Advantages Of Mandatory Sentencing

States around the country have given police the right to make warrantless arrests on in partner violence and has even limited their ability to use discretion by implementing mandatory arrests. This has made the job of the police much more difficult because they must go about handling situations like domestic violence delicately. It does not make it any easier now that the term “domestic violence” has now grown into an umbrella term including disputes between adults and children, blood relatives, and couples who sometimes are and are not married. Because the job of the police involves so many different factors and the changing social climate, it’s become quite difficult to discern whether or not having mandatory arrest laws are helpful. They

There can be many disadvantages to mandatory arrest for IPV. A lot of people believe that it may be intimidating for the victim to call the police and report the violence and I agree with that 100%. My mother was in an abusive relationship and even though she knew it was wrong, she did not want the man to get in trouble and certainly did not want him to be arrested. It is quite astounding to see how the abuser has complete control over the victim like that. On the other hand, I think that the mandatory arrests may be a good thing. If the abuser is arrested, the victim may have enough time to relocate and figure out what they are wanting to do to take the next step forward and they are away from the toxic situation for the time being.

“Finally!” Today I went to a school assembly about bullying. The principal said, “If anyone is caught bullying in school, you will be suspended for a week.” I told the principal that we need to make harsher punishments if anyone is bullying. Here are the reasons why there should be harsher punishments for bullying.

The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory

2. The criminal code for impaired driving is divided into two strands. The first one being Impaired driving causing bodily harm, which talks about how a person who causes bodily harm to another while intoxicated will be imprisoned for not more than 10 years. The second strand is Impaired driving causing death. The minimum sentencing for this crime is imprisonment for life.

Alcohol and drugs play a major role in these incidents as most of these “one punch” cases are caused by alcohol and drugs. In the courts when an offender is accused of “king hitting” someone that is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it is used as an excuse to potentially receive a lower punishment. There should be no compensation for assault just because the person wasn't thinking due to alcohol or drugs. The punch should not be thrown in the first place. 1 in 8 deaths of Australians who are aged under 25 have been influenced by alcohol. This statistic shows us that the impact alcohol has on this issue is very high and is a major cause for these incidents.

Over the past decade within Australia, the issue of one-punch violence has remained at the forefront of media and public scrutiny. Many acts of unprovoked violence resulting in death have generated considerable action from communities, organisations and legislators. This national moral panic has resulted in an influx of legislation across the states. The Victorian State Government has recently imposed the Sentencing Amendment (Coward 's Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters) Act 2014, introducing the ‘toughest’ one-punch laws in the country.

Another type of custodial sentence is a mandatory life sentence which is the only sentence a judge has to impose for murder and is allowed to state the minimum length of sentence for the offender before is eligible to be released on license. This minimum is governed by Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 269 Shed 21 and it is giving to the judge the starting point for minimum length to be ordered to the offender, ranged from life sentence down up to 12 years, e.g. for child murder, sexual or sadistic murder the offender can serve 30 years imprisonment. The aim of retribution, incapacitation and general deterrence can be used to support this type of sentencing.

United States throughout history has tried many different ways to deter criminals from committing crime. One of the more famous polices enforced was the Three Strikes sentencing laws, and other “get tough” approaches. In 1994, the Three Strikes sentencing law was first established (Couzens, J. Richards and Tricia A. Bigelow). The law stated that any defendant convicted of any new felony, having been convicted before of a serious felony to be sentenced to state prison for twice the term otherwise given for the crime. If the defendant was convicted of any felony with two or more prior strikes, the law mandated a state prison term of at least 25 years to life (Couzens, J. Richards and Tricia A. Bigelow). In California and Washington, the three strike law was adopted and in both states showed contradictive results. It has become a very controversial form of deterrence and is widely debated if the three strikes sentencing laws actually deter criminals from committing crimes.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 6.7 million people were supervised by adult correctional systems in the United States at year end 2015. President Obama has conveyed tax payer pay $80 billion dollars to house incarcerate individuals yearly. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 limited federal judge sentencing discretions. In 1980 the USA had 500k people incarcerated, the population of prisoners has more than doubled the last two decades. The United States Mandatory sentencing requires offenders receive a predetermined minimum sentencing for some offenses. Since the implementation of mandatory sentencing, prison populations have risen sharply with sky rocking costs. On certain offenses, Federal judges no longer have discretion on the sentence length. Mandatory sentencing laws have shifted the power of punishment to the prosecutor as they have the discretion of charges brought against offenders. According to Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy in their article “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017,” the United State criminal justice leads the world in the percentage of its citizens incarcerated. Mandatory minimum sentencing has led to large prison populations, skyrocketing costs and social family challenges.

The criminal justice system in the United States is not a single system, but rather a combined network of systems, reconfigured as one. This means that communication and transparency is even more important than it might be within a more one dimensional system. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes. These inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” sentencing laws may seem like a quick-fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses. One question being considered within the legal community now is, while new crimes are being recognized as they are committed, should mandatory minimums really be “mandatory”, or should they be “suggested”, and serve more as a guideline, while the actual sentence is left to the discretion of the court? Not all crime is created equal and motive, or lack thereof, are factors that should play a role in the court’s determination of an appropriate sentence, should one in fact be imposed

Mandatory minimum sentences are court decisions where judicial discretion is limited by law. Usually when people are convicted of certain crimes they must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. The article I picked to review is an article on mandatory minimum sentences. The article reviews the pros and cons of mandatory sentencing. I will go over the pros and cons described in the article and give my opinion on how I feel about them.

My opinion on the 'One Punch Law' is if you have the intentions to serious hurt someone with a 'one punch attack' you should be punished harshly for such a careless and cowardly act. Furthermore, I believe if people have the negative morales and want to intentionally hurt someone they should have no place in today's society, as we the community don't want these type of people roaming our

Mandatory minimums and three strike laws, are they really the answer to the crime problem America has faced for years? Many would say yes, including me, as long as it is for a violent crime such as murder, rape or arson; some feel that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are all worthy of the 25-to-life sentence that can be carried under the mandatory minimums for three strike laws. A three-strike law is a law that states that you will be sentenced to 25years to life for three violations and convictions of a law. Where the three strike laws have mandatory sentences, mandatory sentences aren’t always tied in with three strike laws. A mandatory minimum is a law that requires someone