Assuming that young, petty lawbreakers may be deterred from braking laws, simply by introducing the possibility of a public flogging, has some flaws to it. Jacoby neglected to bring up, what I would call the perfect argument to this topic. People who already intentionally commit crimes in today’s American society are fully aware of the possible repercussions for their actions. Despite this knowledge they continue to commit crimes that could land them in jail. I could argue that even more crime could result in effect to fewer prisonable offences and more humane forms of corporal punishment.
The lawyers for the young criminals believed that their immature behaviors were triggered by semi-developed brains. In addition, Kim Thompson, a professor of law in New York University, supported that people have to think twice for juveniles’ crime cases. They believed that young criminals have possibility to live within society. It is possible that they were not involved in the whole processes of murder. Therefore, certain teen criminals deserve to have opportunities to rehab their inappropriate acts.
Hence, there are many differences between these two models with regard to their aims and their operation and have been the subject of debate for a long time among scholars and students of jurisprudence. The two models of criminal process were first identified by Herbert L. Packer, an American professor of law. In order to understand how they operate in the administration of criminal justice, we need to examine the values underlying the two models as defined by him. The crime control model basically proposes that curbing of criminal conduct should be the ultimate objective of the criminal process. If crime goes unchecked, it will eventually lead to the breakdown of public order, and therefore, will undermine human freedom.
With a national population of over 304 million people, that is around 16,000 murders for 2008 alone. Admittedly, not all of these murders occurred in states where the death penalty is in use, however, of the ten states with the highest murder rates, eight of them are death penalty states (FBI, 2008). It is true that violent crime trends have decreased over the past five years, however, it is important to remember that the violent crimes being committed the most are in areas where the criminal is risking death at the hands of the state. This alone shows that criminals have no regard for a state’s policy on the death sentence, which proves that the penalty has lost its effectiveness as a deterrent. The death penalty has been the most severe punishment for crimes since the 18th century BCE, when King Hammurabi of Babylon held 25 crimes by which a criminal could be put to death.
A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made. The exclusionary rule allows criminals to go because evidence was illegally obtained, but what about the victims of the crimes. It is almost a turntable and they have become a victim for a second time. I am going to discuss the three main reasons why we as citizens should get rid of the rule. One is the releasing the guilty back into society, next is the slowing down of the criminal process and the last thing is the behavior and consequence of the police officers involved in the cases.
More people get incarcerated for non-violent crimes and crimes caused by mental illnesses or drug abuse (Webb, 2009) and because these people get put in regular prisons, instead of in mental health facilities or facilities to help against drug addiction, where they could be treated to further prevent crimes driven by their illness (Webb, 2009), the prisons get overfilled and cannot hold the more ‘important’ prisoners that needed to be locked away from the public. A strong link of the criminal justice process is that the system tries to keep it fair for everyone. Every defendant has the right to an attorney so they can be defended properly and fairly and “Only judges who are adequately informed about a case can effectively control the proceedings and examine evidence” (Tochilovsky, 2002) It is also important for the criminal justice system that those involved show discretion and although this is not always the case, discretion by the judges, police, etc. further ensure proper treatment of the
In this paper I will tell you what justice means to me in general as well as what it means to me as a future juvenile probation officer. In general, justice to me means that a criminal must be punished for the crime that he/she has committed. To be just and fair, the punishment must fit the crime. For instance, you would not want to seek the death penalty for someone who only committed burglary and you would not want to give someone only one to two years in prison for murder. The punishment should also increase for repeat offenders.
Non-violent crimes should just be a punishable fine because it saves money for the United States and the federal prisons in the United States. Non-violent crimes in America are rising rapidly and non-violent criminals are being sent to federal prisons or jails for a stupid reason. Like for an example many people are being arrested and sent to prison for selling drugs now how is this a violent crime? Drugs are illegal in America but it’s not really hurting our country right now. The main thing that is hurting our country right now is violence, when you read the news about Chicago they had more murders then the soldiers in Iraq due to gang violence.
And if they do, they know they have a better chance of getting off easy because they are tried as teens and not adults. I think we should be tougher on those teens who decide to commit violent crimes. There should be a law that states everyone over 12 years old will be tried as adults. I can’t say it’s going to stop all the criminals together but it will definitely convince potential and actual teenage offenders that committing adult crimes will get you hard adult time. If we were try teenage offenders of violent crime in adult court, adult charges would then force them to think like adults about their actions.
Does the death penalty serve as a justified and legitimate form of punishment? This issue has recurrently created controversial debates. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says discriminative, the other side says fair; one says execution; the other side says justice. Crime is an inevitable part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it.