Televised Crime Law

Many divorce attorneys and divorce lawyers are often confronted with this question because of the difficulties associated with domestic violence cases. Indeed domestic violence can take numerous shapes including actual physical abuse or threats of physical abuse, emotional abuse, threatening telephone calls, disturbances at person’s workplace and stalking. Domestic violence covers many forms of abuse such as physical or emotional dominance and control over a close related person, whether spouse/husband or any other relative.

Therefore, the question to of whether or not domestic violence is punishable under criminal law will often depend on the type of domestic violence and the specific circumstances in which the act or acts of domestic violence took place. However, repeated actual physical abuse is generally not punished the same way as disturbances.

Further, there are no common national laws regarding domestic violence matters in the United States. Each State has its own laws to handle domestic violence cases. Therefore the same domestic violence case may be judged differently from one state to another. However, most States tend to consider domestic violence both as a crime and a civil offense. Therefore, the domestic violence offender may be subject to both a criminal punishment such as a jail sentence and to a civil punishment such as money damages.

Many States also tend to consider domestic violence a crime against the community. As a consequence, a domestic violence case may be subject to prosecution by the city or district attorney even if charges have not been brought by the abused person and even without his/her assistance. Too often, and in most famous domestic violence cases, the abused person ran away from the family residence, contacted the police, pressed charges, and then tried to have the charges dropped because he/she managed to reconcile with the abuser. In order to prevent such patterns from being repeated, many local communities and states enforced a more severe legal system regarding domestic violence matters.

Whether it is the first complaint or not or charges were pressed or not, domestic violence cases can be brought to justice. Many local communities or states try to inform and warn that domestic violence will not be tolerated by local authorities. If you want to know more about your local legal system and what acts of domestic violence is considered a crime, you can get some useful information with your local bar association or by consulting an attorney in your jurisdiction.

© 2007 Child Custody Coach

Child Custody Coach supplies information, online materials, and coaching services to parents in the field of child custody, namely, divorce, child custody and visitation, child custody evaluations, 730 evaluations, parenting, and all issues related to child custody and divorce. “How to Win Child Custody – Proven Strategies that can Win You Custody and Save You Thousands in Attorney Cost!” is a unique child custody strategy guide written by The Custody Coach and made available by Child Custody Coach in an easy to read, understand, and apply E-Book format. Custody Match is an online consumer and family law attorney matching service to help you in your search for the right attorney for your divorce or child custody case. Custody Match can help you find the right family law attorney, divorce lawyer, or child custody attorney in your area.

Philadelphia Wrongful Death Attorney :

When citizens of Philadelphia experience the loss of a loved one due to a wrongful death they can rely on an attorney to help.

Bankruptcy Oklahoma Oklahoma Bankruptcy Lawyers: Call (888) Debt-Line for free attorney consultation with a Tulsa lawyer about qualifying for chapter 7 bankrupcy, Oklahoma exemptions, and discharging medical and credit card debt.

criminal law Carter Moore Solicitors are specialist driving, speeding and motoring offences solicitors. Free initial advice about speeding ticket offences, drink driving or any motoring offence call 0845 094 4544

Nursing Home Abuse

securities fraud attorney

Construction Expert Witness

IT laws are set of legal enactments adopted by various countries in the present day. This relates to a well-channeled movement of digital information. IT laws deal with various dimensions of Information Technology. It includes computer software, access to digital information, access to software, protection of software, fire walling and proxy server set ups, confirming to the norms of internet usage and keeping the domain of e-commerce clean. Information technology is a huge domain. It creates quite many chances for humans to benefit but at the same time imposes a lot of evil within its territory. The hackers and internet criminals thrive on the feeling of searching loopholes. This endangers the entire IT network. The rut is all-pervasive. The social networking sites are in danger. The educative institutions and corporate workplaces are in peril. Hackers are all there. They can intend to malign a person or an organization for some personal vengeance. They can do it on behalf of somebody for money or the most contorted ones do it for the sake of sadist pleasure. This has forced countries to upgrade their IT law structures to efficiently combat cyber crimes and crime within the broader domain of information technology. Apart from the global laws relating to IT, many countries are also forming individual laws relating to such crimes. Few years ago India strengthened its commitment against such dubious crimes by passing the Information technology act 2000. It aims at barring any individual or organization from misusing or subverting computer terminals and network places belonging to the Indian Territory. It also bars similar misuse outside the country’s territory when the set-up is being owned or run by an Indian. The misuse can relate to the broadest and narrowest thread of information Technology. Reformed IT laws of today have necessitated certain amendments. Few additions that it has brought to its territory are: · Electronic Signature In Global And National Commerce Acts · Uniform Electronic Transactions Act · Uniform Commercial Code · Digital Signature And Electronic Authentication Law The idea is to tap the destructive movement of hardened internet criminals. Few lawyers in Munich are working on stronger precepts of Information Technology laws presently. Hopefully something more stern and concrete should come out of their endeavor.

In present world there are many communities that are passing their lives under inhuman laws in third world countries as well as in developing countries. Pakistan is also a country which in passing through the stages of development. The article regards an inhuman law which is applicable to the tribal people of FATA.

FATA stands for federally administrative tribal areas. On the boarder of Afghanistan and Pakistan there living Pukhtoon tribes in hilly areas which have lack of social development. There population is about fifty lakes now a day. According to the Constitution of Pakistan, article 247, Pakistani law is not applicable to the tribal built and FCR should be applicable to these areas.

As we discussed that FCR stands for frontier crimes regulation. Originally it is a British law which had applied to control the tribal people during colonial government. It has 64 articles and most of them are against basic human rights while government of Pakistan says that these are according to the cultural set up of tribal people

Some main points of FCR are as bellow that is against basic human rights.

According to the article 40 of FCR if any tribal commits any crime his whole tribe will be responsible for his wrong act and government can arrest any person of his tribe. So it is clear that it is against human rights because every person is responsible for his/her wrong act another concept is that in tribal culture if a person commit crime only his family supports him rather than his whole tribe so as Anthropological point of view FCR should be amend that tribal responsibility should be changed to family responsibility and government can arrest his other family members and not his other tribal.

