Contrary to what many people may believe wire-tapping is not a relatively new form of technology. Wire-tapping has been around since the beginning of telegraphic communications (Encyclopedia Britannica). Telephones were first tapped in the 1890’s, and in contemporary times electronic eavesdropping is most often preformed using two main methods. The first is “bugging” or the use of a radio transmitter which is inserted into the handset of a telephone (Encyclopedia Britannica). Another popular method of electronic eavesdropping is the use of a phone tap. A phone conversation can be heard through a tapped wire by connecting a phone to the line at another location (Encyclopedia Britannica). More specific methods of phone tapping are consensual overhear, pen register, and trap and trace. Consensual overhear is usually used by police when a kidnapping victim or blackmail victim agrees for the phone line to be tapped (Diffie and Landau 113). Pen register records all phone numbers that the phone being tapped calls, and trap and trace records all phone numbers that call a particular phone that is being tapped (Diffie and Landau 117).

It is also very difficult to prevent a phone from being tapped. One way around it, is to convey messages in writing, and transmit the message by electronic means. A sender turns the message into incoherent symbols and sends it to a receiver who then recomposes it using computer equipment. Another way of dodging wire-tapping is by using a voice scrambler (Encyclopedia Britannica).
With the advances in technology there have been similar advances in electronic surveillance. Laser beams and radios can now be used to detect conversations through glass from hundreds of feet away (Encyclopedia Britannica). Also, in recent years electronic surveillance technology has evolved to encompass digital phones, and the widely used Internet (Diffie and Landau 196). It does not appear that this latest inventions in the field of electronic surveillance will be the last because of the rapid change in technology today.

Since wire-tapping has become a common practice among law enforcement officials, in order to protect a citizen’s rights laws have been established to regulate this practice. Although wire-tapping has been used since the 1890’s it wasn’t until 1928 the Supreme Court case Olmstead vs. United States approved for its use by law enforcement officials (Encyclopedia Britannica). Later, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 defined meticulous limits as to what evidence acquired through eavesdropping is permissible in a court of law. In 1968 the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act was passed. This act allows interception of electronic communication when it suspected the information being shared is related to criminal activity. Access for this type of interception is only granted by the attorney general (Encyclopedia Britannica). Throughout history wire-taps have been used in many questionable cases, but most notably the Watergate Scandal, and the wire-tapping of Martin Luther King Jr. In 1974 it came to light that over 10,000 U.S. citizens had been spied on under this law (EFF 2). Because of the uncertain use of wire-tapping in these cases, a system of checks and balances was put in place to prevent government official from abusing their powers (E F F 2). Also in response to this problem the Church Committee was founded (Diffie and Landau 179). Many of the suggestions made by the committee later were put into law and formed some of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (Diffie and Landau 180). FISA is widely used to detect and prevent terrorist activities in the United States. However, under this act the identities of those being wire-tapped are unknown to the public.

The most recent electronic surveillance legislation is the USA PATRIOT Act, which drastically expands the powers of FISA. Put into effect in October of 2001, it grants increased power to law enforcement and international officials, eliminating some of the checks and balances that were put into place in 1974 (EFF 1). It also seeks to close the United States borders to terrorist and eliminate those already within the country (Doyle 1). The PATRIOT Act is 342 pages in length and makes modifies over 15 different statutes (EFF 1). This document is long and complicated and contains numerous different sections which regard laws about money laundering, aid provided for the victims of terrorism, and immigration. However, in this paper the sections that will be focused on primarily are those dealing with surveillance by government officials. The first section of the PATRIOT Act that discusses surveillance is entitled The Tracking and Gathering of Communications. In this section, the Act details the three tiered system that is used to protect the confidentially of citizens, while at the same time allowing law enforcement officials the authority to identify and intercept criminal communications (Doyle 2). Basically with the three tiers the law prohibits officials from using electronic eavesdropping on telephone conversations, face-to-face conversations, and computer or electronic communication, unless it is a last resort in a criminal case. Also, the law under this system prohibits officials from accessing phone records or email held in third party storage unless a court order, warrant, or subpoena has been issued (Doyle 1). It does, however, allow officials to use trap and trace devices as well as pen registers without the proof of criminal evidence. In the PATRIOT Act each of these three tiers are modified some more drastically than others. For example, under the PATRIOT Act pen registers and trap and trace devices are permitted to be used on electronic communications, and are not limited to just telephone conversations as stated in the previous law. This means that the government can identify the source and destination of an email without ever revealing a court order or their findings (Doyle 3). Under the PATRIOT Act stored voicemail is treated like email rather than a telephone conversation. In order to access this information officials have to go through much less red tape than if the voicemail was treated like a phone conversation. This Act therefore, makes voicemails much easier to access. Previously, an intercept order was needed to disclose this information, now all that is needed is a search warrant (EFF 8). The PATRIOT Act has also made pen register and trap and trace devices “technology neutral” (Minow 1). This means that these devices are no longer restricted solely to telephones, but can now be used on the Internet. Formerly, law enforcement officials were able to obtain the numbers of incoming and outgoing by showing that they are obtaining evidence relevant to an investigation. Now under these same standards, they can obtain email headers, and URL addresses that the person under surveillance at one time or another viewed (Minow 1).

The PATRIOT Act has also created sanctions which increase information sharing between domestic law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies. Under this section of the new law, wire-tap results as well as other information collected in criminal cases will be divulged to intelligence agencies when it is believed the information is of interest to foreign intelligence. After the September 11th attacks the FBI, CIA and other government agencies were under intense scrutiny because the American public questioned whether the attacks could have been avoided had intelligence information been shared. In hindsight, it is easy to criticize these agencies conduct, however, there are countless terrorist that have been apprehended without the publics knowledge. Everyday these agencies receive countless pieces of intel, and have to decide whether or not the information is legitimate or not. With the passing of the PATRIOT Act government agencies will increase their sharing of information and by doing so will avoid a terrorist attack.

