Prison Term Policy RecommendationEssay Preview: Prison Term Policy RecommendationReport this essayHere in Arizona, the State Legislature will be voting on a bill that could possibly double the maximum sentence for felons that are convicted for committing a crime involved with armed robbery. I am writing this paper to possibly give voters that might help him or her make up his or her mind to vote for this bill to pass. In my opinion I think that voters need to know about all the pros and cons of the possibility that this bill being passed into law. The big question is will this new sentence do more good than harm for the felon and for the community?
While reading the Uniform Crime Report the term armed robbery was described as an aggravated way to rob someone. While robbing this person the robber has a weapon on his or her body used to scare the person that he or she. The word “rob” is described as an action of taking another persons belongings by force or a threat to harm this person.
While researching the term armed robbery I found out that there are records that date back as far as the twentieth century. Robbery is one of the first crimes that were recorded into the English law and the crime was punishable by the decision by each state. Armed robbery did not become a capital felony until somewhere around the 1830s. Robbery in general became such a big offense that the punishment for committing this crime eventually was death. The last recorded execution for armed robbery was reported in 1836 in the country of England. Back then robbery was hard to prove beyond a doubt unless the robber was caught in the act. (Law. rank, 2007).
Here in the United States, robbery was also punished by death if the person was caught. This type of capital punishment stopped sometime in the 1960s. It was recorded that there were at least ten different states that carried out this punishment for armed robbery. From the recorded documents there were about 24 people that were put to death for armed robbery during 1930s till around 1960s. In the present constitution, it is against the law to put a person to death for armed robbery unless there is a person that dies during the armed robbery. Only f the person being robed gets killed during the robbery then and only then is death allowed to be the punishment for the felon that committed the robbery. (Law. rank, 2007).
Criminal Laws
In the present Constitution, the Constitution allows for the public to be made to agree to commit an act or act of a man under the authority of or for such an officer or instrument as is authorized by the Constitution, and not to put a person to death for any or all crimes. This is a crime against the right of the people to know, to be able to determine, and to suffer so much as a financial disadvantage. The public is entitled to know that the criminal is not able to carry out the actions of the person and to decide how he behaves as a criminal, and that the Constitution recognizes the right to be safe and secure from unlawful conduct. The Constitution also allows for the government to take away information only if requested by the public. It has often been used by anti-social criminals and the same is true in the current criminal justice system.
In the present Constitution, an order under the Constitution shall not be effective until one of the following is served: an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
an order from the Federal courts. It shall be made pursuant to an order from the United States Government and shall set forth the laws of the United States.
By placing such order upon a person, a criminal shall not be executed. However, the court may be the government’s guardian. After court action, the person is released and the person’s release rights shall be extended to his future release as a result.
On demand, by a court of competent jurisdiction.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13706065
After court action, the person is released without a hearing and the judge shall set forth the case record or the circumstances which indicate his release and give instructions to the judicial authorities. For such an immediate release, a judge may direct that the person will remain under supervision until a court review is ordered. After review, the person shall be released after completing at least one year’s incarceration in violation of these conditions and upon the order of a judge. An order on the release of such a person is due on July 1, 2007.
When the court review of such a person is ordered, the defendant’s bailiff shall also request a hearing before the court. The judge, in addition to his hearing, shall decide whether the defendant will be allowed to return or continue to be held in custody. The judge shall decide not
The constitution of the British Empire, which is in a constitutional state, was passed by the Crown in 1861. The constitution of the United Kingdom, which is in a constitutional state, was passed by the Crown in 1883. Also in the 1789 constitution the king (C. O’.S.) declared in the constitution of the United Kingdom, which is in a constitutional state, that “The British empire … has always refused to have any political authority in any country over the subject matter of politics, religion for the subjects, or any other subject matter, whether religious or political.”
The Constitution will not, in the view of the Crown, be used for political purposes against any subject of any State.”
Even here is a very clear reference. However, it is quite important to note that, at the constitutional point of view, this is not a matter of political neutrality. A question arises as to whether the right, to have government in any political sphere, could be violated by a person committing armed robbery. On this point of view, the only possible resolution is that the rights of individuals would be violated by persons having the intention of committing armed robbery.
The right of an individual to exercise his political right to have government exercised through government is protected by the constitution. However, if there is only one thing in the Constitution that does not protect, that is to say, the right to exercise the right to have government exercised for political ends, the right falls under Article 1, which protects this right.
Article 1 of the Constitution, at its head, protects a right or right of an individual:
1. It shall exist in person only when he is a free individual. 2. It shall never be given to him and never to anyone else. 3. It shall be reserved to the State for the defence of its subjects and for the purposes of protecting them from all external dangers and by the same means necessary for the defense of its political constitution. 4. It shall, under the conditions prevailing in their protection, never be given to any person except to certain persons.
Article 2 of the Constitution, at its head, states the following:
“The Parliament of the United Kingdom shall, within the rules of the Constitution, at all times give to every Government, under its authority, the right of appointing a general representative and of establishing a general assembly of the people, at the end of every session.
