Why Do People in the U.S. Always Have a Problem With Law Enforcement?
The relationship between law enforcement and citizens has been complex and fraught in the United States. The public’s trust in law enforcement has been damaged by a lengthy history of police violence, discrimination, and corruption, even though police personnel is tasked with protecting and serving their communities. Police have brought issues of police violence and discrimination to the very front of public talk following high-profile killings of unarmed individuals of color as of late, including those of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Daunte Wright. An unfavorable public opinion of law enforcement has been exacerbated by incidents involving police corruption and abuses of power. These problems have persisted for a long time, and in many cases, they may be traced back to structural racism and a lack of responsibility. The U.S. has a long history of police brutality, discrimination, and corruption, which has eroded public trust in law enforcement.
Police brutality refers to using excessive or unnecessary force by law enforcement officers when dealing with civilians. According to Duchess’s book, unarmed citizens being shot by police, fatal chokeholds, beatings, and sexual assault by police are all examples of police brutality in the United States. For example, an unarmed individual, George Floyd, was stifled to death by a Minneapolis cop who stooped on his neck for over nine minutes (Duchess). This is one of the most notorious instances of police brutality as of late. Moreover, in another case protests occurred all around the country after videos surfaced of the shootings of Eric Garner in New York and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Police brutality is a systematic problem in the United States, as the available evidence shows. Black men are more likely to be killed by police than white men (McFarland et al. 585-600).
On the other hand, in “Black Lives Matter: Police Brutality in the Era of COVID-19,” Tyra Jean claims that structural racism among police departments is to blame for their violence (Tyra). She examines how police associations have battled against changes and how a culture of mystery among cops has kept many instances of bad behavior from being uncovered. The findings suggest that police brutality is widespread and disproportionately affects communities of color in the United States (Tyra). Systemic reforms targeting institutional racism within law enforcement and increased accountability for police officers who use excessive force are needed to solve this problem.
Law enforcement discrimination in the United States has been an ongoing problem, especially for members of racial and ethnic minorities. Racial profiling, the surveillance and harassment of communities of color, and the unequal application of laws and policies are all historical examples of discrimination by law enforcement. In addition, there have been various ongoing occurrences of discrimination by policing, such as the killings of unarmed individuals of color and others of variety by cops. Members of minority groups are disproportionately targeted by police brutality and bias. For instance, the racial disparity in police stops, searches, and arrests persists even after adjusting for characteristics like crime rates and neighborhood demographics, as shown in research by Renauer (219-240).
In their article “Trauma and U.S. Minority Children and Youth,” Andres J. Pumariega and coauthors make the case that minority children and youth in the United States are disproportionately affected by police violence and discrimination, negatively affecting their mental health and well-being (Andres 285-295). They call attention to the fact that children from minority populations are exposed to trauma from police brutality, which can prompt long-term mental and actual medical conditions which reveals that bias towards minorities in law enforcement is a severe problem in the United States. More accountability for officers who engage in discriminatory behaviors is needed, and systemic reforms are required to combat institutional racism within law enforcement agencies. Systemic racism in society must also be confronted as part of this.
In the United States, police corruption is a significant issue threatening the public’s faith in law enforcement. Bribery, stealing, abusing one’s position of authority, or resorting to extreme force for gain are all examples of corruption. Law enforcement corruption has extreme ramifications for society, including lessened public certainty for policing powerlessness to battle wrongdoing. A large body of evidence demonstrates the pervasiveness and results of police corruption in the United States. According to David Jancsics’s “Corruption as Resource Transfer: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis,” corruption is best understood as transferring resources from one party to another. Police corruption occurs when officers abuse their position of trust by demanding or accepting bribes or other forms of payment in exchange for favors or protection (Bryant‐Davis 852-871). Especially in low-income or minority neighborhoods, where corruption is more common and can exacerbate existing disparities; this can have a major influence on the community they serve. In the United States, police corruption is a major issue that damages public confidence in law enforcement and hinders its ability to do its job. Transparency and responsibility inside policing, as well as expanded oversight and guideline of police activity are important changes to take care of this issue. The fundamental causes of corruption, such as economic hardship, social disparity, and inadequate funding for law enforcement, must also be addressed.
Problems with police brutality, bias, and corruption contribute to a larger structural issue in the justice system. Minority communities are disproportionately affected by police brutality and face heightened risks of discrimination at the hands of the police. Corrupt police officers may make matters worse by abusing their positions of trust and authority to steal from their communities. Officials who utilize unreasonable power, victimize minorities, or are bad frequently slip through the cracks for their activities. This perpetuates and even encourages a culture of impunity inside law enforcement organizations. Ouellet research has revealed that police officers implicated in excessive use of force or other misbehavior routinely continue working without repercussions (Ouellet et al. 675-704). If other police officers see these actions tolerated, they may feel emboldened to follow suit. This unaccountability is exacerbated by the federal government’s failure to oversee and regulate law enforcement entities adequately.
Poverty, inequality, and systemic racism contribute to maintaining problems like police brutality, prejudice, and corruption. Particularly in currently minority populations, police staff might be more disposed to participate in troublemaking or utilize extreme power due to these elements. Addressing these systemic issues will require significant reforms within law enforcement institutions and broader societal changes. Some examples of this would be making law enforcement institutions more answerable to the public, instituting stricter regulations to curb corruption and wrongdoing, and working to alleviate root causes like poverty and inequality. It will also take an effort to eliminate bigotry and racism from the criminal justice system and society.
While it is true that not all police officers are bad, it is essential to acknowledge that police brutality and discrimination are not isolated incidents perpetrated by a few unethical individuals. Occasions of police ruthlessness or discrimination are incidents that ought not to be utilized to portray policing. Notwithstanding, proof shows that these issues are endemic and influence individuals everywhere in the U.S. Police brutality against racial and ethnic minorities, according to the research of Bryant-Davis et al. (2017), has been linked to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Aside from ignoring the larger context of systemic racism and inequality in the United States, the concept that police violence and prejudice are isolated events is false. Poverty, inadequate healthcare and education, and prevalent discrimination have all been demonstrated to affect minority populations disproportionately. Especially in already marginalized and disenfranchised areas, these variables can create a setting in which police officers may be more prone to engage in misbehavior or use excessive force.
