The Pros And Cons Of KECIP

KECIP ( Kidnapping Exigent Circumstances Interrogation Provision) is a legislation proposed by President Donald Trump. He is committed to signing the law into a legislation if it is passed by the Congress and the fate of this law rests in the Senate. Some provisions about KECIP are when there is a federal arrest where the suspect is held in the custody while being charged with kidnapping them in 24 hours the district attorney has a right to have a court hearing, no information which is disclosed by the attorney during the 72-hour period can be used during the trial and the court during the time of a hearing can decide where he presents evidence that 1) the location of where the person is kidnapped is unknown to the law enforcement officers

This letter is addressed to Senator Dorothy Whitcomb, who is undecided on the decision about KECIP to abstain for the legislation of KECIP . In this paper I will argue that some of the reasons for Senator Dorothy Whitcomb to refrain from the proposal of the legislation of making KECIP a law, while relating these reasons to the moral theories of Consequentialism and The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing. Some reasons that Senator Whitcomb should refrain from legislating KECIP are that some of the rules of this law are morally incorrect for the person who has been kidnapped, these laws are not convenient for the people who have been kidnapped, it is not indicated in the law what type and kind of punishment the suspect recieves, and that this law could fail to perform its function properly and as a result a dysfunction of law can occur which can cause complications for

One thing stated by the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing is that there is a variation between doing and allowing. It is morally wrong to do a harm rather than allowing a harm to happen. She speaks of two types of duties: positive and negative. She speaks of negative duties or rights, “when thinking of the obligation to refrain from such things as killing or robbing” (380). Foot explains that a negative right is a right which is not to be harmed. She speaks of positive duties as, “doing acts of e.g to look after children or aged parents” (380). Then she further explains that positive duties can extend such as acts of charity which are hardly said to be owed. This doctrine explains that it is morally worse to do harm than to allow that harm to occur. One example that Foot gives of a negative is the case of the steering, driver, who has a duty to refrain from injuring five men and duty to injuring one. One example of a positive duty that Foot gives is that of the hospital staff members that are faced with a scarce-drug conflict. The Doctrine of Doing and allowing