The Internet carries news reports daily about criminal activity deterred by ordinary citizens with weapons.  There is now available data from news reports (now available on the Internet) from which researchers can obtain actual cases of citizen gun usage to deter crime.  Of course, actual deterrence is far greater because many incidents of deterrence will not be reported by the local news.  For instance, increased gun possession in certain localities has been found to decrease criminal activity.  The CATO Institute released a report detailing that crime dropped by 60% at Colorado State University since 2004 when students were allowed to carry concealed weapons, whereas crime increased 35% since 2004 at the University of Colorado, which prohibited concealed weapons.  

Clearly there are more accidental shootings with more firearms in circulation, and not everyone is comfortable with students in possession of firearms due to campus gun violence in recent years, although the statistics on deterrence should allay those fears.  Based on the Colorado data, a campus would be safer with more ordinary students in possession of firearms, notwithstanding the changed atmosphere knowing that guns are present.  

The policy question is then — assuming states have the power to enact gun control legislation — how can gun control legislation be optimized to get the best crime deterrence with the least number of accidental shootings and the fewest criminals getting access to weapons.  Legislation to date seems to be focused first on age — not letting minors possess firearms on the theory that their more impetuous actions would increase the rate of accidental shootings without a corresponding benefit to crime prevention.  Legislation is also focused on location.  Schools have been gun free zones although there has been an increase in school-located shootings.  This might encourage legislation to allow for gun bearing by faculty, staff, and maintenance members of the school.  At places of business, all non-felon adults could have the option to carry concealed or non-concealed weapons. Federal and many state government buildings deter crime by investing heavily in firearm prevention measures, such an enhanced security measures and hiring security staff (such as at courthouses).  This is an expensive solution, but one that may work when working with a population that can be under extreme stress (such as those involved in the criminal or civil justice system).  

Although gun control legislation is often motivated by a desire to keep firearms away from criminals, there is little evidence suggesting that such legislation is successful.  Economic theory suggests that gun control legislation should increase the price of weapons, and thus deter demand, but suppliers are rampant and often drawn by the prospect of increased profits to “run guns.”  Thus, gun control legislation has been an ineffective tool to raise the price of weapons.  Furthermore, such legislation often just gives prosecutors an extra charge to bring at indicted felons, and can result in enhanced criminal sentences on conviction, but has little effect on the availability of weapons.

In summary, the data is getting better on whether increased gun ownership is beneficial or detrimental to society.  The limited location studies suggest that gun ownership among ordinary citizens deters crime.  Of course, the percentage of accidental shootings will likely remain the same and so with more guns in circulation, there will be a higher number of accidental shootings.  That is the policy tradeoff to enable citizens to defend themselves.

CONGRATULATIONS!
YOU WON $500!

When I clicked on the link,  I am taken to page which is very similar to the libertyreserve.com website. Following is the screen shot of the page. 

As you can see, the are asking for all the details starting from account number, password, login pin and master key saying that this is done for verification purpose. May be they are thinking they are only the smart people in the world.  

And what I did is, I created a new liberty reserve account but I did not deposit any funds there. I correctly entered the details to the page and you know it says

“Error: Invalid Account Number/Passphrase/Login PIN/MasterKey. Please try again.”

That is usually what happens when with phishing website. They will take the details and then say the details are wrong. 

We can also make out from the url. It is not at all liberty reserve’s url. 

I am pretty sure that they might have snatched lots of money from innocent peoples around the world. Some might have been very happy to receive such email and entered their details without giving any second thoughts.

If any one of you have liberty reserve account, please be aware of phishing site. Not only liberty reserve, there can be phishing sites for all kind of website trying to snatch your details. Always make sure to check the url.

I think this should be reported to liberty reserve.com so that they can find out the culprit and punish him/her/ them.

Child porn networks aren’t going to be stopped just by blacklisting a bunch of sites. People can email each other pictures and videos or upload them onto completely legitimate sites such as tinypic and megaupload. Essentially what I’m trying to say is that if the cops can’t catch them, and internet filtering wont do anything to prevent it.

The thing that really makes me rage is that the so called ‘blacklist’ of all sites that we aren’t allowed to access isn’t going to be available for public viewing. This means that if we get a dodgy government (i.e. Tony Abbott wins this election) they can freely censor sites that are legal, but they don’t want us to see. The whole system relies on the Australian government being just and fair, (which at the moment it is) because if we want to appeal the blacklisting of a site, we have to go through them and because we aren’t allowed to see the official blacklist they can simply argue that the site we are trying to access doesn’t exist.

Also, the amount of money they are spending on this is ridiculous. AND THE SYSTEM STILL DOESNT WORK!
The way that the filter works is that it will automatically detect sites that contain content that would be refused classification and puts them on a blacklist. The filter is then enforced through the ISPs because they are all too scared to stand up to the government (If every ISP said they weren’t going to enforce the filter, what would the government do? Shut down the internet? That would really go down well with free-speech activists, and pretty much everyone everywhere wouldn’t it.)

