Introduction
Context relevance is one of the major findings of survey on public convictions about civil liberties and democracy. In spite of the significance of the awareness of the support for principles of democracy, the degree of support conferred on the democratic norms if they contradict other important principles is relatively more (Gibson, 1987; Davis & Silver, 2004 p. 1).
Democracy commonly demands a grand exercise of moderation; however, when it comes to tolerating and enduring the consequences of democratic beliefs the intensity of their dedication to democratic standards may be best condone. On the other hand, regarding the common citizen, civil liberties matters are more probable to be absent from daily live experiences; however, in specific settings civil liberties matters have direct implications for citizens’ freedom and well-being relevance (Gibson, 1989; Davis & Silver, 2004).
The September 11th terrorist attack sparked a phenomenal amendment of the Americans dedication to democratic ethics. Also, personal and democratic liberty has been jeopardized by the attacks, since the federal government has been compelled to enforce certain policies which involve checking on their freedom. Such restrictions include increased surveillance on their documents and communication, increased searches on personal possessions, likely confinement regardless of “a writ of habeas corpus,” probable proceedings of military court devoid of the considerable protection of appropriate process afforded by the civil tribunals (Davis & Silver, 2004).
Pursuit driving
Alpert and colleagues (1996) argues that the civic and private reaction to pursuit driving was in its initial stages despite the increasing demands for evaluation and amendments, by clandestine citizens, media representatives, and civic agencies. Importantly, the government has had numerous investigations on the problems arising from pursuit driving. In addition, the United State Congress has conducted trials regarding pursuit driving and many local grand judges have evaluated issues arising from pursuit driving.
This genre of inquiry has triggered policy reforms, instruction and regulation of pursuit driving. Gerald LaCrasse, a victim of pursuit, founded the first grass-root association called Desere with the objective of reforming pursuit driving. This association transformed the original management and guidance of numerous victims alongside their families. In addition, this organization concerns the education of law enforcement personnel and the civilians in regard to pursuit processes. 1990s saw the expansion of Desere to Stop the Tragedies of Police Pursuit [STOPP] an organization that has spearheaded the development and the management of amendment in pursuit driving. STOPP has developed a national system of victims including those who are demanding restructuring in pursuit driving. Noteworthy, the Pursuit Awareness Act of 1995 was introduced to Congress (Alpert et al. 1996, p. 5).
Consequently, the adverse effects of pursuit driving have been condemned as pointless and dangerous by the citizen and media groups, and some members in the police fraternity. Therefore, review of pursuit policies and activities has been performed by several law enforcement organizations (Alpert et al. 1996, p. 5).
The major dilemma connected with pursuit driving is determining whether the benefits of prospective arrest of criminals overwhelm the risk of jeopardizing the lives of police officers, the civilians, as well as the suspect. The matter arising in an inclusive national Institute of Justice (NIJ) survey of police pursuit support those discuss in study in police utility of serious force. However, heavy restrictions applied upon pursuit driving could endanger the safety of the public from dangerous personality escaping arrest. Yet, inadequate restriction on pursuit driving can lead to unnecessary accidents and damages (Alpert et al, 1997, p. 1).
Hate crimes
A hate crime concerns the oppression of a person on the account of his or her religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual inclination or nation of origin. Such crimes may express in the form of bodily assaults, assault using crude weapons, murder, vandalism, attack on homes or rooms of worship, verbal harassment, rape, and robbery (International Center for Victims of Crime [ICVC], 2008).
Based on Finn and McNeil (1987, p. 1, cited in ICVC, 2008), such categories of crime are more serious relative to those which do not concern prejudice since they mean to intimidate a whole social class. Further, the United States is founded on values of equality, personal liberty, and freedom of association; and therefore, prejudiced offenses disrupt the very fabric of the American society. Nevertheless, such forms of crime are common in the American society and comprise the day to day experience of majority of the members of marginal society (National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, 1986, cited in ICVC, 2008).
