1. For minor crimes, most states have a “statute of limitations” that prohibits bringing charges when a certain period of time has elapsed since the crime. When it comes to serious crimes, is it right for the justice system to pursue criminal charges several decades after the crime is said to have occurred?
I believe that it is fair for the justice system to pursue criminal charges several decades after the crime is said to have occurred. This is due to the fact that no matter how long time has passed, the perpetrator has still committed the crime. It remains a fact that he has committed the crime, and that he has to pay the price for breaking the law. He needs to be taught a lesson, if not he would think that he can get away Scot-free from all his evil deeds. We cannot give the perpetrator a chance to repeat his offenses, else there would be even more potential victims to be harmed.
2. What do you think: was the state’s image “rehabilitated”?
I think that the state's image was "rehabilitated". This is because those who were wrongly accused are now free from conviction, and the real perpetrators of the crimes are finally caught and punished. The wrongly accused are able to live a new life free from guilt, and the other people in the state are now safe from being victimized by the offenders.
3. How much do you know about the civil rights era in general?
I know that the civil rights era is mainly about the Civil Rights Movement. It focused a lot of protecting human rights and equal treatment for everyone in the law. In previous years, the law was extremely racist, and people were not treated with fairly. The Civil Rights Movement did not achieve its full aims in many countries, but it did improve the racial tension by a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment