Citizen Rights Vs Security: The Fourth Amendment To The Unit

Citizen Rights Vs Securitythe Fourth Amendment To The United States Co

Citizen Rights vs Security The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution granted people rights against the state's invasion of privacy. The amendment makes it illegal for the government to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the singularity of terrorism necessitates government taking such precautions to discourage assaults. As a result, subsequent administrations operating in the aftermath of the Fourth Amendment must deal with the problem of apprehending suspected terrorists. There are several types of security activities that jeopardize citizen rights.

First and foremost, there is a need for preventative detention. The majority of terrorists in the "sleeper agents" section are too well-behaved to be identified. However, in the event of suspicion, the government would lack the warrant to hold such individuals under the fourth amendment. Second, to collect information from a suspected terrorist, the authorities may need to use coercive questioning. Citizens' liberties are jeopardized by these two critical security initiatives.

To aid the fight against corruption, citizens and the state must reach an agreement on how to apply certain of these rights. References: Inter American Commission on Human Rights. Citizen Security and Human Rights. cidh.org/countryrep/Seguridad.eng/CitizenSecurity.V.htm Bertrand Ramcharan. Security and Human Rights. Bijo P. Abraham. Human Rights Vs. National Security. 2 Week Six Discussion Student’s name Instructor Course Date Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessments (ASEBA) What is the evidence of the instruments' validity? Hawes et al. (2020) conducted validity assessments and discovered that the ASEBA has strong internal consistency when compared to the CBCL and DSM-oriented scale. When it comes to construct and content validity, Genzlinger (2020) has a decent set of metrics. The findings of Willems et al. (2017) study demonstrated a high degree of validity. This implies that the test's attributes may be established, scores can be assessed, and then the results can be applied to specific subjects. What is the evidence of the instruments' reliability? In a one-week period, Hawes et al. (2020) analyzed the test-retest reliability. According to the correlation coefficient, it ranged between 0.80-0.90. Similarly, Genzlinger (2020) found a coefficient of 0.80 dependability in his investigation. ASEBA (2019) found that the dependability of preschoolers, school-aged children, adults, and older adults ranged from 0.76-0.93 to 0.80-0.90, excluding the cross-informant coefficient of 0.39 (aside from the cross-informant coefficient at 0.44). Hence, ASEBA's test-retest reliability might be believed to be of excellent quality by looking at these data. This data reveals that the test is administered quite consistently, with just a little amount of variation. What is the cost of the instruments? - Today, a single user license costs $295. What are the main reasons you selected these particular assessment instruments over other alternatives? My choice of this specific assessment instrument is based on the fact that it enables for early detection of poor habits and is designed to be used for the rest of one's life to monitor for variations from baseline. The forms that are utilized are another factor in this evaluation. The open-ended section of the forms allows for additional information from the intended client. The forms may be used to examine a broad spectrum of individuals since they alter depending on the stage of development the subject is in. Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) What is the evidence of the instruments' validity? The significant correlations between the DAST and other drug evaluation devices provide solid proof of its validity and reliability as a criterion (Kim & Hodgins, 2017). In addition, it has strong construct validity and good discriminatory validity (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2018). Its strong face validity seems to be its principal psychometric constraint. It is possible to consider a high level of face validity as a desirable attribute, depending on the test taker's motives. What is the evidence of the instruments' reliability? The DAST has been tested on a wide variety of demographics, including people of different ethnicities, ages, and mental health diagnoses (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2018). Definitely, the instrument's psychometric qualities are a big selling point." It is a very accurate measurement with a high coefficient x and great test-retest reliability. Also, it shows strong connections between items and totals (Kim & Hodgins, 2017). What is the cost of the instruments? - The test and the guidebook are free, but the training module costs $75. What are the main reasons you selected these particular assessment instruments over other alternatives ? Although there is some debate over whether this instrument is involved in the norming process, I chose this assessment instrument over others because of the better evidence of reliability and validity, as well as the fact that it is more psychometrically sound than the Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ). It's important to keep in mind that the DAST is only a screening tool. Because of this, it should not be used as a stand-alone tool for diagnosing drug addiction disorders, but rather in conjunction with a more thorough evaluation of substance use. References Genzlinger, J. (2020). Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the School-age Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Hawes, D. J., Kimonis, E. R., Mendoza Diaz, A., Frick, P. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2020). The Clinical Assessment of Prosocial Emotions (CAPE 1.1): A multi-informant validation study. Psychological Assessment , 32 (4), 348. Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2017). Reliability and validity of data obtained from alcohol, cannabis, and gambling populations on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Psychology of addictive behaviors , 31 (1), 85. Mulvaney-Day, N., Marshall, T., Piscopo, K. D., Korsen, N., Lynch, S., Karnell, L. H., ... & Ghose, S. S. (2018). Screening for behavioral health conditions in primary care settings: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of general internal medicine , 33 (3), . Willems, Y. E., Dolan, C. V., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., de Zeeuw, E. L., Boomsma, D. I., Bartels, M., & Finkenauer, C. (2017, November). The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Self-Control Scale (ASEBA-SCS): assessing self-control in youth. In VNOP-CAS-ISED Days . CITIZEN RIGHTS VS SECURITY CITIZEN RIGHTS Vs SECURITY Tejasvi Kore New England College Abstract Security is one of the fundamentally vital aspects that must be constantly maintained considering the wide variety of threats incurred from different places globally. The State’s Responsibility in Citizen Security is stipulated in article 4, Right to life, article 5, Physical Integrity, liberty in article 7. The State’s Responsibility for the acts of its agents and third parties. Article 1 is used to establish whether a violation of human rights can be attributed to a state party—article 3 of the Universal Declaration of human rights. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. The characteristics of public policy on citizen security include Human rights standards that should be incorporated when creating policies on Citizen Security. The principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination should be applied. It requires adapting the legal framework to meet the need or prevent/suppress crime and violence. To develop a criminal procedure and prison management. Strike a balance between authorities vested in state institutions and guarantees on human rights. The fourth Amendment bans unreasonable searches and seizures. The government must have probable cause to search a car, obtain a wiretap, or search a place of habitation. Foreign Intelligence Security Act prevents the searches of suspected foreign spies and terrorists unless the attorney general obtains a warrant from a particular national security court called the FISA court. The warrant has to show that the individual is a foreign terrorist and a member of an international terrorist group. Fifth Amendment/Miranda Rules laid down in 1966 by the supreme court, If suspected individuals request a lawyer, the interrogation must cease until the lawyer arrives. Security suspects have a right to remain silent. The law protects these individuals since they cannot undergo coercive interrogation. FINAL PROJECT TOPIC: CITIZEN RIGHTS VS SECURITY Each student will prepare a final project on a web application security topic. The primary deliverables for the project will be a paper and and also a presentation that will be presented by the student during the residency period. Additional details on project deliverables will be presented next week. Each student will be asked to pick a unique topic of their own choosing. Topics might include processes related to secure web technologies or a review of a specific web related cyber attack. Submit final project materials: 1. word, double spaced paper, written in APA format, showing sources and a bibliography 2. Project presentation in PPT format

