Strategies to prevent a second 911

The Longman dictionary of contemporary English defines terror as a feeling of extreme fear and terrorism as the use of violence such as bombing, shooting, or kidnapping to obtain political demands such as making a government of a country do something. Its also defined as a systematic induction of fear in order to make someone do something they do not want to do. At present, there is no satisfactory definition to this word especially after the recent event of terror famously known as the 911 which happened in the US in 2001. The hard part of the meaning of the word terrorism is that it doesnt mean the same universally as some parts of the world that constitute the International Community arent agreeable with the meaning andor the legal side of it isnt clear to everyone or doesnt address every ones concern.

Some common definitions of the word terrorism dont clearly address the criminality side of the acts that are accepted universally. But only refer to those acts of violence that are intended to deliberately create fear and confusion amongst the general masses for political or ideological ends. These acts are perpetrated by organizations or sometimes by individuals. We have often heard of these organizations making public statements claiming responsibility and stating their reasons behind their actions but many dont have clear objectives but rather murky and undefined purposes. Also the difficulty in providing a clear meaning to the word is because its not only charged political but also emotionally. It is very common especially in most African countries where all political rivals to the government are being termed as terrorists. Now, whether this is a strategy of the state to undermine its opponents or legitimize the use of its armed forces in order to crush opposition is an interesting question to ponder.

There is no doubt that terror acts have been used by many, organizations, groups as well as individuals and sometimes governments in order to further their objectives. Political organizations, revolutionaries and even religious groups have used these acts as their strategy to gain publicity for their causes. One of the many forms of these acts of terror is against noncombatants (civilians). And as I have stated before, these acts are political oriented fundamentally (Hoffman 1998). They are tactics used because those who use them believe that they will effect the desired action or change. In this sense, the desired change is not only equated to the lives of innocent civilians, but is far more precious and thus the crossroad between religion and terrorism.

When the struggle in the religious context is met with political hurdles such as a control of a gold-rich holy mountain for example, for the religious committed, their own lives or those of innocent civilians are less than the possession of the holy mountain. The victims of these terrorist acts are targeted not because they are obstacles to the cause, but because they represent a corrupt organization (in this case the government) thus making them corrupt beings as viewed by the terrorists. Their suffering communicates the terrorists message across to those intended (government) thus proving that they are a force to be reckoned with is their wishes are not granted.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 were acts of terror that the world has never seen before. (Crank et al 2005) These have sparked a world wide debates and opinions on how to combat, prevent and root out such evil out of the world if possible. Hundreds of innocent civilians loosing their lives over nothing significant and many others wounded or sustaining lifelong disabilities and traumas isnt a very good price to pay especially if you dont know what you are paying it for or why.

In this paper I am going to assess the prevention strategies of terrorism acts in an Arab populated city considering that I am the Senior Counterterrorism Official for the Federal Government, the scope of those strategies and the ethical boundaries. Also the status and rights of perpetrators, citizens and non citizens of the US captured in or out of the country in regards to torture. And lastly I will discuss the justification of the war on terror, the remedy to the anti-Americanism in the US soil and the success of the USA patriot Act in order to prevent another such tragedy as that of September 11, 2001.

Prevention Strategies
America is a very large country with very large populous cities filled with very different kinds of people. Terrorist acts are not acts that are only practiced by Arabs, because we have seen individuals such as Timothy McVeigh. Thus it wont be a rational decision to focus only on the Arab- populated parts of the city although these areas should be given top priority. Considering that costs are not a problem for me, meaning I wont have a problem with financing the proposed projects in order to prevent my city from terrorists the first and foremost strategy is to divide the city into smaller zones.

Those zones with the highest number of Arab population will be identified and marked as hot zones.
Because what are at stake here are human lives then I would combine every means in order to ensure successful results. Infiltrating every community will be one option because these acts are acts that will be done with extreme secrecy and thus agents have to go undercover. Whether in community events such as district meetings, social events and even religious events will have to be monitored in order to spot the first sign of danger.

Not only that, but also, another option is to develop informants. This strategy can be dangerous if these individuals are discovered they might be killed but it is worth it as the loss of lives such as what we have seen in the 911 attacks is definitely an experience that should be prevented at any cost whatsoever. (Crank et al 2005) Definitely this will be expensive and time consuming but these strategies are short term solutions, thus long term strategies will have to be put in place in the mean time.

Of course it is impossible to be a watchman of every one in such a large city like New York or Las Vegas. This is why a participatory strategy will have to be introduced. To sit on the phone and wait for people to call when something suspicious is noticed wont be a proper way of gaining information.

People should be involved in order to protect themselves and their loved ones. The times of minding your own business are over. In an African country like Tanzania for example, for every ten households there is a leader who is chosen and is concerned with the security and other issues especially census issues. These leaders know their members and what they do and can easily spot a suspicious character in hisher area and report it to the authorities than a police patrol or a towns sheriff.

I know this sounds impossible, in American cities, but the question is how far can America go to protect its citizens A nationwide education programs and awareness seminars should be conducted.

People should know and recognize their neighbors, who they are, what they do and if they are immigrants then that too should be known. If its a motel then proper identification procedure should be put in place whether the clients are paying cash or not. Because why would anyone not like to be known There must be something hidden then And we all know that secrecy nurtures evil. Thus as the Counterterrorism Officer I would like to know what the secrecy is about, if there is a threat on your life then the authorities should be notified.

Company managers, religious leaders, School principals should not only know and possess information about who their colleagues and workers are but they should make sure they also know where they live. This information should also be with the street leader and also the immigration department for an immigrant for crosschecking purposes. Countywide awareness programs about the benefits of being your own guard from the classroom to the political campaigns should be introduced.

This is not impossible at all, but the problem is those that practice these acts are those powerful rich individuals. A normal American who waits for hisher weekly wage wouldnt care to be anonymous. But the rich and powerful, those who can pay others to do their bidding, the influential, those who would like to disappear into an island without being noticed are the problem. A curriculum should be introduced in academic circles, so that from an early age, the importance of knowing your neighbor is made clear.

This should be a long term plan, a policy developed and implemented so that information is not sought but provided. And because of this there wont be a need for infiltration and informants whatsoever. This will at least minimize secret activities and those characters next door who nobody knows about. The ethical issue comes because the current system has so many glitches such that mistakes are so many that people start to loose confidence with the authorities. When someones identity is confused and heshe undergoes rigorous interrogation procedures and then at the end of the day is found clean what do you think heshe will say to hisher relatives when released But when someone is caught, charged and locked up for good nobody will demand rights because nobody will sympathize with someone who was preparing to blow an airplane full of people to bits.

Status and rights of terror perpetrators and Torture
It is my belief that any individual who has deliberate intentions of killing other people is a criminal. An American citizen who is caught planning, collaborating or involved in any way in such acts should be accountable to the American laws. What I do not agree with is the term war on terror. In my opinion this term wasnt well thought through as no one can fight fear. Lets consider an example of a person who is terrified of the dark. Is fighting this fear to never put off the lights Probably yes, but will that then be a victory over the darkness or the fear of darkness The fear will definitely be there. So my point here is the fight against terror is the reason behind that should be sought and not otherwise (Juergensmeyer, 2000).

Capturing criminals who have involved themselves in terrorist acts should be paramount but more than that should be to learn from them. As what are the reasons behind their actions We should also understand that a government shouldnt act as a person who succumbs to pressures and demands especially a government as powerful as the American government. All individuals captured abroad or inside the American soil, foreigners or citizens before being treated as criminals first they should be models to be learned.

Considering the young Nigerian man who wanted to blow an American airline in December 2009, wouldnt it be more important to know what drove him to such terrible decision Isnt it more important to know what he was told to convince him that what he was doing was just I think before rushing him to court and subject him to torture it is wiser to learn and understand these individuals as torturing them wont stop others like them from surfacing. Viewing terrorist activities as war tactics is wrong in my opinion and thus this notion only create more complications and even incite hatred towards the American government and its people. I agree that it is a crime and should be treated as such by the American law but caution should be observed as it is better to know why the hatred than who is the culprit. In my opinion torturing them is also trying to terrorize them.

 But the difference is they kill many innocent people than when the government captures them mostly its one or two individuals. I think the Bush administration acted under pressure. I think a new act should be put in place to help provide the insight and understanding of the reasons why these individual get to so much trouble and risk their lives to execute hundreds of innocent people. This should also provide a signpost as to how someone who was ready to die will learn of his mistakes and provide an example to others intending to do what he did by locking him in jail which is sometimes a better environment than the one he was before.

