What if judges were required to incarcerate every defendant found guilty? In what ways would the criminal justice system change

Law

1 answer:

USPshnik [31]3 years ago

7 0

Answer:

It would cause jails to be more packed. It would endanger corrections officers lives even more. It would have taxes raised. And could make it harder for someone whose been incarcerated for being guilty of a minor offense(such as speeding 10 over the speed limit) to keep/get a job.

Explanation:

In total it cost 5.8 Billion in tax payer money to keep prisons/jails running. An order to accommodate the mass amount of inmates that would be added to these facilities, taxes would be risen to pay for food, and necessities. Along with taxes being risen, incarceration rates would go up, and C.Os would be in more danger while trying to do basic things, such as; check up on the inmates. A C.O could be cornered by multiple inmates while trying to do a welfare check etc. And having an incarceration on your record could prevent you from having a social life, a job, a place to live.

You might be interested in

Do you think all criminal cases should be heard by professionals and paid judges instead? Would this be better? Why?

KIM [24]

$\large{\underline{\underline{\pmb{\sf{\color{yellow}{Answer:}}}}}}$

No criminal crime should not be heard judges other than professional and paid judges because they have a lot of experience about these kinds of cases

5 0

3 years ago

Now that you have listened to the first chapter of Common Sense, what do you think of Paine's philosophy? Particularly, what do

Dafna1 [17]

<h2>Answer:</h2>

<h2>Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best. Paine says that government's sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.</h2>

<h2>Mark me as brainliest ❤️</h2>

8 0

3 years ago

Who was the first president of UK

MArishka [77]

The two other answers to this question are spot on, but I'm going to interpret this question in a different way. I'm going to answer it as if the question said "Who was the first presidential style Prime Minister of UK?"

I would argue that there have been two 'Presidents of the United Kingdom': Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

For the first eight years of her administration, Margaret Thatcher was effectively 'the President of the United Kingdom'. Her administration was able to do things most post war PMs were not able to do, possibly buoyed by the large mandates she was given by the British public in 1979 and 1983.

Given the landslide election of 1997, it became almost impossible for the Conservative party to win the 2001 election, and very unlikely that would would have much of a chance in 2005 (Michael Portillo's words, not just mine). With this sort of a political landscape and public mandate, Blair was able to govern as a de-facto president, allowing him to push through parliament decisions that didn't have, not only, the public's backing but even the backing of much of the Labour party. This can be seen in Blair's decisions regarding Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

grigory [225]

Not knowing the presentation... I can only speak from experience. I’m a 911 dispatcher.

Forensics/crime scene investigation are common

5 0

3 years ago

Why would a police officer need to know the bill of rights?

Hunter-Best [27]

Hi!

Police officers would need to know about bill of rights so that they make sure that they are being fair during an arrest, or any other police duty. For example, the first amendment of the bill of rights states that everyone should have freedom of religion, speech and press. An officer can NOT arrest a person who is giving a speech to fellow people about how he/she feels about the nation/government, because of the first amendment.

Hope this helps! Have a wonderful day/night! :)

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers