Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Ten

This chapter is similar to that of chapter one, because it talks about morals, values, and norms. This chapter is about social change and how different types of people and communities react to it. Depending on the society, community or even person, change can be easily seen as a bad thing. It can be threatening to certain individuals, because they disagree with the new ways. To have change means to break tradition. Several people think this is in violation of values which have been created and evolved over time. When ideas are introduced into a community it is embedded into them over generations and generation making those specific ways very valuable and special. Throughout history social change has sometimes been displayed as a bad thing. Change is most commonly introduced by someone from outside the society or community of people. Sadly, several “changes” have been brought with death, war and even invasions making it understandable that having something be permanently different is not very welcome. I disagree with the thought of change being a negative thing. Social change opens doors and enables all of us to learn new things and become more open minded. The world would not be where it is today if it were not for different individuals from different parts of the world traveling and spreading what they know and have learned. As stated above, I understand that change can be said to be bad, but if the good is concentrated on more, there is a tons more that can come out of the situation which is positive. Having change come and go does not mean that your values have to change or that they are violated against. What you believe is right and wrong is fine. You can walk through the open doors which are in front of you or you can just as easily shut them. It is your decision. Change is inevitable and will occur all the time since we are all human and have the freedom of the creative mind. We can say and think what we will about how the world should be. This is why the US is a democracy. Modern changes are usually able to work themselves out smoothly, because we are so open-minded. In any case that certain people feel to no accept change and the growth of knowledge, there are the courts of law which can help resolve any issues. An interesting web page about the effect the courts can actually have on social change is http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98118643.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Nine

Of all the different reasons for and against the death penalty, I find myself swaying both ways at different times depending on the case. In the text there are several legitimate reasons that justify why the United States should change to abolishing the death penalty. I would have to agree with the majority of them. The US says we are so different from other countries and that we want to be nothing like our enemies. Having the death penalty be legal puts us at the same level as several other countries such as China and Iran. There is always the question of whether or not someone on death row actually should be there. In the past people who were thought to be guilty, but were really innocent, were put to death. By the time cases were finally resolved, it is too late to free them because they had already been injected with a serum that makes them sleep forever. Does the death penalty really help with deterrence? Are people really learning that certain crimes committed can lead to their lives being taken? These are hard questions to answer. I believe it all depends on the life of every individual. Some only have to experience general deterrence to learn while others have to go through direct deterrence to actually decided and figure out that what they had done was wrong. When agreeing with the death penalty, does the government really have the power to play God and take someone’s life, because they have broken the law? Considering I am not a very religious person, I would not think of this question to be valid question to testify against the death penalty. I have always believed that you should do unto others as you want done to you. Some people would rather sit in jail for the rest of their lives and get fed three meals a day, have a bed to sleep in, a clean shower every day and people to talk to. Others would hate this and not want to rot in a cell until they finally take their last breaths. If someone I loved was murdered and I had the chance to face the killer, I would probably want to kill them myself, but then again is death what they want? If they would rather die then I would want them to stay alive and think of what they have done to my family and I. If they are scared of death and want to live in prison instead then I would want them to die so that they could not have the pleasures of prison life. Having a criminal put to death saves money and trouble in all aspects. It costs one amount to kill them and saves money and time on trials, attorneys, judges, living in prisons, paying those to take care of the prisons, etc. As I stated before, I can not directly relate myself to either pro or against capital punishment. Hopefully, by reviewing the website http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/group1.htm you can make a decision on whether you are for or against it. This website has different links for different reasons to why individuals feel as they do when it comes to the death penalty.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Eight

When reading this chapter before our discussions in class, I was really disappointed at the fact that children were really treated as they were back in the seventeenth century. When I first learned about this kind of treatment done to children last year, it made me sick to my stomach. The first thing I would think of when I heard about the New York House of Refuge (NYHR) was the movie “Annie”. In this film the children were driven to work in very poor conditions and are treated as slaves. This kind of house or workplace was thought to be very good in the eyes of the community, but really it was often of worse living condition then living in a broken down home. The New York House of Refuge was said to be a place where children could receive work training and spiritual training. Instead they were pushed around and abused. When children arrived at this hellhole they were to stay there until they grew to be adults. There was not any way of getting out or anything. Eventually, it became all what the children knew of.
Finally, in the late 1800’s a new era began and the Child Savers movement started. This was a much better living environment than that of the NYHR. Instead of saying that they wanted to help the children who came to them, they actually did. They provided them with work and spiritual training. This was a much better atmosphere because it was also very family orientated and they children were treated as they should have been from the very start. The textbook provided a lot of very useful information to this, however if you check out more on http://www.rny.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_ed_reform_history.shtml and also http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=215-OQtLnfsC&dq=Child+savers&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=dmE9zkek1q&sig=yH_uHP116qu-Idq577kQsMkvbxE&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPR9,M1.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Seven

