Mandatory sentencing removes discretion, In some circumstances, based on the changing values of society and to deter others from committing crime. This can lead to an inflexible approach to sentencing. Statutory guidelines can be seen to hinder the amount of discretion given to Judicial officers. However, Mandatory sentencing completely removes discretion by setting a minimum or mandatory sentence for a particular offence or type of offender. In this respect, discretion does not have a role in the sentencing and punishment of offenders and is instead left up to an automatic sentence set by parliament.
However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
They don’t truly pay for their crimes when they are released from jail without being taught their lesson and what is their incentive to not commit these crimes again a second or third or fourth time? They know that the consequences are not that bad. Those who know how to take advantage of the system, will. With crime so prevalent in America as opposed to years before, it is a wonder that no one has thought to create a system which actually changes a criminal’s thinking while they are in jail; show them the facts of how a life of crime turns out. No retirement, no relaxation while you’re always watching out for the police and most importantly, no future.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
Valid judgment needs to be made in order to choose whether due process or the crime control model needs to pertain to the specific case. These do not; however keep the people, who are wrongfully convicted, free of spending endless amounts of years in prison for nothing. To fall under the category of “wrongful convictions” a person much indeed be arrested on a
Courts exist only to prosecute the criminals to the full extent of the law. One can be sentenced to jail time, pay a fines, probation and even humiliation in front of the public eye. These types of sentences are used to teach the criminal a lesson and to show them that committing any type of crime is against the law. Everyone must obey the criminal laws. That is why they were put into effect, because anyone that doesn’t obey them is punished to the full extent of the law.
If a regular citizen committed the crime they would receive time in jail for whatever crime in which was committed. Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society (Dictionary.com, 2009). The concept justice has been subject to legal, theological, and philosophical reflection and debate all through the history of time (Dictionary.com). Justice is to do what is right and punish the ones who have done wrong. Justice is to maintain order and to punish the criminals in which have committed the crime.
They cannot take them away. They can, however, put some restrictions on them (gun control laws, for instance). This is not an infringement of the right, it is making an adjustment that will insure the safety of the citizens of this country. The only time it is acceptable to strip someone of their rights is when they are behind bars. When you are convicted of a crime, you are no longer a member of society; therefore, you have no rights".
This sentencing goal is critical due to the fact that different state has different sentencing laws. These are issues the American society deals with when a court sanctioned a cruel and unreasonable punishment. Structured Sentencing The public opinion of social justice wanted a different sentencing model that will determine fair justice to convicted criminals. Through criticism of its methods, the
Assess the usefulness of official statistics to our understanding of social problems. Illustrate your response with sociological arguments and evidence. To assess the usefulness of official statistics to our understanding of social problems, I will first look at what official statistics are, I will then look at crime and suicide as two examples of social problems. I will look at how both Positivists and Interpretativists use these statistics and how useful each of these sociological approaches find them. Official statistics is the name given to the numbers of crimes reported to or unveiled by the police themselves, which lead to a conviction, caution or are dealt with in some formal way by the law.