Not all police officers face the consequences for their wrongdoing or excessive use of force, which is something to keep in mind. This absence of obligation can add to the continuous idea of these issues and cause distrust among police and the individuals they are committed to safeguarding. Perceiving the endeavors of police officers to regard the law and protect their communities is fundamental, yet so is distinguishing the underlying issues within law enforcement that enable brutality and bias. Reforms and addressing the root causes of systemic racism and inequality are needed to solve these problems. A more fair and just police force in the United States is possible only via such concerted efforts.
Calls for Reform
In recent years, activists, lawmakers, and public members have brought attention to the problem of police brutality, discrimination, and corruption in the United States, calling for reform in response (Baker 773-800). The recommendations here attempt to make policing more fair and just by addressing systemic problems inside law enforcement agencies. One recommendation is to reinforce checking and responsibility for police departments. This includes the foundation of public data sets to screen police unfortunate behavior and laying out autonomous audit bodies to investigate grievances of bad behavior. Another proposed solution is to address the issue of qualified immunity, which can make it difficult for individuals to sue law enforcement officers for civil rights violations. More accountability for police who use excessive force or engage in wrongdoing would result from changes to qualified immunity. The greater problem of systemic racism and inequality in the United States is the focus of several ideas. This involves funding mental health treatments, low-cost housing, and accessible educational opportunities for underserved populations. Advocates say that a more equitable society can be laid out by settling the fundamental issues that lead to inequality and disappointment. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that these reforms can have a positive impact on communities and law enforcement agencies. Independent review boards have also been found to improve police accountability and openness to the public. There is still a long way to go until the United States has a policing system that is equal for all, but the calls for reform are an essential step in the right direction. The world can move closer to a future in which the justice system treats everyone fairly and equally if everyone keeps pushing for reform and holding law enforcement authorities accountable.
Public perception of law enforcement in the United States is complex. While many people have a favorable impression of police and appreciate their efforts to keep communities safe, others view law enforcement skeptically. The media’s portrayal of law enforcement can either increase or diminish public confidence in the system, contributing to the disparity between the two extremes. Those who have had positive interactions with law enforcement are more likely to have a favorable impression of the police, whereas those who have had negative interactions may view all law enforcement skeptically. The new public spotlight on police mercilessness and predisposition has prompted a thorough assessment of the police force and its strategies and systems. Because of these investigations, explicit policing has modified its techniques to recover the public’s trust. Media portrayals, individual experiences, and national discussions on police violence and prejudice all shape public opinion about law enforcement in the United States.
The negative public perception of law enforcement has significant implications for society. In particular, communities with a history of discrimination and brutality at the hands of law enforcement will see their trust in law enforcement erode. People are less inclined to report crimes, talk to the police, or help with investigations if they do not trust them. The capacity of policing to explore violations and guarantee resistance from general society could undermine the public’s well-being. Furthermore, for underprivileged communities, having a wrong impression of law enforcement can harm their psychological health and well-being (Richards et al. 352-359). Long-term psychological damage, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety, can result from the dread and anguish of police aggression and discrimination. The social compact between residents and the state might fall if there is a lack of trust and poor impressions about law enforcement. Individuals are less willing to comply with regulations and normal practices when they view policing as an involving force instead of public help. The result can be a breakdown in the social order, a rise in criminal activity, and a weakening of communal bonds.
For public security and social harmony, trust between police and communities must be restored. This requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of police brutality, discrimination, and corruption. It also necessitates the active participation of law enforcement in community outreach, concern listening, and reform initiatives. Changes like greater local area management can reestablish trust in police enforcement, utilizing body cameras, improved preparation in de-acceleration strategies, and stricter responsibility for official bad behavior. It is also essential for the media to play a responsible role in shaping public perceptions of law enforcement. Both accurate and impartial reporting can help debunk preconceptions about law enforcement and ensure officers are held accountable for their actions. The media can aid in restoring confidence between law enforcement and communities by advocating for openness and accountability.
In conclusion, the history of police brutality, discrimination, and corruption in the United States has contributed to a negative public perception of law enforcement. While not every police officer has evil intentions, it is undeniable that structural problems within law enforcement have harmed vulnerable populations. A few changes have been proposed to manage these issues, including more outstanding obligation and oversight, local area policing strategies, and taking out the basic reasons for wrongdoing. However, it is essential to recognize that effectively implementing these solutions will require time and effort. Restoring public confidence in law enforcement is critical to the long-term viability of reform initiatives. The ultimate objective should be establishing a police force that protects all citizens equally, regardless of their background or socioeconomic standing.
Baker, Carrie N. “Racialized rescue narratives in public discourses on youth prostitution and sex trafficking in the United States.” Politics & Gender 15.4 (2019): 773-800.
Bryant‐Davis, Thema, et al. “The trauma lens of police violence against racial and ethnic minorities.” Journal of Social Issues 73.4 (2017): 852-871.
Duchess Harris, J. D., and Tammy Gagne. Justice for George Floyd. ABDO, 2020.
Jean, Tyra. “Black lives matter police brutality in the era of COVID-19.” (2020).
McFarland, Michael J., et al. “Perceived unfair treatment by police, race, and telomere length: a Nashville community-based sample of black and white men.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 59.4 (2018): 585-600.
Ouellet, Marie, et al. “Network exposure and excessive use of force: Investigating the social transmission of police misconduct.” Criminology & Public Policy 18.3 (2019): 675-704.
Pumariega, Andres J., et al. “Trauma and U.S. minority children and youth.” Current Psychiatry Reports 24.4 (2022): 285-295.
Renauer, Brian C. “Neighborhood variation in police stops and searches: A test of consensus and conflict perspectives.” Police Quarterly 15.3 (2012): 219-240.
Richards, Nicole K., Eliana B. Suarez, and Jose F. Arocha. “Law enforcement officers’ barriers to seeking mental health services: a scoping review.” Journal of Police and criminal psychology 36.3 (2021): 351-359.