A just war and anti-Americanism
When there is fighting between two or more countries or between opposing groups within a country, involving large numbers of soldiers and weapons is a phenomenon known as war according to the Longman dictionary of contemporary English. Often war results in among other things loss of lives. What can possibly justify the loss of lives Loss of lives maybe If I may rephrase the question, what can be a good reason that justifies one to become a killer If other people kill, does it mean that you should also kill I think not. In my opinion there can never be a just war. The war on terror as baptized by the George W. Bushs administration is the common term presented as the military conflict, political, legal and ideological battle against terror groups and regimes supporting them.

The objectives put forth for this war are to protect the US, its allies and citizens, to ensure the safety of US business interests and its allies in home soil and abroad and also to dismantle terrorist networks and their activities in the US and elsewhere in the world (Crank et al 2005). This term, the policies it denotes, and the actions followed have created a controversy all over the world as criticism rages on its justness and the way it has been conducted as it abuses the international law and human rights.

Not only that, let us analyze the reason behind any kind of war. War can only arise because there is a conflict of interest between two parties. Nevertheless, no war is fought if one knows that there is no chance of winning. The reason that countries go to war is often because the belief of winning is there, it is very rare to see a nation go to war as an act of desperateness. But also in most cases those that make the decision to go to war are not the ones that fight, with the exception of those kings of the agrarian age where they led men into war themselves. This gives rise to conflicts based on arrogance and personal ambitions and interests.

That said, I believe a just war exist only in our minds and that is the reason of resentment and dislike of the citizen towards their own country (Schneider and Jim 2009). Most governments go to war not because the citizens want to go to war. This is because the price of war is not only far too expensive to pay but the price of a human life cant be compensated by anything not even another life because that only doubles it. The shading of blood can only bring chaos, which is why those men and women who come back from war are not the same anymore. Some even commit suicide and others suffer sever mental trauma. This is because there is nothing just or good in any kind of war (Rodin 2006).

Anti-Americanism is nothing but the result of Americas arrogance which comes from its military mightiness. Because of this the other options to solve a conflict are not fully explored and applied so as to avoid the bloodshed that comes with wars. Americans are loosing lives and are seeing how other fellow human beings are dying and it doesnt paint a good picture into their consciences. Of course Americans ask themselves why they are hated so much if they havent done anything wrong, or could it be that among other domestic problems there is something that is not made clear to them concerning those interests being protected abroad. This creates doubts and trust to their government is lost. Therefore any kind of war even the one on terror can never be just because a just solution to conflict in my belief will never be through war or any kind of confrontation.

I would say that anti-Americanism has increased in the recent years especially during the George W. Bush administration immediately after the invasion of Iraq.  It is not that the Americans didnt want any action to be taken after the 911, but the type of actions taken werent what they expected. But expressing this concern shouldnt lead to another conflict within or more bloodshed, thus supporting acts of terror just because you dont like what the government is doing concerning a particular matter in my opinion isnt right.

Giving money to people who buy bombs to blow buildings should be charged as a criminal offence. Schools, mosques, and charities that indirectly support terrorism should be closed down as they breed a generation of individuals who only see that violence is the only solution to problems while that isnt the case. All those that are proved to incite violence, support groups that engage in terror activities should be accountable for those actions otherwise people will continue to die.

The Patriot Act of the United States of America has definitely played its part in reducing the terrorist activities in the US soil since it enactment. The Federal Bureau of Investigations have been more efficient and effective in its actions and so far since the 911 attacks there has been no terror act but one attempt which tarnished its record since then. Despite the improvements shown so far, there is still so many loopholes that terror groups can spot and use to inflict as much damage as they possibly can if no immediate measures are taken.

The December 2009 event that caused a spat from president Obama signifies that the Bureaus sharing and collection of information its agents and other agencies is not good at all. The security measures that the bureau has taken are not as thoroughly and as extensively applied and implemented as it would have expected to be. The Joint Terrorism Task Forces, National Counterterrorism Center and the Terrorist Screening Center have shown what president Obama termed as a systemic failure of the US security systems.

Although since its enactment the act have played a vital role in counterterrorism because it has enabled the Federal Bureau of Investigations department to make some improvements in fighting terrorism but it seems not all that was supposed to be done have been done. Still, investigations that involve terror cells, coordination between intelligence personnel and law enforcement agencies and information exchange is poor. The Act has been appreciated for enabling intelligence agents and investigators to share information that they acquire about crime suspects and terrorists.  The agents should now be able to employ national security wiretaps during a criminal investigative process (Gouvin, 2003).

If now the foreign intelligence information can easily be obtained and shared within the US intelligence community then how come such a young man barely in his twenties was able to board a plane strapped with explosives right under the noses of such powerful organizations. Clearly something isnt right. If the US is to be safe from these actions then the vice president Joe Biden is not only to modify his foreign policy strategies but also the homeland security agencies are to modify their approaches in tackling the terror threats.

Yes I still stick to my proposal that these individuals besides being prosecuted and tortured we should draw lessons from them that will give us insights not only on how they operate as they have shown that they change to the better, but on why they think the way they think. The removal of the legal restrictions that earlier prevented the intelligence, law enforcement agents and the national defense communities to coordinate their work through cooperation still couldnt help in preventing the young man from boarding that plane

Generally I believe the enactment of the US patriotic act is a good idea as I have said before secrecy what others would call privacy nurtures evil but is still think more has got to be done in reaching out to these individuals so as to be able to see what they see.  The Patriot Act will benefit us far better than it is now because it provides new tools through which sources of terrorist financing can be tracked down. Also the Act has strengthened the regulation which bars anyone to participate in unlicensed business transactions so as to clump down those who finance terrorist activities as these terrorist uses such primitive ways to transfer their funds.

Before it was enacted, the law enforcement agents of course were not able to investigate and obtain wiretaps from all crimes committed by terrorist.  But now the law enforcement authorities are able to investigate terrorist crimes and conduct electronic surveillance on all crimes that can be committed by terrorists like to collect information when investigating terrorism related crimes such as terrorism financing, use of weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapon offenses.

It is obvious that international terrorists are very highly trained to escape detection and surveillance by changing communication devices and locations. But fortunately the technological advancements the US has should make it easy for the security agencies to catch these individuals. With up to date technology at their disposal Americans should feel safe in their own soil. In my opinion there is a need for a continuous improvement and update of the act so as to be able to tackle new developments in the changing environment with which the terrorists operate.

It is my belief that the above mentioned proposals have thoroughly touched every aspect of the terror counter measures that are to be taken into consideration when approaching the problem of terror attacks in the USs major cities with high Arab populations. As a senior counterterrorism official as I have stated above the only way you can tackle the problem is to device short and long term measures. But only after dividing the city into smaller zones and those with high Arab populations given high priority and marked as hot zones.

But of course these wont be long term measures and definitely wont finish the problem therefore there is a need to improve the involvement of the masses in guarding themselves. Every one in America should be involved in keeping our country safe and it should start from the grass roots.  It shouldnt be only a concern of the US relationship with the wider world but the relations within.

The concentration shouldnt only be focused to Arab Americans but every one as there are other Americans who are able of worse acts. Of course infiltrations and informants wont be ruled out as it will take every strategy to stop the loss of lives which no one would like to see it happen again. The ethical issues should be considered, yes, but I think this should not be much of a concern if Americans themselves will participate in taking care of their own country. It is my belief that even the use of torture wont be necessary unless definitely it is absolutely necessary which  wont raise so much concern if the everyone is educated and made aware of what terrorism and its prevention measures is all about because it is my belief that the lack of understanding is what causes such concerns.

I agree in the treatment of terrorists as outlaws who should be treated as such by the American laws and regulations. Whether they are Americans or not, captured inside or outside the US they remain outlaws according to the US law. But the term war on terror in my opinion is not a very sufficient term to be use to denote the fight against terror (Habad and Jose Llera Ramo 1995). War isnt a good thing and will never be just by any means. Yes I do believe that there are some people that will condone war and even term it as just even but there are other means that should also be explored as they can produce better results than what war can achieve. Therefore I personally dont believe in any kind of confrontation whatsoever that is just.

The fact that America invaded Iraq has been the most unpleasant experience to most Americans and it is at this particular time when anti-Americanism started to rise. It is my belief that Americans understand that the reason they are targeted isnt because as Americans they are termed as evil in the eyes of others but its because what the government they put into office represents, and it is with this understanding that they resent their government. The seriousness of this anti-Americanism isnt as much now as it was during the George W. Bush administration but of course it depends on the performance of the current government especially on the issues of foreign policy.

