1 how would you asnwer this .At the federal level, sentences are largely determined by sentencing guidelines that determine the amount of jail time an offender will receive. At the state level, many legislatures have adopted “three strike” laws that require a three-time convicted felon to automatically receive a sentence of life without parole. Should the sentence for a crime be left up to the legislatures to determine, or should judges have more control over the sentences? Discuss the advantages and disadvantages to each approach.
2. how would you respond to this towards the question I believe that judges should have more control over sentences. The legislatures do not look at the circumstances regarding a case, and a three-strike law for having any three felony convictions seems completely wrong. Now if it was the same felony crime that they committed three different times, then three strikes sounds good to me. In Michigan, there is no three strikes law and the judges decide what the sentence is. An advantage to the three-strikes law would be more criminals will be locked up. A con would be that they are in prison for life even if it was not a violent crime that they committed. Allowing the judges to decide I believe has little to no disadvantage. An advantage of allowing a judge to decide would be that they will be able to review the defendant’s complete case history and maybe even mental health history before handing down a sentence. CLICK HERE TO ORDER THIS ESSAY!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment