Over two hundred years ago the fledgling government of the newly liberated America drew together the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The country had declared itself free of royal tyranny, fought and won its independence from the United Kingdom, and declared that all people shall have certain inalienable rights. These rights were guaranteed to all people eventually and the fact that American’s have these rights should make them fight to keep them. In America today certain rights have come into question, questioned and nitpicked, have been circumnavigated around, and trampled on to the point that Americans are no longer as free as they once were. The Bill of Rights has now been called into question over national security.
One of the first signs of a technologically advanced, democratic society is the nature of its press. Free speech and freedom of the press show just how free a country truly is. In America today the press has enough freedom to call into question police brutality but to question government action. Some question whether the media goes too far, and if they cause crime. This question can not be answered unanimously by all the people of America. Sensibilities, morals, and standards change from person to person in this country. While some news programs show a lot more on their shows concerning death and violence the press can not be blamed. According to Anderson and Bushman people who are exposed to long periods of media violence may end up becoming violent themselves (Anderson and Bushman, 2001). People make their own choices and whether they have been led to believe that violence is right or wrong can not be blamed on the media but on themselves.
Keeping the press free may not seem like a big issue but consider this: without a free press the government can make up their own versions of stories, control what American’s watch, read, and hear, and lead the country into a path not designed for the best interests of the people. Ensuring freedom of the press keeps Americans safe and informed. There is one problem with the press however: media coverage can adversely affect the outcome of criminal proceedings.
In America today information given by the media can affect public opinion and the verdicts of trials. The information given by the media may make it hard for a trial to take place fairly. Public opinions may be swayed to allow a guilty person to go free or an innocent person to be convicted. High profile cases like the trial of O. J. Simpson or Scott Peterson become media circuses and the line between fact and fiction may become blurred. Because of this some may wish for the media to be under tighter controls. Any control over the media however would be detrimental to American society. In this case the old adage of “one has to take the good with the bad” is definitely right.
As was previously mentioned police brutality has been covered by the press in recent years. Law enforcement has a very critical job in America and has at times been much criticized. Law enforcement agencies are charged with protecting the American public. At times law enforcement is forced into violent situations, have their lives placed in danger, and work in very stressful situations. The use of force is very necessary at times to subdue a particularly violent suspect or explosive situation. When one considers WHY excessive force is used though, one sees the reason WHY it may be a problem. In 2001 Retoric and Reality write that “11 of every 100 law enforcement officers in the nation were assaulted (with three out of 100 injured); 67 were killed in the line of duty (Retoric and Reality, 2001). Use of force, use of lethal force especially, is left up to the judgment of each officer but is investigated by the respective department the officer(s) belong to.
Police brutality on the other hand can be very injurious, uncalled for and seems to pervade law enforcement throughout America. Take for instance the case of Robert Ellison of Bluefield, West Virginia. In September 1998, Robert Ellison, a 20-year-old African American, was beaten and dragged by two white Bluefield police officers outside a nightclub, leaving him paralyzed below the neck” (West Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2004). Other cases found within the state of West Virginia alone show police officers using brutality in cases where excessive force was not even called for! In Los Angeles, California an entire police department was placed under media scrutiny for the entire world to see because of allegations of police brutality and misconduct. In New Orleans, Louisiana several widely publicized cases of police brutality have emerged in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It has been found by this writer that almost every state in America has had cases of police brutality brought against a police department.
Across the country reports of police brutality with no cause have been found. It is certainly understandable that some force may be needed to control certain situations but injuring someone to the point of permanent damage, killing the person, or terrorizing them for no apparent reason is simply wrong. Review boards, advisory committees and more stringent screening measures for new hires should be utilized in every law enforcement agency throughout the United States on top of internal or federal investigations. Police brutality is a problem in the United States and needs to be dealt with to ensure the safety of American citizens.