Legalization of Marijuana
In recent years, there has been a growing movement to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. Proponents of legalization argue that marijuana has numerous benefits, including its ability to reduce pain, anxiety, and depression and its potential as an alternative to traditional medicine. Furthermore, proponents argue that marijuana is less harmful than other substances, such as alcohol and tobacco, and that its legalization would reduce the harm caused by black market drug trafficking and drug-related crime. On the other hand, opponents of legalization argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug that can lead to addiction, impaired cognitive functioning, and a range of other negative health effects. However, despite these claims, a growing body of evidence suggests that the harms associated with marijuana use are greatly exaggerated and that its benefits as medicine are underutilized. In light of these arguments, it is vital to provide a clear definition of marijuana and argue for its legalization based on its benefits to individuals, communities, and society and the lack of evidence for its harmful effects.
Marijuana, also known as cannabis, is a plant that contains over 100 chemical compounds, the most well-known being delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). THC is the chemical responsible for the plant’s psychoactive effects, which include increased heart rate, altered perception of time and space, and altered mood. In addition to its psychoactive effects, marijuana has been found to have numerous medical benefits. Research has shown that marijuana can help to reduce chronic pain, nausea, and vomiting caused by certain medical conditions, such as cancer and AIDS (NIDA). Additionally, it is an effective treatment for certain mental health conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety.
One of the main arguments in favor of legalizing marijuana is its potential medical benefits. Research has shown that marijuana can treat various medical conditions, including chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, and epilepsy. By legalizing marijuana, patients would have access to a safe and effective treatment currently unavailable. Marijuana has been used for centuries as a natural medicine, but it was not until recently that the medical community began to look closely at its potential benefits (Pacula et al.). The active ingredient in marijuana, known as THC, has been shown to have anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-seizure properties. It has made it an attractive option for those suffering from chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, and epilepsy (Dills et al. 8). One of the key benefits of using marijuana for medical purposes is its low toxicity. Unlike many prescription medications, it is very difficult to overdose on marijuana and much less likely to cause serious side effects. It is especially important for those who have chronic conditions that require long-term treatment.
Secondly, legalizing marijuana can help to generate significant tax revenue for the government. By regulating and taxing the sale of marijuana, the government could generate significant revenue that could be used to fund important public services and programs. In states where marijuana is already legal, the tax revenue generated from the sale of marijuana has been used to fund important initiatives such as substance abuse education and rehabilitation programs, mental health services, and affordable housing programs (Dills et al. 10). These initiatives have had a positive impact on the communities in which they are implemented, making them safer and more livable places to live. In addition to the benefits of tax revenue, legalizing marijuana also has the potential to reduce government spending on enforcement.
Thirdly, legalizing marijuana would reduce the crime and violence associated with the illegal drug trade. The illegal drug trade is a major source of crime and violence in many communities. Criminal organizations that often resort to violence and intimidation to protect their interests control the production, distribution, and sale of illegal drugs. It has led to high crime and violence in many communities, putting innocent people at risk. By legalizing marijuana, the government could control the drug’s production and distribution, reducing the need for illegal drug trafficking (Dills et al. 9). This would eliminate the criminal organizations that control the illegal drug trade and the associated violence and crime.
Moreover, the legalization of marijuana could also positively impact the criminal justice system. The enforcement of marijuana laws has disproportionately impacted communities of color, leading to high levels of incarceration and a burden on the criminal justice system (Todd 116). By legalizing marijuana, the government could reduce the number of individuals incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses, freeing up resources that could be used to address more serious crimes.
Opponents of marijuana legalization argue that it would increase the level of drug use among young people and increase drug-related crimes. However, there is little evidence to support these claims. Studies have shown that the legalization of marijuana has not led to an increase in drug use among young people in states where it has been legalized (Dills et al. 4). However, research has shown that there is no correlation between the legalization of marijuana and an increase in drug-related crimes. In states where marijuana has been legalized, there has been a decrease in overall crime rates.
In conclusion, the legalization of marijuana would provide a range of benefits, including the potential for medical use, the generation of tax revenue, and the reduction of crime and violence associated with the illegal drug trade. By clarifying the definition of marijuana and its potential benefits, we can better understand the arguments that favor its legalization and make a more informed decision on the issue.
Dills, Angela K., et al. “The effect of state marijuana legalizations: 2021 update.” Cato Institute, Policy Analysis 908 (2021)
Kreit, A. “Marijuana Legalization.” Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law | Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, 2022, law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academy_for_justice/7_Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_1_Marijuana-Legalization.pdf
NIDA. “What is marijuana.” National Institute on Drug Abuse, 13 Apr. 2021, https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-marijuana
Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, and Rosanna Smart. “Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Legalization.” Annual review of clinical psychology vol. 13 (2017): 397-419. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045128
Todd, Tamar. “The benefits of marijuana legalization and regulation.” Berkeley J. Crim. L. 23 2018: 99–116.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are controversial issues central to doctors’ responsibilities. These procedures happen when physicians offer the required facts and methods to facilitate a patient’s choice in their life. Many people consider life preservation as the higher drive of humanity’s existence. Numerous physicians graduating every year vow to utilize their abilities to help clients in pain and lengthen their existence. However, survival becomes extra complicated when the patients are experiencing unimaginable pain. Some suggest that offering such folks legitimate and safe ways to end their suffering is rational and humane. However, others oppose legalizing this practice due to severe medical and lawful obstacles. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are vital additions to the standard end-of-life care practice; thus, the government should legalize these practices.
The government should legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide as a relief of suffering. Validating euthanasia would help lessen the suffering of fatally ill individuals (Luzon). It would appear biased and inhuman for physicians to make clients undergo unbearable pain. Generally, medicine always aims to relieve patients suffering from diseases. Hippocrates’s ancient oath assured to utilize therapies to assist clients but never administer toxic substances to those who demanded such procedures. However, supporters of assisted suicide and euthanasia contend that relieving suffering using lethal ingestion is sympathetic and humane. This situation applies if the client is dying and suffering becomes refractory.
