No Free Rides for Snitches

Unfortunately, many criminals, despite their crimes, are either prosecuted at lesser sentences or let off on parole if they choose to snitch on others' crimes. Such actions are unjust and selfish. Therefore, the government should not support or grant lesser punishments for criminal snitches, nor should the government punish criminals harsher for not snitching.

Essentially, law officials and judges currently have the ability and the power to undermine criminal laws by granting less severe punishments for people who rat others out. Therefore, criminals who snitch do not receive adequate punishment for their unlawful actions. Thus, criminals who snitch and get lesser sentences are not fully punished for their criminal actions. Furthermore, they truly do not learn their lessons; rather, they assume that they can continue breaking the law and get away with it if they simply rat out others. As a result, such actions on the behalf of the U.S. government completely devalue the operations of the law system.

The government should not grant lesser sentences for criminals who snitch on others; in addition, the government should not punish individuals harsher if they choose not to snitch. The article "Milken's 10-Year Sentence Abuses Justice: Refused to Snitch to the Editor" discusses how Michael Milken refused to snitch about others; the author makes a very valid statement about not further prosecuting non-snithcers. He accurately states, "let the police and prosecutors make their cases, surely, but do not hold citizens responsible for their inability to do so". His statement is very valid; not only is it unjustified and unfair for criminals to not be accurately punished, but it is also unjust and unfair to punish and hold citizens responsible for snitching on others.

Snitching is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed. Since snitching in exchange for lesser punishment allows criminals to roam the streets and not properly be punished, numerous people are concerned with the government's lack of action in regards to snitching. For example, one campaign group called "Stop Snitching" promotes the expulsion of lesser sentences for snitching. The group obviously realizes the unconstitutional practices of law enforcers granting measly punishment for criminals in exchange for others' illegal actions.

For the reasons discussed, it is believed that reporting crimes is important. However, at no point should individuals who have committed crimes be allowed less servere sentences in exchange for divulging others' crimes, nor should individuals be subject to harsher punishments as a result of not submitting to investigators' questions.

Response to "As the Machine Turns"

"As the Machine Turns" is an overall well written blog dealing with the current non-legalization standings of marijuana, both for recreational and medicinal purposes. It provides readers with necessary statistics, current issues, valid options, details, and stereotypical disputes. First and foremost, the author chose to write about an issue that is both current and debatable. Therefore, the written material is interesting and provoking, thus encouraging others to read it. The author includes numerous statistics, all of which help to emphasize the points the author is trying to make. Statistics always add validation and necessity. Furthermore, the author includes detailed aspects of legalizing marijuana, including stereotypes (gateway drug) and beneficial purposes (such as medicinal reasons). In addition to stating multiple concerns dealing with legalizing marijuana, the author also includes elaboration and support for each issue. The ample amounts of descriptions and details help to establish a stable and detailed article. Essentially, "As the Machine Turns" is a valid, well-supported, and well-written article discussing the legalization of marijuana.

Waking Up From the Fear

The Patriot Act resulted immediately after 9/11 as an Congressional Act , as an attempt to minimize and exterminate terrorism. In order to prevent terrorism, the Patriot Act enables law enforcement officials the ability to investigate phone records, emails, medical records, and financial records without warrants and owners' permission. Essentially, the Patriot Act allows law officials to directly breach the 4th Amendment if terrorism, either domestic or foreign, is suspected; NO longer does the Bill of Rights protect Americans' rights of unlawful searches!

The George Bush administration signed the Patriot Act in October of 2001, and has thus far enforced the act in hopes of reducing terrorism. 9/11 created great fear in many Americans; people began fearing their safety and the safety of loved ones and daily friends in daily routines. As a result of their fear, the Patriot Act was able to capitalize on the fears and vulnerabilities of Americans! Ideally, the Patriot Act was a manipulation tactic that was used by the Bush administration to provoke mass participation in fight on terrorism.

However, "protection" from terrorism came at too high of a cost! Freedom, which is granted to American civilians via the Constitution, can easily be revoked if the word "terrorism" is simply mentioned. The fact that personal rights can be removed so simply reveals the fact that politicians and financially stable individuals are capable of anything, even disabling the rights endorsed to Americans by the founding fathers.

There is a strong need for national security, but national security is pointless if it jeopardizes the freedom of Americans. The Patriot does just that; it claims to protect Americans' safety, but it does so at the expenses of Americans' freedom. The U.S. government's Patriot Act is in direct breech of the 4th Amendment, which protects individuals from ulawful searches and seizures. The Patriot Act was deliverd to the public as a means of enhancing National security, however the applied uses of the Act have been maniupulated and distorted to legally disregard civil liberties. Thus, Congress should repeal the Patriot Act of 2001.