all the people involved. The man has to deal with, usually, not seeing his children, being alone, and the responsibility that is accompanied with much of the legal process. The wife has to go through, maybe, entering the work force for the first time. Children are often viewed as a back burner issue but more often than none they are the center piece of discussion. The children may begin feeling inadequate around their friends and even in personal esteem. Feeling like it is their fault they might get depressed or perhaps even rebellious. Regardless, divorce is an activity that has become common place in today's family structure, behavior, and morality.
When two people meet and decide their love is strong enough to carry them to the next level marriage is usually the out come. Sometimes they decide to have children and sometimes they don't, but when they do, it usually brings them closer together. All parents have desires and hopes for their children. The way in which parents achieve these ends can differ. Researchers do not agree on which of the child-raising practices is best. But it is known that parents provide role models for their children and that children rely on their parents to teach them about the world.
When a culture's values and traditions undergo a rapid change it becomes difficult to decide which attitudes and beliefs children should be taught. As one researcher has stated, "today's children are the first generation to be raised amid doubt about the role prescriptions that have long gone unchallenged. This makes their socialization especially difficult. Traditionally, socialization was a process of raising the young to fill major roles in society when the present incumbents vacated them. Yet today we do not know what type of society our children will inherit, nor the roles for which they should be prepared. "(pp.34) Divorce along married couples is the most well-documented and studied of the various ways relationships end. According to Dworetzky:
Divorce rates in the United States have increased dramatically in the past 25 years. According to current assessments, over 40 percent of marriages among young Americans will end in divorce, of the children born in the last ten years, almost 50 percent will spend on an average of six years in a one- parent household. Nine out of ten children will reside with their mothers. Between 9 and 11million school-age children in the United States live in one-parent families. About one-half of all divorces occur within the first seven years of marriage with the first two to three years being an especially vulnerable time period for divorce.(pp.47-63)
The actual rate of divorce may only represent a small amount of the problem. It is unknown how many marriages end in non legal separations or how many married people stay together in an empty, essentially dissolved, relationship for the children's sake.
Of course, you do not have to be married to experience a separation from a close relationship. "If we add to the official divorce rate the number of cohabitation couples who break up, those who terminate their engagements to marry, break-up, steady dating partner, or otherwise bow out of a relationship, several million couples end intimate relationships each year.2"(pp.27-28,30)
So, why do people separate? Unmarried couples give us a number of reasons for separation. In one study, researchers followed over 200 couples for a three year period. "During this period of time, more that one-half of them ended the relationship. Seventy-eight percent of the men and women listed boredom as the major reason for the separation.(Kolata: pp, 42) Apparently their romantic, passionate love had lost it's power and there was little else between them. Couples reported other differences in several areas as caused for breaking up, including differences in interests, hobbies, outside of the home activities, religion, intelligence, and education. "Almost two-sixth percent of the men and women felt their sexual attitudes contributed to the separation. Arguments about the frequency and types of sexual activities became major barriers to living happily together.3"(pp.139-160)
Among married couples, similar issues are the reason why people have other problems. An important wife should stay with in the traditional roles; that is, the man earns a living and the wife stays home and takes care of the house. There are conflicts when women begin having different desires. "In addition, when married women work, they are still expected to do more than their fair share of household and childbearing chores. In effect, they find themselves with two full time jobs."(pp. 98-104: "Understanding") Conflicts over roles is becoming an important factor in whether married couples remain together.
Separations present two challenges to our ability to adjust. On one hand we must cope with the additional stress that enters our lives. Studies of divorced men and women, for example, provide a number of illustrations of the types of stress to which people must adjust. "Divorced men often find themselves working longer hours to meet alimony payments. Since courts usually award the mother the custody of children, men have longer periods of separation from them. Men also find they dislike spending time alone. Many divorced women find themselves in the working field for the first time making less money than their husband did. Feeling helpless, lost, isolated and in a deep state of depression they soon feel trapped by the children and the new responsibility put on them." (pp.56-63: Psychology Today) The division to divorce, the process of a divorce, and the postdivorce adjustment, are all very stressful. It is not uncommon for the divorced partner to experience hurt, resentment, and anger. To many people, divorce signifies failure in an extremely important relationship. Lowwer self-esteem and feelings of worthlessness and reduction are also common and stress producing results. If children are involved, the stress can be even greater. Researchers now believe that the most important influence on the emotional health of children its the quality of their relationships within their family, however that family might be structured, according to Robert Every, a psychologist at the University of Virginia. For example, psychologists used to think that boys needed their father within the home until at least age of seven or eight. Now, they have discovered that the physical presence of a father in the family are warm and supporting adults. This shift occurred partly in recognition of the changing American family and the changing demographics of divorce. The focus on relationships also means that if divorced parents are angry and bitter, children will suffer and they will suffer more if they are exposed more to the conflict through joint custody.4"(pp.20-46) Parent-child interactions may become difficult, because the children of divorced families tend to exhibit more inappropriate behavior that those in intact homes.
Many children respond with anger and fear to divorce. It is also common for children who do feel guilty or in some way responsible for the divorce and to become withdrawn and depressed.
"Most children can adapt to a divorce within a couple of years, but, if the crisis is aggravated by additional stresses or conflicts, serious developmental disruptions may result. Whether children fare well may depend on their temperament, their past experience, their age, and the support they receive from their parents .5"(pp. 189-197) Such parental support is often lacking, because parents are so wrapped up in their own problems during a divorce that their ability to function as parents diminishes. "Although children may fare well in single-parent families, the chances increase that they will face problems. There are many stresses associated with divorce. These include the disruption of bedtimes and eating schedules, the effects of the parents emotional state, and the lessening of adult contact. Also, the level of income in the household usually decreases, and this may produce more stress. Less income may require the parent to move, which in turn may cause the child to behave to change of schools or move to a poorer neighborhood with a higher rate of crime and delinquency."(pp. 170-174)
Divorce is happening every day to couples in the United States. The only problem, is that the couple thinks they are the only ones going through it when almost twenty-two percent of adult America is also. When parents get divorced the children get divorced too. Children and adolescents face a lot of stress during their lives, but divorce is very confusing, speaking from personal experience. It can be too much stress to peoples' lives but they also present opportunities to form new relationships and to strengthen existing ones.
Death Penalty
Death Penalty
In the eighteenth century,England would punish by death for
pickpocketing and petty theft. Ever since the 1650's colonist could be
put to death for denying the true god or cursing their parents advocates.
Capital Punishment have clashed almost continuously in the forum of public
opinion in state legislatures and most recently in courts. In 1972,the
case of furman vs.Georgia reached the supreme court. The court decided
that punishment by death did indeed violate the eighth amendment to
containing that "excessive fines imposed,nor cruel and unusual punishment
inflicted." By this decision death sentences all over the country were set
aside. The three most common death penalties are the gas chamber,lethal
injection,and the electric chair. Capital punishment has become an
increasingly controversial issue over many decades. The problem lies
between, is the death penalty being accepted in murder cases or ruled out
completely. While some people feel that Capital Punishment will not
discourage crime, Capital punishment should be legalized in all states,
because it is morally just and it will deter crime.
The many opponents of capital punishment who are against it feel that
the death penalty is not a deterrent and that it is barbariaertic of the
past. It has no place in a civilized society today. One of the biggest
arguments against capital punishment is people feel that it violates the
eighth amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. People
against Capital Punishment believe the death penalty is absurd and is in
un-christian practice. Further more, they feel society should not"
encourage sentiments of vengenance cater to morbid interest in ritual
execution." Criminologists also built a strong case that the threat of
death failed to deter murder, anymore effectively than prison. Therefore,
to inflict harm to one,it is simply useless.
However, the punishment fits the crime therefore, it is morally just.
Capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at
offensive conduct. This may be appealing to many but it is essential in an
ordered society. It asks our citizens to rely on legal procedures rather
than to self-help their wrongs doings. It is morally right to sentence a
person to the death penalty who has commited a serious crime as murder. If
someone has murdered a person it is unethical to let the murderer live when
you have an innocent person who is dead. Capital Punishment has to be
based entirely on consideration of justice and morality.
Finally, the death penalty is a deterrent against crimes. Statistics
show that the crime rate is reduced in all states that hold the death
penalty. The point given to these people is that they are less likely to
commit a crime knowing they will receive the ultimate punishment to kill.
"No other punishment deters men so effectively from committing crimes as
the punishment of death". Still, Capital Punishment is supported by many
Americans. They usually rely on deterrence as their main reason to deter
people from committing serious crimes. Hopefully Capital Punishment will
be legalized in many states to eliminate violence from american life.
Many people feel Capital Punishment will not discourage crime . It
promotes murder rather than deter it. A desire for suicide is what leads
some murders to their criminal acts. Capital Punishment should remain
legalized in all states. The two main reasons are it is morally just and
it will deter crime. The way our society is today we need to continue on
with the death penalty. It deters other murders and it protects our
society from them. Clearly, the usage of the death penalty will force crime
to be unacceptable in our world and protect our citizens.
In the eighteenth century,England would punish by death for
pickpocketing and petty theft. Ever since the 1650's colonist could be
put to death for denying the true god or cursing their parents advocates.
Capital Punishment have clashed almost continuously in the forum of public
opinion in state legislatures and most recently in courts. In 1972,the
case of furman vs.Georgia reached the supreme court. The court decided
that punishment by death did indeed violate the eighth amendment to
containing that "excessive fines imposed,nor cruel and unusual punishment
inflicted." By this decision death sentences all over the country were set
aside. The three most common death penalties are the gas chamber,lethal
injection,and the electric chair. Capital punishment has become an
increasingly controversial issue over many decades. The problem lies
between, is the death penalty being accepted in murder cases or ruled out
completely. While some people feel that Capital Punishment will not
discourage crime, Capital punishment should be legalized in all states,
because it is morally just and it will deter crime.
The many opponents of capital punishment who are against it feel that
the death penalty is not a deterrent and that it is barbariaertic of the
past. It has no place in a civilized society today. One of the biggest
arguments against capital punishment is people feel that it violates the
eighth amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. People
against Capital Punishment believe the death penalty is absurd and is in
un-christian practice. Further more, they feel society should not"
encourage sentiments of vengenance cater to morbid interest in ritual
execution." Criminologists also built a strong case that the threat of
death failed to deter murder, anymore effectively than prison. Therefore,
to inflict harm to one,it is simply useless.
However, the punishment fits the crime therefore, it is morally just.
Capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at
offensive conduct. This may be appealing to many but it is essential in an
ordered society. It asks our citizens to rely on legal procedures rather
than to self-help their wrongs doings. It is morally right to sentence a
person to the death penalty who has commited a serious crime as murder. If
someone has murdered a person it is unethical to let the murderer live when
you have an innocent person who is dead. Capital Punishment has to be
based entirely on consideration of justice and morality.
Finally, the death penalty is a deterrent against crimes. Statistics
show that the crime rate is reduced in all states that hold the death
penalty. The point given to these people is that they are less likely to
commit a crime knowing they will receive the ultimate punishment to kill.
"No other punishment deters men so effectively from committing crimes as
the punishment of death". Still, Capital Punishment is supported by many
Americans. They usually rely on deterrence as their main reason to deter
people from committing serious crimes. Hopefully Capital Punishment will
be legalized in many states to eliminate violence from american life.
Many people feel Capital Punishment will not discourage crime . It
promotes murder rather than deter it. A desire for suicide is what leads
some murders to their criminal acts. Capital Punishment should remain
legalized in all states. The two main reasons are it is morally just and
it will deter crime. The way our society is today we need to continue on
with the death penalty. It deters other murders and it protects our
society from them. Clearly, the usage of the death penalty will force crime
to be unacceptable in our world and protect our citizens.
Death Penalty and the Eight Amendment
The expression "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" has taken on a whole new meaning. Lately, murderers have been getting a punishment equal to their crime, death. In 1967, executions in the United States were temporarily suspended to give the federal appellate courts time to decide whether or not the death penalty was unconstitutional. Then, in 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of "Furman versus Georgia" that the death penalty violated the Eight Amendments. According to the Eighth Amendment, "Excessive bail shall not be required, no excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted." After the Supreme Court made this ruling, states reviewed their death penalty laws. In 1976, in the case of "Gregg versus Georgia" the Supreme Court ruled state death penalty laws were not unconstitutional. Presently in the United States the death penalty can only be used as punishment for intentional killing. Still, the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment and should be outlawed in the United States.
Currently in the United States there are five methods used for executing criminals: the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, hanging, and firing squad, each of them equally cruel and unusual in there own ways.
When a person is sentenced to death by electrocution he strapped to a chair and electrodes are attached to his head and leg. The amount of voltage is raised and lowered a few times and death is supposed to occur within three minutes. Three whole minutes with electricity flowing through someone's body, while his flesh burns. Three minutes may not seem like a very long time, but to someone who is waiting for his body to die, three minutes can feel like an eternity.
Three minutes is the approximate time it takes for a person to die if everything goes right, but in some cases it takes longer for people to die. In 1990, Jesse Tafero, a prisoner in Florida, remained conscious for four minutes while witnesses watched ashes fall from his head. In Georgia in 1984, it took nearly twenty minutes for Alpha Otis Stephens to die. At 12:18 am on December 12, he was shocked with electricity for two minutes, and his body still showed signs of life. The doctors had to wait six minutes to examine his body because it was too hot to touch. Stephens was still alive, so he was electrocuted for another two minutes. Finally at 12:37 am doctors pronounced him dead.
When a person is executed in the gas chamber he is strapped to a chair in an airtight room. A cyanide pellet is dropped in sulfuric acid, which forms a lethal gas. The prisoner remains conscious for a few minutes while struggling to breath. These gas chambers are similar to the ones used by the Nazi's in World War II concentration camps. Fifty years ago, America was quick to condemn the Germans for persecuting Jew's, but, today, in 1996 Americans execute their own people the exact same way.