In order to prevent terrorist activities all funds that are used to fund or support terror should be traced and confiscated also all those aiding in any way whatsoever in inciting violence directly or indirectly should be considered as terrorists as well. All those institutions that also engage in acts that seem to incite or promote these acts should be closed down and the individuals in charge should be treated as terrorists.

Despite the enactment of the USA patriot act, still there is a lot of improvement to be done as America is still not safe and is still a target. I believe the act should be improved to such an extent that the secrecy surrounding institutions or individuals activities in terms of finances and day to day activities is minimized because there is no need for privacy if what is done is right because it is my belief that nothing can be right in secret and wrong in the open.

In a right position, yes, I would vote for a renewed act and probably suggest new ones to be made. Despite the shortfalls of the act I still believe it has played a big role in reducing acts of terror in the USA but still more is needed to be done. The attempt to blow an American airline on 31st of December 2009 is a sign that America should still be careful and cautious on all fronts such as politically, economically etc.

Robin Hood Hills Murders

May 5, 1993  300pm  Chris Byers, Steve Branch, and James Moore leave Weaver Elementary School at the daily dismissal and walk home.

May 5, 1993  310pm  Mark Byers (Step-father of Chris Byers) arrives home.  Chris Byers is not at home as he was supposed to wait for someone, either Mark or his step-brother Ryan, to let him in the house.

May 5, 1993  330pm  Steve Branch arrived home and checked in with his mother.  He then left the premise to play outside.  Ryan Byers returned to the home from school and did not see Chris Byers waiting for him.

May 5, 1993  350 pm  Mark Byers took Ryan Byers to the courthouse for a 400pm appointment. Ryan was a witness in a trial. Mark Byers leaves Ryan at the courthouse to go pick up his wife, Melissa, telling Ryan to get a ride home with Chad Bell and his mother, also part of the trial, if he Mark had not returned in time.

May 5, 1993  520 pm  Mark and Melissa Byers return home and find evidence that Chris Byers had been there and tried to gain access to the house.

May 5, 1993 (time unknown)  Mark Byers left home to pick up Ryan Byers at the courthouse and found Chris Byers playing with friends.  He and Chris returned home where he punished Chris with a spanking with a belt in front of Melissa.  Punishment was for Chris not waiting outside, because Mark believed that Chris was too young for a key to the house. Mark Byers left the home and returned to the courthouse to pick up Ryan, leaving Chris to clean up around the car port.

May 5, 1993  810pm  Mark Byers reports his step son, Chris Byers, missing.  Last seen at 530pm in front of their house.

May 5, 1993  924pm  Diane Moore reports her son missing.  Last seen at 600pm riding bikes with Chris Byers and Steve Branch

May 5, 1993  925pm  Pamela Hobbes (Mother of Steve Branch) reports her son missing, last seen at 330pm that afternoon.

May 6, 1993  daybreak  approximate time of death for all three boys.

May 6, 1993  145pm  The first body was found by the police in the drainage ditch.

May 6, 1993  256pm  The second body was found approximately 25 south of the first body.

May 6, 1993  259pm  The third body was found approximately 5 south of the second body.

May 6, 1993  358pm  Steve Branch pronounced dead at the scene.

May 6, 1993  402pm  Chris Byers and James Moore pronounced dead at the scene.

Documents Handwriting samples
Latent Prints Box with fingerprints axe tire billy knives hammers
Serology Hair blood sexual assault evidence saliva
Trace Evidence Hair blood sexual assault evidence kit tire billy knives hammers clothes razors plastic bags hook cotton rope saliva.

Truth Table
In the following truth table the variables are D for documents, L for latent prints S for serology and T for trace evidence.  The factors of the table are that document or latent evidence is secondary to the serological and trace evidence whish is primary and needed to place the suspect at the crime.

Suspect Statements
There are no suspect statements within the case file.

Witness Statements
The three boys were seen by each of their families between the hours of 330 pm and 600pm.  Each had returned home and checked in.  The last person to see the boys was Diane Moore, James Moores mother, who saw the three boys riding bikes.

Theories of Detectives
The inclusion of James Moore was probably coincidental to the abduction of the other two boys.  He lived in a lower socio-economic neighborhood, but had a very structured and protective life in the aspects of parental supervision and extracurricular activities, including Boy Scouts.

The abduction of Steven Branch seems to have been based on the perceived or real wrong committed by the victim against the perpetrator.  He lived in a lower socio-economic neighborhood but had a very structured protective life in the aspects of parental supervision and extracurricular activities, including Boy Scouts.

The abduction of Chris Byers seems to have been based on the perceived or real wrong committed by the victim against the perpetrator.  He lived with his family but was did not have a very structured home life.  He had been having psychological problems including ADD and oppositional defiance disorder, which created ostracism in regards of friendships.

The only similarity that all the boys had with one another was that they all attended the same elementary school, Weaver Elementary. The fact that all three boys were together would have created a high risk for abduction from the perpetrators point of view.  This would mean that the perpetrator was probably someone whom was known to the boys, and whom they trusted.

The consensus is that there were two perpetrators in this crime, which would have been necessary to control the situation and in the binding of the children. The main perpetrator was avenging some real or perceived wrong that had been afflicted on him by Stephen Branch and more importantly, Chris Byers, due to the fact that their torture and murder were more vicious.

The perpetrator will probably have a record because it would seem that he knows the types of investigative techniques that can be used and knows ways in which to corrupt the evidence. The previous arrests would have probably been for assault, drugs or other violent crimes.

The perpetrator will probably have probably have problems with relationships with both males and females.  Long term romantic relationships with women will be sporadic and short lived, for he will want to have complete control of every situation.  This type of scenario will often lead to domestic violence.

The residence of the perpetrator will be close to the dump site.  The area must have been known to the perpetrator for he left the bodies in a place that is easily accessed by not in view of the road or the establishment in front of the drainage ditch.  He would also have to know the times that the ditch held water in which to use to finish the murders with drowning the boys in the ditch.

He will be skilled with hand and enjoy using them in different types of activities.  He will probably also have an array or knives that he uses for hunting and such. His education will only be high school level and his job history will be sporadic and often times he will have been fired for not showing up for work.  He will be very macho and often want to prove his masculinity because of low self-esteem and the need to hide any homosexual desires or actions.

Crime Reconstructionist
The purpose of the assault is punitive in that the perpetrator believed that these children wronged him in some way and that these actions were their punishment for that perceived or real action on their part. It would seem that James Moore was not in the same category as Stephen Branch and Chris Byers.

Moores injuries were less severe than the other two boys.  However this act was based on anger against the boys.

It would seem that for logistic reasons there were two assailants in this crime.  The attacks on both Stephen Branch and Chris Byers are very different and therefore, it can be assumed that there are two assailants within this action. The attack on Branch could have been enacted by either male or female however, the aggressive emasculation on Byers was definitively male in maliciousness in the need to prove sexual superiority over the child.

The actions would have taken place in a location that was comfortable to the perpetrator but not known to the child.  It would have been far enough out of the way that the screams of the children would not have been heard.  The fact is that the location would have had to be close to the dump site, for not only were the bodies dumped, but their clothes and bikes were left at the dump site as well.  This person would have had to been watching the search parties to ensure that the boys would be found, but that he would not be associated with the crime.  It is very possible that he would actually help with the search of the boys.

There are no signs of satanic ritual or of serial killers.  In the case of satanic ritual, the act usually occurs on a member or someone who wants to be member of the cult and is left as a warning to other.  The serial killer mentality often does not include children since they are missed very quickly.  Another reason to eliminate the possibility of a serial killer is that the serial killer would not have stayed in the area, but would have moved as far away from the area as possible.

There are no statements of the attorneys in the case file.

Based on the actions of the Mark Byers and the fact that the evidence found on Chris Byers body shows previous abuse, and then the main suspect should have been Mark Byers.  Mark is the only person that gave the police his whereabouts from the early morning throughout the entire night and into the next day.  However, the information is more than just the abuse that needs to be considered.

First off, is that Mark fits the profile of the perpetrator.  He is an unemployed, disabled jewelry maker, who is a man who has to be in control of his surroundings, which includes taking his wife to work and picking her up at the end of the day.  He is also very demanding of the 8 year old Chris, who has many problems.  He is also an informant for the police in regards to drug dealer, which means that he has either been into drug dealing or been a user, which fits the profile.  It should also be mentioned that one of Marks knives is found that has a very tiny bit of evidence, but it is too small to use for analysis. Marks story also does not play out when he tells officers that Chris never goes to the Robin Hood Hill area however Melissa Byers tells the officers that she knows Chris has gone in that direction several times.

