There is no excuse for someone to take a person’s life. According to Jessica Brooks, “Californians should advocate for the death penalty to remain a part of the legal system. We cannot reward those who clearly do not deserve it” (10). Many criminals are rewarded with a shorter sentenced for good behavior and later return to prison for the same allegations.
This can also occur when evidence is tampered with or purposely withheld from an investigation. The occasional justice failures are becoming more few and far between due to DNA evidence and updated technology. • In your opinion, what is the worst possible miscarriage of justice that could result in the criminal courts, and why? What could be done to prevent such an occurrence? In my opinion the worst possible miscarriage of justice that could result in the criminal courts is if an innocent person is charged with a felony in which they are sentenced to life in prison or execution.
I think that ‘vengeance vs. reform’ is such an important topic where it can affect the family of the victim and the criminal could have different opinions towards the type of punishment the judge will choose to apply in the case. Victim side will most likely want lots of vengeance or no mercy on the criminal while the criminals side will always think that the punishment they received was too much or that it was unfair. I think that is fundamental for the court and the judge to think for a perfect punishment that will be the most equal and fair for both the victim and the criminal , but not forgetting the type of crime that was
Prison time may be no worse for some people than the way they already live and therefore ineffective as a form of deterrence. People who cannot afford legal support have very minimal access to the legal system. An innocent person may be incarcerated only because they could not afford a suitable legal defence, this along with the theory of “school of crime” means that law abiding members of the community will become criminals through a forced exposure to real criminals. Instead of reducing future crime and recidivism, imprisonment is actually creating more offenders from once law-abiding citizens. The principle basis for a mandatory minimum sentence is the belief that the length of time in prison is a deterrent to future recidivism.
Mrs. Nemececk Period 5 November 5, 2011 Mock Trial In the mock trial case of Jack and Simon, each party had a decent argument and amount of evidence to prove their points. The prosecuting side provided good facts from the text of the book, though they failed to charge Roger accurately. Although the defense also came up with some good points as well, they still could not prove jack quite innocent. After a fair trial, the jury found Roger innocent from the charge of first degree murder, though the jury found Jack guilty to second degree murder. As a judge it was my responsibility to sentence each guilty individual to a necessary punishment.
After being rescued the group were sentenced to hanging for murdering Roger pending appeal. Having read all of the arguments give, I find the arguments of the judges Foster, J. and Handy, J. are the most convincing to me of all the arguments put forward. I have decided I would overturn the conviction. In the argument of Foster, J., a good point is made, this is that the spelunkers were completely remote from the commonwealth and that they were therefore living outside a ‘state of civil society’ and instead in a ‘state of nature’ therefore they were living outside the state that the laws were intended for.
In America, the accused has the right to a trial because of the sixth amendment. No one can be put in jail without being found guilty by a jury of people who aren’t for or against the accused. The sixth amendment also states that the trial must be speedy. I highly agree and approve the system that the United Stated has because the victim is given the opportunity to demonstrate his or her innocence. We cannot say that the same procedure can be applied in an old communist country because people and the government are very corrupt.
Victims’ Right’s Vengeance Derrick White University of Phoenix CJA/324: Ethics in Criminal Justice Instructor: Amy Gordon 9/23/12 When reviewing the information about the victims’ rights in America, I personally stand with it. Although a person is convicted or suspected of committing a crime they also still have rights. Some individuals fail to use them properly, because they figure since they are guilty of a crime there’s nothing they can do, which is not true. Government cannot deprive victims of their rights. These systems are made to view things from every angle possible and notice that the individual made good faith efforts to follow the law, who knows what will happen.
I do not believe this to be true, I believe that long-term imprisonment is what criminals are not afraid of. It is said that the death penalty encourages and legitimizes unlawful killing. But let’s think about it “murder, is unlawful and undeserved while the death penalty is lawful and deserved for unlawful act.” Imprisonment will never be a harsh enough punishment because they live off of our taxes, and it is sad to say that we are paying to keep these criminals alive. But most religious people will argue that capital punishment is breaking one of the Ten Commandments but the bible also says that “it is an eye for an eye.” That statement does not mean that when a person does something to you, you do it back but God put rules and people on this earth and gave them choices to make and I feel that if you truly love your brothers and sisters within this world the death sentence is appropriate because your are keeping them from hurting any other people. So many non-supporters of the death penalty say they are against it because of racial discrimination, or how it treats humans as like animal, or that it is cruel and unusual, or that retribution is another word for revenge and therefore they believe that life imprisonment is a just enough punishment.
The penalty of death is a very thought out process when it is subjected to a convict. The convict has to deserve the severity of the punishment and the courts cannot have any thoughts of the sentencing as unconstitutional for it to come into affect. Some arguments that were made that are for the death penalty, “gives closure for victim’s family who have suffered, creates form of deterrent crime, parole or escaped prisoners are given another chance to kill, and gives prosecutors another bargaining chip for plea bargain process” (Messerli). The constitutional arguments against the death penalty are, “financial costs of death penalty cost more than life in prison, appeals clog court system, why kill people who killed someone, innocent men and women may be put to death, and it does not bring the victim’s life back” (Messerli). The arguments for and against the death penalty are very strong arguments and could persuade a person’s mind to believe in both sides.