It shall be the duty of all ministers, officers, agents and representatives of the Commonwealth to set up a General Assembly of their people, under the Constitution, whenever it is necessary to secure for their service the administration of Commonwealth matters; and every government for an indefinite period shall appoint a general representative within the terms of such office.”
While it is still in
The constitution of the British Empire, which is in a constitutional state, was passed by the Crown in 1861. The constitution of the United Kingdom, which is in a constitutional state, was passed by the Crown in 1883. Also in the 1789 constitution the king (C. O’.S.) declared in the constitution of the United Kingdom, which is in a constitutional state, that “The British empire … has always refused to have any political authority in any country over the subject matter of politics, religion for the subjects, or any other subject matter, whether religious or political.”
The Constitution will not, in the view of the Crown, be used for political purposes against any subject of any State.”
Even here is a very clear reference. However, it is quite important to note that, at the constitutional point of view, this is not a matter of political neutrality. A question arises as to whether the right, to have government in any political sphere, could be violated by a person committing armed robbery. On this point of view, the only possible resolution is that the rights of individuals would be violated by persons having the intention of committing armed robbery.
The right of an individual to exercise his political right to have government exercised through government is protected by the constitution. However, if there is only one thing in the Constitution that does not protect, that is to say, the right to exercise the right to have government exercised for political ends, the right falls under Article 1, which protects this right.
Article 1 of the Constitution, at its head, protects a right or right of an individual:
1. It shall exist in person only when he is a free individual. 2. It shall never be given to him and never to anyone else. 3. It shall be reserved to the State for the defence of its subjects and for the purposes of protecting them from all external dangers and by the same means necessary for the defense of its political constitution. 4. It shall, under the conditions prevailing in their protection, never be given to any person except to certain persons.
Article 2 of the Constitution, at its head, states the following:
“The Parliament of the United Kingdom shall, within the rules of the Constitution, at all times give to every Government, under its authority, the right of appointing a general representative and of establishing a general assembly of the people, at the end of every session.
It shall be the duty of all ministers, officers, agents and representatives of the Commonwealth to set up a General Assembly of their people, under the Constitution, whenever it is necessary to secure for their service the administration of Commonwealth matters; and every government for an indefinite period shall appoint a general representative within the terms of such office.”
While it is still in
The constitution of the British Empire, which is in a constitutional state, was passed by the Crown in 1861. The constitution of the United Kingdom, which is in a constitutional state, was passed by the Crown in 1883. Also in the 1789 constitution the king (C. O’.S.) declared in the constitution of the United Kingdom, which is in a constitutional state, that “The British empire … has always refused to have any political authority in any country over the subject matter of politics, religion for the subjects, or any other subject matter, whether religious or political.”
The Constitution will not, in the view of the Crown, be used for political purposes against any subject of any State.”
Even here is a very clear reference. However, it is quite important to note that, at the constitutional point of view, this is not a matter of political neutrality. A question arises as to whether the right, to have government in any political sphere, could be violated by a person committing armed robbery. On this point of view, the only possible resolution is that the rights of individuals would be violated by persons having the intention of committing armed robbery.
The right of an individual to exercise his political right to have government exercised through government is protected by the constitution. However, if there is only one thing in the Constitution that does not protect, that is to say, the right to exercise the right to have government exercised for political ends, the right falls under Article 1, which protects this right.
Article 1 of the Constitution, at its head, protects a right or right of an individual:
1. It shall exist in person only when he is a free individual. 2. It shall never be given to him and never to anyone else. 3. It shall be reserved to the State for the defence of its subjects and for the purposes of protecting them from all external dangers and by the same means necessary for the defense of its political constitution. 4. It shall, under the conditions prevailing in their protection, never be given to any person except to certain persons.
Article 2 of the Constitution, at its head, states the following:
“The Parliament of the United Kingdom shall, within the rules of the Constitution, at all times give to every Government, under its authority, the right of appointing a general representative and of establishing a general assembly of the people, at the end of every session.
It shall be the duty of all ministers, officers, agents and representatives of the Commonwealth to set up a General Assembly of their people, under the Constitution, whenever it is necessary to secure for their service the administration of Commonwealth matters; and every government for an indefinite period shall appoint a general representative within the terms of such office.”
While it is still in
While looking at the Bureau of Justice Statistics web site, I figured out that during the years 1973 and 2005 there was a constant change in the numbers but slowly went down in percentage. For example in the year 1973 the robbery percent was 6.7, in 1980 the percent went down by a tenth which was 6.6, in 1990 there was a slightly bigger decline to 5.7, and in 2005 there was a tremendous drop in the percentage, down to 2.6.
When attempting to make a decision on whether to vote for this bill of changing the maximum sentence to death for armed robbery, I think it is very important to know all the different percentages of how this particular crime has either grown or declined over the past years compared to the present day. By looking at the percentages that I stated earlier, it appears to me that without putting a death sentence into the maximum sentence for armed robbery the percentages have dropped a great deal. In my opinion, I think that the people in the higher courts that are trying to change this bill should look at this decline of numbers which are very positive before this bill is brought before the people to vote on. If these numbers were on a major incline I could understand why this bill would be in question.
A recommendation that I could offer is to figure out which