The privilege to die must remain a personal decision but never mandated by administrations. Individuals possess the right to select many life routes that may lead them in varying directions. Most of these choices receive minimal governmental interference. Generally, some spiritual opinions regarding suicide may influence this discussion and the personal challenges involved in helping somebody die (Luzon). However, terminally ill individuals may desire to pass independently (McKinnon and Orellana-Barrios 39). Integrating dignity and death laws can assist in making this option possible. The patient has the final decision rather than waiting for review boards. Also, the sick finally take fatal prescriptions instead of the physician. Therefore, the decision to apply euthanasia and assisted suicide remains in the patient’s control. This phenomenon shows that the government should legalize these practices, giving people the right to end life.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia offer extra control regarding the ultimate life choices. A person’s death begins the financial expedition for their esteemed ones (Dugdale et al.). People never forgive arrears after death. The family and society become responsible for paying off the remaining obligations. In this case, these people can take extended periods to resolve multifaceted financial problems. Thus, once these practices become a portion of the discussion for people with terminal diseases can help, individuals can plan to make such a transition straightforward for everybody. A disease’s physical and emotional toll can decrease for everyone involved by possessing extra control over the ultimate life decision (Dugdale et al.). Therefore, euthanasia and assisted suicide can relieve family members, caretakers, and the sick. This family can have peace by recognizing the time to end such a circumstance. The phenomenon shows the need to legalize the practices, giving everyone control over their life choices.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia can help patients evade caregiver culpability. The most substantial challenge that happens with a fatal diagnosis is the emotions of shame and guilt that patients have concerning their caregivers. In this case, the sick start feeling like a burden on their loved ones. This situation creates reactions resulting in association difficulties. Authorizing euthanasia and assisted suicide may not be widespread in various groups, but it may establish a plan for the brief period that everybody faces these circumstances (Dugdale et al.). Helping a person find needed physical peace allows the emotional healing procedure to assist everyone in pushing through their misery more consistently.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia are safe medical practices. Many advocates laud these procedures for being safe medical practices. In this case, physicians can ensure safe death in ways other suicide means can never guarantee (Piili et al.). Therefore, euthanasia and assisted suicide are vital options among numerous possibilities for the care of the dying (Piili et al.). Though individual state rules and regulations differ, most recommend various precautions to inhibit misuse and offer an arrangement for actions that folks will conduct, notwithstanding extra messily. Generally, precautions require patients electing these practices to remain informed of every end-of-life option. The law requires two witnesses to confirm that the client demands assisted suicide or euthanasia autonomously. It also ensures the patients are free of coercion and can ingest the toxic prescription themselves. These phenomena demonstrate that euthanasia and assisted suicide are safe clinical practices because the rules and regulations ensure that doctors and patients follow the correct process before carrying out the procedures.
These practices fulfill the doctor’s duty of beneficence. This principle requires a physician to act in ways that promote patients’ welfare. Still, controversy arises over what actions doctors should undertake to fulfill the obligation appropriately. Also, some people proclaim that beneficence needs physicians to preserve life no matter the cost (Vargić 56). Other individuals argue that patients’ interests get best served by doctors who respect the client’s autonomy. In this case, the physician is sensitive to the patient’s pain and ready to take the necessary steps to end such suffering. Thus, the most generous act in the case of terminally ill patients requesting an end to their life and suffering intractable pain would entail terminating the life using merciful methods. In these instances, death is imminent, and physicians have two choices remaining. For example, the doctors may end the patient’s life or let the illness take its course. The second option achieves nothing except prolonging patients’ suffering and permitting painful deaths. However, the second method accomplishes the physician’s obligation of beneficence by making patients’ inevitable death easier and acting to end their life (Mroz et al.). Therefore, euthanasia and assisted suicide should get legalized because they fulfill the physician’s beneficence duty.
Numerous medical experts whose views are highly relevant agree that assisted suicide and euthanasia are sometimes the only options when dealing with a terminally ill individual. Doctors sometimes lack other methods to help but medicate the person to ease the pain. The patient is hardly aware of their environment. Physicians should never inflict more suffering upon the person entrusted with the patient’s care. Therefore, legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia would permit medical experts and patients to cooperate in developing an end-of-life care strategy (Mroz et al.). This situation will eliminate the pain of an extended death; therefore, the government should validate these practices.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia should become legalized and be fundamental privileges because they allow patients to make conscious choices regarding their fate. These practices help relieve suffering, are safe medical procedures, and assist physicians in fulfilling their beneficence obligation. They also assist patients in avoiding caregiver guilt and provide more control over final life decisions. Numerous terminally ill individuals desire to die with self-respect. Thus, regimes should never deny patients this choice. Thus, the government should legalize these practices and establish relevant legislations to inhibit abuses.
Dugdale, Lydia S et al. “Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in Dying.” The Yale journal of biology and medicine vol. 92, 4 747-750. 20 Dec. 2019
Luzon, Golan. “The Practice of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Meets the Concept of Legalization.” Criminal Law and Philosophy, vol. 13, no. 2, 5 July 2018, pp. 329–345, 10.1007/s11572-018-9474-9.
McKinnon, Brandi, and Menfil Orellana-Barrios. “Ethics in Physician-Assisted Dying and Euthanasia.” The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles, vol. 7, no. 30, 19 July 2019, pp. 36–42, 10.12746/swrccc.v7i30.561.
Mroz, Sarah, et al. “Assisted Dying around the World: A Status Question.” Annals of Palliative Medicine, vol. 9, no. 6, Sept. 2020, pp. 57–57, apm.amegroups.com/article/view/50986/html, 10.21037/apm-20-637.
Piili, Reetta P., et al. “Ambivalence toward Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Has Decreased among Physicians in Finland.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 23, no. 1, 11 July 2022, 10.1186/s12910-022-00810-y. Accessed 30 July 2022.
Vargić, Hrvoje. “Should Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Be Legal?” Disputatio Philosophica, vol. 20, no. 1, 7 Feb. 2019, pp. 45–75, 10.32701/dp.20.1.3. Accessed 14 Jan. 2020.
Police and Juvenile Justice
The major issue of juvenile delinquency negatively impacts the country’s social order. This issue is seen as a socio-legal category created in collaboration with the juvenile court, as a label given to youth after a process involving the Police, the general public, and juvenile court officials. International Concern and General Principles of Juvenile Justice. Juvenile offenders are a special population for Police to interact with since their first impressions of law enforcement are often lasting. The duties of a police officer can be broken down into three categories; order maintenance, service tasks, and law enforcement. Police officers have various options for detaining and arresting offenders, and when used properly, these alternatives are advantageous to the offender, the community, and the judicial system.