However, Mark is not the only suspect that should be considered.  The fact is that Mark could have gotten the children all together, because he is known to them.  But he would have been hard pressed to control them all at the same time.  The use of a second person at the murder location would have been the optimal choice, and since evidence has been found placing James Baldwin in contact with one of the victims, he would be the perfect person to have helped Mark do away with this unruly son and his friends.  He probably took all the boys so that the disappearance of his step-son alone would not be as obvious and the boys could not have put him with Chris last.

The least amount of damage was associated with James Moore.  He was probably just hit until he passed out and then drowned when thrown in the ditch.  However, the differences in the murders of would show that James Baldwin probably killed Stephen Branch and that Mark Byers killed his step-son.  The other option would be that Ryan Byers was also in on the murder and he was the one who beat James Moore.  Ryan, being only fourteen years old would not have been as vicious as the other two men in the crime.

Based on this understanding of those that participated in the search, and was the most forthcoming with information that really was not important, also known as spontaneous comments, the perpetrator of this heinous act is Mark Byers, James Baldwin, and possibly Ryan Byers.

The Nine Supreme Court Justices

The judiciary, in the United States and in many parts of the world, is one of the three arms of government the legislature and the executive comprise the other two. As such, the role the judiciary plays cannot be undermined. However, the judicial structure in the United States is a little complicated. The United States practices a dual court system where there is one national court system and separate court systems in each of the fifty-states and other U.S territories (Neubauer  Meinhold, 2007, p. 59). The courts are categorized into either appellate or trial courts. All cases start at the trial courts and may only be referred to the appellate courts upon request by the losing party. The appellate courts main responsibility is thus to ensure that the trial courts correctly applied the law (Neubauer  Meinhold, 2007, p. 59).

Neubauer and Meinhold (2007) refer to the Supreme Court as the appellate court of last resort. This is because any party that is aggrieved by the decision taken by a lower appellate court may request for a review of the decision by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the facts of the case, will make a ruling which is final and binding to all parties involved. The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are final and effectively cannot be revoked by any authority within the United States. The judges appointed to serve in the Supreme Court are referred to as justices. This paper takes a look at the justices in the Supreme Court as presently constitutedwho they are, what they do, and the important role that they play in the course of their work.

The Supreme Court currently consists of nine justices 8 associate justices and the chief justice (Neubauer  Meinhold, 2007). However, this has not always been the case. A look at the Supreme Court composition at its inception in 1979 will provide an illuminating view of the changes that have occurred in the courts structure. The history of the Supreme Court dates back to the foundations of America as a nation (Harrington, 2008). The American Constitution, ratified in 1789, created the Judiciary as one of the arms of government (Harrington, 2008). Article III in the Constitution provided for the creation of the Supreme Court. Notably, it did not specify the number of judges that would make up the court or what their precise duties would be (Harrington, 2008, p. 9).

Congress came up with a judiciary act which dealt with this loophole by stipulating the number of justices who would make up the Supreme Court and the jurisdiction of the court (Harrington, 2008). Congress through the Judiciary act of 1989 stipulated that the Supreme Court was to be made up of six justices, who would meet twice a year (Harrington, 2008, p. 9). The court held its first session in New York in 1790. Of the six members of the Court, only four were present (Harrington, 2008). The court has been a part of the American democracy since then for more than 250 years. This rich history has earned it legitimacy lending credence to the decisions that it takes.

As noted, the Constitution did not provide for the specific number of justices that would make up the Supreme Court. This has been a prerogative of Congress to set an appropriate number of Justices to serve in the Supreme Court ever since the Congress set the number at six. The numbers have historically changed starting from six when the judicial act was passed. Congress has reviewed the number six times, finally settling on the present number of justices in the year 1869 (Longley, n. d.).

According to Rutkus and associates (2009), the appointment of justices as is an event of major significance in American politics. This partly owes to the fact that the Court exercises tremendous judicial power separate from that exercised by both the legislative and the executive arms of government. The few Justices serving in the Court at any one time also makes such individuals and such appointments very significant. The significance of such appointment is also compounded by the observation that on average, a new Justice joins the Court almost every two years (Rutkus et al., 2009, p. 4).

For instance, the current president of the United States, Barrack Obama, has up to this point only had the opportunity to appoint one Justice to serve in the Supreme Court. The opportunity, as Rutkus et al. (2009) point out, came on May 1, 2009 when then Associate Justice David H. Souter notified the president of his intention to retire from the court when it concludes its current term (p. 4). This led to the appointment of Justice Sotomayor, Sonia M. to replace Souters.

The appointment of the Justices, as Abraham (1994) points out, is provided for in the constitution under Article III which states that the President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court (p. 24). This shows that the decision by the President must be ratified by the Senate for the appointment to take effect.

The Justices once appointed enjoy security of tenure that extends throughout their lives. Such appointments can only be terminated when a judge voluntary steps down, dies in office, or contravenes his terms of engagement. These terms as explicitly stated in the Constitution state that Justices of the Supreme Court hold office during good behaviour (Rutkus et al., 2009, p. 4). This condition, as argued by most authors, (rutkus, Neubaur) implies lifetime appointment. This is because, as Rutkus et al. (2009) points out, only one Justice has ever been impeached (in an episode which occurred in 1804), and he remained in office after being acquitted by the Senate (p. 5).

Current Justices
The nine justices that currently constitute the Supreme Court are named below. A description of their personal lives and their educational background is given to get a better understanding of who they are.
Roberts, John G., Jr.

The 1955 born father of two is the current Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court, n. d.). Roberts serves as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States and the youngest to hold the post since John Marshall who became Chief Justice over two hundred years ago (Longley, n. d.). He was nominated by President George W. Bush on July 19, 2005 to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O Connor (Longley, n. d.).

Roberts was to be later appointed to the position of Chief Justice following the demise of William H. Rehnquist. As in any appointment that involves Justices, Roberts was confirmed by the U.S Senate by a vote of 78-22 on September 2005. Notably, as Longley (n. d.) points out, Roberts received more Senate votes supporting his nomination (78) than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history. Roberts served as a clerk to Rehnquist whom he succeeded (Rosen, 2007). Roberts received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979 (Supreme Court).
Stevens, John Paul

Stevens is the longest serving Justice in the current Supreme Court, having been nominated by President Ford and taking office in December 19, 1975 (Supreme Court, n. d.).

Stevens was born in Chicago, Illinois, April 20, 1920. He is married to Maryan Mulholland, and with whom they have four children - John Joseph (deceased), Elizabeth Jane, Kathryn, and Susan Roberta. He received an A.B. from the University of Chicago, and a J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law. (Supreme Court).He received an A.B. from the University of Chicago, and a J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law (Supreme Court, n. d.).

Notably, upon the demise of the then Chief Justice Rehnquist, he is the one who swore in Roberts to the position (Longley, n. d.). This is probably because of his seniority among the other Justices.
Scalia, Antonin.

He was nominated by President Reagan as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 19601961 (Supreme Court, n. d).

Kennedy, Anthony, M.
He was born in Sacramento, California, July 23, 1936. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988. He received his B.A. from Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School (Supreme Court, n. d.).

Thomas, Clarence
He was born in the Pin Point community of Georgia near Savannah June 23, 1948. President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991. Clarence attended Conception Seminary and received an A.B., cum laude, from Holy Cross College, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974  (Supreme Court, n. d).

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader
She was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993 (Supreme Court, n. d). Until the recent appointment of Sotomayor by President Obama, she served as the only lady justice to the Supreme Court. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School (Supreme Court, n. d).

Breyer, Stephen G.
He was born in San Francisco, California, August 15, 1938. President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994 (Supreme Court, n. d). Breyer received an A.B. from Stanford University, a B.A. from Magdalen College, Oxford, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School (Supreme Court, n. d).

Alito, Samuel A. Jr.
He was born in Trenton, New Jersey, April 1, 1950. President George W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat January 31, 2006 (Supreme Court, n. d). Alito served as a law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 19761977 (Supreme Court, n. d).

Sotomayor, Sonia M.
Born in Bronx, New York, on June 25, 1954, she is the most recent addition to the nine-member team (Supreme Court, n. d). President Barack Obama nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and she assumed this role August 8, 2009 (Supreme Court, n. d).  Sotomayor earned a B.A. in 1976 from Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude and receiving the universitys highest academic honor. In 1979, she earned a J.D. from Yale Law School where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal (Supreme Court, n. d).

