The Pros And Cons Of Criminal Punishment

Regardless of what you might see on TV the verdict of “not guilty by the reason of insanity” is an immensely rare plea for anyone. A majority of offenders with a mental illness still end up incarcerated. Even though the United States only makes up 5% of the world's population we account for 25% of the world's prisoners. Which converts to 2.2 million prisoners and about 1.2 million of those people have a mental illness (Fellner). Mental illness within our jails and prisons has become very prevalent within our correctional systems over the last 10 years. The number of men and women who have a mental illness that end up in jail or prison grows day by day. For those who do not go into the prison with a mental illness, will very likely develop some form of mental illness after being released from incarceration. The mentally ill do not belong in prison, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation, and though it is originally meant for all of these purposes, it has lost its meaning. Correctional facilities are not built to provide treatment for the mentally ill, and the people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness cannot get the long-term treatment they need inside of a prison cell.

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

Mandatory sentencing is a set penalty approved by parliament for committing a criminal offence. This sentence can involve any type of consequence, it normally refers to prison sentencing. All Australian states and territories have mandatory sentences, most of them introduced life imprisonment for murder after the death penalty’s abolition but, over time, most jurisdictions adjusted the minimum penalty. (Roche, 1999)

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

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.

Mandatory sentencing is another form of structured sentencing, deserves special mention. Mandatory sentencing is just what its name implies: A structured sentencing scheme that man-dates clearly enumerated punishments for specific offenses or for habitual offenders convicted of a series of crimes. Mandatory sentencing, because it is truly mandatory, differs from presumptive sentencing, which allows at least a limited amount of judicial discretion within ranges established by published guidelines.

Incarceration strives to isolate offenders from society but does not provide adequate therapy to change the mental states and behaviors of criminals. The recidivism rate, the rate of known and recorded relapse into criminal behavior after release from jail, proves that offenders need more than just isolation to change their behavior and eliminate their dangers to society. Communities need not only to provide help and pay attention to offenders with short sentences because of their earlier release than others. In California, an increase in parole grants in 2014 has resulted in 2,000 murderers, classified as the “highest Criminal History Category, VI,” returning to society with no therapy or assistance from reentry programs. 80% of offenders in the most serious criminal history category, the criminal group with the highest recidivism rate, relapsed and returned to prison within five years of release, and 60% of offenders returned to prison within three years of release (Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry, 2007; Sanchez, 2014; Sipes, 2017; St John, 2014). Overall, police officers arrest ex-offenders up to forty-five times more than they arrest members of the non-criminal population (Przybylski, 2012). Criminals need specialized psychological treatment to change their behaviors and make them safe to return to their communities. As recidivism becomes increasingly more problematic in today's society, criminal psychologists analyze the motives, incarceration experiences, and mental

As society changes, our legal system evolves with it. Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the principle of double jeopardy meant that a person couldn’t be tried a second time. This act amended this principle, allowing serious crimes, such as murders, to be re tried if some new evidence became available.We will be asking ourselves if these amendments has greatly improved our system of justice, by focusing on why these amendments were made and whether the advantages of such a reform prevail on the disadvantages.

America loves to be number one, but sometimes being number one isn’t good thing. The most problematic chart that America tops is that of incarceration rate. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, 693 out of every 100,000 people in the United States are incarcerated. For perspective, out of all the founding members of NATO, the United Kingdom is in second place behind the US with an incarceration rate of 145 per 100,000 people. The US doesn’t just hold the lead, she’s lapping her peers in Western society. This startling statistic is the result of decades of bad policy throughout all levels of government.

Mandatory Sentencing is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. Typically a crime in Australia has a maximum penalty but does not have a minimum, therefore the judge has to take into account the minimum penalty and can then from there continue to add on to the minimum penalty. For example in the late 1990’s a very controversial decision was to made when a mandatory sentence was introduced for repeat home burglary offenders in Western Australia. The NSW government has recently introduced a Mandatory sentencing law as part of a plan to minimise alcohol related violence and to deter others from the violence.

While they have arrangement and discharging control over the directors of the enterprise, shareholders in expansive organizations, for example, the criminogenic Shell, Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, Ford Motors, La Roche-Hoffman, BHP, A.H. Robins, General Electric, Johns-Manville, James Hardie, all enterprises whose disregard and willful dismissal of surely understood norms of conduct has brought about shocking mischief, have minimal impetus to guarantee that these supervisors carry on legitimately. This happens because financial specialists who don't lawfully own the property of the company used to do any harm, they have no individual legitimate obligation regarding any such damages brought about by the misapplication of that property. The rich shareholders who are continually telling the riches less and poor people to be responsible and in charge of the route, in which they act and live, are, in law, unreliable for the (regularly detestable) behavior of their companies. It deteriorates the

Alternative methods of sentencing are primarily aimed at rehabilitation, so that the offender can avoid further contact with the criminal justice system. This is an effective feature of the justice system as it allows an opportunity for the offender to show remorse and make amends and bring satisfaction upon the victims’ and society as it allows an opportunity for the victim to describe the impact of the offender’s actions on their lives. This is clearly evident in the article Circle sentencing ‘helping to keep our mob out of jail’ by Karina Marlow, which involves an alternative court for sentencing adult indigenous offenders, based on customary law and traditional forms of indigenous dispute resolution. The article affirms the effectiveness

1. There are two sides of law that contradict each other, but most of the time there is an equal balance between them; these two sides are public order (crime control) and individual rights (due process). To start things off, let’s take a look at public order. The crime control perspective of criminal justice is that it emphasis on reducing the crime in society through anyway possible (Opening Statement, n.d.). This may be put in place through increased police units, prosecutorial powers and many more ways (Opening Statement, n.d.). In this perspective many people believe that if this person is a criminal we should do everything we can to get them out of society no matter if it’s unconstitutional. An example of this could be that a police officer did not read a person his or her

This was a very interesting article, in my opinion it brings to mind the derived phrase, which came first the chicken or the egg. Meaning, is corporate governance an attempt to control the results of unethical practices of corporations or is it meant to deter them. In reading this article, it is clear that certain corporations practiced unethical business behaviors for self-interest, but the questions this author have are: 1. Should corporate governance be regulated by the legislature as well as the organization and to what degree, 2. Is corporate governance, there to protect the shareholder or the stakeholder, 3. How effective is corporate governance on a global level. The need for a governance system is based on the assumption that the separation between the owners of a company and its management provides self-interest executives the opportunity to take actions that benefit themselves, with the cost of these actions borne by the owners (Larcker & Tayan, 2008).

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.