Police and Juvenile Justice
Juvenile police work is crucial since first impressions of law enforcement officers impact how young people grow up to feel about the Police. There is a higher-than-average rate of juvenile offender involvement in crime, making them a unique problem for law enforcement. American Police arrested an estimated 2.1 million people under 18 in 2005. In 2005, juveniles accounted for roughly 16% of all violent crime arrests and 26% of all property crime arrests. The Police’s involvement with juveniles is increased because they deal with various status offenses, including truancy, curfew violations, and running away, in addition to nondelinquent juvenile issues like neglect, abuse, and missing persons reports. Most urban police agencies have juvenile bureaus or specialized police units to handle the rising number of juvenile cases. Special juvenile officers’ responsibilities include receiving reports of missing children, looking into runaway cases, investigating juvenile crimes, speaking with and interviewing minors, their parents, school officials, and complainants about the details of an offense, keeping juvenile records, and showing up in juvenile court. Juvenile delinquency is a significant issue that negatively affects the country’s social structure.
International Concern for Juvenile Justice
The magnitude of the issue of juvenile delinquency has attracted the focus of criminologists working at the worldwide level as well. The International Penal and Penitentiary Commission worked successfully on preventing crime and treating offenders until October 1951. They repeatedly emphasized the necessity of rational and humane treatment methods that could avoid the need to keep juvenile offenders in prison to dissociate them from the criminal world (Bhagat, 2022). United Nations’ attention was drawn to the issue of juvenile delinquency in both industrialized and developing countries, prompting the organization to formulate guidelines for a Juvenile Justice System. In September 1985, the 7th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders was adopted, largely due to the efforts of the United Nations Asia and Far East Institution.
General Principles of Juvenile Justice
Welfare verse Justice Models
Three primary goals should be considered when determining an appropriate punishment for a person convicted of a criminal offense: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. Regarding juvenile criminals, rehabilitation concepts typically have the heaviest weight. It is not a novel idea for the criminal justice system to provide special consideration for minor offenders (Bhagat, 2022). In Roman law, the presumption that a person lacked the mental ability and knowledge necessary to be guilty of a criminal offense was referred to as the “doli in capax” principle. This allowed young children to be shielded from criminal prosecution under Roman law. Although most nations provide some form of special care for children who break the law, the extent to which this is done varies greatly from nation to nation.
Causes of Juvenile Delinquency
One of the most significant causes of juvenile delinquency is exposure to domestic violence. Lawyers in Tulsa who defend juvenile offenders say it is common knowledge that abused kids grow up as aggressive adults. Also, Pressure from friends and peers can impact a young person’s behavior, just as it does from adults in the community. If the child sees all their friends engaging in criminal behavior, he or they may feel forced to conform. In addition, due to a lack of positive adult role models, children are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior. There is a correlation between the amount of positive adult supervision a youngster receives and the reduced likelihood that the child will engage in antisocial behavior. Lastly, family or youth substance addiction is a major contributor to juvenile criminality. Children exposed to substance misuse are often deprived of basic resources and must learn to improvise to survive.
Police Roles and Responsibilities
The criminal justice system’s police officers command the most public attention and educate the public about the legal system. This includes gathering information from witnesses or victims of crimes, issuing tickets for moving violations, and interviewing or arresting suspects in felony or misdemeanor cases. Furthermore, the primary responsibilities of law enforcement officers are crime prevention and law enforcement (Mwangangi, 2019). They have the authority to apprehend suspects, use force up to a reasonable threshold if required, and place detainees under arrest. Many responsibilities and high expectations fall on the shoulders of law enforcement officials.
Police have historically been tasked with preventing and responding to criminal activity by uncovering evidence of wrongdoing and apprehending those responsible for it (Mwangangi, 2019). Regular patrols, victim and witness interviews, and other information gathering contribute to police efforts to detect criminal activity. Lastly, Serving the public is central to the mission of the Police. Helping those in need can involve many activities, from contacting a tow truck for a stranded vehicle to delivering a baby whose mother could not make it to the hospital in time to give birth.
Officers deal with juveniles who commit crimes ranging from simple infractions of social norms to more serious ones. Most interactions between Police and minors are in response to infractions so small that they fall under the purview of law enforcement’s order maintenance function. It can be difficult to communicate with and work with young people; thus, police departments would be wise to provide personnel with cultural sensitivity training. Students can also benefit from classroom instruction on police roles and procedures and on proper conduct while engaging with law enforcement officials. Young people’s understanding of police roles and responsibilities can be enhanced through D.A.R.E. and School Resource Officer programs.
Juveniles are given extra attention in the police force’s service functions. Police are tasked with keeping kids safe and stopping crime. In circumstances of suspected child neglect (such as being left at home alone or in a hot or cold car), endangerment (such as not using a car seat or seat belts), or abuse (such as physical punishment that may cause significant damage or death), it may be necessary to intervene. Statistics reveal that juvenile status offenses like running away are linked to child neglect and abuse, which in turn are often precursors to more serious delinquency. Protection of minors and reducing juvenile delinquency are the fundamental goals of including status offenses in all juvenile statutes.
Juvenile Offending and Police Discretion
Police have broad authority in dealing with juvenile offenders, from issuing a warning and releasing them to taking them into custody and referring them to juvenile court. The discretion of police officers is crucial, as their involvement in cases of suspected lawbreaking is the first step in the juvenile justice system (Gonzalez, 2021). Law enforcement officials have leeway in selecting whether to file formal charges against misbehaving minors or merely tell them to “go on,” “break it up,” or “get on home.” Most interactions between Police and minors are informal, and arrests and detention of minors are rare.
