Because they don’t deter crime as advertised. Between the years of 1980 to 2009 the number of adults under correctional supervision jumped from under two million to over seven million (Glaze, 2009). This overwhelms our prion systems with overcrowding and our state and federal budgets without a significant decline in crime. If all states decided to fully adopt the federal truth-in-sentencing laws and eliminate the parole system altogether then it would burst an already swelling prison population system. One argument is that if the parole system was ended then violent offenders release would not be contested but be automatic at the end of a set period of time (Butterfield, 1999).
The Unforeseen Effect of Minimum Wage On the surface, minimum wage seems like a good thing. The thinking that more money in an employee's pocket is a good thing is a no-brainer right? I'd argue no. There are different angles to look at, and even more inadvertent effects that have been realized. I'd like to steal a few minutes of your time to show you the unintended and unforeseen effects of this government interference in the private economy.
* Ripley speaks about how the government had created a method to compensate the families of the victims of 9/11. * * Another thing that Ripley describes in her article is greed, such an ugly trait a person can come upon plays a significant factor in compensation when someone dies (which Amanda Ripley highly agrees on) which is upsetting to see that families rather get a bigger chunk of money than grieve a death. * * Ripley discovered the government invented a way to measure blood and loss in cash. This provided helpful insight on the grueling mathematics involved in, calculating the income necessary to provide for a family in the of premature death. * Well in the article Amanda Ripley does state that it's unfair the way the government distributes money to families when either their spouses or family members die in a tragic accident.
Supporters of mandatory sentencing believe it reduces crime and ensures consistency in sentencing. This may be the case, but should a recidivist who shows no remorse or chances of rehabilitation be given the same treatment as a first offender vowing to never commit the crime again? Mandatory sentencing and fixed jail terms pose a definite threat to natural justice, risking incarcerating criminals whom would benefit greater from lighter penalties such as community service or a suspended sentence. In addition to fairness arguments, some opponents of mandatory sentencing believe that treatment is more cost-effective than long sentences, with each prisoner in Australia costing tax payers around $98000 per annum, adding up to $2.5 billion tax payer dollars yearly. Queensland laws are there to maintain a justice system which is both fair and adequate.
Community corrections affect society in a number of ways. There are many positive and negative effects to community corrections. An example of a positive affect is that probation cuts down on the cost of running the state prisons and county jails. In return it would save the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars because the tax payers would not have to pay to feed and house the individuals if they were sentenced to prison or jail. However, a negative effect on society is that you honestly cannot determine whether the probationer will abide by the rules that the courts set in place.
Shouldn't we spend that money on better things like building the economy or catching murderers or even on research? On a first offense of procession of heroine an individual gets a year in jail and a 1,000 dollar fine, on a first offense of graffiti an individual gets one to three years in prison and a fine 1,000-2,500 dollars. (bian) The first offense f graffiti laws are stricter than possession of heroine laws. Graffiti laws are to austere. They're to busy focusing on the negative instead of the positive, Either they need to do more to legalize it or lighten the charges.
Intermediate sanctions are a variety of punishments that are more restrictive than traditional probation but less severe and costly than incarceration. The purpose of intermediate sanctions is to make the offender pay for the crime they committed in a way that isn’t unfair or to costly to the justice system. For example, if a person gets a speeding ticket, instead of putting them in jail for a year which would cost us a lot of money, we just make them pay a fine. The idea of intermediate sanctions is good because it saves us money and gives people that commit non serious offenses or crimes the chance to show they don’t belong in jail. On the other hand, it may lead some people to think that it is ok for them to do these offenses because they don’t have to go to jail as a consequence.
Therefore, affluenza should not be used as a legal defense since money should not be the way to get out of trouble. But since the growing Generation Y now is believing that they deserve the most expensive and flushest must-haves, the affluenza disease is and will be spreading like a virus among this cohort that depends on wealth entirely. Let me re-establish my point: the cure for affluenza should be prison, not some $450,000 a year rehabilitation centre that treats therapy to spoiled brats. In a society where the rich and the poor are supposed to be treated equally, arguing that affluenza is a defensive certainty should be an abuse to the entire justice system. Because the law exists to re-educate but also to discourage unlawful conduct by the rich as well as the poor, there is no reason for a wealth-engulfed boy to be set free into society, right after taking the lives of 4 innocent citizens, due to their condition of
Solitary confinement would serve the same purpose. Stopping a prison inmate from committing another crime is as simple as placing him or her in solitary confinement and simply “throwing away the key.” Individuals are not deterred from committing crimes, or murder, because of the fear of receiving the death penalty. However, should the justice system be deterred from capital punishment because of cost? It is much cheaper to keep someone in prison for a lifetime than it is to put him or her to death. This is due to the legal issues that arise and the court costs.
Society puts the courts and prosecutors set up to figure out who has overstepped the public’s laws. Despite the fact that society advises casualties the discipline to the wrongdoer will improve they feel, I don't think most casualties don't feel alleviation. The discipline of the wrongdoer won't bring back the individual they have lost, through the criminal demonstration of another. I feel that law violations including the robbery of cash can be repaid to the casualty by the compensation from the criminal, to make them entire once more. As I would like to think, if people are not considered responsible for law violations against mankind, our general public will never again be viewed as socialized.