Difference Between Over Crowding And Harsher Sentencing

631 Words3 Pages
Over crowding, increased numbers of prisoners and harsher sentences have been a topic of great debate so they say. What I mean by that is how often is it that a scholar can figure out something that is so apparent to so many people who don’t have the means to change it. Over crowding, increased numbers of prisoners and harsher sentencing has nothing to do with nullification in my opinion. It starts with are children that we are allowing the world and media to raise, but that is a different subject for a different day. It very rare that a crime warrants nullification, one that is so evident in my mind is the Gena 6, where a group of black youths were tried as a adults for beating a white you after a series of aggravating events one being the hanging of a noose.…show more content…
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. I am sure if the courts felt that sentencing was too harsh of if someone in congress thought it to be too harsh, there would be a revision in sentencing. My opinion on clemency is as follows, in the eleventh hour of his presidency, President Bush granted clemency to the following felons. I feel that all of these crimes were serious offenses. If these are the type of people that receive pardons, maybe that president should have to give just cause for the

More about Difference Between Over Crowding And Harsher Sentencing

Open Document