Justice and Security Free Balance in the

Justice and Security Free Balance in the Administration of Justice and Security Justice and Security policies have always been at the center of international politics, but their nature has changed due to the advent of nuclear weapons and their proliferation, economic interdependence, the end of the Cold War, environmental problems, technological advancements and vulnerabilities, as well as other material and cultural developments typically linked to globalization.

This paper will talk about the evolution of justice security and balance rights freedoms that protect citizens a free society, respecting constitutional guarantees and individual rights. Further we will review the cumulative issues concerning the legal environment in which justice and security administration operates and also evaluates the changes in technology and mass communication that effects the justice and security areas. Last but not the least, we will talk about the issues that involved with individual rights vs.

The needs of the justice system and security's to maintain order and public safety. Free Balance in the Administration of Justice and Security Introduction The term justice and security denotes the aims and means that are needed to protect a state from both external and internal threats. Security policy has a narrower extension, usually confined to the aims and means against external military threats.

Security and defense policies have always been at the center of international politics, but their nature has changed due to the advent of nuclear weapons and their proliferation, economic interdependence, the end of the Cold War, environmental problems, technological advancements and vulnerabilities, as well as other material and cultural developments typically linked to globalization (Booth, 2005). These phenomena have also brought about conceptual changes and competing terminological usages.

Legal environment in which justice and security administration operates States are usually seen as principal actors that adopt and implement security and defense policies, partly because they are seen as legitimate holders of means of violence. However, in particular, if the military aspect of security and defense is downplayed also, international organizations, regional actors, international companies, and other human groupings can have a security or defense policy (Booth, 2005). The object of security or defense can also vary.

It can be the state, its government, critical infrastructure or territory, society, population or individuals, or principally anything that is seen as worth securing and defending. It is also possible to talk about global, common, or international security and to defend the existing world order or the ecosystem. Many countries and institutions have their own specific definitions for the terms security and defense.

After the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States adopted the concept of "homeland security" to deal with military, terrorist, and other threats inside the territory of the country. For example, when launching the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), the European Union adopted its own conceptual scheme, according to which security and defense policy deals with crisis management and not with common defense (Deudney, 2006).

Security and defense policies have traditionally been surrounded by a realm of secrecy, information gathering through intelligence, and a lack of democratic control by parliaments. Many states, however, lay out their doctrine on security and defense in the form of a "white book" or a public statement on security or defense. Such governmental documents create transparency, promote public discussion and legitimacy, and enable long-term strategic planning. A nation's defense can take various forms even when restricted to the traditional military meaning of the term.

One basic choice, for example, deals with offensive and defensive defense strategies. Another choice is whether to acquire nuclear or other nonconventional weapons. A state relying on conventional forces has to find the right balance between air, naval, and land forces. States can also choose whether to emphasize territorial defense or intervention forces. Furthermore, states can choose between conscription and a professional army or a mixed system and can decide whether to use private security companies (Deudney, 2006).

Finally, defense policy also covers various other political and social issues such as civil -- military relations and democratic control of the military, defense economics, and gender and sexual equality within the military. States also face security policy choices and can develop different security strategies. Besides choosing between a narrow and broader concept of security for the basis of their security policy, states can choose whether or not to securitize certain threats.

Furthermore, states can try to seek security within an alliance, in a multilateral framework of collective security, or alone, for example, on the basis of a policy of neutrality. The classic security strategies in world politics are balancing, band-wagoning, and buck-passing. Balancing means gathering strength against the opponent either by domestic mobilization or with external alliances; band wagoning leads one to accommodate and join the opponent; and buck-passing refers to shifting the responsibility for resisting the opponent to other actors (Deudney, 2006).

Justice System and Security to Maintain Public Safety Travel is one of the main problems that justice and security administrators have to manage on a routine basis. The official environment of airport security and border crossings has been in the news for months now. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Immigration and Naturalization (INS) have their hands full when it comes to travel. TSA just hosted a meeting in August, with their European corresponding teams, and talk about the increasing of luggage screenings, improved securitycheckpoints and employee security measures.

