Juvenile offenders are still very impressionable and interacting with the violent and hardened criminals does not give them the tools to survive in normal society and become productive citizens. My contention has been that if we catch these offenders soon enough we can prevent them from committing more serious crimes. Many states have implemented the death penalty, hoping that it would be a deterrent against crime. I do not think it works either. Many prosecutors use the threat of the death penalty as a way of getting a plea deal to get the offender off the streets.
One is the releasing the guilty back into society, next is the slowing down of the criminal process and the last thing is the behavior and consequence of the police officers involved in the cases. The exclusionary rule is a remedy that was actually created by the judiciary and is not part of the Constitution, so therefore it can be changed. It needs to be abolished and reexamined by Congress. This rule is crazy. It protects the guilty rather than the victims.
They will withhold critical evidence from the defense team and will resort to immoral if not illegal tactics in their investigation of the offense. Their personal opinion is that they actually do not care if the defendant is guilty or innocent, they just want a conviction. They want to extract their pound of flesh. Also researchers have determined that some of the causes of prison overcrowding are harsher penalties for criminal activities, changes to laws that make new actions illegal, high recidivism rates and needed improvements to the penal system. Once the causes of crowding have been fixed researchers can begin to address the problems it causes and deal with them.
Criminals are less likely to commit a crime that they know carries a strict sentence. Crime rates will plummet for this specific crime. With the increasing numbers of inmates, there will also be an increasing number of employment needed to monitor these inmates. This strong sentence also would bring more justice to victims and the families of the victims. Ultimately this will help communities become safer.
Many armed robbers are not new to the crime and usually have a criminal history of robbery or criminal behavior in their past. These career criminals are a major problem and commit the most serious crimes over and over again. While statistics show that the rate is going down, we would like to further propose a bill that would help to stop this crime from occurring all together. Our proposed plan to reduce this activity is to double the maximum prison term for anyone convicted of armed robbery. These changes will be effective by keeping these offenders behind bars for longer, preventing them from committing the same crime again.
Determinate Determinate is a prison term: which is defined by law as a requirement of a specific length of time, imprisonment for a specific and particular crime. You had to the time, you were sentence to do. This sentence came because, some states where rehabilitation was not favor. Our Legislator’s had to refocus on punishment and retribution. With fixed sentence, it left limiting judicial discretions; the fact is it just moved authority to other people who had other interests.
Assuming that young, petty lawbreakers may be deterred from braking laws, simply by introducing the possibility of a public flogging, has some flaws to it. Jacoby neglected to bring up, what I would call the perfect argument to this topic. People who already intentionally commit crimes in today’s American society are fully aware of the possible repercussions for their actions. Despite this knowledge they continue to commit crimes that could land them in jail. I could argue that even more crime could result in effect to fewer prisonable offences and more humane forms of corporal punishment.
Is this a good or bad bill? The only benefit I can see from this bill is getting these criminals off the street. Regardless if the bill is passed or not, an individual will still serve some type of sentence for committing an armed robbery. Doubling the term will make them serve a longer sentence which means more time not committing any crimes excluding crimes in prison. Society is safer but not these prisons and jails.
To be effective, the punishment must be harsh enough to actually deter people from committing crimes. A more effective way is the “carrot and stick” policy, in which the law abider is given an incentive to follow rules, and is punished if he does not. While few would really argue against taking the bite out of punishment, there are some arguments that deterrence is not nearly as effective as we'd like it to be. Statistics showing high crime rates among people who have already been in prisons, or punished in other ways can easily be used to demonstrate that deterrence isn't so very effective. The sheer threat of punishment is not enough to ensure the smooth functioning of a law-abiding society, as countless examples of tyranny and police states illustrate.
I will attempt to prove that the benefit of merely punishing criminals is minimal and that a justice system that prioritises rehabilitation would have far more overall benefit to society as a whole. A third important aspect to the justice system is keeping dangerous and violent individuals off the streets. This often seems to be equated with punishment, while the two are actually quite distinct and separate aims. I agree that there is often a need to isolate dangerous people from society at large, the question here is what our aims for the individual should be while they are in isolation. Emotion (1) Of the arguments one tends to hear in favour of prioritising punishment, the most persuasive are often emotional arguments.