This essay discusses some of the characteristics of the forces of law and order as opposed to those who support individual liberties. It takes the side of those who think government has gone too far and has no right to further impinge on the private lives of its citizens.
IIntroduction
The debate about civil liberties and whether or not they should be suspended in times of danger predates the attacks of September 11; indeed, the idea that there are times when we should trade our freedoms for increased security is as old as the nation itself; it was Benjamin Franklin who said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” (Robinson, PG).
However, the current Administration’s response to the terrorist attacks, which has devolved into what appears to be a blatant power grab, has brought the issue to the fore once again.
This paper discusses the issues of law and order and individual rights from both sides, and describes the main points of each. It then chooses the one that is more appealing and tells why it, and not the other, should be supported.
IILaw and Order
Law and order in this connection is understood not simply as police action, but as the concept of the rule of law upon which the nation was founded. The salient points of law turn on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits “unlawful search and seizure,” in effect, allowing citizens to maintain their privacy and the sanctity of their homes from unnecessary intrusion.
The Term Paper on Law Order Criminal Crime Social
From Journal of Social Studies Vol. II, No. 1, Spring 1940 By Benjamin B. Ferenc z Criminal law and criminology have, for the past several years, been confronted with a problem that reaches the very foundations and basic philosophies underlying the study and treatment of social offenders. Simply, the controversy revolves about the question; "Shall the main concern underlying penal treatment be the ...
Now however, in an effort to stop further terrorist attacks and insure the safety of its citizenry, the U.S. government has passed, among other things, the “USA PATRIOT Act,” which abrogates some of the rights to privacy previously guaranteed by the constitution. Examples include the fact that police can make searches of suspects’ homes without warrants and without probable cause; nor do they have to notify the individual that they were on the premises. Such actions are completely legal now, due to the fact that remaining safe has become a paramount concern of many people. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the terrorist attacks have left many, if not most, Americans frightened and shaky; the government’s passage of this act and other measures is deemed by some to be necessary, and undertaken for the good of the country.
Law and order advocates include the police, FBI, CIA and all agencies with the power of arrest and law enforcement; it may also be said to include those who feel that at times, it is necessary to suspend civil liberties when “the interests of society take precedence over individual liberties.” (“Crime and Violence,” PG).
IIIIndividual Liberties
The right to do as we please, within reasonable limits, is one of the greatest freedoms Americans enjoy. The Fourth Amendment, mentioned above, is a written guarantee that we can have one place of our own; somewhere where we can do as we please without interference from anyone, including the members of law enforcement agencies. It is this freedom from unreasonable search and seizure that is one of the cornerstones of individual liberty.
A formal definition that might be useful is given here:
“Individual freedom is the lack of formal or informal external restraints imposed by one man or group of men upon another, save for the collective coercion aimed at preventing individuals from acting forcibly or fraudulently against their neighbors. It is the absence of human impediment to the voluntary action of fellow human beings. The permissible limitation on free choice is the recognition of an equal ambit of choice to all other men.” (Foley, PG).
I think it’s most important that we recognize the fact implicit in the last sentence; that freedom for one person insures freedom for all.
The Essay on In order to protect the liberty of individuals, the role of the state should be minimal
“In order to protect the liberty of individuals, the role of the state should be minimal” Discuss this view. The view that the state should be minimal is primarily that of a libertarian and minarchist point of view, where the individual should be, to the largest extent possible, be free from state interference and that state power should extend only to the point of preserving its citizens ...
Other freedoms, such as the right to free speech and freedom of dissent, are both guaranteed by the Constitution. In fact, the rule of law and individual liberties are closely intertwined; it’s impossible to have one without the other. Still, we are now at a point where our fear has driven us to surrender our liberty to law enforcement agencies, and the government, in the hope of making ourselves safer. Safety, both as individuals and as a nation, is illusory at best and it seems to me that compromising our liberty for the sake of an illusion is folly.
