2 Discussion post response (150 WORDS PER POST)

(Erika’s post) 1. Moral panic is an emergence of a condition, event, or group of persons that becomes defined as a threat to the values and interests of society. It is considered stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media and groups of experts and “right to think people” take moral positions make judgements and suggest how the threat should be coped with. An example is the anti-drug movement which resulted from public. 2. Mandatory minimum sentencing would be considered an ethical ground, because it relies on conclusions drawn from an analysis of what is “right and wrong” or “good or bad” in a moral sense. These minimum punishments are already set by legislature not the judicial system. They serve so that criminals are required to serve a minimal punishment because of what crime they have committed. 3. After the events of 9/11 it was argued that torture was necessary as a national security counter terrorist measure in the interest of defending democracy. It has been suggested that torture can be applied with a “torture warrant,” which would prescribe the specific acts that are authorized and the limits to which they can be taken. The arguments against it are that it is inhumane, ethically and morally wrong. I think this would be an ethical issue because there have been plenty of instances where the torture documented was excessive and uncalled for. 4. Continuing to use and apply the Patriot Act will be the most effective because it is proactively engaged in identifying potential threats to our national security. It implements guidelines and standards that can be applied when a regular search warrant and other agencies are unable to collect any information that might be critical in the identification of terrorism. 5. As a congress man, I would vote to renew it because it is important to have these checks and balances in place to secure our nation. This act came about shortly after 9/11 and has created security that was missing before. Having the ability to have surveillance and intercept wire and oral communications has identified many threats to this country. This allows for access to records and other items under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. (James’s post) A moral panic is an irrational response from the public that is out of proportion to whatever the threat actually is. They are created when there is a perceived threat to the public that is being presented as a major threat, usually by the media. With this, quickly there is a response from policy makers in which legislation is passed to combat this threat. A specific example of a past moral panic is the war on drugs. This event was perpetuated by the media's push with 1,000 newspaper stories about the issue of crack cocaine (Banks,263). Through this fear of drugs overwhelming the country, the population supported the war on drugs and pushed back against users and street-level dealers. From this, it is shown that the war on drugs is a string of policies grounded on ideological grounds. This is found as Nixon's administration wanted a larger hand in crime-control within the states. This administration then put forward policies that can be considered draconian, with the establishment of the "no-knock" warrant, and with harsher penalties to those found with drugs on their person. As time went on, it was very quickly not seen as an issue, with one poll suggesting only between 3% to 5% considered drugs to be the most pressing issue. Then with the election of 1988, another wave of fear regarding drugs came back through, pushing more legislation to combat the "threat"(,264). From these examples, it is believed that the war on drugs is an ideological issue due to its attachment to elections and certain administrations. The arguments in support of torture, is put into the form of a scenario. The "Ticking Bomb" scenario, is one in which a captured terrorist is aware of information in regards to a nuclear device that will detonate if information about it is not found quickly enough. So the question lies, is it appropriate to use whatever means necessary in order to prevent the bomb, by even using torture. On the other side of the fence, there are countless examples and arguments against the use of torture. Torture is found to be a violent abuse to the victim's humanity. Not only that, but it violates a moral norm against attacking a defenseless individual (Banks, 299). The act strips away humanity from the victim and can be left damaged not just physically, but psychologically as well. Ethical pluralism would be the best ethical system to use in the war on terror. This is because this system allows for many different views on matters to be used, instead on the "black or white" notion that absolutism uses. That notion is an unchanging and potentially problematic among other types of ethical systems that may be encountered in this war. Whereas using this system, there is an understanding to be found in the enemies you are fighting, but to still stand up against the evil that they may perpetuate. As a member of congress, in order to renew the provisions of the Patriot Act, I would need to see certain changes occur to it. Primarily, ensuring a checks and balances system on all agencies involved to make sure that they are not overstepping their boundaries. Not only that, but also ensuring that habeas corpus is upheld, as ignoring the procedure of law has the potential to horribly abuse the justice system by bypassing it completely.