Instead of establishing justice, many people in the trial let their personal judgments of Socrates establish him as the criminal when he was innocent. The system is not just if people do not focus on the evidence, but rather, they focus on their opinions on the defendant. If the system is not just, then the conclusion is not just. Therefore, Socrates should not accept the conclusions of trial with jurors that did not follow the rules of
Cost of the Death Penalty When it comes to the topic of the death penalty being cost effective. Most of us will readily agree that the death penalty is the most expensive, that it’s a financially impractical punishment for convicted murders. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether capital punishment with one execution is more expensive than life a sentence without the possibility of parole, Others maintain that since many law enforcement officials consider that it is an effective deterrent against homicides and a sufficient use of taxpayer dollars. My own view is that those convicted of capital punishment should be sentenced to life imprisonment without getting any parole because it is more cost effective. According to Julie Delcour, “The Cost of the Death Penalty Outweighs its Benefits to Society,” she states that death penalty cases are much more expensive than other criminal cases and cost more than throwing them in jail for life
According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment.
Innocent defendants who are risk averse cannot be willing to risk going to trial and receiving harsh sentences and instead choose to plead guilty to ensure the receive lenient sentences. It undermines the integrity of the justice system as it allows the government to evade the rigorous standards required by the due process. It allows the prosecutor to take the role of a judge and jury in determining the guilt of the defendant. It also allows the defendant to escape the full punishment for their misconduct by giving them lenient sentences. Lenient sentences offered to those who plea bargain in contrast to harsher sentences for those who are convicted after a full trial lead to disparities in individuals convicted of similar offences.
Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life… Time and time again we have witnessed the specter of mistakenly convicted people being put to death in the name of American criminal justice. However, it is not the intention of those who support capital punishment to kill those who are innocent. Even though it does not happen often, it still happens, but anything that has to do with humans there will be human errors that occur. As Austin Sarat says Many of those who fervently support capital punishment nonetheless worry about the risk of executing the innocent. Also on Gale Student Resources in Context, 2014 also commented on the innocent affect by the death penalty said …that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against those who would consider committing such a crime as murder, and that it is justifiable punishment for the taking of another innocent person’s life.
There is always more to a human being than their looks or social status. Looks can be deceiving as a person with great credibility may not be at all what society expects them to be. In The Crucible by Arthur Miller, Abigail, John Proctor, and Judge Danforth prove to readers that even people with great credibility can be sinful and manipulative. They prove this when John Proctor has an affair, Abigail sends innocent people to jail, and Judge Danforth continues to send innocent people to hang knowing he is wrong in doing so. First, John Proctor.
This was later carried out through twenty-six other states, including the U.S., which created a precedent against the execution of the mentally ill in 1986. Even though the mentally ill cannot be executed, if the person who claimed mental illness is no longer mentally ill he or she can be executed. While the insanity plea proves that some criminals are mentally unstable, it should be used with caution because many convicted criminals abuse it during court cases, imitate being mentally ill during an examination, and are able to avoid the death penalty. Despite that the insanity plea can potentially help someone in defense for a mental illness case, many people can also take advantage of these precedents to alleviate their trials. The public in most insanity plea cases, do not typically agree with the rulings because most criminals use the
A huge advantage is that this here defense when successful can save a life, in which it can avoid a defendant from being put on death row. When a defendant pleas insanity, in the courtroom it creates an insanity atmosphere of guilt. When a defendant pleas insanity, the attorney admits that the crimes happen, but the defendant is innocent because of his or her mind (Samaha, 2015). By having a successful insanity defense, this can cause for the defendant to have a lenient charge when the jury reaches the verdict. The defendant would be declared either medically or criminally insane, he would not be trued under the same conditions of someone accused who is in the right state of
Putting them to death prevents the risk of prison attacks along with prison escapes. Additionally, these men may be let out on good behavior before their life sentence has been served and cause havoc in their cities once again. The death penalty can improve in its efficiency, its effectiveness and its certainty, but it is no doubt the best way to take care of the men and women who take the lives of innocent civilians in our country. The use of a life sentence simply does not do the job that the death penalty does. These men will have relationships in prison along with human interaction and other quality moments that they do not deserve.
Double jeopardy is the prosecution or trying one person for the same crime more then once. Double jeopardy Clause was created for many reasons. It stops the government from using their greater recourses to wrongfully convict innocent people. It also protects an individual from the prosecutors’ powers. It insures that the judge and juries’ decision is final.
I do not think that the plea bargain lets someone off easy. While they might receive a lesser change they also are having the fact that they admitted to doing something taken into consideration by the court system when they decide on the punishment. I feel that it equals out in the long run for those who end up taking the plea bargain. In small cases yes the person might get off with just probation, but is probation was something in condensation then the crime could not have been that detrimental. They would not offer something like probation to a deranged murderer if they confessed to killing someone.
Someone who has been convicted of a felony can have just as much passion or even care more about their civil rights than another citizen. Depending on which state they committed the crime, felons could lose their right to vote which could take that opportunity away from someone who really cares about the political and economic state of our
The United States criminal justice system is riddled with cases of many varieties. Some have obvious outcomes while others warrant more detailed analysis. However, some cases go beyond the court into other courts, where they are decided, such as Jackson versus Hobbs in 2012. The courts try to lighten the load of cases they have by offering plea bargaining, an agreement among a defendant and a prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty to a charge that is less severe than what he or she is initially charged for in the hopes that clemency will be administered. Sometimes, however, people accused of a crime are completely innocent, and it is not until technology is released, such as DNA testing, decades later that these people are proved to
This currently prevents many people from finding employment. Which leaves them with the only option to commit crimes again. He would give judges the power to depart from mandatory minimums laws if they are on the best interest of the law. This is would be very beneficial for us since people make stupid mistakes sometimes and life in prison is way too severe. Also having a person sent to prison cost money, especially if they have serve a life sentence.
In my opinion, I think that the author of the article is correct about describing the bail bond system as archaic. I think that the use of bounty hunters to apprehend offenders who did not show up for court just so that the bail bond company can get their money back from the court reminds me of something that I would watch on an old west movie. To me it seems that this should be the job of law enforcement because bounty hunters would be more tempted to break constitutional laws in the process of searching and apprehending suspects because the difference between bounty hunters and law enforcement is that that bounty hunters will not get paid if they do not apprehend the offender, law enforcement will get paid regardless therefore their personal interest will not be involved which will allowed law enforcement to follow everything by the book and be less tempted to break constitutional