To me, this looks correct. Is this the format you were supposed to use? If it is then yes it is correct.
Truth-in-sentencing laws aim to preserve the time sentence set for criminals at the time of their conviction. Advocates of these policies argue that when an individual is sentenced for 5 to 7 years and ends up getting released after serving 3 or 4, it constitutes deception and <u>a disservice to "the public's right to know"</u>.
Since 1994 in the U.S., the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act started giving out additional funding as an incentive to states that <u>ensure criminals convicted of violent crimes serve </u><u>at least 85% of their sentence</u><u>. Up until 2008, 35 of the 50 states have kept up these standards.</u>
Hope this helps!
If the result of a study can be generalized to other subject population, it is said to have an External Validity. Validity, in scientific research, refers to the approximate truth of the results or conclusion of your research. Thus, external validity being always related to generalization, is the approximate truth of the conclusion of a research that applies to other people, places, and time.
When one of the branches want more power, yes. But that is why we have 3 branches and checks and balances. We have those to prevent one branch from obtaining too much power. When the president wants a bill to be passed that will benefit the people and the legislative branch doesn't like it or the judicial branch says it is unconstitutional, then the bill cannot be passed.