IVTaking Sides
It’s obvious I’m sure that I feel there is no justification, reason or act that should be used as an excuse to allow anyone to abrogate civil liberties. One of the things that has been widely noted is that the current U.S. Administration will not allow any criticism of its policies; the numbers of dissenters and protestors are routinely underreported, and protestors have been harassed by police before being jailed. It seems to me that there is a greater danger than what our putative enemies might do if we are allowed to continue our free lifestyle, and that is what our own government is likely to do if it is granted the extraordinary power to search and detain its own citizens without due process. It is particularly disturbing that people who are arrested today are routinely denied their right to an attorney; they often are unable to let anyone know where they are. Although these abuses are at present largely confined to Middle Eastern men, the danger is that once the crisis is over, the policy will continue, finally impacting those who have no connection whatever to the organizations such policies were first meant to deter.
It seems to me that the danger of losing all our civil liberties via some horrendous piece of legislation that is pushed through in a panic is far greater than the danger that someone could be supplying some sort of information to terrorists, or indeed helping to plan another attack. We are allowing ourselves to be herded like cattle in the direction this Administration wants us to go; the “War on Terror” is merely an excuse. Others seem to feel the same way.
The Essay on New Driving Laws Online Internet Web
The Driving Dungeon In the US in the last year, states and providences (such as Salt Lake City and Colorado) have been changing their driving laws for new teenage driving. This is making the process longer and more stressful for a teens to get their licenses. It is also taking away from the great joy of a parent to allow their children to legally go out for them to run errands or just to have some ...
For instance, on the TV program “Uncommon Knowledge,” moderated by Peter Robinson, USC Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky had this to say about the loss of individual liberties in the U.S.: “We are a nation of laws. We should only compromise laws at the greatest of urgency and I don’t think we’ve seen any justification of the kind of compromise we’ve had over the last year.” (PG).
The program participants also discussed the fact that the Bush Administration ordered secret military tribunals for suspected terrorists, a practice that I find reprehensible. One of the most powerful guards we have against abuse is the fact that our courts are open; when we start conducting hearings behind closed doors, we need to take a hard look at the justice system, because something’s wrong. Giving up our civil liberties to enshrine law and order in a place of prominence, in the hope that such actions will ensure our safety, is a misguided idea.
The fact that we have the advanced technology to pursue surveillance, examine computer records, etc., is not lost upon another author who objects strongly to such invasions of privacy. He suggests that terrorist attacks may lead to self-destructive actions, and that we must not allow this to happen. (Taslitz, PG).
VConclusion
Although the terrorist attacks have left Americans both angry and fearful, it seems to me that the ultimate risk to our nation comes not from without, but from within. In the hope of ensuring our safety from further attacks, and to punish our enemies, we have been (and are being) systematically stripped of the rights normally guaranteed to us under the Constitution. The Administration is mounting these assaults on us under the guise either of safety, or the notion that we must be watched to “weed out” the terrorists among us.
The institutions and principles put in place today will have repercussions for decades to come. We must not allow our fear to overcome our good sense, and surrender so easily what our founding fathers died to achieve.
VIReferences
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Law and Order.” Uncommon Knowledge [Web site]. 27 Sep 2002. Accessed: 24 Jan 2003. http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/717.html
“Crime and Violence.” [Web page]. Undated. Accessed: 24 Jan 2003. http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:AuT3LQJg1yMC:courses.ceu.edu/courses/4/lecture_notes/ch1_pt1_outline.pdf+individual+rights+versus+%22law+and+order%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
The Term Paper on Painting Analysis in Jane Eyre
From the opening chapter of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre the reader becomes aware of the powerful role that art plays. There is something extraordinary about the pictures Jane admires from other artists, as well as the work she creates herself. Her solitary pastime often operates as an outlet of pain, either past or present, and offers her the opportunity to deal with unpleasant emotions and ...
Foley, Ridgway K. “Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law.” Liberty Haven [Web site]. June 1971. Accessed: 24 Jan 2003. http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/constitutionscourtsandlaw/individualliberty.html
Robinson, Peter. “Law and Order.” Uncommon Knowledge [Web site]. 27 Sep 2002. Accessed: 24 Jan 2003. http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/717.html
Taslitz, Andrew E. “The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-First Century: Technology, Privacy and Human Emotions.” Law and Contemporary Problems 65 (2002): 125-188. Retrieved January 23, 2003 from The Gale Group, San Diego Public Library, San Diego, CA at: http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/979/844/32445932w4/purl=rc1_ITOF_0_A89669615&dyn=7!xrn_5_0_A89669615?sw_aep=sddp_main
