GunViolence M1WrittenAssignment DistrictofColumbiav.Heller TheCriminalJusticeSystems1 criminaljusticeM1ReadingAssignment
2/1/2021 2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01: Gun Violence
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719788 1/3
By Closed circuit security camera, Public
Domain.
Gun Violence
“The use of firearms in assault and robbery is the single environmental feature of American Society that is
most clearly linked to the extraordinary death rate from interpersonal violence in the United States…
“Current evidence suggests that a combination of the ready availability of guns and the willingness to use
maximum force in interpersonal conflict is the most important single contribution to the high U.S. death rate
from violence. Our rate of assault [compared with that of other countries] is not exceptional; our death rate
from assault is exceptional.
“Our considerable propensity for violent conflict would be a serious societal problem even if gun availability
and use were low. But the very fact that the United States is a high-violence environment makes the
contribution of gun use to the death toll from violence very much greater… [T]he United States has both a
violence problem and a gun problem, and each makes the other more deadly.”
Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins in Crime Is Not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America (Oxford
University Press 1997), pp. 122-23.
For a critical examination of the National Rifle Association and its objections to gun control, see Michael Moore’s film
“Bowling for Columbine” (MGM Home Entertainment 2003).
Home / My courses / (2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Ju… / Module 1 / Gun Violence
(2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Justice
https://moodle.esc.edu/
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481§ion=2
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719788
2/1/2021 2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01:
M1 Written Assignment
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/assign/view.php?id=2719793 1/4
“Scales of Justice – Frankfurt Version ” (CC
BY-SA 2.0 ) by mikecogh
M1 Written Assignment
Describe four different categories of theories about the causes of crime. What is the theory behind criminal
law? Does this adequately address the causes of criminal behavior? In other words, if crime is caused by
biological, psychological, or social factors, does societal condemnation and punishment of that behavior do
anything to deter or redress criminal conduct?
You should address these questions in a paper of approximately 2,400 words, relying primarily on the
readings and other materials assigned in this module; you will not receive credit without
demonstrating that you have read and understood the material assigned. You may include
independent sources. All information should be documented in MLA style opens in a new window.
General Instruction for Written Assignments
Your written assignment is intended to test your understanding of important concepts and discover how to sharpen your intellectual skills
of analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and application. The intent of the written assignment is to provide an opportunity to more fully describe,
explain, and analyze the books and other sources. When you submit your written assignment, you may want to submit it as an .RTF file
attachment, as these usually retain your formatting.
Throughout this course, there are four main resources that you can rely on that will enable you to successfully complete written
assignments:
Home / My courses / (2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Ju… / Module 1 / M1 Written Assignment
(2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Justice
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
https://www.flickr.com/people/mikecogh/
http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/resdoc5e/
http://www.esc.edu/library
https://moodle.esc.edu/
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481§ion=2
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/assign/view.php?id=2719793
2/1/2021 2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01:
District of Columbia v. Heller
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719789 1/5
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, right, gives a “thumbs-up” as he stands with Robert A.
Levy, left, from the Cato Institute, outside the Supreme Court in Washington,
Tuesday, March 18, 2008, after the court heard arguments in an attempt to
overturn the District of Columbia’s firearms ban. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez
Monsivais)
District of Columbia v. Heller
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its first
comprehensive analysis of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S.570 (2008). The vote was 5-4. Read the following brief of the case. The full
opinion is also available from supremecourt.gov.
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court:
FACTS: The District of Columbia Council passed a law generally prohibiting
handguns. Other firearms must be registered, and those guns must be unloaded,
disassembled or bound by a trigger lock unless located in a place of business or
used for lawful recreational purposes. Heller challenged the city’s denial of a license
for a handgun that he wished to keep in his home.
ISSUE: Does a complete ban on handguns violate the Second Amendment: “A well-
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?
REASONING: Nowhere in the Constitution does a right conferred upon “the
people” refer to anything other than an individual right. A militia in Colonial
America consisted of male, able-bodied citizens between the ages of 18 and 45.