Another point is that if any murder case happened near one’s home that person will be responsible for murder. It is clear that each government is responsible for the safety of all citizens and no citizen is responsible for the safety of other citizens so why should a government arrest a person for a not committed crime.

According to FCR tribal people have no right of appeal to any court in the country. They can solve their disputes under the authority of political administration of Pakistani government. So it is also against human rights because why a person can not go to court for his/her rights.

Another and last reason for the wrongness of FCR is that FATA is under the control of Pakistani government than why there is different law for people of one country.

We can suggest that Pakistani government should amend FCR in the context of present culture of tribal people and universal human rights.

Aftab Ahmad Mallagori

Khyber Agency

Research shows Northern Illinois University could not prevent this crime!

Preventing Crime Is everyone’s responsibility

I guess it’s human for people today to be in a make believe world of their own, safe and secure, families living happy, healthy and successful. Nothing wrong with a happy family life, we all want such. True reality of life after September 11th is too much to fathom for Americans over three hundred million populace. We look at our little individual worlds as a safe haven far from crime and terrorist attacks!

Until someone in our family circle is a victim of crime! Then the world of reality strikes hard, with no natural affection, love, kindness, goodness present and panic set’s in! Security and safety is gone suddenly, just like a raging storm! Like a tornado with no wall, tower, thing or person to stop it’s powerful surge smashing your make believe world to pieces!

The police made their report, after they arrived, responding to a security department’s call for help. They investigate and take statements from witnesses (If there was any), then make their report. They tell the victim/s that they will do what they can to find the criminal/s involved. That’s all they can do. And they are doing their jobs well. No shame should fall on our Criminal Justice system’s Vanguard, the police. They are a re-active crime control agency.

If the crime was at a Shopping mall, Hospital, University or office complex, chances are, the corporate owners are afraid the liability risk is much to high to give their security departments the right tools they need to prevent such crimes against your family. They implement a strict policy of hands off, when it comes to preventing crime! They are told to call the police if there is something that may cause an interruption in the peace and public safety. The owners even go as far as telling store keepers in the shopping malls to call the police directly, and do not call security, for they are wasting time going through the security thinking that the malls security can prevent a crime!

However! This entity (Security) is the only entity that has the before, during, and after the fact premise to be successful in preventing crime and terrorist attacks. The police are usually at a scene after the fact! Please, we are not saying the police are not needed! For they must be in place working with security to complete the circle of preponderate to fight crime!

So what happens when these sequence of scenes take place at this present time in American history? we then have in the end result, many frustrated people! The victim/s, their families, the security, the police, the owners, the politicians, and the public! For the crime was not prevented! And then everyone looks at the police and security, and say, where were you guys?

Does the Homeland Security department encourage the owners of these complexes, Shopping malls, Hospitals, Universities/Colleges and office complexes to give their security people the tools to prevent crime instead of just responding to these problems? Do they encourage law makers to change the laws to help private and governmental security people to Prevent Crime instead of acting like police, and just respond to a crime in progress? The five students killed when a gunman opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University Thursday ( 2-14-08) in the afternoon were at college to begin building their dreams. And please don’t forget those Virginia State Tech. students had their dreams shattered to.

I believe this problem will continue, until the American People realize that crime prevention must have the Before factor to work! Security must be looked at in totally unique way, and must be developed to prevent these issues. Security must have the rights and duty to investigate before hand all connected to the Universities and other schools. Security must be able to detect before hand, these troubled people and be able to stop such bloodshed ! Security must not be an operation that mainly shows a reactive response. Security must have the high tech systems in place to detect issues that relate to prevention!

In essence, we as American citizens continue to ignore facts. Facts that will hit you right in the face, at any moment! You want more crime prevention? Then supply the before factor that will ultimately prevent your family from being the next victims in universities/colleges, hospitals, Shopping Malls and other complexes.

My research that started in 1968, shows that our communities could benefit greatly if large complexes would take the responsibility of preventing their own inevitable crime and terrorist attacks! Folks our front lines are not secure!

We have space age technology today that would boggle the minds of all Americans! This 21fst century technology is barely used in America, but, if it was, security would use it to prevent crime! You’d be surprised how much of this technology isn’t being used in shopping malls, hospitals, universities/colleges and other complexes. It would put you in panic mode, and I could prove it! I am very concerned when my family visits these complexes knowing what I do about their security as it is now. Security at present time will not prevent crime! They can not! Security in most places act and operate as police departments with no authority. The technology they have in most places is not helping them to prevent! They really have no detective departments investigating complaints and researching problem issues. Social workers are not working closely with security to prevent what happen at those schools.

In hospitals, there are so many crimes covered up that if you knew you’d also be concerned as I am. Look what happen at Virginia Tech. , and Northern Illinois something I say should never happen, especially when it is proven that it could have truly been prevented, after everyone made their investigations. Everyone seems to say, “Well we should have done this, or that!”. Yes! I say yes, we should! Investigations seem to only be after the fact! Why? Why not do the investigations Before the fact!

I know it is human to live in your family make believe worlds, the safe haven we all need just to keep from becoming depressed over the September 11th reality of things. But, when it comes to preventing crime and terrorist attacks at the frontline level, somebody needs to do something, and soon!

I know that there are many other security people and police out in America that sees what I see. Please! Pass this article on to everyone you can, and maybe, just maybe, we could prevent a family from experiencing crime!

Preventing crime and terrorist attacks is the responsibility of all Americans! Especially the corporations that own these big complexes that draw large crowds! Terrorist attacks will be centered on these areas! And some entity needs to prevent crime! Not just respond to it!

I pray that the media grabs my article and runs with it so things change in security for America, before you, and your family experience crime! My family is dear to me to, and if any of my family members experience crime, knowing what I know about crime prevention, it would cut my heart deep! It’s like a medical doctor who can’t save his family member at a crime scene because his hands are forced tied!

