Dont Talk To Cops :: essays research papers

Don't Talk to Cops "GOOD MORNING! My name is investigator Holmes. Do you mind answering a few simple questions?" If you open your door one day and are greeted with those words, STOP AND THINK! Whether it is the local police or the FBI at your door, you have certain legal rights of which you ought to be aware before you proceed any further. In the first place, when law enforcement authorities come to see you, there are no "simple questions". Unless they are investigating a traffic accident, you can be sure that they want information about somebody. And that somebody may be you! Rule number one to remember when confronted by the authorities is that there is no law requiring you to talk with the police, the FBI, or the representative of any other investigative agency. Even the simplest questions may be loaded and the seemingly harmless bits of information which you volunteer may later become vital links in a chain of circumstantial evidence against you or a friend. DO NOT INVITE THE INVESTIGATOR INTO YOUR HOME! Such an invitation not only gives him the opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, friends, reading material, etc., but also tends to prolong the conversation. The longer the conversation, the more chance there is for a skill investigator to find out what he wants to know. Many times a police officer will ask you to accompany him to the police station to answer a few questions. In that case, simply thank him for the invitation and indicate that you are not disposed to accept it at this time. Often the authorities simply want to photograph a person for identification purposes, a procedure which is easily accomplished by placing him in a private room with a two-way mirror at the station, asking him a few innocent questions, and then releasing him. If the investigator becomes angry at your failure to cooperate and threatens you with arrest, stand firm. He cannot legally place you under arrest or enter your home without a warrent signed by a judge. If he indicates that he has such a warrent, ask to see it. A person under arrest, or located on premises to be searched, generally must be shown a warrent if he requests it and must be given to chance to read it. Without a warrent, an officer depends solely upon your helpfulness to obtain the information he wants. So, unless you are quite sure of yourself, don't be helpful. Probably the wisest approach to take to a persistant investigator is

Prison Policy Recommendation Essay

There is currently a bill in the legislature that would double the maximum prison term for anyone convicted of armed robbery. As a criminologist advisor to a state legislator, I have been tasked with proposing a recommendation on whether or not the current bill on the table will be good for the government and the communities it represents or detrimental. The proposed bill would double the current maximum prison term for any individual convicted of armed robbery. The thought behind such a bill is that a longer prison term will deter people from even attempting, or committing a crime in the first place. This bill would also, in hopes, keep offenders from re-offending for the same crime. As a result of these hopes, the bill has gained much popularity within the legislature. As appealing as the possible resulting lower crime rates sound, there are certain costs that must be considered. The bill proposes longer prison terms for offenders. These longer terms will also come with a higher price tag. The cost of keeping inmates for a longer period will rise exponentially. Another cost, though not monetary, should also be considered; that is the risk of even more violent crimes being committed. If the prison terms for armed robbery were to be doubled and is close to that of the crime of attempted murder, what’s to say an offender would not go all the way if the sentence would be virtually the same? There may be possible solutions for the bill that can be appealing to both the government and the community. The first would be to increase the maximum term served before parole could be offered. For example, instead of a ten-year sentence, with parole after three years; increase it to six or seven years before parole can even be considered. Another option would be to put in place a work program within the prison system. This will be somewhat similar to the outside world, in that if the prisoner does not work, they will not eat or receive rec time. We do not get handed a meal simply because it is supper time. If we don’t work, we don’t eat. Same premise for prisoners. It is my recommendation that the bill not  be approved as it stands but that it is rewritten to reflect changes to the current prison terms. The prison term does not need to be lengthened, but the offenders do need to be made to serve more of their current term before coming up for parole. It is my opinion, and based on crime rates that offenders are often not rehabilitated in such a short period, time, term in prison, and often get paroled and re-offend. This is an endless cycle. If terms were lengthened, it would cost more to house and feed a prisoner, but the costs would outweigh that of releasing them, having them reoffend, costs of trial and a second prison term. Also, the implementation of the work program would help them to realize that prison is not just a free ride, with meals and rec time without hard work and consequences. The parole system must also be overhauled. Parole officers often cannot keep good track of their parolees, and offenders receive too many chances. Perhaps, requiring prisoners to learn a trade would be equally helpful to them outside of prison. The proposed bill for doubling the maximum prison term should not be approved. It cannot succeed as it is. Simply doubling a prison term without further consequences will be a hindrance to the justice system as a whole. A crime is a crime, and an offenders background should not be taken into account. Instead of threatening offenders with a longer possible sentence, change the current rules and statutes for prison terms. Make them serve the majority of their sentence, make them work for basic needs in prison, and educate them. Give them a skill, so that the possibility of reoffending goes down. As popular as the bill may seem, it does not mean that it is the right choice for the government or the communities it represents. All of the options must be considered and weighed carefully before a decision can be made. Instead of creating new laws, perhaps we should first look at ways to enhance and make the current ones better. Only then, can we hope to move forward and create a better nation. References South, T. (2010, June 8). Bill would keep armed robbers in prison longer. Retrieved from timesfreepress.com: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jun/08/bill-would-keep-armed-robbers-in-prison-longer/ What are positives & negatives to maximum prison sentences? (2011). Retrieved from Yahoo Answers: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index Would doubling the maximum prison term for anyone convicted of armed robbery be a good idea or a bad one, why? (2007). Retrieved from Yahoo Answers: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index

