In the article, Unwinding Mass Incarceration by Stefan Lobuglio and Anne Piehl, they argue that unwinding the mass incarceration “well neither be cheap nor easy, and to be done responsibly will require a new infrastructure of coordinated community-based facilities and services that can meet evidence-based incarceration needs while also ensuring public safety.” Hence, their argument is clean-cut with evidence in the article to back up their argument of unwinding the mass incarceration. Similarly, a solid fill of a concluding statement upon the unwinding of the mass incarceration as stated in the article, “requires much more than stopping current practices or reversing course by mass commutations and early release programs.” Subsequently, from this article, there are numerous interesting key points, and perspective of unwinding the mass incarceration. However, one main point struck my attention, as quoted from the article, “participants with criminal records frequently end up incarcerated, incurring probation or parole violations, or detained awaiting resolution of new charges.” Hence, with this statement it really is an eye-opening statement because it is a true
As a necessary corollary to this, it must be understood that the defense is only required to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case in order to secure acquittal. Now, in respect of heinous offences such as stalking and rape, it is understood that the burden of proof has been reversed in order to ensure a greater possibility of conviction. However, this cannot be allowed to negate the very basics of the trial itself. The standard of reasonable doubt exists for the protection of the accused. Implicit in it is the understanding that since it is the prosecution that brought the case, they must take the full responsibility of proving it in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime which they charged him
Is it not essential to consider the very real possibility that her left hand dominant father was instead the inflictor of the injuries? Why then is there not a medical report of the injured previously referred to. This point is furthered flawed as Tom Robinson is crippled on the left side of his body making it notably more difficult to overcome Ms. Ewell by sheer force. It is implausible to assume a man who could only use his right arm would be capable of beating up a woman whose injuries were reported to have been mostly on the left side of her body. To conclude I strongly urge you to reconsider the outcome of this case.
This essay will be examine some of the common factors that apply to the conviction of an innocence person. Also, whether the CJS is doing enough to inhibit wrongful convictions and finally, the problems that parole can cause for a person maintaining their innocence. To begin, in
When one holds a prestigious position on the United States Supreme Court, they possess the opportunity to alternate the future of the country. However, that impulse should not be entertained in the majority of instances, as with the Dred Scott Case of 1857. Although that conflict should have dissolved after the subject dissolved, Chief Justice Roger Taney allegedly overextended his reach to determine the legality of another issue that had troubled the United States. In addition, the decision decided on the case itself negates the framework of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on an individual’s rights, regardless of who they might be. At the time of the Dred Scott Decision, the United States had become deadlocked over the controversy
When Rudolf Hess stated that he was actually prepared to do so, this right was ignored (McKeown 34). When Hess stated that he was prepared to act as his own counsel, this right was ignored. In denying Hess this right, the court argued they were doing him a favor. Hess was exhibiting signs of amnesia and insanity, and any effort made to argue his own case would likely have been compromised and unproductive. However, the opportunity to argue one 's own case is inherent in the right to counsel.
This study anchors on the theory of “Perceptual Deterrence theory” the “Theory of Reasoned Action” and the “Theory of Planned behavior”. The three theories are important to the study because research suggests drug testing does not work and that a drug user would have considerable control over positive test. The first suggests that drug testing should work, while the latter theory gives some explanation for why drug testing has not deterred drug used. Perceptual Deterrence theory The Perceptual Deterrence theory was founded the ancient doctrine of having a strength or skill over someone weaker (Summerfiel, 2006). Justice systems have evolved from this power to establish a fear of punishment to a strong deterrent.
Just deserts claims that it is the offender’s choice to commit a crime, using the classical theory founded by Cesare Beccaria that states, “It asserts that a person is a rational individual with the free will to make a moral choice whether or not to engage in conduct known to be prohibited” (Starkweather, 1991, p.855). The offender made his choice and therefore must be punished for his act of crime. However, just deserts fails to acknowledge that factors in a child’s upbringing can affect their life choices as an adolescence and adult. As noted by Alley, Minnis, Thompson, Wilson and Gillberg (2014), adults who were “psychically, sexually, and emotionally abused as children were three times more likely than were non-abused adults to act violently as adults” (p.290). Consequently, giving punitive sentences and failing to help them psychologically will not help offenders when they are released back into the community.
The machine did not work. She sued for breach of an implied warranty that the goods were fit for purpose. The Plaintiff did not know that the contract contained this exclusion clause – it was, the Court noted, ‘in regrettably small print but quite legible’. When the document is signed it is immaterial that a party has not read it and does not know if its contents. He is bound unless there has been fraud or misrepresentation.
In cases like this, it seems unnecessary to punish individuals for wrongdoing. Additionally, there are many ethical issues surrounding punishment. Various people may question whether it is morally correct for the government to use the law to inflict punishment on its citizens. This is the case for abolitionist theories, which believe we should aim to replace punishment with restorative justice rather than justify it or reform it. The majority of ethical issues surrounding punishment come from the use of the death penalty.
Justice Stevens’s majority opinion in this case appeals to Dworkin’s method, while Justice Kennedy’s reasoning would be endorsed by Hart. Dissenting opinions by Justice Thomas and Justice O’Connor use Justice Scalia’s version of textualism to come to a conclusion. Justice Steven’s majority opinion was wrong to decide this case in the way it did for various reasons. He selectively ignores precedents that are damaging to the argument he is trying to build and misinterprets some of the precedents he does choose to use. Second both Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy erroneously refused to recognize the fundamental
Justice Thurgood Marshall objected the Court’s ruling stating that if Americans were more knowledgeable, they would conclude the death penalty as unbefitting to the situation. Justice William Brennan dissented on moral grounds, saying the death penalty is intolerable (“Gregg v. Georgia”, Casebriefs). This landmark Supreme Court case clarified what is considered cruel and unusual punishment for many future verdicts to