Answer:
As a judge, you should be required to pick from a limited range of sentences for each offense.
Explanation:
Some may argue that having passed a difficult bar exam to be licensed to practice law, spending years prosecuting or defending criminal cases, and being involved in thousands of criminal trials should qualify a judge to be free to make any sentencing decision they want—but this notion is incorrect.
Although judges tend to be extremely experienced and highly intelligent, granting judges too much leeway in sentencing decisions leads to issues like sentencing disparity (disproportionate sentencing in similar cases). Before the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984, sentencing disparities within the United States justice system were largely unaddressed, so the SRA sought to address sentencing disparities with the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal sentences. However, the SRA limited the power of judges to a great extent, an issue that would be addressed in the <em>United States v. Booker</em> (2005) Supreme Court case, with the court ruling the sentencing guidelines imposed by the SRA be deemed advisory rather than mandatory. What can be learned from these legal developments is that sentencing guidelines are necessary for reducing disparity within the justice system, but should remain advisory so as to not place any excessive limitations on the authority or sentencing liberty of judges.
The closest answer to the Supreme Court's legal precedent—our ideal in this case—would be picking from a limited range of sentences for each offense rather than having no limitations at all, as the latter would likely result in a return to the non-uniform, disparity-ridden justice system seen before the passage of the SRA.
Answer:
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Explanation:
It's basically just like an independent government system that investigates undercover. I'm not sure if I'm exactly right but hope this helps.
The National Origins Act of 1924 aimed to regulate both the amount and quality of immigrants to the United States in an effort to stop further eroding of the ethnic composition of American society.
The 1924 Immigration Act, which was a legislative expression of the xenophobia that swept through America throughout the 1920s, especially with regard to immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, was passed by the House on this day in 1924. The first total numerical immigration quota, which applied to almost 350,000 persons in 1921, was eventually reduced to 165,000 in 1924. The 1924 statute established annual limits for each country based on the number of foreign-born Americans from each European country who resided in the United States in 1890. While severely restricting immigration from southern and eastern Europe and outright banning it from nearly all of Asia, Congress devised an extraordinarily tight system of ethnic quotas in 1924, which effectively ended mass immigration for decades.
Learn more about Act of 1924 from
brainly.com/question/1916562
#SPJ4
The judiciary is the one that has the authority to declare the initiative as unconstitutional.
<h3>What is the role of the judiciary?</h3>
- Organize and monitor the justice of each state.
- Monitor compliance with the laws contained in the federal and state constitution.
- Supervise the legislative and executive powers.
- Guarantee collective and individual rights.
- Apply laws.
An initiative is considered unconstitutional when the judiciary considers it contrary to the concepts adopted by the federal and state constitutions.
In that case, the judiciary must prevent controversial attitudes to the laws of a country from being exercised, in order to guarantee the security of the people. This function of the judiciary must be supervised by the legislative branch, which makes the laws present in the federal or state constitution, and by the executive branch, which certifies compliance with these laws.
Learn more about the judiciary:
brainly.com/question/14305259
#SPJ1