Everybody worries about the liability risk of any operation. The Cities worry about their police putting them in a high liability risk when acting in a physical way. Shopping Malls and other complexes worry about their security acting in such a way that it would put them in a high liability risk and that’s why they play it safe insisting that security have a hands off policy! But, what they don’t understand is, that you could be putting yourself in a higher liability risk for not putting hands on! For a crime could be committed before the police get there, after security calls the police! As time ticks onward I foresee lawyers winning cases against these complexes for not having security that would prevent crime against your family while shopping in their mall or place of business. My heart goes out to all the families who have lost love ones in crime! I just wish people would hear what I have to say about stopping crime at Universities! Every time I hear about crime at another school it makes me upset! Security must, yes, must prevent crime, it’s their responsibility, so give them the things they need to do it.

I wrote a book published July 2005, and the American Book Publishing Company of UTAH took it out of print for lack of sale. Yes. Nobody knows what my research (since 1968) and investigation on crime prevention and public safety and security is, and therefore missing out on the many years of hard work.

America, Wake Up!

Article by;

James R. White, Jr. , Public safety and Security Consultant, Research since 1968, jwhitejr@nycap. rr. com . , http://www. irg-security. us  http://www. irg-safety. us        P O Box 84, Sand Lake, New York, USA 12153-0084

End of article.

We already mentioned intelligence. Remember in the article: How Do We Account for Instinct? we divided it up into two broad categories, one of which we call instinct and the other a type of decision-making ability? We grouped the lower forms of animals into the first category and humans into the second. Other creatures, we allowed, appear to operate using a combination of instinct and “thinking. “

But, of course, it is really more complicated than that. People have instincts too. The sexual drive, a mother’s love for her offspring, and a basic desire to survive are undeniable human instincts. Each of these traits are shared to one degree or another with animals. However, we seem to have something more than mere instinct.

Somehow or another we find ourselves with a moral sense of right and wrong. We feel as though we know somethings are right and others are wrong. But then again, is what we consider right and wrong merely a subjective whim? Or is it possible that there might be a real, honest-to-goodness, objective standard for good behavior?

Some people claim there’s no fixed standard for decent behavior. It varies over time and from one culture to another. Different civilizations and different ages have had very different ideas on morality, they say. And they seem to have a point.

Manners and Styles

Certainly manners, styles, and dress codes change over time. The past half century has seen considerable change in the United States. In 1960, most women worked in their homes raising children. They usually wore dresses, and those dresses were of a certain conventional length.

Men were expected to be the breadwinners. They wore their hair short and rarely had facial hair. Children addressed grownups as “Sir” or Ma’am” and in general were taught to be deferential to adults. Unless you were well acquainted, it was Mr. , Mrs, or Miss whatever their last-name-was. Times have changed!

Much of what passes as normal behavior nowadays would have been socially unacceptable just thirty years ago. And it works both ways. Many of the things our ancestors did in the past would not be tolerated today. A few hundred years ago, capital punishment was the approved punishment for crimes ranging from petty theft to treason. Witches were hung or burned. And slavery was by and large considered an acceptable practice.

Moral Principles

Obviously some of the things our forefathers believed are social taboos today and vice versa. However, that’s not the whole story. While some values can and do vary, others evidently do not. In his book, Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis points out that if you take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, you will be struck with how much they have in common with each other and with us today.

Fair play, unselfishness, courage, faithfulness, honesty, and truthfulness have always been admired, whereas treachery, murder, robbery, theft, and rape have always been condemned. Men have disagreed over whom you should be unselfish to – just your family, your country, or to everyone.

But none have advocated putting yourself first. Some cultures have allowed more than one wife, but none allow you to have just any woman you want.

Golden Rule

The most universal concept of all is also the most basic. We call it the Golden Rule. Most moral teachings state it in a negative form such as “Never do to others what you would not have them do to you. ” This fundamental rule of conduct turns up in rabbinical Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.

We also see it in Greek and Roman ethical teachings and even in Old Norse proverbs. Jesus Christ turned it around and put it in its positive form two thousand years ago. “Do to others what you would have them do to you. “

Is any other type of morality possible? Lewis challenges us, “. . . think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battles, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five. “

The Moral Law

It sounds like the rule of right and wrong, the moral law, or whatever you want to call it, exists on two separate levels. One is arbitrary. Fashion, convention, or taste sets the tone for acceptable behavior on this level.

Then we see another moral level beyond the trends of society. Here we find a permanent core of values. These fundamental guides for human behavior seem to be deeply ingrained in mankind and are not swayed by time and place circumstances.

Everyday conversation suggests that most of us at heart believe in a real right and wrong. Take arguments for example. People young and old, educated and uneducated, often say such things as: “Come on, you promised. ” “Hey, you broke in line ahead of us. That’s not fair. ” “Why don’t you help me? I helped you when you needed it. “

C. S. Lewis tells us that remarks of that sort don’t just mean that the other fellow’s attitude doesn’t happen to please the speaker. There is something else involved. The one who makes the complaint is appealing to a certain standard of behavior which he expects the other person to know about.

And usually he is right. The other man rarely replies, “I don’t give a hoot about fairness. ” No. He makes out that what he’s doing isn’t really unfair after all. He claims to have some special excuse which lets him off the hook for not living up to his promise this time, or for breaking in line, or for not helping you on this occasion.

It looks as though both sides really agree there is a law or rule of fair play. Quarreling means trying to show the other person is wrong. What’s the sense in trying to do that unless both sides agree as to what is right and wrong. Just as in basketball, to paraphrase Lewis’ example, there’s no sense in saying a player committed a foul unless there is an agreement on the rules of basketball.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Thieves cannot excuse themselves saying they didn’t know stealing was a crime. Murderers can’t get away with murder, claiming they didn’t know murder was wrong. The underlying idea is that all citizens are expected to understand that stealing and murder are wrong.

Can you imagine an attorney in a request that the case be dismissed against his client, saying, “No judge, I don’t think my client should be held responsible for murdering his wife and six children. After all, the defendant doesn’t have a law degree. Why should we expect him to know all the finer points of the law?”

