Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is when someone's private property is taken by the government for public use. I don't think this is fair at all because everyone has the right to property and eminent domain is taking that away. If someone is paying for private property and is living there, nobody should be able to take it away from them, especially when it is going to be used for the public. I know I wouldn't like it if someone took my property so I wouldn't want it to happen to anyone else because it's not fair. State and national government do have more power over people but eminent domain is taking away the people's right to have property.

Police Corruption

I do not think the police have an obligation to participate in internal investigations about corruption. The people involved in the corruption are probably themselves or someone they know so they would be more likely to "forget something" or leave out important information that could skew the investigation. Police officers are too close to the crime and where it is happening to be involved. 

I do think police officers should be more open about issues involving corruption to outsiders, but not insiders. The consequences would be that some of their fellow officers could be caught, but if they want to do the right thing, then that won't matter. If officers want to stop the problem, they should tell people outside the department because they will be more likely to actually find a solution and stop the problem. If they tell people inside the department, the chances of them doing something about it and acting on it is slim. 

Drug Crime

Which strategy (or strategies) do you think makes most sense to implement in response to drug crime?
In response to drug crime, I think order-maintaining police would be the best to implement. This type of policing involves keeping watch of certain parts of cities where violence/suspicious acts are more likely to occur. Usually, the police will be about to narrow down a few people suspicious of selling/using drugs. After that, they can figure out where this is most likely happening and patrol that area more frequently and attentively so the risk of these criminals committing drug crimes will decrease and the ability of the police to catch them will increase. If these people who are selling/using drugs see police circling an area, it will be less likely that they will commit these acts because they know they are being watched, especially around parks and playgrounds. Implementing this type of police will help decrease drug crime.

Washington, DC/ Chicago Justice

Are current criminal laws enough to address the need for justice in Washington, DC and Chicago?
Recently in Washington DC, a military veteran who had access to a US Navy complex building went on a shooting rampage, killing 12 and then getting shot himself. Also in Chicago, which has the worst homicide rates, there was a shooting spree in a local park wounding 13, including a 3 year old boy. Unlike the shooting in the Navy complex building, the shootings in the park in Chicago could have been prevented. What parents would bring their 3 year old son to a park after dark? They knew that they lived in Chicago, notorious for violence, so they basically set themselves up for it. Although this is true, the shooter is still in the wrong. I don't think current criminal laws are enough to address the need for justice in this case because of the fact Chicago is so violent, something needs to change to lower the homicides rates. If laws don't start changing, these rates will never change.
The shooting spree in Washington, on the other hand, is a perfect example of why current laws aren't doing enough to keep people safe. I don't feel safe anywhere anymore because there are so many dangerous people who have guns. The families of the people who were shot by this criminal will never see justice because he was killed at the scene. More and more people are being killed by gun violence and nobody is making any productive moves to change the laws and serve justice.

Harvard Justice 2

When it comes to utilitarianism, it would have to depend on the circumstances in my opinion. Utilitarianism has to do with achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. In the case of the train having broken brakes and having to either go straight and kill five people or turning and killing 1, I would turn and only kill the one person. As wrong as killing people is, I would rather see one person die than five. There is a greater number of people in danger if the train stays straight so to achieve happiness for the greater amount of people, it would only make sense to turn and only kill the one person.
On the other hand, if there was a court case, for example, about a bunch of rich people standing against one poor person, it wouldn't make sense to rule the way the rich people wanted just because there is more of them than the one poor guy. The poor guy should have just as much of a chance at winning the trial as the rich, regardless of how many people there are on each side. That would be fair for everyone. Utilitarianism, in my opinion, is only justifiable depending on the circumstances.

Harvard Justice 1

If I was the trolley driver, I would consider consequential because of the outcome. If I had no choice, like the trolley driver, to kill one person or to kill five people, I would choose to kill the one person. Killing anyone is morally wrong no matter what, but under these circumstances, if I had no choice, I would choose to save the five people because that would involve saving the most amount of people possible. 

Justice in Syria

What does Justice look like in Syria?

The huge controversy in the world at the moment is how Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, is using chemical weapons against his people. There is a worldwide agreement, that Syria is apart of, that forbids the use of chemical weapons. Syria went against this agreement, which has resulted in many deaths of Syrian people, including innocent children. To President al-Assad, justice is using these illegal chemical weapons on his own people and killing them. President Obama is aware of what is happening in Syria and is threatening to get involved to keep the Syrian people safe, which is his way of getting justice. The Syrian people need help, and President Obama believes that we are the right people do to it. Many people are opposed to US involvement in Syria seeing as how we just got out of war in Iraq and how we lost so many soldiers. Other American people believe that we are strong enough to go serve justice in Syria and that if we don't take a stand, more Syrian people will be killed by these illegal chemical weapons.

Recently, Syria has agreed to give up their chemical weapons to Russia for dismantling. If Bashar al-Assad does end up going through with this plan, the US will have no reason to attack in Syria. If he does not, then that will give President Obama even more motivation to get involved and it will be inevitable that we will do so. President al-Assad's "justice" in Syria is not fair to the people and goes against the worldwide agreement to never use chemical weapons, never mind against one's own people. The US and President Obama's "justice" is getting involved to try to eliminate the use of chemical weapons completely in Syria and helping the innocent people effected by them.