What They Do
It would be appropriate to discuss the roles that the Chief Justice plays first, given that he is the leader of the Supreme Court. However, this does not give the Chief Justice a higher ranking to the other associate judges. The Court head is termed as being the primus Inter pares-first among equals (Schwartz, 1997, p. 6). This, as Schwartz observes, follows from the fact that, the Chief Justice cannot impose a decision on the other Justices. Ultimately, the Chief Justice has one vote, just like the other Justices, to contribute in coming up with a decision. Nevertheless, the Chief Justice plays certain critical roles which cannot be undermined.

From the above discussion, the Chief Justice plays the roles performed by all the other Justices. Additionally, where the chief Justice votes with the majority on a certain issue, he has the duty to write the opinion of the court or to delegate this duty to any of the other associate Justices (Longley, n. d.). The Chief Justice administers the oath of office to incoming presidents. The case where Roberts swore in President Obama illustrates this point. Further, the Chief Justice serves as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution, and sits on the boards of the National Gallery of Art and the Hirshorn Museum. He also writes an annual report to Congress about the state of the federal court system (Longley, n. d.). The chief Justice also serves as Judge in cases where the president of the United States faces impeachment (Longley, n. d.).

The position is therefore important since the Chief Justice serves as the head of the judicial branch of the federal government (Longley, n. d.). The Chief Justice also heads the meetings of the Supreme Court. This is critical since he sets the agenda for such meetings, directing the other Justices on the area that they are expected to rule on. As Roberts asserts, (as cited in Rosen, 1997), youre always trying to persuade people, as an advocate. This also holds true for the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court meetings. He has to convince the other six judges to support a certain course of action.

In any organization or team, the integrity and the success of any such organization depends on the leader. Whether true or false the Chief Justice ultimately carries the buck for the success or failure of the Supreme Court. The other justices remain inconspicuous in the whole scenario. For instance, the greatest Chief Justice who ever served in the Supreme Court is reputed to be Marshall, who served as chief justice from 1801 to 1835 (Rosen, 1997, p. 8). Any Chief Justice has the duty to make sure that the integrity of the court is preserved. This entails everything from ensuring that unanimity is achieved in the decisions the court takes to avoiding angry quarrels and exchange of words between the justices (Rosen, 1997). Generally, a situation where an issue is decided by a majority vote of 7-2 would be preferred to the same issue being decided by a slim majority of 5-4. This is what unanimity entails.

The Justices (including the Chief Justices) principle role is to vote and make decisions on the issues that are brought before the court. The issues that are brought before the court on the other hand depend on the Jurisdiction of the court. Generally, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as presented by the constitution extends to

All Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make (Supreme Court, n. d.).

Additionally, the Supreme Court has judicial review powers. This refers to the power of the Supreme Court to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of congress (Corwin, 1999, p. 1). The Supreme Court also prescribes rules of procedure to be followed by the lower courts of the United States (Supreme Court, n. d.).

The main duty of the justices is to deliberate on cases, factoring in the necessary information and come up with individual decision on the matter at hand. The information may be obtained from various sources. Justices have been known to accept briefs from outside actors such as interest groups, the media, public opinion and congress and the executive branch (Samuel, 2004, p. 2). This is especially useful when they have to decide on highly controversial issues or when a lot of information pertaining to the issue is required, some of which may not be available to the Justices.

The Justices operate, as a number of them have said, as nine little law firms (Schwartz, 1997, p. 6). This refers to the unanimous manner through which the Justices make decisions. Each Justice considers the matter at hand and based on his or her own judgment forms an opinion on the issue. The opinion will be expressed before the other Justices in subsequent meetings (Schwartz, 1997). Despite of them being seemingly independent, the nine Justices must work together for the Court to be able to decide a case and, more important, to explain the decision that has been reached (Schwartz, 1997, p. 6).

The role that is played by the Associate Justices can be summarized by use of an analogy. Schwartz (1997) notes that just as the most inspiriting general must have troops to follow his lead, even under a strong Chief Justice, the Associate Justices play a pivotal part (p. 155). Schwartz (1997) asserts that Justices can take up the leadership role that is the Chief Justice usually holds. A Justice can therefore lead the other Justices in attaining consensus on an issue. This is true because at times the decision of the Chief Justice may differ from that of the majority. In such cases, an Associate Justice may take up the role of championing a certain course of action. In such a case, the member is responsible for writing the opinion of the court if the decision is passed. This underlines the assertion that the nine members are in reality, equals.

The importance of the Chief Justice and the associate judges can effectively be summarized by the oath of office that they take. It states that

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Longley n. d.).

The Justices thus play a critical role in ensuring that the Constitution is jealously guarded, and that they dispense justice to all without fear.

The people who are nominated to the position of Justices should therefore possess certain characteristics. Some of these include exceptional education background with outstanding legal qualifications and demonstrated excellence in their careers (Harrington, 2008). This is clearly evident from the professional and educational backgrounds of the current Justices of the Supreme Court (highlighted in this paper). As Harrington points out, the ideals of integrity and impartiality in a nominee are also critical. The potential Justices should also have judicial temperament. This term fundamentally has to do with a character that is unbiased, unbiased, neutral, considerate yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result (Harrington, 2008, p. 13). These qualities are desirable so that the Justices can perform their duties well.

Security Intelligence

The viability of the intelligence community
Several past events have proved that not even the worlds most powerful nation, and only existing superpower, is capable of gathering, analysing, learning from and using security-related information to foresee and forestall terrorist attacks across the world. However, analysis of the operations of the United States intelligence agencies and inter-actions between these agencies reveals that their weaknesses lie not entirely in their inability to gather and analyse intelligence data but in the way these organizations are run. The idea of an intelligence community is not only realistic but also viable.

One of the reasons why the United States intelligence bodies have failed in their duty of foreseeing attacks, advising the administration and pre-empting the attacks if necessary is that the operations of these bodies have been politicised so much so that their freedom is highly compromised. Politicizing their operations puts the intelligence bodies at the mercies of biased politicians and administrators who erode the freedom of the intelligence bodies.

Intelligence agencies in the US have also been unwilling to share information among themselves, thereby making it difficult for the CIA, FBI and the Department of State to work together productively. Although the CIA had information which could have been used to stop the 911 terrorist attacks, it did not share the information with the rest and the end result was the monstrous terrorist strike. Proper relations among these agencies and non-politicization of the same would bring to reality the idea of intelligence community.

Intelligence agencies in policy-making
It is a fact that most of the policians who are responsible for making policy are not competent in security matters. Many are just laymen in security mattersyet the policies they make are expected to govern the operations of security agencies. This has resulted in situations where operations of these most important agencies are affected by the politicians.

Security agencies should take active roles in policy-making processes to minimize chances of politicians okaying policies which are detrimental to the operations of the organizations. Their presence in policy-making discourses makes it possible for their representatives to voice their opinions over security matters, and in the process, educate ignorant politicians.  For instance, policy-makers were responsible for passing the bills which led to the creation of the FBI and the CIA. Possibly due to the ignorance of the policy-makers, the operations of these two agencies were not aligned to encourage interaction between them. This has led to their holding useful information from each other and giving room to potential terrorists to launch deadly attacks on the U.S. soil and outside the United States.

Involving the security agencies in policy-making would have improve chances of developing stronger and more productive security-related policies as security agencies, through their representatives, would bring the expertise and experience, into the policy making process.

Che Guevara

When a vast number of people show their appreciation towards a certain personality, there IS a strong case for that persons genuineness. Not only T-shirts, but T-Shirts depicting a T-Shirt with Guevara are widespread among a generation. There are more than a dozen recognized peopleinstitutions who have written on the historical role of Che Guevara in Latin American socio-political canvas in a more positive manner than what a right wing American media like Fox news want us to believe except that Che sacrificed his privileged confines and lived up to the idea of reducing wide spread disparity between classes to the extent that he had to give up his life in favor of the downtrodden s of Latin America.
Born in Argentina in an upper class family in 1948, Che enjoyed all the finer things of life till his 3rd year in the medical school during which he explored Latin American country initially on a motor cycle and later hitch hiking to ascertain the cultural and social impact of classes especially the lower (Pelovangu, 2010). To sum up his intellectual progress, the word polymath comes up as an apt definition. His strong reading habits covered authors like Keats  Kipling on the genre of poetry, Marx  Faulkner for social systems, Gandhi  Aristotle for philosophy, idealism from Russell  Nietzsche and psychology from Freud (Anderson, 1997). Yet a medical doctor turned revolutionary, his main turning point in life came when Fidel Castro upon appreciating his intellect and unwavering imagination for a better world, took him in his team in revolting against the then Cuban regime supposedly supported by the US imperialistic forces.