Lethal injection is the newest form of execution in the United States. The person being executed is injected with a deadly dose of barbiturates through an intravenous tube in his arm. This method is considered the most humane and efficient way of execution, but a federal judge noted that "a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation." Since 1985 there have been three botched injections in Texas alone. In one case it took 24 minutes to kill a criminal because the tube leaked and sprayed the chemicals towards the witnesses. In 1989, too weak a dosage of drugs caused Stephen McCoy to choke and heave for several minutes before he died.
Hanging used to be the most common way to execute a person, but now it is only used in Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Washington. Hanging is not a very useful way of execution, because if the drop is too short the person being executed dies through gradual strangulation and if the rope is too long the person's head is ripped off. There is no punishment more unusual then having your head ripped off, so the death penalty is in direct violation with the Constitution.
When someone is executed by a firing squad he is strapped to a chair and has a target attached to his chest. Then five marksmen aim for the target and fire. Having people being paid to shot at a target on someone's chest is not only cruel, but humiliating for the person being executed.
The death penalty by itself is a cruel and unusual punishment, but the treatment of prisoners before being executed is also cruel and unusual. In August 1995 Robert Breechen was scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma. He attempted to commit suicide, but authorities revived him, then executed him hours later. In Illinois last November, the state gave death row inmate John del Vecchio two heart surgeries and then executed him in December. Richard Town's execution in Virginia was delayed for twenty two minutes while they looked for a vein to inject.
The death penalty is the ultimate form of punishment, because there is no way to reverse its effects. It will end up taking the lives of innocent victims as long as there is fault in the justice system. The death penalty contradicts the whole idea of human rights. Human rights are significant because "some means may never be used to protect society because their use violates the values that make society worth protecting."
"From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death....I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies." -- Justice Harry Blackmun.
Supporters of the death penalty believe that the death penalty helps keep the crime and murder rate down, but that is not so. States with death penalty laws do not have lower crime or rates than states that with death penalty laws. Also, by incarcerating criminals for life, instead of executing them, it makes them think about what they did and forces them to live with the consequences of their actions.
The death penalty violates our constitutional rights and should be made illegal. It directly contradicts the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." If the death penalty is not "cruel and unusual punishment" then what is? Is there possibly anything more cruel then dying a slow death while breathing in lethal fumes, or anything more unusual then watching people who are paid to shoot at the target on your chest? The Bill of Rights was established to protect the rights of the people and now Americans are taking away these rights from their own countrymen.
Currently in the United States there are five methods used for executing criminals: the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, hanging, and firing squad, each of them equally cruel and unusual in there own ways.
When a person is sentenced to death by electrocution he strapped to a chair and electrodes are attached to his head and leg. The amount of voltage is raised and lowered a few times and death is supposed to occur within three minutes. Three whole minutes with electricity flowing through someone's body, while his flesh burns. Three minutes may not seem like a very long time, but to someone who is waiting for his body to die, three minutes can feel like an eternity.
Three minutes is the approximate time it takes for a person to die if everything goes right, but in some cases it takes longer for people to die. In 1990, Jesse Tafero, a prisoner in Florida, remained conscious for four minutes while witnesses watched ashes fall from his head. In Georgia in 1984, it took nearly twenty minutes for Alpha Otis Stephens to die. At 12:18 am on December 12, he was shocked with electricity for two minutes, and his body still showed signs of life. The doctors had to wait six minutes to examine his body because it was too hot to touch. Stephens was still alive, so he was electrocuted for another two minutes. Finally at 12:37 am doctors pronounced him dead.
When a person is executed in the gas chamber he is strapped to a chair in an airtight room. A cyanide pellet is dropped in sulfuric acid, which forms a lethal gas. The prisoner remains conscious for a few minutes while struggling to breath. These gas chambers are similar to the ones used by the Nazi's in World War II concentration camps. Fifty years ago, America was quick to condemn the Germans for persecuting Jew's, but, today, in 1996 Americans execute their own people the exact same way.
Lethal injection is the newest form of execution in the United States. The person being executed is injected with a deadly dose of barbiturates through an intravenous tube in his arm. This method is considered the most humane and efficient way of execution, but a federal judge noted that "a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation." Since 1985 there have been three botched injections in Texas alone. In one case it took 24 minutes to kill a criminal because the tube leaked and sprayed the chemicals towards the witnesses. In 1989, too weak a dosage of drugs caused Stephen McCoy to choke and heave for several minutes before he died.
Hanging used to be the most common way to execute a person, but now it is only used in Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Washington. Hanging is not a very useful way of execution, because if the drop is too short the person being executed dies through gradual strangulation and if the rope is too long the person's head is ripped off. There is no punishment more unusual then having your head ripped off, so the death penalty is in direct violation with the Constitution.
When someone is executed by a firing squad he is strapped to a chair and has a target attached to his chest. Then five marksmen aim for the target and fire. Having people being paid to shot at a target on someone's chest is not only cruel, but humiliating for the person being executed.
The death penalty by itself is a cruel and unusual punishment, but the treatment of prisoners before being executed is also cruel and unusual. In August 1995 Robert Breechen was scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma. He attempted to commit suicide, but authorities revived him, then executed him hours later. In Illinois last November, the state gave death row inmate John del Vecchio two heart surgeries and then executed him in December. Richard Town's execution in Virginia was delayed for twenty two minutes while they looked for a vein to inject.
The death penalty is the ultimate form of punishment, because there is no way to reverse its effects. It will end up taking the lives of innocent victims as long as there is fault in the justice system. The death penalty contradicts the whole idea of human rights. Human rights are significant because "some means may never be used to protect society because their use violates the values that make society worth protecting."
"From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death....I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies." -- Justice Harry Blackmun.
Supporters of the death penalty believe that the death penalty helps keep the crime and murder rate down, but that is not so. States with death penalty laws do not have lower crime or rates than states that with death penalty laws. Also, by incarcerating criminals for life, instead of executing them, it makes them think about what they did and forces them to live with the consequences of their actions.
The death penalty violates our constitutional rights and should be made illegal. It directly contradicts the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." If the death penalty is not "cruel and unusual punishment" then what is? Is there possibly anything more cruel then dying a slow death while breathing in lethal fumes, or anything more unusual then watching people who are paid to shoot at the target on your chest? The Bill of Rights was established to protect the rights of the people and now Americans are taking away these rights from their own countrymen.
Dear Mr Johnson
Dear Mr.Johnson,
This Letter is on the issue of closed campus, in my opinion this should not even be an issue. Haslett High Scholl students should be able to go out during lunch, we have a right to choose what we pay for and we have the right to seek a comfortable environment. I have very strong reasons to back up my opinion.
If I want to not wait in line for at least five to eight minutes for food I must skip the trip to my locker and lag around a heavy bag which has my first, second, third and fourth hour books in it. This brings up another serious problem in Haslett schools; room! In four corners it's practically a mosh pit after every hour, this is a whole separate problem which needs immediate attention. Once I finally get my lunch I have a second much harder task to tackle; finding a seat. The Cafeteria is way over capacity and simply can't handle the amount of people that is must. After I have everything I can start eating, by this time I have wasted away twenty minutes of my precious lunch period. Mr.Johnson, this is just not a suitable lunch arrangement.
I must mention of second problem with lunchtime, this is even more pressing than the first. Lunch Prices have been growing drastically and with no reason at all, this could mean the school is pressed for money so you look for the simple solution and make us, the consumers, pay more. I have heard that this large amount of extra money is going towards better quality food; get real folks how can you improve the quality of fries and pizza? And what can the students do about this? Packing a lunch could solve some problems but this is a major inconvenience to most. With today's busy life style people just don't have the time to pack lunches. Instead we students are forced to deal with over crowded lunch rooms and incredibly unfair prices. Mr. Johnson this is just not suitable for a highly rated school system such as ours.
I believe that when a young adult is denied much of his or her freedom it has a rather disappointing outcome. Put your self in my shoes for a short time, if you were not allowed to do anything much more than do homework and stay in the house day and night what would you do? I would abuse my freedoms the second and was able to and probably destroy my body in the process. I am not saying that a closed campus policy will make kids party and do drugs, I am saying it helps contribute. When the program D.A.R.E was put into operation it was a good idea, however when the D.A.R.E program was ran about four to five times on the same student it was a huge mistake. It made kids egar to try drugs, I didn't just make this up either. I had a talk with some freshman that had a real good dose of D.A.R.E and this is the message they conveyed to me. This is an example of what denying kids privileges can do.
The solution to all these problems is easy, just go back to the old policy of letting kids leave campus for lunch. There are new food facilities closer by which will cut down on last minute arrivals. Its wrong to treat students like small children, if you treat us like children then we will act like children and do stupid things. If you give us some responsibility we just may start acting more like adults.
Thank you for your time
Bobby Weaver
This Letter is on the issue of closed campus, in my opinion this should not even be an issue. Haslett High Scholl students should be able to go out during lunch, we have a right to choose what we pay for and we have the right to seek a comfortable environment. I have very strong reasons to back up my opinion.
If I want to not wait in line for at least five to eight minutes for food I must skip the trip to my locker and lag around a heavy bag which has my first, second, third and fourth hour books in it. This brings up another serious problem in Haslett schools; room! In four corners it's practically a mosh pit after every hour, this is a whole separate problem which needs immediate attention. Once I finally get my lunch I have a second much harder task to tackle; finding a seat. The Cafeteria is way over capacity and simply can't handle the amount of people that is must. After I have everything I can start eating, by this time I have wasted away twenty minutes of my precious lunch period. Mr.Johnson, this is just not a suitable lunch arrangement.
I must mention of second problem with lunchtime, this is even more pressing than the first. Lunch Prices have been growing drastically and with no reason at all, this could mean the school is pressed for money so you look for the simple solution and make us, the consumers, pay more. I have heard that this large amount of extra money is going towards better quality food; get real folks how can you improve the quality of fries and pizza? And what can the students do about this? Packing a lunch could solve some problems but this is a major inconvenience to most. With today's busy life style people just don't have the time to pack lunches. Instead we students are forced to deal with over crowded lunch rooms and incredibly unfair prices. Mr. Johnson this is just not suitable for a highly rated school system such as ours.
I believe that when a young adult is denied much of his or her freedom it has a rather disappointing outcome. Put your self in my shoes for a short time, if you were not allowed to do anything much more than do homework and stay in the house day and night what would you do? I would abuse my freedoms the second and was able to and probably destroy my body in the process. I am not saying that a closed campus policy will make kids party and do drugs, I am saying it helps contribute. When the program D.A.R.E was put into operation it was a good idea, however when the D.A.R.E program was ran about four to five times on the same student it was a huge mistake. It made kids egar to try drugs, I didn't just make this up either. I had a talk with some freshman that had a real good dose of D.A.R.E and this is the message they conveyed to me. This is an example of what denying kids privileges can do.
The solution to all these problems is easy, just go back to the old policy of letting kids leave campus for lunch. There are new food facilities closer by which will cut down on last minute arrivals. Its wrong to treat students like small children, if you treat us like children then we will act like children and do stupid things. If you give us some responsibility we just may start acting more like adults.
Thank you for your time
Bobby Weaver
Date Rape
In an ideal world, all men would be caring , respectful, and protective. This
is not an ideal world; every woman has a responsibility to herself and to
understand the risks and to protect herself fagainst them (Date Rape: The Danger
is Not From a Stranger 13). One of the biggest risks from a male to a female is
date rape. Date rape is the crime in which the victim, most of them women, is
forced in to having sexual intercourse by someone they are familiar with (1). 1 in
4 women will be raped in their life time. This is a very scary, yet true statistic.
Women need to understand what is going on with the situation of date rape, and be
looked on less as the problem, so more women will come out and report the
incident. It is not in any way the woman's fault for being the victim of date rape,
but it is the fault of the rapist, and the rapist should pay the consequences.
The question might come up...why would a man force a woman to have sex, or
why would a woman doubt that it happened, or that she was forced? Well, there
are many reasons. A lot of these reasons having to do with how American kids are
raised. Boys are brought up thinking they are strong and aggressive, while on the
other hand, girls are brought up being passive and "what you say goes" (Shuker-
Haines and Stark 23) . This shouldn't be going on in our society...not with the
advancements we have made in our country.
It is sometimes said that the woman who was the victim of rape shared fault
for the rape for wearing a skirt too short, or maybe if she stops over at his house.
It shouldn't matter what women wear, or where they are. If a woman says no to
sexual activity, then everything should stop. There are also ways that men "mis-
interperate" things women say. For instance, when women say "no", they mean
"not yet...keep trying", or men think it is okay to be rough, as long as there is no
injury, or if the women agrees to kidding, necking, etc...then she wants intercourse.
Some men also look at women as "fair game" if the woman is not a virgin. There
seems to also be confusion whether rape was commited in instances like when a
sexually active couple had been drinking and the woman says no to having sex, but
is too drunk to do anything so sex occurs. Or perhaps earlier in the date she said
okay, and then change her mind, or maybe the woman said no, and the man
persuaded her to. Are these instances rape? More women then men say yes.
There are no laws to destinquish these situations (Date Rape: The Danger in Not
From the Stranger 6). There shouldn't have to be laws to say when it is rape. If a
woman says "no", she means "no". No one should ever force shomeone else to
have sex against their will. That's rape. And rape is the fault of the rapist, not the
victim (qtd. in Shucker-Haines and Stark 22).
It is hard enough for a woman to come out and admit her story of being
raped, but it is harder when she tells her story and it isn't even given two glances.
