There are cases where the death penalty is not necessary, it should go case-by-case. Heinous and disturbing murders have to be taken seriously to the point of possible execution. For those who are legitimately mentally not responsible for their crimes-the state allows some leeway in possibly hospitalizing/incarcerating them for the rest of their lives-or applying the death penalty. I believe that is a fair system. As a civilized society, we can not execute everybody. There are mitigating factors in at least some of these cases, something I pointed out earlier.

With modern detective methods such as DNA and others, it is now much easier to find the real killer. An argument made against the death penalty of “misidentification” and “racial profiling” now has far less credence. Many people were executed unjustly by overzealous DA’s, and many have been freed by these new forensic methods. In an era where there is far less racial discrimination and more minorities present in the justice system, there is less racial profiling in arrests and prosecutions of minority suspects. But still the prevailing case for the death penalty lingers on-with its countless supporters and detractors.

But as we push on into the 21st century, are the various modes of execution a merciful way to eliminate heinous state criminals or a throwback to a dark age where witches were burned at the stake and torture was commonplace. Torture, that ironically continues on to modern times, but is the justification for capital punishment still there? This author may see a case for it, but also knows that in most cases, it’s plain revenge. What is really needed are huge societal reforms. Such reforms may take many generations to come. But in time, the death penalty may be viewed as the product of an awful barbaric era that extended, at least, partially into the 21st century. An era that is shameful and reprehensible.

Do I really believe in the death penalty?  In some cases, yes. But maybe I too will be considered a barbarian in the years to come.

I think most Americans are very well-programmed to think in only black-and-white terms. What’s wrong is wrong and what’s right is right. It is usually accepted that what’s illegal is wrong, but that is not the case sometimes. This article lists and discusses some issues and activities that are illegal but may not be wrong. This article does not endorse illegal activity of any kind, it aims to simply challenge the reasoning behind what’s illegal.

Fort many people, the issue of abortion is either right or wrong. If a woman did not want kids and got pregnant, should she be allowed to have an abortion? Some would say, “If you’re ready to have sex, you should be ready to accept the fact that you may become a parent.” What do you think? What if a woman is raped, could she be allowed then? She had no control in that situation and will have to face the consequences. Roe v. Wade was the landmark case that made it legal for women to have an abortion from the 1st trimester up until certain points in the 2nd trimester, depending on the specific state. Since some states have outlawed it completely and others allow it, the moral statement of whether it’s right or wrong is skewed. We cannot rely on legality to determine whether something is right or wrong. This would be a case when someone’s beliefs would play a major role in determining whether it is wrong or right.

The California State Assembly had laid out estimates this past February that the legalization of marijuana would raise $1 billion dollars through taxes and creating thousands of green jobs. It is currently illegal in many states to smoke or have marijuana in your possession. Does that make it wrong? For years, people have claimed the medical benefits of marijuana, such as reducing nausea and vomiting as well as helping glaucoma patients. If California ends up legalizing marijuana, where would to take the argument of the “correctness” of its use for other states. If one state legalizes it, it would mean that someone has to be wrong. But they can’t have it both ways. Alcohol and tobacco kills more people a year than marijuana. Of course, many people do not use marijuana because they do not want to break the law, so the numbers are a little skewed. The point is that if other harmful products are available to American consumers, for what reason if marijuana illegal? Comedian Chris rock said that it is illegal because “it comes from brown countries and because the best marijuana is not made in America.” He goes on to say that since white people created cigarettes, they are legal, but since colored people produce marijuana, they do not want brown people to become wealthy. I do not endorse any of these opinions, but simply want to stir up people’s minds and get them thinking and talking. But more importantly, knowing their opinions and being consistent with their beliefs.

Now, of course, there are many things that are illegal and happen to be wrong, such as murder and stealing. But to declare that all things that are illegal were outlawed simply because they were wrong is not correct, although it may have been a reason. For example, drunk driving is illegal and very wrong, in my opinion. It shows very poor judgment on behalf of the drunk driver. Even worse, the other person might lose their life because of the drunk’s fault. Something that strikes me as odd and terribly inconsistent is that people in general, including the government, believe that killing is wrong. Yet, the death penalty exists in 34 of the 50 U.S. states. If death is wrong, why is the government allowed to kill people? It sends the message that, “you can’t kill people, only we can decide who gets killed.” This helps me prove my point that the legality of an issue cannot be depended on to rule on its morality. Also, soldiers are trained to kill people. I think that the idea of death in today’s world is that only the dangerous and punished should be killed. Where I stand on that, I’m not sure.

Some things that are legal can still be considered wrong, such as prostitution in Las Vegas, pornography, gambling, alcohol, and tobacco. These things are legal, but many people would have an issue in engaging in these activities. Just because something is legal does not mean that it is right.

The purpose of this article is not to encourage illegal activity or behavior. Rather, it is simply to show the average person how we are responsible for our own actions and we are still responsible to think for ourselves. Never believe anything that you have not personally experienced or have reasoned for. When there is any evidence that challenges your beliefs, consider that evidence from neutral standpoint and really try to entertain that evidence for a while and it may change your original standpoint for the better.

1. If you get a notice from the IRS or your state tax office claiming that you owe them a great deal of money
for taxes, you should talk to a tax attorney.  They will be able to tell you why you’ve received a notice about that and you might end up having a settlement that saves you money or you can try to prove that you don’t owe the money that the government thinks you do.  Only a tax attorney could straighten out a complex problem where you are told that you owe money that you might not owe.
2. If you get a notice from the state or federal government claiming a small amount, it might simply be that on your last taxes that you filled out your forms for the wrong tax bracket.  In this case, it is simpler to just pay the amount, especially if it’s a small amount.  Hiring a tax attorney for a small amount of money would make you ultimately pay more, even if you prove that you don’t owe any money because you’d be paying the attorney.  If it is a minor problem where you owe a small sum for taxes, you would be better off simply paying it.
3. When the tax problem is relating to vehicles, such as a state saying you did not pay enough taxes for a vehicle, especially if you buy a used car, you should check into the reason they say you didn’t pay enough taxes.  Sometimes people pay less for a car than what the market value for that car is supposed to be and the state might claim that you’ve paid too little in taxes as a result.  If this is the case, you should fill out the form in which you tell how much you paid for the car and have the person you bought the vehicle from sign it saying that you paid the amount that you claim.  In this way, you will not need to pay the extra amount and you won’t need to hire a tax attorney.
4. Simply put, if your tax problem is too big for you to handle, only then should you actually hire a tax attorney.  If you can easily solve the problem yourself, such as the case with buying a used car, then don’t bother with an attorney.  You’ll end up paying more than you save.  Only hire a tax attorney if you really need them for some major tax problems or tax issues that you are unable to solve for yourself!

Government can’t prefer one religion over another. They can’t impose it on school district. There is a separation between state and government when it comes to religion. Therefore, anyone can believe in anything that they want in the US without the interference of the state or government. It’s unconstitutional to punish an individual based upon his religion.

The first amendment also warrants the freedom of press and lobbying against the government. If you are from the press or if you own a press business, you should know your right. You have to right to express your material without breaking the laws. However, you are not protected from subpoena or a call to testify. You have to publish all content from your critique too. If you criticize a political party, you will also be required to publish that party’s response. There is not content restriction unless it’s against the law. You do have to publish a lot of unpopular content too.

When it comes to freedom of speech and press, private authority are not restricted by the first amendment. If an employer tells you to restrict a certain type of speech, you have to follow that order. This is when the state is an employment at will state. If a parent tells his children to restrict a certain type of speech, it’s alright too.

When the actions are taking place, everything is fine; life is good–not wanting to realize it is only temporary.  The money, materialistic things, fun, and everything that goes along with it, it is all good.  When the time comes to face the consequences, it is a different story.  This person is not the same person who was so confident and so in charge.  All of that is behind them now and their livelihood is on the line.  This person finds out someone else is in charge now.  They have to wait until a decision about their life is made by someone else.  Still not wanting to realize they made this possible by their own actions.

It is not just the person who will face the consequences.  Their family, spouse, partner, children and friends pay the consequences also—it is not fair.  Time is short and life is a precious gift.  Some people are so selfish and just think about themselves.  People do not want to think about how what they do affects or will affect their loved ones.  At the time it is all about the person and no one else while the actions are taking place.  When the time comes to pay the price, this is when the person starts thinking about their family, spouse, partner, children and friends–who can get them out of their mess or who they will leave behind. It is too late then, what is done is done.

People do things in life they know they should not do.  Some people are lucky and get away with it and there are those who are not so lucky.  We must all try to live life right.  I feel there is just no other way.  If the Man above is not involved in how you are living, nothing you do will prosper.  It is so much easier living the right way.  You feel good about yourself, and you know you have worked hard for what you have, and no one can take it away from you.  On the other hand, yes, you might have worked hard for what you have, but it will definitely be taken away. It might not be taken away today, next year or five years from now, but it will be taken away eventually.  You are also always looking over your shoulders for one reason or the other, while you are doing what you should not be doing.  I don’t think that’s a good way to live, do you?

What do you say to someone who has to face the consequences of their actions?  What else is there to say except, “I will pray for you”.  Let us all just try to live right. You will not have to worry about anything; you will be blessed with everything you need. We all should live and be happy living.  We cannot if we let someone else have control of our lives–unless he is the Man above.

Leaving prison wanting to go straight and hold down a job is an admirable thing. Everyone deserves a second chance; you’ve done your time and just want to get on with your life. However, not everyone sees things like that and when you apply for jobs, you find yourself automatically turned down, even though you are sure you have the correct qualifications. Here are some tips to ensure that you do manage to find work after leaving prison.

While still in prison

Provided that your sentence is not just a month or two, there are plenty of opportunities while still in prison to hone your skills. If your sentence is long-term, you may want to study something that interests you and you think you can use in the community. There are many long distance courses that you can do, or there may be classes within the prison that you can attend. Ask staff, who should be able to point you in the right direction, or check notice boards for news.

There are usually a number of options for jobs within prison. You won’t get paid much, if at all, but you will gain experience and hopefully some training, which will stand you in good stead for the outside world. Some prisons have work-shops and laundries, most have kitchens, which should enable you to find something that you enjoy, although you may have to fight for your place initially, depending on how many places there are, and how much interest.

You should also look out for other types of jobs. A number of prisons in the South of England, for example, have a peer advice scheme run by a charity. This involves prisoners, who have passed certain selection criteria, advising their fellow prisoners on housing issues. For example, if a prisoner has a home, the charity can help him or her to keep it while they are in prison, or can help them find somewhere to stay on release from prison. Once a prisoner has proved him or herself trustworthy, they may even be taken on at the charity after release from prison or, if the prison is a low category one, they could be allowed day release to work in the community.

After leaving prison

When applying for jobs, you should always include any work experience you have gathered in prison on your CV. If you have proved yourself to be trustworthy while in prison, you will almost certainly be able to reap the rewards. You should always be honest, even if you know that the job will not involve a background check – things have a way of coming out into the open and you may be caught out if you lie. Stress in your cover letter that you are reformed and that you just want a chance to start anew. Of course, some employers will immediately turn you down, but there are others that will be willing to give you the chance you need.

You will almost certainly have a contact with a probation service, who will be able to offer you advice on finding jobs and will probably have a list of employers who are willing to take on ex-prisoners. There are also a number of charities and other organisations that specialise in finding jobs for people in your position and will be able to offer you all sorts of advice. There is also the possibility that you may be able to find a job with them.

If you are still struggling, then you should consider offering your services for free for a short amount of time – perhaps a week or two, depending on your financial circumstances. The willingness to get ahead will stand you in good stead with a number of employers. If you are on benefits, however, you should always make it clear that you are going to be doing this for free so that you don’t get reported and denied benefits.

Once you leave prison, you may choose to lose contact with anyone you met on the inside. However, if you do stay in touch with some, then talk to them about their employment situation. They may be able to offer suggestions or even recommend you to their own employer. You should also ask friends and family for their help – jobs have a habit of coming along at odd moments and you may just hear of something through them.

Finding a job after a prison sentence can be difficult. However, it is not impossible and there are plenty of people out there who can help. Try to keep a positive attitude and don’t let any rejections bring you down. If you want it, you do deserve a second chance and eventually, you will get one.

