Ayala chose not to seek the death penalty in the case regarding Markeeth Lloyd, due to her beliefs that the death penalty should not primarily be a deterrent to crime. Historically, it has been shown the death penalty has been imposed on the innocent way too often, exorbitant to taxpayers and lastly, it adversely affecting both families of murder victims and families of the accused. Additionally, it has been apparent that co-victims had improved physical and psychological health and greater satisfaction with the legal system in cases where perpetrators received life sentences, rather than death sentences as well. In knowing Markeeth Lloyd killed two individuals, had a long criminal history and was a threat to society, I believe he had demonstrated to be tried for the death penalty. Although this case was highly publicized and nearly two percent of murderers actually get the death penalty, this does not mean leaving hardened criminals without stringent punishment, and I have to disagree with D.A. Ayala's decision.
For example, a first offense for 1 to 49 plants of marijuana will get a person no more than five years in prison, while the second offense for the same charge will increase the prison term to no more than ten years (Levinthal, 2012). In a criminal court system, the use of mandatory minimum sentencing has its own share of pros and cons. As judges are provided with strict guidelines they must follow in sentencing, the judges are not able to use their personal bias or sympathy for the individual involved to determine what their sentencing term should be (Taslitz, 2013). It also places more significance on the charges that the prosecution team files against them.
Criminal defendants should not be allowed bargain for a reduced sentence in exchange for a guilty plea because some defense lawyers may not represent the best interest of the client, it does not allow the criminal defendant to take full responsibility for their actions, and the victim and the family will not feel as justice was served if a violent crime had occurred. Criminal defendants rely on their defense attorney to aid them in decision making to ensure that they are not being deceived. But when these defense
He claims “… ‘cost studies’…” essentially reveal most murders take a life without parole which costs the government inmate finances whereas the penalty gives the offender no room for an appeal. Capital punishment puts an end to a life that deserves ending due to the choices made of ending an innocent person. In my opinion, looking at both sides as to why and why not the death penalty should be instated or abolished, I agree that it should be a constitutional law reinforced in every state, with each state continuing to define capital punishment as it chooses. Although it violates some of the constitutions laws in different ways, it saves the government
The accused person has the right to enjoy a speedy trial but that does not mean that the trial will be done within two days but rather means that, "The country or state cannot make the person sit in jail for a very long time, for example 5 years, while they wait for their trial. This would be very unfair to anyone who is not guilty." ; that was mentioned by the website Laws.com. This means that a person can not get punished for committing a crime the rest of his life, that would go against his right of pursuiting happiness. The sixth amendment also allows the accused person to know the cause of accusation and his accuser, and that leads to the second ideal which is opportunity or chance to defend oneself or even ask a lawyer to defend
For instance, the Justice Department may direct that prosecutors should always aim to obtain at least the minimum prison sentence, when pursuing drug related cases. The Obama administration abstained from using this prerogative, as it causes a strain on the budget in the long run. Trump also took part in paying lip service on the drug problem, which is a serious public health issue. He stressed that he would expand treatment options in the future, although this statement goes against his repulsion of the Affordable Care Act.
Mandatory minimums are court decisions whereas judicial discretion, or the judge’s ability to lower or increase the sentence, is limited by law. With the aim to lower crime rates, certain crimes, especially nonviolent drug crimes, are punished with a minimum number of years in prison. But, in many cases, specifically nonviolent drug offenses, this sort of punishment never reflects the crime. Because the context of the crime must always be considered when sentencing someone, and mandatory minimums throw context right out the window . . . Not only do mandatory minimums undermine justice by preventing judges the power to lower a sentence based on the context of the crime, but they also contribute to America’s rising prison population.
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.
A district attorney named Gil Garcetti wanted to file the charges in downtown Los Angeles, instead of Santa Monica, where the murder occurred. Many people did not like this idea because the jury was made mostly of Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans; which would in turn help O.J., an African American himself. A Santa Monica jury would have been more of a caucasian based jury that might not have liked O.J(Linder). The prosecution also wanted to get a lifetime sentence in prison, rather than the death penalty for Simpson, considering this would be easier to do. At the beginning of the second arraignment on July 22, Simpson was asked how he pleaded to the two murders, and he said “Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty.”
When in actuality the purpose is to rehabilitate and lower the percentage of inmates committing a crime upon release. To teach skills in order to less likely land back into prison which would further the issue of overcrowding. Some Americans believe overcrowding prisons is fair because criminals are not entitled while inmates live better than a lot of lower income members of society due to their access to healthcare. Many claim that criminals should not be comfortable that taxpayers are paying for them to be sheltered, fed, and clothed. That the $30,000 average per inmate to keep them incarcerated by funds from taxpayers is more than enough.
I do think they are necessary because like I said for those who only commit small crimes it is easier for them to go through probation or house arrest instead of throwing a potentially nonviolent offender into a jail where they can become a violent offender. I think economically it is a good idea as well as socially to have the plea bargain. If benefits the community and judicial system because it prevents overcrowding and changing a person into something worse than they were as well as makes the process go a lot faster so that the criminal can be dealt with so other things that need to be addressed can be addressed. I would not change the plea bargain; I think that it is a good idea in most case scenarios for those who have committed small crimes because those with big crimes are still going to be dealt with in a harsher
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. He would restore voting rights of every non-violent
Though the states power regarding their voting laws had been restricted by the federal government, recentness has given back said power to the states. As aforementioned, Section 5 is no longer enforceable. But why? Section 4(b) was deemed unconstitutional in 2013 because of its “coverage formula” (civilrights.org), which used outdated methods to determine a states pre-clearance in Section 5. With Section 5 no longer enforced, Texas’ new voter ID law was able to take affect but is it compliant with federal
The police followed correct procedure in this case and have worked intensively to stop this flow of illegal narcotics. Although, Wawrykiewycz does not go to court until later this month it seems that he will most likely plead guilty as the evidence stacked against him is very high. This case appears to be an open and shut case, but more information will be known after the court proceedings have been completed. If Wawrykiewycz decides to go to trial it seems unlikely that he will be given bail as the many charges against him are numerous and severe. The streets are safer with the seizure of these illegal narcotics and