JURI 4846: Good Girls? Bad Boys? Gender, Crime, and Criminal Justice

There are no postings in your class

Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Teacher

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Reply to: Polyamory
2 années 6 mois ago

I agree with you when you say polygamy concerns individual rights and people should be allowed to have multiple spousal . In my view, the practice of polygamy is a matter of individual consent where participants are aware of the the circumstances surrounding polygamous relationship and content to entering and sustaining such relationship. Historically speaking, the practice of polygamy was widely accepted among First Nation peoples in Canada prior to western colonization. Native women from numbers of native societies were free to practice polygamy and in fact, some native women argue polygamy cannot be considered according to western/Christian standards of marriage as it may have provided better life for women. For example, Sioux women who married white men found that life seems to be more difficult with the absence of “sister-wife” to share household and conjugal duties because of the increased workload in the house as well as the increased frequency to give birth which resulted more suffering of women in childbirth. Overall, it is my view that since polygamous relationship is a matter of consent and concerns individual freedom, state intervention should not be allowed.

Reply to: Polygamy in Canada
2 années 6 mois ago

I agree with you when you say the matter concerns women's rights and women should be allowed to marry multiple husband. In my view, the practice of polygamy is a matter of individual consent where participants are aware of the the circumstances surrounding polygamous relationship and content to entering and sustaining such relationship. Historically speaking, the practice of polygamy was widely accepted among First Nation peoples in Canada prior to western colonization. Native women from numbers of native societies were free to practice polygamy and in fact, some native women argue polygamy cannot be considered according to western/Christian standards of marriage as it may have provided better life for women. For example, Sioux women who married white men found that life seems to be more difficult with the absence of “sister-wife” to share household and conjugal duties because of the increased workload in the house as well as the increased frequency to give birth which resulted more suffering of women in childbirth. Overall, it is my view that since polygamous relationship is a matter of consent and concerns individual freedom, state intervention should not be allowed.

Reply to: Polygamy in Canada
2 années 6 mois ago

I agree with you when you say the matter concerns women's rights and women should be allowed to marry multiple husband. In my view, the practice of polygamy is a matter of individual consent where participants are aware of the the circumstances surrounding polygamous relationship and content to entering and sustaining such relationship. Historically speaking, the practice of polygamy was widely accepted among First Nation peoples in Canada prior to western colonization. Native women from numbers of native societies were free to practice polygamy and in fact, some native women argue polygamy cannot be considered according to western/Christian standards of marriage as it may have provided better life for women. For example, Sioux women who married white men found that life seems to be more difficult with the absence of “sister-wife” to share household and conjugal duties because of the increased workload in the house as well as the increased frequency to give birth which resulted more suffering of women in childbirth. Overall, it is my view that since polygamous relationship is a matter of consent and concerns individual freedom, state intervention should not be allowed.

2 années 6 mois ago

Decriminalization of prostitution in Canada is much desired because the current legal control of prostitution has been proven to be a failure as it forces sex workers to experience higher rate of victimization. For example, the new provision of the Criminal Code prohibiting the purchase of sex allows the police to target the clients of sex workers aggressively, and such practice has been proven to increase the risk of violence experienced by sex workers in Sweden and Canada, where prostitution is controlled legally through the Nordic model. This is because since the clients of sex workers fear the risk of arrest for communicating the intent to purchase sexual service, sex workers are compelled to work in secluded industrial areas where purchasers are less likely to be detected by the police. Such practice inevitably increases the risk of violence experienced by sex workers because they are compelled to negotiate terms and screen their clients quickly without carefully assessing them for safety red flags. In addition, because the intent to purchase sex is criminalized, the number of available clients is reduced which means greater competition among sex workers would forces them to reduce their service prices, exposing them to the risk of poverty. In fact, sex workers in five cities across Canada expressed their concerns during interviews with the National Post stating that the new regulations pushed some clients away and made business harder for them in other ways. Therefore, prostitution should be decriminalized in Canada.