INS is moreover working on problems with border crossings. At present, if you feel like to travel into Mexico or Canada, you are required to have a passport; though, going to those countries do not need you to have one to enter. The INS has simplified the citizenship testto make sure that the applicants are certainly recalling the facts (Kaldor, 2007). In fact, TSA has reestablished the Federal Air Marshall Service after September 11 to ensure the safety of our aircraft while flying.

All these law agencies, however still have to make sure that they are not infringe the rights of those traveling. Technology and mass communication changes almost daily but in the past this was not true. Indeed these changes have affected many small counties and towns because they do not have the revenue to keep up with the changes. These changes affect how our emergency response and law enforcement respond to calls.

In fact, Homeland Security, in conjunction with the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) has been looking into this problem since 2003. The ineffectiveness existed long before September 11 according to their findings. The government has many agencies looking into the problems with the wireless communications in particular (Kaldor, 2007). Adapting to change is not something that these countries react well to & for many years have believed in their justice system. Justice is a moral & ethical issue that many believe that the state has no right to set.

The state has a right to state what they believe is right & wrong in the eyes of government but that is in the eyes of the court. Were is the justice for criminals that commit crimes & get away with it. There is a belief that they will get what is coming to them in the end but that will not be determined by the government if that criminal never gets caught.

Another though here is "How can we let our government decide what is considered justice."It is something that has to be monitored closely, with the changing society currently in the U.S. As well as all over the world the idea of justice is looked at much differently. We have to tread lightly on justice & abide by the law but many do not believe in the courts & many minorities who come to the U.S.

do not believe in governments nor do they trust the governments so how can we expect them to understand what we believe to be justice (Kaldor, 2007). All the U.S. can do is stick to its justice system & enforce the law the same way they do for everyone else. Another issue here when discussing justice is "How do we determine what is justifiable vs.

What isn't? How can we say that justice actually has been served? Who determines that? We as citizens of this country have no say in this. The courts have the say. If someone being convicted of a crime is released on a technicality & he commits another crime after that how can we say that justice has been served.

There is a lot of bureaucracy when it comes to the justice system & a lot of time is spent on making sure everything is right & ethical but one downfall can affect the whole outcome of a case. There is no justice in that but in our society this how we determine what justice is.

Morally we may all have different opinions of what justice is but in different societies there is no relation to state & justice & in those parts of the world they do not value the same court system that we follow. Changes in technology and mass communication with the effects these have on the justice and security areas Issues involving individual's rights and the needs of the justice system when maintaining order and public safety have been a controversial topic for many years.

The Constitution has many who think it should be written to today's requirements in the world. The First Amendment is one of the hardest hit when it comes to public safety and individual's rights. When a person is out protesting, they could cause a riot due to the words they say. The two topics that this happens with are religion and abortion. Many street preachers who will say the God's words to any who will listen and many do not want to listen (Kaldor, 2007). This is when fights happen.

When the United States Supreme Court made abortion legal, many protesters were annoyed. Many do not consider this was something the courts should be able to legalize. Indeed, many still protest the clinics that do abortions. The law enforcement agencies are busy if they have a clinic in their town because they have to drive by more often to ensure no vandalisms done to the buildings. Many clinics do more than just abortions but people forget about those other procedures, like helping parents have children.

The Second Amendment is also hit when it comes to public safety and individual's rights. Citizens have the right to own guns. They do not have the right to shoot without warning (Miller, 2005). Automatic weapons were killing many officers and they wanted these guns off the streets. When the government tried to ban automatic rifles, there was strong opposition. Many agencies were inundated with mail. The National Rifle Association had people fighting for the rights of the citizens to bear arms.

Due to all the opposition, the government was only able to put a temporary sale restriction on automatic rifles. The main reason for this restriction was to help law enforcement when it was time for them to respond to calls. The Fifth and Sixth Amendment is one that the courts have to ensure they follow. If they violate a criminal's right under these two amendments, they could lose a case. A fair trial and right to counsel are the main ideas for these two amendments.

Outrageous bail is also not to be violated even if the criminal is a serial killer and you have an outrageous amount of evidence pointing at them. Public safety might be a concern for a case like that but the rights of the criminal also have to be looked at closely. You cannot convict for a capital offense without a trial.

Many would say let the lynch mobs at the criminal so you can save the courts time for a murder but no matter the crime there has to be a chance for that criminal to face his accusers (Lipschutz, 2005). History.