Is eminent domain fair? Why or why not?

Eminent domain is the power to take private property from a persons to be used for public use by the state or other authorized personal.  I do not agree with the terms of this policy.  According to the fifth amendment the government, or whoever takes this property, must provide a just compensation to the owner of the private property in the form some sort of payment.  I feel that the owner of the property should have the right to decline this.  If the government makes an offer on the property than it should be the owners choice whether or not they want to accept it.  In simpler words, property should not be forcibly taken from someone.  Only under these circumstances do I feel this would be fair.  In this situation the owner of the private property has the right to due process and can refute these actions if they deem necessary.  The qualities of eminent domain are unconstitutional and should not be supported.

Police Corruption and Their Involvement

There is no question that police should definitely participate in internal investigations and research about corruption.  There is no way to dodge the bullet of corruption.  It is inevitable that some cops will fall to the temptations and benefits that corruption has to offer but all aspects of law enforcement have an obligation to cease the spread of this evil. Police who have nothing to hide should have no problem with this and in doing so more dirty cops will be overturned, deterring future ones.  The police have a moral duty to keep crime from leaking into the very system dedicated to preventing it.
If participating in internal investigations and doing research on corruption helps to stop this, then police should definitely be involved in these tasks.  There is a lot of loyalty involved in law enforcement and I can understand why some officers may be hesitant to talk about cops that they may be close to.  These officers develop bonds and it's hard for most to look past that.  Yet if an officer is suspected or is actually involved in corruption then one should be able to cooperate with such agencies like Internal Affairs.  If an officer has betrayed its department and their job then everyone involved in law enforcement should do their best to serve justice, and if they lack to do this they are just as guilty.  Corruption is a major problem in today's law enforcement and I feel that it is crucial for every cop to participate in eliminating this.

Which strategies (or combination of strategies) do you think makes most sense to implement in response to drug crime?

With drug crime seeming to increase many different strategies, some that are already in place, are being enforced in order to serve justice and protect the community.   One strategy that I feel needs to be enforced a little bit more is surveillance and communication.  Since drug crimes leak into many different areas, through the selling and buying of the product, it is important that all areas of law enforcement are able to communicate with one another.  With a wide range of crime there is not just one jurisdiction so it is important that surveillance is kept up so that crime can be dealt with.  Also enforcing the laws to a fuller and harsher extent in order to keep drugs away from the youth and stop the massive spread of these toxic chemicals.

Are current criminal laws enough to address the need for justice in Washington DC/Chicago?

With recent events exploding in today's media it is evident that current laws are not only incapable of serving justice, but pose an important question, how do we stop these heinous crimes from happening in the first place?  Last Monday a civilian contractor and military veteran, Aaron Alexis, went on a shooting rampage at the U.S. command complex.  The incident left 13 people dead, including the gunman who ended the massacre by shooting himself.  With valid access to the naval base, the shooting was displayed around the U.S. as the horrific violence was portrayed in our Nations Capital.  What shocked the nation the most was the randomness and ability of the crime.  This contractor had everything at his dispense in order to fulfill this crime.  He had a gun, access to the base, and plenty of other things to help him carry out this rampage. But why is it so easy for crimes like this to occur?

It's because the law does not do enough to stop crimes from happening.  Also highlighted in the news this week was a gang related shooting in which one of their victims was a three-year-old boy.  Chicago has been proclaimed as one of the deadliest cities in the world.  With death rates higher than that in the war in Afghanistan, we question how our government can let this senseless violence occur in our own country. With our rights to be free we not only get to choose how to live our life but become susceptible to death.  We can not gain justice when hundreds of murder are occurring in our nation.  We can not get justice when criminals kill themselves along with their victims, leaving no motives in their wake.  But justice would not be necessary if we took more measures in our legislative branch in order to limit violence.

Harvard Justice 2

Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that all actions should be directed towards achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.  This means that if a larger quantity of people benefit in a situation then they will be favored.  Although this is widely accepted in our culture, its terms do not morally fit into place in all situations.  As proposed in the video, if you were to kill just one fat guy as opposed to 5 people, what would you do? Here, more people agreed to let the 5 people die.  The utilitarian theory doesn't apply here because it is not right to involve an innocent person into the situation, that being the fat man.  Although it may help more people, which is great, it can hurt others and that is key when looking at this theory. 

Harvard Justice 1

From the scenarios presented in this video, it's evident that morals drive human decision making.  But what exactly is the right thing to do?  In a consequential standpoint, the ends justifies the means.  It would be better to kill one person and save 5 others. This is unfair if this person was innocent and had no involvement in the situation. But if they are already involved I feel that the actions are acceptable.

What Does Justice Look Like in Syria?

With recent events in Syria many people all over the country are looking for answers on what to do next.  On August 21, 2013 the Syrian government, under the regime of Bashar al-Assad, gassed to deaths thousands of people in their quaint suburbs.  Among the dead were hundreds of children.  There is no question that the events of this day were horrific and disturbing.  But more than this useless killing was the means by which Syria killed these people.  Chemical weaponry was the main component used to murder these innocent people.  By doing this Syria has violated the basic rules of warfare and have induced international chaos of how justice should be served in Syria.

Addressing the nation on September 10, 2013 President Barack Obama suggested ideas to the people of the United States on how the situation in Syria should be dealt with.  Obama stated that he, "will not put American boots on the ground in Syria."  Many Americans do not want to start another war, rather, "this would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective."  However I do not agree with this statement.  Although I feel that Syria needs to pay for their actions, I do not think the answer is more violence.  This will prove nothing.  What would we be showing to the world by killing people for the reason of killing people.  There has to be another way to create justice in Syria, whether it be disarming them of chemical weapons or countless other ideas.  America itself cannot take justice into their own hands.  Justice is necessary in Syria but how far are we, as human beings, willing to go to make sure it happens?

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/10/221186456/transcript-president-obamas-address-to-the-nation-on-syria