Reply to: The Death Penalty
2 années 6 mois ago

I like how you engaged in both sides of the argument and finished your opinion piece with a question. Morally speaking, I'm against death penalty because you simply do not punish someone by taking his/her life for committing crimes. To me, the death penalty should have no place not only in Canada, but in all democratic societies. My major concern with death penalty raise from the imperfection of our criminal justice system, which has the capacity to yield wrongful convictions. What that means is that there are number of people who are currently locked up in prison did not commit crime but were wrongfully convicted by courts either due to lack of forensic evidence ( eg. DNA) or false/misleading expert testimonies ( eg. Charles Smith). In fact, number of people who were wrongfully convicted in Canada spent years in jail and were exonerated years later ( eg. Donald Marshall Jr, William Mullins-Johnson,David Milgaard). Imagine if Canada did not abolish the death penalty, most of people who were wrongfully convicted and later exonerated would have been executed by now. Also, having death penalty does not necessarily deter criminals from committing crimes because factors such as intersectionality and social-economical background of the individual also play a role in the analysis of why people commit crime.

2 années 6 mois ago

I agree with you when you say freedom of speech is very important and people should not be oppressed when they are expressing their opinion. However, the sanction imposed on the Montreal rapper is justified in Canadian context. You stated the music video depicts a Taliban fighter who attacks Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. In my view, that depiction no longer concerns free speech. Terrorism is all evil and should not be promoted by any means, I can only imagine peoples reactions when they see someone who belongs to a terrorist organization preaching his attack on Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, while those soldiers are deployed on military mission to fight terrorism and are at real risk of being attacked by terrorists. They are many Canadian soldiers died abroad fighting terrorism and many Canadian veterans returned harmed either physically ( eg. Lost limbs ) or psychologically ( eg. PTSD) so it is highly disrespectfully to those soldiers as well as Canadians. Therefore, it the sanction imposed on the rapper is reasonable and justified in Canadian context.

2 années 6 mois ago

Peter received a puppy named Max on his 15th birthday as a gift and a few years later, Max was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Peter was told by the vet that Max only had 5 months to live and he could either euthanize Max or let Max suffer and die painfully in due course. Peter was extremely sad and troubled because for one, he loved Max so much hence didn't want to euthanize Max, but keeping Max alive would do nothing but prolong his suffering. Peter eventually went to the vet a few days later and euthanized Max. Now, lets try to apply that same scenario to a terminally ill patient who is fighting his/her right to die peacefully with dignity in a medically controlled setting. Is it morally acceptable to deny such request? I don't think so. Frankly, I find the argument surrounding physician-assisted suicide ironic. If we have the capacity to understand the pain and suffering of an animal and willing to end such suffering, why can't we extend our mercy to a terminally ill patient? I'm aware the topic is contentious and that both side of the argument is within reasonable merit. But to me, it is a matter of individual choice and extending our mercy to our likes. In my experience, some people on the opposing side of the table would use religion to justify their argument by saying " It is a sin to end your own life, you will go to hell if you do so". However,such reasoning is entirely based on assumptions. For one, they are assuming the patient who is connect to 20 IV lines painfully waiting to die is religious. Further, they are assuming the patient in question shares the same religion as they do. Moreover, they are assuming the patient is as " God fearing" as they are. In my opinion, such argument is nothing but a pile of hypocritical bologna. Religious or not, at the end of the day it only concerns the patient who is requesting physician-assisted suicide and no one else, because we are in no position to interfere the personal choices of other people. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide is a matter of exercising individual rights and extending our mercy to our on kind.

2 années 6 mois ago

Your post does a good job in highlighting some concerns with respect to the potential danger of online social networks. However, your suggestion of banning the use of social network entirely is not feasible or possible. You stated social media endanger life and privacy but on what scale did you reach that conclusion? I agree with you in terms of the use of social networks associated with the potential risk of exposing one's computer to virus attacks but that does not apply to social networks alone because as long as your are connected to the internet one way or the other, your are at risk of being attacked by virus. For example, governmental organizations use the internet to store, exchange personal information throughout the internet.Financial institutions such as banks use internet on daily basis to convenient their customers so that banking can be done online. In terms of the potential danger of cyber bullying, it is not possible to ban the use of social networks simply because there exists risk of cyber bullying. In fact, majority of social networks provide " report" option on their sites so that should some one notice cyber bullying or online abuse, the admin of the site would investigate and when feasible, the abusive person's account will be terminated and police may be contacted by the admin.

Reply to: gender issues
2 années 7 mois ago

In this case gender played a huge role

There no collaborative classes

About the author

Institution

Class Subject