Explain how mandatory sentencing breaks the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Mandatory sentencing infringes upon the separation of powers doctrine because deprives the judiciary of its independence, this results in unfair punishments being handed down to the people of the State and the judiciary simply becomes a political tool for the government. Mandatory sentencing is where people convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. Mandatory sentencing limits the judicial discretion. Judicial discretion is the power granted to the judiciary through the separation of powers allows the judiciary to freely decide what is to be done in particular circumstances.
Today’s society finds it necessary question to what range a jury can take the laws of America, change them, and make them their own. A jury can subject laws created through aggressive hindsight and discussion which leads to a dismissal of a case. This leaves the question as to if jury nullification weakens the rule of law that is in the American Constitution. The altercations of the laws are the result of the juries repeated use of jury nullification. If juries continue to use jury nullification, it will result in a weakened democratic system.
Within our court systems, there is appeal court, which will handle people that think they are unfairly sentence. This will take some time to happen. We need to have sentencing guideline, to sentences the offender for the right crimes. I believe that sentencing guidelines should play a part in court and corrections. As before, I believe that the guidelines would lean more toward
"The Crucible" presents the court as the main figure of authority and their concept of theocracy is the key concept that drives Salem and what the society is constrained to. This pressurising authority creates repression among the civilians. Other figures of authority such as Reverend Parris and John Proctor are also displayed as abusive, displaying the corruption power can bring. The centre of authority is ultimately the court, as they are fundamentally the ones who distinguish between life and death of those accused in Salem, as Danforth makes the decision that "there will be no postponement" of the hangings. This ultimately displays the court as being the judge of whether someone should live or not, which is ironic considering they are worshipping a God who is known to be the judge of all, and yet the court are taking His power into their hands.
After taken to trial, the prosecutor's case “consisted solely of his confession” to obtain a conviction. The Maricopa County Superior Court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” as well as the absence of an attorney during the interrogation and should have been excluded from trial. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States. The Fifth Circuit overturned the original conviction by stating the charges and the laws are past the powers of the Congress and in response to that the U.S. government then appealed to the Supreme court. The reason they did this was so the Commerce Laws could stay in effect. The Governments argument was the possession of a firearm on or within a school facility would likely be to commit a act of violence which would effect the school and how it is run and also the well being of the population, and because of all this the government believe that the commerce clause should be upheld. In
Sentencing Paper Josefina Aburto, CJA/234 October 3, 2011 Darnell Stroble Sentencing Paper Sentencing Paper The justice system’s main objective is to enforce the laws. One way the system enforces the law is to punish offenders. Should offenders be punished? Society thinks so. Society argues that criminals should be punished with lengthy jail terms for the security of society.
In theory, the Eighth Amendment provides protection to those who have been accused of a crime and those who have already been convicted. However, the term “cruel and unusual punishment” has been interpreted many different ways by the government and armed forces, and to whom the right should be applied. The Eighth Amendment is perhaps the most controversial of all of the rights described in the Bill of Rights simply because of how far it can be stretched to accommodate differing views on the level of punishment that constitutes cruel and unusual. It would be many years before the Supreme Court would actually review the concept of cruel and usual punishment. The subject was brought about by the case of Willie Francis, a 17-year-old convict in Louisiana who was sentenced to death in the electric chair after he was found guilty of murdering Andrew Thomas in 1944.
Sentencing and Punishment Essay Casey Dempster Justice Spigelman’s comment clearly states that in terms of achieving justice within sentencing and punishment, the judge has a significantly challenging task. The judge is required to consider the reasons for punishment, types of punishment, punishment for specific crimes, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. In the past, some judges have been heavily criticised on their particular discretionary judgements, resulting in various reforms which have occurred within the legal system in attempt to overcome this. The Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) being the primary source of legislation that outlines the law regarding sentencing and punishment. These reforms have also taken place in order to
A crime was committed on the night of May 10th by Michael Yacchi of invasion, attempted robbery, assault, and attempted assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of battery. Yet, to attempt to right a wrong, Norfolk Commonwealth attorney Philip Evans is seeking conviction on me the victim instead of justice. Why should I continue to be penalized for a necessary display of self-defense against these crimes from a drunken and disturbed individual who caused his own injuries? Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney Harvey Bryant said in a recent article in WordPress, “We do consider in our society that your home is your castle," Harvey said. "If somebody has broken through the castle walls and come in aggressively, you’re entitled to defend