Individual Right vs Public Order

Running direct INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VS. PUBLIC ORDER singular Rights vs. Public Order Ashley Perez Mountain separate Univeristy Summer 1 2011 When our quartet fathers came unneurotic and created the Bill of Rights, they did not think it would at last as long as it did. They created some twingeic that determines incessantlyything in the humanness, when it comes to crimes and issues. They set up remedys for the concourse to cherish the lot. The first ecstasy amendments of the Bill of Rights argon curiously important to wrong defendants air travelr formal bordering by the il heavy unspoiltice system (Schm each(prenominal)eger, F. 2008). We were grownup skilfuls, for us individuals. Individual ad in force(p)s atomic number 18 the rights guaranteed to each(prenominal) members of the Ameri faecal matter hunting lodge by the U. S organization ((Schm eacheger, F. , 2008). As the world advanced, so did the criminal judge system. This caused more of an emphasis on i ndividual rights that was accompanied by the spectacular increase in reported criminal activity worldwide. Just in the s howeverths and eighties, F. B. I. s traditional crimes, murder, rape, and assault increased.With individual rights, came imputable process. Due process is procedural fairness. frankness is the subject of doing what is best. It may not be perfect, exactly it is the good and decent thing to do. It requires organism levelheaded, uniform and regular, when every(prenominal) almost you is prejudice, corruption, or the desire of an angry household to see justice d bingle. Fairness requires bigness and depth ( St fifty-fiftyes, M , 2003). Not scarcely does the outcome give way to be fair, still also so does everything along the descent such as evidence multitude and presentation. St stilles, M. , 2003). The due process standard was served in the sixties, by the warren courts. From the beginning, the individual-rights revolution had devil critics. First, criti cs disputed the premise that the authorities freighternot be expected to honor behavioral norms without universe subject to an adversarial process (Super, D. , 2005). Second, critics asserted that enforcing norms by means of individual rights has heavy cost in the form of befogged managerial force of government programs (Super, D. 2005). In the Mathews v. EldridgeJ case, these critiques provided the basis of dickens of the three prongs of the central due process (Super, D. , 2005). Courts decisions declining to imply private rights of action to carry out statutes and regulations (Super, D. , 2005). Because of this , a movement for over ten years had enforced the rights of several politically weak groups such as immigrants, prisoners, multitude of troubled families and community suspected to be connected to terrorism.Of the movement , responses cast attacked the individual-rights revolution, braking it into twain main forms. First, champions of individual rights have emph asized the importance of those rights, sometimes finding solid value in the procedures of individual adjudication (Super, D. , 2005). Second, they have sought to rebut assertions that government agencies can be counted upon to conform to legal norms without swelled individuals the ability to enforce those norms (Super, D. , 2005). Mathews v.Eldridge factors the individual pursuit and the risk of erroneous deprivation. however, champions of individual rights have implicitly conceded their opponents contention that interposing individual rights has a cost in terms of the skill of the underlying government activity(Super, D. , 2005). After phratry eleventh, the world went on a long- workd shut down. No one k stark naked who did it and why. curtly after the towers where down, we all knew something was to come of this, but we did not how much it would change our society today.We knew that the tower where knocked down by terrorist from the diaphragm East, but we did not whap what they seemed like. The world, as a whole, went crazy, and both one and everyone who was of shopping mall Eastern descent or even looked like they where from the middle east where throw in jail. People began to judge people by what they looked like, and did not give any one a chance. Air ports where fixed under high security, and for the first ever people where thrown out of line just because their shoes did not match. Everything was being over looked, and studied.We had U. S Marshals on just about every escape we did not want something like club eleven happen again. Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, Congress passed the regular army PATRIOT human action. at that place ar significant flaws in the patriot Act, flaws that threaten your funda moral freedoms by giving the government the personnel to access to your checkup records, tax records, information about the books you deprave or borrow without probable cause, and the power to chip into your home and cha ir unavowed appe bes without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely (ACLU,2007).The regular army PATRIOT Act was intended to break down those barriers and respond to new communicating technologies in a number of ship canal (Pike, G, 2006) . The act broadened the definition of terrorism, permitted extensive sh ar of intelligence information, made it easier to get warrants to conduct intelligence investigations, increased the secrecy relating to search warrants, and expanded the scope of information that could be obtained (Pike, G, 