Americas First Political Party Federalist Party

As the first organized American political party, the Federalist Party was active from the early 1790s to the 1820s. In a battle of political philosophies between Founding Fathers, the Federalist Party, led by second president John Adams, controlled the federal government until 1801, when it lost the White House to the Anti-Federalist-inspired Democratic-Republican party led by third president Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists Briefly Originally formed to support the fiscal and banking policies of Alexander Hamilton, theFederalist Party promoted domestic policy that provided for a strong central government, stimulated economic growth, and maintained a fiscally responsible federal budget. In their foreign policy, Federalists favored establishing a warm diplomatic relationship with England, while opposing the French Revolution. Key Takeaways: The Federalist Party The Federalist Party was America’s first official political party.It existed from the early 1790s to the early 1820s.Its only member to serve as president was John Adams, elected in 1796.Other leaders included Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and John Marshall.It was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson.The party stood for a strong central government, a sound economy, and diplomacy with Britain. The lone Federalist Party president was John Adams, who served from March 4, 1797,  to March 4, 1801. While Adams’ predecessor, President George Washington, was considered favorable to Federalist policy, he never officially identified with any political party, remaining non-partisan throughout his eight-year presidency.   After John Adams’ presidency ended in 1801, Federalist Party nominees continued to run unsuccessfully in presidential elections through 1816. The party remained active in some states until the 1820s, with most of its former members adopting the Democratic or Whig parties. Despite its relatively short lifespan compared to today’s two major parties, the Federalist Party left a lasting impression on America by establishing the fundamentals of a national economy and banking system, solidifying the national judicial system, and creating principles of foreign policy and diplomacy still in use today. Along with John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, other prominent Federalist Party leaders included first Chief Justice John Jay, Secretary of State and Chief Justice John Marshall, Secretary of State and Secretary of War Timothy Pickering, renowned statesman Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and U.S. Senator and diplomat Rufus King. In 1787, these eventual Federalist Party leaders had all been part of a larger group that favored reducing the powers of the states by replacing the failing Articles of Confederation with a new constitution proving for a stronger central government. However, since many members of the future Anti-Federalist Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had also advocated for the Constitution, the Federalist Party is not directly descended from the pro-Constitution or â€Å"federalist† group. Instead, both the Federalist Party and its opponent Democratic-Republican Party evolved in response to other issues. Where the Federalist Party Stood on the Issues The Federalist Party was shaped by its response to three key issues facing the new federal government: the fragmented monetary system of state banks, diplomatic relations with Great Britain, and most controversially, the need for a new United States Constitution. To address the banking and monetary situation, the Federalists advocated for Alexander Hamilton’s plan to charter a national bank, create a federal mint, and have the federal government assume the outstanding Revolutionary War debts of the states. The Federalists also stood for good relations with Great Britain as expressed by John Jay in his Treaty of Amity negotiated in 1794. Known as â€Å"Jay’s Treaty,† the agreement sought to resolve outstanding Revolution War issues between the two nations and granted the U.S. limited trading rights with Britain’s nearby Caribbean colonies. Finally, the Federalist Party strongly argued for ratification of the new Constitution. To help interpret the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton developed and promoted the concept of the implied powers of Congress that, while not specifically granted to it in the Constitution, were deemed â€Å"necessary and proper.†Ã‚   The Loyal Opposition The Federalist Party’s opponent, the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, denounced the ideas of a national bank and implied powers, and viciously attacked Jay’s Treaty with Britain as a betrayal of hard-won American values. They publicly denounced Jay and Hamilton as treasonous monarchists, even distributing leaflets that read: â€Å"Damn John Jay! Damn everyone that wont damn John Jay! Damn every one that wont put lights in his window and sit up all night damning John Jay!† The Rapid Rise and Fall of the Federalist Party As history shows, Federalist leader John Adams won the presidency in 1798, Hamilton’s â€Å"Bank of the United States† came to be, and Jay’s Treaty was ratified. Along with the support of non-partisan President George Washington they had enjoyed before Adams’ election, the Federalists won most significant legislative battles during the 1790s. Though the Federalist Party had the support of voters in the nation’s large cities and all of New England, its electoral power began to erode rapidly as the Democratic-Republican Party built a large and dedicated base in the numerous rural communities of the South. After a hard-fought campaign revolving around fallout from the French Revolution and the so-called Quasi-War with France, and new taxes imposed by the Federalist administration, Democratic-Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson defeated incumbent Federalist President John Adams by a mere eight electoral votes in the contested election of 1800. Despite continuing to field candidates through 1816, the Federalist Party never regained control of the White House or Congress. While its vocal opposition to the War of 1812 helped it to recover some support, it all but vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815. Today, the legacy of the Federalist Party remains in the form of America’s strong central government, a stable national banking system, and resilient economic base. While never regaining executive power, the Federalist’s principles continued to shape constitutional and judicial policy for nearly three decades through Supreme Court’s rulings under Chief Justice John Marshall. Sources Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist, Diffen.comWood, Empire of Liberty: A history of the Early Republic, 1789–1815 (2009).John C. Miller, The Federalist Era 1789–1801 (1960)Elkins and McKitrick, Age of Federalism, pp 451–61Federalist Party: Facts and Summary, History.com