The PATRIOT Act also includes numerous sections which pertain to the Internet. Under this law the government is now able perform electronic surveillance on anyone surfing the Internet, by simply going before a judge and explaining how continuing their surveillance relevant information to a criminal investigation can be obtained (EFF 2). For example, by entering a word or term in a search engine that the government finds suspicious, a person could be monitored by the authorities and not even be aware of it. The PATRIOT Act also expands the use of roving wire taps (Minow 1), meaning a wire tap order no longer needs to be confined to a single computer. The FBI and CIA can go from computer to computer without proving that the computers are being used by the target of the order (EFF 2). The government does not have to produce any evidence that the information or communication being monitored is relevant to a criminal investigation. The PATRIOT Act also increases the amount of information the government can obtain from internet service providers (ISPs) about users. This means that ISPs can now hand over any information to officials without a court order or subpoena. More importantly, the new law expands the type of records the government is allowed to seek with just a subpoena (EFF 3). Officials now can obtain information about the means and source of payments, which includes credit cards and bank account numbers, with out a court review (EFF 3). This Act also, greatly increases the penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (EFF 3). The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was first signed into law in 1984 and was amended in 1994. It makes activities that are intended to access federal computers illegal. For example, knowingly accessing a computer without authorization or diffusing data which is harmful to the computer, server, or programs are illegal activities under this law (“Computer Fraud,” 1). The PATRIOT Act increases the maximum penalty for any of the violations pertaining to this law from five to ten years for a first offense, and from ten to twenty years for the second (Doyle 3).

Under United States law the government is allowed to perform surveillance on a citizens living in the country using a variety of mechanisms (EFF 5). The law also defines two different paths which have differing proof standards and procedures depending on whether the surveillance is conducted by either domestic law enforcement or foreign intelligence agencies (EFF 5). Many of the standards of proof required to obtain surveillance privileges have been decreased by the PATRIOT Act. For example, domestic law enforcement requires probable cause for the surveillance by the standards of the Fourth Amendment. However, under the PATRIOT Act officials can now produce just a court order, and internet service providers must produce email logs and addresses of email correspondents (EFF 6). This is much lower standard than in the past.

Since the signing of the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001, there have been numerous criticisms as well as support of the new law. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) feels that many aspects of the PATRIOT Act violates Americans’ civil liberties, and also destroys the governments system of checks and balances (O’Meara 2). For example, the ACLU believes that the new law heavily violates the Fourth Amendment which is the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the PATRIOT Act the FBI is granted access to sensitive medical, financial, educational, and mental health records without providing any information that a possible crime being committed or has any relevance to terrorism (O’Meara 2). Also, the Act has numerous search and seizure provisions which are not limited just to terrorism. This means that the houses of innocent American citizens can be searched without a warrant (O’Meara 5). Other civil liberty groups are also discontent with the PATRIOT Act. John Whitehead, the founder and president of the Rutherford Institute, which advocates civil liberties and human rights, feels that “the problem with the PATRIOT Act […] is that that 99.9 percent of the people in the country who are not terrorists will be impacted by these laws” (O’Meara 3). The Muslim Public Affairs Council also finds the law to be unconstitutional. A council board member Gasser Hathout says statistics show that since the PATRIOT Act was approved the number of federal subpoenas for telephone and Internet records have doubled every month since the law was passed and now reaches into the thousands (“Patriot Act denounced,” 1 ). Council board chairman Omar Ricci adds, “The PATRIOT Act is the biggest attack on democracy in America right now” (“Patriot Act denounced,” 1).
Even though many groups have condemned the PATRIOT Act, it also has its supporters. Robert Turner, associate director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, feels that the law may infringe on civil liberties, however, he believes that it has prevented terrorist attacks (Roth 2). Although it is unknown whether or not Turners hypothesis is factual, a Justice Department report to Congress in the fall of 2002 suggested that expanded surveillance allowed by the new law was used to investigate kidnappers, drug dealers, identity thieves and murders, none of whom were involved with terrorism (Roth 2). Even though the law was used not to combat terrorism, many Americans would have a hard time arguing that the powers granted by the PATRIOT Act are helping to make are country safer from not only foreign but domestic criminals as well. Another supporter of the law is Douglas Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University of Law in Washington. He adds that the only Americans who should be worried about the law violating their freedoms are those who are involved in suspicious activity (Roth 3). The law is not designed to spy on citizens who are not engaging in these types of behaviors. Concerning the interests of law enforcement agencies, they are undoubtedly in favor of the law because of the expanded surveillance powers. This makes it easier for them to investigate potential threats to national security. Looser regulations also allow criminals to prosecute criminals more easily because more evidence obtained from wiretapping is allowed in court.

Since the beginning of telecommunications wiretapping has been used for a variety of reasons. In 1928 when it was approved for use in criminal cases it greatly helped law enforcement to catch and prosecute criminals. Since that time legislation has been created to keep citizens safe from law enforcement officials’ misuse of electronic surveillance powers. After the September 11th terrorist attacks government officials found it necessary to create a new piece of legislation that update previous laws to comply with new technology and granted them power to fight global terrorism. The United States has not been struck with a terrorist attack in almost two years, which may be accredited to the PATRIOT Act as well as the destruction of the Taliban. Even though this law has been met with much criticism, in order to keep citizens safe in times of war Americans must be willing to exchange some civil liberties for benefit of national security.