Cuban mining industry was at that time under the US control and there was a case for exploiting the local Cuban labor by the corporate juggernauts of the mining industry. Frustrated by this imbalance, Castro with the help of Che was able to marshal his revolutionary team for a change in government and the rest is history. Che is lionized around the world for bringing about semblance of order among the social classes of Cuba in a revolutionary style. With a thunderous welcome at the United Nations, Che, on behalf of the Cuban delegation, delivered a candid speech against the imperialistic designs of the US. Part of the speech included these famous lineThose who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men  how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom(The Che Reader, 2005 p.17). That speech resulted in a beginning of a covert operation against him which later took his life.

Whether its a designer T-Shirt with the famous Guerrillero Heroico on it or a Beer can with the same picture of Che, there are millions upon millions who confirm the legacy of Che. Che was right when he said that I am not thinking of my mortality but on the immortality of the revolution.

Deontological and Teleological Ethical Systems

There are several philosophical systems that have been studied and explained by great philosophers for many centuries, among them epistemology philosophy, logic philosophy and ethics philosophy. The main aim of this paper is to cover the ethics part of philosophy. It will compare and contrast the two main ethical systems and highlight the seven sub ethical systems that fall under the two main ethical systems categories with relevant examples.

Ethical philosophy or moral philosophy is the study of the different principal essentials of the human life. These essentials involve understanding what is right and wrong, good and evil in reference to human life.

Analysis of the issues
There are quite a few sub ethical systems that have been studied, however all these have been placed under two main braches deontological and teleological ethical systems.

Karen (2008), states that deontological ethical system is based on the moral acts on the basis of ones duty or inherent nature (natural nature of human being). The sole purpose of deontological ethical systems is to find an answer behind the occurrence of an action or statement to substantiate why the act or statement occurred. Another principle of deontological ethical system is that as long as the actions are morally right they are free from the positive or negative outcome the actions  statements might cause.

On the contrary, the teleological ethical system, also known as the consequential ethics uses the action taken or statement said to determine how true or false, wrong or right, the action or statement might be (Karen, 2008). The action that one takes is the one that determines whether the action was right or wrong.

It is therefore safe to state that the major difference between these two ethical systems is the way the goodness and wrongness of an action or statement is determined.

As indicated in the paper, there are several sub ethical systems that fall either under deontological or teleological ethical systems and they are ethical formalism, ethics of virtue, utilitarianism, ethics of care, religion, egoism and natural law.

Ethical formalism  The final result is what determines how moral an action or statement was. The purpose and intention of a persons action or statement is what forms the basis of ethical formalism. For example in case of an emergency, a doctor may unknowingly give a wrong prescription to a patient in an effort to save his  her life. However the patient dies because he  she was allergic to the life saving prescription administered to him  her. Even though the intention of the doctor was to save a patients life, the outcome was the unexpected (Karen 2008). This falls under deontological ethical system.

Ethics of virtue Ethics of virtue address the question of what is a good person and not what is a good action (Pollock 2010). This is because for an action to be positive, the person who does the action must be righteous too. Case in point the actions of a righteous religious leader are always good and vice versa. Virtues of ethics can be classified under the teleological ethical system.

Utilitarianism According to Pollock (2010), the consequence of an action determines whether the action is good or bad. She further states that human beings always strive to have total happiness and minimize pain and suffering. However, this system has had many critics because of its approach to life. For instance, one may steal food to feed oneself because they are hungry broke and have no other means to obtain food. Is it bad or good This falls under the teleological ethical system.

Ethics of care Ethics of care, which is teleological, advocates for good to all people in order to satisfy their desires no matter their status in the society. It doesnt choose between a bad person and a good person. It is mostly applied by the soft and kind hearted members of the society such as women. Illustration A patient suffers from terminal illness, the nurse knows the patient will die soon but still cares for the patient whole heartedly until the last minute.

Religion Religion and ethics are closely intertwined, however Jenkins (2003) has observed that doing that which is immoral is not as a result of Gods will but rather not using common knowledge and lack of conscience. For instance, being sent to jail for shop lifting is not Gods will but it is as a result of one failing to know that shoplifting is a criminal offence and against the law. Religion is ones believe and faith and incase one does something immoral, he  she should not blame religion and God for it. Religion can be categorized under the deontological ethical system.

Egoism As a teleological theory, this ethic mainly focuses on the self-centeredness of the human nature (Pollock 2008). In addition, there are three different types of egoism ethical, minimalist and psychological all of which play different roles in the ethical systems. For example, an individual may use crude means to get promotion or make someone lose hisher job in an organization for the sake of self gain.

Natural law A natural law as part of the ethical system only applies to natural crime. Natural crimes on the other hand are crimes which are not illegal as per the constitution of a nation but they are considered morally wrong by the society (Karen 2008). A good example is gambling.

The deontological ethical system is the system that matches my beliefs and way of life. This is because most decisions that I make in life are based on my instincts and not whether they are good or bad. The final outcome is what will make me know if the decision I made was the correct one or not.

Beccaria, Lombroso, and Durkheims views on criminality

Lombroso, Durkheim and Beccaria have arranged for a meeting to discuss some of the challenges they face as a society. They have a concern for their livelihood. As old men they are blessed with wisdom, despite this fact, each of them is entitled to his own opinion which may be synchronous or antagonistic with the other points of view. Tolerance and mutual respect are bound to be the foundations of their discussion. As people who have done a considerable amount of work on crime as a challenge to the society, they are bound to concentrate on this subject matter. This is more so because the meeting has been arranged at a time when crime rates and violent robberies are on the rise. The venue is quiet and pleasant.

Lombroso The day has finally come. I feel greatly privileged that you have honoured this invitation.
Durkheim The pleasure is all ours, Lombroso We should thank you for the great concern you have portrayed to our society and the effort you have put to ensure that this meeting is well arranged.
Beccaria Basically, we find that our great interest in criminology and other aspects of life pulls us together. I am greatly humble to be with great people like you. Every time I am near you people, I open my mind because I believe that there is a lot to be learnt. As I have always done, I insist on respecting everyones opinion in a bid to finding a compromise. Our points of view may differ but that should not to be taken to mean that there is something personal. Let us engage in this discussion with open minds and sincerity.

(The three men take their seats and coffee is served).
Lombroso Your wisdom always manifest itself Beccaria. You have spoken well. Human beings are different in nature. We are social beings with different opinions and preferences. To live together as a society, we ought to exercise a great deal of tolerance. main reason for organizing this meeting is because of the worrying trends which I have witnessed in our society in recent times. I have been personally disturbed by the rise in crime. The mass media is constantly highlighting some of these incidents. Only the other day two men who are believed to be under the age of eighteen were caught in the process of stealing from a shop late at night. I wondered the virtues that we have inculcated into our children.

Durkheim We share the same sentiments my friend. I read the news in the press. What puzzled me most was the audacity the teenagers had to go out in the middle of the night to vandalize someones premises. It was also reported that they must have done this act severally and were on the course to becoming tough criminals.

Beccaria As the men of this generation who have skewed our interest towards criminology, it is our utmost duty to try to figure out the root cause of our problems in a bid to finding a long lasting solution.

Lombroso I think it would be better to use my theory in explaining what I believe. I have witnessed and heard many cases of crime. I felt that, while the natures of the crimes may be different, criminals fitted into three main categories. These groups are the Insane criminals, Criminaloid as well as Atavist. I felt that an Atavist may be the definition of a criminal who can transform his personality to resemble the ferocious instinct which characterized primitive humanity or inferior animals. I compared the similarities in the anatomies of apes savages as well as criminals. Their bone structures are very similar in appearance. The do not portray sensibility to pain, the have very acute sight, they are excessively idle, they tattoo, love orgies and sometimes experience a strong desire to engage in evil practices. They are not only capable of killing their victims but go ahead to mutilate its body (Lombroso, 2006). We now realize that many juveniles have been possessed with unsocial practices ranging from devil worshipping to armed robberies. Such behaviours point out to an atavist in the making. Appearance of an ape may be strongly linked to inborn criminalism. There is a possibility that some criminals may not resemble one in their appearance, some may not be able to portray some of the anatomical traits I mentioned. I have not been able to see the criminals personally and thus may not be able to judge them from their appearances but I bet if you see them you ought to look at them keenly to ascertain the basics of my theory. I feel that every individual is guided by silent laws which are always in continuous operation. These laws are more authoritative in ruling the society and surpass those which are written to govern the society. Crime may just be considered to be a natural phenomenon (Lombroso, 2006)
Beccaria You have spoken well Lombroso. Your theory has some foundations. I beg to differ with some of the aspects of a criminal you have talked about. Personally, I do not believe in inborn criminality. Engaging in crime stems from an individuals free will. I feel that human behaviour can be explained in two foundational characteristics. Rationality as well as intelligence is the foundations of a persons behaviour. Every individual can perceive himself and is bound to act in a manner that serves his interest. Every individual has the freedom as well as the right to decide what they feel is good, at least to them (Beccaria, 1963). Everybody is able to determine the course of their fate. Education or training may be necessary but individuals are driven by free will rather than spiritual phenomena (Vold G.B. et al, 2002). An individual is bound to act in a way which is bound to offer him greatest benefit at the least cost. Probably the criminals in this context felt that vandalism would best serve their interests. The society responded to their actions in a different manner, by increasing the cost associated with crime and minimizing the benefits. This is meant to deter people from engaging in crime (Vold G.B. et al, 2002).

