Sample Solution
The principles of federalism can have an impact on policing in several ways. One way is through the enforcement of laws. A federal government will typically lay out regulations that must be followed by state and local police departments, but it is up to each individual jurisdiction to enforce those laws as they see fit (Gelman et al., 2017). This allows for different states or cities to take different approaches when it comes to law enforcement based on the needs and preferences of their citizens.
Another way that federalism impacts policing is through funding. Federal programs such as the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) provide grants for state and local agencies so that they can better serve their communities (Lyons & Greene 2019). Without this type of support, many areas might not have access to necessary resources or personnel needed for effective law enforcement practices – making it difficult to address crime in a timely manner .
Finally , principles of federalism also affect how officers are trained . The US Department Of Justice provides nationwide standards which outline minimum training requirements for all police departments – however beyond these basics there may be additional guidelines imposed at regional level depending upon specific circumstances or existing safety protocols already in place . In addition, some other aspects related directly with handling more advanced cases may even require specialized certifications from national organizations concerned with security operations (Walsh et al., 2018).
Ultimately , while there are numerous advantages associated with structuring our nation’s policing system under federalism – making sure right balance between regulations , funding and training remains key ensuring appropriate amount oversight without compromising overall effectiveness force.
is leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which