Citizen Rights Vs Securitythe Fourth Amendment To The United States Co

Citizen Rights vs Security The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution granted people rights against the state's invasion of privacy. The amendment makes it illegal for the government to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the singularity of terrorism necessitates government taking such precautions to discourage assaults. As a result, subsequent administrations operating in the aftermath of the Fourth Amendment must deal with the problem of apprehending suspected terrorists. There are several types of security activities that jeopardize citizen rights.

First and foremost, there is a need for preventative detention. The majority of terrorists in the "sleeper agents" section are too well-behaved to be identified. However, in the event of suspicion, the government would lack the warrant to hold such individuals under the fourth amendment. Second, to collect information from a suspected terrorist, the authorities may need to use coercive questioning. Citizens' liberties are jeopardized by these two critical security initiatives.

To aid the fight against corruption, citizens and the state must reach an agreement on how to apply certain of these rights. The State's responsibility in citizen security is outlined in various legal frameworks, including articles from the U.S. Constitution and international human rights standards. The rights to life, physical integrity, liberty, and security are protected under these laws, but they also face constraints in the context of national security.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring probable cause for searches, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the government needs a warrant from the FISA court to conduct surveillance on suspected foreign spies or terrorists, which must demonstrate that the individual is associated with an international terrorist group. These legal protections aim to balance security needs with individual rights, but they also invoke questions regarding their implementation and scope.

Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment, reinforced by the Miranda rules established in 1966, provides protections against coercive interrogations. Suspects have the right to remain silent and to have legal counsel present during questioning, ensuring that their rights are protected during investigations. These legal safeguards aim to prevent violations of human rights while maintaining the functionality of law enforcement efforts.

The challenge lies in balancing citizen rights and national security. Governments must develop policies that respect human rights principles—participation, accountability, and non-discrimination—while effectively preventing and responding to threats. Public policies on citizen security should incorporate these standards, adapting the legal framework to meet evolving security needs without infringing unjustifiably on individual freedoms.