On the other hand, lawyers do try to excuse their clients by pleading “temporary insanity. ” Doesn’t that let the cat out of the bag? What they are saying is that for one reason or another, the accused was momentarily mentally unbalanced and didn’t understand he was committing an act which all of us know to be wrong. Had the defendant been sane at the moment, he would have recognized and upheld the same Rules for Right Conduct that all the rest of us sane people do.

They seem to be affirming that criminal codes are based on certain moral truths. In fact, federal and state criminal laws wouldn’t make sense unless there were a real standard of decent behavior which the “sane” criminal knows as well as we do and ought to have practiced.

Sometimes right and wrong are so obvious, no one seriously questions it. After World War II, Germany was widely denounced for their war crimes. But as Lewis observes: “What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced?”

Earlier we asked, is our idea of right and wrong a subjective whim or a real objective standard for good behavior. Evidently it is both. Manners, styles, clothing, and opinions on any number of subjects vary over time and location.

Then again virtues such as courage, faithfulness, and honesty have always been praised. Likewise, vices such as treachery, murder, and theft have been universally condemned.

Civilizations throughout history have reflected these eternal values. And they are still with us today. Much of what we think, much of what we say, and much of what we do would be utter nonsense if there were not a true moral standard of right and wrong.

Now if we can agree that there really is an objective standard of right and wrong, we can go on to our next question. Namely where does this standard come from? Some say mankind invented the moral code because civilization couldn’t function without basic rules for getting along. Through education, they passed these rules for right living on down from one generation to the next.

Others say the same Outside Source which designed the human body also produced the moral code as a guide for our behavior. The moral law was imprinted in humans much the same as instinct. Who’s right?

Before we take up that question, let’s first consider an entirely different subject – mathematics. Math, as we know, is based upon certain objective truths. Algebra, calculus, and trigonometry are all derived from solid mathematical principles which have been around long before mankind discovered them.

And if we somehow lose knowledge of them again, those principles would still be there awaiting future generations to rediscover them. Therefore, we can say that mathematical truths exist separate from any human knowledge of them.

Notice we say such things as: Pythagoras discovered the principles governing the right-angled triangle. Or Descartes discovered the principles behind analytical geometry. We don’t say they “invented” the principles. They were already there. In the same way we speak of people discovering other scientific facts.

In 1781, William Hershel discovered the planet Uranus, and in 1930. C. Tombaugh discovered Pluto. Uranus and Pluto have probably been around as long as our own planet. They would still be there even if we had never learned of their existence.

Bearing that in mind, let’s return to the moral law. The most reasonable assumption is that individuals down through the centuries discovered and rediscovered certain fundamental truths of right and wrong. They didn’t invent them any more than Pythagoras invented the principles governing the right-angled triangle or William Hershel invented Uranus.

The moral law for decent behavior was already there. Men and women merely looked into their own hearts, their own conscience, and there they found a bundle of “oughts. ” “Oughts” such as: I ought to keep my promises, even if I would rather not. I ought to tell the truth, even if it makes me look like a fool. I ought to finish my assigned duty, even though I would rather do something else. I ought to remain true to my spouse, even if I am attracted to another. I ought to be honest, even if it would be easy to cheat. I ought to treat the other fellow the same way I would like to be treated, even if I think he is a jerk.

Apparently, none of us made up this moral code of “oughts. ” Sometimes it would be rather convenient if they would just go away. But they don’t. They continue to press in on us whether we like it or not.

One thing more, if man created the moral law himself, we would expect to find each society and each civilization developing their own set of basic principles. Our clue is that they did not. While they came up with widely different customs, conventions, and manners, every civilization, past and present, discovered the same bundle of inconvenient “oughts” to direct their lives. Isn’t that curious?

It looks very much like the Outside Source is behind all of it. What does the moral law tell us about this Outsider? Obviously, he’s not a create-’em-and-let-’em-run-amuck sort of being. He’s not a neutral, hands off, passive creator. Instead we find a Moral Agent who has loaded the dice trying to influence our thinking.

Freedom of Choice

He implanted basic instincts in us much as he did the animals. But he gave us something other creatures apparently didn’t receive. This Moral Agent programmed a series of “oughts’ into us to guide our behavior. Clearly, he wants us to keep our promises, tell the truth, do our duty, remain faithful, be honest, and to do to others the same way we would have them do to us.

Notice though, however much the Moral Agent wants us to act in a certain way, he does not force us. He allows us free choice. We can chose to obey the moral law, or we can reject it.

Justice

Before we leave the moral law, I would like to draw your attention to an enigma. Our natural desires in life seem to be satisfied by one means or another. We thirst; water quenches our thirst. We hunger; food quenches our hunger. We want sex; our mate quenches our desire. Our human nature appears to be in close harmony with what life has to offer; so much so, it looks like someone planned it that way.

Give them a desire, then give them a way to satisfy it, seems to be the idea. It keeps us busy doing the things that Whoever-made-us wants us to do. And it all works well, up to a point. Then we run into something that doesn’t quite pan out.

Deeply embedded in our conscience we find a penchant for justice or fair play. We are not neutral observers; we are moral creatures. We want the good guys to win. We like happy endings. And we cheer when good triumphs over evil.

About the only place that happens, however, is at the movies, old movies at that. Real life isn’t nearly as accommodating. In fact, life often seems inherently unfair.

Consider the following: One baby is born to wealth, another to poverty. One is born to a family that loves him, another to a family that abuses him. One is aborted, the other is not. I don’t need to tell you, there is nothing fair about any of that.

Fortune seems to smile on some and frown on others. We see geniuses, and we see idiots; women with great beauty, and women who are downright ugly; people with many talents, and people with no talents at all; and those who are healthy, and those who are sickly or physically deformed. What’s fair about that?

Let’s take it a step further. Some people are endowed with good looks, sound nerves, wit, charm, and a pleasing personality. Popularity and admiration come fairly easy for them. They fit in naturally wherever they go. They don’t need to work at it. It’s a gift. They are the blessed. They are life’s winners.

