Friday, November 2, 2012

Age Restrictions Set for Criminal Justice System




1. Regarding age restriction set by the criminal justice system, if the restriction is based on the excuse of being too young, that could be accepted but setting age restriction based on “too old” is not necessary because apart from juvenile who may not have had complete psychological development, the aged are psychologically sound so they should not be restricted.  As far as law enforcement agencies are concerned, the federal government has set certain age limits because persons who intend to be enlisted in any of the federal or state law enforcement agencies are expected to be mentally and physically fit. Officers in these agencies often undergo rigorous physical exertion that mandate compliance with federal government age limit. Considering this reason and any other ones known to the agencies, I believe that the age restriction is in favor of all concerned so should be upheld.

2. Yes I agree with the immunity granted the senator. Looking at from the angle of law, it was the provision of the law that voided the arrest. Laws or legislations are product of years of putting heads together by the citizens and law experts before they came up with what is eventually called laws. These groups of people who contributed to the formulation called laws have credible reasons for allowing immunity. It is only coincidental and unfortunate that the senator mentioned above decided to abuse the law guarding him. Ordinarily he ought to face the unethical behavior of his but since there is constitutional provision protecting him for the period mentioned. I believe that the best thing to do is to refrain from issuing arrest warrants as long as he remains a senator. By arresting him while still a senator, this means that the entire legislature’s mage has been dented just because of a senator.

3. If I were the prosecutor, yes I will proceed with filing for the charge since that is the provision of the law. After he must have been discharged of his senatorial duties, I will proceed with any legal proceedings with him. Despite pursuing legal issues with the former senator and having to wait for long before a person could be brought to book because of his misdeed could be discouraging.  Another disadvantage of having to wait for long before justice could be sought is that it casts shadows on the legal system as showing favoritism.  The real offense committed by this senator is being involved in domestic violence with the wife. This could mean that he battered his wife which is really unethical for a member of the legislature who knows what the law says about things like these. His act could be rightly called abuse of judicial power which is highly unacceptable.

4. The provision of immunity against arrest was created for several reasons. One of the reasons is because every member of the legislature is deemed honorable so if one of the members of the legislature is arrested, it is a dent on the entire legislature. Another reason that for this provision of immunity is because if the senator or any other senator is subjected to arrest, the legal proceedings that ensue can make him loose focus on his law-making duties. Parliamentary immunity is also considered to be one of the benefits one enjoys by being a member of the legislature. With immunity, members of the legislature are protected from arrest or any other legal disciplines in the course of discharging their duties as law maker as this gives them the confidence that of going on with their duties being quite assured that they are protected from people who might feel disturbed on account of certain laws the pass.
5. It is commendable when good measures are put in place to check illegal immigrant from entering ones territory. If not checked, terrorist can also find their way into a country without being noticed to carry out their nefarious acts. The effort of Texas Government in combating illegal immigration by putting up this website is also a very good gesture. If the actual illegal crossing of the US border is witnessed live, it could help deter intending illegal immigrant from embarking on such journey however what I believe may not be feasible is having someone stay at the border watching and looking for illegal immigrant. Theoretically the idea may look novel but in reality no one can sit or stand all day looking out for possible illegal migrant. For this idea to pay off eventually, it is advisable to fit motion camera at different points at the border where movements to and fro the border could be observed.

6. The questions of whether citizens should be used at these virtual stakes out has a simple answer which is no, citizens should not be used at these joints. One of the reasons for it is because the citizens’ duties do not fall into this category.  While trying to meddle in the affair of security agents by acting as direct informant from these virtual stakes, the lives of these citizens are at stake, something that could have been avoided in the first place. Again, some illegal migrant are usually armed so there is no way a citizen who does not belong to any of the security forces could carry out this function effectively without the danger of him loosing his life. I support the idea of citizen confronting crimes but not directly. They can confront crime by providing useful information to security agents but not trying to catch the criminals themselves.

7. If it happens that an 18-year old is killed, the police should be held responsible for this. As earlier mentioned, it is wrong to directly involve civilians in crime acts like this because they are not trained like the law enforcement agents. Officers of these agencies have advanced training at combating crimes and know how best to avoid dangers as opposed to civilians who do not have reasons to go through similar trainings law enforcement agents went through. It should be expected that when civilians, let alone a boy of 18 years is involved in issues like this, there are chances that his life would be endangered.  The parents of such a boy have every moral right to challenge law enforcement agents for the fate that befell their child. Reason for this is that is that if the security agents had provided enough security for the boy, should may not have happened.




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.