In conclusion, the tension between citizen rights and security concerns is a fundamental issue in modern democracies. While the Fourth Amendment and other laws provide essential protections against government overreach, the realities of terrorism and international threats necessitate certain compromises. It is crucial that these measures are implemented with respect for human rights, ensuring accountability and transparency to prevent abuses and maintain public trust. Ongoing dialogue, judicial oversight, and adherence to constitutional principles are vital in striking an appropriate balance between safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring collective security.

Paper For Above instruction

The balancing act between citizen rights and national security is a central theme in constitutional law and public policy, particularly in democracies like the United States. The Fourth Amendment serves as a cornerstone in protecting citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, establishing the legal boundaries within which law enforcement agencies operate. However, the evolving nature of threats, especially terrorism, has challenged these boundaries, prompting governments to adopt security measures that sometimes infringe upon individual rights. This tension is further complicated by international human rights standards that emphasize the primacy of human dignity and privacy.

In the context of terrorism, preventative detention is often employed to prevent possible attacks. This measure involves detaining individuals suspected of planning or facilitating terror activities, even in the absence of concrete evidence or warrants. While such acts may enhance security, they undermine the constitutional protections against arbitrary detention offered by the Fourth Amendment and subsequent legal frameworks. The dilemma lies in whether the need to preempt threats justifies potential violations of civil liberties. Historical and contemporary examples demonstrate that preventative detention, without sufficient safeguards, may lead to abuse and discrimination, especially against minority communities or marginalized groups.

Similarly, intelligence gathering through surveillance and coercive questioning raises significant legal and ethical issues. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) exemplifies legal attempts to regulate such activities, requiring warrants based on probable cause before conducting electronic surveillance of foreign agents suspected of terrorism. Nonetheless, critics argue that the expansive scope of surveillance programs, especially those authorized under the Patriot Act, has eroded privacy rights and led to mass data collection initiatives. While these measures aim to thwart terrorist plots, they also pose risks of overreach and potential abuse, highlighting the need for rigorous oversight and transparency.

Legal protections such as the Fifth Amendment and the Miranda rights are designed to safeguard suspects from self-incrimination and coercion. These rights ensure that individuals accused of crimes, including terrorism-related offenses, receive fair treatment and legal counsel. Upholding these rights maintains the legitimacy of judicial processes and prevents abuse of power. Furthermore, the principle of accountability is essential in ensuring that security measures do not violate constitutional rights or international human rights standards. Transparency in government actions, independent oversight, and judicial review are critical components of this accountability.

International frameworks, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reinforce the obligation of states to protect the rights to life, liberty, and security of persons while addressing security threats. Effective policies should incorporate principles of non-discrimination, participation, and legitimate authority, ensuring that security measures do not unjustly target specific groups or infringe upon fundamental freedoms. Strategies for citizen security should also include social and economic aspects to address root causes of violence, thereby complementing law enforcement efforts.

Ultimately, the challenge for democracies is to reconcile the need for security with respect for human rights. Achieving this balance requires a comprehensive legal framework that is adaptable to changing threats, robust oversight mechanisms, and a commitment to human dignity. Public engagement and transparent policymaking foster trust and legitimacy, ensuring that security policies do not undermine the very freedoms they seek to protect. As threats evolve, so too must the legal and institutional arrangements that safeguard citizens' rights, maintaining the delicate equilibrium that underpins democratic governance.

References

  • Inter American Commission on Human Rights. (n.d.). Citizen Security and Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Seguridad.eng/CitizenSecurity.V.htm
  • Ramcharan, Bertrand. (2010). Security and Human Rights.
  • Abraham, Bijo P. (2015). Human Rights Vs. National Security. 2 Week Six Discussion.
  • Genzlinger, J. (2020). Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the School-age Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA). Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
  • Hawes, D. J., Kimonis, E. R., Mendoza Diaz, A., Frick, P. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2020). The Clinical Assessment of Prosocial Emotions (CAPE 1.1): A multi-informant validation study. Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 348.
  • Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2017). Reliability and validity of data obtained from alcohol, cannabis, and gambling populations on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31(1), 85.
  • Mulvaney-Day, N., Marshall, T., Piscopo, K. D., Korsen, N., Lynch, S., Karnell, L. H., & Ghose, S. S. (2018). Screening for behavioral health conditions in primary care settings: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(3), 362-375.
  • Willems, Y. E., Dolan, C. V., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., de Zeeuw, E. L., Boomsma, D. I., Bartels, M., & Finkenauer, C. (2017). The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Self-Control Scale (ASEBA-SCS): Assessing self-control in youth. In VNOP-CAS-ISED Days.
  • United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Related Assignments