Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
" (Merillat, 2006). In addition, the classification system does not determine a convict's housing. As a result, convicted murderers are often exposed to other prisoners in general population, who have been convicted of non-violent offenses. For example, mass murderers Abdelkrim Belachheb and Elmer Wayne Henley were both housed in general population when they were sent to prison. (Merillat, 2006).
The reality is that when the prosecutor makes the decision to charge someone with capital murder, they do so because the murder in question has a particularly heinous aspect, which may make the defendant a future danger. Furthermore, "capital murderers can and do commit acts of violence in the penitentiary." (Merillat, 2006). In fact, Jermarr Arnold and David Gibbs both managed to commit murder while on death row. (Merillat, 2006). Furthermore, a disproportionate number of prison murders since 1999 have been committed by capital defendants serving life sentences. (Merillat, 2006). Of course, murder is not the only way that capital defendants can present a future danger. For example, these convicts can assault guards and other inmates, commit sexual assaults, become in involved in the distribution of controlled substances, possess forbidden contraband,...
The fact is that, at least in the current Texas prison system, confinement in a prison does little to prevent a defendant from re-offending. It is not fair to other inmates, who may have been convicted of much less serious offenses, to assume that limiting the risk to the prison population makes a defendant incapable of future violence. Therefore, until the prison system can develop a system that absolutely prevents capital defendants from having the opportunity to re-offend, it is important for jurors to be aware that every capital defendant in the Texas prison system will have the opportunity to re-offend. It then becomes the defense's job to convince the jury that an individual defendant will not take that opportunity.
References
Merillat, a.P. (2006). The question of future dangerousness of capital defendants. Texas Bar
Journal, 69(8), 738-741.
Murder and rape are both legal terms that are used in contemporary society to describe the social construct of crime. Murder is a homicidal act resulting in death that is not permitted by the laws within society. Therefore, shooting a man to death as a lawful soldier engaged in a warranted military conflict with another country's group of soldiers is not considered murder. The same action between country members
Both positions have merit and generally, the most appropriate perspective is an intermediate position that recognizes the relevance of both considerations. That perspective influences modern sentencing policies and decisions by incorporating both the nature of offenses and the criminal history of the offender on a case by case basis. Capital Punishment Issues: Capital punishment generates intense philosophical conflict of moral issues. One position holds that the death penalty is an appropriate sentence
Such is the case with Tennessee v Lane, a case in the Supreme Court that focused on the legality of Congress to enact laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act under section V of the Fourteenth Amendment. The High Court ultimately found that Congress does have the power to enact a law which may run contrary to an individual state's sovereign immunity in cases that implicate access to
Criminal Justice Issue As a police detective, I handle the majority of homicide investigations with my partner, Officer X (X). We are investigating the brutal beating, rape and assault of a woman in our community who is now in a coma. Earlier that evening, officers responded to a complaint that a gang of young men were assaulting residents and two members of the gang, 14 years of age, were arrested. X
3. How well can community sanctions serve the purposes of criminal punishment? The degree to which community sanctions serve the purposes of criminal punishment depend largely on the underlying philosophy of criminal punishment in society. Specifically, to the extent criminal punishment is intended as retributive punishment, community sanctions do not serve the purpose of criminal punishment. Conversely, to the extent criminal punishment is intended to rehabilitate prisoners to facilitate a successful return
Ethics Policy for the Media in Handling the Reporting of Criminal Justice Issues and News American constitutional history speaks of balancing two or more rights against each other; in this particular context, the two rights requiring balancing are: society's right of knowing and press victims' privacy rights. One end has media reporters who seek free public data access together with complete discretion to publish whatever they desire, while the other has