This is “the practice by law enforcement of considering race as an indicator of the likelihood of criminal behavior” (Robinson 530). The issue of using race to identify people is disputable because minorities feel that it is an act of inequality and also humiliating. However, the Supreme Court supports its legality as long as ethnicity is seen as an important factor that determines the detainment of an individual. Therefore, there are many pros and cons about the legality of this law enforcement technique. During times of war, racial
The occurrence of plea bargaining and pleading guilty even though the defendant professes his or her innocence is a rising and questionable phenomenon in the US court system. Pleas are sought to minimize sentence and the number of trials. (Mousseau, 2008) Pleading guilty typically comes with a “built-in incentive,” lessened sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. The defendant
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.
If juries continue to use jury nullification, it will result in a weakened democratic system. Racially based jury nullification is and has been a continuous debate for a long time now. Racially based jury nullification may be a benefit in addressing an unfair justice issue while sentencing someone. When it comes to proving that discrimination exists in terms of someone’s race and affects the severity and length of the sentence issued, this is when jury nullification benefits justice issues. If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place.
Mandatory minimum sentencing practices, or truth-in sentencing, are a popular topic for debate in America’s criminal justice society. These laws require offenders to serve a substantial proportion of their imposed prison sentence. The goal is to incapacitate serious offenders and better promote public safety by doing so. The effectiveness and constitutionality of such practices are questionable, therefore leading to a formulation of many opinions on the issue. Although the debate has gained popularity in the relatively recent future, mandatory minimum sentencing has roots that date back to the 18th century with the enactment of the first penal code.
Society argues that criminals should be punished with lengthy jail terms for the security of society. However, the outcome of this objective would allow the offender to return back into society so that he/she can become a productive citizen. Moreover, offenders are given the opportunity to gain rehabilitation and education while they are incarcerated. This result brings up another question. Is the justice
There were several reasons behind this. One reason was to divert ones who would normally have no issue in committing a crime and for ones who have already committed crimes after their release not likely to return and serve a sentence. Penitentiaries also serve as a place to face punishment when one has committed a crime as well as encourage any type of personal reform for their actions. Penitentiaries are especially used to protect innocent people from these one who have committed crimes (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011). American prisons have two different types of models.
In cases handled by the federal government if you have no information to provide to authorities, you are given harsher sentences, because you didn’t cooperate with the government. How is it possible to provide information when you have none to give? There are a lot of girlfriends, wives, mothers, grandmothers, and sisters who are implicated in indictments due to a family member, spouse, or boyfriend being involved with the selling or preparation of drugs; when in reality they reaped no benefits from the drug activity. This problem has been around since the federal government mandated mandatory minimums over fifteen years ago. The Mandatory Minimum sentencing laws were put into place for major and habitual drug offenders to be behind bars for years, but in essence we have been faced with unintended consequences of mandatory minimum sentences.
Victims’ rights and vengeance are two topics that create feelings of frustrations, pain, and a sense of control to crime victims. If we take a look back at our early American court systems, we will see that vengeance was a dominant strategy in handling perceived crime. Many victims handled their own cases and meted out justice by suggesting punishment. Eventually, the legal system changed to one in which law was the main factor and victims’ rights were abolished in the way they had been previously, these laws were basically streamlined in a “one size fits all” type of prosecution. Advocates for victims’ rights have struggled and worked hard over the years to give victims a say and necessary protections under the law, leveling the playing field of perpetrator vs. victim.
The prosecution, the judge and the defendant all benefit when defense counsel performs in the way the Constitution envisions. The broken public defense system in our State doesn't have to be like this. It can and must be fixed. As a result of these deficiencies, many individuals facing criminal charges are compelled to appear in court without a lawyer at critical junctures, such as when bail decisions are made. This often results in unnecessary or excessive bail being set and keeps people who cannot afford it in jail awaiting trial Many public defense lawyers also fail to: meet or consult with clients at critical stages in their cases; investigate the charges against their clients or hire experts who can assist with case preparation or testify at trial; file necessary pre-trial motions; and provide meaningful consultation before clients accept plea bargains, regardless of whether a charge is appropriate or a viable defense exists.