Sample Case Study Of Mans Sentencing Case

Brandon M: Client reported that he did not go to jail this week for his 5 days again; this time because his public defender did not bring the paperwork they needed to process him to court on Friday as she was supposed to. Therefore, he should be going next week. This delay with going to prison has created more anxiety, than his usual, and the anticipation has him stressed about gaining employment then having to tell them he must take off a week. Being that he went to the job fair at the Double Tree, he has been active with that pursuit and hopes something happens for him soon since he does not have the rent money. The priorities he listed are to remain sober, get a job, obtain shelter, get through Treatment Court, and find happiness.

On July 9, 2007, JR is found guilty of 3 counts of first-degree murders and on November 8th, 2007 is given the maximum sentence of 10 years (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). This would entail six years in prison with an additional four years of custodial supervision within a psychiatric institution (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). JR was also put into the Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision program (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). On December 15, 2008 Jeremy Steinke was found guilty of three cases of first-degree murder, and was given three consecutive life sentences with no possibility of parole for 25 years (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010).There has been a substantial amount of controversy surrounding the sentencing of JR and Jeremy

DUI Jim may be able to arrange a plea deal for you. Once he examines all the evidence, he meets with the prosecuting attorney and bargains for a reduced sentence. If you are a 1st time offender, you have a better chance at a good plea bargain. A plea bargain may still include some form on punishment and a DUI conviction, but Jim Yeargan knows the prosecution team, and he is the best DUI attorney for a good outcome.

Running Head: THE CASE OF MR. DAVIS 1 THE CASE OF MR. DAVIS ROBYN NAPIER SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY The Case of Mr. Davis 2 The case scenario that I selected to work with for my case analysis is the Capital Punishment Sentencing case. This case contains a Muslim immigrant, Mr. Davis, who has been condemned of capital murder.

I propose to abolish the mandatory minimum sentencing because it is costly to our criminal justice system. However, the system needs to be restructured due to the overcrowding of our jails and prison. Our prison is overcrowded with an offender who was sentenced for drug traffic and carry a weapon (Schmallegar, F. & Smykia, J. 2014) The man that at the bottom of the pole is not the main problem because he does not have the resource to transport drugs to different countries or cities. The law needs to focus on the distributor that takes advantage of the economic status of the poor by using them as the dope boy. If this issue is not addressed the taxpayer money will continue to pay for the housing of little fish drug dealer because he will be

This thorough examination depicts the diverse conceivable option answers for ladies, and adolescent guilty parties. The Bureau of Justice Grant programs created motivating forces for different projects to diminish the packed conditions for most state and government jails. These gift programs gave the data and motivations to state governments to extend, manufacture, and adjust shut army installations as expansion of the elected correctional jail framework. This activity energized neighborhood and state courts to execute truth-in-sentencing and option sentencing ideas to reduce the weight of stuffed jail frameworks. The gifts partitioned down the middle for building penitentiaries to expand the bed space for rough guilty parties, and the other half for option answers for imprisonment. The motivation reserves utilized for more option arrangements; jail islands, or freight boats, or shut army installations.

After legal challenges began on behalf of defendants disputing the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act and the Guidelines, the Commission was given the task of monitoring the effects of federal sentencing practices and revising amendments to the Guidelines if problems arose for congressional approval. In 1990, Congress directed the Commission to respond to a series of questions raised in regards to the Guidelines, the effects of mandatory minimums and options and options for Congress to exercise its legislative power in statutory directive and organization (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). The 1991 report was a “preliminary assessment of short-tem effects” of the Guidelines on federal sentencing practice (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). The report conducted empirical research study requested by Congress to “assess the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions on the eliminating unwarranted sentencing disparity as well as description of the interaction between mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and plea agreements” (1991 U.S.S.C. Report).

The family has been determined indigent for services. Samkisha has received public defender services for her criminal matters and Mrs. Beale has received Medicaid since she was 16 years of age. Mrs. Beale disclosed she is court ordered to receive child support in the amount of $202 per month from Mr. Robinson for Samkisha, but stated he seldom make payments of such. She also reported she receives unemployment in the amount of $204 per week and Social Security Income (SSI) for Samkisha in the amount of $670 per month.

In conjunction with a large expansion of federal criminal law came an increase and expansion of the penalties for its violation (Feeley & and Kamin, 1996). Partially in response to those “commerce crimes” perpetrated with a violent element, Congress enacted legislation for heightened penalties and laws geared toward career criminals, including the authorization of capital punishment for over 60 federal crimes (Feeley & and Kamin, 1996) (Maroney, 2000). In 1984 the Sentencing Reform Act created a matrix of sentencing guidelines (often seen as mandatory guidelines in practice) that were intended to limit primarily racially-based sentencing disparities when left to the discretion of judges (Gertner, 2010) (Albonetti, 1997).

Longer prison sentences along with stronger gun and drug laws can be traced back to the lobbying of private prison corporations. Private prisons only house inmates who are considered to be low risk. To be considered low risk inmates’ crimes either had to be non-violent or they have had to display exceptional behavior over the time of their sentence. The largest private prison corporation is Corrections Corporation of America known as CCA. CCA has spent $17.4 million on lobbying in the past 10 years as well as an additional $1.9 million in political contributions in that last 9 years. (Lee, 2012) Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona, which requires police to determine the immigration status of a person who is lawfully stopped if there is a reason

The United States is less the 5% of the world population but has almost 25% of the world’s prison population (Coates, 2015; Waldman, 2016). In the last 40 years, the number of American civilians imprisoned by the United States has increased 500%. (Mauer, 2011). However, this explosion in incarceration rates has not been evenly distributed throughout the American population (Waldman, 2016). While one in seventeen White men will be imprisoned in their lifetime, one in sixteen Latino men will face this fate and for Black men, the number is one in three (Mauer,2011). Neither the racial disparity in incarceration nor its scale was accidental (Coates, 2015). The mass incarceration of Black men in the United States was a direct result of the “War

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

When it comes to the criminal trial process, the last step those who are found guilty face before they are incarcerated is receiving their sentencing. There is more to a judge handing down a sentence than just giving the convicted person a time limit for how long he has to stay in incarcerated. When it comes to the different ranges of sentencing, there are five goals of contemporary criminal sentencing, the nature of structured sentencing must be understood and its positives explained, and determinate sentencing must be understood. Sentencing is not a cut and dry process. There is a lot that goes into it that many do not know about.

After touring both the Pendleton maximum security prison, and the Pendleton juvenile correctional facility I can say that while they both house inmates, the way they treat their inmates is totally different compared to one another. In Pendleton maximum facility, the staff would treat their inmates like any other criminal and hold them until it was time for them to be released, while in the Pendleton juvenile facility the staff called the inmates “students” while holding them until they believe the students are ready to behave when they are released. In this paper I want to explain how both facilities handles their inmates differently, the facilities themselves and their layouts, the rehabilitative programs available at both facilities, and how the security levels and the number of inmates assigned to the facilities effect how the treatment is implemented at each facility.

Preventing judges from taking relevant factors of a case into account when it comes to sentencing defies proportionality. Although two people can commit the same offence, the circumstances that lead to that offence can differ for an almost unlimited number of factors. It is up to judges take these factors into consideration when determining a proper sentence. It takes careful weighing to ensure all cases involving the same offences have similar sentencing and, at the same time, to treat two unique cases differently (8 Wright, pg 4). MMS remove this fundamental feature from our judicial system and allocate the power of sentencing to the Crown. This also gives the Crown leverage over the defence and the accused. Because punishments from MMS can