Criticism of police discretion stems from the belief that officers use their wide discretionary powers to unfairly target particular suspects or make choices based on considerations unrelated to the crime at hand. It has been established that police officers’ judgments to take official actions are influenced by extralegal elements such as the offender’s sex, race, social standing, and personal qualities (Gonzalez, 2021). Although girls are less likely to be arrested and committed to juvenile court than males, they are more likely to be referred for status offenses like running away or disrespecting parents. Whether or whether a police officer exercises discretion in dealing with a juvenile depends on the teen’s behavior and attitude. Polite and cooperative juveniles are more likely to get a reprimand rather than a referral to juvenile court.
Racial Disparities and Juvenile Arrests
The adult and juvenile justice systems face significant challenges related to racial inequality. There is no denying the disproportionate representation of people of color (particularly African Americans) in the criminal justice system. This is true at every level: from police arrests to detention centers to courts to prisons (Robles & Watson, 2019). African American youth make up a disproportionately high percentage of all juvenile arrests compared to their overall population share. Although they only made up 17% of the juvenile population in 2005, black kids had twice the average amount of arrests for serious crimes like robbery (68%), murder (54%), auto theft (43%), and severe assault (42%).
Options besides Arrest and Custody by the Police
A juvenile offender may be referred to a delinquency prevention program by a police officer, a youth services bureau, or a community agency like Big Brothers Big Sisters. When Police have probable cause to suspect a juvenile of committing a crime, they usually bring the child to the juvenile bureau for questioning, where the child may be fingerprinted and photographed, and then to the intake unit of the juvenile probation department, where a decision on whether or not to detain the child is made (Robles & Watson, 2019). Modifications made to the station, it is not uncommon for Police to detain a child for a small infraction, bring them to the station to make a report, issue a formal reprimand, and then release the child back to their guardians. As a rule, parents are notified first and given the option of being present during any disciplinary action taken against their child.
Conclusively, due to the seriousness of the problem, criminologists worldwide have begun to concentrate on adolescent delinquency. Analyses have been done of juvenile delinquency causes and general principles of juvenile justice. Police officers in the criminal justice system are the ones that garner the most attention from the general public and who also inform them about the legal system. Along with dealing with juvenile offenders and police discretion, officers also deal with young people who break the law, whether for minor social norm violations or more serious offenses. Last but not least, the conversation has also covered alternatives to arrest and police custody.
Mwangangi, R. K. (2019). The role of the family in dealing with juvenile delinquency. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3), 52-63.
Gonzalez, E. S. (2021). Alternatives to Juvenile Incarceration: Contemporary Juvenile Justice System, Diversion Programs, and Partnerships (Doctoral dissertation, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE).
Robles-Ramamurthy, B., & Watson, C. (2019). Examining racial disparities in juvenile justice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 47(1), 48–52.
Bhagat, P. (2022). [eBook]. Retrieved 20 September 2022, from https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19H1188.pdf.
(2022). [eBook]. Retrieved 20 September 2022, from https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/19435_Section_II.pdf.
In recent years, the ‘institution of marriage has manifested among the debatable issues worldwide today’. There are emerging concerns in the marriage institution, such as same-sex marriage, which was taboo. Currently, most countries are legalizing and embracing the idea of same-sex marriage. Divorce and separation as part of the marriage institution can be demoralizing and stressful, especially when a child is involved. There has been a need for divorce reforms for some time now, and the good news is that the divorce law reforms were finally enacted early last month. What has caught people’s attention is the introduction of the no-fault divorce law. This law is basically about not pinning divorce on a spouse’s faults like adultery and such issues; the law allows people to decide separation or divorce without meeting the standard factors that ground divorce, as discussed below. So Tom meets this in Spain, then get married and settles in London; a baby has come into the picture when Tom realizes that his wife was married before and is having a love affair with the ex-husband. This paper focuses on the critical analysis of Tom’s marital situation, linking relevant case laws to his situation and advising accordingly.
UK laws allow for divorce provided that the reasons for filing the divorce meet the grounding factors of an irretrievably broken marriage. According to the matrimonial causes act of 1975, these factors include; adultery, unreasonable behavior such as drug use, and separation for over two years. Spouses who have stayed in the marriage for more than one year are also ‘entitled to a divorce, provided their reasons are among the factors mentioned above’. In Tom’s case, he is eligible to file for a divorce petition in the UK courts. Tom’s wife is having extramarital affairs; she is still romantically involved with her ex even when she is legally married to Tom. According to Tom’s realization, his current wife was married to someone before they officially married. We are not fully informed about Alejandra’s former marriage, but Tom would be advisable to dig deeper to find the reality. With the right enough information and evidence against the adulterous wife, he can decide to file for a divorce. Linking this case to Owen v Owen  UKSC 41, , AC 8993WLR 634 case law. Both divorce petitions meet the legal reasons for ending marriages in the UK. However, the ruling in the case law provided indicates that the judge upheld the ruling from the high court, which stated that for petitions to be considered, they should not be flimsy. Tom should file for a divorce, and if at all the wife moves to defend the divorce, he should maintain his statement to avoid creating a flimsy petition that the judge may rule out.
Divorce and separation when children are already in the picture are usually stressful and may severely impact their educational and general life performance. Current studies indicate that ‘children from divorced parents are poor performers at school and are normally withdrawn’. The UK divorce and separation laws indicate that both parents of a child should be financially responsible for the well-being of their children. Also, when separation occurs, parents should have shared custody of the child unless otherwise. From the case provided, Alejandra does not have any source of income, which means Tom should take full care of Victor until the mother stabilizes and can equally contribute to the child’s financial needs. When Tom becomes the non-resident, he and the wife should agree on child support and the frequency of sending the finances. Apart from financial support, it is advisable to know that children need parental care and love even when they are not together. Shared custody is very common in the US and other states; the UK seems to be slower in developing it. It entails the custody where the child in question has equal access to the mother and the father, and they share reasonable time with the child. Hussain suggests that states that some of the factors that should be considered when granting child custody are; ‘the relationship between the child and the parents since the baby’s birth, the child’s preference, and the personality and behavior of both parents’. The current law regarding child custody in the UK advocates for a mother to take care of the children until they reach a certain age. However, this does not outperform the factor of personality and behavior.
