Why should people know their child custody laws? First, we need our children to be protected. Second, if we do not know the laws and go through a custody battle, you have a chance to lose your children, even if it is not the best decision for the children. Going through a divorce is not easy in itself, but the children are the ones that suffer the most. There is an astonishing 14.2 percent divorce rate in Nevada (Fiegerman, 2010) one of the highest in the country.
In class we discussed the Family Atmosphere and delinquency, and this really meets with most of the juveniles cases of crime that we are having. The aspects that could lead youths to commit such crimes could be based for example on maternal affection, if the parents always fitting, if the mother sees thing and she is not strong enough to stop it, or most of the cases parents are criminals themselves and involved with drug problem. This is a good reason why there are so many cases of crimes that juveniles are involved. Also how adolescent learn aggression and violence at home, or the environment they are in. This could involve how much violence do they witness, and for example how violence is portrait.
Sex Offenders Should Be Monitored Thousands of people are sexually abused every year, but “fewer than five percent of sex offenders are ever apprehended” (Salter2). Contrary to popular belief, sexual offenders are highly intelligent. Many have been known to premeditate and to use deceptive techniques to get what they want. So, how is anyone supposed to really know if sex offenders are civil enough to be in society with no supervision? Sexual offenders should be monitored for the rest of their lives because statistics show that they are likely to repeat their first offense, to ensure the safety of society, and there are alternative treatments.
This procedure is a must to make sure people that are innocent do not get executed for something they did not do, and this still does not guarantee the person being executed is not innocent, there is still always that chance floating around. The community would have a tremendous amount of money, which could better the community if people would do away with the death penalty and just punish people with life in prison without parole. This could save us millions, and it also guarantees the community is safe and at the same time it removes the possibility of executing an innocent person. Innocence and the Death Penalty states “More than 3500 men and women have received this sentence in California since 1978 and NOT ONE has been released, except those few individuals who were able to prove their innocence. California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.
All the evidence and the defendant weak testimony made him look so guiltily that 11 out of 12 jurors voted guilty in the preliminary vote. Both these texts have a setting of trial and in order to come up with a verdict in an equal opportunity court of law, the jury must have a true understanding of the entire hearing. In To Kill a Mockingbird Tom Robinson, a crippled African-American man, was accused of raping Mayella Ewell, a female teenager from a poor, racist family. The setting of the book was a small, prejudice town in Alabama. Even though the facts testified against Tom Robinson were weak and he was physically unable to beat and rape Mayella do to a gimp arm, he was still found guilty by the jury.
Such laws deny judges their traditional powers of discretion. Judges cannot reduce the term for offenses that carry over prescribed mandatory minimum sentences, and they are restricted from imposing alternative sentences in the community. Compulsory sentence laws increase the power of prosecutors, who decide what charges are brought against the defendants, and are popular among politicians because it makes politicians seem hard to the public. To keep repeat offenders off the streets, more than 25 states and the federal government have enacted three strikes laws. These laws mean long prison sentences of up to life in prison without parole after conviction for a third felony.
I find it outrageous that we have spent millions of dollars for the well being of these children and to have mental care for them to not even do their job. In the 1970’s, mental illness and emotional disturbance in children was understood to be their form of disobedience. They thought that this behavior behavior was to be treated harshly with brutal and unjust punishment. At Gatesville in Texas, They were so worried about keeping the towns money in that they kept children for this purpose. It’s irrational of them to keep all of the staff when over half of the institutions populations were released just so that they can keep their jobs.
Accepting Responsibility Across the country, juveniles are making bad decisions and heading down the wrong path. According to statistics, over one million juveniles come through the court system each year and about 200 thousand get charged as adults. Harsher penalties should be enforced upon juvenile law breakers in order to teach them the consequences of their actions, save money, and to avoid repeat offenders. Many believe that it is a terrible idea to send any child or teenager to an adult prison. They believe that these juveniles would be victim of sexual, physically, and mentally abuse.
Another argument against the restorative approach is that it is too soft for some crimes and will it be too hard when applied to less serious crimes? These are the arguments in favor to as well as against the more “just desserts”. When the world is full of crime and it seems like there is nothing that the government can do to protect innocent individuals, restorative approaches are the furthest thing from my mind personally. When crimes are committed against innocent people and they get a simple slap on the risk punishment like ten years in jail with a possibility of parole for accidentally killing someone it disturbs me. For example, here in North Carolina, there was a woman who was clearly out of her mind that decided to give her five year old daughter up for prostitution in order to pay off a drug debt (Netter 2009).
Many of them are even unaware that they are even considered a sex offender to the public and to the law. Is it fair for the law and the public to victimize those teenagers who are unaware that they are committing such a crime? If a person under the age of seventeen has consensual sex with someone that is older than seventeen, then the older person will be convicted of a felon. Yes, even if it is consensual and they will have a felon of statutory rape on their record for the rest of their lives. Statutory rape is generally understood to mean “unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent, regardless of whether it is against the person’s will” (Olszewski