Each state has a separate statute regarding the use of a helmet. Furthermore, most states have laws that discriminate younger riders from riding without a helmet. Of the fifty states, only Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire are one hundred percent helmet law free. Out of the other forty-six states, twenty-one have full helmet laws for all riders. Florida is included in those twenty-one states. Twenty states have helmet laws that exempt adult riders, riders that are eighteen years of age or older. Lastly, there are five states that discriminate against bikers between the age of eighteen and twenty-one (motorcycle laws). Most states also have laws regarding eye protection, daytime use of a headlight, mirrors, blinkers, and passenger restrictions.

The matter of insurance has also become a hot topic for debate. Some bikers believe that this is a poor attempt to compromise the helmet laws. As it stands, the motorcycle laws for Florida do not permit anybody to ride without a safety helmet. Only if the rider is twenty-one years of age or older with a minimum of ten thousand dollars in medical insurance may they ride without a helmet. Eye protection is required by law. As is the daytime use of headlight, left and right mirrors, and blinkers. Also, if carrying a passenger a motorcycle is required to have a passenger seat, footrests, and handles. Finally, the use of headphones is prohibited.

In protest of helmet laws many bikers have formed bikers’ rights groups. One of these groups is the Helmet Law Defense League. This group of freedom fighters was founded in early 1993 to attract others interested in putting an end to discrimination against the class of people known as “bikers.” “It is our basic philosophy that the best defense is any offense, so the strategies that we recommend in the fight for the restoration of our rights will be those constituting an attack” (Helmet Law Defense League). Such groups try to help bikers understand all the legal aspects of each helmet law, and try to help us successfully attack these laws in court. One of the flaws in the helmet law is that most states do not define what they mean by “protective headgear.” By making a list the state would take on liability if one of the helmets on their list were to cause an injury or be ineffective. But, by not composing a list of acceptable helmets, the law cannot be complied with certainty, and therefore opens up the vagueness challenge of the law.

Many of these bikers claim that wearing a helmet impairs their peripheral vision and their ability to hear traffic around them. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sponsored a study to find the effect of wearing a helmet upon the ability to visually detect traffic around the rider, and to hear traffic noises. Fifty riders of various ages and experience took part in the study. These riders drove their own bikes along a five-mile test route. During which, they were asked to change lanes when they heard a prompt from a following car. Once they heard the noise, they were instructed to check for traffic in the adjacent lane, and then proceed with the lane change in their normal manner. Each rider drove the test route with a full coverage helmet, a partial coverage helmet, and no helmet. The degree of head rotation was measured. To find the effects of the helmets on hearing the sound signal made by the car was varied. (Effects of Helmet)
The vision test proved that most riders simply compensated for the helmet by turning their heads a little further. Before changing lanes, 19 of the 23 riders compensated for the loss of lateral view by turning their head further than when they weren’t wearing a helmet. The hearing test also showed no significant differences in the riders’ ability to hear the signals. The big difference was the hearing threshold between the speeds of 30 and 50 mph. Because of the increased wind noise, all riders needed louder signals. (Effects of Helmet)
Another study was administered by John Cooter. This study consisted of a number of autopsies that were performed on people that had died as the result of a motorcycle accident, to show the effectiveness of a helmet during a collision. During this study, Cooter found that at speeds greater then thirteen mph, a rider is better off not wearing a helmet. He went on to say that patients that had worn full coverage helmets were more likely to sustain facial fractures and injury to the teeth and jaws. At the same time, the people who had not worn a helmet sustained far more facial bruises and scars than the riders who had worn helmets. He also found that most of the riders wearing full coverage helmets suffered from tearing of the brain stem or spinal injuries due to the strap on a helmet. In the end, Cooter concluded that riders had a better chance of surviving a crash without a helmet, than if they were to wear a full coverage helmet.

More than eighty percent of all reported motorcycle crashes, result in death to the rider (Missouri Motorcycle). A motorcycle doesn’t have the crashworthiness or passenger protection of an automobile. An automobile has door beams, a roof, airbags, seat belts, and it’s more stable because it has four wheels. A motorcycle provides no protection for the rider or the passenger, and ejection from the bike is a common event as the result of a collision. If a motorcycle comes to a sudden stop and the rider is ejected from the bike, they will forcibly strike objects in their path, as well as the bike itself. But, what a motorcycle sacrifices in weight and bulk, it makes up with agility, maneuverability, and the ability to stop quickly.
Many of the causes of motorcycle crashes may be attributed to the lack of experience or the failure to recognize the limitations of a motorcycle during a collision. These factors require bikers to take on more defensive driving habits, and to assume special precautions while riding. Riders must be more alert at intersections, this is where about one-third of the multi-vehicle motorcycle crashes occur (Missouri). Riders must anticipate that cars may not be able to see them, and be prepared to take defensive maneuvers at all times. Also, they must be especially cautious while driving on slippery surfaces, or encountering obstacles in the roadway.

