Mandatory Minimum Sentences Mandatory minimum sentencing laws have been among the more popular crime-fighting measures of recent years. Mandatory minimum sentence refers to the fixed sentence that a judge is forced to deliver to an individual convicted of a crime, neglecting the culpability and other mitigating factors involved in the crime. They are those sentences, which a judicial officer is required to impose no matter what the circumstances of the offence. In other words, the judicial officer has no discretion to impose a higher or lower sentence depending upon the nature of the crime. For example, people convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison.
We must insist on humane and more cost-effective methods of punishment and prison management. Prisoners and detainees in many local, state and federal facilities, including those run by private contractors, confront conditions that are abusive, degrading and dangerous. Soaring prison populations due to harsh sentencing laws—which legislators have been reluctant to change—and immigrant detention policies coupled with tight budgets have left governments unwilling to make the investments in staff and resources necessary to ensure safe and humane
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.
Mandatory minimum sentences, a valuable weapon in the war on drugs or a handcuff on judicial discretion? Mandatory minimum sentences are sentences that are imposed on drug offenders who are supposed to be considered “king pins” in the drug world. Often defendants who are imposed these harsh sentences have little or no involvement in the sell or preparation of the drugs; and at times are just guilty by association. The law to crack down on drug offenders seems to be harsher than on individuals who have been convicted of murder, rape, and many other crimes; and individuals who have no real knowledge face harsher sentences than the individuals directly involved. 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.
They will withhold critical evidence from the defense team and will resort to immoral if not illegal tactics in their investigation of the offense. Their personal opinion is that they actually do not care if the defendant is guilty or innocent, they just want a conviction. They want to extract their pound of flesh. Also researchers have determined that some of the causes of prison overcrowding are harsher penalties for criminal activities, changes to laws that make new actions illegal, high recidivism rates and needed improvements to the penal system. Once the causes of crowding have been fixed researchers can begin to address the problems it causes and deal with them.
the Judge then sets forth an ultimatum; Stand in the town center and endure a public whipping, or report to jail for the next year. My hypothesis to this idea would be that most if not all criminals would choose to suffer a beating over being locked away in a jail cell. Therefore I believe more petty crimes would be committed, due to a lack of fear. A few days of pain can be far less detrimental than a long prison sentence. A reputable assumption Jacoby made was; Prison becomes a kind of
Supporters of mandatory sentencing believe it reduces crime and ensures consistency in sentencing. This may be the case, but should a recidivist who shows no remorse or chances of rehabilitation be given the same treatment as a first offender vowing to never commit the crime again? Mandatory sentencing and fixed jail terms pose a definite threat to natural justice, risking incarcerating criminals whom would benefit greater from lighter penalties such as community service or a suspended sentence. In addition to fairness arguments, some opponents of mandatory sentencing believe that treatment is more cost-effective than long sentences, with each prisoner in Australia costing tax payers around $98000 per annum, adding up to $2.5 billion tax payer dollars yearly. Queensland laws are there to maintain a justice system which is both fair and adequate.
Steve Chabalal Period 8 Ms. O'Neill Should Juveniles be Sentenced to Life Without Parole? Statistics support both sides on whether or not juveniles should be sentenced to life without parole. Both sides involve very controversial and logical support; but in my opinion I strongly agree that juveniles should not be sentenced to life without parole. We may sacrifice the rarity of a potential “project gone wrong” and the juvenile on parole may go on to commit more meaningless crimes. In my opinion the reward outweighs the risk in many ways.
There is a better way to handle the misconduct of the mentally ill that is more cost effective, and beneficial to them as well as the community. Insanity is not a crime, and people who have mental disorders deserve the chance to live healthy lives. Title: Insanity is Not a Crime Jails and prisons in the United States have become extremely overcrowded. One of the reasons that this problem exists is because they have slowly taken over the responsibilities of hospitals and treatment centers for the mentally ill. The mentally ill population in prison is much higher than in the general public.
b. When DNA testing became more advanced prisoners that have always known they were innocent and serving long prison times or ones that were on death row for crimes that did not happen but were convicted of them as well as ones who were wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit these people started to petition for DNA testing. 2. The size and scope of the Wrongful Conviction Problem in the United States a. DNA testing is usually only done when it comes to high end capital cases because there is more to generate from which gives greater assistance to avoid executions. When it comes to assault, robbery, and burglary cases there will be typically more error due to eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence.