If an offender is sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, then the offender will remain in jail for the rest of his
or her natural life regardless of his or her age at the time of the crime. This means that a 20-year-old may serve 60 years in prison while his partner in crime who was 50 years old at the time might only serve 20 years for the same crime. Is this fair? Why or why not?
It is not fair in my opinion, because the 50 year old has already lived a life, where as the 20 year old hasn't. The 50 year old has already has done things in his or her life that the 20 year old won't be able to do. For example, when the 20 year old gets out of jail he will be 80 meaning he may never experience things such as getting married, having children, and etc. The 50 year old may have already done those things in his or her life, so it is very unfair to the 20 year old. The sentencing is also unfair due to the fact being both of them committed the crime and should have the same time served in jail.
Hint: that the last sentence might not hold up due to the fact of what he or she did and it pertains to how serve the crime was for both parties. Such as one person killed someone, while the other one didn't pull the trigger but was an accomplice or new about the killing. So it really depends on the crime or crimes the person has committed.
Stereotype is a way of thinking that all people is the same
Explanation:
Example somebody from a religion does something bad all people think that people in that religion are bad people. Therefore it is not fair to people to be stereotype based off their culture
Prior to his arrival, Japan completely closed itself to western nations and choose to conduct business mainly on countries in south or southeast asia. <span>The Perry Expedition in 1852 opened up Japan's trading relationship with western antions and ended their seclusion</span>
