Sparing the innocent victims who would be spared, ex hypothesi, by the nonexecution of murderers would be more important to me than the execution, however just, of murderers. But although there is a lively discussion of the subject, no serious evidence exists to support the hypothesis that executions produce a higher murder rate. Cf. Phillips, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: New Evidence on an Old Controversy, 86 AM. J. SOC.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same extent? If not, you're making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the problem is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any one group, but to protect all
Should the Parole System be abolished? Timothy P Ostin 0458935 TESC November 2010 ENC 102-OL014 Research Paper In its current state, the U.S. parole system is flawed and truly causes more harm than good. Abolishing parole is absolutely necessary for the safety and well being of the community of law abiding citizens that inmates are released to live amongst, as well as the best opportunity for offenders to rehabilitate so that reintegration is ultimately more successful. Most people believe that the parole system is not only corrupt, but inherently unjust…making it seemingly contradictory to the foundation upon which the system was initially built, the justice system. While the decision to abolish parole is a controversial one,
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.
There are many laws that come into play with the end result being less crime. They are intended to make punishments harsher for offenders with the hopes that the offender will not repeat crimes. The Habitual Felon Act was developed in order to increase sentencing time for the repeat offenders. This was considered to be a ""tough on crime" legislation that was adopted by the North Carolina General Assemble in the early 1990s" (Young). The law was also adapted in order to get more violent individuals off of the street, instead it filled the prisons with nonviolent, low priority felons.
Since the capital punishment is still carry on, many opponents and defenders of the death penalty appeal to the sanctity of life. However, the death penalty is not justified. This is because death penalty is not an effective crime deterrent, executed innocent people and it needs a higher cost to carry on. First of all, some opponents argue that death penalty can help deter crime and protect public. For instance, the criminal will think twice before killing for fear of receive the strongest punishment.
This seems to show the weakness of the criminal justice system. However, does the dramatically increased number of prisoners necessarily prove that the prison system is not working? Is it possible that the growth resulted from the changes of the laws as more things become illegal, the federal government passes minimum mandatory sentences? Perhaps many crimes for which a person would not have been sent to prison now require a prison term. That could be the reason for the increase.
It is a common assumption that for every crime there should be a suitable penalty. Legal systems differ in determining their forms and duration and prison is the most popular way worldwide to punish those who violate law. An ideal form of punishment should not only punish, but also help to socialize the criminal into society and prevent him from further crimes. Unfortunately, jails in many countries are overcrowded and expensive for taxpayers; they do not work as a threat that scares potential offenders and most importantly, they fail to reclaim and reeducate convicted of a crime. According to journalist, Tom Whitehead, longer prison sentences prevent criminals from committing further crimes.
Death Penalty Should Not Be Abolished Criminals who are not afraid of being equally punished for their horrible crimes have murdered many people every year. Career criminals make it impossible for the average person to live their life without fear. Since most states have eliminated the death penalty murderers, dangerous criminals cannot be sentenced to the death penalty. The way the justice system works in some states is not fair compared to the other states that do have the death penalty. Therefore, the United States interprets the same human right differently depending on a location.