When it comes to dealing with criminals police brutality is not the only issue that some may find offensive. The death penalty and its association with the Eighth Amendment is one of the most hotly debated topics in America today. It should not be abolished though as it is a suitable punishment for certain crimes. It has been asked whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and should it be abolished? The resounding answer to that should be no!
Throughout time capital punishment has been used. From the first European foot to set foot on what would become American shores to the present day capital punishment has been used. Before the twentieth century forms of capital punishment were used that could certainly be considered cruel. Hanging, death by firing squad, and perhaps most terrifying the electric chair were all used to ensure the death of a convicted criminal.
Later in the twentieth century however death by lethal injection replaced most of these options. During the 20th century more sensible strictures were placed on what was to be considered a capital crime punishable by execution (DPIC.com, 2006). This infers that capital punishment has been recognized as a civilized and acceptable form of punishment for certain crimes and is not unusual. The death penalty is not cruel, when done by lethal injection, nor is it unusual; therefore it should not be revoked. Releasing a prisoner who has committed a capital crime, either into the general prison population or releasing them back into society to their next victim would be a cruel and unusual punishment to society.
The rights of convicted criminals have been questioned but one question that does not seem to come up often enough is what about female victims? Are women in America given the full attention of the justice system when they have been victimized? Law is created by legislation and interpreted by the court system. “As the Judiciary Committee stated in its report last year, “[s]tudy after study commissioned by the highest courts of the States-from Florida to New York, California to New Jersey, Nevada to Minnesota-has concluded that crimes disproportionately affecting women are often treated less seriously than comparable crimes against men” (1993). The crimes that women most often have to face are physical and mental abuse, assault, rape, or harassment. It is easy for these crimes to be alleged falsely but this rarely happens.
Perhaps the most telling testimony about how female victims of crime are treated can be found from the RAINN website. The RAINN website shows that only a little over 50 percent are arrested; of those arrested only 80 percent are prosecuted; of those prosecuted only 58; and arguably the most horrible, atrocious statistic of all: only 69 percent of those CONVICTED of rape will spend time in jail (RAINN, 2006). Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists-1 out of 16- will ever spend a day in jail; one out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime” (RAINN, 2006). With these sorts of statistics for rape and sexual assault alone one can see that women are biased against in the justice system. If the fact that a woman has been so horribly violated garners such small penalties it can only mean that the justice system simply does not care about female victims in America.
Knowing that so many convicted sexual offenders will never spend any time in jail the question arises: should the ones who have been convicted of similar or equally heinous crimes be released on probation? The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that “(r)eleased prisoners with the highest re-arrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)” (2002). If one were to use the proceeding statement from the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics one could easily answer the question of probation with a no.
When a person commits a crime they do it knowing that if arrested they may face prison sentences. The person knows that the crime is wrong but they choose to do it anyway. By doing the crime they agree that the punishment they receive can land them in jail. Cutting the time they spend fulfilling the punishment they were handed down and releasing them from prison does not teach them their lesson, it does not keep them from committing the crime again if they so choose and they do not fulfill their debt to society. Probation should be abolished in this country whether prisons are overcrowded or not. Once a person has committed a crime they have a debt to society to fulfill. The debt a criminal incurs should be repaid in full, as any other debt should be paid.
The rights of criminals and victims have so far been covered. What about the rights of ordinary citizens in America; are civil rights being impinged on or removed to the detriment of American society? Unfortunately civil rights are being removed from Americans at an alarming rate and by a government that has sworn to protect them but instead seems to be encircling them in a band of control that grows tighter with each passing day.
On September 11, 2001 the United States came under attack from terrorists using airplanes as weapons. The country was brought to a standstill in shock and horror at an attack that seemed so horrible, so unbelievable. In the wake of these attacks panic and fear replaced the horror many American’s felt. As a result of these attacks President George Bush and his administration passed the USA PATRIOT Act
The passing of the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for the reinterpretation of the Constitution and has basically taken away the civil liberties of the American people. Under the Patriot Actpeople can be spied on without reason, can be detained or arrested for no reason, lose their privacy even in their own homes and can be charged with terrorism for the smallest of crimes, whether they have committed, conspired to commit, or been charged with a crime (White, 2005). The current state of American civil liberties can be compared with Nazi Germany and the way that country took away the rights that should be guaranteed to all humans away from many of the world’s citizens, mainly the Jews of Europe. The United States now seems to be a country afraid of its own citizens and desperately afraid to allow those same citizens the rights that are guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights.