The General Accounting Office reviewed 46 studies of motorcycle helmets and helmet laws. They found that helmeted riders have a 73 percent lower fatality rate than riders that had not worn a helmet. Helmeted riders also have an 85 percent reduced incidence of sustaining critical injuries. Furthermore, helmets are 67 percent effective in preventing serious brain injury. In 1996, there were 67,000 motorcycles involved in police-reported crashes, of which forty percent were multiple vehicle crashes. While motorcycles are only two percent of the registered vehicles nationwide, motorcyclist fatalities are five percent of the traffic fatalities that occur each year. In addition, almost one-third of the motorcycle operators killed in crashes aren’t experienced or properly licensed to operate a motorcycle (Missouri).
The source of almost all deaths caused by motorcycle crashes is impact. When a person’s head makes a sudden violent impact, the small part of the head that was struck, stops moving immediately. If the skull is fractured, the brain may be torn by penetrating objects and bone fragments. A good helmet protects the head by giving it a little time to match speeds with the suddenly encountered object. The outer shell of a helmet distributes force and stops objects from piercing the skull, while the inner liner is crushed by the force of the head inside the helmet. Today’s good helmets do all this without impairing the lateral vision of the rider.
I’ve been riding dirt bikes and mini-bikes since I was eight years old, and I would surely have a lot more bumps and scars had I not worn a helmet. Also, I know a lot of people that would be dead today had they not worn a helmet. But, I believe that people should have the right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet, and someone that has probably never ridden a motorcycle before, shouldn’t dictate whether they do or not. As an active motorcyclist, I almost always wear a full coverage helmet. But, if I’m not going to be riding in heavy traffic, I enjoy being able to go for a ride without having to put my helmet on.

In conclusion, I would like to say that helmets do save lives. But, wherever someone goes and whatever they do, they assume some sort of risk. Unless, all riders wear a full coverage helmet, protective boots, a leather suit with pads, and a neckroll at all times, chances are that you’re going to come out of a motorcycle crash pretty beat up. So, who’s decision should it be to wear a helmet? I don’t think that someone I’ve never met should decide or take a vote whether or not I should wear a helmet. It should be mine.

Police brutality was brought to the forefront in 1991 by the Rodney King episode.

Historically, minorities have been victims of police brutality in the United States. Since the middle of the 19th century a dominant white social class maintained racial injustice through a police force willing to use violence against minorities. This violence expressed itself in the years immediately after the civil war through brutality in various forms. America has a lengthy an disgraceful tradition of police brutality to attain a sense of law and order in its society.

Police misconduct can be described as any inappropriate behavior on the part of any law enforcement officer that is either illegal or immoral or both. Law enforcement agents are should behave to a standard that is greater than the average civilian. Police brutality comes from an abuse of power granted to the police. Police brutality is often drawn on by overreaction in certain situations drawn on by panic. Police using excessive force in the United States is a crucial dilemma and must be stopped.

Often police officers build up negative feelings towards certain races, sexes, or religions. Officers tend to get the idea that if one or a few people treat them with disrespect, then other people of that same sex or creed will behave the same. Race consistently plays a key role in police brutality in the United States. Law enforcement has exposed minorities to discriminatory treatment and has many times physically abused minorities. Mistreatment is not always physical but sometimes non-violent harassment and humiliating (source). Police have been known to detain drivers for driving in certain areas or for driving a specific type of vehicle (source).The problem with racial profiling against minorities is that it creates distrust between racial minority communities and the police. Jerome Skolnick discusses the reports that lead to distrust of the police in the following passage. He reports, “Witnesses often tell tales of police officers verbally harassing minorities; detaining African-American and Latino Men who fit certain generalized descriptions; employing the so-called “prone-out” tactic…in minority neighborhoods, even for routine traffic stops; and using excessive force, particularly in African-American and Latino communities. The intensity and frequency of these complaints reveal a serious problem.

The following consist of steps proposed to help prevent police brutality and excessive force in America. The internal affairs departments should be improved and renewed in each police precinct. Internal affair departments are the most responsible for handling the problem of police misconduct. The first solution to improving internal affairs would be to re-valuate leadership roles. Internal affairs must conduct precise and thorough investigations to ensure human integrity is upheld. Internal affairs must use early warning systems to expose and handle “problem officers” that are fully operational in all police departments. Disciplinary actions against officers responsible for excessive force should be firm. Internal review activities should remain focused and documented each time a review is conducted. The cost of this solution is minimal due to the fact that it only involves better management of a system that is already active.

Police departments should revise and reevaluate its training exercises in order to provide a solution to excessive force. New training methods must be provided on situations that usually lead to brutality. Officers should be educated on how to correctly operate pepper spray, how to engage in post chase arrest, and how to handle in a non-violent way mentally ill citizens. The effects of the newest police weapon technology, such as pepper spray, should be thoroughly investigated before being available for use by police officers. Training should utilize ways to deal with the effects of weapons used by police, including proper medical assistance. Trainers should be chosen carefully to ensure a more effective training policy. Complaints and allegations of any kind of misconduct should be considered when choosing new trainers. Police departments must avoid choosing police officers with a history of violent behavior to serve as trainers. This solution is achievable and will help discourage police abuse. Cost of the revision of training is small because it just requires new training methods.

A background check should be conducted to ensure that the police departments do not hire potentially violent police officers. Also, a tracking system should be implemented in conjunction with the background check. This tracking system will prevent terminated problem officers from being assigned to a new position at another precinct. Police departments should be required to submit relevant information to a tracking office when an officer is fired for human rights abuses or when a police officer quits before a decision is made regarding the officers misconduct. Recruiters must be required to check with the same tracking office before any applicant. An officer found guilty of police misconduct in any way violent or non-violent should be decertified. Desertification can be described as the process of making any certificates or licenses the officer holds invalid. Officers who have been decertified cannot be employed as police officers again until they are re-certified. These solutions should be very effective because it filters out many potential problem officers.

There are countless reasons why police brutality should be stopped as quickly as possible. The first reason is because patrons are getting hurt due to police brutality. For example, the Rodney King beating of 1991 left the nation shocked as Americans got a taste of police brutality first hand. Another example of people getting hurt would be the torture of Abner Louiama. This Haitian immigrant was beaten and sexually assaulted by police officers because he was allegedly resisting arrest. These are just the major examples of police using force to use illegal tactics when apprehending suspects. The second reason Police misconduct should be stopped is because people are also getting killed. An example of this would be in 1997 when New York resident Amadou Diallo was gunned down by the New York City Police Department. Diallo was killed by the police because the officers on duty thought his wallet was a weapon. Diallo was shot at 41 times because of his wallet potentially could have been a gun. This a prime example of police force using excessive force in order to apprehend a suspect. These are reasons why police brutality needs be diminished from our society.

