March 7, 2011
The argument of public safety versus civil rights has always been at the forefront of many major political issues in the United States. Civil rights are the foundation of this country, and they protect it’s citizens. But with that, comes the protection of criminals, terrorists, and enemies of the state, and the freedom for these people to move and operate against American ideals. The slightest restrictions on civil rights increases the safety of the general public, enables law enforcement agencies to operate more fluidly, and increases the rate for crushing the opposition. The safety of the general population is far more important than the protection of the rights of one citizen. Many argue the Constitutionality of restricting civil rights in the name of public safety, but the same people lobby for law enforcement agencies to work harder to protect our citizens from domestic terrorism and other criminal acts. The two principles cannot go hand in hand, and public safety is far more important. Almost every crime and domestic terrorist act that has succeeded could have been prevented by authorities. Civil rights restrict law enforcement agencies from operating in an ideal manner. With tighter restrictions, certain people and certain actions do not slip by government agencies, and decrease the risk for a terrorist act of happening in the United States. Pubic safety of it’s people is the most important job of the government. Many times the government fails to do it’s job when more emphasis is placed on civil rights. The analysis below will present both arguments of the public safety versus civil rights debate and evaluate key issues and current laws and amendments associated with the administration of justice and security among communities. Some of those key issues are: the death penalty, gun control, pursuit driving, and hate crimes. The Death Penalty: Effective Crime Deterrent or Civil...