Like in the case provided, the fact that Alejandra Is having an affair with the ex-lover when she should be taking care of her son and husband shows how ill-mannered she is. Maybe Tom should file for the child’s custody and file a petition of his wife’s wicked ways. On second thought, looking closely into Alejandra’s cheating scandal, we can conclude that perhaps the child belongs to her ex-husband; I mean, this affair has been on for years, and who knows? I think it would be advisable that Tom take a DNA test with the baby to confirm his paternal roots. The decision he will take concerning the DNA results should be entirely his, and if the need arises, he should seek a lawyer to advise him on the same. That means he will decide whether he will be a supportive father to Victor. Like in the case of K V K,  EWCA, CiV 468, the child’s mother in question has crooked ways, and the ruling is that the child’s father takes full custody.
Another aspect Tom should consider before ending his relationship with his wife is the UK’s finance and property settlement laws. Rules regarding property settlement in the UK state that the property shared during separation should be matrimonial. Matrimonial property is the ‘property acquired when divorcing parties were already married’. For example, if Tom and Alejandra acquired the house, they lived in when they were together, which is not the case here. From the case study, it is evident that Tom inherited the house they were living in from his grandfather ten years ago. Houses are the main properties the courts focus on when separation and divorce. Tom’s house is a non-matrimonial property; he acquired it way back before marrying. Therefore, the court should exclude the house should Tom and the wife settle on separation.
Normally when separation and divorce come into the picture, the house, which is the major property, causes a few emotions and attachments. In this case, Tom had stayed in this house for a very long time, and it is obvious that he has good memories in this house. Financial settlement issues may arise from the property settlement issues arising from the case. Tom is the breadwinner in the case, which means that when he decides to divorce Alejandra, his finances will be divided equally between them. The UK law of divorce looks forward to settling on the 50/50 notion to ensure the peaceful co-existence of the divorced. During financial settlements, there are certain factors to consider: the income of the breadwinner, the mental status of the other spouse, and the financial management skill of the other spouse. The other spouse in this context is Alejandra. Should Tom take the divorce petition to the court, thorough research should be done to ensure Alejandra is mentally fit and has the basic financial skills to prevent further applications for financial settlements take place. Using the White V White UKHL 54, the spouses from this case have enough finances and assets, and the judge finds it difficult to decide on the need to divide the wealth the couple acquired together. Comparing Tom’s case to this, It would be wise for Tom to specify their assets and financial capabilities to ensure equality and fair ruling.
Additionally, Tom should consider spousal maintenance and child support when he settles for separation. Spousal maintenance is the amount of money the court offers to the spouse with less income than the other. In recent research, only the male gender is subjected to this ruling compared to women. Perhaps the legislative body should consider revising this part of the family law. It is inconsiderate and unfair when Men do not enjoy such rights as ladies. Equality should be promoted, and men too should enjoy such privileges. According to Fotheringham, some of the ‘grounds for issuance of the spousal maintenance are; the period of marriage, when one offers to quit work to take care of the household, the spouse’s ability to manage financially after separation, and whom to take care of the children if they are involved’. From the case, we realize that Alejandra resigned from her nursing job to come and join her husband in London, where she is currently a stay-at-home mom. She is entitled to spousal maintenance because of the period of the marriage and the fact that she is fully taking care of their son, so she does not have any source of income and therefore needs Tom’s financial aid. Tom should therefore sit with the wife and agree on the spousal maintenance; they can decide to do the maintenance support every month or give it out as a lump sum.
From the above discussion, we realize that divorce and separation have become the major enemy in the marriage institution. In the late 90s, the English law did not advocate for unexplained divorces, and the law stood its ground on the matters that supported divorce. The divorce law reforms have been pushed for some time now, and when they finally came into practice earlier last month, we realized the need to appreciate the reforms, the advanced perspective of the grounds for divorce carries the day. The marital and divorce issues that we derive from the case are; the grounds for divorce and the relevant past case law, financial and property settlement rules in the UK, child custody, support after separation and divorce, and spousal maintenance after divorce. During financial settlements, there are certain factors to consider, which are; the income of the breadwinner, the mental status of the other spouse, and the financial management skill of the other spouse too. The issues have been discussed extensively with the necessary steps Tom should take to ensure fair rulings when he files his divorce petition.
A Cshaulskiy, a. “marriage and divorce in the united KINGDOM.” Мы говорим на юридическом английском, немецком, французском, испанском…. 2020.omparative Study of USA, UK, and India. Concept Publishing Company.
Dommaraju, P. (2016). Divorce and separation in India. Population and Development Review, 195-223
Hussain, S. J. (2015). Marriage Breakdown and Divorce Law Reform in Contemporary Society:
Jackson, J. (2012). Matrimonial Finance Consequent on Divorce: The English Structure. Alta. L. Rev., 20, 229.
Kaslow, F. W., & Robinson, M. (2018). Mediation with families in separation and divorce in the united kingdom: links with family therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16(1), 60-72.
Fotheringham, J. M. (2018). Spousal Maintenance in Scots Family Law. Hous. J. Int’l L., 41, 601.
 Dommaraju, P. (2016). Divorce and separation in India. Population and Development Review, 195-223
 A Cshaulskiy, a. “marriage and divorce in the united KINGDOM.” Мы говорим на юридическом английском, немецком, французском, испанском…. 2020.omparative Study of USA, UK, and India. Concept Publishing Company.
 Kaslow, F. W., & Robinson, M. (2018). Mediation with families in separation and divorce in the united kingdom: links with family therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16(1), 60-72.
 Hussain, S. J. (2015). Marriage Breakdown and Divorce Law Reform in Contemporary Society:
 Jackson, J. (2012). Matrimonial Finance Consequent on Divorce: The English Structure. Alta. L. Rev., 20, 229.
 Fotheringham, J. M. (2018). Spousal Maintenance in Scots Family Law. Hous. J. Int’l L., 41, 601.
Legalization of Abortion
Abortion is a debate among health specialists across the world. Abortion has led to scientists not coming up with a solution on whether to legalize abortion. Most abortions occur among teenagers, and pregnancies are unexpected. Therefore for teenagers to get rid of unintended pregnancies, they opt to commit abortion. Scientists have discovered that most women get unexpected pregnancies before the age of 45. Abortion appears to be a personal affair because it influences one’s health and lifestyle. The paper below is going to shed light on why religion, political parties and the health fraternity are against abortion.