In San Jose, California, a girl was raped by her boyfriend and when sh came out
and talked about it, the school ignored the issue (Herald 2). The school stated that
they should stay out of it because it was too hard to prove, and that it was only her
word against his (2). The crime of rape should not be over- looked in such a way.
Rape is looked as a crime of assult. Like other assults rape causes physical and
mental injuries. It especially causes a long and painful emotional aftermath for the
victim. The rapist who caused all of this for his victim has a chance of serving jail
terms, perhpas lasting for years, but so many times rapists walk because "there
wasn't proof". In these situations like that judges look at what kind of people the
man and the woman are, and what their relationship is. That's called sterotyping.
We are taught not to sterotype (Date Rape: The Danger is Not From the Stranger
3).
In some cases, women take a stand, and when the case is being looked at, and
possibly proved, women will come back to the police and ask to drop the charges
saying things like "I was wrong...we were making love" (Hennessy 3). Women
need to be strong as well as be educated with what date rape is. They can't back
down on their gaurd. Rapists need to pay for how they abuse women, both
externally as well as internally. A 1988 study showed that more than half the
female teens surveyed thought there were times when it would be acceptable for a
man to force sex (Date Rape: The Danger is Not From the Stranger 10). This is
terrible! It is not a woman's fault that she was forced into sex! In the 1993-94 law
enforcement records, 35% of the women who reported thier rapes dropped or
diverted the charges for "various reasons" (4). Women need to face the situation
head on and be independent...realizing what happened to her is not okay...and
things need to be done.
is not an ideal world; every woman has a responsibility to herself and to
understand the risks and to protect herself fagainst them (Date Rape: The Danger
is Not From a Stranger 13). One of the biggest risks from a male to a female is
date rape. Date rape is the crime in which the victim, most of them women, is
forced in to having sexual intercourse by someone they are familiar with (1). 1 in
4 women will be raped in their life time. This is a very scary, yet true statistic.
Women need to understand what is going on with the situation of date rape, and be
looked on less as the problem, so more women will come out and report the
incident. It is not in any way the woman's fault for being the victim of date rape,
but it is the fault of the rapist, and the rapist should pay the consequences.
The question might come up...why would a man force a woman to have sex, or
why would a woman doubt that it happened, or that she was forced? Well, there
are many reasons. A lot of these reasons having to do with how American kids are
raised. Boys are brought up thinking they are strong and aggressive, while on the
other hand, girls are brought up being passive and "what you say goes" (Shuker-
Haines and Stark 23) . This shouldn't be going on in our society...not with the
advancements we have made in our country.
It is sometimes said that the woman who was the victim of rape shared fault
for the rape for wearing a skirt too short, or maybe if she stops over at his house.
It shouldn't matter what women wear, or where they are. If a woman says no to
sexual activity, then everything should stop. There are also ways that men "mis-
interperate" things women say. For instance, when women say "no", they mean
"not yet...keep trying", or men think it is okay to be rough, as long as there is no
injury, or if the women agrees to kidding, necking, etc...then she wants intercourse.
Some men also look at women as "fair game" if the woman is not a virgin. There
seems to also be confusion whether rape was commited in instances like when a
sexually active couple had been drinking and the woman says no to having sex, but
is too drunk to do anything so sex occurs. Or perhaps earlier in the date she said
okay, and then change her mind, or maybe the woman said no, and the man
persuaded her to. Are these instances rape? More women then men say yes.
There are no laws to destinquish these situations (Date Rape: The Danger in Not
From the Stranger 6). There shouldn't have to be laws to say when it is rape. If a
woman says "no", she means "no". No one should ever force shomeone else to
have sex against their will. That's rape. And rape is the fault of the rapist, not the
victim (qtd. in Shucker-Haines and Stark 22).
It is hard enough for a woman to come out and admit her story of being
raped, but it is harder when she tells her story and it isn't even given two glances.
In San Jose, California, a girl was raped by her boyfriend and when sh came out
and talked about it, the school ignored the issue (Herald 2). The school stated that
they should stay out of it because it was too hard to prove, and that it was only her
word against his (2). The crime of rape should not be over- looked in such a way.
Rape is looked as a crime of assult. Like other assults rape causes physical and
mental injuries. It especially causes a long and painful emotional aftermath for the
victim. The rapist who caused all of this for his victim has a chance of serving jail
terms, perhpas lasting for years, but so many times rapists walk because "there
wasn't proof". In these situations like that judges look at what kind of people the
man and the woman are, and what their relationship is. That's called sterotyping.
We are taught not to sterotype (Date Rape: The Danger is Not From the Stranger
3).
In some cases, women take a stand, and when the case is being looked at, and
possibly proved, women will come back to the police and ask to drop the charges
saying things like "I was wrong...we were making love" (Hennessy 3). Women
need to be strong as well as be educated with what date rape is. They can't back
down on their gaurd. Rapists need to pay for how they abuse women, both
externally as well as internally. A 1988 study showed that more than half the
female teens surveyed thought there were times when it would be acceptable for a
man to force sex (Date Rape: The Danger is Not From the Stranger 10). This is
terrible! It is not a woman's fault that she was forced into sex! In the 1993-94 law
enforcement records, 35% of the women who reported thier rapes dropped or
diverted the charges for "various reasons" (4). Women need to face the situation
head on and be independent...realizing what happened to her is not okay...and
things need to be done.
Dangerous driving and the effects on Youth
In today's society, dangerous driving is criminal and is also considered to be deviant. There are different levels of dangerous driving, all of which have different meaning to different people, some are considered part of the social norm and others are considered to be deviant. Speeding for example is considered to be a norm of society. Everyone speeds and this is not considered a problem which needs societies immediate attention, however there is a line which changes speeding from being a criminal offense to a deviant offense. The following analysis will provide a descriptive summary of the functionalist perspective, the social control theory and the power control theory.
These theories have been applied to a news story in which two young teens from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Renee and Danielle Orichefsky, were killed in a dangerous driving accident. The driver was Ralph Parker, a twenty year old man from Halifax who lost control of his sports car as he attempted to make a turn on the corner where the girls were sitting. This article involves the day of Mr. Park's conviction, the reaction of the girls' parents and also the reaction of Mr. Park's mother.
The problem of dangerous driving as viewed from a theoretical standpoint can easily be identified with the social control theory. The control theory questions not what motivates individuals and society in general to indulge in societal deviant behaviour but rather examines what is within the structure of a society that causes individuals to conform to social laws. A social control theorist would argue that it is social pressures that prevent people from acting out in deviant manners; otherwise people would act upon inborn animal impulses. In this case, Mr. Park it seems felt the need to drive his sports car very fast and dangerously because it catered to his instinctive need for excitement. If Mr. Park had been thinking about the possible consequences of killing two young girls, he may have decided to slow down and be a little more careful. This is because murder is a deviant act in our society and committing murder would not be socially acceptable. Thus it can be concluded that that the structure and organization of society is very influential in determining the conduct of individuals in our society.
There are inner and outer controls related to the theory of social control. Inner controls are considered as norms which have been internalized through the socialization process. They are norms which are learned in the home at a young age, and which are very relevant to an individuals level of self control. The key players in inner controls would of course be the parents. In this article, Mr. Parker's mother is spoken of, but there is no mention of his father. Because there doesn't seem to be a father in this family, a social control theorist might say that this may have had an impact on how Mr. Parker feels about social and criminal laws.
Outer controls might have a strong impact on dangerous driving. That is both formal controls as the threat of conviction and informal controls, such as humiliation in front of friends, family and society as a whole. Society may discount him from being a valuable member of society because his actions are unforgivable by our society's standards. People are frowned upon for reckless driving, and they are shunned for murder, which is how people may interpret this horrible event. Both inner and outer controls are extremely efficient, in suppressing behaviour that is considered to be socially deviant and non-conformist. Thus, according to the social control theory, when the strength of inner and outer controls are powerful and pressuring, the levels of deviance will be lower. On the other hand, if an individual's controls are weak, and outside societal influences are lower, then the level of deviance will increase.
In relation to this article which considering dangerous driving, an individual's inner self control, that is their ability to restrain from acting in such a manner, is an important factor in determining what one's decision will be. The outer pressure from friends and family also has an influence. A social control theorist may read this article and consider this person as someone who did not conform with the ideals or society because his inner desires were to strong, or because his inner and outer controls were too weak.
The theory of functionalism states that there is a use in society for deviance and crime. The funtionalist approach considers four arguments as to why this may be true, the first of which is group solidarity. The theory behind the creation of group solidarity is that the fatal accident killing two young girls will likely scare people. This can bring the community closer together because everyone feels the loss when young people die needlessly. They will think of the hurt that the parents and the girls' must be feeling; this will create a sense of community. The community may also think that something happened to this young man to make him take such a risk in driving the way he did. The feeling that most people have in a city is fear. People don't speak to one another if they are strangers. The difference after an accident like this is that people will be a little more open to other people, at least they can speak of this accident and how it has affected them. Durkheim would be annoyed that this article does not include any mention of the community and the changes that may be coming about as a result of this accident.
The clarification of boundaries is the second argument that functionalists use to support the usefulness of deviance and crime. In our society, speeding is not deviant, however, there is a line that distinguishes what is harmful speeding and what is considered normal. Most drivers speed and they do not consider that to be a deviant offense, even though it is illegal. It has not always been deviant, but that has changed because there have been so many lives lost needlessly. Reckless driving is also criminal and deviant, but not to the extent in which dangerous driving is deviant. In this article, the driver is seen as a murderer.
This article does not really specify that any boundaries could be redefined because the actual events of that day are not clear. Mr. Parker's conviction is dangerous driving, but the definition of dangerous driving that stems from this article is killing two young people, trying to clarify boundaries in this case may be hard. People will still speed if they think that their speeding is not dangerous. They may also decide not to speed around the corner where these two young girls were killed. People can take this story and construct their own definition of dangerous driving and drive differently than that. It seems that it may not be possible or completely effective in clarifying boundaries in this case, but this article will most definitely make people think of their own personal boundary for driving speed and actions.
The social control theory rewards conformity. People can compare themselves to the deviant and feel good that they are not dangerous drivers and that they did not kill two people. The article states "The Crown said Mr. Parker was showing off and had ample opportunity to bring the car under control it hit the teenagers." People can compare themselves to this person by saying "I would not have done that", or " I would have been in control of the car". This allows people who don't drive recklessly to get some sort of validation for their caution when driving.
Innovation is the fourth argument for the function of crime and deviance. Changes may be made to solve the problem of dangerous driving. Accidents like this make people realize that there is a problem and they might have to take action to improve the situation. "Justice MacDonald said he would be open to consider, as part of Mr. Parker's sentence that he be required to explain his experience to other young people." One part of Mr. Parker's sentence is an example of this innovation. Mr. Parker is required to tell his story to young people so that they will realize the consequences that will face them if they decide to drive their cars recklessly. This is a move to prevent deaths from dangerous driving.
The power control theory considers four aspects of the making of a juvenile delinquent, they are: family class structure, Social reproduction of gender relations, risk taking and formal state of control. This theory is based on the belief that juvenile delinquency is fun. This person who has been convicted, Ralph Parker is not a juvenile, but his reckless behaviour might lead a power control theorist to believe that he was also reckless as a child.
Family class structure is not mentioned in this article, it is not apparent whether Mr. Parker comes from a lower, middle or upper class family. To a power control theorist, this is a big problem because, a lot can be discovered about this person and their feelings toward authority if the back ground is known. Mr. Parker was driving a late model sports car which he had only owned for a couple of months. This makes the reader assume that he is wealthy and that implies that his family may also be wealthy. However this is not factual and makes analysis difficult.
It is possible that a power control theorist would assume this young person came from a wealthy back ground and this would imply that this man may have been deviant as a child. In his teen years, he might have also had a car and nice clothes, as well as the ability to talk his way around his parents and teachers because he had a wealthy background. If this was the case, he was also likely involved in many sports and other extra-curricular activities which would make him well known to his peers and teachers. He may never have been caught doing anything wrong because he appeared to be a well rounded behaved young man who no one would accuse of giving in to deviant behaviour.
Social reproduction of gender relations can be useful in analysing this article because this young man took on the role of the "real man" who drives fast and looks cool. This is a stereotype which we have seen for many years and has not and likely will not cease to exist. A man who drives slowly and with caution is portrayed as a wimp. A power control theorist would say that this young man was playing on the "natural " male instinct to drive in this manner and have some fun.
Risk taking, which is the another factor is very relevant to this case because Mr. Parker took a risk in driving dangerously. The irony in this case is that people who speed or drive recklessly do not see the danger of killing people as the big risk when they are offending. They are more concerned with the risk of being caught by the police for the crime that they are committing. Someone who is driving recklessly knows the consequences of having an accident, but they may not be important to that person at the time of their action which is deviant.
Formal state of control considers that opportunities to deviate are more restricted for females than males. The freedom to take risk is given to boys, this may have been the case in Mr. Parker's family, he (it is assumed) did not have a father figure and took direction from his mother. A power-control theorist would argue that women give more freedom to their sons.
These theories have been applied to a news story in which two young teens from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Renee and Danielle Orichefsky, were killed in a dangerous driving accident. The driver was Ralph Parker, a twenty year old man from Halifax who lost control of his sports car as he attempted to make a turn on the corner where the girls were sitting. This article involves the day of Mr. Park's conviction, the reaction of the girls' parents and also the reaction of Mr. Park's mother.