According to Finn and McNeil economic competition aggravates hatred crimes, particularly the vandalism and arson such as that which targeted Korean-owned investments during the Los Angeles post-Rodney King judgment rioting in 1992. Ogawa (1990, p. 140, cited in ICVC, 2008), argues that hatred crimes are perpetuated by white superiority group through their notion that white men will always rule regardless of extent of racial diversity of the country since they view themselves as the endangered social class.
Death penalty
The factors that cause a person to commit murder are unique to the individual who commit the crime. Circumstances and motives under which a murder may occur are; (a) during domestic quarrel, when passion is high; (b) may be driven by alcohol or other drugs, when he or she is not in sane control; (b) assassins performing contract killing and who do not expect to be apprehended; (c) psychopaths and other psychologically compromised persons who do not value life and who cannot come to terms with the outcome of their doings; (d) self-destructive persons who think that death is their merit and want to be arrested and sentenced to death; and (e) brained-damaged folks, who succumb to bouts of rage and occasionally commit murder. Therefore, except in the case of contract killers, most perpetrator of the crime are in their irrational state of mind when they commit murder. To expect death penalty to deter the perpetration of this crime is unrealistic (Robinson, 2005).
According to a survey on the perspectives of death penalty, 80% of criminologist from the American Society of Criminology, the Law and Society Association, and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, admitted that death penalty does not deter the perpetration of the crime (Radelet & Akers, 1995, cited in Robinson, 2005). Also, 67% of U.S. police chiefs refute death penalty as a deterrent of the crime (Hart Research Associates poll of police chiefs, 1995, cited in Robinson, 2005).
However, there is a negligible evidence that death penalty deter occurrence of murder. According to the findings from study of police chiefs, death penalty rank the last among the 7 methods of deterring homicide; 1% of the police chiefs perceived death penalty as the most effective method of deterring murder (Robinson, 2005). Also, a study by Ehrlich (1975), found out that occurrence of murder was consistence with the changes in the chances of execution. These outcomes led him to conclude that 7 or 8 murders were deterred by every execution between 1933 and 1967.
Gun control
In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in that the 2nd amendment by defending the strictest forms of gun restriction by refuting claims of shallow interpretation, which confines the relevance to the militias. The verdict does not undermine realistic efforts at gun constraint, although it prohibits the form of absolute ban of handguns in Washington D.C.
Although the issue of gun control has decline in general public concern, it is still a “wedge issue” since most opponents committed to their right to free gun ownership to the extent of voting on the issue. Democratic Platform in 2008 confirmed the second amendment right of Americans to possess guns at same time promoting the expansion of the certain bun on assault weapon. On the other hand the Republican Platform includes a tough support of gun ownership right alongside supporting the June 2008 Supreme Court verdict (“Gun Control Policy Issues,” 2009).
The initial gun control program was passed by Congress in 1934 which restrained the sale of totally automated guns. This legislation was implemented in the 1938 which demanded the licensing of gun supplier and forbid individuals of violent crime from procuring guns. Further, the Gun Control Act of 1968 restrained imported firearms increased the documentation of individuals not qualified buy firearms to cover to any non-business linked crimes, abusers of illegal drugs, mentally compromised persons, and minors.
Conclusion
Legislatures concerning these sensitive issues are not dependable and require demands reforms. Also, the federal government should focus on amending some unrealistic policies and tightening the enforcement of some which seem sensible.
Reference List
Alpert, G. P. et al. (1997). Police pursuit: policies and training. National institute of Justice: U.S. Department of Justice, office of Justice Programs.
Alpert, G. P., Kennedy, D., Dunham, R., Smith, W., & Cosgrove, M. (1996). Police pursuit and the use of force. National Institute of Justice
Davis, D. W. & Silver, B. D. (2004). Civil liberties vs. security: public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American journal of political science. Midwest Political Science association.
Gun Control Policy Issues. (2009). Internet guide to an understanding of policy issues. News Batch.
Robinson, B. A. (2005). Capital Punishment – death penalty: support and opposition. Ontario Consultant on Religious Tolerance.