Property crime is considered as a crime of damaging, robbing, or stealing the properperties owned by other persons. The main basis of the criminal act is the desire to gain. The intent of a criminal who committed property crime is to gain from the things that he took or damaged to the disadvantage of the owners. In the society, most of the people believed that we need to have sufficient money and property in order to survive of the world. The culture that we have includes the class structure wherein there are people who are rich, and others are considered as belonging to the middle class. With that, the lowest group is the people who experienced poverty. There are even other people who experienced extreme poverty. Based on this scenario, the problem of property crime worsened. Many people tried to organize in order to conduct robbery operations in certain places. People who failed to attain economic success tend to steal from other people in order to survive.

In order to solve the problem, the government tried to implement laws in order to apply the means by which techniques of neutralization could be developed. Some of these laws include social welfare and development. For instance, the government developed the social security system, health care system, and as well as programs for the benefit of the masses. The problem on economic deprivation started when people tend to notice the dividing line between rich and the poor. Hence, many poor people chose to commit property crimes because they believed that they were economically-deprived.

Moreover, most of the people who are considered as criminals due to the commission of property crimes had their routine activities. In most cases, the cases of burglary, robbery, and other property crimes will escalate when unemployment rate increases. Besides, most of the victims of property crimes were killed in the process of unlawfully taking their property which added to the gravity of the crime. Thus, the commission of property crime is a deep problem of the society which rooted from economic depression and deprivation.

In addition, the property crime for thrills, shoplifting, and arson are also common in the society. Some people are thrilled in stealing the properties owned by other individuals. The effect of such feeling is shoplifting which is common in shopping stores and promenades. The crime of arson is also a property crime in the sense that a property is burned for various reasons. For example, a criminal may burn a house after stealing some properties within the same. Other criminals would also burn a building or a house when he wanted to conceal the bodies of people that he killed inside the said properties.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that the main reason of the commission of property crime is economic problems. The society has been plagued by the ill-effects of robbery, burglary, shoplifting, and arson for a long time and the police are trying to protect the properties owned by different individuals. Hence, the problem of property crimes must be solved in the most effective way.

The Government states that the use of the death penalty deters human beings from committing crimes and has lowered the murder rate.  It actually has been shown that states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those states that enforce it.  The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 2007 among death penalty states was 5.83, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 4.10.  During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% – 101% higher than in states without the death penalty.

Even though death row is occupied with many convicted murderers, many of them are actually innocent.  Through flaws in the system, DNA material has shown to be inaccurate and potential witnesses have been proven corrupt.  At least 23 convicted felons have been executed in the U.S. and their innocence was discovered after their deaths.  Since 1973, 130 innocent people have been released from death rows around the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions.  How would anyone be able to live with himself or herself if they convicted an innocent man to die?

Considering the cost of the death penalty compared to incarceration costs, it’s amazing that certain states still reinforce the expensive form of capital punishment.  Death penalty cases cost more than 70% more than non-death penalty cases; the average case costs around $1.26 million compared to $740,000 for cases that end with life imprisonment.  Even without the expensive appeals process, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

Considering the amount of disadvantages to the death penalty, the country must stop its use of capital punishment to deter crime.  Obviously their plan isn’t working because murder rates have escalated in death-penalty states over the last 20 years.  23 innocent people have been executed that were thought to have been guilty; that’s 23 people that were killed by a system that’s supposed to keep people safe.  Don’t forget the high costs associated with the death of inmates and the appeals and lawyers fees.  Over a million dollars per death row case is a lot of money that could be put to good use.  Incarceration should be the only method for convicted felons because murder doesn’t solve the problem, it just creates more.  Who’s to say how many innocent people the United States has actually executed.  I’m sure the numbers are a lot higher than we think.

In line with that, here is the list of the most controversial landmark cases in history:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)- This is case decided in 1803 by the U. S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall decided in this case that, despite the fact that Marbury was entitled to the commission; the statute that was the basis of the particular remedy sought was unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court authority that was implicitly denied it by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The decision was the first by the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional and void an act passed by Congress that the Court considered in violation of the Constitution. The decision established the doctrine of judicial review, which recognizes the authority of courts to declare statutes unconstitutional.

Dred Scott Case (1857)- This case involves the then bitterly contested issue of the status of slavery in the federal territories. Scott was a black slave who was brought by his master Dr. Emerson to Illinois which is a free state. He married there and later on asked before the lower court to free his family from the bondage of slavery. The lower court granted his request. However, the U. S Supreme Court ruled that a black “whose ancestors were … sold as slaves” was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. As a result, the court’s verdict further inflamed the sectional controversy between North and South and was roundly denounced by the growing antislavery group in the North.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)- The decision of this case invalidated racial segregation in schools and led to the unraveling of de jure segregation in all areas of public life. In the unanimous decision spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court invalidated the Plessy ruling, declaring “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” and contending that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall was one of the NAACP lawyers who successfully argued the case.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)- The case helped define the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. At the center of the case was Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to a crime during police questioning without knowing he had a right to have an attorney present. Based on his confession, Miranda was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that criminal suspects must be warned of their rights before they are questioned by police. These rights are: the right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and, if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, to have one appointed by the state. The police must also warn suspects that any statements they make can be used against them in court. Miranda was retried without the confession and convicted.

Roe v. Wade (1973)- legalized abortion and is at the center of the current controversy between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates. The Court ruled that a woman has the right to an abortion without interference from the government in the first trimester of pregnancy, contending that it is part of her “right to privacy.” The Court maintained that right to privacy is not absolute, however, and granted states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)- the case upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions. In her majority opinion, Justice O’Connor said that the law school used a “highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file.” Race, she said, was not used in a “mechanical way.” Therefore, the university’s program was consistent with the requirement of “individualized consideration” set in 1978′s Bakke case. “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity,” O’Connor said. However, the court ruled that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions system, which awarded 20 points to black, Hispanic, and American-Indian applicants, was “non-individualized, mechanical,” and thus unconstitutional.

Indeed, all these cases shaped legal doctrines that made the world a better place to live with. The problems of slavery, discrimination, inequality and even poverty was at least considered and given solutions.

The laws applicable to workplace injuries are different from state to state, but they all share basic provisions. One is that the employee will receive at least a large percentage of his normal earnings. These are often in the 80 to 90% range, and may be exempt from state income taxes.

Those who are hurt on their job are entitled to related medical expenses. Under some state laws, payment for covered expenses is 100%. Some states require that you pay part of the bills even if they are injury related. Or you might find your state provides coverage for all of your medical bills until you can return to duty. In almost all situations, medical provisions start upon injury and continue until you resume work.

Should you never be deemed capable of returning to the position you held at the time of the injury, you can be trained to receive a job you are able to perform. For instance, you might have had a job requiring you to lift heavy loads. An injury to your back might make it impossible for you to resume these duties. But you might be capable of working a sedentary job in an office. If you do not possess the skills to be hired for such a job, you might receive paid training so that you gain the skills needed.

When hurt on the job, you must report the injury as soon as possible to your supervisor or human resources. The more time that passes before you report it, the lower your chances of getting approved for benefits. Part of the reason for this is that you usually will be required to pass a drug test, and drugs or alcohol in your blood can lead to disqualification. But witnesses will also have to be interviewed, and their memories may fade quickly. In addition, management will want to correct any existing hazardous situations before more people can be hurt.

Your attending physician may order physical therapy for you. You will be expected to cooperate with all orders for treatment, including therapy. If you do not attend, you can potentially have your benefits terminated.

Seldom will you get to choose your physician or hospital. These are typically chosen from a list provided to your employer by their insurance company. If you insist on being treated by your own doctor, you may not be reimbursed for costs, or payments may be dramatically reduced. You do, however, have the right to request that you be assigned to a different physician should you feel you have received incompetent care.

Should you suffer a work-related injury, there are benefits available to help you minimize the financial damage. This allows you to concentrate on healing. If you have a legitimate claim that is initially denied, you can consult an attorney. There are many who are specialists on Worker’s Compensation. Normally, these attorneys do not get paid unless they win your case. You might wish to engage one to obtain all you are legally entitled to collect.