Government And Justice: The Old And New Covenant

Plea bargaining is considered to be the least documented element in the criminal justice system but can be documented as early as 1431 when Joan of Arc was given the opportunity to save her own life if she recanted her story of hearing Saints sent by God to free France from England (Meyer & Grant, 2003). Plea bargains have been perceived differently by those in the justice system and society. Those in the justice system see plea bargains as a way to elevate the work load and frees up the court rooms. Societies misconceptions are that plea bargains are an easy way out for criminals, and the criminals are getting away with the crimes they have committed. The reality is that plea bargains are offered based on a person’s criminal history, the type of crime committed, and how their plea bargain can help in the outcome of the case. Some would argue that it violates the defendants right but truth is when accepting a plea it requires, “defendants to waive three rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: the right to a jury trial, the

How can we forget Gods watchful eye over His glory and covenant with us, it will stand responsible to all generations as a memorial to Jesus Christ and His blood sacrifice over us.

Throughout the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew bible, a reoccurring concept that constantly appears time and time again is social justice. The Old Testament initially comes from ancient Israel, where it is actually a group of sacred writings that are more than 2,200 years old (Whybray). The Old Testament writings were written specifically for groups of people during challenging times and was not written to be read as factual history. It may allude to history, but never is it written to describe actual events of the time. By discovering what the Old Testament has to say and understand why it is being said, we can then use it as a guide

Thank you for your insights on covenant and government in your thread. A covenant is a mutual agreement between two parties to do or abstain from certain actions. This is a true statement but a covenant between God and men and Government and men does not have the same meaning. For the covenant between God and men existed before you were born it was a covenant with the forefathers that you either choose to keep or break but never really received the choice to enter the agreement on your own. “And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;” (Gen 9:9). A covenant with government is the same as the covenant with God, it already existed before you were born, you did not get a choice. You rightly point out that Christians believe that God is sovereign, but what of those who do not believe? Do they get a choice to not

Social justice is a common topic you often hear about in school and through social media, with our latest presidential election. Two summer’s ago when I attended Right Angle at Michigan State University for the Study of Education, I was able to take a Social Justice class. Social Justice is when there is a society that is always questioning “simple” ideas such as racism, poverty and hierarchy. In the world we live in today, we are able to witness how Civil Disobedience is portrayed through different actions of rebelling against orders made by our government. Alongside peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society, in that it’s able to express the majority of American’s opinions, without hurting anyone.

The relationship between justice and the good is and has been debated for thousands of years between many intelligent philosophers. Many theorists have attempted to to explain the exact characteristics and outline a moral distribution of possessions. From just after the First World War to present day, liberal perspectives emerged and flourished across a variety of ideological theories and continue to influence political thinking in regards to rights, equality and freedom. With this emergence came two very influential theorists in libertarian political philosophy, Robert Nozick and John Rawls, who take very different approaches to how justice relates to the good. Both Nozick and Rawls argue for liberty above equality, and that there is some

Of course, a defendant remains free to avoid the inconvenience of trial if he is willing to enter a non-negotiated guilty plea and accept the punishment called for by the facts alleged Plea Bargaining as Disaster that should be at the center of an economic analysis of the welfare implications of plea-bargaining.

Punishment is not necessarily the answer for young offenders, as crime is a gesture for help in many cases, and punishment-focused approaches don’t allow young individuals the chance to understand the implications of their actions through a victim 's’ perspective (Choi, Green, and Gilbert 337). Policies and practices for youths need to fulfill more than entrapment and punishment, providing rationale for restorative justice (337). Crimes committed by young individuals are often minor, first-time acts which can be mediated and addressed through the proactive administration of restorative rehabilitation, which often prevents recidivism. Restorative justice is a process where all parties involved in a particular offense come together in order to collectively resolve the aftermath and future implications of the specific crime (Roche 343). Restorative justice is the the ideal response for the majority of youth involved in criminal activity, as it’s a rehabilitative method that produces positive healing processes and outcomes, especially in comparison to retributive justice approaches.