At the other end of the totem pole, it’s an entirely different story. There we find the homely, dull, slow-witted, timid, warped, lonely people or the passionate, sensual, unbalanced people. By no choice of their own, many are born into homes filled with hatred, petty jealousies, and constant bickering. Others are tormented by sexual perversions or nagged by an inferiority complex. No matter how hard they try, they don’t fit in anywhere. They are life’s losers – unappealing, unloved, and often the object of ridicule and jokes. These folks will be quick to tell you, “life is unfair. ” And they are right.

Notice, what we have mentioned so far are traits and circumstances over which we have little or no control. What about those things over with we do have control? Do we find fairness there?

Some people work long and hard, day in and day out, sunup to sundown. Others do nothing they are not forced to do. Both live out their seventy or so years and die. Memory of both soon fades away. All they had, whether plenty or little, is left to someone who did not work for it. Somehow that doesn’t strike us as fair either.

And what of the honest, the faithful, the kind, and the generous? Do they not meet the same fate as the hypocrite, the unfaithful, the cruel, and the greedy? Death overtakes them all, good or bad. And soon they are forgotten. Certainly, that’s not fair. Where are the scales of justice?

But it is even worse than that. You and I know that as often as not, it is the bad man who prospers while the good suffers all kinds of afflictions. The bully wins, and the weak pays the price. The cheater gets off scot-free, while the innocent is accused. Crime all too often does pay. The criminal really does get away with murder. His victim suffers the loss. Justice is stood on its head.

We know life is full of injustices. No one denies it. They spring up everywhere. Our sense of fair play tells us something is fundamentally wrong. Something is out of kilter. We long for a world turned right side up. We want those who have been forced to suffer to receive their just compensation.

We want those who have benefited others to receive their just reward. We want those who have abused others to receive their just punishment. Anything less would be a travesty of justice.

Our True Home

Why then, are we given a longing for justice and forced to live in an unjust world? Has the same Agent who provided so generously for all our other needs, created an elaborate hoax just to frustrate our desire for justice? Or could it be that this world is not our final destination?

Perhaps we were made for a better world, a world without death, suffering and injustice. We might find our ingrained sense of fair play to be in complete harmony with the reality of our true home.

Evolutionists have nothing to say about justice or fair play.

Questions to Consider:

1. If we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter, why are we concerned about justice?

2. One more question: If we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter, how did we ever acquire the intelligence to figure out that we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter?

1. What is White Collar Crime?

White Collar Crimes include: Antitrust Violations, Bank Fraud, Bankruptcy Fraud, Bribery, Computer/Internet Fraud, Credit Card Fraud, Counterfeiting, Economic Espionage, Embezzlement, Extortion, Forgery, Insurance Fraud, Money Laundering, Securities Fraud, and Tax Evasion. These are generally non-violent acts that involve some type of deception, most often committed by those in business or public office.

2. Can only businessmen be charged with white-collar crimes?

The early definition of white-collar crime focused on the status of the offenders when it identified them as professionals or businessmen. However, the current definition of white-collar crime focuses on the actions committed and not on the vocation of the offender. White-collar crime is using illegal acts involving deceit to obtain property or services or to gain a business or professional advantage. Drug dealers have been charged with the “white collar crime” of mail fraud when they have delivered controlled substances through the mail. A printer was convicted of securities fraud when he used information he obtained in the course of printing corporate documents to gain an advantage in the stock market.

The RICO Act is generally thought of as a white-collar crime prevention statute. It punishes anyone who engages in a pattern of racketeering to generate income to buy a business or to conduct a business. The pattern of racketeering refers to at least two criminal acts listed in the statute that have a relationship to each other and occur within ten years of each other. Originally passed to control organized crime, RICO has been applied to drug dealers, and other non-organized crime defendants.

3. What are the penalties associated for a white collar crime?

The penalties for white-collar crimes vary. Most of the laws authorize a monetary fine, a prison sentence, or a combination of the two. The criminal laws authorize maximum penalties, which are often quite severe. For example, the maximum possible sentence for credit card fraud is a prison sentence of twenty-five years, and a fine of $250,000. In addition, the court may order forfeiture of anything gained as a result of the fraud.

The maximum penalties are seldom imposed. Most defendants receive a lesser sentence that may, depending on the jurisdiction, be calculated according to sentencing guidelines. These guidelines are meant to ensure that criminal sentences are uniform, so the sentencing judge is often given very little discretion on the sentence imposed. The guidelines take into account the crime for which the defendant has been convicted, and any prior criminal record of the defendant. In some cases, the court may consider factors that will allow it to depart, or impose a sentence different, from the sentence required by the guidelines.

Defendants without a significant criminal record may be sentenced to probation, a suspended jail sentence, or a jail sentence far shorter than the maximum. They may have fines levied against them, and may be required to forfeit any profits, and pay restitution to their victims.

An experienced criminal defense attorney is best able to advise you regarding the likely sentence in a particular case.

The information you obtain from this article is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Should we outlaw “hate crimes?” It might seem like a good idea at first. Who’s in favor of bigotry and of people committing crimes because of that hatred? On the other hand, is legislation really the solution to people believing and saying things we don’t happen to like or agree with?

In their defense, some point out that hate crime legislation just adds additional penalties to existing crimes – true so far in the United States. Perhaps this won’t always be true, but more on that in a moment. For now, the question is if it is right to legislate additional punishment because of a person’s belief. Theft has a penalty under the law, for example, but should the thief get extra punishment because he felt some animosity towards whatever group the person was a part of?

We already have a law that makes his crime punishable. Isn’t adding extra punishment because of his beliefs just trying to make thought a crime too? Even if you like the idea, do you trust any government to properly police people’s thoughts and beliefs? It’s obviously contrary to our tradition of free speech.

If our justice system is going to base sentences on the likelihood of the criminal re-offending, the judge can take racist remarks and beliefs into account. I don’t see a problem with that approach. After all, if a criminal says, “I hate (insert group here), so I want to kill them all,” why wouldn’t we consider this at the time of sentencing?

However, suppose a violent criminal repeatedly assaults woman. Why should he get less punishment under the law than a criminal who happens to hate the race or religion of the women he assaults? Both may be very likely to re-offend – or the former may be even more likely too – but let a judge consider that at sentencing. Laws against hate crimes are too indiscriminate, and too intolerant.

