Criminal laws are often established in order to prevent individuals from taking part in detrimental behavior that has been deemed illegal. Thus, one of the primary objectives of sentencing individuals who violate criminal laws is deterrence. Laws are developed in order to ensure that the safety and the well-being of citizens is protected and upheld. Individuals who disregard these laws endanger the well-being of themselves and others, and are therefore tried in criminal courts.

Deterrence may manifest in multiple ways. Individual deterrence occurs when criminals are punished in criminal courts for their behavior. Deterrence results when an individual experiences a punishment that discourages them from taking part in the same behavior again. The penalties that they have experienced are aimed at convincing the offender that taking part in illegal actions is not worth the consequences that they will face. Offenders are tried in criminal courts in order to determine what punishment will act as an effective deterrent.

Once perpetrators have been convicted of a crime in criminal courts, the judge will deliberate on an appropriate sentence. Sentencing the criminal to an adequate punishment is the most important factor of deterrence. If the punishment is not proportional with the crime that was committed, then the sentence may not effectively deter the criminal from partaking in illegal activities in the future. 

Deterring an individual from disregarding criminal laws may help to save lives. One common example of deterrence is the punishment for driving under the influence. An individual who is charged with driving under the influence may experience several penalties for their behavior, including fines, jail time, and the revocation of their license. The fines are often very expensive and may include fees ranging from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars. They may be required to spend up to a few months in prison.

Also, individuals who are caught driving while intoxicated will have their license suspended for numerous months. This will affect the offender’s day-to-day routine. They may experience trouble getting to and from work, or running basic errands.

This can also be applied to more serious offenses that are tried in criminal courts, such as robbery, assault, and sexual offenses. These crimes are extremely severe and may result in extensive physical harm for victims who are involved in these cases. Therefore, it is essential to determine sentences that are severe enough to deter criminals from taking part in this behavior again once they are released from prison. However, the punishment cannot be so severe that it is considered to be unusually cruel or disproportionate.

When involved in a criminal case, it is extremely important to become familiar with criminal defense law and to develop an adequate and effective defense. There are many different types of criminal defenses and stances that an offender may decide to take. Adopting successful and believable criminal defenses is the key to escaping conviction or receiving a lighter sentence.

One of the more common and seemingly straightforward types of criminal defenses is the infancy defense. The infancy defense may be used when a defendant is a minor who is under the age designated to be the legal age of criminal liability. Criminal defense law recognizes that children do not have the same cognitive ability as adults. Their brains are still maturing and developing, and therefore, they do not have adequate impulse control and are likely to act on negative feelings and emotions.

Children are incapable of effectively evaluating and understanding the consequences and effects of their actions. Therefore, children cannot be held liable for any criminal activity in which they take part. Federal criminal defense law has established an age that denotes when children become criminally liable for their actions. In the United States, a child cannot be held legally accountable for criminal activities if they are under the age of seven. However, this minimum age may vary a great deal from one State to another.

The majority of states within the United States have not established a minimum age in which defendants can employ infancy criminal defenses. Criminal defense law in the states of New Jersey, California, Idaho, Utah, and Texas do not hold minors liable for criminal activity if they are under the age of fourteen. Georgia, New Hampshire, New York and Illinois will not convict a child under the age of thirteen of a crime. 

These states believe that a child is not capable of intentionally committing a crime until they reach age of criminal responsibility. A minor who has not yet reached this age does not have the experience or the intellectual capacity to understand the consequences that would result from their actions. Therefore, they cannot be charged with a crime.

In other states, criminal defense law reflects the belief that even young children are aware that certain actions are wrong and detrimental. In these states, infancy criminal defenses may not be successful in avoiding legal responsibility. Instead, a minor may be tried and sentenced in the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile justice systems have been developed because states believe that minors should be held accountable for their actions, but they cannot be treated the same as adults because they do not have the same experiences, education, and physiology as adults. However, most states have established criminal defense law that does recognize certain instances in which a juvenile should be tried as an adult. In instances such as these, infancy criminal defenses will generally not be successful in absolving criminal liability.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when debating the necessity and morality of trying a minor as an adult. These factors include the juvenile’s criminal history, the child’s age, and the severity of the crime that they have committed

International law is a very complex and often confusing topic. Throughout the majority of history, international law has focused much less on individuals than State and Federal law. International law generally focuses on entire states or on oppressive and violent governments.

