Sentencing Three Strike Law

...

Victim Impact Statements (described as “VISs”) are testimonials read by, or on behalf of, crime victims at the passing judgment stage of criminal hearings. VISs have been irregularly constitutionally confronted in American courts. The disputes have classically been that VISs conflicts with the Eighth Amendment’s “Proportionality Doctrine”, which supports that retribution, need to be proportional to the offense. The United States Supreme Court has well thought-out three times in recent years whether the interpretation of a VIS at the sentencing stage of criminal trials is constitutional. The current constitutional condition of VISs is that the proportionality principle “does not create a per se bar” to the acceptability of VISs at sentencing accounts, but the Fourteenth Amendment may make available an access to relief. This note inspects the Eighth Amendment conduct of VISs by the Court, and the likelihood of forthcoming Fourteenth Amendment due process disputes to the thoughtfulness of VISs for the duration of the penalty stage of criminal proceedings. (Liebman & Marshall, 2006)

Conclusion

The burden of the death sentence for the offense of manslaughter has a lengthy chronicle of recognition in the United States. It is obvious from the transcript of the Constitution the situation that the subsistence of capital punishment was acknowledged by the Framers. At the time, the Eighth Amendment was sanctioned; capital punishment was a customary injunction in every State. Indeed, the First Congress of the United States passed legislation as long as death as the penalty for stipulated crimes. The Fifth Amendment, embraced at the same time as the Eighth, anticipated the continued presence of the capital penalty by enforcing particular limits on the hearing of capital cases:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; . . . nor be destitute of existence, freedom, or assets, destitute of due process of law.

"And the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted over three-quarters of a century later, similarly contemplates the existence of the capital sanction in providing that no State shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law."

"For nearly two centuries, this Court, repeatedly and often expressly, has recognized that capital punishment is not invalid per se. . . ." (Myers & Wilkins, 2002)

The responsibility of being a judge and determining the outcome of an individual’s life is crucial. Knowing the facts of the case of the individual who is coming before the judge and asking the appropriate questions to determine the proper sentencing is without a doubt, a must. In order to obtain all the information needed to properly sentence an individual, a series of questions would need to be answered by the accused individual. Obtaining this material is imperative. Understanding the individuals’ habits or problems and knowing the extent of the crime of which was committed. Asking questions only makes the final decision that more clear; therefore giving the appropriate sentence for the crime or crime that have been committed.

---------------------------------------------------------------

References

Myers, S. L., & Wilkins, R. (2002). Unintended Impacts of Sentencing Guidelines

Hessick, C. B., & Hessick, F. A. (2008). APPELLATE REVIEW OF SENTENCING DECISIONS [Review of the book ALABAMA LAW REVIEW, by ]. Retrieved from http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2060/Issue%201/Hessick.pdf

Liebman, J. S., & Marshall, L. C. (2006, 01/01). Less is Better: Justice Stevens and the Narrowed

Death Penalty [Review of the book Fordham Law Review, by ]. Retrieved from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4134&context=flr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dvictim%2520impact%2520statements%2520conflicts%2520with%2520the%2520eight%252C%2520fifth%2520and%2520fourteenth%2520death%2520penalty%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CEIQFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fir.lawnet.fordham.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D4134%2526context%253Dflr%26ei%3Ds1F7T8rRHoKlgwfx2_3qAg%26usg%3DAFQjCNGl5kdllFK_vxhk8hs3XczhlyPHuQ#search=%22victim%20impact%20statements%20conflicts%20eight%2C%20fifth%20fourteenth%20death%20penalty%22

Research in Action. (1997). Mandatory Sentencing (94-IJ-CX-C007). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

on Family Structure, Revised Technical Report (194339). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.