Hate crime laws intolerant? Certainly the idea is that we – society or the majority – don’t like your beliefs, so when you commit a crime, we’ll use it as an excuse to punish you for what you’re thinking and saying. Prior to the crime we can’t know whether it is worse than any other similar crime, or the criminal is any more dangerous, so the point is to punish beliefs. Here come the thought police.

Hate Literature Laws

Think hate crime laws are only affecting real criminals, and so they won’t affect you? Isn’t it possible that the idea of controlling “bad” thought and belief will spread once the precedent is there? Is this paranoid? Already the law in Canada says “every one who, by communicating statements, other than in a private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty” of a felony and liable to imprisonment for two years. An “identifiable group” is defined as “any section of the public distinguished by color, race, religion or ethnic origin. “

These definitions expand of course, and more groups have been recently added to the protected list. A judge also found that passages in the Bible are hate literature under this law. His decision was overturned before the Bible was banned, but I agree with him – parts are very hateful against certain groups. I just think that we’re better letting the marketplace of ideas take care of these issues, rather than having “thought czars” determine them for us.

This is a classic “slippery slope. ” A company I once worked for brought in a “harassment specialist” to train us all to be “sensitive. ” Soon we were hearing that it was offensive for one of the old ladies who worked there to call people “honey” – and that she could be fired for it (true story). How did it come to that? Offensive is in the eye of the offended, so those who are most easily offended make the standards for the rest.

This could happen with laws addressing offensive beliefs, couldn’t it? Perhaps it will someday be against the law to say I think most Republican politicians are hypocrites. I wouldn’t have thought so until I heard that you can’t say what you want or publish a book in Canada if it is “hateful. ” Why not avoid this mess, and punish people for their crimes – not for what they think or believe? I hate hate crime laws because they may lead to the loss of one of our primary freedoms.

The second amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees every American the right to bear arms. Has any law ever been so ambiguous? What are arms? What does it mean to bear them? At least with the first amendment we know exactly where we stand: Freedom of speech. It couldn’t be any clearer. But, the right to bear arms leaves the second amendment open to different interpretations. We need gun permits to carry a concealed weapon. Do we need knife permits? No. Yet both can, and often do, cause death. We can own a gun, or a rifle, or a sub-machine gun, or a machete, and dozens of other tools to kill, even our own bare hands. So, gun control is a debate in our country that makes no sense unless you broaden the ban or acceptance to include all instruments of death.

According to Population Stats, www. xist. com, America has the highest crime rate in the world. Everyday 30 people in the United States are murdered by a gunshot. That means 11,000 people. However, there are more than 25,000 murders each year in the United States. In other industrialized countries, Germany has 381 each year, France 255, Great Britain 68, Australia 65, and Japan 39. Based on population to make it a fair assessment, it turns out to be guns in America murder 1 out of 25,916 people every year. Compared to Canada where the amount is 1 out of 190,387, and 1 out of 864,546 in Great Britain, and only 1 out of 3,254,508 in Japan, America is the killing field of the world.

Gun expert Robert J. Spitzer, political science professor at SUNY Cortland and author of the book The Politics of Gun Control points to America’s ‘mixed ethnicity. ‘ “Our diverse cultural background, composed of many different ethnic, religious, social, and other groups leads to inter-group rivalries, suspicion, hatred, fear, and sometimes violence,’ Professor Spitzer said. “Most other Western nations, by comparison, are more homogeneous than the U. S. “

Which brings us back to the thesis that America does not need a gun control law; it needs a crime control law.

The number one concern in America today is safety: Safety from terrorists, safety from drugs and violent drug dealers, safety from gangs, and safety from those whose evil ways affect our lives and our children’s lives everyday. However, we have no safety of which to speak. Our police departments are as overwhelmed by the size of the enemy as are our troops in Iraq. Without safety, we are prisoners of our own society. Safety and security are more important than any other issue, for, without it, we cease to live. We merely exist. We must first feel safe, and be safe, before we can think about curing our other ills. With 14,000 of the homicides each year being committed without guns (11,000 with), we must look at the bigger picture.

We must build more maximum-security prisons. Enough so that everyone convicted of first-degree homicide, or of a felony three times, is sent there for the rest of their life, without any chance of parole. (There is no reason to spend millions of dollars on each death row prisoner’s appeals that last ten years or longer when it has been proven not to be a deterrent and when housing them is substantially much less expensive. )

Within a federal partnership with select American manufacturing companies, these companies for the work they would be required to do would pay these prisoners minimum wage. The product they create would then be infused into mainstream American commerce. In return for these jobs, the prisoners would pay the government for their room and board, and any security, medical, and utility fees. If the prisoner has any dependents, their paycheck would reflect that deduction. Cut off from society, these prisons would be a society of their own. Away from us forever.

Crime control, rather than a gun control, is a stricter and more effective deterrent than the failed alternatives. It would not just deter murder with guns, it would deter murder with any type of weapon, as well as rape, aggravated assault – ALL felonies. It would reduce crime and get these criminals off America’s streets once and for all, saving the American taxpayer substantially in law enforcement: Money that will instead be used to build and staff these new prisons. Our safety is what we have to take care of – what we must take care of – before we do anything else. We owe it to our children.

We teach our children to have pride in America. We teach our children safety first. We teach our children about good and evil, right versus wrong. What must our children be thinking when they see murder after murder on the news, and walking the streets with the fear of a drive by shooting, or of being abducted? We are raising a society born of fear and mistrust. This is why we need a stricter crime bill. This is why we must – we have no other choice – take back our country from these criminals.

Yes, Americans should be able to have handguns in their home for protection, as long as it is responsibly locked up and away from children. Yes, Americans should be able to have rifles to hunt for food. However, these are still weapons of destruction and they must be registered with personal background checks. There is absolutely no need or reason for any person, other than law enforcement and the military to have assault weapons that are aimed to violently kill masses of people. We must compromise through common sense. We must understand and follow the true intent of our forefathers when they penned the second amendment to the Constitution.