International laws have been established in order to govern the way in which states and countries interact with each other. In recent decades, international laws have begun to focus on the apprehension and the punishment of dangerous individuals. In most cases, the creation of international laws falls to the United Nations. However, international law is often very difficult to enforce because international relations criticize violating the rights of a sovereign state.

Each country is responsible for governing its own territory and in most cases it is not considered to be acceptable to interfere with the way in which a government chooses to manage its own country. Interfering with the governing of a sovereign state may lead to a war between countries. 

However, there are some instances when the necessity for international laws is very apparent. On occasion, a country will take it upon itself to enforce international law if it feels that international security relies on the apprehension of an individual or a government that is posing a threat to the safety of other states.

In general, international laws are related to crimes against humanity. Usually, crimes against humanity are committed by a government or a regime. The occurrence of these crimes are not isolated incidents. Instead this heinous behavior is symptomatic of the way a government chooses to function. Crimes against humanity include actions such as torture, homicide, and rape.

Throughout the history of capital punishment, juvenile death penalty has been a topic of a great deal of debate and argument. Since capital punishment began being practiced in the American colonies in the 1600s, over 350 individuals who were under the age of eighteen at the time that the crime in question was committed have been executed. 

 

 

Despite the fact that numerous states have banned the execution of individuals who were minors at the time of the crime, over twenty individuals have been executed for juvenile capital offenses since the death penalty was reestablished in 1976.

 

 

There are many states that argued against the execution of juvenile offenders, claiming that minors are not as educated or experienced as adults. Therefore, they do not possess the knowledge and the cognitive function to fully understand the consequences of their actions. They are also much more likely to give in to peer pressure or to act as a result of strong emotions. They will often act before evaluating the effects that their actions will have.

 

 

Individuals who were not for the death penalty for juvenile offenders claimed that because of their frequent irresponsible behavior, minors are not given the same rights and responsibilities as adults. They cannot be trusted to effectively handle these rights and responsibilities. Therefore, it is ludicrous to impose the same sentence on minors who have committed a capital offense that is imposed on adults who are sentenced to execution.

 

 

The debate regarding juvenile death penalty practices was resolved when the Supreme Court ruled against the execution of juvenile offenders. However, this subject continues to be a topic of concern on an international level

One subject that is often the topic of argument, not only by the public but also within the Supreme Court, is the practice of imposing a life sentence on a juvenile. It is possible for a juvenile to receive a life sentence without the prospect of being granted parole upon these individuals.

 

 

As noted, this topic has sparked a great deal of debate within the Supreme Court, especially surrounding the cases of Joe Sullivan and Terrance Graham. Joe Sullivan was 13 when he was convicted of raping an elderly woman in Florida. In Florida, this crime is punishable by a life sentence and Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison with no potential for parole. Graham received a life sentence as a result of an aggressive burglary that occurred while he was out on parole for a previous crime.

 

 

The Supreme Court continues to debate the Constitutionality of taking a child's entire life away from them and telling them that they have no chance at any future. A child may develop into a completely different person as an adult. Therefore, many advocates consider it to be extremely harsh to sentence a minor to life in prison without parole, especially when the crime did not involve murder.

Judges are granted the power and the privilege to exercise discretion over criminal cases. Once a defendant is convicted of a crime by a jury, the judge has the ability to determine the severity of the sentence that the criminal will face, as long as it does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and impose a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Cruel and unusual punishments are penalties that are considered to be unsuitable or unsatisfactory due the the physical and emotional pain that they cause the victim. These penalties may be excruciatingly painful or they may be degrading and humiliating.

Cruel and unusual punishments are considered to be unacceptable in the United States. In many cases, a sentence that is handed down to a criminal by a judge will be considered to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment if the punishment is disproportional to the crime that was committed.

The judge has the ability to determine the punishment that a criminal will receive. In some instances, an individual who is responsible for committing a crime will be sentenced to a much more severe punishment than another offender who is responsible for the same crime. Each judge is permitted to use their discretion when deciding on an appropriate punishment for criminals.

Despite the legislation outlawing judges from imposing cruel and unusual punishments upon convicts, many individuals are sentenced to penalties that can be considered to be forms of cruel and unusual punishment.

For example, sentencing an individual to capital punishment for a crime that they committed when they were under the age of eighteen is a type of cruel and unusual punishment. After a great deal of debate, the Supreme Court prohibited the use of the death penalty on juvenile offenders. A current subject of heated debate is the sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juveniles.