The problem of dangerous driving as viewed from a theoretical standpoint can easily be identified with the social control theory. The control theory questions not what motivates individuals and society in general to indulge in societal deviant behaviour but rather examines what is within the structure of a society that causes individuals to conform to social laws. A social control theorist would argue that it is social pressures that prevent people from acting out in deviant manners; otherwise people would act upon inborn animal impulses. In this case, Mr. Park it seems felt the need to drive his sports car very fast and dangerously because it catered to his instinctive need for excitement. If Mr. Park had been thinking about the possible consequences of killing two young girls, he may have decided to slow down and be a little more careful. This is because murder is a deviant act in our society and committing murder would not be socially acceptable. Thus it can be concluded that that the structure and organization of society is very influential in determining the conduct of individuals in our society.
There are inner and outer controls related to the theory of social control. Inner controls are considered as norms which have been internalized through the socialization process. They are norms which are learned in the home at a young age, and which are very relevant to an individuals level of self control. The key players in inner controls would of course be the parents. In this article, Mr. Parker's mother is spoken of, but there is no mention of his father. Because there doesn't seem to be a father in this family, a social control theorist might say that this may have had an impact on how Mr. Parker feels about social and criminal laws.
Outer controls might have a strong impact on dangerous driving. That is both formal controls as the threat of conviction and informal controls, such as humiliation in front of friends, family and society as a whole. Society may discount him from being a valuable member of society because his actions are unforgivable by our society's standards. People are frowned upon for reckless driving, and they are shunned for murder, which is how people may interpret this horrible event. Both inner and outer controls are extremely efficient, in suppressing behaviour that is considered to be socially deviant and non-conformist. Thus, according to the social control theory, when the strength of inner and outer controls are powerful and pressuring, the levels of deviance will be lower. On the other hand, if an individual's controls are weak, and outside societal influences are lower, then the level of deviance will increase.
In relation to this article which considering dangerous driving, an individual's inner self control, that is their ability to restrain from acting in such a manner, is an important factor in determining what one's decision will be. The outer pressure from friends and family also has an influence. A social control theorist may read this article and consider this person as someone who did not conform with the ideals or society because his inner desires were to strong, or because his inner and outer controls were too weak.
The theory of functionalism states that there is a use in society for deviance and crime. The funtionalist approach considers four arguments as to why this may be true, the first of which is group solidarity. The theory behind the creation of group solidarity is that the fatal accident killing two young girls will likely scare people. This can bring the community closer together because everyone feels the loss when young people die needlessly. They will think of the hurt that the parents and the girls' must be feeling; this will create a sense of community. The community may also think that something happened to this young man to make him take such a risk in driving the way he did. The feeling that most people have in a city is fear. People don't speak to one another if they are strangers. The difference after an accident like this is that people will be a little more open to other people, at least they can speak of this accident and how it has affected them. Durkheim would be annoyed that this article does not include any mention of the community and the changes that may be coming about as a result of this accident.
The clarification of boundaries is the second argument that functionalists use to support the usefulness of deviance and crime. In our society, speeding is not deviant, however, there is a line that distinguishes what is harmful speeding and what is considered normal. Most drivers speed and they do not consider that to be a deviant offense, even though it is illegal. It has not always been deviant, but that has changed because there have been so many lives lost needlessly. Reckless driving is also criminal and deviant, but not to the extent in which dangerous driving is deviant. In this article, the driver is seen as a murderer.
This article does not really specify that any boundaries could be redefined because the actual events of that day are not clear. Mr. Parker's conviction is dangerous driving, but the definition of dangerous driving that stems from this article is killing two young people, trying to clarify boundaries in this case may be hard. People will still speed if they think that their speeding is not dangerous. They may also decide not to speed around the corner where these two young girls were killed. People can take this story and construct their own definition of dangerous driving and drive differently than that. It seems that it may not be possible or completely effective in clarifying boundaries in this case, but this article will most definitely make people think of their own personal boundary for driving speed and actions.
The social control theory rewards conformity. People can compare themselves to the deviant and feel good that they are not dangerous drivers and that they did not kill two people. The article states "The Crown said Mr. Parker was showing off and had ample opportunity to bring the car under control it hit the teenagers." People can compare themselves to this person by saying "I would not have done that", or " I would have been in control of the car". This allows people who don't drive recklessly to get some sort of validation for their caution when driving.
Innovation is the fourth argument for the function of crime and deviance. Changes may be made to solve the problem of dangerous driving. Accidents like this make people realize that there is a problem and they might have to take action to improve the situation. "Justice MacDonald said he would be open to consider, as part of Mr. Parker's sentence that he be required to explain his experience to other young people." One part of Mr. Parker's sentence is an example of this innovation. Mr. Parker is required to tell his story to young people so that they will realize the consequences that will face them if they decide to drive their cars recklessly. This is a move to prevent deaths from dangerous driving.
The power control theory considers four aspects of the making of a juvenile delinquent, they are: family class structure, Social reproduction of gender relations, risk taking and formal state of control. This theory is based on the belief that juvenile delinquency is fun. This person who has been convicted, Ralph Parker is not a juvenile, but his reckless behaviour might lead a power control theorist to believe that he was also reckless as a child.
Family class structure is not mentioned in this article, it is not apparent whether Mr. Parker comes from a lower, middle or upper class family. To a power control theorist, this is a big problem because, a lot can be discovered about this person and their feelings toward authority if the back ground is known. Mr. Parker was driving a late model sports car which he had only owned for a couple of months. This makes the reader assume that he is wealthy and that implies that his family may also be wealthy. However this is not factual and makes analysis difficult.
It is possible that a power control theorist would assume this young person came from a wealthy back ground and this would imply that this man may have been deviant as a child. In his teen years, he might have also had a car and nice clothes, as well as the ability to talk his way around his parents and teachers because he had a wealthy background. If this was the case, he was also likely involved in many sports and other extra-curricular activities which would make him well known to his peers and teachers. He may never have been caught doing anything wrong because he appeared to be a well rounded behaved young man who no one would accuse of giving in to deviant behaviour.
Social reproduction of gender relations can be useful in analysing this article because this young man took on the role of the "real man" who drives fast and looks cool. This is a stereotype which we have seen for many years and has not and likely will not cease to exist. A man who drives slowly and with caution is portrayed as a wimp. A power control theorist would say that this young man was playing on the "natural " male instinct to drive in this manner and have some fun.
Risk taking, which is the another factor is very relevant to this case because Mr. Parker took a risk in driving dangerously. The irony in this case is that people who speed or drive recklessly do not see the danger of killing people as the big risk when they are offending. They are more concerned with the risk of being caught by the police for the crime that they are committing. Someone who is driving recklessly knows the consequences of having an accident, but they may not be important to that person at the time of their action which is deviant.
Formal state of control considers that opportunities to deviate are more restricted for females than males. The freedom to take risk is given to boys, this may have been the case in Mr. Parker's family, he (it is assumed) did not have a father figure and took direction from his mother. A power-control theorist would argue that women give more freedom to their sons.
Curfew Worth it or not
Outline
The Curfew is not being enforced, imprisons you, and does not prevent kids who are over 17 to commit crimes. There is always no one to enforce the curfew, and it is hard to enforce. You feel as you are in a prison, you should have control over your own life, and government should not tell you what to do. Finally, kids 17 years and younger do not commit crimes.
Curfew is not possible to enforce because you can not tell by just looking at someone and saying that they are 17 years or younger. In addition, since this is a free country, you do not have to have an ID with you all the time. For example, a Police Officer is walking on a street and sees several teenagers going on the same side. He can not tell whether they are 17 years or younger or not. Police Officer will not even bother to stop and ask anyone for an ID. Since it is not possible to enforce the curfew at all times, during the night, city is spending tax money for something that is impossible to enforce.
Curfew makes you feel imprisoned since you can not leave house for parties or be at one of your friend's house for long time. Lets say that I have to get some programs for computer from one of my friends and it might take a long time to do that. So after I finish and it will be past midnight, so I have to violate the curfew because it is too late and everyone is sleeping. By reason of an emergency or some kind of deed that might be lengthy and will violate the curfew, it might be impossible to obey the curfew.
Finally, kids who are 17 years of age and below do not commit crimes. I do not know any criminal who is less than 17 years of age or less since you are limited in transportation and money. Kids who are 17 years of age and below do not commit crimes, therefore spending tax payer's taxes for something that will have no use at all.
The Curfew is not being enforced since it is hard to identify the persons by their looks, puts an end to your fun, and does not prevent kids who are over 17 to commit crimes. Since there are no police cars given order to look only for curfew violators, it is going to be a drag to check someone. Some districts do not have a curfew, but others do, so if you go to a party in one district and you are from another, you might violate the curfew. All the kids that commit crims, such as burglaries or robberies, may have an adult with them, and curfew will not stop the crime.
The Curfew is not being enforced, imprisons you, and does not prevent kids who are over 17 to commit crimes. There is always no one to enforce the curfew, and it is hard to enforce. You feel as you are in a prison, you should have control over your own life, and government should not tell you what to do. Finally, kids 17 years and younger do not commit crimes.
Curfew is not possible to enforce because you can not tell by just looking at someone and saying that they are 17 years or younger. In addition, since this is a free country, you do not have to have an ID with you all the time. For example, a Police Officer is walking on a street and sees several teenagers going on the same side. He can not tell whether they are 17 years or younger or not. Police Officer will not even bother to stop and ask anyone for an ID. Since it is not possible to enforce the curfew at all times, during the night, city is spending tax money for something that is impossible to enforce.
Curfew makes you feel imprisoned since you can not leave house for parties or be at one of your friend's house for long time. Lets say that I have to get some programs for computer from one of my friends and it might take a long time to do that. So after I finish and it will be past midnight, so I have to violate the curfew because it is too late and everyone is sleeping. By reason of an emergency or some kind of deed that might be lengthy and will violate the curfew, it might be impossible to obey the curfew.
Finally, kids who are 17 years of age and below do not commit crimes. I do not know any criminal who is less than 17 years of age or less since you are limited in transportation and money. Kids who are 17 years of age and below do not commit crimes, therefore spending tax payer's taxes for something that will have no use at all.
The Curfew is not being enforced since it is hard to identify the persons by their looks, puts an end to your fun, and does not prevent kids who are over 17 to commit crimes. Since there are no police cars given order to look only for curfew violators, it is going to be a drag to check someone. Some districts do not have a curfew, but others do, so if you go to a party in one district and you are from another, you might violate the curfew. All the kids that commit crims, such as burglaries or robberies, may have an adult with them, and curfew will not stop the crime.
Criminal Law
Criminal Law Investigation
Murder
Murder is when a person of sound mind unlawfully kills any person with malice aforethought.
To be convicted of murder, it has to be proven that the accused planned to kill the victim, or that the accused acted in a way that he/she knew would harm or kill the victim.
To defend against murder, one could claim self-defence, that is, that they killed the person while defending themselves, if this was proven, the accused should get acquitted. They could also claim they were provoked, if this was proven, the crime would be brought down to manslaughter.
The punishment for murder is usually life imprisonment, but the court can impose any punishment they choose.
A current Australian case is the one involving Adrian Bryant, who is accused of killing many people in Port Arthur earlier this year.
Assault
Common assault (not sexual or seizing assault), is the use of force by a person intending to inflict pain, injury, discomfort or insult on another person.
To prove this, it must be shown that the accused committed the crime, no forethought needs to be proven.
To defend against this, the accused could claim it was an accident, self-defence or consent of the victim. Consent is just if the victim said it was all right for the accused to do what he/she did. The other two are self explanatory.
The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment, but commonly punishments include fines, good behaviour and community based orders.
A recent case in Australia was of a man who was stabbed outside a nightclub by a group of people.
Rape
Rape is any introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of another person without their consent.
To prove rape it must be proven that it was committed without the consent of the victim.
The common defence is that the victim consented to the act, whereas, the accused would be acquitted.
The punishment for rape is a maximum of 10 years, and if someone has been found guilty of rape twice, they can be tried for rape with aggravated circumstances and a maximum of 20 years applies for this crime.
An Australian case that I can remember involved a man who was accused of raping his wife, and his defence was that she was asking for it.
Kidnapping
Kidnapping is the taking away of a person by another or others with intent to demand payment such as ransom.
It has to be proven that the accused intended to demand something, and that they took the person against their will.
If the accused has asked for something in return for the person they have supposedly kidnapped, there isn't any common defences. Otherwise, they could say the victim consented to go along with them.
The penalty is a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.
A case that I can remember is when a man from some foreign country, came to Australia and kidnapped his son from his ex-wife's care.
Theft
Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property which belongs to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of his/her property.
It has to be proven that the accused intentionally took the property, and they planned to permanently deprive the person of the property.
A defence that could be used is that they intended giving it back, this may work if the accused knew the person, otherwise, if the accused is found with the property, they could say they bought it from someone, which they would then be tried for possession of stolen goods, but it carries a smaller penalty.
The penalty for theft is a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
Theft is occurring very often, small cases and larger ones. One that I can recall was a ram raid on a jewellery store in the city earlier this year, where a group of people rammed a four wheel drive through the front of the store and proceeded to steal the goods from the store.
Murder
Murder is when a person of sound mind unlawfully kills any person with malice aforethought.
To be convicted of murder, it has to be proven that the accused planned to kill the victim, or that the accused acted in a way that he/she knew would harm or kill the victim.
To defend against murder, one could claim self-defence, that is, that they killed the person while defending themselves, if this was proven, the accused should get acquitted. They could also claim they were provoked, if this was proven, the crime would be brought down to manslaughter.
The punishment for murder is usually life imprisonment, but the court can impose any punishment they choose.
A current Australian case is the one involving Adrian Bryant, who is accused of killing many people in Port Arthur earlier this year.
Assault
Common assault (not sexual or seizing assault), is the use of force by a person intending to inflict pain, injury, discomfort or insult on another person.
To prove this, it must be shown that the accused committed the crime, no forethought needs to be proven.