In regards to the automatic detection, according to leaks from beta testing last year there were so many flaws with this it wasn’t funny. It picked out the website of a canteen lady in Queensland, simply because her site contained the word ‘teen’.
Also, it is widely publicised that we will be able to get around it using a simple internet proxy. We don’t even need an advanced one like ‘YourFreedom’, we can use Google translator for Christs sake. Admittedly they are going to be watching for people bypassing it, but heaps of people use proxies for varying reasons and they aren’t going to be able to arrest them all.

To be honest, I agree 100% with what the government is trying to do, but I completely disagree with how they are doing it. From memory, their system is costing $40,000,000. That is a lot of money. That amount of cash could probably buy a small African nation! For that amount of money the government would be better off paying people to go undercover on the net and suss out people spreading illegal material rather than wasting it on some fancy pants computer program. People always do better jobs than machines.

In all probability, the filter wont do anything. It wont be inconveniencing me while I use the internet (who wants to read about a canteen lady in QLD anyway?), but it wont be doing its job and catching criminals.

The first point that should be considered is the culpability of juvenile in committing crimes. An issue for example, is the capital punishment assigned for juveniles aged 16 and 17 who committed capital offenses. According to American Medical Association developmental biology research has shown that adolescent brains are not yet fully developed. This would mean capacity in relation to the responsibility over a crime is still in the process of development at age 16 and 17. Juvenile offenders are not morally culpable as adults and therefore they should not be treated in a similar manner to adult criminals. Wyoming and South Dakota has recently integrated developmental biology findings in their decision to ban capital punishment for juvenile offenders. Research on developmental biology has shown that underdeveloped brains would have less degree of control over their “impulse control, decision-making, and reasoning” compared to the adult brain.

This underdeveloped brain should be considered in the process of assessing juvenile offenses. The inability of juvenile to make an effective decision regarding their course of action should mean that they are not yet fully responsible in their criminal acts. There is a need therefore to consider juvenile offenders as completely different from adult offenders. Abigail Baird of Harvard Medical School emphasized that: “teens are really bad at the kind of thinking that requires looking into the future to see the results of actions, a characteristic that feeds increased risk-taking”.

Juvenile offenders are not small adults and therefore they should not be treated as equal with adult offenders. There is a need for legal and correctional staff that has massive experience with juvenile offenses. The implication of treating juvenile offenders as adult criminals would mean including them as part of adult prison population. This would affect their development in the process and thus could reinforce anti-social and criminal behaviors in their adulthood. This should be considered in the process of arguing for treating juvenile offenders as adults (Krisberg, 2005).

Another important point that should be evaluated in proposing for juvenile offenders’ treatment as adult criminals is the potential of the juvenile offender to change. The development of the child should be considered. The young age would mean that their perspectives still be changed and therefore, they could still be molded with the right perspective. This unique circumstance of juveniles means that there should be different structure in dealing with juveniles and they should not be integrated into adult court.

The separation of juvenile justice system is the recognition that youth have a difference circumstances than adults and are undergoing some difficult stages of adolescence filled with peer pressure and confusion about the realities of the world and therefore there is a need to create a separate legal system that would foster better understanding of the youth. In addition to this, there is also a need to consider that their decisions as minors are still based on lack of judgment and therefore could still be reformed and altered. The juvenile justice system is premised on the need for the state to protect minors from the perpetuation of criminal activities. Highly based on the findings of psychologists about the development stages of young people, the justice system recognized that they should be treated differently under the law and they must be directed towards more rehabilitative system of justice in order to alter their offending behaviors (The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act).

There should be a separate system of justice for juveniles or for young people. There is a need to recognize that there are really lots of issues and struggles that young people encounter at these difficult development stages. The building of identity is a difficult process. There is a need to feel belongingness to a certain group in order to enhance self-esteem and hence the pressure is higher, which could sometimes lead to delinquent behaviors. The justice system should recognize that young people have a different kind of judgment, which is usually based on the approval of the group.

In addition to this, it is also very important for the justice system to recognize that young people have little control over their situation and therefore they lack the capacity to alter their direction. If they came from a difficult family, delinquent behavior may become their form of escape due to lack of capabilities to alter their situation. This is something that adults have the capacity to deal with and therefore there is a need to have a separate legal system.

One important concept in the perspective on juvenile justice system is the concept of deinstitutionalization. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 is in fact focused on the need for a deinstitutionalization of juvenile offenders. The goal is to limit the transfer of juvenile to secured detention facilities. The justice system must ensure to exhaust all means in order to keep the young offender away from detention on correctional facilities.