Police argue that they use excessive force only to protect themselves against criminals. The Police may argue that they already have an internal affairs division and that the current system is working. Investigation by internal affairs staff is frequently concealed, and often police informants are used to tamper with evidence in cases against officers. Law Enforcement highly opposes to background checks and tracking systems calling it, “Spying on the people hired to protect the public”. However, the police are consistently spying on people in order to catch them doing criminal activities, so in theory this would only treat the police as they treat other citizens. Usually, law enforcement officers apt to deny accountability for harm that is done to patrons of their jurisdiction. Consequently, officers try to counteract behavior patterns they display. Case in point, an officer may use extreme force on suspects who make efforts to resist or contest police authority. When police overreact to these situations they feel that they are justified due the resistance by the suspect. If law enforcement agents justify their actions in every situation police brutality is going to intensify.

The police have a dreadful reputation, especially among minorities, yet officers are doing little to improve public relations. The solution to problem of police brutality must begin with the officers themselves. Law enforcement must make an effort to show that they trying to protect the community and show that they are not looking to harass people Public relations may be the key to refute police brutality because resistance by citizens will be minimal. A good relationship between law enforcement and minorities will go a long way to help relations with the public.

The problem with Police misconduct is that it is a complex problem. However, with the right solutions intact this situation can be resolved. Police brutality stands as one of the most severe and troublesome civil rights infringements in America. The misconduct of police officers, such as, physical abuse, unlawful shootings, and verbal assault must end. Police precincts across America should function as a force that handles situations in a professional and civilized manner. The issue of police brutality is becoming more crucial as society grows.

The first step for the best International law essay is to determine what you will use for the primary topic, to determine if your topic can be successfully researched, and to enable you to fully understand the primary points you would like to discuss in your essay. You should develop a clear outline, one that defines the key points of your topic sentence. The introduction must introduce what your International law essay will cover, including the topic sentence. The topic sentence must be concise and clear, in order to provide the reader with the right amount of information to understand what you are trying to share in your essay.

The body of your International law essay must include supportive evidence that is fully researched. Many times students will select topics that cannot be researched well, and it is important to review your topic sentence for the ability to research it. Begin by selecting a basic topic – maritime law and distribution of products. Finally, review the available research to refine the topic into a manageable subject, and save the research for the evidence you need to provide in the body of your essay.

The Parliament of South Australia has legislated to confer rights on victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, and provisions in the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act relating to victim impact statements, are two notable examples.

As well, the various arms of the Executive Government involved in the administration and application of the criminal law have made a real effort to recognise the interests and rights of the victims of the crimes with which they deal. I refer here to the police, to prosecutors, and to correctional services in particular. The courts also have become more attentive to the interests of victims, and quite apart from the changes in the law to which I have referred, have become much more attentive to the fact that for nearly every crime there is a victim, and that that victim has a legitimate interest in the process by which the court deals with that crime.

Governments have come to recognise the needs of victims, and to improve the services available to victims through a number of government agencies. Genuine efforts have been made to meet those needs.

The changes to which I refer involve a mix of legislation and administrative action. Mapping it all would be quite a task. The linking thread through it all is the existence of the victim, and the rights and needs which flow from that status.

A lot has been achieved over the last twenty years or so. There is a lot still to be done. There is no doubt that most governments are willing to do more, and equally there is no doubt that pressure will be applied to them to do more.

The topics to be discussed at this conference give some indication of the variety of ways in which the needs of victims are being met, or may yet be met as a result of ideas and proposals under consideration. The topics at this conference also indicate the increasing understanding of the impact of crime on its victims. They also indicate the very significant potential demand for the provision of services for victims.

In our rapidly changing society it is a bold and confident person who claims to be able to predict with accuracy the state of affairs in even five years’ time. Nevertheless, I have been asked to say what I think will be the role of victims in the criminal justice system in the future. I propose to do so not so much by way of making predictions, but by way of identifying issues which I think we will have to address and, hopefully, will address in the not too distant future.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue is that of identifying who is a victim of crime. Answering that question is not entirely an exercise in logic. We ask the question, “Who can legitimately claim to be a victim of a crime?” not out of a purely speculative interest, but because we realise that in answering the question we will identify the person who can make legitimate demands upon society.

In our approach to the rights and interests of victims, we have to have a coherent sense of who is a victim. In saying that I do not mean to suggest that the answer will necessarily be the same in every situation. It is legitimate to decide that the definition of victim might be one thing for the purposes of claims for criminal injuries compensation, and another for the purposes of a claim to be entitled to present a victim impact statement to a court. There might be yet another approach when one is considering the availability of a service such as counselling. But we do need to have an underlying coherent concept of who can legitimately claim to be a victim, to provide a guide to us in making important decisions about the allocation of resources and the recognition of rights.
I do not see this as a burning issue, but it is something to be borne in mind and attended to, particularly by the Executive Government.

Another obvious issue for the future is the issue of the appropriate allocation of public resources to the rights and interests of victims. We all accept the obligation of government to provide, for example, a basic free education system, a basic free health system, a system of courts. Thirty years ago there was a fairly clear and settled understanding of the obligation of government in these areas. Things are not so settled now. Changes are occurring. But in all these important areas, there is a basic issue of the extent of the obligation of the government to provide a particular benefit or service. It seems to me that equally in the case of victims, there is a fundamental issue of the extent of the obligation of society, through the government, to provide rights to and services for victims.

