The first step of the criminal justice system is the execution of a crime. A lot of variation can happen here, because some victims of crime do not report the crime immediately, or they do not realize they are a victim of crime until later. Also, some crimes may not have witnesses, which can lead to a crime not being reported as well. This is a great example to show why the discretionary model is so useful in the criminal justice system, because with so much variation in crime there needs to be a foundation laid down to guide the case in the right path. After the committing of a crime the law starts to get involved.
Supposedly capital punishment was created to deter criminals from committing horrible acts of rape and murder, however, today judges and the jury are eager to make anyone the scapegoat for the crimes committed; even the innocent. Nowadays, the judicial system becomes more discriminatory, toward gender, income, and race, in capital crime cases because of the desire to find, what is hoped to be, justice. When someone is convicted of any crime and is in the process of being arrested it is a law that his or her Miranda Rights must be stated before the arrest takes place. One of the major rights stated is “ If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you.” Now, if the person being arrested has a higher income normally the attorney hired is very experienced and can make the most guilty person sound innocent.
Stating that they are suffering from a mental disorder, and because of that, they have done things that are against the law. In conclusion people that are mentally ill should have the right to chose the insanity defense, it wouldn’t be fair to just throw them into a prison when they can get a much needed treatment, putting them into a prison can harm them and the prison. Just because the insanity testimony isn’t used a lot doesn’t mean it isn’t an actual issue, so we should keep
Flaws of the Crime Control Model In the Crime Control Model it seems as though any citizen can be a committer of crime and that individuals should be okay with being monitored because if you are not doing anything wrong then you wouldn’t mind more of a stronger police presence so that they can arrest, investigate, search, convict, seize, and arrest more individuals (Crime Facts 2015). This logic is fundamentally flawed and not what our founding father’s had intended when building the foundation of this country. To give those in power as well as the police force more control will lead to making more monsters in this world. The crime control model takes away a certain level of accountability for police officers such as the legal pathways they
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
But the punishment that is being dulled out to these children simply isn’t just. Forcing a juvenile to spend the rest of their life wasting away in a cell is cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment these kids should be given is time for rehabilitation, time for consolation, and nothing more than that. How is a child, forced to live the rest of their days behind bars, going to use what they learned from their actions and positively affect society? Taking away the life of a juvenile is almost as bad as the juvenile committing the crime itself.
“Thump! The jury finds you guilty! Three life sentences without parole!” the young boys and girls that hear this sentence generally aren’t considered the best of kids, however locking away a juvenile for life takes much more thought than it takes to address this sentence to a legal adult. In “Locked Away Forever” by Patricia Smith the question is attempted to be answered, which is should juveniles receive life sentences without chance of parole?
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
With guns drawn and threats that they would “blow his head off”, the officers unjustly searched his car and held him at gunpoint. Stevenson explains his immense fear of these supposed upholders of the law, and how their own racial suspicions of him could have easily led to his death. The police maintain the ability to sentence civilians to death in a heartbeat, and unfortunately are guided by racial biases to at times unjustly distribute this punishment. This ability to kill is necessary for police officers to protect the community, yet continues to be grossly misused. While this right to kill is different from a judge and jury’s right to kill, misuse by both parties supports the claim that the death penalty is too powerful to be justly distributed.
It is believed that letting a criminal free from incarceration puts society at risk. Before the reform recidivism rates were high, scaring the public with the idea that criminals can reenter society. When comparing individuals who were sentenced to prison to those in diversion programs, those in diversion programs were more likely to stay out of jail while those who went to jail were more likely to have re-arrests. It was reported that 64% of the treatment sample were arrest-free over a two-year follow up period. Those in the diversion program had recidivism rates as low as 36%; this compares to the group who were given jail time with a recidivism rate of 54% (Parsons, Wei, Henrichson, Drucker, & Trone, 2015).
In comparison to other countries around the world, America has the highest incarceration rate (Class Discussion). Yet still, crime remains at a constant state. Other countries, such as Germany and Norway, have low incarceration rates, low crimes rates, and prefer rehabilitative alternatives to incarceration (Class Discussion). The irony of America, is that for decades evidence has indicated a crime decrease, incarceration increase, and defects in the criminal justice systems effort to prevent reoffending. A benefiting factor of high incarceration rates is the increase of free labor from prisoners.
A shift is happening in America. The pendulum is swinging from the ideals of get tough and mass incarceration. The swing has both positive and negative affects on the prison system. On the plus side, prison populations are decreasing. By shifting away from incarcerating any who break the law, there are fewer drug dealers and fewer violent offenders in the system.
The effects of the Three Strikes Law on California’s economy were evident through the significant costs that were required to house inmates for the duration of the sentences imposed by the law. As of 2009, the California Department of Corrections estimated those costs to have been 19.2 billion dollars (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2009). From 1985 to 2010, California’s prison budget increased from four percent to ten percent. Meanwhile, the state’s higher education budget decreased from eleven percent to less than six percent. The health and welfare and K12 funding also decreased because of the additional funding required to house the growing number of inmates who were imprisoned under the Three Strikes Law.
1. The difference between specific and general deterrence is the focus population. Specific deterrence focuses on deterring convicted offenders from repeating offenses. General deterrence focuses on deterring people who have not been arrested away from crime. 2.
“On Pins and Needles Defending Artistic Expression” What would one expect the viewpoint of an American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts’ (also known as ACLU) lawyer and journalist to be regarding tattoos as a form of artistic expression? Carol Rose is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Being a lawyer and journalist, Carol has spent her career working for and writing about human rights and civil liberties, both in the United States and abroad”(Rottenberg 36). Because of her eminent profession, one would naturally assume that Rose leans more towards a liberal point of view. In regards to tattoos, that assertion would be correct.