To defend against this, the accused could claim it was an accident, self-defence or consent of the victim. Consent is just if the victim said it was all right for the accused to do what he/she did. The other two are self explanatory.
The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment, but commonly punishments include fines, good behaviour and community based orders.
A recent case in Australia was of a man who was stabbed outside a nightclub by a group of people.
Rape
Rape is any introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of another person without their consent.
To prove rape it must be proven that it was committed without the consent of the victim.
The common defence is that the victim consented to the act, whereas, the accused would be acquitted.
The punishment for rape is a maximum of 10 years, and if someone has been found guilty of rape twice, they can be tried for rape with aggravated circumstances and a maximum of 20 years applies for this crime.
An Australian case that I can remember involved a man who was accused of raping his wife, and his defence was that she was asking for it.
Kidnapping
Kidnapping is the taking away of a person by another or others with intent to demand payment such as ransom.
It has to be proven that the accused intended to demand something, and that they took the person against their will.
If the accused has asked for something in return for the person they have supposedly kidnapped, there isn't any common defences. Otherwise, they could say the victim consented to go along with them.
The penalty is a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.
A case that I can remember is when a man from some foreign country, came to Australia and kidnapped his son from his ex-wife's care.
Theft
Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property which belongs to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of his/her property.
It has to be proven that the accused intentionally took the property, and they planned to permanently deprive the person of the property.
A defence that could be used is that they intended giving it back, this may work if the accused knew the person, otherwise, if the accused is found with the property, they could say they bought it from someone, which they would then be tried for possession of stolen goods, but it carries a smaller penalty.
The penalty for theft is a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
Theft is occurring very often, small cases and larger ones. One that I can recall was a ram raid on a jewellery store in the city earlier this year, where a group of people rammed a four wheel drive through the front of the store and proceeded to steal the goods from the store.
Crime
Crime In the United States
Introduction:
Our report is on Crime in the United States. Crime is a major problem all over the world, but we are focusing on the crime problem right here in our own country. We have listed some different statistics, problems, and solutions.
FBI Crime Statistics:
Final 1995 crime statistics showed that 13.9 million Crime Index offenses were reported to law enforcement across the Nation. The 1995 total represents a rate of 5,278 offenses for every 100,000 United States inhabitants. The number of crimes was down 1 percent from 1994, while the crime rate declined 2 percent. The number of violent crimes dropped 3 percent, while the rate of violent crimes dropped 4 percent. In the eight U.S. cities with more than one million population, the decrease in the number of violent crimes was 8 percent. In the 64 largest cities, with populations over 250,000, Crime Index totals dropped 3 percent.
Crime Volume:
In 1995, the Crime Index total of 13.9 million offenses, 1 percent lower than the 1994 total and 7 percent lower than the 1991 total, represented the fourth consecutive annual decline. A comparison with 1986 figures, however, showed a 5-percent increase over the last 10-year period.
By region, the Southern States recorded 38 percent of all Crime Index offenses reported to law enforcement. The lowest volume was reported in the Northeastern States, accounting for 16 percent of the total. All regions except the West showed Crime Index decreases compared to 1994 figures.
Property valued at $15.6 billion was stolen in connection with all Crime Index offenses.
Crime Rate:
The 1995 Crime Index rate, 5,278 per 100,000 population, was 2 percent lower than in 1994. For 5- and 10-year trend increments, the 1995 rate, the lowest since 1985, was 11 percent lower than the 1991 rate and 4 percent lower than 1986. Geographically, the total Crime Index rates ranged from 6,083 in the West to 4,180 in the Northeast. All regions recorded rate declines, 1994 versus 1995. The Crime Index rate was 5,761 per 100,000 inhabitants in the Nations Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 5,315 per 100,000 for cities outside MSAs. The lowest rate was registered by the collective rural counties at 2,083 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Violent Crime:
Violent crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) reported to the country's law enforcement agencies during 1995 dropped below 1.8 million offenses resulting in the lowest violent crime rate since 1989; 685 violent crimes for every 100,000 inhabitants.
From 1994 to 1995, the violent crimes collectively decreased by 3 percent. The 1995 total was 6 percent below the 1991 figure, but 21 percent above the 1986 figure.
Data collected on weapons used in connection with murder, robbery, and aggravated assault showed that personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) were used in 31 percent of the offenses and that firearms were used in 30 percent. The proportion of violent crimes committed with firearms remained relatively stable from 1994 to 1995.
Aggravated assaults accounted for 61 percent and robberies for 32 percent of all violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 1995.
A special study focusing on the use of weapons in violent crimes is included in this year's publication.
Arrests:
During the year, law enforcement agencies made an estimated 15.1 million arrests for all criminal infractions excluding traffic violations. The highest arrest counts were for larceny-theft and drug abuse violations, each at 1.5 million. Arrests for driving under the influence and simple assaults followed at 1.4 and 1.3 million arrests, respectively. Relating the number of arrests to the total
U.S. population, the rate was 5,807 arrests per 100,000 population.
The total number of arrests for all offenses except traffic violations increased 1 percent from 1994 to 1995.
Of all persons arrested in 1995, 44 percent were under the age of 25, 80 percent were male, and 67 percent were white.
Larceny-theft was the offense resulting in the most arrests of females and of persons under the age of 18. Adults were most often arrested for driving under the influence, and males most frequently for drug abuse violations.
Aggravated Assault:
For the second consecutive year, aggravated assaults dropped over 1 percent in 1995 to an estimated total of 1,099,179. Aggravated assaults comprised 61 percent of the violent crimes in 1995.
There were 418 victims of aggravated assault for every 100,000 people nationwide in 1995, the lowest rate since 1989.
In 1995, 33 percent of the aggravated assaults were committed with blunt objects or other dangerous weapons. Personal weapons such as hands, fists, and feet were used in 26 percent; firearms in 23 percent; and knives or cutting instruments in the remainder.
Law Enforcement Employees:
A total of 13,052 city, county, and state police agencies submitting Uniform Crime Reporting data reported collectively employing 586,756 officers and 226,780 civilians in 1995.
The average rate of 2.4 full-time officers for every 1,000 inhabitants across the country in 1995 showed a slight increase from the 1994 figure, 2.3 per 1,000 inhabitants..
Geographically, the highest rate of officers to population was recorded in the Northeastern States where there were 2.7 officers per 1,000 inhabitants.
Solution:
Avoid dark vacant places.
Be alert. If you are being followed, head quickly for a lighted area or to a group of people.
When walking:
Avoid shortcuts.
Walk where there is plenty of light and traffic.
Never walk alone at night unless absolutely necessary.
Report any suspicious activity or misconduct to the Department.
Give your car the quick "once over" before entering with a critical eye for possible break-ins or persons in the rear seat of floor area.
Report any crimes that you see to the police.
Information to give:
What's happening?
Where is the incident?
When did it happen?
Then: Stay on the phone!
Introduction:
Our report is on Crime in the United States. Crime is a major problem all over the world, but we are focusing on the crime problem right here in our own country. We have listed some different statistics, problems, and solutions.
FBI Crime Statistics:
Final 1995 crime statistics showed that 13.9 million Crime Index offenses were reported to law enforcement across the Nation. The 1995 total represents a rate of 5,278 offenses for every 100,000 United States inhabitants. The number of crimes was down 1 percent from 1994, while the crime rate declined 2 percent. The number of violent crimes dropped 3 percent, while the rate of violent crimes dropped 4 percent. In the eight U.S. cities with more than one million population, the decrease in the number of violent crimes was 8 percent. In the 64 largest cities, with populations over 250,000, Crime Index totals dropped 3 percent.
Crime Volume:
In 1995, the Crime Index total of 13.9 million offenses, 1 percent lower than the 1994 total and 7 percent lower than the 1991 total, represented the fourth consecutive annual decline. A comparison with 1986 figures, however, showed a 5-percent increase over the last 10-year period.
By region, the Southern States recorded 38 percent of all Crime Index offenses reported to law enforcement. The lowest volume was reported in the Northeastern States, accounting for 16 percent of the total. All regions except the West showed Crime Index decreases compared to 1994 figures.
Property valued at $15.6 billion was stolen in connection with all Crime Index offenses.
Crime Rate:
The 1995 Crime Index rate, 5,278 per 100,000 population, was 2 percent lower than in 1994. For 5- and 10-year trend increments, the 1995 rate, the lowest since 1985, was 11 percent lower than the 1991 rate and 4 percent lower than 1986. Geographically, the total Crime Index rates ranged from 6,083 in the West to 4,180 in the Northeast. All regions recorded rate declines, 1994 versus 1995. The Crime Index rate was 5,761 per 100,000 inhabitants in the Nations Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 5,315 per 100,000 for cities outside MSAs. The lowest rate was registered by the collective rural counties at 2,083 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Violent Crime:
Violent crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) reported to the country's law enforcement agencies during 1995 dropped below 1.8 million offenses resulting in the lowest violent crime rate since 1989; 685 violent crimes for every 100,000 inhabitants.
From 1994 to 1995, the violent crimes collectively decreased by 3 percent. The 1995 total was 6 percent below the 1991 figure, but 21 percent above the 1986 figure.
Data collected on weapons used in connection with murder, robbery, and aggravated assault showed that personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) were used in 31 percent of the offenses and that firearms were used in 30 percent. The proportion of violent crimes committed with firearms remained relatively stable from 1994 to 1995.
Aggravated assaults accounted for 61 percent and robberies for 32 percent of all violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 1995.
A special study focusing on the use of weapons in violent crimes is included in this year's publication.
Arrests:
During the year, law enforcement agencies made an estimated 15.1 million arrests for all criminal infractions excluding traffic violations. The highest arrest counts were for larceny-theft and drug abuse violations, each at 1.5 million. Arrests for driving under the influence and simple assaults followed at 1.4 and 1.3 million arrests, respectively. Relating the number of arrests to the total
U.S. population, the rate was 5,807 arrests per 100,000 population.
The total number of arrests for all offenses except traffic violations increased 1 percent from 1994 to 1995.
Of all persons arrested in 1995, 44 percent were under the age of 25, 80 percent were male, and 67 percent were white.
Larceny-theft was the offense resulting in the most arrests of females and of persons under the age of 18. Adults were most often arrested for driving under the influence, and males most frequently for drug abuse violations.
Aggravated Assault:
For the second consecutive year, aggravated assaults dropped over 1 percent in 1995 to an estimated total of 1,099,179. Aggravated assaults comprised 61 percent of the violent crimes in 1995.
There were 418 victims of aggravated assault for every 100,000 people nationwide in 1995, the lowest rate since 1989.
In 1995, 33 percent of the aggravated assaults were committed with blunt objects or other dangerous weapons. Personal weapons such as hands, fists, and feet were used in 26 percent; firearms in 23 percent; and knives or cutting instruments in the remainder.
Law Enforcement Employees:
A total of 13,052 city, county, and state police agencies submitting Uniform Crime Reporting data reported collectively employing 586,756 officers and 226,780 civilians in 1995.
The average rate of 2.4 full-time officers for every 1,000 inhabitants across the country in 1995 showed a slight increase from the 1994 figure, 2.3 per 1,000 inhabitants..
Geographically, the highest rate of officers to population was recorded in the Northeastern States where there were 2.7 officers per 1,000 inhabitants.
Solution:
Avoid dark vacant places.
Be alert. If you are being followed, head quickly for a lighted area or to a group of people.
When walking:
Avoid shortcuts.
Walk where there is plenty of light and traffic.
Never walk alone at night unless absolutely necessary.
Report any suspicious activity or misconduct to the Department.
Give your car the quick "once over" before entering with a critical eye for possible break-ins or persons in the rear seat of floor area.
Report any crimes that you see to the police.
Information to give:
What's happening?
Where is the incident?
When did it happen?
Then: Stay on the phone!
Crime 2
Crime refers to many types of misconduct forbidden by law. Crimes include such things as murder, stealing a car, resisting arrest, possessing or selling illegal drugs, appearing nude on a public street, drunken driving, and bank robbery. The list of acts considered crimes is constantly changing. For example, at one time, people were charged with witchcraft, but this is no longer illegal. Today, it is becoming a serious crime to pollute the air and water. In colonial days, pollution received little attention because it caused few problems. During the 1700's in England it was not a crime for people to steal money entrusted to their care by an employer. Today, this type of theft, embezzlement, is a crime.
Crimes may be classified in various ways. For example, they sometimes are grouped according to the seriousness of the offense, according to the motives of the offenders. Such crimes may include economic crimes, political crimes, crimes of passion, organized crime, and white collar crime. Crimes are often divided between acts that most people would consider evil and acts that lawmakers decide should be regulated in the interest of the community. The first
group includes such major crimes as arson, assault, breach of the peace, burglary, kidnapping, larceny, murder, rape, and robbery. The second group
includes crimes of a "rapidly growing urban society." These crimes include violations of income tax laws, liquor control regulations, pure food and drug laws, and traffic laws. Crimes in the first group usually involve severe punishments while crimes in the second group are generally punished by fines, notices to follow the court's orders, or other relatively light penalties.
Crimes are frequently classified according to their seriousness as felonies or misdemeanors. Generally, felonies are more serious than misdemeanors. Under the federal criminal law system, felonies are crimes for which the punishment is death or imprisonment for more than a year. A misdemeanor is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment for less than a year. In most states persons convicted of felonies are sent to state prisons, while those quilty of misdemeanors serve their sentence in city or county jails or houses of correction.
Crimes against people include assault, kidnapping, murder, and sexual attacks. Such crimes usually bring severe punishments. Crimes against property include arson, automobile theft, burglary, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, larceny, and vandalism. In most cases, these crimes carry lighter penalties than do crimes against persons. Robbery is the crime most difficult to classify. The
law considers robbery a crime against the person or against the property, according to the case. Robbery may involve simply taking property from another person. But a personal encounter occurs between the robber and his victim, and it may include violence and bodily harm, especially in muggings or other strong-arm robberies. Robbery is probably the crime most people have in mind when they speak of "crime in the streets ."
