I. Problem Definition. 1) Background Information. In South

Disputes must be resolved by the application of the law rather than by other means. This means that there must be a certainty of punishment for breaches of law –law cannot apply in certain circumstances, but not in others. By the same token, there should be punishment only for breaches of law- people should not be penalized except through the due process of law.

Korean culture considers the college degree a very important and basic requirement for their success in life (Lee 117-133). Therefore, they must study very hard to get to college by taking long hours in their schools. Elementary education starts from 8 am to 3 pm while the high school system starts from 6 am to 6 pm. On the contrary, the American society has shaped their culture for the children to do what they want due to the high levels of opportunities (Kim 365-372). In Korea school is compulsory while in the American culture schooling is a choice since one can pursue their dreams without going to

punishment is already in existence, the problem is that it is not enforced. This lack of

　　Punishment is a necessary evil, it is required to deter criminals from committing crimes and to serve as an example to other potential criminals

When imposing legal sanctions we must consider the criminal act committed. The importance of this consideration lies in fact that the punishment should fit the crime. We would not want to sentence a child to life imprisonment for stealing a candy bar any more than we would we want to sentence someone convicted of murder to six months community supervision. Granted, these examples are extreme; however, they do help to make sense of proportionality and how it affects sentencing.

Overall, people should be more conscious about about the result they could be receiving if they broke the law; although breaking a small regulation does not seem to be a sustainable distribute, it is dispersing harm and risk to the community. Citizens should think before making a foolish decision because the outcome could be worse than

Mandatory sentencing has operated as a controversial legal principle within Australia since its introduction in 1992. The sentencing principle has encountered issues such as the restriction it imposes upon judicial discretion due to its infringement upon separation of powers and the question of its financial sustainability. These issues compel an in-depth evaluation surrounding the effectiveness of the law and its social value while considering a range of reforms to improve the identified issues. Mandatory sentencing refers to the legislative implementation of a fixed minimum sentence for all commissions of a specific criminal offence (Roche, 1999). The laws surrounding mandatory sentencing require a court to impose a minimum term of imprisonment

Ethics of sanction are punishment countries implement to take care of people when they break the rule given them. Laws are necessary to keep people in line and prevent criminals from harming innocent individuals. Different country have different laws, some countries have greater consequences when one breaks the laws. China and United states have different laws and punishment for breaking specific regulations, usually the greater the crime the greater the sanctions. In the united states circumstances such as age, and criminal corporation determine greatly how much sentence a person get, similar circumstance occur in china age and criminal history also help determine one punishment. Sometimes these sanctions can be unfair and unethical, hence the reason why this essay will be focused on China and the United States ethics of sanctions.

In both developed and underdeveloped economies, there is a need to put regulations which ensure that profits are not abnormally earned at the expense of the innocent clients. It is therefore the mandate of the territorial authorities to put in place measures that introduce checks and balances in all trades. The respective companies or business must also follow the same suit lest they find themselves in the crossroads of law. However,

Legal Punishment Theories: a Pursuit for Justice Our government today must abide to the constitutional writing and, “establish justice.” It is known that under law, only the state has the “right” to administer punishment, but the criminal justice system still remains questionable on what justifies it. Laws are drawn to secure the society from crime, or at least attempt to. Punishing people and the reason behind it can be divided into two different theories which “justify” it: retribution and utilitarianism.

Fines are not sufficiently high enough to strip the perpetrators of the benefits gained from their misconduct. Financial penalties need to be much heavier to recognise the scale of then gains made by undertakings, and it has been suggested an increase by a factor of six to ten would be necessary to be truly deterrent. The ceiling which exists has a perverse effect on the ability of fines to act as effective deterrent, and such limitations are seen as economically unjustified. In theory, the Commission could increase fines, but in practice, it is relatively impossible – it cannot exceed the 10% cap. The aim of competition law is the promotion of competition, not the exclusion of competitors from the market, and

In order to be effective imprisonment like other sanctions, seeks to accomplish all purposes of criminal sanctions. Section 5 (1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic.) features the aims of sanctions; punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection. When deciding a sentence suitable to the crime committed, a judge has to consider all these aims and purposes. Punishment exists for society to acknowledge there is retribution to unlawful acts and for the satisfaction of society and the state who have been wronged. This also prevents the victim feeling that they have not been compensated for their damages and from desiring to seek revenge themselves. Deterrence is the aim to establish the

South Korea’s social structure revolves around the individual’s professional, family, and education background. People who have attained prestigious job titles, graduated from a first-rate university, or was born into an influential family are placed very high on the social structure. People who do not have a respectable education background are usually on the bottom of the status pole; however, it is possible for social mobility. The South Korean education system is similar to the one in the United States. Even though the years of attendance might be dissimilar from the US, the education system still consists of an elementary, middle, and high school. After graduating from high school, most students apply and attend universities from all across the nation.

A longer school day is an educational change that has been debated for some years. Maulidi (2016) stated that full day school is a program that operate a learning process in whole day. It is started from 07.00 am until 16.00 pm. Some official argued that spending most time in a class will develop the skill of students. Moreover, Herman (1984) claimed that full day programs provide a relaxed, unhurried school day with more time for a variety of experiences, greater opportunity for screening and assesment to detect and deal with potential learning problems, and more occasions for good quality between adult and students. Actually, full day school was begin at the early 1980s in USA which have been applied in kindergarten and it was spread to higher degrees until senior high school. According Pengertian Full day School (2016), the program was appeared because the increasing of carrier woman who have children under 6 years old. Besides, the technological advance in several aspects boost the parents to expect the improvement of their children’s scores. On the other hand, many people taught that full day school is a new educational system in

Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law