There are other options in the case when defendant admits to the crime (of killing the victim)
Explanation:
In case the defendant accepts to have committed the crime of killing the victim, he can be given a thought of receiving some leniency in the punishment.
The counsel of the concerned defendant can argue in the court of law, that act was in a fit of rage, or haste of anger and was entirely not pre-meditated. He can further arague that feeling guilt of the crime, the defendant admitted to his crime hence he should be subjected to a lenient term.
Answer:
No, it is not fair to let financial pressures determine how much we are willing to spend to promote justice and public safety.
Explanation:
No, it is not appropriate to let financial pressures ascertain how much we are willing to contribute to promoting justice and public security.
Spending on justice and public safety is an essential public expense, an expense that is needed to maintain the composition of our enlightened society. Let’s consider the example of a correctional institution. Such an institution works towards the restoration of offenders. These institutions have to struggle with unlawful justice bureaus for funding. They also have to struggle with social welfare divisions like education for funding.
Now correctional bureaus help in advancing justice and public safety. If funding is freed from the restraints of financial pressures then these bureaus will be necessary for supporting public security and supporting justice.
Because each year it goes through the same cycle of seasons
spring,summer,fall,winter,repeat
hope this helped