All it takes is the determination, the moral strength of our elected representatives, to enact tougher laws, so we can finally take back our country and make it a safe haven once again for every American man, woman, and child.

Trafficking: Issues and framework of laws

Trafficking of human beings is the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of people for the purpose of exploitation. Trafficking involves a process of using illicit means such as threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability. Exploitation includes forcing people into prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. For children exploitation may include also, illicit international adoption, trafficking for early marriage, recruitment as child soldiers, for begging or for sports (such as child camel jockeys or football players)

Trafficking in human beings is a global issue, but a lack of systematic research means that reliable data on the trafficking of human beings that would allow comparative analyses and the design of countermeasures is scarce. There is a need to strengthen the criminal justice response to trafficking through legislative reform, awareness raising and training, as well as through national and international cooperation. The support and protection of victims who give evidence is key to prosecuting the ringleaders behind the phenomenon. The trafficking of Human beings is a matter of global concern as it involves the violation of fundamental rights. Although numerous separate abuses that contravene both national and international law are committed during the course of trafficking, it is the combination of the victim’s displacement from their community and their commercialised exploitation that makes trafficking distinct. There is a large body of international and national instruments like declarations, conventions and prohibiting trafficking. An overview of selected International conventions that regulate trafficking is presented below.

The United Nations obligates States to refrain from committing human rights violations and also to take positive steps to ensure that individuals are able to enjoy their human rights. A State’s legal obligations are articulated in human rights instruments, such as treaties and conventions. The UN also drafts politically binding documents that do not have the force of law, such as declarations and resolutions, but which nevertheless represent important guidelines on States’ obligations. More information about the United Nations system, human rights documents and enforcement mechanisms can be accessed from the International Law section of this site.

The United Nations addresses trafficking in women from various directions. First, the UN human rights instruments apply to women and men equally, and are relevant to the kinds of abuses that women suffer in cases of trafficking. In addition, the UN international standards on the treatment of crime victims also obligate States to protect victims of trafficking. Second, of the types of violence against women addressed by this site, trafficking in women was perhaps the first to receive the attention of the UN as a transnational crime. This section, therefore, includes a historical overview of the UN conceptualization of trafficking, prior to the emergence of an international women’s human rights movement. Third, the UN treaties and resolutions that articulate the rights of women are applicable to the situation of trafficking and define trafficking as a form of gender-based violence. Since the early 1990′s, all major UN instruments on States’ commitment to ensure women the full enjoyment of their human rights and their protection from violence have included specific obligations to combat trafficking in women. Fourth, the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime entered into force in September 2003. The accompanying Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children received its 40th ratification in September 2003 and entered into force on December 25, 2003. The Trafficking Protocol contains the international consensus definition of trafficking and sets forth State obligations to prevent trafficking, to protect victims and to prosecute perpetrators of trafficking. For more information on the Trafficking Protocol, please see the section entitled The Trafficking Protocol and Recent Initiatives. Finally, at its 60th session in April of 2004 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights appointed a Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children for the explicit purpose of focusing on the human rights of victims of trafficking. To do so, the rapporteur’s job is to gather and exchange information from governments, non-governmental organizations and victims of trafficking in order to propose appropriate measures to prevent and remedy trafficking violations. Working within the major international instruments and definitions of trafficking, the Special Rapporteur will conduct country visits, publish reports, and take up cases where individual or widespread rights abuses have occurred.

States are obligated to protect the rights of trafficking victims under general human rights instruments. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees women the right to life, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to security of person. This Covenant also grants trafficked persons the right to an effective remedy for acts violating their fundamental human rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides such basic guarantees as the right to an adequate standard of living (including food, clothing and housing), the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the right to education and the right to favorable work conditions, which includes fair wages, equal pay for equal work and reasonable limitation of working hours.

1. International Agreement for the suppression of the white slave traffic – 1904.

The agreement was formulated with the intension of securing for women of full age who have suffered abuse or compulsion against criminal traffic know as the white slave trade.

2. International convention does the suppression of the white slave Traffic 1910.

This convention criminalised the procurement enticement or leading away of women or girl under the age of 21, even with her consent for immoral purpose irrespective of whether may have been committed in different countries.

4. Slavery convention 1926

States parties are enjoyed to discourage all forms of forced labour slavery means the owner’s control over another person, without the salve’s full informed consent for exploitation.

5. Forced Labour Convention (ILO) 1930.

Article-1 of this convention calls for the suppression of the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms as soon as possible.

7. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Article 4 of the Declaration prohibits slavery and the slave trade. Article – 13 recognies the right of persons

8. Unconventional for the suppression of the traffic in persons and of the exploitation of the prostitution of others (1949).

This convention is a compilation of four previous international conventions 1904, 1910, 1921 and 1933. It made procurement, enticement, etc for prostitution punishable, irrespective of the age of the person involved and his/her consent to the same (Article -1). Brothel keeping was also denounced as illegal and punishable Article 20. However, it is limited to trafficking for prostitution and related activities.

10. Abolition of forced Labour convention (ILO) 1957.

Under this convention, states parties under took to abolish any form of forced or compulsory labour that is used as a means to establish political coercion, economic development, labout discipline or racial, social, National or religious discrimination.

15. United Nations convention against Torture and other cruel; inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1984)

The convention provides against the expulsion or return of a person another state if there are substantial grounds for deeming him/her to be in danger of torture. Victim compensation measures are also stipulate in it.

16. Tourism Bill of rights and the Tourist code (1985)

Adopted by the WTO, the code enjoins that state parties should preclude any possibility of the use of tourism to exploit others for the purpose of prostitution.

Legal Frame Work Against Trafficking In South Asian Countries:

BANGLADESH:

The Bangladesh constitution guarantees equal rights and equal protection to every one regardless of gender. The fundamental principles of state policy require the state to prevent prostitution. Article 34(1) prohibits all forms of forced labour. The suppression of immoral Traffic Act 1933 protects all children up to the age of 18 from sexual exploitation. The women and children repression; prevention Act 2000 provides stringent penalties against trafficking, Kidnapping, collection random, rape, the sexual exploitation etc. , These provisions also apply to both internal and cross broader trafficking. These were the some of the legal framework in Bangladesh Against Human Trafficking.