It is crazy to think about law and how far it has come over the years. Some aspects of it haven’t even changed and other aspects have changed so much that you would have no idea how they used to be. During our class discussions on property law and family law I was very intrigued by how different they are in the sense that one has changed so much and the other is very old and barely changed.
Property law has to do with the interest of property. There are three different areas: real, personal and intellectual. Real property is land and anything attached to that land. For instance, homes, barns, buildings, farm land, etc. It is usually anything that can not be lifted up and taken away. Next, there is personal property. This has to do with physical things, belongings of yours you can touch. Examples can be a car, your purse, clothing, jewelry, set of cutlery, etc. And lastly, there is intellectual/abstract property. This is anything which is not physical, for instance, ideas or concepts developed by one individual or group. One discussion on class was about this kind of property and as I recall they asked about how a student can be charged with plagiarism of their own work. I personally think this is absolutely ridiculous. I believe that if you write something yourself that you should have the right to do whatever you desire with it. If it just so happens to be that you are assigned a new paper in a class which you have previous paper for, then you should be able to use it and turn it in without having to correctly cite your own paper you have already written. Property law has been around for a very long time and is similar now to even what it was back then. This is why it is considered the oldest law.
Family law has to do with there being no judgment of right and wrong, but instead there everything is worked out so that every single person involved is pleased with the overall outcome and result of the situation. Family law is considered the newest law because it is constantly changing. It seems like everyday, somewhere, there is a change to the rules dealing with gay marriage or what is considered a marriage and how will the benefits work this kind of couple. Today there is certain eligibility to marriage. The first rule is each person must be of age or you must have consent for a parental guardian. Next, you must be mentally competent with what you are doing. Each individual must understand they are getting married and what that means. You also can not marry close or direct family and each person who is to be married, can not be married already. Lastly, same sex marriage at not allowed in several states. This is where I get frustrated and upset. Same sex marriage is no new news to anyone. Homosexuals have been fighting for years to have equal rights to marriage as man and woman have. Considering it is almost 2009, it is time that the world wakes up and accepts people for who they and provides every citizen with what they deserve. You can find plenty of information on same sex marriages at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Six

Even though I am not a Criminal Justice Major I am fascinated with it all still. I am a huge fan of going on ride-alongs with different officers and learning hands on experience from what occurs during the hours you are with them. On my very first ride-along I ventured on the officer and I actually ended up taking a younger teen to the detention facility here in Boise. It was awesome to be sitting in the front of the cop car with juvenile in the back seat, but at the same time it was very bizarre. When we first were going to arrest the juvenile with the warrant out for his arrest, I heard the officer I was shadowing tell him his rights. These rights are known as the Miranda Rights. There are four main statements made to any individual placed under arrest and taken into custody. They consist of:
1. Right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment)
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law (Fifth Amendment)
3. Right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment)
4. If you can not afford one, one will be provided for you (Sixth Amendment)
When I was witnessing these rights being read to the juvenile the officer stated them slightly different, but they were very much alike. From reviewing this chapter I learned that the rights have to be said when you are going to placed someone under custody and also if the officer wants to question you at all. Every individual has the right to waive these rights at any time. To have a valid waiver it must be voluntary, intelligent and knowingly. When watching criminal cases on television, it is very common that if one happens to be arrested, they usually state that they want an attorney/lawyer. You can find several different interesting facts about Miranda Rights at http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/miranda_rights.html.
Even though it is obligated for an officer to read you your rights if you end up being arrested, there are exceptions to this. If it is in the case of public safety, for instance a victim could be alive somewhere and if time is wasted to read the rights, the person could die; the rights do not need to be said. Another exception is routine questioning at the scene of a crime. It is always a benefit to get as much of the evidence as possible at the time of an accident. Lastly, if someone happens to be asked to take part in a stop and frisk, Miranda rights do not need to be stated. It is okay for an officer to stop and ask your name and their safety they can stop and frisk you.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Five