There are lots of cases of that has a positive impact on the perspective of juvenile justice system. The Gault v. United States for example has started to emphasize the due process rights of juvenile offenders as stated in the 14th Amendment. This means that the due process rights of an adult offender should also be applied in juvenile cases. This could also be shown in the case of Fare v. Michael. The case of Breed v. Jones however clarified the application of Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment emphasizing that the exposure of the offender in the juvenile court is valid as court proceeding in lieu of potential risk and double trial over the same offense (Breed v. Jones). In the case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court emphasizes that juvenile offenders are not actually entitled to Sixth Amendment Jury Trial. The case of Davis v. Alaska protects the juvenile offender from being exposed as a juvenile offender in court proceedings as this would be in conflict with the confidentiality clause and it exposes the witness to risk that the court is trying to avoid, which is social stigma. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O, the court clarified the role of the school in juvenile cases, specifically emphasizing that the Fourth Amendment structures should always be considered.

There are several problems that could be seen in the way juvenile courts are handling juvenile cases. There is a need to see the increase in the level of juvenile offenders that are due to violent crimes. In 1991, there are around 120,000 violent crimes from children in the United States. The problem is detention facilities and juvenile courts are only able to handle 48,000 cases of violent offenses. There are certain cases, in which violent crime offenders are sent home with an electronic surveillance even if the type of crime would really require secured detention. This would only mean that there is massive inefficiency and lack of support structure in carrying out the duties of the juvenile court.

One of the arguments of organizations who are against juvenile courts is that although there are lots of programs that are implemented in order to handle cases of juveniles through juvenile courts, most of these programs are actually ineffective. There are several reasons why. First, most of the programs are handled through private entities. These are really expensive treatment and rehabilitation facilities. Secondly, the government detention programs are not also fully equipped with the right programs that would offer rehabilitation. There are lots of juvenile court programs that are not able to curtail recidivism because of lack of effective monitoring and resources that would help the juvenile court achieve its goals.

Delinquent activities is not really a normal process of growing up but it is most of the time an impact of the different kind of peer pressure that young people experiences. Young people have different experiences of puberty and adolescence and this experience is in part influenced through the support systems that surround young people. Most of the time, if the family or other support systems would not be able to provide effective support system in terms of development of self-image; young people acquire affirmation through peers and other groups. In their wish to feel that they “belong” to a group they commit deviant behaviors. This means that in general, it is not really a normal process, but rather an impact of the difficulty of the family structures to support young people at this important stage of development towards adulthood.

The juvenile court is still the best place through which juvenile cases are resolved. If there is a need for the criminal court to handle the child’s case, there should be a careful review of the case. No matter how much analysts would argue that the kinds of crimes are changing, this is insufficient argument to abolish the juvenile court. There is a need to consider those children’s circumstances today has changed as well. Society’s family values and the falling of traditional family structure are also creating problems. Programs of the juvenile court could still help in preventive measures that would help juvenile offenders to change and alter their deviant behaviors.

The root of organized crime in Spain truly began after the Spanish Civil War and the subsequent Second World War, the deterioration of the socio-economic situation in Spain. These wars resulted in the country’s global isolation and the insufficiency of many end user goods in the Spanish market (allotted randomly by the administration. All these factors added to the escalation of a previously existing modality in organized crime.

It was not until the near beginning of 1970s that the large global crime groups began to set up themselves in a major way in Spain. Secretly and silently these criminal groups began setting themselves up, in the tourist Costa del Sol, in Southern Spain. Their main movement consisted of laundering the money produced in businesses such as drug trafficking, arm trafficking, extortion and abduction. Following the generation of operating bases and incorporation of new and powerful criminal organizations, they achieved a distribution of labor so ideal that they have been able to function virtually unobserved by the majority of the common community.

The current more undermined and intercontinental organized crime is, to a great extent, an outcome of institutional disaster that has taken place in certain Spanish States. The power vacuum and the hi-tech expansion have allowed to expand and discover new sources of illegitimate business, taking advantage of technology to shun governmental controls, and in certain instances, to defy them openly.

In Spain, the main organized criminal groups are basically based in the big cities as well as the Mediterranean seashore along, with an extension to Sud-Western and Insular areas. Some of the stats for crime rates are as follows:

Each year, 700 million smuggled-in packs of tobacco are sold in Spain.
According to official figures, annually about four billions US dollars
are laundered in Spain.

The Spanish Police recognize this state of affairs and, consequently, a series of tactical, operational and organizational restructuring are being commenced with the intent of maximizing the effectiveness in the fight in opposition to this type of criminality.

There is little need to worry about our own communities in Vilanova i la Geltru, as we have our main gates engineered and staffed with remote controlled access permitted by an actual human staff at both Vilanova Park and Paramount Places. In addition, we have roving staff of on-site security to ensure the safety of our guests.