Mandatory sentencing laws support forms of cruel and unusual punishments, especially in the case of drug offenses. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicates that on average, an individual who is charged with a first time drug offense receives a longer prison sentence than a first time offender who is responsible for manslaughter, burglary, assault, or sexual abuse. Individuals who know that a drug offense is taking place and do nothing to stop it may be charged with aiding and abetting, even if they had no part in the crime.

There is a mandatory minimum sentence for drug violations, in which an individual who is charged with a drug offense will be sentenced to jail time with no chance of parole. The punishment is often disproportional and severe for the crime that was committed. Despite the fact that cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited in the Constitution, many harsh and relentless sentences continue to be handed to offenders

One of the most commonly used criminal defenses is the defense of duress. The term “duress” is defined as coercion through the use of force or the threat of violence. Duress is used as a criminal defense when an individual has committed a crime in order to escape physical or emotional harm or injury.

An individual who can prove that they committed a crime under duress may not be held liable for the criminal activity in which they have taken part. However, there are various factors that must be satisfied in order for a defense of duress to be adequate and effective. 

In order for an offender to successfully utilize the defense that they were under duress, they must have been exposed to the threat or the possibility of severe physical injury or death. The threat of injury that they are being subjected to must be more severe than the damage that they cause as a result of their criminal activity.

In order for the defense of duress to be acceptable, the threatened harm that the offender was experiencing must have been present at the time of the crime and there must have been no other effective way of escaping the threat at the time. Also, it is essential that the offender was not criminally responsible in the situation in which they became involved. 

Therefore, if the defendant took part in some form of illegal activity or behavior that resulted in him experiencing the threat of violence from another individual, the defense that the crime was committed under duress would not be successful.

There are various different ways that an individual may be under duress and there are a variety of crimes that an individual may commit while they are under duress. Duress is often a common defense for individuals who are responsible for violating or breaking a contract. 

If the defendant was coerced into signing a contract through the use of force or through the threat of violence, then the contract may be ruled null and void. As such, the defendant cannot be charged with a crime and will not receive legal repercussions for violating the contract.

However, duress is generally not considered to be an effective defense for murder. If a defendant can prove that they were responsible for a homicide only because they were under duress, then the charges that they face may be decreased to manslaughter, but they will still be held liable for their crimes. 

When an individual is experiencing duress they may be subjected to threats against their physical well-being, threats against their property and their belongings, or threats against their family’s health and well-being.

In most courts throughout the United States, a prisoner who successfully escapes prison may effectively use the defense of duress. A convict who was suffering from threats of severe physical injury or death in the prison in which they were serving their sentence may have believed that escaping the correctional facility was the only option that they had to maintain their health and well-being. 

If the convict turns themselves in to the proper authorities and they can prove that they had no other option and that the authorities in the prison did nothing to protect them from the immediate danger that they were facing, then the escape may not be punished. In instances such as this, the convict will be transferred to another prison to complete their sentence, but will not be given a longer or more severe punishment as a result of their escape.

A defense attorney may utilize the duress defense in order to attempt to justify a wide range of criminal activities. However, it is important to keep in mind that the defense of duress is risky because the defendant is admitting that they did take part in the crime of which they are being accused

The application of criminal law has many different goals and conflicting purposes. As such, criminal sentencing and incarceration have many pros and cons. The intent and the purpose of criminal sentencing also vary a great deal. Often, the function of criminal law varies from one case to the next, and each case may contain its own conflicting purposes for punishments and penalties. 

 

 

Because of these conflicting purposes, punishments often differ to a large degree from one defendant to another, even though the crime committed may be the same.

 

 

Often, penalties are disproportional with one focus on deterrence and rehabilitation. Non-utilitarian punishments, meanwhile, often focus on retribution. According to the doctrine of retribution, an individual who has committed a crime by violating criminal law must be punished for their actions. 

 

 

The sentence that they receive should fit the crime that they have committed so that justice is effectively served. If an individual is responsible for inflicting harm upon another person, then they should be punished so that they too experience the pain that they have caused another individual. In order for justice to be served an offender must be sentenced to a punishment that fits the crime, but not a penalty that is unusually cruel.

 

 

Because there are two different schools of thought regarding the purpose of punishments, there is often controversy and argument surrounding the use of disproportional punishments. Many people feel that the use of disproportional punishments are wrong because individuals are receiving punishments that are much more severe than the crimes that have been committed. Also, disproportional punishments do not maintain the severity of crimes in relation to other crimes. 

 

 

However, people who support utilitarian punishments argue that disproportional punishments are necessary for deterring individuals from committing crime. While proportional punishments may be successful for retribution, they do little to deter criminals and decrease crime rates.