Truth-in-sentencing laws do not deter crime The argument that truth-in-sentencing laws deter crime is a conversation that has many states in our country divided. In 1994 the federal government authorized funding for states who met the criteria for the truth-in sentencing laws which is 85% of the sentence. Out of the 50 states only 27 met that criteria. So why do all the states not follow these laws? Because they don’t deter crime as advertised.
We know that in the past divorce was very hard to get as it was only legal for the men to file a divorce and was socially unacceptable. However over the years the government has been passing laws in order to make divorce easier and cheaper. In 1969, the Divorce Reform Act was introduced which made it much easier to get a divorce. Also the law that was passed in 1984; which allowed couples to only stay in a marriage for one year before filing a divorce, helped make divorce easier. Statistics have shown that due to these legal changes more women are filing divorces as 7/10 women have filed a divorce compared to men.
One of the biggest ones is the effect of money coming into the school or education system is overrated and not enough to make a difference in our education system. The first argument that is being made is where the money is going. They complain that only parts of its going into education and not the whole thing. There are many states that prove this idea wrong including Michigan and Vermont who put 100% of their gains from the lottery back into public education. Also in Ohio, when lottery funds were put into education they actually shrunk actual state funding used towards education.
One reason for the high divorce rate in the contemporary UK is because of the changes in the law. For example the main changes took place in 1969 where the Divorce reform act was introduced (Came into effect in 1971), this allowed couples to divorce without having to prove that their relationship has broken down e.g. by showing that they are now living apart. This made it easier for couples to divorce without feeling ashamed because the court did not require a ‘guilty’ partner to be identified. From here in 1984 the law allowed couples to petition for a divorce after one year of marriage instead of three, meaning that couples no longer had to endure an empty shell marriage over a long period of time.
The government didn’t do much to protect the Native Americans, nor were they able to enforce their own laws regarding Native American land and treaties. The Removal Act of 1830 was passed by President Andrew Jackson on April 23, 1980 (Wallace, 4-5). Andrew Jackson conveyed that removal of the Indians to the west was for their own best interest and that removal was to be voluntary (Wallace 65). The Removal Act provided for the Indians large areas of land west of the Mississippi River and each tribe would have its own territory. Those that chose to stay could keep their homes and their gardens, but would have to obey state laws and adapt to white culture and customs (Wallace 65).
There are also no regulations for young people with only decriminalization. Users no matter what age can purchase the drug, it is illegal regardless. The question still remains, is decriminalizing enough to help our economy or would the legalization of Marijuana prove a larger impact? Many different factors play a role in the benefits of legalization. "The highest level of support for decriminalizing the use of marijuana today is seen with self-described liberals, among whom 78%
One of the many factors which contribute to the changes in the divorce rate is adjustments made to the law. Amendments such as the 1969 divorce law reform act; which made the reasoning of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’, a sole ground for divorce; whilst gradually leading to the instalment of the 1984 minimum divorce petition being reduced from three years to just one year. The modification of the law influences the change in the divorce rate because it gives unhappily married spouses the freedom to divorce more easily. However, the pervious factor does not explain why a large proportion of people chose to take advantage of this freedom. So an arguably more important reason as to why there has been a change in the divorce rate would be due to the declining stigma which society attaches to divorce.
Another interesting focus is on recent laws that make homosexual partnership and marriage legal in some states. Prior to recent years homosexual marriage was not considered legal and as an issue within the evolving culture of the United States, continues to be a highly charged political topic. One final note about Western culture is that most marriages follow the rules of Exogamy. Generally a person is free to marry whomever they wish with the exception of persons within a nuclear
Not only did this study state that the weapons banned were only used in a small percent of crimes even before the ban, but also "found no statistical evidence of post-ban decreases in either the number of victims per gun-homicide incident, the number of gunshot wounds per victim, or the proportion of gunshot victims with multiple wounds. "(Koper, Roth 67) So even if Congress bans these vaguely named assault weapons it will most likely be as ineffective as the last time they did so. Some take issue with the ban not because of its’ functionality problems, but because they feel it violates their rights as
Since these regulations have been enforced in nine years abortion had dropped by 18 percent. A major reason that so many abortions are being performed is due to financial services that provide money for these types of procedures. But the truth is that to have an abortion it is way too easy even with all the regulations that have been enforced. Some states, but not all have a law saying there has to be a parent there, and this causes a drop in abortions from 13 to 19 percent. There are even free abortions allowed to be carried out.