He also mentioned that a large majority of juveniles were sentence to life in prison without parole and that they not even killed no one but were part of a crime. After a voting against the law he couldn’t accumulated enough supporters. Then after the extremely modest nature of Yee’s bill, this flip flopping is baffling. The law didn’t change regarding juveniles sentence to life, but what the law change was that every youth who were convicted could ask the judge to reexamine their cases after 15 years in prison. It doesn’t mean that after they will go free what it means is that the
Regulations to help keep this rule organized is fine, but the problem with these bills are that none of them do anything to reduce the crime rate and svae lives. Criminals will not registar their guns because most likely they are stolen and they have no license do to the fact that they are criminals. Ultimately, the only thing that these bill do is keep the honest people honest. John R. Lott did a short survey of 847 criminals that said that they are more concerned robbing a citizen with who is armed with a gun than running into the police. One felon quoted “ If you scare some innocent body with a gun you might not survive, if you get caught and arrested by a cop in America you are sure to survive”.
If you are acquitted, it cannot come back for a second bite. (Fitzpatrick) The jury only has one shot at successfully prosecuting the accused person, so the prosecutors must be sure about their case before it even begins. If the police are almost positive that a person committed a crime, but do not have all the evidence to find them guilty, they could waste valuable time trying to gather more evidence. While they try and figure this out, the person could leave the country, or even commit additional crimes. In many cases, people have been free from conviction because the evidence was not strong enough to convict them.
This was a case that would warrant such relief in my opinion. Would a jury have chosen to do so? Who knows? I think the fact that jurors should not be able to decide weather a sentence is too harsh because they have no legal training is a valid, what sentence isn’t harsh. Any amount of time away from your family and friends in harsh in my opinion, but isn’t that the reason why we have prison to isolate prisoners so that they will be reformed by missing the outside world.
The realistic feel of the experiment lead to the "good guards" not standing up to the other guards. Also, fear of the "John Wayne" and being ganged up on by all the guards probably made it scarier to think about standing up, when they would have no one to back them up. In addition, everyone was so deep into their roles, even the sociologists probably wouldn't have helped or done anything at that point. 4. If I was a prisoner, I don't think I could handle it.
Does Inmate Rehabilitation Really Work? Does Inmate Rehabilitation Really Work? A person who is placed in the hands of our penal system is not always rehabilitated. Many are locked away without any regard to why they ended up in jail to begin with. Many of these people chose a life of crime because they could not make a living and provide for themselves in any other way.
This tend to let the criminal go loose which raises concerns among the society as they are living among with those dangerous criminal and that the police officers have no ways to identify them even if they are able to identify the criminal, they could not put the criminals behind bars. At first crime control model were intended to assist police in getting the criminal. However some police officer had abuse their power given to solve their case quickly which led to miscarriages of justice which can be seen in the previous case. There are also other examples where police have misuse their power that leads to the conviction of innocent society. Situation like this can be seen in cases like Guildford four, Birmingham six, Maguire seven and many more.
The American people claimed that the immigrants are taking their jobs. I believe that their not. Their not taking their jobs away because no American would ever dare work in the fields or as a janitor under terrible working conditions. Many don’t even have a criminal record but they are marked as criminals. There only crime was to come here in the search of a better future for them and there family.
The Auburn Model could suit this offender by dispersing strict discipline, isolation at night, allowing the offender to work with other during the day under strict discipline, and allow the offender to be employed in workshops that the institution provides for therapy and to finance the institution. Though the offender has no help in seeking treatment for what he has done and if incarceration was a long sentence, there is nothing in place to help the offender reintegrate back into the community. So this model would help with the discipline part of the sentence but not correct the problem or help with any treatment process of the sentence. There is no rehabilitation to this model to help reform the offender instead of just “looking him up and throwing the keys away.” The community/crime control model would best suit this juvenile offender in this case. These models of punishment would better suit the offender because it would allow the offender to be reintegrated back into the community after the offender’s incarceration and rehabilitation term has expired.
Moreover, there’s no rehabilitation in adult prisons, just confinement to an overcrowded cell. Therefore, for a juvenile sent to an adult facility, there’s no rehabilitation for them, which is geared toward helping them reenter society upon completion of their sentence. For instance, if a juvenile is thrown into the adult court system and put on trial to the same degree as an adult, judges regularly fail to structure a shorter end of a punishment. Most states want judges to levy a life sentence, parole not an option upon guilty verdict for certain crimes, in spite of age. The adult prison system method tends to result in impending offences.