Are the laws enough?

 With the violent crimes that have been occurring all around our country as of late in areas such as in Washington and Chicago, it's easy to question whether or not our current laws are able to do enough to fight back for justice. When looking at it, I choose to look in terms of what has been done in similar situations in the past. These crimes have been the result of violent gang activities and psychotic rampages, both of which have been driving forces before in tragedies. So I don't think the question should always be what can we change? It should rather be can it be changed?

  I'm proposing this question because I feel that the laws that we have in place in Americas criminal justice system work perfectly fine. While some may not find them as effective as they could be, given the situation of trying to control such uncontrolled situations like these, you would end up creating a more controlled and constrictive society which many citizens would say violates there civil liberties. I'd say in conclusion, we shouldn't look at reforming criminal justice laws, but rather the laws that could help prevent these actions, urban reforms in ties and better attention given to people who clearly are unstable to name some suggestions. In the end, our justice system can only do so much and we can't always look at theorem to stop these actions or fight them.

Harvard Law 2

          I believe that the ideal of doing whats best for the most amounbt of people in law is never the best idea to base laws on solely. When you make a law, it won't just affect the majority of people who want the law, it''ll also affect the minority of npeople whoo didnt support it and may also be hurt by the law. When making a law, you can't just discriminate against a small group of people, otherwise the idean that our country allows everyones voice to matter is nothing but a big fat lie. It's better tyo make the lwas that are fair to everyone, and try there best to make everyone accounted for when any law is being considered.

Harvard Justice 1

       On the topic of whether or not justice is categorical a or consequential, i firmly believe that justice is categorical.  To be a moral person the action is always worse than the means, the ends never justifies the means, to resort to actions such as violence and using the excuse, i had no other choice shows that you weren't able to find a better solution, however in some cases such as the troly car scenario, there is no other choice, someone must die, that's just how life works, but to actively say, no, your going t die instead, us wrong n the basis that you choose the murder victim, beforehand you had no control on who died, it would've been a tragedy, but you wouldn't have been able to control it. The ends never justifies the means, there is always a better way.

Syrian Justice

What Does Syria View as Justice?

            Justice to the Syrian people is a complicated thing to tackle, one could easily say they simply want the ability to vote and have more political freedom. However,  I believe that the Syrian people want more than just political freedom, They More than anything want safety. The Syrian people view justice as the ability to be safe from the looming threat of chemical attacks from the government.

        I think this argument can be made due to there willingness to back anyone who offers there assistance to help remove the chemical weapons. There desperate because they view above all else safety as there ultimate justice, even taking the chemical weapons out of the argument, just the basic safety from the threat of violence by there oppressive ruler and the want for safety and freedom, that is truly what they see as freedom and what they are striving for.

For more info, check out what the U.S government is trying to do to help rid the country of its chemical weapons
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-to-help-syrian-opposition-fight-chemical-weapons/1751003.html