Plea bargins

Plea bargaining is when a prosecutor offers the defendant in a criminal case the chance to plead guilty to a lesser offence and avoid sitting through a lengthy trial and possibly getting the maximum sentence if found guilty for the original charge. Plea bargains are good for defendants because the have the opportunity to negotiate an exact sentence that they will serve or in the case of a potential death penalty case if the circumstance is right they may be able to plea out of the death penalty in exchange for a life sentence. Recent legislative changes have led to an estimated 85 percent of nonviolent offenders being sentenced to some form of intermediate sanctions program, such as day fines, intensive probation services, electronic in-home monitoring or shock incarceration. Longer sentences and prison overcrowding led to a boom in building new jails and prisons in the '90, but about 10 years ago, fueled by the high costs of incarceration, a backlash developed against long prison sentences for nonviolent offenders. As public opinion began to change, more legislators were able to support alternative sentencing without fear of being labeled "soft on crime." Plea bargaining is relates to sentencing in the way that it does save the government and state if we avoid going to trial and can still reasonably punish the criminals. I am for the most part in agreement with plea bargains except in the cases involving heinous crimes against children and capital murder of course. Plea bargains are also usually the best bet for the criminal. The only problem is when the plea bargain is to lenient and the offender is available to re offend and hurts someone else because they got off on a lenient plea.

8th amendment

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

The eighth amendment in constitution provides protection against excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The eighth amendment is tricky when discussing capital punishment that is still practiced in the United States of America. The problem lies in the interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment. Some may argue that taking the life of another human being is cruel and unusual punishment and simply not something that man should be able to do to another man. There are religious and moral implications to this issue every time it is brought up. I consider myself a conservative, open minded Christian that is pro life but also pro capital punishment. That took several years for me to reach the conclusion that I did indeed support the death penalty. Regarding the eighth amendment and its impact on sentencing there will never be a consensus either way in my opinion. This is an issue that will remain divided until it is either outlawed or mankind goes extinct. The criteria for capital punishment are dependent on the severity of the crime and some argue that race or economic status plays a role I disagree with this. I think if executions were carried out more swiftly they would have more of a deterrent effect on society. The bottom line is that if an individual commits a crime there will be consequences, sometime that means the death penalty.

VICTIMS

Victims are defined as anyone who has suffered a loss or been victimized by another person. This can be any number of things such as personal property loss or damage, physically being violated, assaulted, or murdered. The role of victim affects the criminal justice system in more ways than can be counted. Victims have a story to share at most times during the sentencing phase, and have an impact as most judges take into consideration the personal affect that a crime has had on a victim. The criminal justice system itself tries to prevent crime from occurring by putting laws in place and consequences to deter behavior hopefully preventing some victimization from ever occurring. In the origins of criminal law, the victim and the prosecution were identical. In all legal systems, however, the historical development has led to the establishment of an official prosecution, while the victim’s role has been reduced to that of a witness. Victims have certain rights within the criminal justice system, typically a crime is committed, law enforcement is notified, an investigation takes place where witness statements and victim statements are taken. The offender is usually arrested or charged at this point, the prosecutor evaluates the case, a preliminary trial is conducted and it is decide if the case will go to trial, if there is a trial that happens in superior court and victims usually give testimony. Victims have rights to information, protection, notice, privacy and prompt disposition throughout this whole process. Victim’s advocates are now a part of most all agencies and there function is to assist the victim of a crime that may not be familiar with the process of getting justice for the crime that has occurred. Victims are in some cases entitled to monetary restitution that can be sought and granted in a civil suit against the offender.

Victimless crimes.......ummmmm NO

Public order crimes are those criminal acts that simply do not fit in with what society deems acceptable. These crimes are in opposition to moral beliefs and standards of action that most of us “good people” possess. Moral values are the commonly accepted standards of what is considered right and wrong. Public order crimes are widely viewed as harmful to the public good or harmful and disruptive to a community's daily life. Pornography is one thing, then there is the more serious behavior, paraphilia is sexual behavior considered bizarre or abnormal, such as voyeurism (spying on another for sexual pleasure) or pedophilia (sexual desire involving children). Now these are disturbing to me and most people I would guess but they are crimes that unless expanded on or acted or further that “don’t hurt anyone”. I find great fault with this theory, I think that in most cases these public order crimes do lead to bigger crimes especially dealing with lust and depravity. Sexual addiction for instance is a very real issue in today’s society and can lead a person down some dark roads. Some argue that victimless crimes such as prostitution, pornography, and illegal drug sales should be legalized then controlled and taxed like the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Those with a different point of view stress that there is no such thing as victimless crime. They argue that prostitution and pornography are degrading and often dangerous. Drugs destroy individuals and their families, often leading to thievery for drug money, and even death from drug overdoses. I have to agree that there is no such thing as a victimless crime, it spills over into the lives of us all. I do not think the decriminalization is the answer for crimes such as drug use or prostitution and what it always comes down to for me is the moral aspect involved in endorsing this behavior.