Christianity does not allow abortion in any way because it is immoral. The Roman Catholic Church they have always maintained that the intentional killing of the unborn baby is wrong in all circumstances. The Roman Catholic Church referred to the book of Genesis (1:27), which explains how God created man in his own image. The Christian religion does not allow abortion and therefore states that if you have an abortion, you are killing the image of God.
Political parties in countries have been at the forefront of the banning of abortion. According to Randolph (2006, PARA 15), the Republican Party does not support the legalization of abortion. The Republicans cite abortion as violating human rights. They also view committing abortion as going against the traditions and morals of society. In this case, abortion lowers the dignity of women in society and therefore is a taboo.
Abortion leads to the death of a woman during the process if not performed well by a doctor. According to (Gerdts et al., 2016), the information was gathered on the death of the women from the files of all states containing the information. The contacts of the women were taken, and when they tried to reach them, their phone numbers were not going through. Their secondary contacts stated that the woman had died. The death certificates of the women were also counter-checked to confirm whether the information relayed was true. The death certificate confirmed that the woman died after performing an abortion. Termination of the fetus before maturity can therefore lead to the death of an individual. This is caused by excessive bleeding during the process and interference of the body organs during termination, depending on the method used.
Abortion leads to the development of haemorrhages in women, according to (Calvert et al., 2018) from the data that was extracted in hospital admissions. The data was collected on those who had a severe condition of haemorrhage. To the study, excessive bleeding in a woman leads to the weakening of the victims.
Women who once engaged in abortion reported life-threatening complications. According to (Gerdts et al., 2016), women had threatening conditions such as eclampsia and postpartum haemorrhage. The women having an abortion did not have these conditions. Women who gave birth suggested the need to reduce physical events for a while at least three times than suggested by the women who received an abortion. In the group of women admitted in the Turnaway Study, of death of a woman was noted. This suggests that abortion causes future effects which are seen during progressive birth.
It is evident that abortion is dangerous to women and leads to complications which lead to death. The complications can either occur during abortion or after abortion when giving birth. Due to the risky dangers of abortion, the government should ban abortion to performed in any case to avoid an increased mortality rate. Specialists should also create awareness among the public and the dangers of engaging in this immoral behavior.
Calvert, C., Owolabi, O., Yeung, F., Pittrof, R., Ganatra, B., & Tunçalp, Ö. et al. (2018). The magnitude and severity of abortion-related morbidity in settings with limited access to abortion services: a systematic review and meta-regression. BMJ Global Health, 3(3), e000692. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000692
Gerdts, C., Dobkin, L., Foster, D., & Schwarz, E. (2016). Side Effects, Physical Health Consequences, and Mortality Associated with Abortion and Birth after an Unwanted Pregnancy. Women’s Health Issues, 26(1), 55-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2015.10.001
Joe O’Dea on Abortion — Joe O’Dea For Colorado. Joe O’Dea For Colorado. (2022). Retrieved 1 September 2022, from https://www.joeodea.com/abortion.
Legalization of Marijuana
While marijuana became legal in all states and territories for adults 18 and older, it made Canada the second country to authorize recreational drug use. However, most notably, the Cannabis Act had many purposes. The production and sale of edible marijuana, marijuana extracts, and marijuana titles became legal in Canada under the Cannabis Act by provincial and local retailers. Cannabis dealers are licensed for medical purposes, but there is a need to ensure that the downside of legalization: More potheads, by Margaret Wente (2018) arguments are essential to note. While there are some fundamental gains from marijuana use, there is a need to take an active role in understanding what impact marijuana has and how to navigate them.
The downside of legalizing marijuana
The downside of legalizing marijuana by Margaret Wente (2018) offers some basic understanding of the impacts of marijuana use from a practical perspective. There are indications that marijuana use has increased, and cases of marijuana-related crime among young people are very positive. There is no doubt that marijuana is a harmful substance, and legalizing marijuana normalizes it, increasing the user base and adversely affecting humans. I tend to understand the position of those opposing legalizing marijuana comes from. According to a criminal expert, legalization has been a significant factor in reducing the crime rate for marijuana cases. The legal benefits of cannabis are not shared equally, as the industry is white, unlike men.
According to the Cannabis Act, there are three main objectives for public health: keeping marijuana out of the hands of young people, keeping profits out of the pockets of criminals, and protecting public health and safety by allowing adults to obtain legal marijuana (“Cannabis Legalization and Regulation”, 2022). The benefits and adversities promoted by the use of marijuana stem from the hype generated by the media. Each province and region has compliance with additional regulatory requirements, including property restrictions, private investment, public use, and increasing the minimum user age. The act’s consideration of essential factors is commendable, but it must ensure that they are adequately implemented in practice.
The market and industry players are essential stakeholders to consider drug use’s adverse effects. Wente (2018) outlines that marijuana is presently viewed as an opportunity for profitability as the cannabis market in Canada is enormous, with a significant percentage of those benefiting from the sales of marijuana being business people. It is essential to explore this angle in the debate as they are stakeholders with considerable impact on policy development. The value of legalization in terms of impact on the business prospect is quite convincing and might have a more significant impact on the approach taken by the government (“Cannabis Legalization and Regulation”, 2022). Legalizing marijuana benefits is critical to everyone involved but needs to be reviewed often to navigate negative impacts.
The use of marijuana has some recorded benefits, which are considered against a need to take an active role in understanding its negative impact and how to navigate them. The detrimental aspect of drug use is an important consideration that needs to be adequately explored. While Wente spoke about how the view of pot had changed because it was introduced to have medical properties, there is a long-term impact of drug use that is significant in the discussion that often gets underplayed. The claims were made that the use of marijuana could treat cancer is a possible bait that the media, through business people, would have used to tilt the discussion since these claims impacted the demand for marijuana increased.
Cannabis Legalization and Regulation. Justice.gc.ca. (2022). Retrieved 9 April 2022, from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/cannabis/.
WENTE, M. (2018). The downside of legalization: More potheads. The globe and mail. Retrieved 9 April 2022, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-downside-of-legalization-more-potheads/.