There is a lot of issues today concerning public-order and individual-rights. Many issues there is an obvious fine line between the two, but others really tend to make you think. Outweighing a criminal offender’s rights with the needs of the public may seem cruel, but it is what keeps our streets more safe in the end for future generations. Whether it is a harsh crime such as life sentencing for drug lords or something small and petty as drunk-driving checkpoints, someone needs to make a decision whether or not it is for the better of the public or the individual.
One issue is the mandatory life prison sentence without the possibility of parole for “drug lords. ” Drug lords are individuals who control a sizable network of people involved in the illegal drug trade. They are responsible for the deaths of many innocent people, the high drug increase all over countries around the world, and the corruption of many governments. Individuals such as these people have the capability of destroying families and lives just for their own profitable gain. Which no one these days would be a fan of. My opinion about drug lords is to lock them up.
Plain and simple. They have no care in the world for the public other than the need for their money and desire for that innocent corruption. Sending monsters like that to prison would definitely reflect the positive side of public-order. If there were more people who were motivated enough to pursue these cartels, society would not be so scared to go out and do the things we used to do. More gangs are involved in drugs now, more drugs can be seen on the streets, and a definite threat has increased in the back of the public’s mind. No one wants their child playing with dope or guns.
Until the cartels are behind bars, there will always be that uneasiness. Another issue, habitual offenders, seem to be more of a nuisance to the public than an immediate threat. However, it might be argued that the last conviction in the “three-strike law” can be something of petty nature, but when combined with that law, it makes it nearly impossible for the offender to get any type of public rehab. I think the three strike law should be more detail specific. A habitual offender with the same convictions within a certain time frame from their release date should be held accountable for their actions.
Usually many are with Parole and such. Depending on the degree of the crime, they should be sentenced certain time with harsher restrictions such as the lack of parole the third time. Meaning the offender would have to fulfill his or her full term behind bars rather than receiving Parole. Sentencing an offender to life in prison has the public’s safety in good mind, but plain and simple, you cannot fix those who do not want to fix themselves. While sentencing them to life may seem harsh, in the end it might save the public more money rather than sending the individual to court every 5 or so years.
But then again, the price to keep someone behind bars for life outweighs the possibility of change in a person. I think habitual offenders can be handled differently in a more time-reserving manor. Aggressive police patrol in high-crime neighborhoods is something i actually am a little uneasy about. While it is nice to have the police patrolling bad neighborhoods, that actually leaves the rest of the community more vulnerable. Taking police out of a certain area to patrol an area that has been an issue since the beginning of time is mentally exhausting.
You are constantly going to be needing units in more areas because where one area of crime is more dominant than the other, your criminal offenders just took their issues 10 miles down the road to the next city where there is not a cop in sight. This definitely reflects public-order but in my opinion, it is not an effective tool to use for reducing crime. However, more police presence has it’s perks. No one is going to be messing around with three police cars down the street. Plain and simple. Drunk-driving checkpoints are a great way reduce DUIs and other moving violations on the road.
While they are a nuisance many times to the sober driver, one has to be thankful in a way. How many drunk drivers are police getting off the roads because of these checkpoints? A lot. Thus making it safer for everyone to drive on that late Friday night. While some argue that the checkpoints violate a person’s fourth amendment rights because the police officer does not have probably cause to stop and talk to you at the checkpoint, the US Supreme Court has ruled as long as the police treats everyone equally at a checkpoint, it does not violate the U.
S. Constitution. A drunk driver easily has civil and legal consequences that occur once the driver has made any damages while traveling. If the police were effective in taking a majority of the impaired drivers off the road that lessens the chance I have to go to court for someone killing my daughter because they wanted to drive home after a few rounds at the bar. That type of irresponsibility deserves the cruelest punishment and individual-rights should not even be considered when it comes to DUI checkpoints.
Although many of these issues can be argued that they violate individual rights, we need to see that fine line separating rights from public order. It is not fair for an innocent person to have their entire world turned upside down because a drug lord decided to kill their parents, a gang member decided to hold you up at gunpoint and steal your vehicle, or an impaired driver that went head on with your parents. There is a lot of weighing out one must do without violating rights or public order, but it is possible.
Siegel, L. (2011). Criminology: The Core. Wadsworth Cengage. Belmont, California. Johnson, W. (2010, Aug. 3). Crime rates in England and Wales worse than US. The Independent. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from HYPERLINK “http://independent. co. uk/news/uk/crime/crime-rates-in-england-and-wales-worse-than-US” http://independent. co. uk/news/uk/crime/crime-rates-in-england-and-wales-worse-than-US Wilson, J. (2011, May 28). Hard Times, Fewer Crimes. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 9, 2012, from