Not only are many civil liberties are being removed from American citizens government now wants to allow and enroll local law enforcement agencies into spying on their neighbors. The use of local law enforcement agencies is probably one of the worst ideas ever thought up in this nation. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies can not cooperate on simple cases, tend to disagree over who has jurisdiction over what, and compete with each other too much to ever work together reliably on intelligence cases. On top of this problem is the problem of funding. Small towns do not have the wherewithal to institute intelligence activities, and theydo not particularly want to perform intelligence activities. From the text “Defending the Homeland” one learns that police officers use intelligence to prosecute crimes, do not want to lose potential informants, nor do the officers feel they have the Constitutional right to spy on fellow citizens (2005). The executive branch of the U.S. government and the intelligence community had enough warning before any terrorist activity to do something about the threat that was coming. They chose to ignore the warnings and because of rivalry between federal law enforcement agencies and local law enforcement agencies the nation became a target of a fundamentalist religious sector of the world community. Cooperation is certainly needed between the two agencies, of that there is no doubt. Giving more power and control to the executive branch of the government, destabilizing the check and balance system of that same government, and recruiting local law enforcement as spies and informants on America’s own citizens is definitely not the answer.
It seems that in America today people are in a hurry to give up their liberties, be watched at every turn, and give up their privacy, all so they can be protected from terrorism. Nobody seems to notice that the terrorists are winning and we are hurting ourselves more than they ever could. Americans are blockading themselves and imprisoning themselves more than any terrorist could ever do.
In today’s America the rights of criminals seem to be more important than those of the law abiding citizen. The right of the law abiding citizens seems to corrode daily while the right of criminals remains and allows them more freedom than ever. To quote Herman Goering at the Nuremburg Trials: “Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY” (Rense.com, 2007). The Preamble to the United States Constitution states” We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (The Avalon Project, 2007). Will the words of a Nazi leader come true in America or will the Constitution prevail? It remains to be seen but if the people of America do not soon wake up and fight for the rights that were fought for and guaranteed to them 200 years ago the country will definitely be following in the footsteps of one of the most shameful parts of world history instead of remaining the proud, free citizens of a country the world has held as a great example of democracy.
References
The Avolon Project (2007, January 7). Constitution to theUnited
States. Retrieved January 7, 2007 from Yale, The Avalon Project
Web site: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/preamble.htm
Bushman, B. & Anderson, C. (2001). Media Violence and the American
Public : Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation. American Psychologist, 56 (6-7), 477-489.
DPIC.org (2006). Introduction to the Death Penalty. Retrieved
November 16, 2006 from Death Penalty Information Center, History of
the Death Penalty Web site:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=199&scid;=15
RAINN (2006). Punishing Rapists. Retrieved November 22, 2006
from Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network, Statistics Web site:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/punishing-rapists.html
Rense.com (2007). Herman Goerings Quote on War and the People.
Retrieved January 4, 2007 from , Web site:
http://www.rense.com/general21/wara.htm
Retoric and Reality (2001). Is Excessive Use of Force a Systematic Problem. Debating Crime, 3, 56-64.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002, June 2). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Retrieved December 01, 2006 from U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (1993). The Response to Rape: Detours on
the Road to Equal Justice . Debating Crime, 1-3.
White, J. R. (2005) Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Security. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
West Virginia Advisory Comittee to The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
(2004, January). Coping with Police Misconduct inWest
Virginia. Retrieved January 4, 2007 from , Web site:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wv0104/wv0104.pdf
