Americal,Mandatory,Minimal,Sen law Americal Mandatory Minimal Sentences
When you work with an attorney, you will have no problem reducing the risks associated with getting your case in front of a judge and jury, or other formal court, when you need to. However, every case is different. It is important to work wi Bankruptcy is a situation, wherein an individual is termed as unable to discharge all the debts. When a person or a company is not able to pay off its creditors, it has an obligation to file a bankruptcy suit. In fact, a bankruptcy suit is a
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }By this article we will explore twoexamples of minimal sentencing imposed in US courts. These are caseswhereby the judges discretion is limited by law. In civil lawcountries, law clearly stipulate maximal sentences possible for eachcrime as well as mitigating factors that need to be taken intoaccount to reduce the sentence. This is a sharp contrast to USminimal sentencing laws.Federal Law enacted in 1986 calledfor minimal sentences on drug offenders a federal crime. Amongstothers this included three cumulative factors: type of drug, weightof drug and prior convictions. The problem with this law is that itforgets very important factors which should be taken into account ona case per case basis mitigating factors such as the persons role inthe crime (brain master mind of the operation or just the humaninstrument such as mules) nor the chances of recidivism (thelikelihood that a person repeats the crime). The prisoners dilemma(often taught in economics will be discussed in a subsequent paper)comes into play in this scenario as a perversion of this law.Offenders who are willing to snitch on fellow offenders havetheir sentences reduced unfortunately the brain of the operationoften has important information and will thus get a reducedsentence, whilst the mules, often due to poverty are driven intoselling drugs have very little information of use to federalauthorities, have limited reduction of sentences. This hard line ondrugs is not effective as has not deterred crime, instead it has ledto prison overcrowding and racial disparities (already endemic inAmerican society). Californian three strikes law andmandatory minimal sentences enacted in 1994. Similar laws have beenenacted in other US states. This law as has already been noted inCRIMINAL JUSTICE: Perversity of the American Justice System -calls for a minimal sentence of 25 years for a third serious felony.Proponents of these draconian laws believe that this deters crime!Unfortunately nothing is further from the truth when states thatpractice three strikes laws are compared with other US states' crimetrends over a significant period such as 50 to 100 years, nosignificant difference in crime trend is perceptible. There is noobservable difference in crime trends with western Europe where suchsentencing is not applicable (with the notable exception of the UK).Evidence suggests that crime is deterred when offenders feel thatthe likelihood of being caught is higher rather than that whencaught the sentences are longer. There is therefore a relationshipbetween risk of getting caught and reduction of crime.American Law is also different inanother non-negligible way to most European countries. Forconcurrent crimes committed by the same offender, in US law, thesentences are added (simple arithmetic), i.e: an offender is caughtselling drugs and has an illegal hand gun, each offense is judgedand a sentence laid out. If the sentence for drug possession is 10years and that for an illegal weapon is 5 years then the offender isjailed for a total of 15 years. In some European countries thesentences could be served concurrently. Simple arithmetic is almostnever practiced. Once again the perversion of the UScriminal justice system is clearly demonstrated by these threeexamples. These are laws clearly based on emotional considerations ofthe moment and for impacting public opinion. These laws have noinfluence on crime trends.
Americal,Mandatory,Minimal,Sen