BHUTAN:

There is very little information available on the laws of. Bhutan on trafficking. In 2001, the UN committee on the Rights of the child considered Bhutan’s initial report and noted the absence of legislation on the minimum age of for employment. There is insufficient data and awareness regarding the Human Trafficking. It also suggested that new laws Need to be promulgated and existing law need to be suitably amended to address these issues.

MALDIVES:

There is no specific law to prohibit or prevent the trafficking in persons. There are no reports of persons being trafficked to from or within the country following Nationwide consultations, the Government has drawn up a National plan of action on the basis of the Beijing platform for action and the common wealth plan of Action on Gender and Development.

NEPAL:

The constitution of Nepal enshrines the principles of equality and Justice for every citizen without any discrimination on the basis of race, caste, sex, creed, etc. , and safe Guards the human rights of all citizens. Code of law 1963. Lays down provisions against Inter-state and other of slavery and domestic trafficking-section decrees prison sentences of 20 years for International trafficking and 10 years for attempted sale, plus fines equaling to the amount of transaction.

PAKISTAN:

One of Pakistan’s major problems is the smuggling of children to countries in Gulf for camel Jockey and racing. The high profits and the lessening fear of harsh punishment have bolstered syndicates of Human traffickers across “Asia, the middle east and Europe.

The prevention and control of Human Trafficking ordinance 2002 has been promulgated to deal with all types of human trafficking. However the legislation suffers from certain limitations. Also legislation is focused on trans border trafficking and not on domestic trafficking. And the Human trafficking ordinance 2002 defines Human trafficking to include trafficking for any purpose, via, prostitution Forced labour and services. It also takes into considerations the organised nature of the crime and presumes the vicarious liability of each member of the trafficker’s group by providing for stringer gent punishments; the ordinance also includes provisions for the compensations for the victims.

SRILANKA:

In country trafficking is one of srilanka’s major problems s. 360 of the srilankan penal code deals with the offence of trafficking defined as the act of buying or sealing or bartering of any person for money or for any other consideration. Those assisting, arranging the travel, recruiting, etc. , said to be trafficking and be prostituted.

The national child protection Authority act is a landmark initiative that can help in preventing child abuse and in protecting child abuse and in protecting the rights of children.

INDIA:

The constitution of India, under Article 23(1), prohibits trafficking in human beings and forced labour; this right enforceable against the state and private citizens.

However, trafficking was never defined in Indian laws except in the Goa children Act, which is specified to the state of Goa. In India the law has no express provision for confiscating the assets amassed by the traffickers, nor does it have provisions for the victim protection. The concerned authorities should consider these points so that the laws and provisions are made victim friendly.

Let us prevent commercial dealings in human beings.

In 1929, the International Association of Chiefs of Police started a program called the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. This program was created to meet the need for reliable, uniform crime statistics in the nation. A year later, the FBI was responsible for collecting and publishing these statistics. Today, crime statistics are produced from data received by almost 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the nation. This data is then published through several annual statistical publications. This data is also used for special studies and reports on an annual basis.

Law enforcement agencies reported preliminary statistics for 2006, which resulted in an increase of 3. 7 percent in violent crimes in the first six months of 2006 compared to the first six months in 2005. Violent crimes include murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Property crimes, which include burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft, actually fell 2. 6 percent in the first half of 2006 when compared to the same period in 2005.

Arson, which is also a property crime but not included with the property crime data, increased 6. 8 percent in the first six months of 2006 when compared to the first six months of 2005.

Crime in the U. S. is overwhelming. We have to help our law enforcement agencies, as well as ourselves and focus on the PREVENTION of crime.

There are a couple of ways you can help prevent the unthinkable. Couple these together for maximum safety. The first way is to read, recite and remember the do’s and don’ts when in public. A few suggestions are listed below. The second way is to deter an assailant if a crime is about to happen. Deterring an assailant can be difficult if you are not prepared. Preparedness means personal protection. Personal protection can be purchased in different ways. The most popular personal protection item is Mace or pepper spray, which comes in various sizes. Stun devices are also popular. Stun devices include stun guns and stun batons and come in various voltages and sizes. And there are many types of personal alarms as well.

Here are a few tips to remember:

AVOIDING VIOLENT CRIMES

Sexual Assault

1. Use initials instead of first names on mailboxes and phone listings.

2. Avoid remaining alone in an apartment laundry room or parking garage.

3. Never admit on the telephone or at the door that you are alone.

4. It is risky to accept a ride home from someone you have just met.

5. If you decide to physically resist assault, remember that your goal is to incapacitate the attacker long enough to run to safety and get help.

6. If you have been a victim of sexual assault, call police immediately. Do not bathe or change clothes or you may destroy evidence.

Robbery

1. Avoid carrying valuable items or large amounts of money.

2. Always think ahead. For example, when traveling at night, have your keys ready to enter the house or to start the car.

3. The best advice is to co-operate when confronted by a robber.

4. If you resist, there is a greater chance that you may be hurt.

Bank Machines

1. When using an automatic bank teller, always be watchful of any suspicious people around you.

2. The chances of being robbed at night are much greater, especially if you are alone.

3. If you find someone waiting and watching outside in the area of an ATM machine, do not use it. Leave the area and report the incident to the police immediately. You could save someone else from being a victim of crime.

Street Safety (Use Common Sense)

1. Stay in well-lighted, busy areas. Avoid walking alone and avoid known trouble spots.

2. When you carry a purse, hold it close to your body rather than by the handles. Do not wrap purse straps around your wrist, because you can get hurt in a struggle.

3. Carry only what you need in a purse or wallet, not everything you have.

4. Avoid using shortcuts through dark alleys, fields, or vacant lots.

5. If you think you’re being followed cross the street and change directions a few times. Go quickly to a well-lighted place with lots of people. Do not go home. You don’t want an attacker to know where you live.

Always remember, if you think a crime is about to be committed or you are in an uncomfortable or dangerous situation, dial 911.