Crimes against public order or morality include disorderly conduct, gambling, prostitution, public drunkenness, and vagrancy. These offenses generally involve lighter penalties than do crimes against people or property. Criminologists question whether some offenses against public order or morality should be considered crimes. For example, many experts believe that habitual drunkenness is a medical problem and that the offender should be given medical help instead of being put in jail. There is also widespread disagreement about whether certain practices hurt society and should be considered crimes. Such acts include gambling, use of marijuana, and homosexuality between consenting adults.
Organized crime consists of large-scale activities by groups of gangsters or racketeers. Such groups are often called the "crime syndicate or the underworld." Organized crime specializes in providing illegal goods and services. Its activities include gambling, prostitution, the illegal sale of drugs, and loaning money at extremely high rates of interest. Many of these activities
are often called "victimless crimes" because both the buyer and the seller take part in them willingly. Most activities of the crime syndicate are not reported to the police. People who use the illegal services try to avoid the police because they do not want to be associated with that kind of people. When the crime syndicate invades a legitimate business or labor union, it uses terror, blackmail, and other methods to keep people from going to the police. Even when the illegal activities are discovered, prosecutors have difficulty convicting the gangsters because of the lack of reliable witnesses. In addition, the syndicate frequently tries to bribe witnesses or law officers and sometimes succeeds in doing so. The syndicate also furnishes bail money and lawyers for members who are arrested. Gangsters have two main goals and they are money and power. No one knows how much of each that they truly have, but investigations have shown that organized crime is a multimillion-dollar business and that gangsters have considerable political control.
White collar crime originally included only criminal acts committed by businessmen and professional people while earning their living. The term referred to such crimes as stock market swindles and other kinds of fraud. Today, the term covers such acts as cheating in the payment taxes, which can be done in connection to your business. It may apply to petty thefts by employees, as well as to million dollar stock market swindles. It could also include a service stations owner's charging for an automobile repair that was not made, or a physician's billing a patient for services that were not performed. Many consumer protection laws are aimed at whitecollar crime. these laws regulate business and professional activities to protect consumers. During the 1960's and early 1970's, consumer protection became one of the fastest growing fields of criminal law. In the United States, for example, the federal government developed new rules and penalties. The regulations were intended to control air and water pollution, to prevent fraudulent trade practices, and to alert people seeking loans about actual interest costs.
Crime is one of the world's oldest social problems. Almost every generation has felt itself threatened by increasing crime and violence. However, no country has yet developed completely reliable methods for measuring the volume and trend of crime. The FBI serves as the main source of information about crime and violence in the United States. The FBI has maintained national crime statistics for nearly 70 years. the FBI receives monthly and annual crime reports from the law enforcement agencies throughout the country which is later summarized and published in semiannual and annual Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. The seven most popular crimes reported to the police according to the FBI are aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, nonegligent manslaughter, burglary, larceny\theft, and motor vehicle theft. One fourth of the arrests each year are due to serious crimes while one fifth of all the arrests are due to three relatively minor offenses; drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and vagrancy. Here is a table that I found pretty interesting.
Most Frequent Arrests in the United States
Statistics about crime are based on complaints to the police, offenses observed by the police, and arrests of suspects. The cost of crimes to its victims is impossible to determine accurately. For example, a dishonest business scheme may cost consumers or investors millions of dollars, but no records are kept of such losses. Just like there is no way to determine the profits of the crime syndicate of gambling, loan-sharking, narcotics sales, and prostitution. The cost of crime prevention and control measures is also difficult to determine. Expenditures for the law enforcement and the criminal justice agencies in the United States total more than 4 billion dollars annually. However, these agencies also deal with many noncriminal matters such as traffic control. Perhaps only 10 to 15 per cent of police costs can be directly charged to crime control. Also, most courts handle both criminal and civil cases.
People commit crimes for various reasons. For example, many persons steal things they could not obtain otherwise. Others, such as drug addicts, steal to get money to buy narcotics or other things they need. Some shoplifters steal for excitement, but others do so to stretch the family budget. Many automobile thieves take cars for the joy-riding, but others strip down the stolen autos and sell them. Many embezzlers take money from their employers to meet a personal emergency, intending to return the money. The motives also vary in crimes of violence. A robber may kill his victim to avoid detection, some gangsters torture people to obtain money, and a man may beat his wife in a fit of rage during a quarrel.
Many studies have sought to explain crime. Most of them compare to habitiual criminals with persons who have not been convicted of crimes to try to find important differences between the two groups. Yet, none of these studies have proved that criminals have any physical traits that make them different from other people. Research by psychiatrists and psychologists stresses personality differences resulting from experiences in childhood or later. This research shows that many people who became criminals were neglected by their parents or were given harsh or uncertain discipline. Such treatment left them insecure and demanding in their relations with others. Their own wants made them ignore the needs and rights of others. "But researchers have had difficulty making a direct connection between emotional needs and crime because many people with emotional problems find acceptable ways of solving them."
Sociologists have conducted crime studies that focus on the neighborhood and community rather than on the individual. These studies deal with how a person becomes committed to a career of crime, and others try to explain differences in crime rate. The highest crime rates rates occur in the most deprived sections of large cities. These are the areas where it is most difficult to train children to become law-abiding citizens. "Such areas have the highest rate of broken homes." Even in many homes where both parents are present, emotional conflicts and health and financial problems affect family life. Slum areas usually have the poorest schools and the highest unemployment rates. these neighborhoods have a lot of run down, over crowded housing and poor recreational facilities. For many young people, the excitement of the streets provides the principal escape from boredom and seemingly unsolvable problems. "These streets are also the scene of much vice and crime--gambling, prostitution, narcotics use and sale, public drunkenness, and acts of violence." Law enforcement in the inner city is difficult, partly because too few policemen patrol the neighborhoods. In addition, many of the people fear the police and refuse to cooperate with them. All these factors increase the possibility that a person who lives in a slum will commit criminal acts.
Most residents of the high-crime slum areas of many large cities are negroes or members of other minority groups. As a result, the crime rate for such minority groups is higher than that for the white majority group. Nonwhites are also more likely to become the victims of crimes. Most crimes in the United States are committed by boys and young men. People under the age of 21 account for about three fifths of the arrests for burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. This same group makes up about 40 per cent of all persons arrested for aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery. There are several reasons why young people commit most crimes. As people become older and settled in their jobs and the "rearing of children," they acquire a place in society that they do not want to lose by taking such a big risk. On the other hand, young people have fewer job opportunities. The unskilled jobs available seem dull when compared to the quick and exciting returns from theft. young people are also more willing to risk arrest and loss of reputation because they have less of a risk. About 85 per cent of the persons arrested for crimes are males, but the arrest rate for females is rapidly rising.
I really enjoyed writing this paper, it was supposed to be about violence but everywhere I looked, there was barely anything on violence and there was almost always a reference to crime so this is more of a paper on crime. To do this paper I did a lot of searching on the internet and it was just unbelievable the things that I found. The stats are incredible and so is the wide diversity of the types of crimes committed. While writing this paper it made me think of events that I have seen or heard of that are crime related which really expanded my horizons.
Crimes may be classified in various ways. For example, they sometimes are grouped according to the seriousness of the offense, according to the motives of the offenders. Such crimes may include economic crimes, political crimes, crimes of passion, organized crime, and white collar crime. Crimes are often divided between acts that most people would consider evil and acts that lawmakers decide should be regulated in the interest of the community. The first
group includes such major crimes as arson, assault, breach of the peace, burglary, kidnapping, larceny, murder, rape, and robbery. The second group
includes crimes of a "rapidly growing urban society." These crimes include violations of income tax laws, liquor control regulations, pure food and drug laws, and traffic laws. Crimes in the first group usually involve severe punishments while crimes in the second group are generally punished by fines, notices to follow the court's orders, or other relatively light penalties.
Crimes are frequently classified according to their seriousness as felonies or misdemeanors. Generally, felonies are more serious than misdemeanors. Under the federal criminal law system, felonies are crimes for which the punishment is death or imprisonment for more than a year. A misdemeanor is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment for less than a year. In most states persons convicted of felonies are sent to state prisons, while those quilty of misdemeanors serve their sentence in city or county jails or houses of correction.
Crimes against people include assault, kidnapping, murder, and sexual attacks. Such crimes usually bring severe punishments. Crimes against property include arson, automobile theft, burglary, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, larceny, and vandalism. In most cases, these crimes carry lighter penalties than do crimes against persons. Robbery is the crime most difficult to classify. The
law considers robbery a crime against the person or against the property, according to the case. Robbery may involve simply taking property from another person. But a personal encounter occurs between the robber and his victim, and it may include violence and bodily harm, especially in muggings or other strong-arm robberies. Robbery is probably the crime most people have in mind when they speak of "crime in the streets ."
Crimes against public order or morality include disorderly conduct, gambling, prostitution, public drunkenness, and vagrancy. These offenses generally involve lighter penalties than do crimes against people or property. Criminologists question whether some offenses against public order or morality should be considered crimes. For example, many experts believe that habitual drunkenness is a medical problem and that the offender should be given medical help instead of being put in jail. There is also widespread disagreement about whether certain practices hurt society and should be considered crimes. Such acts include gambling, use of marijuana, and homosexuality between consenting adults.
Organized crime consists of large-scale activities by groups of gangsters or racketeers. Such groups are often called the "crime syndicate or the underworld." Organized crime specializes in providing illegal goods and services. Its activities include gambling, prostitution, the illegal sale of drugs, and loaning money at extremely high rates of interest. Many of these activities
are often called "victimless crimes" because both the buyer and the seller take part in them willingly. Most activities of the crime syndicate are not reported to the police. People who use the illegal services try to avoid the police because they do not want to be associated with that kind of people. When the crime syndicate invades a legitimate business or labor union, it uses terror, blackmail, and other methods to keep people from going to the police. Even when the illegal activities are discovered, prosecutors have difficulty convicting the gangsters because of the lack of reliable witnesses. In addition, the syndicate frequently tries to bribe witnesses or law officers and sometimes succeeds in doing so. The syndicate also furnishes bail money and lawyers for members who are arrested. Gangsters have two main goals and they are money and power. No one knows how much of each that they truly have, but investigations have shown that organized crime is a multimillion-dollar business and that gangsters have considerable political control.
White collar crime originally included only criminal acts committed by businessmen and professional people while earning their living. The term referred to such crimes as stock market swindles and other kinds of fraud. Today, the term covers such acts as cheating in the payment taxes, which can be done in connection to your business. It may apply to petty thefts by employees, as well as to million dollar stock market swindles. It could also include a service stations owner's charging for an automobile repair that was not made, or a physician's billing a patient for services that were not performed. Many consumer protection laws are aimed at whitecollar crime. these laws regulate business and professional activities to protect consumers. During the 1960's and early 1970's, consumer protection became one of the fastest growing fields of criminal law. In the United States, for example, the federal government developed new rules and penalties. The regulations were intended to control air and water pollution, to prevent fraudulent trade practices, and to alert people seeking loans about actual interest costs.
Crime is one of the world's oldest social problems. Almost every generation has felt itself threatened by increasing crime and violence. However, no country has yet developed completely reliable methods for measuring the volume and trend of crime. The FBI serves as the main source of information about crime and violence in the United States. The FBI has maintained national crime statistics for nearly 70 years. the FBI receives monthly and annual crime reports from the law enforcement agencies throughout the country which is later summarized and published in semiannual and annual Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. The seven most popular crimes reported to the police according to the FBI are aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, nonegligent manslaughter, burglary, larceny\theft, and motor vehicle theft. One fourth of the arrests each year are due to serious crimes while one fifth of all the arrests are due to three relatively minor offenses; drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and vagrancy. Here is a table that I found pretty interesting.
Most Frequent Arrests in the United States
Statistics about crime are based on complaints to the police, offenses observed by the police, and arrests of suspects. The cost of crimes to its victims is impossible to determine accurately. For example, a dishonest business scheme may cost consumers or investors millions of dollars, but no records are kept of such losses. Just like there is no way to determine the profits of the crime syndicate of gambling, loan-sharking, narcotics sales, and prostitution. The cost of crime prevention and control measures is also difficult to determine. Expenditures for the law enforcement and the criminal justice agencies in the United States total more than 4 billion dollars annually. However, these agencies also deal with many noncriminal matters such as traffic control. Perhaps only 10 to 15 per cent of police costs can be directly charged to crime control. Also, most courts handle both criminal and civil cases.
People commit crimes for various reasons. For example, many persons steal things they could not obtain otherwise. Others, such as drug addicts, steal to get money to buy narcotics or other things they need. Some shoplifters steal for excitement, but others do so to stretch the family budget. Many automobile thieves take cars for the joy-riding, but others strip down the stolen autos and sell them. Many embezzlers take money from their employers to meet a personal emergency, intending to return the money. The motives also vary in crimes of violence. A robber may kill his victim to avoid detection, some gangsters torture people to obtain money, and a man may beat his wife in a fit of rage during a quarrel.
Many studies have sought to explain crime. Most of them compare to habitiual criminals with persons who have not been convicted of crimes to try to find important differences between the two groups. Yet, none of these studies have proved that criminals have any physical traits that make them different from other people. Research by psychiatrists and psychologists stresses personality differences resulting from experiences in childhood or later. This research shows that many people who became criminals were neglected by their parents or were given harsh or uncertain discipline. Such treatment left them insecure and demanding in their relations with others. Their own wants made them ignore the needs and rights of others. "But researchers have had difficulty making a direct connection between emotional needs and crime because many people with emotional problems find acceptable ways of solving them."
