User Posts

The Cost of Safety

Written by concrim-2011-3ac

When going to the airport you might encounter more searches, such as extra bag searches, that may inconvenience you, but at what cost? Because of the ever-present threat of terrorist attacks, there has been an increase in searching at airports. I think with the potential of terrorist attacks, there should be even more caution then there is now. We are asked to give up a mere five extra minutes to extra searching. If those extra five minutes helped to stop an attack it could save hundreds of lives. Events like 9/11 and the London Bombings give us even more reason to be concerned with getting more security at airports and other public areas. The more security and protection we have the less likely there will be attacks. The increase in security may detour the attacks in the first place. in order to help better protect people an increase in security may be necessary.

Official Immunity and Section 1983

Written by concrim-2011-3ac

In “Section 1983″ it states that a person under the law that deprives another person of their rights will be liable to that person. This means if you infringe on another persons rights they can sue and you would be liable. For example, if you were hiring for a job and there were two people that were applying, both of them are equally qualified for that job.  One is white and one is black, and you hire the white person because the others black which is discrimination. they could take you to court and win.

But there are of course certain exceptions to “Section 1983″. There are certain government people that are immune to this. This, though it seems unfair, is a good rule. People in power are the ones that will always get blamed for making unjust laws and they are usually held accountable. It is not one persons decision to make a law or rule which is why it is good for them to have a type of immunity that would protect them form frivolous lawsuits just involving them.

Social Cost

Written by concrim-2011-3ac

People think that is someones a criminal they will always be a criminal this is not necessarily the truth because it all depends on the circumstances of the crime. you can split up crime into two categories, violent and non-violent. The non-violent offenders should be treated differently in terms or their background. Meaning, that once they get back in to the working world that for there background check non-violent offenses should not be counted against them. In order to help better protect ourselves against re-offenders there should be a difference because not all crimes are the same in severity. I think it should always be noted that they were, or still are, violent offenders in order to ensure people’s safety. For example, if you were the head of a security firm and you needed to hire someone to fill a position. You would want to know if that person had a violent history so you’d know if you can trust him or not.

Medical Professionals

Written by concrim-2011-3ac

The question of medical professionals versus prison officials doing strip searches is not an easy yes or no, right or wrong answer. There are “pros” and “cons” for both. If medical officials are used there is a greater chance they would be able to detect something that could harm other prisoners. They are more knowledgeable about diseases and could better identify something that could be harmful. The down side to having a trained medical professional is the cost of having them there. Along with the prison officials there would be more people on staff.

The “pros” of having prison officials do the strip searches is the cost. the prison would have less people on staff, thus potentially saving money. The “cons” of having the prison official is that there is a higher risk of a suspect having a disease and could slip through because of the lack of the prison official’s medical knowledge.

The Free Exercise Clause

Written by concrim-2011-3ac

In this case the question brought to the Court is: Can a church discriminate against a teacher because of a disability? This case involves Hosanna Tabor Church and Cheryl Perich. After taking medical leave from her job, Cheryl Perich came back to her job to find she could not return because of her medical disability of Narcolepsy. It is clearly stated in the first amendment that Congress cannot make a law that prohibits a church’s rites. Also, The Americans with Disabilities Act states that no employer can discriminate, in this case to solely not hire because of a disability. This means that if there were two people applying for the same job the employer could not use the one applicant’s disability as a reason not to hire. If this case did not involve a church, the ADA would be in affect. But because this is a church, it is protected by the 1st Amendment, the ADA cannot be used. The church can use disability as a reason not to hire.