I have always been a guru on watching criminal investigation television shows. Sadly to say, I have always been into the crime which occurs, but I never understood what the defendant was charged with. I would hear the attorney and lawyers say “First Degree Murder” or “Involuntary manslaughter.” Ever since we have gone over this specific chapter, I have now been able to understand the diversity between all of the different types of homicide charges.
First degree murder is a killing which is intentional, but not planned out or premeditated. There are different ways individuals define premeditated, but to me I believe it to be a careful and well thought out design for carrying out a crime. Others may say that it is premeditated the minute the killing is formed. In this day and age a crime which is instantly thought of and then carried out can often have worse results than one which is planned out for a certain period of time. Second degree murder is pretty much the same as first degree, only it is not premeditated at all and it is just deliberate. An example of this would be if a criminal had the sudden urge to kidnap a child and rap and then finally kill them. There is no prior plan; they were just consumed in the sheer bloodlust of it all.
Manslaughter is pretty interesting. There are two different categories which are voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter is what you would call a “heat of passion” killing. A good example which helps me remember it is thinking about a husband and a cheating wife. The husband comes home one day to find his lovely wife cheating on him and in the “heat of passion” the husband kills the man whom his wife is sleeping with. There is no plan to this kind of killing which makes it the complete opposite of being a deliberate crime. Involuntary manslaughter is when an unintentional killing or death happens in the result of a very reckless act. A possible case for this kind of manslaughter could be a person driving down a road at 180MPH and ends up killing someone. It was an “accident” that someone died, but you had no right going to the speed you were going.
Lastly, there is negligent homicide which is similar to involuntary manslaughter, because it is also an unintentional killing. However, in this certain type of crime the person committing the offense was not aware that they created a situation in which someone was killed. Anything to do with murder and killings are fascinating to me. I could watch shows all day about different crimes committed. If you are as interested as I am I would recommend checking out http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm if you would like to learn more and read about some neat articles.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Four

This chapter has a lot of very useful and important information in it. However, what I found most interesting was the lecture over the different jurisdictions. The word jurisdiction is the legal authority or power of a court to hear, pronounce on and decide a case. There are four types of jurisdiction and they are personal, subject matter, geographical and hierarchical. I found this appealing, because of how all different areas for which cases can happen are separated into different categories. Personal jurisdiction is defined as the court having the authority over a certain person. If you think about it, we are all under personal jurisdiction, because we are all citizens of some state. Another way you could fall under this is if you commit an act against the laws of the state.
Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority for a court to hear particular type of case. This type of jurisdiction can hear specific types of cases such as traffic court, juvenile court and probate court. In this sense every specific court will only hear those cases. For example, if I was 16 years-old and stole an article of clothing from JC Penny’s and was caught; I would be sent to the juvenile court within the subject matter jurisdiction.
The third type of jurisdiction is geographical. This is the authority for a court to hear cases that arise within specified boundaries such as city, county, state or country. This is a very interesting jurisdiction to me because it is crazy to think that someone who commits a crime in one state then flees and commits another crime somewhere else and so on, they can be charged for every single individual crime in every state and be sentenced for every one. Being able to prosecute the defendant in every different state does not violate double jeopardy because each place is a separate sovereign government. Since I was so intrigued by this type of jurisdiction I look further into it and found more information on it at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisdiction.
Lastly, there is the hierarchical jurisdiction which is the division of responsibilities and functions among the various courts. This type of jurisdiction is divided up into four different jurisdictions: general, limited, original and appellate. General/limited jurisdiction is the authority of the court that is not limited to hearing only a particular type of case. Original jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear the case initially. If I were to commit a felony then my case would begin in the district court thus the original jurisdiction is where the trial takes place. Appellate court is simply the power of the court to look over a decision made on a lower court and they can accept or deny the decision.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Three