Sociologists have conducted crime studies that focus on the neighborhood and community rather than on the individual. These studies deal with how a person becomes committed to a career of crime, and others try to explain differences in crime rate. The highest crime rates rates occur in the most deprived sections of large cities. These are the areas where it is most difficult to train children to become law-abiding citizens. "Such areas have the highest rate of broken homes." Even in many homes where both parents are present, emotional conflicts and health and financial problems affect family life. Slum areas usually have the poorest schools and the highest unemployment rates. these neighborhoods have a lot of run down, over crowded housing and poor recreational facilities. For many young people, the excitement of the streets provides the principal escape from boredom and seemingly unsolvable problems. "These streets are also the scene of much vice and crime--gambling, prostitution, narcotics use and sale, public drunkenness, and acts of violence." Law enforcement in the inner city is difficult, partly because too few policemen patrol the neighborhoods. In addition, many of the people fear the police and refuse to cooperate with them. All these factors increase the possibility that a person who lives in a slum will commit criminal acts.
Most residents of the high-crime slum areas of many large cities are negroes or members of other minority groups. As a result, the crime rate for such minority groups is higher than that for the white majority group. Nonwhites are also more likely to become the victims of crimes. Most crimes in the United States are committed by boys and young men. People under the age of 21 account for about three fifths of the arrests for burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. This same group makes up about 40 per cent of all persons arrested for aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery. There are several reasons why young people commit most crimes. As people become older and settled in their jobs and the "rearing of children," they acquire a place in society that they do not want to lose by taking such a big risk. On the other hand, young people have fewer job opportunities. The unskilled jobs available seem dull when compared to the quick and exciting returns from theft. young people are also more willing to risk arrest and loss of reputation because they have less of a risk. About 85 per cent of the persons arrested for crimes are males, but the arrest rate for females is rapidly rising.
I really enjoyed writing this paper, it was supposed to be about violence but everywhere I looked, there was barely anything on violence and there was almost always a reference to crime so this is more of a paper on crime. To do this paper I did a lot of searching on the internet and it was just unbelievable the things that I found. The stats are incredible and so is the wide diversity of the types of crimes committed. While writing this paper it made me think of events that I have seen or heard of that are crime related which really expanded my horizons.
Court
COURT EXPERIENCE
I went to the court session on Wednesday afternoon at 2:00 and stayed until
around 4:35. They did not start court though until a little after 2. Before court started
everyone was talking to each other and having a good time. There was only one other
person in the courtroom besides myself watching the trial and that person was also from
this class.
When court resumed the lawyers were trying to agree to certain things concerning
the trial before the jury came back in. Since I had not seen the beginning of this trial, I
had no idea who was suing whom or what was going on. Finally after they had got those
things ironed out and a map set up, the jury was finally called back into the courtroom for
closing arguments.
To give the basics that I picked up from closing arguments was that Guge who
owns the Exxon on 105 extension was wanting more money from the state for some
property that they were confiscating for construction. The state was offering around
$60,000 and he wants $300,000. The lawyer for Guge went first. He went on forever it
seemed like. It was over an hour that he went on talking. Some of the jurors were falling
asleep as well as the judge while he was speaking. It seems that he could have been more
concise with his argument. Pretty bad when even the judge nods off. The judge even got
up and left during part of the closing arguments.
The states attorney began his closing arguments. His name was McKinney. His
argument was straight to the point. He got his point across and actually kept members of
the jury awake. While he was giving his closing arguments, the two attorneys for Guge
and Guge himself were whispering between one another. After McKinney finished his
closing arguments, which was about 30 minutes or so, Guge's attorney had his last say so.
I believe that man talked to hear his ownself!
After the closing arguments, the judge asked the jury if they wanted a break.
They indicted that they wanted one so the judge called for a break. During the break, one
of the jurors asked to be removed from the jury. She said that she was sick. The judge
conferred with the attorneys and they let her go home. The first alternate took her place.
He also released the second alternate juror to go home since she was not needed. Then
when they came back in the judge gave them instructions concerning the deciding on the
case. The judge seemed bored during this process as well. Finally the judge sent the jury
to the room to deliberate. When I left the jury was still deliberating.
The judge's name was Johnston and the bailiff was Collins. Collins told us that
Johnston was the judge from Charlotte that was on that big murder case where a man had
killed all those women. As I was leaving the courtroom, the lawyers for Guge stopped
me. Talked to me for a few minutes and then asked me what I would do if I was on the
jury. Just from the closing arguments, I wouldn't give Guge much more than the $60,000
if any. If I had to listen to Guge's attorney for the entire trial, I probably vote against him
for that reason.
I went to the court session on Wednesday afternoon at 2:00 and stayed until
around 4:35. They did not start court though until a little after 2. Before court started
everyone was talking to each other and having a good time. There was only one other
person in the courtroom besides myself watching the trial and that person was also from
this class.
When court resumed the lawyers were trying to agree to certain things concerning
the trial before the jury came back in. Since I had not seen the beginning of this trial, I
had no idea who was suing whom or what was going on. Finally after they had got those
things ironed out and a map set up, the jury was finally called back into the courtroom for
closing arguments.
To give the basics that I picked up from closing arguments was that Guge who
owns the Exxon on 105 extension was wanting more money from the state for some
property that they were confiscating for construction. The state was offering around
$60,000 and he wants $300,000. The lawyer for Guge went first. He went on forever it
seemed like. It was over an hour that he went on talking. Some of the jurors were falling
asleep as well as the judge while he was speaking. It seems that he could have been more
concise with his argument. Pretty bad when even the judge nods off. The judge even got
up and left during part of the closing arguments.
The states attorney began his closing arguments. His name was McKinney. His
argument was straight to the point. He got his point across and actually kept members of
the jury awake. While he was giving his closing arguments, the two attorneys for Guge
and Guge himself were whispering between one another. After McKinney finished his
closing arguments, which was about 30 minutes or so, Guge's attorney had his last say so.
I believe that man talked to hear his ownself!
After the closing arguments, the judge asked the jury if they wanted a break.
They indicted that they wanted one so the judge called for a break. During the break, one
of the jurors asked to be removed from the jury. She said that she was sick. The judge
conferred with the attorneys and they let her go home. The first alternate took her place.
He also released the second alternate juror to go home since she was not needed. Then
when they came back in the judge gave them instructions concerning the deciding on the
case. The judge seemed bored during this process as well. Finally the judge sent the jury
to the room to deliberate. When I left the jury was still deliberating.
The judge's name was Johnston and the bailiff was Collins. Collins told us that
Johnston was the judge from Charlotte that was on that big murder case where a man had
killed all those women. As I was leaving the courtroom, the lawyers for Guge stopped
me. Talked to me for a few minutes and then asked me what I would do if I was on the
jury. Just from the closing arguments, I wouldn't give Guge much more than the $60,000
if any. If I had to listen to Guge's attorney for the entire trial, I probably vote against him
for that reason.
Contras of millays LAment and Cummings since feeling is
Millay vs Cummings
"lament" by Edna St. Vincent Millay and "Since Felling Is First by e.e. Cummings are two very different poems. The poems are diiferent in style and tone.
In Millay's poem "Lmaent" the theme is dealing with death an ho we must act in order to accept it. In "since Feeling Is First, Cumming's theme is just the opposite. Cummings is saying we should enjoy life by acting like a fool and not talin things seriously.
Millay stresses the unimportance of feelin. "life must go on,/ And the dead by forgotten" (15-16). Cummmings attitude is totally different. He believes that feelings are very important. Cummings streeses that being foolish is better than being smart and serious: "and kisses are better fate/ than wisdom."(8-9)
Millay uses simple language, where as cummings uses more complete language. In "Lament," Millay stresses her point by usingan unusual style of writing.
Teh tone in "lament" is very somber. Millay is writing about the death of a woman's husband and how the wife feels that "Life must go on". (21) although she has forgotton just why. The wife is trying to forget about her husbands death: "and the dead be forgottne" (16). The tone of (since feeling is first" is a happy tone. A man is telling his girlfriend to enjoy life and stop being so serious.
"lament" by Edna St. Vincent Millay and "Since Felling Is First by e.e. Cummings are two very different poems. The poems are diiferent in style and tone.
In Millay's poem "Lmaent" the theme is dealing with death an ho we must act in order to accept it. In "since Feeling Is First, Cumming's theme is just the opposite. Cummings is saying we should enjoy life by acting like a fool and not talin things seriously.
Millay stresses the unimportance of feelin. "life must go on,/ And the dead by forgotten" (15-16). Cummmings attitude is totally different. He believes that feelings are very important. Cummings streeses that being foolish is better than being smart and serious: "and kisses are better fate/ than wisdom."(8-9)
Millay uses simple language, where as cummings uses more complete language. In "Lament," Millay stresses her point by usingan unusual style of writing.
Teh tone in "lament" is very somber. Millay is writing about the death of a woman's husband and how the wife feels that "Life must go on". (21) although she has forgotton just why. The wife is trying to forget about her husbands death: "and the dead be forgottne" (16). The tone of (since feeling is first" is a happy tone. A man is telling his girlfriend to enjoy life and stop being so serious.
Contracts
A contract is an agreement that is enforceable by law. Modern business could not exist without such contracts. Most business transactions involve commitments to furnish goods, services, or real property; these commitments are usually in the form of contracts.
Use of the contract in business affairs ensures, to some extent, the performance of an agreement, for a party that breaks a contract may be sued in court for the damages caused by the breach. Sometimes, however, a party that breaks a contract may be persuaded to make an out-of-court settlement, thus saving the expense of legal proceedings.
A contract arises when an offer to make a contract is accepted. An offer contains a promise (for example, "I will pay $1,000") and a request for something in return (a person's car). The acceptance consists of an assent by the party to whom the offer is made, showing that the person agrees to the terms offered. The offer may be terminated in a number of ways. For example, the party making the offer may cancel it (a revocation), or the party to whom the offer is made may reject it. When the party to whom the offer is made responds with a different offer, called a counteroffer, the original offer is terminated. Then the counteroffer may be accepted by the party making the original offer.
REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT
For a contract to be valid, both parties must give their assent. They must act in such a way that the other people involved believe their intention is to make a contract. Thus a person who is clearly not sincere in saying that he or she accepts an offer usually is not held to a contract by the courts. On the other hand, a person who secretly has no intention of making a contract but who acts in a manner that leads people to believe he or she had, may be held to a contract. Legally, it is the external appearance that determines whether one is held to a contract.
Consideration
A contract results from a bargain. This implies that each party to the contract gives up something, or promises to, in exchange for something given up or promised by the other party. This is called consideration. In the example given above, the consideration on one side is the promise to pay $1,000, and on the other, the promise to deliver a car. With rare exceptions, a promise by one party, without some form of consideration being extended by the other party, does not result in a contract or other enforceable obligation, regardless of the sincerity of the promise. Although each party must extend consideration to the other in order to form a contract, the value of the consideration need not be equal. Determining how good a bargain is becomes the responsibility of the parties involved. Otherwise, the courts would be in the impossible position of having to appraise the relative value of millions of promises made every year.
Competence
For a contract to be enforceable it must be between competent parties. A contract with a person who has been adjudicated insane is likely to be declared void. A contract involving a minor--in most states of the United States a minor is now a person under 18--may be enforced or voided by the minor, unless the contract is for necessities such as food, lodging, or medical services, in which case he or she may be held responsible for the reasonable value of what was purchased. Persons suffering from a disability such as intoxication from drugs or liquor, or insane persons not adjudicated insane, usually may void a contract if the other party knows or should have known of the disability and if the consideration received is returnable.
Legality
The last requirement of a valid contract is that its provisions be legal. If a purported contract requires an illegal act, the result is a void contract. Parties to an illegal contract have no standing in court. If one party receives money or property under an illegal contract, the other may not sue to recover what was paid under the contract. Not only are contracts requiring criminal acts illegal, so are contracts requiring commission of a TORT (a breach of civil law such as misrepresentation or trespass) or those in breach of public policy. Although public policy is difficult to define, it includes some serious breaches of conventional morality or ethics.
It is commonly assumed that an enforceable contract must be in writing. This is usually untrue. Most oral contracts are enforceable, but written contracts are easier to prove.
Some types of contracts must be in writing, for example, contracts for the purchase or sale of any interest in real property, contracts to pay debts of others, and contracts that require more than a year to perform. Contracts for the sale of personal property--that is, movable property--as distinguished from land, at a price above a specified sum set by law must be in writing unless payment or delivery has been made or unless the goods were specially manufactured.
Although only a few types of contract must be in writing, the terms of a written contract ordinarily may not be contradicted in court by oral testimony.
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party usually sues for money damages (the award of a sum of money designed to compensate for losses stemming from the breach). Damages are measured by what may reasonably be foreseen as financial losses; unforeseeable losses may not be collected. If an award of money is not compensatory because something about the promised performance was unique, the party who breaks a contract may be ordered by the court to perform as agreed. This is called specific performance. For example, real estate is always considered unique. Therefore, when a party has contracted to sell real estate but changes his or her mind, the court may grant specific performance and order that the deed for the real estate be delivered to the agreed buyer.
Most contracts are formed with an implicit understanding that neither party need perform unless the other has completed his or her promised performance. An exception to this understanding occurs when a party has performed most of his or her obligation and the part not performed is relatively immaterial. The doctrine of substantial performance provides that in such a case, the opposite party must perform, although he or she may secure money damages to the extent that he or she was damaged by lack of complete performance.
Use of the contract in business affairs ensures, to some extent, the performance of an agreement, for a party that breaks a contract may be sued in court for the damages caused by the breach. Sometimes, however, a party that breaks a contract may be persuaded to make an out-of-court settlement, thus saving the expense of legal proceedings.
