There are numerous things in this society which ought to be banned however the death penalty is not one of them. It is most likely the right approach to go the extent that capital order is concerned. At this moment in our nation, I think that it crazy that criminals believe that they can escape with pretty much anything. My argument for this essay is that death penalty is a resource for society; it discourages potential criminals and also serves retaliation to criminals, and is not the slightest bit indecent. The death penalty can be a greatly valuable device in sentencing criminals that have perpetrated a portion of the most exceedingly terrible crimes known to society.
Why We Punish & Different Ways Criminals are Punished Why does the criminal justice system of America punish criminals? The answer lies in the words “justice.” The term justice can be interpreted in many ways. Criminals are punished to: make people abide the laws of their country and state, put an end to illegal activity that could be harmful to themselves or the community, protect the public from evil, prevent crime from rising in certain areas. These are just some of the reasons why criminals are punished. There are also different approaches to punishing criminals such as: sentences that fit the crime, community service, the death penalty, and rehabilitation.
When policy and claimsmakers label crimes as social problems, they do not always account for all representations of crime. They neglect to realize that crime is a reality that filters through a series of human decisions running the full scale of the criminal justice system (Silver 265). Jeffery Reiman states within “A Crime by Any Other Name” that, “although there is a wide range of behaviors that the law defines as criminal, people tend to view crime as involving only certain kinds of acts committed by particular populations of individuals”. For example, the rhetoric presented within the War on Terror in the United States lead to moral panic which exaggerated and distorted perceived deviant behavior (Silver 330). Similarly, the rhetoric presented
Selling and distributing the drug would still be a criminal offense. It could mean rehabilitation, a fine of however much the state decides on the convicted, this means less incarceration for drug users and addicts. Countries such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Italy have controlled both drugs and crime, whereas in the United States harshly punitive programs have increased the supply of both crime and drug use. Considering these harsh consequences, this is part of the reason why so many are incarcerated in the U.S. 46.2% of the population of people incarcerated at the moment is for drug offenses. Although not intended for legalization, decriminalization can
They were expected to lower crime rates, because people will possibly think twice before committing a crime if the mandatory minimum sentence is five year or if they have been convicted before, they will not want to be incarcerated again for double the time. Judges cannot change the sentence. All the reasons that the mandatory minimum sentencing laws were set into place appear to be good ideas, but they are ineffective. The law has not shown crime reduction. The history of mandatory sentencing in the United states for federal drug crimes had started with the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, also known as SRA.
The view many are accepted to use prisons to indicate that certain forms of behavior will not be tolerated, and to protect them from those who refuse to play by the rules, has become a policy position that dares not speak its name. This has been put unchallenged over and over again as a paradoxical illustration of how the size of a prison reflects the level crime, not the victimhood of society. Incarceration is an effective program in regards to the regulation of crime rates due to a portrayal of how Tyrone Hoard presented the society the insufficiency of diversion programs as followed by statistical graphs and its persistence in criminal offering. A widespread use of incarceration manages the increase of crime rates, whereas alternatives in which the government has invested in this cognitive behavioral therapy is spineless. Tyrone Howard, who was a criminal given numerous opportunities for diversion programs rather than jailed due to drug charges, allegedly murdered New York Police Officer Randolph Holder.
Our basic principle in our society is free will and the ability to do things as we please. Felony Disenfranchisement, hinders ex-felons to exercise their free will after they have served their time in prison. Disenfranchisement laws are racist, take away individuals freedom, and have a huge impact on recidivism. The majority of states in the U.S. have some sort of disenfranchisement laws. This means that in most states, once an individual is convicted of a felony, that individual will lose their right to vote.
But are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting these punishments because they are cruel? If a more lenient mode of correcting vice and deterring others from the commission of it would be invented, it would be very prudent in the Legislature to adopt it; but until we have some security that this will be done, we ought not to be restrained from making necessary laws by any declaration of this kind’ “ (Bomboy). In other words, Livermore was arguing that all citizens who commit horrible crime do deserve severe punishments for the crimes that they commit, and until the government figures out a way to place restrictions and guidelines on the penalties that we believe are morally proper to give, then they cannot hold back from reprimanding those citizens. Consequently, The Founding Fathers created the Eighth Amendment to be intended for further generations to interpret the meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” over time (Donnell). The amendment was then ratified in 1791 nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment and the death penalty is still highly debated today because the differences in interpretations
Over the last 40 years, we have spent trillions of dollars on the failed and ineffective War on Drugs (Aclu). Drug use has not declined and drug markets are become more resilient to the mass incarceration of drug offenders. There is always another drug dealer standing by, ready to replace the one who has been sent to prison. Along with the War on Drugs, the changes in sentencing policies contributed to higher levels of incarceration at both the state and federal levels. Mandatory minimum sentences were established as the response to complaints from politicians and the public that offenders weren’t serving long enough terms for their convictions.
Due to the lack of control, the DEA had over Ecstasy is what drove them to make it illegal. The DEA finally cracked down on MDMA and started putting people in jail. When MDMA was legal scare tactics where different, all they could do was use scare tactics to keep young adults away from it by emphasizing the side effects of MDMA. This drug has the reputation of being a benign and fun drug, but I think since this drug got out of hand to the point that the government had to step in and take control of the situation. This, in my opinion, was the right thing to do in order to decrease the supply and demand of the drug.
As the democratic view adheres to the nation’s longstanding history of immigration, the Republican party does not believe immigrants should be granted the same rights as any american citizen. They believe that these illegal immigrants bring with them drugs and crime as well as take jobs that should be held by US citizens, calling for their mass deportation. With crime at its lowest in the last 25 years, both the democratic party and republican party seek to further this societal improvement. To them, the best method of controlling crime is to administer tougher punishments for those who commit violent crimes as well as leaving the death penalty as an option for the most heinous offences. The Democratic party believes we must also increase the number of cops on the streets, while Republicans wish to limit the amount of freed prisoners.
“America’s Unjust Sex Laws” is an editorial published in the Economist that argues that America’s laws for sex offenders is too stringent. The author makes tenacious arguments that gets the reader thinking, however most of the arguments that were made I contest with. “America’s Unjust Sex Laws” argues that the sex offender laws in America are too harsh. It begins by discussing “Megan’s Laws” and the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 to describe the current sex offender laws. The author then goes on to discuss how large the sex-offender registry is in order to support their first point that harsh penalties shouldn’t be imposed for minor crimes.
The research proved this was not a factual reason for the decrease in crime in the 90’s. What I took from this was that people cause the crimes not the guns. The fact that a gun changes the outcome of a situation is a good explanation of this. But you have to realize that people who are criminals don’t usually get guns the legal way so having increased or greater gun control laws do not relate to them. The things that would hinder them is being caught with an illegal gun which would relate to lenghter or harsher
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.
So many question still remain on how effective both deterrence really are. General and Specific deterrence have good and bad effects on citizens. It prevents crime and some cases and fuels the rage in some. General deterrence focuses on preventing the crime before it happens. The thought of spending life in prison for committing a murder is very scary to me.