Cheshire Murders #4

1. The mitigating circumstances of the crimes committed were that both men involved were not mentally stable at any point in their lives. The fact that they raped these girls and lit them on fire while they were still alive makes this crime heinous and absolutely abominable. The mitigating circumstances do not help defray the heinous nature of the crimes committed at all. These crimes were too nasty and disturbing and completely unthinkable for these circumstances to make them any less. 

2. The prosecutors wanted to bring the defendants to trial because they wanted the criminals to get the death penalty, and that couldn't happen without a trial. The prosecutors and other people who wanted them dead couldn't bare to pass up the chance to execute these two men. The benefits of accepting the guilty peas included life in prison without parole. A negative effect of going to trial and seeking the death penalty is that is the prosecution doesn't win and the judge does not give them the death penalty, then the two men could walk free. 

3. In cases like these, mental health issues play a big role. Both men in this case had previous mental problems and were never mentally stable. Some think that it was their mental health that allowed them to commit such a terrible crime. Society has a hard task at hand with balancing punitive justice and our supporting mental health system. At what point do we stop letting criminals go just because they have a mental illness to "justify" their actions? I think it depends on the crime at hand and sometimes if it is bad enough, then the law should override our "supportive mental health system" and punish the criminals who are a threat to society and could put people in danger. 

Ballot Initiatives #2

http://votesmart.org/bill/4152/12896/emergency-contraception-for-rape-victims#.Uv15cfldWYk

The purpose of this initiative is to give women who have been sexual assaulted (raped) the proper information about emergency contraception from any licensed health care facility. This is occurring in Connecticut. To get an initiative on the ballot in the state of Connecticut, you have to get enough signatures on your petition.

1. Would this "emergency contraception" be considered abortion?

2. Should women who have been sexual assaulted have the right to an abortion because of the circumstance?

3. Do you think it would be fair for a woman who got raped to be forced to keep the baby?

History of Law #1

http://www.historyoflaw.info/

The history of man would not be what it is without the law. There never has been, and never will be, any group of people not controlled by some form of law. As long as man lives in society and wants to get anything done, there will be organization to do so by the law. Not everyone agrees with the law, though. Sometimes laws provoke rebellion, which defeats the purpose of the law in the first place because they were made to keep order. Laws will always be made by superior powers and man will have to abide by them, therefore mankind is dependent on the law. If two men were stranded on a desert island and one killed the other, it would be hard to declare it a crime and punish them because there were never laws enforced on them because it was only them two.

1) What would happen to mankind if all laws were abolished?
2) Could the man who killed the other man still be punished because murder is illegal all around the world?
3) Where did the thought of "laws" originate?

Mock Trial Reflection

The process of preparing for the mock trial and going through it step by step was extremely interesting to me. I liked how we had class time to create our arguments and make sure we had what we needed to hopefully win the case because I felt very prepared. I liked seeing the case unfold as people made their arguments and defensively took their stance. I was a crossexaminer and I really enjoyed it. I liked coming up with my own questions to make Officer Stevens look bad. I thought everybody who had a role in the trial and was prepared did a great job. I want to go to college to become a lawyer so doing this trial was eye opening to me because it made me realize that this is what I want to do. I hope we do more mock trials like this one soon. 

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.