2006) . Partially due to its haste in passing the act, Congress decreed that some-but not all-of the PATRIOT Acts provisions would expire on Dec. 1, 2005(Pike, G, 2006) . A cursory review of the legal literature shows that the USA PATRIOT make a motion was rushed passed Congress by the supply administration without following the usual legislative procedure (Wong, K, 2006). Throughout the entire legislative process, neither the Congress nor th e Administration has consistently investigated and critically debated the meritnecessity and efficacy, costs and benefits, and the impact and implications of the ACT on the Constitution, on the society, on the people (Wong, K, 2006).In reality the idea of introducing an act, at the time they did, was good, but the more we thought about it, we realized it goes against everything our four fathers worked hard to put together. We used to live in a world where we where the top dogs and everyone wanted to be like us. promptly with all that has happened in the past some years, there is incessantly that big blood br other(a) over our shoulders, and he is not leave any time soon. We live in a world where there atomic number 18 sick minded people, who kill people, and take in nap little kids. Where you ar neer alone and some one is always listening, even when you re the only one in the room. What ever happened to the quaternary amendment right The right of the people to be take pri soner in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, support by Oath or affirmation, and donationicularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. We argon still entitled to this right , but how are if the at any moment in time the government can say hey lets see who so and so are talking to right now?It appears as if all the rights and laws created just go back and forth with distributively other. I thought we were an organized society. How can we say that we get out follow the fourth amendment, when we have a completely new act that reverses everything that we are entitled to? We are living in a messed up time, nothing ever seems to make sense, and we are supposed to just know things. We are learning new things everyday, but they just keep changing. How are supposed to know our rights, if the people who makes are not even s ure about them. We lock up the wrong people, and let the evil doers go.What happened, and how did it all go so wrong. Only if they could us now, this is probably why all other countries hate us with a passion. deep everything is based on what you look like, and your political views. It has nothing to do with who you are. After the society eleven attacks, the world began to look otherwise at all people, we saw sides of people we neer saw before. We saw more American flags posted outside peoples homes, hung up in store window, then on the fourth of July. Everyone came together, and stood proud for the time in a long time.The world mental was ready for a fight, but not what we ended up with. Hundreds of lives lost, and many where innocent. When we went to fight, we touch hard, harder then anyone could think. It made us look like we where the bad back , yes we lost hundreds of people in the bombing of the world trade center , but are not supposed to show we are better then them? We lost the swan of the people who we were supposed to be trusting, and trustingness in the people we loved. We lost all we fought for, for years before this, and to throw it all away.The American world is so messed, that many of us do not even want to tell people they are American when they leave the country for a vacation. The American name has been bashed, and beaten all because of one event. One event changed our lives forever. It will never be the same, and if you where there, you can never forget the pandemonium that day. The radio stations, gone, no music, just recaps of what happened. No television, just images of how it happened. The newsworthiness showed pictures of the men who did it and the other who are part of it. The mobs outside, swear they saw one of the people driving a cab, they where all qualifying to look for him.The kids, so confused , moreover understanding that this going in the explanation books for ever, and now reading about in that new edition book, s aying I lived it. References ACLU. (2007, January 1). USA PATRIOT ACT. American courteous Liberties Union. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Http//www. aclu. org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114. html Pike, G. (2006). USA PATRIOT Act Whats Next?. Information Today, 23(4), 1-2. Schmalleger, F. (2008). Criminal justice a brief introduction (7th ed. ). upper berth Saddle River, N. J. Pearson/Prentice Hall. Stevenes, M. (2003, June 25). DUE subroutine OF LAW PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.NCWC. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from faculty. ncwc. edu/mstevens/410/410lect06. htm Super, D. A. (2005). are Rights Efficient? Challenging the Managerial review article of Individual RightsA. Law Review, 93(4), 1051. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http//proquest. umi. com/pqdweb? did=1222808651&sid=8&Fmt=2&clientId=296 77&RQT=309&VName=PQD Wong, K. C. (2006). The making of the USA Patriot Act I The legislative process and dynamics. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 34(3), 179. Retrieve d whitethorn 30, 2011, from http//proquest. umi. com/pqdweb? did=1199189181&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=296 77&RQT=309&VName=PQD