A contract arises when an offer to make a contract is accepted. An offer contains a promise (for example, "I will pay $1,000") and a request for something in return (a person's car). The acceptance consists of an assent by the party to whom the offer is made, showing that the person agrees to the terms offered. The offer may be terminated in a number of ways. For example, the party making the offer may cancel it (a revocation), or the party to whom the offer is made may reject it. When the party to whom the offer is made responds with a different offer, called a counteroffer, the original offer is terminated. Then the counteroffer may be accepted by the party making the original offer.
REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT
For a contract to be valid, both parties must give their assent. They must act in such a way that the other people involved believe their intention is to make a contract. Thus a person who is clearly not sincere in saying that he or she accepts an offer usually is not held to a contract by the courts. On the other hand, a person who secretly has no intention of making a contract but who acts in a manner that leads people to believe he or she had, may be held to a contract. Legally, it is the external appearance that determines whether one is held to a contract.
Consideration
A contract results from a bargain. This implies that each party to the contract gives up something, or promises to, in exchange for something given up or promised by the other party. This is called consideration. In the example given above, the consideration on one side is the promise to pay $1,000, and on the other, the promise to deliver a car. With rare exceptions, a promise by one party, without some form of consideration being extended by the other party, does not result in a contract or other enforceable obligation, regardless of the sincerity of the promise. Although each party must extend consideration to the other in order to form a contract, the value of the consideration need not be equal. Determining how good a bargain is becomes the responsibility of the parties involved. Otherwise, the courts would be in the impossible position of having to appraise the relative value of millions of promises made every year.
Competence
For a contract to be enforceable it must be between competent parties. A contract with a person who has been adjudicated insane is likely to be declared void. A contract involving a minor--in most states of the United States a minor is now a person under 18--may be enforced or voided by the minor, unless the contract is for necessities such as food, lodging, or medical services, in which case he or she may be held responsible for the reasonable value of what was purchased. Persons suffering from a disability such as intoxication from drugs or liquor, or insane persons not adjudicated insane, usually may void a contract if the other party knows or should have known of the disability and if the consideration received is returnable.
Legality
The last requirement of a valid contract is that its provisions be legal. If a purported contract requires an illegal act, the result is a void contract. Parties to an illegal contract have no standing in court. If one party receives money or property under an illegal contract, the other may not sue to recover what was paid under the contract. Not only are contracts requiring criminal acts illegal, so are contracts requiring commission of a TORT (a breach of civil law such as misrepresentation or trespass) or those in breach of public policy. Although public policy is difficult to define, it includes some serious breaches of conventional morality or ethics.
It is commonly assumed that an enforceable contract must be in writing. This is usually untrue. Most oral contracts are enforceable, but written contracts are easier to prove.
Some types of contracts must be in writing, for example, contracts for the purchase or sale of any interest in real property, contracts to pay debts of others, and contracts that require more than a year to perform. Contracts for the sale of personal property--that is, movable property--as distinguished from land, at a price above a specified sum set by law must be in writing unless payment or delivery has been made or unless the goods were specially manufactured.
Although only a few types of contract must be in writing, the terms of a written contract ordinarily may not be contradicted in court by oral testimony.
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party usually sues for money damages (the award of a sum of money designed to compensate for losses stemming from the breach). Damages are measured by what may reasonably be foreseen as financial losses; unforeseeable losses may not be collected. If an award of money is not compensatory because something about the promised performance was unique, the party who breaks a contract may be ordered by the court to perform as agreed. This is called specific performance. For example, real estate is always considered unique. Therefore, when a party has contracted to sell real estate but changes his or her mind, the court may grant specific performance and order that the deed for the real estate be delivered to the agreed buyer.
Most contracts are formed with an implicit understanding that neither party need perform unless the other has completed his or her promised performance. An exception to this understanding occurs when a party has performed most of his or her obligation and the part not performed is relatively immaterial. The doctrine of substantial performance provides that in such a case, the opposite party must perform, although he or she may secure money damages to the extent that he or she was damaged by lack of complete performance.
Contracts 3
A contract is an agreement that is enforceable by law. Modern business could not exist without such contracts. Most business transactions involve commitments to furnish goods, services, or real property; these commitments are usually in the form of contracts.
Use of the contract in business affairs ensures, to some extent, the performance of an agreement, for a party that breaks a contract may be sued in court for the damages caused by the breach. Sometimes, however, a party that breaks a contract may be persuaded to make an out-of-court settlement, thus saving the expense of legal proceedings.
A contract arises when an offer to make a contract is accepted. An offer contains a promise (for example, "I will pay $1,000") and a request for something in return (a person's car). The acceptance consists of an assent by the party to whom the offer is made, showing that the person agrees to the terms offered. The offer may be terminated in a number of ways. For example, the party making the offer may cancel it (a revocation), or the party to whom the offer is made may reject it. When the party to whom the offer is made responds with a different offer, called a counteroffer, the original offer is terminated. Then the counteroffer may be accepted by the party making the original offer.
REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT
For a contract to be valid, both parties must give their assent. They must act in such a way that the other people involved believe their intention is to make a contract. Thus a person who is clearly not sincere in saying that he or she accepts an offer usually is not held to a contract by the courts. On the other hand, a person who secretly has no intention of making a contract but who acts in a manner that leads people to believe he or she had, may be held to a contract. Legally, it is the external appearance that determines whether one is held to a contract.
Consideration
A contract results from a bargain. This implies that each party to the contract gives up something, or promises to, in exchange for something given up or promised by the other party. This is called consideration. In the example given above, the consideration on one side is the promise to pay $1,000, and on the other, the promise to deliver a car. With rare exceptions, a promise by one party, without some form of consideration being extended by the other party, does not result in a contract or other enforceable obligation, regardless of the sincerity of the promise. Although each party must extend consideration to the other in order to form a contract, the value of the consideration need not be equal. Determining how good a bargain is becomes the responsibility of the parties involved. Otherwise, the courts would be in the impossible position of having to appraise the relative value of millions of promises made every year.
Competence
For a contract to be enforceable it must be between competent parties. A contract with a person who has been adjudicated insane is likely to be declared void. A contract involving a minor--in most states of the United States a minor is now a person under 18--may be enforced or voided by the minor, unless the contract is for necessities such as food, lodging, or medical services, in which case he or she may be held responsible for the reasonable value of what was purchased. Persons suffering from a disability such as intoxication from drugs or liquor, or insane persons not adjudicated insane, usually may void a contract if the other party knows or should have known of the disability and if the consideration received is returnable.
Legality
The last requirement of a valid contract is that its provisions be legal. If a purported contract requires an illegal act, the result is a void contract. Parties to an illegal contract have no standing in court. If one party receives money or property under an illegal contract, the other may not sue to recover what was paid under the contract. Not only are contracts requiring criminal acts illegal, so are contracts requiring commission of a TORT (a breach of civil law such as misrepresentation or trespass) or those in breach of public policy. Although public policy is difficult to define, it includes some serious breaches of conventional morality or ethics.
It is commonly assumed that an enforceable contract must be in writing. This is usually untrue. Most oral contracts are enforceable, but written contracts are easier to prove.
Some types of contracts must be in writing, for example, contracts for the purchase or sale of any interest in real property, contracts to pay debts of others, and contracts that require more than a year to perform. Contracts for the sale of personal property--that is, movable property--as distinguished from land, at a price above a specified sum set by law must be in writing unless payment or delivery has been made or unless the goods were specially manufactured.
Although only a few types of contract must be in writing, the terms of a written contract ordinarily may not be contradicted in court by oral testimony.
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party usually sues for money damages (the award of a sum of money designed to compensate for losses stemming from the breach). Damages are measured by what may reasonably be foreseen as financial losses; unforeseeable losses may not be collected. If an award of money is not compensatory because something about the promised performance was unique, the party who breaks a contract may be ordered by the court to perform as agreed. This is called specific performance. For example, real estate is always considered unique. Therefore, when a party has contracted to sell real estate but changes his or her mind, the court may grant specific performance and order that the deed for the real estate be delivered to the agreed buyer.
Most contracts are formed with an implicit understanding that neither party need perform unless the other has completed his or her promised performance. An exception to this understanding occurs when a party has performed most of his or her obligation and the part not performed is relatively immaterial. The doctrine of substantial performance provides that in such a case, the opposite party must perform, although he or she may secure money damages to the extent that he or she was damaged by lack of complete performance.
Jon P. McConnell
Bibliography: Calamari, J. D., and Perillo, J. M., Contracts, 3d ed. (1987); Cataldo, Bernard F., et al., Introduction to Law and the Legal Process, 3d ed. (1987); Dunfee, T. W., and Gibson, F. F., Introduction to Contracts, 2d ed. (1984); Mandel, Ludwig, The Preparation of Commercial Agreements, 7th ed. (1978); Schlesinger, Rudolph B., ed., Formation of Contracts, 2 vols. (1968); Wincor, Richard, Contracts in Plain English (1976).
Use of the contract in business affairs ensures, to some extent, the performance of an agreement, for a party that breaks a contract may be sued in court for the damages caused by the breach. Sometimes, however, a party that breaks a contract may be persuaded to make an out-of-court settlement, thus saving the expense of legal proceedings.
A contract arises when an offer to make a contract is accepted. An offer contains a promise (for example, "I will pay $1,000") and a request for something in return (a person's car). The acceptance consists of an assent by the party to whom the offer is made, showing that the person agrees to the terms offered. The offer may be terminated in a number of ways. For example, the party making the offer may cancel it (a revocation), or the party to whom the offer is made may reject it. When the party to whom the offer is made responds with a different offer, called a counteroffer, the original offer is terminated. Then the counteroffer may be accepted by the party making the original offer.
REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT
For a contract to be valid, both parties must give their assent. They must act in such a way that the other people involved believe their intention is to make a contract. Thus a person who is clearly not sincere in saying that he or she accepts an offer usually is not held to a contract by the courts. On the other hand, a person who secretly has no intention of making a contract but who acts in a manner that leads people to believe he or she had, may be held to a contract. Legally, it is the external appearance that determines whether one is held to a contract.
Consideration
A contract results from a bargain. This implies that each party to the contract gives up something, or promises to, in exchange for something given up or promised by the other party. This is called consideration. In the example given above, the consideration on one side is the promise to pay $1,000, and on the other, the promise to deliver a car. With rare exceptions, a promise by one party, without some form of consideration being extended by the other party, does not result in a contract or other enforceable obligation, regardless of the sincerity of the promise. Although each party must extend consideration to the other in order to form a contract, the value of the consideration need not be equal. Determining how good a bargain is becomes the responsibility of the parties involved. Otherwise, the courts would be in the impossible position of having to appraise the relative value of millions of promises made every year.
Competence
For a contract to be enforceable it must be between competent parties. A contract with a person who has been adjudicated insane is likely to be declared void. A contract involving a minor--in most states of the United States a minor is now a person under 18--may be enforced or voided by the minor, unless the contract is for necessities such as food, lodging, or medical services, in which case he or she may be held responsible for the reasonable value of what was purchased. Persons suffering from a disability such as intoxication from drugs or liquor, or insane persons not adjudicated insane, usually may void a contract if the other party knows or should have known of the disability and if the consideration received is returnable.
Legality
The last requirement of a valid contract is that its provisions be legal. If a purported contract requires an illegal act, the result is a void contract. Parties to an illegal contract have no standing in court. If one party receives money or property under an illegal contract, the other may not sue to recover what was paid under the contract. Not only are contracts requiring criminal acts illegal, so are contracts requiring commission of a TORT (a breach of civil law such as misrepresentation or trespass) or those in breach of public policy. Although public policy is difficult to define, it includes some serious breaches of conventional morality or ethics.
It is commonly assumed that an enforceable contract must be in writing. This is usually untrue. Most oral contracts are enforceable, but written contracts are easier to prove.
Some types of contracts must be in writing, for example, contracts for the purchase or sale of any interest in real property, contracts to pay debts of others, and contracts that require more than a year to perform. Contracts for the sale of personal property--that is, movable property--as distinguished from land, at a price above a specified sum set by law must be in writing unless payment or delivery has been made or unless the goods were specially manufactured.
Although only a few types of contract must be in writing, the terms of a written contract ordinarily may not be contradicted in court by oral testimony.
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party usually sues for money damages (the award of a sum of money designed to compensate for losses stemming from the breach). Damages are measured by what may reasonably be foreseen as financial losses; unforeseeable losses may not be collected. If an award of money is not compensatory because something about the promised performance was unique, the party who breaks a contract may be ordered by the court to perform as agreed. This is called specific performance. For example, real estate is always considered unique. Therefore, when a party has contracted to sell real estate but changes his or her mind, the court may grant specific performance and order that the deed for the real estate be delivered to the agreed buyer.
Most contracts are formed with an implicit understanding that neither party need perform unless the other has completed his or her promised performance. An exception to this understanding occurs when a party has performed most of his or her obligation and the part not performed is relatively immaterial. The doctrine of substantial performance provides that in such a case, the opposite party must perform, although he or she may secure money damages to the extent that he or she was damaged by lack of complete performance.
Jon P. McConnell
Bibliography: Calamari, J. D., and Perillo, J. M., Contracts, 3d ed. (1987); Cataldo, Bernard F., et al., Introduction to Law and the Legal Process, 3d ed. (1987); Dunfee, T. W., and Gibson, F. F., Introduction to Contracts, 2d ed. (1984); Mandel, Ludwig, The Preparation of Commercial Agreements, 7th ed. (1978); Schlesinger, Rudolph B., ed., Formation of Contracts, 2 vols. (1968); Wincor, Richard, Contracts in Plain English (1976).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)