As has been discussed in this chapter, nuclear and/or radiological weapons are extremely difficult for terrorists to obtain and/or develop. Still, even small versions of these weapons can cause extreme destruction and death. Because of the difficulty for terrorists to obtain them without being tracked, threats from such weapons are considered to be a low when compared to other types of weapons used by terrorists. Do you think it is poor judgment to consider these a smaller threat, or does it make sense to pour more resources into stopping other CBRNE weapons, considering the damage they can cause, and how much easier they are for terrorists to acquire?
What will be an ideal response?
I believe that it is not poor judgment to disregard these smaller threats because it is more beneficial to society to be more concerned about bigger and more destructive threats. If we put emphasis on these smaller threats it might take away from a bigger threat happening.
You might also like to view...
Discuss deterrence as a goal of juvenile corrections. Is the threat of punishment an adequate deterrent when another goal is using the least restrictive alternative to punish?
What will be an ideal response?
Answer the following statement(s) true (T) or false (F)
1. A police officer can request a general warrant to search a suspect’s entire house and vehicle, even if they are not sure what they are looking for, if they believe that a crime has been committed. 2. The use of no knock warrants has been increasing since the 1980s. 3. Police are allowed to move belongings around under the plain view doctrine if they think that there may be illegal contraband in the house. 4. A Terry stop requires a Miranda warning. 5. Suspects have been known to give false confessions under stressful circumstances.
Let’s say that as a result of evidence showing premeditation your client was found guilty of first-degree murder instead of manslaughter. This happens in state court in a state where the death penalty could apply. Which of the following is true?
You are defending a client accused of committing a hate crime. Apparently, he got into a bar fight and uttered a racial slur during the altercation. The man he punched was in fact an African-American. Sadly, the man your client punched ended up dying from head injuries caused by the punch. Assume that your client is found guilty of manslaughter, and answer the following questions about what happens next. a. A judge could sentence your client to the death penalty if this activity took place on a Native American reservation in your state. b. A jury would be deliberating guilt and innocence at the same time as they were debating which punishment to dole out. c. The death penalty could only be imposed via a bifurcated trial in which the sentencing phase involves consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. d. There is no chance of your client getting the death penalty, as it has been banned nationwide since the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia.
The least well-off people in the U.S. are those who __________________
A. have low or no income B. own little material property and few or no financial securities C. Exhibit styles of speech dress, and conduct that are viewed as maladjusted or "dangerous" D. All of the above