Kyle Graham in his article Crimes, Widgets, and Plea Bargaining: An Analysis of Charge Content, Pleas, and Trials described the process of plea bargaining as a mathematical equation used by the prosecution and defense. Both sides are analyzing the cost of trial versus the likelihood of conviction and type of conviction. However, when the defendant cannot even afford the bail bond, the prosecution is placed in an extreme advantage. The prosecutor can use the threat of high bail or long detainment, or high trial cost to manipulate the defendant to a plea bargain. “A defendant may choose to enter a guilty plea to a crime simply to avoid the financial costs of trial, even when the plea carries almost the same punishment as a conviction following trial would (Graham, p1592).” When the cost of trial is so high, the defendant may be financially ruined if the case was to go for trial. Kyle Graham in his article Crimes, Widgets, and Plea Bargaining: An Analysis of Charge Content, Pleas, and Trials states a simple explanation of why the innocent may plead

One of the most highly debated topics in judicial corruption is the plea deal or plea bargain. In Paragraph 4 the author pointed out that, "US criminal justice is based on the almost completely corrupt manipulation of the plea bargain, in which suspects, or alleged suspects, are interviewed and advised that they can have immunity in exchange for miraculous revenances of memory that incriminate the prime targets--failing which, however flimsy or nonexistent the evidence, they too will be charged" (Black Para.4). In the justice system, there is a such a thing as the plea deal. Suspects can have immunity in exchange for information or testimony that incriminates others. The plea deal is used to get people with lower crime offences help to put more high risk criminals behind bars. Some see this as corrupt that the lower people can get off the hook just by giving up information. Another author also shows us in the text, "Those who plead guilty receive a fraction of the sentence of those who go to trial and are convicted" (Black Para. 9). If suspects plead guilty, instead of going to trial, they can be given a lesser sentence to reduce trial costs and backed up courts. It also cuts down on the

The Ark of the Covenant was a sacred “house” that held the Ten Commandments and some manna that fell from heaven. The whole of the Old Testament Covenants are all connected to God’s plan. The Paschal Mystery finalizes those Covenants, and connects them in a more tangible way; God sent Jesus to earth to die for our sins. All of the Israelites history is important (because if one thing had changed, it could have delayed or changed all of the New Testament), but the times of the judges, the monarchy, and the role of the prophets are the key points that show how hard the Israelites struggled to be Christians. The Book of Judges explains the hardships that the Israelites encountered when they reached Canaan. They had no government, they lived as

Torturing a person like an animal and not being fed, showered, or not see daylight should there be justice? Back then people would be strangled or get shot when they torture a person. Winston had months without seeing any moonlight or daylight, not shaving, and not eating. Also he was torture by putting his worst fear in front of his face, which are the rats. My worst fear are rats as well, and if I was being torture that way then I rather get shot and not suffered. Because getting shot by a weapon we probably will not go through so much pain, screaming, and crying. I will take a bullet rather than anything else because is less torturing. Being tortured for many days or months there should be freedom, and let the induvial do whatever it takes to keeps him or her happy.

Final paragraph: "Restorative justice cannot manufacture penitence and forgiveness. But by placing a concern for the healing of hurts, the renewal of relationships, and the re-creation of community at the heart of its agenda, it makes room for the miracle of forgiveness to occur and for a new future to dawn. Nothing could be more compatible with the message of the New Testament than this. For without diminishing the reality of evil, without denying the culpability of those who commit crime or minimizing the pain of those who suffer at their hands, and without dispensing with punishment as a mechanism for constraining evil and promoting change, the New Testament looks beyond retribution to a vision of justice that is finally satisfied only

come from guilty pleas rather than trials. The guilty pleas arise from bargaining between the defense and the prosecution. Both parties usually benefit from a plea bargain. A plea bargain can end the case if the defendant is charged with multiple offenses and agrees to plead guilty to one and the prosecution may drop the additional charges. The defense may get a less severe punishment if they agree to enter a guilty plea instead of going to trial and taking a chance of a guilty verdict. With a plea bargain the prosecution gets a conviction and the defendant gets a lesser charge. Plea bargains are an essential part in our justice system. Without plea bargains our criminal justice system would be overwhelmed and would likely collapse if every defendant wanted to exercise their right to a jury trial and was allowed to do so. Plea bargains allow the case to be decided by the prosecution and defense attorneys rather than judges and a jury. There are pros and cons to plea bargains. The pros are that prosecutors can reduce the amount of cases they prosecute especially if they are working with limited resources. Defense attorneys benefit as well with cases being handled quickly and saving resources for more trial worthy cases. Defendants benefit with being given a less severe, more favorable sentence. Since plea bargaining takes less time it uses less resources of the courts and judicial

Plea bargaining is a comment occurrence in many states within America. The vast majority of states decides criminal cases through plea bargaining. In fact a plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the defense counsel, where the defendant agrees to enter in a plea of guilty in exchange for leniency. Statically 95% of all cases are decided through plea agreements while the remaining 5% of defendants proceed to trial. However, this is not the norm in other countries, though it is in America. Regardless, plea agreements existed for centuries especially in the colonies. However, the use waned after the process begin to be associated with alleged coercion or forced plea entries by innocent defendants. Yet, in the 20th century the process gained traction again, due to the influx of criminal cases staining the courts. The reemergence of plea