Police officers are considered to be vanguards of a city’s law and order. They are trained, appointed, and funded by the government to protect citizens from all forms of misconduct, violence, and crime. The most controversial aspect of their responsibilities is the authority to use force. They may use force to control and disperse a crowd, make an arrest, or perform other daily routines for surveillance. However this authority to use force should only be used within the boundaries necessary to resolve a certain disorder, other than that it attracts the attention of the public, the government, and the media as another case of police misconduct.

Police misconduct has attracted the media’s attention for various reasons. One camp says that what has been reported on the news is just the tip of the iceberg. Another group says that reports of police misconduct have been blown out of proportion. Some observers note that there are multiple instances when the police have successfully resolved operations without using excessive force and thus should merit a form of recognition. However amidst different viewpoints, one thing remains true. Police misconduct has tarnished the police’s reputation and most importantly the public’s trust.

Here are some examples of police misconduct that we should all be aware of.

Police Brutality

It has been mentioned before that the police are only allowed to use force when necessary, apart from that, abuse of power happens if they intentionally use excessive force through unreasonable physical and verbal assaults. A common instance is when a police officer beats up a suspect without any valid reason. What is interesting to note is that the usual victims belong to minority groups such as Blacks, the poor, and the young people. According to recent reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, police brutality is common in US prison. According to a 2006 report by the Human Rights Watch, five state prison systems allow the use of unmuzzled dogs on prisoners as part of cell removal procedure. Read the rest of this entry »

Is it ok to legalize abortion? This is a question that provokes a lot of debate. Abortion and homosexuality are relationship moral issues that have caused a lot of collision between the church leaders, human rights activists and medical practitioners. What is right in public eye is sometimes hard to tell but there are some laws that govern such moral issues. In January 22 in the year 1973, the supreme courts released its vital decision to legalize abortion. But this should not happen without some supporting rules. Young girls are supposed to ask for parental consent before they engage in abortion. The same court insisted that under the parenthood laws that a woman should not seek a spouse’s consent before carrying out an abortion. It is a dangerous procedure and it exposes the victims to some health risks and that is why in November 5 in 2003 president of USA signed a partial birth abortion ban act. It was meant to ban a late-pregnancy abortion.

Same sex marriage is another subject which has turned out to be among great relationship moral issues. Where is it in the legal stand point? President Bill Clinton signed a defense of marriage act which was to ban same sex marriage. It defined marriage as a legal association between a man and a woman. That concerns marriage for homosexuals but in 2004, Massachusetts Supreme court ruled that a ban on homosexual marriage was not according to the constitution of USA. This pushed president Bush to support amendment on the constitution that was banning same sex marriage. Vermont supreme court made a ruling that homosexuals should be given the same rights as heterosexuals. This saw the first same sex marriage performed in Massachusetts in may 17, 2004. Read the rest of this entry »

The Constitution of the United States is a common law document. It describes a Republic designed to uphold the natural rights of the individual citizen and the law of the land. Common Law derives its origin from the first historical human rights declaration, the Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215, which enshrines the fundamental freedoms of Life, Liberty and Property.

Common law, also known as Natural or Constitutional law, is based on God’s law – the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Individuals are free to do as they choose so long as they honor their contracts and do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else.

The Constitution mentions three legal jurisdictions in which courts may operate: Common, Equity and Admiralty or Maritime Law. Common law is applied in civil cases as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts, known as torts, including both intentional and negligent torts, and resolving contract disputes.

A Common or civil law court is a “Court of Record” whose proceedings are based on centuries of tradition, custom and precedent. It has an independent magistrate and conducts trials by jury. The law is simple to understand and is conveyed in language comprehensible to everyone. Individuals ‘present’ themselves and their case and counsel is not required to have a license. There must be an injured party to take any action, an individual cannot be ‘compelled to perform’ and violation of Constitutional law is punishable as a criminal act.

“Statutory Law” came into existence in 1938 when all the top American judges and US attorneys were informed that, since the United States had been declared bankrupt since 1933 and henceforth completely owned by its creditors (International bankers), the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary and all the State governments were now under the control of these creditors. All courts were instructed to operate under Admiralty law, and would be called ‘Statute jurisdiction’. Prior to 1938 the US Supreme Court dealt in Common and Public law. After that date the Supreme Court dealt only with public policy in merchant admiralty law – the law of commerce. Read the rest of this entry »