Individual Right vs Public Order

Running head INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VS. universal ORDER Individual Rights vs. Public Order Ashley Perez Mountain State Univeristy pass 1 2011 When our four whatever fathers came together and created the Bill of Rights, they did non think it would put up as long as it did. They created something that determines everything in the humanity, when it comes to crimes and issues. They set up rights for the mess to protect the people. The first tenner amendments of the Bill of Rights atomic number 18 objet darticularly grave to criminal defendants facing formal work ating by the criminal nicety system (Schm every last(predicate)eger, F. 2008). We were giving rights, for us individuals. Individual rights be the rights guaranteed to all members of the American society by the U. S Constitution ((Schmalleger, F. , 2008). As the world advanced, so did the criminal estimableice system. This caused more of an emphasis on individual rights that was accompanied by the dramatic increase in reported criminal activeness worldwide. Just in the s withalths and eighties, F. B. I. s traditional crimes, murder, rape, and assault increased.With individual rights, came payable process. Due process is procedural fairness. Fairness is the idea of doing what is best. It may non be perfect, only when it is the good and decent thing to do. It requires cosmos levelheaded, invariant and regular, when all around you is prejudice, corruption, or the desire of an angry mob to externalize howeverice d mavin. Fairness requires breadth and depth ( Stevenes, M , 2003). Not exactly does the outcome flummox to be fair, precisely also so does everything on the berth such as evidence gathering and presentation. Stevenes, M. , 2003). The due process standard was served in the sixties, by the warren courts. From the beginning, the individual-rights revolution had two critics. First, critics gain avow the premise that the g everywherenment cannot be expected to honor behavioral norms without being subject to an adversarial process (Super, D. , 2005). Second, critics asserted that enforcing norms through individual rights has heavy equal in the form of lost managerial efficiency of presidency programs (Super, D. 2005). In the Mathews v. EldridgeJ case, these critiques provided the basis of two of the three prongs of the central due process (Super, D. , 2005). Courts decisions declining to imply private rights of action to enforce statutes and regulations (Super, D. , 2005). Because of this , a movement for over ten years had enforced the rights of several politically weak groups such as immigrants, prisoners, people of troubled families and people suspected to be connected to terrorism.Of the movement , responses have attacked the individual-rights revolution, braking it into two main forms. First, champions of individual rights have emphasized the splendour of those rights, sometimes finding substantive value in the procedures of individual adjudication (S uper, D. , 2005). Second, they have sought to rebut assertions that government agencies can be counted upon to conform to legal norms without giving individuals the ability to enforce those norms (Super, D. , 2005). Mathews v.Eldridge factors the individual interest and the risk of wild deprivation. however, champions of individual rights have implicitly conceded their opponents contention that interposing individual rights has a cost in terms of the efficiency of the on a lower floorlying government activity(Super, D. , 2005). After folk eleventh, the world went on a permanent shut down. No one k red-hot who did it and why. Shortly after the towers where down, we all k bare-assed something was to come of this, but we did not how very much it would change our society today.We k refreshed that the tower where knocked down by terrorist from the shopping mall East, but we did not know what they looked like. The world, as a whole, went crazy, and any one and everyone who was of Mi ddle Eastern descent or even looked like they where from the middle eastern hemisphere where thrown in jail. People began to judge people by what they looked like, and did not give any one a chance. Air ports where placed under high security, and for the first ever people where thrown out of line just because their shoes did not match. Everything was being over looked, and studied.We had U. S position on just about every flight we did not neediness something like cabaret eleven happen again. Just 45 eld after the September 11 attacks, Congress passed the regular army PATRIOT Act. thither are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your funda psychic freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, discipline about the books you buy or borrow without seeming cause, and the power to lead into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely (ACLU,2007).The USA PATRIOT Act w as intended to break down those barriers and respond to new communication technologies in a number of ways (Pike, G, 2006) . The act broadened the comment of terrorism, permitted extensive sharing of word information, made it easier to get warrants to conduct intelligence investigations, increased the secrecy relating to search warrants, and expanded the scope of information that could be obtained (Pike, G, 2006) . Partially due to its haste in passing the act, Congress positive that many a(prenominal)-but not all-of the PATRIOT Acts provisions would expire on Dec. 1, 2005(Pike, G, 2006) . A cursory review of the legal literature shows that the USA PATRIOT flirt was go passed Congress by the Bush administration without following the usual legislative procedure (Wong, K, 2006). Throughout the entire legislative process, neither the Congress nor the judicature has systematically investigated and critically debated the meritnecessity and efficacy, costs and benefits, and the im pact and implications of the ACT on the Constitution, on the society, on the people (Wong, K, 2006).In reality the idea of introducing an act, at the time they did, was good, but the more we thought about it, we realized it goes against everything our four fathers worked hard to put together. We used to live in a world where we where the top dogs and everyone wanted to be like us. Now with all that has happened in the past few years, there is always that big brother over our shoulders, and he is not leaving any time soon. We live in a world where there are sick minded people, who eliminate people, and kid nap little kids. Where you are never alone and some one is always listening, even when you re the only one in the room. What ever happened to the fourth part amendment right The right of the people to be vouch in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, sup ported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. We are still entitled to this right , but how are if the at any moment in time the government can say hey lets see who so and so are talk to right now?It appears as if all the rights and laws created just go mainstay and forth with each other. I thought we were an organized society. How can we say that we will follow the fourth amendment, when we have a completely new act that reverses everything that we are entitled to? We are living in a messed up time, nothing ever seems to make sense, and we are supposed to just know things. We are learning new things everyday, but they just assert changing. How are supposed to know our rights, if the people who makes are not even sure about them. We lock up the wrong people, and let the devilish doers go.What happened, and how did it all go so wrong. Only if they could us now, this is probably why all other countries hate us with a passion. Lately everything is base on what you look like, and your political views. It has nothing to do with who you are. After the nine eleven attacks, the world began to look differently at all people, we proverb sides of people we never saw to begin with. We saw more American flags post outside peoples homes, hung up in store window, then on the fourth of July. Everyone came together, and stood proud for the time in a long time.The world mental was ready for a fight, but not what we ended up with. Hundreds of lives lost, and many where innocent. When we went to fight, we hit hard, harder then anyone could think. It made us look like we where the horrid back , yes we lost hundreds of people in the bombing of the world commerce center , but are not supposed to show we are better then them? We lost the trust of the people who we were supposed to be trusting, and faith in the people we loved. We lost all we fought for, for years before this, and to throw it all a way.The American world is so messed, that many of us do not even want to tell people they are American when they leave the country for a vacation. The American name has been bashed, and beaten(a) all because of one event. One event changed our lives forever. It will never be the same, and if you where there, you can never forget the pandemonium that day. The radio stations, gone, no music, just recaps of what happened. No television, just images of how it happened. The news showed pictures of the men who did it and the other who are part of it. The mobs outside, swear they saw one of the people driving a cab, they where all loss to look for him.The kids, so confused , yet understanding that this going in the history books for ever, and now reading about in that new edition book, saying I lived it. References ACLU. (2007, January 1). USA PATRIOT ACT. American polite Liberties Union. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Http//www. aclu. org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114. html Pike, G. (2006). USA PATRIOT Act Whats Next?. Information Today, 23(4), 1-2. Schmalleger, F. (2008). felonious justice a brief introduction (7th ed. ). Upper Saddle River, N. J. Pearson/ assimilator Hall. Stevenes, M. (2003, June 25). DUE PROCESS OF LAW PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.NCWC. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from faculty. ncwc. edu/mstevens/410/410lect06. htm Super, D. A. (2005). Are Rights high-octane? Challenging the Managerial Critique of Individual RightsA. Law Review, 93(4), 1051. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http//proquest. umi. com/pqdweb? did=1222808651&038sid=8&038Fmt=2&038clientId=296 77&038RQT=309&038VName=PQD Wong, K. C. (2006). The making of the USA Patriot Act I The legislative process and dynamics. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 34(3), 179. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from http//proquest. umi. com/pqdweb? did=1199189181&038sid=6&038Fmt=2&038clientId=296 77&038RQT=309&038VName=PQD