Lombroso I strongly disagree with the concept of free will in all criminals. Some criminals engage in crime because they are possessed with drive to commit crime. Atavists are born criminals. There is nothing they can do to avoid engaging in crime. The do not have any remorse after engaging in heinous acts. I feel that it is quite normal for inferior people to engage in crime. The teenagers must have been fulfilling their atavistic desires. They are different from other members in the society. If their bodies are tattooed, then they must be outwardly exposing how they are insensitive to pain and love adornment (Lombroso, 2006).

Durkheim Do not be so assertive Lombroso. You cannot just general criminality to inferior people. Social facts are what I feel can best explain criminality. Social facts are normal with respect to social types in the course of its phase development (Durkheim, 1895). Crime does not necessarily exist in most societies or in some particular societies but it is evident in all societies. In the course of the advancement of labour divisions, two categories can be identified. They are the organic and the mechanical societies. Mechanical societies are relatively primitive. Such societies were self-sufficient, they isolated themselves from other societies and every individual within such societies was deemed to be equal to the others. They lived in similar conditions and any duty could be done by any member of the society. Organic societies are relatively more advanced and complex. Members of such societies have advanced in their skills that they carry out only particular types of duties. Crime is considered normal in mechanical societies. In every society an individual must differ to some extent from the group (Durkheim, 1895). Even a society which is constituted by saints, a people of perfect doings. Crime will not be witnessed their. However, faults which characterize ordinary people will still be present and liked to the ordinary crime (Durkheim, 1895). In such a context, behaviours which are ordinarily considered criminal will not be present but other new forms of behaviours will take their place and produce the same effects crime is causing now. Labour division in organic societies are bound to lead to confusions as far as social norms are concerned. This is bound to lead to anomies.
Lombroso Can anomie be equated to society disorder

Beccaria Probably, yes.
Durkheim I agree with both of you. Changes in the society are not usually well accommodated by people. People have feelings that cannot be satisfied. Insatiability can be deemed as an abnormality. People have the desires of achieving everything they want. When they are not able to do or get what they want, they are bound to be unhappy as they try to find other alternatives. The society plays the role of regulating an individuals appetite. In cases when there are tough economic times and people are forced to limit their budgets and live within limited means, some individuals are likely to commit suicide. This is probably due to the changes which have taken place and they cannot cope with them. Anomies can also occur when there is a drastic increase in wealth that an individual is not able to cope with the new changes. When an individual becomes very rich within a short duration, he will experience an increase in the desire to even become richer and possibly become exigent (Durkheim, 1897). These teenagers are probably not able to adjust to the modernization in the current world. They are depressed and find vandalism as the most appropriate means of expressing their frustrations.
Beccaria We have to focus on the most appropriate punishment. The law is defended through punishment. Laws in mechanical societies are more or less oppressive. Punishment is mandatory for criminals. Punishment is regarded as a compensation for abandoning consciousness. Laws in organic societies are meant for restitution. They main aim is to ensure that the normal working condition is regained and not necessarily to punish (Beccaria, 1963). The teenagers in this context need to be punished, though justice should prevail. Legislature is supposed to define the different possible crimes and the punishments they are likely to attract. Judges are only required to ascertain whether a suspect is guilty or not. The intention should not be taken into consideration instead, the seriousness of an offence should be decided by the extent of harm. The teenagers should not be imprisoned for life or executed. Offenders should be punished quickly to make it more vivid. We need to focus on crime prevention than punishment (Vold G.B. et al, 2002).

Lombroso Punishment should lead to a decrease in ferocity and an increase in social safety. They should be quarantined in some intermediate institutions where they can access treatment. The source of criminal behaviour also needs to be taken into consideration. This can prevent the financial cost associated with detention (Lombroso, 2006).

Durkheim Morality remains a very important aspect in maintaining societal integration. Only a moderate level of punishment is required to change an individual to social ways (Vold G. B. et al., 2002). Crime can be equated to a disease whose treatment is punishment.

Beccaria I agree with you. Our discussion may not have been necessarily conclusive but I think it has moved us one step towards dealing with crime within the society.

Lombroso I feel that I have greatly benefited from this discussion. You can also go and reflect on this matter again and probably there may be some changes in view when we next meet. Thank you once again.

(They all stand up and walk towards the exit).

Arguments in Crime and Punishment

This paper aims to provide valuable insights on various philosophies concerning crime and punishment. In order explore some of the major themes of crime, the differing philosophies of scholars, particularly Emile Durkheim, Cesare Lombroso and Cesare Beccaria, are given to shed  wisdom on how  the different arguments of scholars are able to shape the way people perceive crime and punishment at present.

Crime and Punishment
Argument I The Definition of Crime
According to Lombroso, crime is the legacy of the primitive humans which represent the ferocious type of animal. He adds that facial asymmetry, impulsiveness, cerebral sclerosis, instantaneousness, the periodicity of criminal acts, and the strong desire for the evil are all morbid characteristics common to animals and men as explained through anthropological research (Lombroso 1911).

However, Durkheim insists that Lombrosos definition of crime missed some important points such as the sociological factors. Durkheim claims that the society and its perspective of crime is what shapes man and his criminal instincts. He acknowledges that crime is an integral part of all healthy societies (as cited in Jacoby, p. 85, 1994).

Beccaria questions the optimistic view of Durkheim by saying that crime is caused by the despotic spirit of man and therefore,  crime is destructive occurrence  that needs to be eliminated (as cited in Jacoby, p. 278, 1994).  Beccaria claims that crime is the mechanism of men to plunge deep into the law, violate sovereignty and put liberty at risk and that the despotic spirit of man is evident since the ancient war up to the present warfare.

Durkheim counters Beccarias perspective by saying that crime is bound up with the fundamental conditions of all social life (as cited in Jacoby, p. 87, 1994). Durkheim says that crime is needed  because it is an indispensable tool for the normal evolution of morality and law (as cited in Jacoby, p. 87, 1994).

Lombroso disagrees with Durkheim at this point. For him, crime signifies the varying characteristics of men and with this characterization comes the edifice of criminal anthropology that studies the different kinds of criminals from the born offenders to the insane (Lombroso 1911). Lombroso adds that crime symbolizes the changes or the evolution in criminal minds and not the evolution of morality.
Argument II  Crime and the Human Heart

Beccaria declares that an individual should seek from the human heart what is upright and what is wrong because it is in the human heart that people can find valid reasons behind the right of the sovereign society to inflict punishment (as cited in Jacoby, p. 277, 1994). Beccaria views the human heart as having the indelible capacity to distinguish what is right what is wrong.

However, Beccarias notion on the human heart is opposed by Durkheim who stresses that crime is normal and a social fact. Durkheim says that each person in the society has the capacity to commit crime because he or she conforms with the ongoing trend in the collective society. With this capacity, Durkheim reflects that you cannot entrust the discernment of what is right or wrong into the human heart because it is subjected to the dictate of society.
Relative to Durkheims argument, Lombroso claims that humans have possessed the oppressive features of animals which make them capable of being violent (Lombroso 1911). This translates to the fact that anguish and despair naturally thrives in the human heart. Beccaria disagrees with both Durkheim and Lombroso by explaining the prevalence of the laws, grounded on the human heart,  that seek to investigate the right and wrong and impose punishments on those who did evil deeds.

According to Beccaria, it is a fact that laws are established by independent and isolated men who want to enjoy peace, safety and liberty and that laws are based from the inner musing of the heart that has the capacity to offer valuable points to distinguish between what is acceptable and what is intolerable. Lombroso opposes the perspective of Beccaria by emphasizing that the human heart is subject to the impact of its social and physical environments.

Lombroso says that the violent instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals thrive in the human heart ( Lombroso 1911). He adds that the physical, anthropological and  hereditary details explain that lawbreakers are a throwbacks to a more primitive phase in the evolution of humans. Thus, humans are born criminals and they cannot draw way from their biological destiny (Lombroso 1911).

