Thursday, February 14, 2008
Michael Haruta
“People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged.”To agree or disagree with this statement, you must know how these people are threatening the government and if they are trying to be sinister or if their intentions are to better the country, even if it goes against the government. For example Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a serious threat to the government because he opposed the laws made by them, but he was acting to better our country and to grant civil rights to people of all ages, genders, and races, so it is absolutely not justified to put him in jail. However, say they government knew that there was someone threatening national security, then the case may be different and there would be more justification to throw them in jail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with Michael that this is a controversial issue that depends heavily on the situation. You come to the question of when a national security threat goes from an empty one to something serious that could possibly be carried out. If you threw everyone in jail who had thoughts about removing the president or current administration from office, there would not be any space left for real criminals. However, there would be no point in having this law if the threat had to be to such a degree that it was already in the process of being carried out. My point is that there is a fine line here between injustice and hindrance to the judicial system with any kind of law like this.
-Zoe Storck
Michael, I agree with you in that it will usually depend on the situation. The government doesn't always know (at the time) what is or isn't a threat to the country. Judgment can be clouded based on the advancement of the country on certain issues, like with MLK. It also depends on what the government considers to be a "serious threat" to the country.
--Anna Gray
Post a Comment