Thursday, November 28, 2019

Criminal Justice Essays (474 words) - Searches And Seizures

Criminal Justice The two vehicle stops were made for different reasons. The first vehicle, the white Toyota Camry, was stopped because it fit the description of a vehicle that was just used in a bank robbery. This gives the police probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity. According to Carroll v. United States that is sufficient reasoning for a stop (211). The second vehicle had the driver's side brake light out. This is sufficient cause to pull the vehicle over because that is a traffic violation. "In Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the true motivation of police officers in making traffic stops was irrelevant as long as they had probable cause to believe that a traffic law had been broken (211)." I feel that both stops were justified and neither violated the rights of the suspects. Fitting the description of suspects and being in the general vicinity of the crime is adequate evidence to pull a vehicle over and check out the situation. The second stop was made because the driver had violated a traffic code. Since the vehicle is breaking this law the police have the right to pull over that vehicle. The officers even took the vehicle to the station to obtain a search warrant when the suspect objected. Both stops were done in a legal manner. The warrant less search of the white Toyota Camry was justified because the suspect did not say no when the officer asked to search the vehicle. The officer did not come right out and ask if he could search the trunk, but the suspect never objected. Instead the suspect begins to not cooperate which leads to more suspicion. The behavior of the suspects and the fact that neither suspects objected to the search is reason enough to for a warrant less search. If the suspects in the white Toyota Camry had been advised of their Miranda rights before the search of their vehicle then the police would have had to obtain a search warrant. But by denying the police the right to search your vehicle is almost implying guilt in itself. I think the only difference getting a search warrant would have done is prolonged the police finding the evidence in the trunk. Either way I think the situation would result in the police finding the rifle and the suspects getting arrested. If the officers had opened the trunk and found no evidence of the robbery then I think they could only take the suspects in for questioning. Since this questioning would be in an accusatory manner then the suspects would need to be advised of their Miranda rights. If the suspects exercised their right to an attorney then they would be advised to keep their mouths shut. Without evidence to incriminate the suspects then the suspects would be released and probably questioned again later. With the only basis for charging being that the suspects and their vehicle fit the description of those in a robbery then in all likelihood the suspects would not be charged.

Sunday, November 24, 2019

Federal Regulations And Federal Agencies Example

Federal Regulations And Federal Agencies Example Federal Regulations And Federal Agencies – Coursework Example Federal regulations and federal agencies (Program) (Supervisor) November 4, Federal regulations and federal agencies Off-label drugs are drugs that are prescribed and are used for purposes that are different from labeled applications or for recommended groups of patients. Even though such applications are legal, the Food and Drug Administration as well as government care plans discourage them. This discussion argues that it should be illegal for a pharmaceutical company to promote off-labeled drugs because of government policies against it and because of its potential harm.Off labeled drugs may be helpful to patients if prescribed for the patients’ best interest and in a scientific based way that minimizes potential harm to the patients. Probability of harm is however, greater if such labels are not based on scientific evidence and such uninformed applications should be illegalized. Most of off-labeled drug usage is however not supported by scientific evidence (Dresser & Frade r, 2009) and the uninformed approach, especially when such usage exposes patients to adverse drug side effects, requires legal control. According to Ahuja, and with respect to children alone, off label drugs could lead to â€Å"jaundice,† â€Å"seizures and cardiac arrests,† â€Å"withdrawal symptoms,† and â€Å"staining teeth† (2005, p. 98). Such effects suggest that the government should be effective in its role of ensuring public health by illegalizing off-labeled drugs, especially prescriptions whose safety have not been proven by scientific evidence. The fact that the Food and Drug Administration and government’s Medicare and Medicaid plan discourage use of off label drugs is also an indicator of the applications threat to good health and warrants illegalization (Ausness, 2008). Off-label drugs should therefore be illegalized and pharmaceutical companies should not promote it because of their possible adverse effects, widespread uninformed pre scriptions, and existence of policies against prescription and usage of off labeled drugs. ReferencesAhuja, G. (2005). Drug injury: Liability, analysis, and prevention. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company. Ausness, R. (2008). â€Å"There’s danger here, Cherie!†: Liability for promoting and marketing of drugs and medical devices for off-label use. University of Kentucky College of Law. Retrieved from: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/46/. Dresser, R. & Frader, J. (2009). Off-labeled prescribing: A call for heightened professional and government oversight. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37(3): 476-486.

Thursday, November 21, 2019

May riots in indonesia Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

May riots in indonesia - Research Paper Example It is worth noting that these named locations were strongholds of the Chinese community, who had developed fairly than other locals in business economically, and even established their homes around. Many believe that there was misleading information on the influencers of the riots, some accusing the government, military and elite groups’ involvement in the mass destruction to secure their interests. Other violent movements had been conducted as early as in 1965 among others minor cases worth mentioning, to the 1998 May riots, which was the peak of destruction that undermined the country’s reputation; however, all these incidences demonstrated the specific history of anti-Chinese sentiment and oppression in Indonesia. Thesis statement: The riots began as student peaceful movement protesting against the death of their fellow reformist, but later became politically motivated to force resignation of President Suharto. The violence of the riots intensified when the non-stude nts, young and poor people in the urban areas took advantage of the country’s situation to cause lootings, steer destruction and human violation against the rivaled Chinese community. The local Indonesian rioters rage highly impacted on Chinese ethnicity, their women being sexually assaulted and causing many of the locals and foreigners to leave or migrate. The political and economical instability led to the eruption of the riots, whose effects were later characterized as anti-Chinese action. Cause of the Riot In the month of May, the students had been protesting against the death of their fellow reformist and students, who generally hoped to have change considering the economical situation and the political climate that was unsuitable to steer the nation ahead. The Suharto regime was characterized by a lot of corruption and had been in power for thirty two years (Abrash pbs.org). In his position, the public interest was disregarded as he sought to show favourism towards his family and elite groups who were few, but very rich in the development over time. Apart from the potential Chinese businesses, his favorites had established growing businesses, which were believed to have steered the public anger over Suharto rule. Coincidentally, the gasoline price hike as a reform measure that was being implemented by the government, gave an opportunity for severe riots in major contested towns. The incident became serious when 6 of university students were shot dead in a Jakarta on 13 May, in a confrontation with the Indonesian security forces (â€Å"Refugee review† 3). On the same day, the riots spread across Medan, Solo, and Jakarta among other areas as the non-students or young urban men took control of the riots, while the students mourned the fall of their fellow students. As a result of the differences in the economy and power, the Chinese were the major scapegoat beside the minority elites and royal family. The demonstrating students from different universities later marched forth to the parliament building demanding the stepping down of President Suharto, which was later a success. Effects of 1998 Riots Chinese women rape: Following the Chinese community being the targeted group in the country, their women and female children risked being violated sexually in the times of the riots. The families therefore had an obligation to secure their women, even if it meant moving out of the country for their safety.