We presume, therefore, that the right referred to is an individual one that can be exercised by all Americans. The Court pointed to extensive
writings at the time and since the Amendment’s passage that indicate that “arms” meant weapons, including those not designed for military
Home / My courses / (2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Ju… / Module 1 / District of Columbia v. Heller
(2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Justice
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290
https://moodle.esc.edu/
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481§ion=2
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719789
2/1/2021 2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01: District of Columbia v. Heller
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719789 2/5
use. “Keep” arms means possess weapons for the militia and any other lawful reason. “Bear” means to carry for the purpose of conflict with
another person or people — not necessarily in a military organization. It also meant to bear arms as a soldier but only when used in the
context of “bear arms against” a particular target. Together, the language of the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to
possess and carry weapons in case of a confrontation. A militia in Colonial America was comprised of all men physically able to defend the
State. It was assumed to be already in existence. It was not something created by the government, such as the Army and the Navy. The
security of the state allowed, among other things, defense of the country against government tyranny. The Founders recognized that the
chief means that government tyrants would have to oppress the people would be to take away their guns. “It was understood across the
political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military
force if the constitutional order broke down.” (Slip Op. at 26). The only sensible interpretation, then, is that the introductory clause
regarding the militia announces the purpose for which the individual right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The right is not
unlimited, like most in the Constitution. Nothing in this opinion should be construed to invalidate longstanding prohibitions on possession
of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or laws prohibiting guns in schools and government buildings or laws placing conditions and
qualifications upon commercial sales or limitations on the carrying of dangerous or unusual weapons. The handgun ban in D.C. amounts to
a prohibition on an entire class of firearms used for lawful purposes by the overwhelming number of Americans. It extends to the home,
where the need for defense of person and property is the most acute. It “makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful
purpose and is hence unconstitutional.”
Justice Stevens, dissenting: “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several states to
maintain a well-regulated militia.” It was a response to concerns about the power of the federal government to disarm state militias and
create a national army. There is no evidence of an intent to protect private citizens’ use of firearms. The Court has upheld previous
restrictions on firearms possession on the basis that the amendment protects only state militias. The omission of any reference in the
amendment’s language to the use of weapons for hunting or self defense is significant. Many state constitutions at the time did grant such
rights. On the other hand, the language of the Second Amendment describes a unitary right: to possess arms needed for military purposes.
It noted a distinction made in colonial times between “arms” — instruments used for war — and “weapons” — other instruments sometimes
used for offensive purposes. “When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people
a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia.” (Slip Op. at 16). In early drafts, the founders
combined the amendment with a provision allowing for exemption from military service for conscientious objectors. This “unequivocally
identifies the military character” of the amendment. The majority relies primarily on the English Bill of Rights and other indirect evidence. A
year after the amendment was ratified, Congress enacted a law to establish uniform militias throughout the country. It required every able-
bodied man 18-45 to enroll and provide himself with a good musket. This confirms the way the Founders viewed firearm ownership: a duty
linked to military service.
2/1/2021 2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01: District of Columbia v. Heller
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719789 3/5
Justice Breyer, dissenting: The majority of the Court has not shown the D.C. regulation to be unreasonable or inappropriate. The law is
consistent with the Second Amendment, even if the amendment is interpreted as protecting an individual right to self defense. It represents
a permissible legal response to a serious, life-threatening problem. “…[A] legislature could reasonable conclude that the law will advance
goals of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime. the law is tailored to the urban crime problem
in that it is local in scope and thus affects only a geographic area both limited in size and entirely urban; the law concerns handguns, which
are specially linked to urban gun deaths and injuries, and which are the overwhelmingly favored weapon of armed criminals; and at the
same time, the law imposes a burden upon gun owners that seems proportionately no greater than restrictions in existence at the time of
the Second Amendment was adopted. In these circumstances, the District’s law falls within the zone that the Second Amendment leaves
open to regulation by legislatures.” (Slip Op. at 2). I do not assume that the amendment contains “a specific untouchable right to keep guns
in the house to shoot burglars.” (Slip Op. at 3). In Colonial Boston, for instance, home owners could not keep loaded firearms in the home
and were prevented from carrying them within the city. In New York City, laws required the storage of gunpowder in containers. Handguns
are involved in a majority of firearms deaths, including suicides and accidental deaths. They are a very popular weapon among criminals,
and urban criminals are more likely to use them than others. Legislatures are primarily responsible for drawing policy conclusions from
statistics such as these. The D.C. Council’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. Its law places no burden on a well-regulated
militia. In fact, D.C. has no citizen militia. Its citizens may use other weapons for lawful recreational purposes or self defense. This law only
makes it more difficult for them to use handguns for self defense in their homes. I see no lesser restrictions that would achieve the same
purpose of protection.
In 2010, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Heller and applied its principles to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago (561 U.S.
742).The full opinion is also available from supremecourt.gov.
Last modified: Friday, November 18, 2016, 3:03 PM
You are logged in as Ken Nowak (Log out)
2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01
◄ Gun Violence
Jump to…
M1 Reading Assignment ►
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290
https://moodle.esc.edu/user/profile.php?id=138963
https://moodle.esc.edu/login/logout.php?sesskey=Ez6pSLGeWT
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719788&forceview=1
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719790&forceview=1
2/1/2021 2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01:
The Criminal Justice Systems
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719787 1/4
By Hanyou23 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0 .
The Criminal Justice Systems
You will often hear and see in this course references to “the criminal justice system.” In reality, there is
no such thing. At best, there are four criminal justice systems—those involving law enforcement, the
courts, corrections and community corrections—and even those are fragmented, involving many
different agencies with different authority, jurisdiction, functions, personnel, accountability and
procedures. In the course of a “criminal career,” an offender may wind their way through encounters
with the police, the courts, prisons and probation and parole officers. But these entities are not really
part of a single system. Instead, they comprise a series of interlocking systems that feed into one
another and, sometimes, back again.
Even the individual components of the “system” are multi-faceted. Law enforcement is not comprised
of a single agency but of many international, federal, state and local units. The federal government
alone enforces the criminal laws through a wide variety of agencies apportioned throughout many
different federal departments. The Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement
Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Secret Service; the Internal Revenue
Service; the Postal Service, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are just a few. The
Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Defense Department’s military
intelligence units may now be considered part of this “system,” as well, given their role in gathering
information about terrorism and terrorist activities. Most states have their own police agencies, and
hundreds of local municipalities within those states also have their own departments, often with
Home / My courses / (2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Ju… / Module 1 / The Criminal Justice Systems
(2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Justice
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hanyou23
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
https://moodle.esc.edu/
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481§ion=2
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719787
2/1/2021 2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01: The Criminal Justice Systems
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719787 2/4
“Presiding Judge Miles Ehrlich ” (CC BY 2.0
) by maveric2003
“Corridors of central jail ” (CC BY-ND 2.0 ) by
seeveeaar
By Dwight Burdette – Own work, CC BY 3.0 .
overlapping geographical jurisdictions. Personnel in all of these agencies are appointed with different
qualifications, by different appointing authorities, have different training, operate under different laws
and procedures and may have wholly different or slightly different jobs to perform.
Similarly, we have state and federal courts with different geographical and subject-matter jurisdictions.
Some judges are appointed; others elected. Some are appointed, then subject to “recall” elections.
Some are appointed for life and cannot be removed, except by the cumbersome and seldom-used
vehicle of impeachment. Others owe their allegiance only to the voters and can’t be controlled by
appellate or administrative judges. A judge in one jurisdiction can interpret a statute or the same
language in the Constitution differently from another in a concurrent jurisdiction, and both
interpretations are acceptable unless and until a higher court with the authority to do so overrules
them.
There are local jails, state prisons and federal prisons, each with distinct authority and each
administered by different government entities with differing standards for hiring, training, performance
and procedure. There are detention facilities for juveniles, and some states have separate prisons for
women. Many states now contract the incarceration of prisoners out to private corporations.
And, in most places, different agencies are in charge of offenders who don’t go to prison or who are
released before the completion on their sentences on parole or to half-way houses. Community service
programs, restitution, drug and alcohol treatment, boot camps, probation, shock camps and a bevy of
other diversionary programs may be administered by different authorities in different ways.
The consequence of all this is a startling lack of uniformity in the way people are treated and an overwhelming amount of paperwork and
confusion. It also leads to frequent “turf battles” over which police agency should respond, in what
court a motion should be presented, what prison is responsible for housing an inmate or what is an appropriate diversionary program for
an individual offender. On the other hand, all of this fragmentation is part of the plan of our founding fathers in creating a “system” of
checks and balances. Since there really is no unified “system” of criminal justice, it makes it extremely difficult for one individual with power
or influence to control the process and “railroad” an innocent person.
Last modified: Sunday, January 10, 2021, 11:17 AM
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
https://www.flickr.com/people/maveric2003/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/seeveeaar/3284932158/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/
https://www.flickr.com/people/seeveeaar/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Service_Work_Detail_for_35th_District_Court_Northville_Michigan.JPG#/media/File:Community_Service_Work_Detail_for_35th_District_Court_Northville_Michigan.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dwight_Burdette
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
2/1/2021 2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01: M1 Reading Assignment
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719790 1/3
King John signing the Magna Carta By James
William Edmund Doyle in A Chronicle of
England: B.C. 55 – A.D. 1485 , London: Longman,
Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, pp. p. 226,
Public Domain.
M1 Reading Assignment
Read:
Be sure to read the commentaries, “The Criminal Justice Systems,” “Gun Violence” and “District of
Columbia v. Heller” in this module.
Schmalleger, Part I (chapters 1-4).
Last modified: Wednesday, January 6, 2021, 10:03 AM
Home / My courses / (2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Ju… / Module 1 / M1 Reading Assignment
(2021SP1-CRJS-1005-01) Introduction to Criminal Justice
◄ District of Columbia v. Heller
Jump to…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_William_Edmund_Doyle
http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=YcM_AAAAYAAJ
https://moodle.esc.edu/
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481
https://moodle.esc.edu/course/view.php?id=50481§ion=2
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719790
https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=2719789&forceview=1
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