As things stand, I do not think there is any reason to fear an excessive allocation of resources. The problem is at the other end of the extreme. But we do need to face up to the basic issue of the extent of the obligation of society to victims of crime. We need to have an understanding of how far short of meeting that obligation we are. There will always be competition for public resources for various ends, and probably never enough public resources to satisfy all the demands upon them. But it is appropriate to have a benchmark against which the existing commitment of resources can be measured. I see that as an important issue for the future.

Another important issue is the scope of the rights which should be accorded to victims, and the range of services that should be available to them in one way or another. Issues like this are already addressed through various statements and charters of victims’ rights and interests. But this remains an important issue, and is closely linked to the issue with which I have just dealt.

Another issue which we may have to face in the future is that of the appropriate management of the delivery of services to victims. In this State, at present, services are provided by a range of government agencies and non- government bodies, and, of course, by the Victim Support Service. In Australia it is generally accepted that we should have a Minister of Education, a Minister for Agriculture, a Minister for Health and so on. The existence of these ministries reflects a general acceptance that the Executive Government has a major role to play in the area of the ministry, and also reflects the public importance accorded to the relevant area of activity. Should there be a Ministry for Victims’ Services or with some similar title? This is not an idle question. Nor is it just a matter of what is the most efficient way of providing services to victims. It is a question of whether the rights and interests of victims are of such significance, and whether the role of the government in this area is of such significance, that there should be a government ministry dealing with the rights and interests of victims. I make no comment about the appropriate answer to the question. I simply identify it as an issue to be considered, because it is a convenient way of provoking discussion about and reflection upon the extent of the commitment that society makes to victims of crime.

The issues to which I have referred are issues to be addressed by Parliament, on behalf of the community, and by the Executive Government.

The role of victims in the administration of justice by the courts is a matter to be considered by the courts, by Parliament and by the Executive Government.

The judiciary needs to give careful consideration to this issue. It should have a properly thought out view. Parliament also must be involved because if new rights are to be conferred, it is likely that legislation will be necessary. The Executive Government needs to be involved in this issue because it will play an important part in formulating policy, in promoting legislation, and in making the necessary resources available if further rights are to be provided to victims in connection with the administration of justice by the courts.

In dealing with this aspect of the matter I put to one side the issue of services that are or should be provided to victims with the system as it now is. I refer to services such as information about the progress of cases, facilities at courts for victims who are required to attend the court and so on. I am talking now of the issue of the part, if any, to be played by the victim in the process by which the courts administer criminal justice.

I see little scope for according to a victim of crime a role in the process of the court determining guilt of an offence. Under our system the State charges the offender, and prosecutes the case. The determination of guilt involves a court controlling the presentation of the prosecution case and of the defence case, and a magistrate, judge, or jury guided by a judge, deciding upon guilt. The process is essentially one of a contest between the State and the accused, with a verdict given by the court
I fully understand that many immediate victims of crimes, and others affected by the crime, may feel that they are unfairly excluded from this stage of the process, because the law denies them any formal status in it. Their only status is that of a witness, and even then only if their testimony is relevant and admissible.

But the denial of any formal status in the trial itself is a necessary consequence of our approach to the prosecution of crime, and to the proof of guilt.

I do not envisage this changing in my time on the bench. I do not envisage us abandoning the principle that it is the State that prosecutes serious crime, and the principle that the proof of crime involves the State presenting the case against the alleged offender.

Nor do I see room for the victim to play a subsidiary part in the prosecution process as it now is. The fact is that under our system the prosecutor is not there to act for the victim, although the prosecutor must in a number of ways consider the interests of the victim. An important feature of our system of criminal justice is that the prosecutor is expected to prosecute fearlessly, vigorously, but independently. The purpose of a prosecutor is not to secure a conviction if at all possible. The function of the prosecutor is to present the evidence fearlessly and vigorously, but always to remain conscious that the trial must be fair. In this respect, the prosecutor exercises an independent judgment. This is because as a society we value a system in which trials are fair, as distinct from a system in which the prosecutor might attempt to secure a conviction without regard to principles of fairness. To say that is not to say that other approaches are not possible. We could require the prosecutor to secure the approval of the victim to all major steps in the prosecution process. I do not consider that that is possible, as a matter of principle, within our system of criminal justice as we know it. I would oppose such a proposal. But, if society wanted a fundamentally different system, that would be a possibility. Alternatively, we could require the prosecutor to keep the victim fully informed about the course of the prosecution and we could require the prosecutor at least to consult with the victim on all major issues arising at trial. Although to do that would not present the problems that would be presented if the prosecutor had to act as required by the victim, it would bring with it quite significant difficulties. It would substantially increase the burden on the prosecutor, and would, I believe, involve the commitment of significant additional resources to the office of the public prosecutor. It would also make life quite difficult for a prosecutor, because under this concept the prosecutor would be obliged to consult, but not to act in accordance with the wishes of the victim. That would give rise to obvious tensions and difficulties that would have to be accommodated by a prosecutor. I do not envisage even this change occurring, nor is it one that I would favour. I do believe that the role of the prosecutor is to prosecute crime on behalf of society as a whole, mindful of the interests of the victim, but no more than that.

In short, I do not envisage any fundamental change in the status of the victim in the process of determining guilt of a crime.

I am not so sure about the process of sentencing offenders, once guilt has been determined. As we know, victims are now accorded a significant status in that process. Courts must consider victim impact statements, and in this State they may now be presented in person. Courts are generally more attentive to the interests of victims in the sentencing process.

However, when it comes to the imposition of a sentence, the wishes of a victim are not important under the law as it stands. The judge must impose the appropriate sentence, whether the victim wishes it to be heavier or lighter.

I doubt whether this can change, without fracturing our existing system of sentencing. Requiring a sentencing judge to act on the wishes of a victim would transform our system. Such a change would make the wishes of a victim the dominant consideration in the sentencing process. It would not be consistent with the existing principles upon which our sentencing system operates. Even to require a sentencing judge to take into account the wishes of the victim would cause difficulties. If the wishes of a victim are taken into account, they must play a part in the final decision. It must follow that we would contemplate heavier sentences for an offender when a victim is insistent that the sentence should be, for example, the maximum permitted by law, and lesser sentences for an offender guilty of the same offence but faced with a merciful victim. Our present concept of consistency in sentencing, difficult enough to maintain as it is, would become impossible. So would the emphasis upon rehabilitation. In short, I doubt whether any fundamental change will occur in our system of sentencing.

There may be greater scope for procedural changes. For example, it would be possible to provide for the victim to be entitled to be represented by a victim’s advocate in the sentencing process, that advocate having the ability to make submissions and to present material to the sentencing court. I do not consider that this would improve the sentencing process itself. I think it likely that any information that could be presented by a victim’s advocate will, under the existing system, be presented by the prosecutor. But it may be that according this greater recognition to a victim would assist victims in coming to terms with the impact of the crime on them, and in their acceptance of the system by which society deals with the crime. This is something that may merit consideration, although once again I wish to make it clear it is not something that I necessarily advocate.

I should say that I also anticipate that in the near future we will see more consideration given to the use of alternatives to the present judicial sentencing model. In particular, I think we may see increasing use of what I will loosely call diversionary processes, under which offenders are diverted from the courts and dealt with by a system which involves the offender and the victim meeting face to face. This usually involves a process in which a sentence is arrived at taking into account the interests and wishes of the victim. Just how far this sort of process can be taken remains to be seen. Processes like this may indeed prove to be a better way of dealing with certain types of crime, and with a good deal of minor crime. This sort of process may be better for society, for the victim and for the offender. The general model of sentencing is sound, but is not necessarily the only model, or the model best suited for all types of crime. But concepts like this raise quite complex issues, that require careful consideration.

In summary, my belief is that the over the next five to ten years the focus should be on ensuring a sensible approach to the understanding of who is a victim of crime, and upon ensuring a coherent approach to the provision of services to victims, and a realistic assessment of the extent to which public resources should be committed to serving the interests of victims. I envisage a growing acceptance of the concept of victims’ rights in the sense that a victim is entitled, by virtue of that status, to certain facilities and services from the Executive Government. Increasingly it will be understood, as it is I am sure by all at this conference, that the provision of these services is not an act of kindness or charity, but results from the recognition of a right on one side and an obligation on the other. I envisage increasing attention by the courts to the interests of victims. But, for reasons that I have explained, I do not envisage any fundamental change in the status of a victim in the process by which we establish guilt of an offence. I can see the possibility of some significant changes in the process by which we punish certain types of crime, and less serious crime, and a move towards a process in relation to such crimes in which victims play a significant part in determining the outcome.

There is plenty happening in this area, and plenty that will happen. There are some important issues to be faced. I expect change to be gradual, but to be the sort of change that, over a period of time is quite significant. It will be interesting to see where things do stand in five years time.

____________

Attention! Free sample Law essays and History Law examples can be used in instructional purposes only. Remember all these free papers you can find anywhere online are 100% plagiarized. If you want to order a custom Law essay, Law research paper, Law term paper or Law thesis/dissertation written by highly qualified writers - you should contact professional writing services which are committed to provide high-quality custom written papers. You can find top custom writing companies listed rightside at our blogroll side-bar.

Every student struggles with grammar and spelling to some degree, particularly in the first few years of college. You should enable your MS Word to review grammar and spelling, and even to tell you what grade level your essay is written at for review of progress in writing skills. While writing your paper, you can also explore the thesaurus function and practice using words that give your paper a professional appearance with minor changes. Remember that too many large words can make the paper difficult to read and that when using the thesaurus you may encounter words that are not descriptive of the purpose you applied them to – such as replacing demonstrate with validate.

After writing your Criminal Law paper, take time to read your paper aloud or have a friend read it to determine if the paper makes sense. A clearly written paper will be read much more easily for content and allow your teacher to see how effective your research and application of course concepts were established in your paper. Most of the editing should occur at least 24 hours after you have written the paper as this will give you a “fresh” read and make finding errors successful.

Additionally, consider strictly, what is directly related to courses and cases you have reviewed over the years of education. Every type of law and case you study is essential to making the necessary connections between the things you learn and the things you will have to understand after graduation. Every legal aspect has a great number of possible ideas, including a number of historical references that can be applied to successfully supporting your topic sentence. You can have the best research paper for your law assignment if you review the different coursework you have studied and apply the correct references and research.

Every assignment you complete for your law degree requires research and writing. Develop your idea from coursework that demonstrates your particular interests but also focuses on the different items from your studies and helps you build on the ideas to create a more effective view that demonstrates learning. Research must defend your great idea and demonstrate higher learning to get the best grades.

Law essay writing ideas can be great ideas when you can demonstrate how many different legal issues come together to demonstrate a bigger picture or agenda. Representation of legal issues often follows the strict patterns of cultural needs within the country that it is developed. These needs are specific to each area and each group of people. Law essays may evaluate a number of different aspects that may explain why different laws are in effect, why some cases did not have the same results as others, and even explain why the results between courts vary. It is essential that your essay be developed to address issues that relate well to your course, though you can add in more detail.

Finally, as you work on developing your law essay idea, consider that your knowledge of specific trials or cases is essential to the successful development of your law essay topic idea. Remember that your idea can even start with a few cases you particularly found interesting and demonstrate other possible outcomes or relationships with other legal issues. Additionally, you may select to embark upon a mission of historically defining the real leading causes to a particular judge’s belief system.

There are a number of common errors that occur in writing – words such as “than” rather than “then” that are not picked up in your MS Word program. You may accidentally type in the “hare” instead of “have”, this is rarely picked up; however, if you write your Law thesis section by section, and take a day break between them to set it aside, you can edit each section as you go. After you have done the initial editing of each section – set it aside until after you have completed the next section, and then review it once more. Another idea is to have a friend read the paper with you, or to read the paper aloud.

Finally, all colleges require that you avoid plagiarism – completely, they do not even accept “accidental” plagiarism, which can be easy if you are not paying attention. The first step – summarize any information you want to use into your own words – paraphrase – and then rewrite them again when you use them in your Law paper. After the rewrite, return to the source to be certain you have not duplicated anything from memory. Finally, use all in-text citations based on your school’s requirements. If you do not know, ask a teacher or instructor for assistance how to write a good Law thesis for Undergraduate, Master’s or Ph.D. academic levels.

As we all know, different people have different views of morality. Some people believe that prostitution is immoral, and therefore it should not be legalized. These people say that prostitution is demoralizing and humiliating to a woman’s self-esteem. Such people also believe that prostitution is an “unethical and illogical practice in itself.” Women are human beings and “should not be treated as material objects of trade” (Nikiforakis, interview). However, as Pippa Holloway in her book review Regulation and the Nation: Comparative Perspectives on Prostitution and Public Policy found in Journal of Women History 202 Spring points out, “Enclosing brothels in particular parts of the city and monitoring them would help protect morality and the social order.” Furthermore, by legalizing prostitution, women practicing sex work i.e. prostitutes will cease to be treated like material objects of trade and used as “white slaves”. They would start working for themselves instead of for their pimps. They will be free to choose if they want to do this job or not; they won’t be forced to do so. In the words of an anonymous female sex worker in her article Prostitution is Work appearing in the journal Social Text on page 33-37, “If prostitution were decriminalized, women could choose where they wanted to work, the kind of work they do, the kind of place they want to work. That’s the thrill of our job: being able to choose what we are comfortable with.” She also points out later on that in the countries where laws are made to control prostitution, they oblige sex workers “to rely on men, on pimps, and guys who organize the houses [that is, brothels].”

Another thing that people use to oppose the legalization of prostitution is that being a prostitute increases the risk of getting unwanted pregnancies, as well as sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as syphilis, hepatitis-B, gonorrhea and the most dangerous - AIDS. However, prostitutes can protect themselves from getting pregnant and/or getting STDs by using contraceptives; and at the same time the customers will have to use condoms while having sexual intercourse with the prostitute. Moreover, the government can instigate all of this by making a law that will enforce the prostitutes and their customers to practice safe sex. This also implies that the mortality rate will decrease, since the deaths caused by STDs as well as by venereal disease will decrease. In Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1875 the government in effort to increase public health [and decrease mortality rate] by means of reducing the spread of venereal disease had developed a law that legalized prostitution. By this action all the brothels in the country gained authorization to work (Holloway, 207). Besides that, in the article of the anonymous prostitute, she emphasizes that she makes appointments with her doctor once every two months. She claims that “statistics now prove that the prostitutes are definitely not a high-risk group for HIV and STDs” (35). In addition to this, brothels may require customers to show a medical certificate proving that they are in a good health condition in order to use their services.

In countries where prostitution is not legalized, Germany for instance, female sex workers do not have equal rights as other people in their society. Even though they pay 56% of the taxes, “they are not entitled to social security, health insurance, or pension” (Prostitution, 33). Later on, the “hooker”, that is the sex worker, the author of this article, states that in Germany it has not been long since the law changed. She describes that a couple of years ago, raping a prostitute was not considered a crime. And if that had happened, the raped hooker could bring that case to court, but the judges would ignore that and would not make effort to solve the case. Nevertheless, by legalizing prostitution, the hookers will gain equal rights as every other person. This means that they will be protected by the state, so they will be able to defend themselves if there is a case of rape, as mentioned above, or in any way mistreatment by the customers. Furthermore, the prostitutes will be released from the fear that they are white slaves to their pimps, and also they will get more self-confidence.

In the end, one very positive reason why prostitution should be legalized is that the state can have economic benefits concerning its budget, especially if it is an undeveloped state or state in a phase of developing. If prostitution is legal, then besides hookers, the brothels would have to pay taxes to the government, which would further improve the budget of the particular state. This is extremely useful for undeveloped countries and countries in a phase of development, as we said above. It can also be done, like for example, the more prostitutes brothels have, the more taxes they would have to pay to the state. Cheating can be avoided in these situations with continual police inspection in the brothels to check the number of registered prostitutes working there. If it is found that there are more prostitutes working in the brothel then there are registered, then there may be penalties for the brothel, such as financial punishment and up to closing down the brothels.

To sum up, legalization of prostitution is very beneficial for everyone, including the government, the state, the prostitutes and the common people, or the “customers”. It helps reducing health risks, it allows prostitutes to protect themselves from mistreatment by their customers, and also it is beneficial for the state and its budget, especially if the country is undeveloped or in a developing stage.
____________

Attention! Free sample Law essays and History Law examples can be used in instructional purposes only. Remember all these free papers you can find anywhere online are 100% plagiarized. If you want to order a custom Law essay, Law research paper, Law term paper or Law thesis/dissertation written by highly qualified writers - you should contact professional writing services which are committed to provide high-quality custom written papers. You can find top custom writing companies listed rightside at our blogroll side-bar.