But Beccaria is quick to point out that people have grown weary since the advent of war and that they have been deeply bothered with the uncertainties concerning their liberty. Beccaria says that it is in this period of uncertainty that man has considered their safety as a sacred thing (as cited in Jacoby, p. 278, 1994). He rejects Lombrosos notion by declaring that  primitive people do not mull over their safety.
Argument III Crime and Punishment

According to Durkheim, the transformations in the history of crime and punishment from the ancient barbaric times up to the presents a decrease in the pursuit of death penalty.   He says that such decrease in the pursuit of death penalty is due to the distinct changes in the character of the crime caused by social unity and conscience. Durkheims concept of  conscience is negated by Lombroso.

Lombroso claims that men, particularly those atavistic criminals, do not seem to possess any solidarity and conscience over the issue of crime. He explains that the useless prodigality of torments and torture has never made men better implying that present laws do not need to consider death penalty (as cited in Jacoby, p. 278, 1994).

Beccaria rejects the thinking of Lombroso concerning crime by declaring that the society deeply needs punishments because the sovereign people needs to secure their liberty which is a  very  sacred thing for them ( as cited in Jacoby, p. 278, 1994).

But Lombroso maintains the concept that punishments should show a decrease in infamy and ferocity which are in proportionate to the increase in length and social safety (Lombroso 1911). Opposing Lombroso, Durkheim addresses the fact that for criminals to disappear, the horror of bloodshed must become greater in those social groups which murderers are recruited due to the collective acceptable trend in the society (as cited in Jacoby, p. 85, 1994).

Beccaria does not accept Durkheims idea of greater bloodshed . According to Beccaria, the impression of punishment should be frequent and long and that legislators should focus on the idea of prolonged torture because it has more effects than the conception of death penalty for both the spectators and the sufferers (as cited in Jacoby, p. 278, 1994).

Lombroso does not agree with the Enlightenment principles of Beccaria.

Lombroso insists that punishments should be tailored to individual criminals rather than to the crimes they allegedly committed but this is not to say that society should not impose punishments on those criminals who acted out of compulsion from their innate and physical and psychological degeneracy (as cited in Becker  Wetzell, p. 147, 2006). He claims  that  the sovereign society still has the discretion to punish violators to prevent crime from inflicting more damages to the society.

Durkheim says that the ideas of Beccaria and Lombroso are in contrast with his  musing on the issue at hand. According to Durkheim, the purpose of punishment is neither deterrence, rehabilitation of the offender, nor the administration of the sufferers just deserts.  Durkheim emphasizes that punishment aims to strengthen social solidarity using the reaffirmation of moral commitment among the conforming social group who see the suffering and expiation of the offender. Durkheim claims that the sole purpose of punishment is to keep the collective society united through social defense of its common conscience.

But Beccaria is  not satisfied with the idea of Durkheim. Beccaria stresses that the point here  is for the common good and the protection of the society as a whole. Beccaria maintains his stance that social order will be greatly promoted through the mathematical scale of crimes as the mode of determining the right punishment to be used.

In addition, Beccaria says that legislators should mark the principal points of division without disturbing the order and should not assign to crimes of the first grade the punishments of the last (as cited in Jacoby, p. 284, 1994).

However, Lombroso claims that Beccarias mathematical scale of crimes and punishments are too abstract and because both the eventual and born criminals might steal or even murder, the scale  is  not applicable at all times (as cited in Becker  Wetzell, p.148, 2006). Lombroso says that legislators should allow judges to assess the level of dangerousness in the defendants themselves as a basis for the issuance of the appropriate sentence.

Durkheim neglects Lombroso and Beccarias conception by stating that crime is universal. Durkheim emphasizes that there is no such a thing as levels or degrees when it comes to crimes and its punishments because crime is the universal feature of all societies. Durkheim  focuses more on the universality of crime and the concept that punishment is designed to act upon upright people because punishment serves to heal all wounds in the collective sentiments.

Lombroso is never satisfied with the functionalist view of Durkheim. According to Lombroso, the society needs to have no pity for the criminals because they are constituted  for evil and do not appear like normal people. Lombroso claims that criminals  are like ferocious beasts engaging into immense slaughter. Durkheim counters Lombrosos statement by stating that offenders no longer seems to be a totally unsociable being, a sort of parasitic element, a strange body introduced into the society because they are a part of the society (as cited in Jacoby, p. 87, 1994).

But Lombroso argues that  such statement is suggestive of Durkheims mildness to offenders. Lombroso insists that offenders are the people who harm the society and therefore, they deserve to be treated as criminals.

Lombroso says that the main point here is that death sentence is to be imposed on the born criminals who have committed serial crimes or to members of organised groups such as mafiosi and brigands and, perpetual incarceration is to be imposed on criminals who committed less heinous crimes (as cited in Becker  Wetzell, p.148, 2006).

Contrasting the views of Lombroso, Beccaria  is firm at saying that death penalty is not to be imposed to the born offenders who have committed a series of crimes for reasons concerning the state. Beccaria reiterates that even though he has established a mathematical measurement of crimes and their corresponding punishments from the highest to the lowest, death penalty is only needed if the offender can still harm the security of the nation and if law and order are losing its authority and power (as cited in Jacoby, p. 280, 1994).

Durkheim opposes Beccarias concept on death sentence and on the implementation of punishment depending on the weight of the crime and the state of the nation. According to Durkheim, the society moves from more to less penal rules, meaning, the legislators tend to impose milder punishments as the society goes through social advancement.

Durkheim says such concept because there seems to be a growth of sympathy among the legislators who have now learned to distinguish between barbaric and just punishments. The idea of sympathy among the legislators is strongly opposed by Lombroso who emphasizes that Durkheims idea is grounded on religious principles. Lombroso strongly claims that he does not dwell on the religious implication behind the evolution in the punishments. Lombroso stresses that the sociological and psychological background which manifest in the criminality of men are the sole indicators of the right punishment to be imposed (Lombroso 1911).

But Beccaria does not accept such notions by the two philosophers. Beccaria says that the regardless of the kind of punishment imposed, it should be essentially public, timely, needed, the least possible in the given circumstances, and must be proportionate to the crimes dictated by law (as cited in Jacoby, p. 284, 1994).

Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas

It is generally acceptable for anyone to assert that light actually scares away or deter potential offenders from committing a crime because of the fear of being recognized either by the security agents or the residents. Lighting makes a place safer by keeping the potential criminals at bay. This is mainly due to informal surveillance by the residents who always walk on the streets as well as spend on their front yards as a result of improved lighting at night. Generally, light enhances visibility thereby exposing things that would lead to crime when undetected (Richards, 2009).

The project on improving street lights was four year project initiated in 1992 and concluded in 1995 after achieving its main objectives.

The mission of this program was to improve lighting in the residential areas by installing street lights as well as replacing the dilapidated ones on every street in the city in an attempt to reduce crime rate in the areas.

The main goal of the program was to reduce crime rate in the residential areas by reducing opportunity and increasing risk through modification of the physical environment.

This program stipulated how police use the street lights under the help of the community to reduce the harm resulting from specific crime by preventing occurrence of such crime as well as quickly but swiftly responding to the overall incidents. This was addressed under community policing
Improvement of street lighting included removing growth from existing lighting poles, repairing of the broken bulbs as well as installing additional light poles and sodium lights. The regular checking and reports on the condition of the burner were left for the assigned residents. This also enhanced community participation in the project.

Street lighting reduces fear among the residents reduce crime rate as well as disorders. It is a positive and important measure in trying to improve the public safety compared to other measures which have proven to be more controversial. Uniform lighting in the streets create a feeling of security and to too much light or dark shadows should be avoided (Clerk, 2008).

As a result of street lighting, the offenders have been forced to indulge in new methods of committing crime. Their activities changes to other time of the day since because they try to evade the newly installed lights due to fear. These offenders may however get confused as the effects of the street lights diffuse into the neighborhoods. This is therefore one of the successes of this program.
Evaluation of effectiveness of street lighting in crime reduction is a bit complicated. This is because it must consider the effects of improved lighting on reduction of crime rate during daylight as well as in the darkness.

The effectiveness of this program was imminent in the remarkable reduction in crime related activities. For instance, by the end of four years, the robbery reduced by about seventy four percent  assaults were reduced to seventy five percent as well as reduction of calls for service by sixty five percent.

The program has been effective as aforementioned. However, there are important aspects that the program ought to have considered. First, street lighting neither encompasses technical details on how to handle specific crimes nor provide an investigative component in crime management. This needs to be incorporated through merging of street lights with closed circuit television (CCTV) to enhance surveillance of the streets.