In some states, the individual must be convicted of two serious felonies for the three strikes law to apply, while in others any felonies count towards the third strike. Critics of the three strike law express many strong arguments against their harsh legal statute. Our society has ultimately had an issue with the three strikes law. Some people have said that the law “destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge, it is unjust in certain conditions, and it adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive criminal system”
Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
Recent activity in the Bush administration has led to widespread criticism on how the government perceives torture. Torture is a word that carries negative connotation in nearly every part of its usage. Alan Dershowitz states in his article, “Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?” that if the government is going to practice such methods of interrogation, they should not hide it from the public, but rather make it legal in a way that allows for the protection of our nation. His stance on the subject is made clear by his introduction of various solutions to the problem and tries to convince his audience of their power. He focuses on interpretations of the constitution and assumes that torture will happen regardless of what the government says.
Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same extent? If not, you're making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the problem is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any one group, but to protect all
This topic has been researched in depth and have come to the conclusion that the events were preordained. In too many situations there are too many coincidences that transpired. It doesn’t make any sense and there is sound evidence to support it. The significance of the evidence shows the US government were dishonest to American citizens. And the people involved should be tried and jailed in the court of law.For example, there were calls placed to love
Many reasons were given as to why terrorism was not included at the time, such as: (1) the lack of a generally accepted definition, (2) the possibility that the inclusion might politicize the court, (3) the inclusion may impede the acceptance of the Rome Statute, (4) would overburden the court with cases of less importance, and (5) the core crimes were of more concern to the international community, those four crimes being the crimes currently listed in the Rome Statute. While there were many reasons why the crime of
The reason for this is that not all states can agree on whether or not capital punishment is criminal in and of itself. Another important controversy within the subject is this: Regardless of whether or not the death penalty itself should be enforced, if it is going to be, then is it right to publicize the criminal’s execution, or should it remain private? The subject of privatized versus publicized executions is still a hot debate for most. Those who are in support of public executions have valid reasons, as do those who are against them. Both sides have been pretty stubborn in their views, the reason why we haven’t reached a decision as a whole.
Thus, many people argue the point of how to create a single standard for the whole world. However difficult this issue may be, in cases where crimes are prosecuted with a minimum punishment or even none at all is simply unacceptable and only hinders and reverses the progress of the UN missions. Although the UN has been working hard to establish clear standards and rules by which UN personnel must abide, much more progress must be made. This will require the cooperation of every state in order for universal standards to be implemented.One of the main reasons that many crimes have gone unpunished is the privileges and immunities given to UN officials. Many of these immunities have been in place since the founding of the UN and, in fact, are modeled on traditional courtesies granted to all diplomatic personnel by every government far back in history.
Many laws have evolved and changed meanings over time, and therefore, the “law of our land” must be applied as accurately as possible for the criminal justice system to work effectively. The original content for which the amendment regarding counsel stemmed from a need to reinforce the standards set by colonial Americans when they were facing the English. The right to counsel was not necessarily a positive state because often the counsel appointed was not working necessarily for the defendant’s best interest. Nowhere does the amendment explicitly state that the accused will be provided counsel by the government (Sonneborn, 2004). There has been an addendum that had to be put in place later to combat any legal issues that would have been faced when integrating the right to counsel clause into the modern criminal justice
Since the capital punishment is still carry on, many opponents and defenders of the death penalty appeal to the sanctity of life. However, the death penalty is not justified. This is because death penalty is not an effective crime deterrent, executed innocent people and it needs a higher cost to carry on. First of all, some opponents argue that death penalty can help deter crime and protect public. For instance, the criminal will think twice before killing for fear of receive the strongest punishment.