When starting this chapter I remember Jeremy asking us to see how well we all knew the first nine amendments. Sadly, I was actually only able to get about three or four of them correct. When going over all nine as a class, I began remembering more and more of them and their definitions. Before beginning this chapter I did know that First Amendment was defined as the freedom on (political) expression which included: speech, press, religion, and assembly. Also, the Second Amendment was right to bear arms and the Third Amendment is the right against quartering soldiers and right to privacy. It is when we got to the Fourth Amendment that I was enlightened by new information.
The Fourth Amendment is the right against unreasonable search and seizure; however, there are two clauses to this. They consist of the warrant clause and the reasonableness clause. It is a very good thing the government decided to make these changes to this amendment because the warrant clause protects individuals from being inspected without a warrant by law enforcement officers. If this change was not made to the amendment then it would be okay for any person of the law to enter your home or property just because they believed they should. I do know there are special instances where officers can enter a home without a warrant, but for the most part a warrant is required to search and seize anything. For example, if there happens to be a case about a drug dealer and an officer would like to enter the defendants’ home, they need to have a warrant to do so because if they do not, anything they find which can be used in court will no longer be allowed since it was unlawfully taken. The next clause made to the Fourth Amendment is the reasonableness clause. This means that any search which you may want to have done must be a reasonable one. An officer can not decide to search someone’s house just because he does not like the owners or he wants to pick on the people who reside in the pink house. There has to be a legitimate reason of why the individuals are breaking the law in any way and then you can search.
The Fifth Amendment is about due process. As defined by Jeremy, this is the process due to you. I love that this applies to EVERYONE! Right to self-incrimination, double jeopardy and lastly, right to grand jury are also all included under this amendment. For the Sixth Amendment you have the right to a speedy trail, attorney, counsel, trial by “impartial” jury, and public jury. This specific amendment has to do with the trial process. The Seventh Amendment is the right to a trial by jury for federal civil cases. The right to excessive bail and right against cruel and unusual punishment is the Eighth Amendment. I was really interested in this amendment because I was fascinated by how many ways there are to get a bail. There are five different types of pre-trail release. They consist of ROR, cash bond, property bond, bail bonds person, and signature bond. Lastly there is the Ninth Amendment. This amendment states that the Bill of Rights are not the only rights that citizens have. If you would like more detailed descriptions of the Constitutional Bill of Rights you can visit http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm.

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter One

When starting a new textbook you never know what to expect. Unfortunately, when I started reading chapter one I was not really impressed. I am not one to find the philosophy behind history very interesting. It was nice to learn about it in this chapter, but definitely not something I would look deeper into on my own time. I like to be intrigued by information I read so that I will go back later and learn more when the time is provided. One thing I actually found to be very interesting was that of all the philosophers presented and their perspectives of law, I am most compatible with John Locke. I love the fact he believed in individual freedoms and that the government should serve the people and not the other way around. I could not agree more with the belief that as humans we are graced with the gift of having the life we want and going for it. Locke believed every person is a "blank slate" and as you grow and live, you become who you are. It is amazing how an experience can have such an impact on a person and how from that it can change your own "mold" of how you would like to be seen and live. I can sort of relate to Thomas Hobbes as well with the idea of a Social Contact. It is interesting, because it is similar to a deal being made which can not be broken from either person. If one does decide to stretch the boundaries and break the contract then there are repercussions from both the legal side and civilian side. However, I thoroughly disagree with the belief that individual freedoms break apart the community. To me, it is the special qualities of every individual which make a community grow and learn. Life would be horribly boring and uneventful if you have everyone liking, doing, thinking, and living all in the same way. If you would like to learn more about John Locke and his beliefs, simply check out this website: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

Law, Justice and Society: Chapter Two

What does justice mean to you? I find it hard to set a strict definition to this term, because it means so many different things to so many unique individuals. To find out more about justice I would recommend visiting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice, because it gives you a plethora of definitions and examples of justice. Having there be several definitions which could be assigned to this term, to me justice means getting what you deserve or making sure those who commit crimes are not treated the same as those who live life crime-free. In the text it states that justice is "treating equals equally and unequals unequally." To search even deeper than the mere definition of justice, there are different types of justice: distributive and retributive. I agree with both distributive and retributive justice, because they both seem to cover two very different ends of the spectrum. Distributive justice is sort of believing if you do work for what you want and show that you are deserving of benefits, then you can get it. If you would rather sit on your rump and not do anything, then you should not receive anything since you have done a single thing in return. Retributive justice is finding out who is deserving of punishment. I am a strong believer of making sure justice is served and with that substantive procedural justice is used to make sure that the person guilty is found and pays for their actions.
Jeremy asked a very interesting question when we covered this chapter and it was, "does law just exist or is it socially defined?" As I stated before, it is hard to really set a specific meaning to justice. Since there are so many different cultures and beliefs in this day and age, there are slight differences with everyone. After thinking long and hard about this question I believe law is socially defined. As stated in Chapter 1 post, I agreed with John Locke about how we are all blank slates, but I do believe with that the society helps the government serve the people. This is possible because we as a community decide what is governed as right or wrong. If you trace back to the philosophers you will find that some of them believe that it is the people who make the law. Law is sort of like fashion, you have to stay with the trend of things or you will be completely out of the loop and not have any idea of what hit you, but it is different in the sense that law does not change as much or as often as fashion does. We the people have a say of how we want to live and in the best judgement of the people. I believe in Evolutionary law which is created by human choice. We are not a socialist country nor are we governed by a King or Queen and because of this we have a choice and a say of how our laws are made and the distinction between what is accepted and what is not accepted.