ASSET FORFEITURE

The primary mission of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program is to employ asset forfeiture powers in a manner that enhances public safety and security. This is accomplished by removing the proceeds of crime and other assets relied upon by criminals and their associates to perpetuate their criminal activity against our society. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals. The Federal Asset Forfeiture Program is normally used when a case does not meet the minimum requirements of the State Asset Forfeiture Program or when a district attorney is unable to file a forfeiture case. If federal and state legislature did not include asset forfeiture then the authorities may not be able to react quickly and cut off the criminal’s funding, the authorities can freeze the bank accounts of these individuals. All the proceeds from the sale of assets that are forfeited such as property, vehicles, and businesses and so on are then used by law enforcement to assist in better training and equipment. That sounds fair to me, if you don’t want your assets seized then obey the law. I think the main goal of these laws is to deter criminal activity and also make more resources available to law enforcement. Anti drug legislation has evolved over the years and changed. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals

DUI DWI

DWI/DUI crimes are defined as driving while intoxicated for DWI, and driving under the influence for DUI. This is not limited to consuming alcohol and driving this can include prescription drugs or any number of other mind altering substances. Also this is not limited to driving a motor vehicle but can include operating a bicycle, boat, airplane, wheelchair or even a horse. In the state of Arizona the BAC blood alcohol content is 0.08 and for the first offense the criminal is looking at no less than a 90 suspension of their driving privilege and no more than 1 year. In Arizona the vehicle can also be forfeited for a multiple offenses, which means the authorities seize the offender’s vehicle and most likely sell it. Arizona also participates in the interlock program that requires a device be installed in the offender’s vehicle and they must breathe into it to start the vehicle. The offender pays the 100-200 dollar installation fee and monthly fee of around 70 dollars to have this device in place. I think this sounds like a wonderful deterrent. Because administrative license suspension laws are independent of criminal procedures and are invoked right after arrest, they've been found to be more effective than traditional post-conviction sanctions. Administrative license suspension laws are in place in 41 states and the District of Columbia. A better solution to prevent these crimes may be to increase penalties and be harder on first time offenders. I think regardless of what measures we take people will always make bad choices and drinking and driving is a very common thing for some people that they do even on a daily basis. Also with the growing popularity of pill popping and recreational use of pain medicine it increases the amount of drivers that may be under the influence and behind the wheel.

Personal crimes analysis

Personal crimes are crimes that occur on a personal level and affect the victim in a personal way. There are all different types of crimes that are considered personal. I am going to go over a few such as homicide, assault, battery, mayhem, rape and statutory rape.
Homicide is defined as a person who kills another person or the killing of one human being by another. First degree murder is a type of homicide and is premeditated and intentional. Mens rea refers to the intentional aspect of the crime, purposely or knowingly committing the murder. The punishment for first degree murder is almost always life without parole in prison or the death penalty. Felony murder is committed during the course of a felony that then results in someone’s death even though the death may have been unintentional. Felony murder is a strict liability crime and no mens rea is required. The next type of homicide is second degree murder. Intentional or unintentional are both types of second degree murder, and there is no premeditation in second degree murder. And lastly, manslaughter which can be committed voluntary or intentionally, or unintentionally which is involuntary manslaughter. Provocation and and heat of passion are two key elements that must be proven regarding manslaughter. (Emerson, 2009)
Assault is a personal crime that usually involves contact, or a confrontation between people. An assault involves an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. An assault can occur even without physical contact.
A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Offensive touching can also be considered battery. In assault and battery there has to be lack of one of the following privileges, consent, police conduct, self defense, defense of others, voluntary or mutual combat, defense of property, and merchant’s privilege. Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words. (Larson, 2003)
Mayhem is the infliction of violent injury on a person or thing, or assault with the intent to disfigure or maim. I can only imagine this to be a very personal crime. A person can only be charged with mayhem if he or she has intentionally, maliciously unlawfully removed or disfigured or rendered useless another person’s hand, finger, leg or ear and so on. This is a very serious felony charge and very much a personal crime that would require getting up close and personal with the victim.
Rape is defined as sexual intercourse without a person’s consent against their will. Rape is about control and a crime of great personal violence. Some states have expanded the definition of rape to include spousal rape and rape that was not forced but without consent. Lack of consent is a necessary element in all rape cases. Most states refer to rape as a sexual assault and there are four degrees of sexual assault. The laws known as shield laws were enacted in the 1970’s to protect the victim in a rape trial from her past being brought into the trial. I think this is important because it does not matter what type of past the victim has if she was violated and raped to the legal standard of rape then she was violated.
In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent. The actual ages for these laws vary greatly from state-to-state, as do the punishments for offenders. Many states just refer to statutory rape as rape, and do not necessarily require sexual intercourse but only sexual contact will qualify. All states have an "age of consent," or an age at which a person can legally consent to sexual activity and can then no longer be a victim of statutory rape. There are also differences in the severity of criminal offense based on the age difference between the adult and the minor. The personal crime of statutory rape can be a traumatic event for the minor involved or not a big deal depending on the individual situation. Some cases may involve a young couple only a few years apart in age that are in love and one set or both sets of parents get angry and want a legal remedy that will force the pair to separate. Other cases may involve an older person taking advantage of a young person and could possibly scar the young person for life. (Burrell)