. [t]he Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. 2. How does a court acquire in personal jurisdiction? Generally, a court can exercise personal jurisdiction (in personamjurisdiction) over any
He is very experienced in criminal law and is against mandatory sentencing. This journal presents information that the mandatory sentencing policy in the U.S. is a failure. It argues that Legislators thought that they could “get tough on crime,” especially drug crime. I feel this source gives educated reasons as to why drug policy needs to be changed. It also backs up my other sources with the same research results; by removing the sentencing discretion of judges, and replacing it with mandatory jail sentences, we are sending more offenders to prison instead of programs designed to rehabilitate.
Sentencing Paper Billy Kinkade University of Phoenix CJA/234 Christine Cavalin 08/05/2011 Sentencing Paper According to Lawlink, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation are the primary objectives of sentencing in the US penal system (2003). Deterrence refers to the need to deter prospective criminals from committing crimes in the first place. The extents to which severe punishments such as the death penalty deter criminals are hotly debated by criminologists. However, more widely accepted is the notion that punishing tempting crimes of circumstances such as insider trading, can be effective in deterring crime. If the costs of the crime to the likely criminal are incredibly small, he or she will take the chance of getting caught.
Crime maybe controlled by fear of punishment 4. Punishment that is severe, certain, and swift will stop crime They believed in fast punishment instead of long trials. One of the major parts of criminal punishment reform was for fair and equal treatment of accused offenders. Judges could punish criminals however they wanted to no matter how severe the crime. Mr. Beccaria and other members of the Classical School fought for punishment to be set by legislative instead of judges having all of the authority for punishment.
In some states, the individual must be convicted of two serious felonies for the three strikes law to apply, while in others any felonies count towards the third strike. Critics of the three strike law express many strong arguments against their harsh legal statute. Our society has ultimately had an issue with the three strikes law. Some people have said that the law “destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge, it is unjust in certain conditions, and it adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive criminal system”
The use of mandatory sentencing practices in the Northern Territory from 1997 to 2001, and the application of similar laws in Western Australia, led to considerable public controversy and outcry. These laws, known colloquially as ‘three strikes laws’, may have hindered the effectiveness of discretionary sentencing, the application of mitigating circumstances, and the prison system in achieving justice, through the application of inappropriate penalties which have led to effects more adverse than would exist in a just situation. In a legal sense, mandatory sentencing is the procedure whereby judicial discretion regarding certain crimes and in certain cases is restricted by law. In an Australian context, it has been taken to refer to the procedures applied in the Northern Territory, under the governments of Shane Stone and Denis Burke, whereby mandatory sentences from one month to one year for the third offence relating to property and theft were introduced. These matters gained national attention after the death in custody of Johnno [sic] Warramarrba in February 2001, who committed
Summary and Response In Peter Moskos’s “In Lieu of Prison, Bring Back the Lash”, he argues that prisons are an ineffective and expensive form of punishment and suggests corporal punishment be used as an alternative. Moskos points out that prisons are severely overcrowded and come at an astronomical cost. He then gives a quick history of the prison system, stating it was created as a more humane option to replace corporal punishment, which was viewed negatively in our new country. Moskos states prisons were intended to rehabilitate criminals much in the way hospitals heal the physically or mentally ill. The author describes prisons as internment camps used for practically free labor and says while some criminals need to be incarcerated, most do not.
“Indeterminate sentences are sentences that have a minimum and maximum time to serve; a decision by a release authority determines the actual time served within that range” (Seiter, R. 2011). Indeterminate sentencing structure was used before the 1970’s and was supported by two beliefs. The first belief was environmental explanations could contribute to the offenders upbringing and mental condition. The second belief was the offender suffers from psychological problems that result in criminal behavior. These beliefs became heavily challenged in congress because they made the criminal justice system responsible for turning criminals into law abiding citizens.
Acts of armed robbery that end in violence or homicide tend to render the public outraged and give their voice a stronger demand for justice to be done. If we choose to take the stance that our criminal justice system is mean to only keep society safe and that justice is carried out then we need to recognize that the laws we have in place currently are set in place to do so. In theory we could see how enforcing a harsher sentence to those who choose to commit violent acts or armed robbery would work as a deterrent to prevent criminals from committing the act as often as they do
If we do not show these freedoms to people of other countries, then we do our whole country a dishonor. Torture to an enemy of the United States by the military or by any of the other Agencies is wrong and against our own laws and treaties. Our own military’s lawyers have even expressed concern over the use of torture of prisoners. The Judge Advocacy General’s Corps