Does a man like that deserve life in prison? It can be debatable if you ask me. Luckily, in 2012 proposition 36 modified the law into ensuring that the felony must be serious or violent. Not every state carried out the Three-strike laws, but 28 states do
The abuse of power is all around us, and Civil Forfeiture is no exception. The idea behind this process is something that could really help our country, but unfortunately when put in the hands of certain authority figures it loses that privilege and becomes increasingly negative towards American citizens. Of course there are many examples as to how Civil Forfeiture is not used properly, but the most obvious one is the abuse of innocent people. Police do not only target criminals but people who have done nothing to break the law. They do this in order to benefit themselves finically, as particular states have laws in place where the officer gets to keep one hundred percent of the money seized.
A convicted felon is prohibited from voting in the states excluding two other states. Is this seen as wiping away human rights? The different point of views can make one’s view on the situation switch immediately. In this country there seems to be certain types of people controlling who gets to do what even though our Bill of Rights clearly states our certain rights. How does a full population of people that builds the United States to where it is standing now get their rights controlled by a system that barely knows the population itself?
Jobs applications, Financial Aid, Public Housing, and food stamps applications often ask for citizen’s criminal records, stigmatizing those who came out of the system, robbing them of opportunities. It’s very hard to find employment, convicts are all treated the same regardless of crime. In The New Jim Crow, the author talks about how young blacks are more likely to go to jail than college due to the system of incarceration. In fact, she cites a source that explains that in 2001, there were more blacks in the Illinois state prison, then there were in the state’s public universities, on drug charges alone. So forty years after the drug war was first declared, it still goes on, normalized by the commentary in media, and stereotypes assigned to those who serve time in correctional facilities.
Hence why most states exclude other groups that are not in as much need for protections in hate crime legislation. What distinguishes a hate crime from any other crime is motive. In order for a crime to be considered a hate crime, it must be motivated by the group membership of the victim. Critics of hate crime laws have argued that they are unconstitutional and violate First Amendment protections of free speech, association, and freedom of thought. Opponents of hate crime laws refer to the Supreme Court decision in R.A.V.
Innocent citizen have been placed in jail for no absolute reason. Everyone should have a fair treatment in court. I ask the United States Congress to please put an end to this. We should have an individual authority that’s loyal to the law and knows the laws by heart, other than a judge, in the proximity of the court. This way, whenever someone blameless is being accused wrongly in the court, the person can acknowledge it and report the incident.
Crimes are happening around us whether we pay attention to them or not. Those crimes as dangerous as murder are committed by all ages but should younger criminal in their juvenile age received the same punishment as older criminals. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles committed murder could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violates the Eighth Amendment. (On-Demand Writing Assignment Juvenile Justice) Advocates on the concurring side believes that mandatory life in prison is wrong and should be abolish. However, the dissenting side believe that keeping the there should be a life in prison punishment for juvenile who commit heinous crime regardless of their age.
There is an unlimited amount of questions that can come from the wrongful convictions. The question posed should the state even compensate for those who were wrongfully convicted. The state did what they felt was best under the circumstances and evidence they had. The taxpayer dollars should not have to compensate for making decisions they were forced to make. The suggestions have been made to set the wrongfully convicted with a sort of house and perhaps a job but nothing in the realm of a payment of millions of dollars.
Prisoners should deserve the right to vote because it is guaranteed by Amendment 15 that all prisoners should have the right to vote. My contention is that Amendment 15 states the right to vote cannot be taken away from people who had committed a crime. Firstly, Amendment 15 is not being applied to prisoners because there are over two million people who are in prison. Secondly, taking away their right to vote after they get out of prison is unfair.Thirdly,it wouldn 't be fair if we got to vote and they did not. All felons deserve to have the right to vote because they are still part of this country and this society.Some people have made several mistakes in their lives that they would love to go back in time to fix everything they did that made
Apart from the fact that cathartic retribution is dubious justification for punishment, there seems little reason to believe that it is necessary to favor present modes of execution over the paradigm in order to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands. It can just as easily be argued that executions through cruel methods encourage public brutality and disrespect for the law. In the past, lynchings seemed to occur more often in states that employed the traditional modes of execution than in jurisdictions that had abolished capital punishment. Because a significant proportion of the public favors abolition of capital punishment, any execution could inspire public resentment of the legal system, particularly if the capital punishment were performed in an unnecessarily cruel